³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

"Will the sporting legacy be aspirations be lost in all this cost cutting?" really? ALL this cost cutting? I would have thought that inflating the original budget by ~200% and then reducing it by 0.29% still counts as a pretty hefty budget increase to me. The real issue is how the original budget was allowed to be entered - would the crowds in Trafalgar Square still have been cheering if they knew the true cost?

The games are going to be a failure anyway. Shaving £27m off a £9.3bn project is no sweat at all if the project is too utterly flawed to ever work in the first place. I just wish they could have had the guts to slash more off the budget, since the most preferable solution - outright cancellation - is not likely.

GRRRRR

One of the lessons from previous Games is that they need stability in terms of planning, staffing and budget if they are to be successful and brought in on time and on budget.

Up until today there was an agreed financial and political settlment on the Games but this has now been broken

How much time and energy (and yes money) will be wasted in trying to find these 'savings'.

I'm not saying the ODA should be profligate or gold plate things and if they can save money then they should obviously do that but the scope to actally save money is limited due to the progress made to date on construction etc and agreed contracts that have been signed. I dont see a lot of waste that can be cut without affecting the quality of the facilities etc

I just hope that in August 2012 when certain politicians start complaining that X, Y and Z should have been provided (and they will) or that the park isn't finished or the facilities not exactly top notch they remember who it was who wanted these cuts.

The front page says 'Budget cuts will hurt 20120 games'

Surely a bit far bbc eh?

"Blog: Budget cuts will hurt 20120 Games" - Well, I don't think London will be hosting the Olympics for that year...and in any case, I won't be around to see it and who knows, the Olympics movement might have ended by then. Well, It's YOUR typo

So, Adrian thinks £9.3 billion is insufficient. REALLY? And what was the budget when the 2012 bid team "hoodwinked" the IOC and the UK public into awarding the Games to London? Answer: £2.75 billion.
So, why did London bid for the Games if you cannot afford it?

The solution is simple: Beg the IOC to move the 2012 Games elsewhere. I'm sure Barcelona could easily host it as they already have some experience and infrastructure from 1992.

You know, sometimes, I really wonder if the UK is a "developed" country or just a 3rd world country masquerading as one.

Quite frankly, I don't believe Adrian Warner's view which seems to be based on "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, I know the inside track" approach. Like all journalists he choses to listen and report on the negative views he hears as opposed to the many positive ones.
People giving positive views are described as "spindoctors" and those giving more negative views are described as "experts".
So Adrian, you are not forgiven for being sceptical....

@23 years 10 months and counting. Got any FACTS to back up your stance that it's going to be a failure? Everything's well on track to be built a year before the Games and test events will follow to iron out any problems. We're having none of the problems suffered by previous hosts like Athens where there was a huge rush to get things built. It is destined to be a success at the current rate, cutbacks or no cutbacks. I get the impression so many people are ignorant of what's going on on the ground. It is truly impressive and something we should be proud of. Some really good photos of the park to give you an idea:

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Adrian Warner is absolutely wrong here. the size of the cut is so small its impact will hardly be noticed.

There let's see if the overly sensitive ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ moderators let that through this time.

Amazing.

Is this some sort of bad joke?

The new governments catch phrase is 'were all in this together'. Now that may have been enough to get the singers through the High School Musical movies, but its not going to get us out of the Olympics with any ounce of pride or self respect.

I think he is delusional if he actually thinks that he can cut the budget and deliver the 'best games the olympics has ever seen'. Is he serious, did he see the show China put on? No expense spared...

This is looking like another Athens (who failed to deliver anything of quality) after a strong Sydney games and now we are cutting the budget following the most amazing olympic games ever... Its like a script out of monty python.

If money is that tight, why are the new government also putting their full backing behind hosting the 2018 / 2022 World Cup.

I think the lunatics have finally taken over the asylum. I think the two green eyed mascots for the games have been modeled on the new PM and his Deputy....

Oz, £27m against a budget the size of London's isn't going to make a huge hole.

Furthermore, the Olympic venues are less than a year from completion (see photos above in post #7). The show itself is funded from ticket sales, merchandise, Olympic sponsors (both domestic and IOC partners) and other private sources, so the cuts won't affect that. The project is, I would have thought, too far along the line for anyone to be able to screw it up by now, even if they wanted to (which they don't). Believe you me, the government will be looking forward to basking in the afterglow (and quite possible bounce in the polls) of a successful Olympics. They won't put that at risk.

Also, Beijing's Olympics were great on TV, but I've heard many say they were a bit staid in person; a bit forced, a bit regimental. London will, I'm sure, be much more like Sydney in its atmosphere.

As for the world cup, most of the stadiums are already there and we'll be long out of recession by the time we're readying ourselves for that event (if, touch wood, we win despite the Mail's best efforts to prevent it happening).

Reality check. On the face of it 27 million is alot of money, but look how much has been spent so far and it is just a drop in the ocean.

Ok, some things may have to change but as this project hs been developing and as the builds have been progressing savings are already being made. It will not be hard for the ODA to find 27 million in their locker.

Will there be further cuts?
I imagine not, this is going to be a showcase of the UK its culture and diversity. Whilst Beijing threw all the money it had at the Olympics it had no soul or personality. Everything was staged to make it look good whilst the heart of the games had been lost. London will be different.

I can´t wait for the games to start and Jacques Rogge to proclainm at the closing ceremony that "to date these were the best olympic games for sport, venues soul"

Actually the ODA/LOCOG could save nearly £27 million (according to some figures) just by not holding the shooting events at Woolwich! This totally illogical choice of site requires construction of a facility, and as it can't stay there we also have to pay to remove it on completion - no legacy and it's hardly ideal for the Army either. Other options might include the existing facilities at Bisley, or Southern Counties (for the shotgun events at least) in Dorset who have just hosted a massive World Cup event. For those who say London "won" the Games, not Dorset - where do you think the sailing events are taking place? How about co-locating shooting and sailing in that one area??
Don't even get me started on the costs of the equine events in Greenwich - massive disruption when we have existing venues for these competitions too.

The original plan (back in 2003/4) was to use Bisley but the IOC rejected it. It was therefore changed before the vote.

Actually, Mr Warner, not all legacy stuff needs huge pots of money.

Getting people to cycle doesn't cost much. It needs people to buy or rent a cycle. Organising a kick about for primary school kids on the local common costs nothing. A football, four jerseys and some trainers. Taking up running costs little also. Going for a walk three times a week costs nothing.

What costs money are dedicated coaches. And equipment for sports which cost a lot of money.

That's where people need to think carefully. How to maximise possible participation at a price the nation can afford.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Although I cannot disagree that the cut in funding will undoubtedly have a negative effect on the Olympics overall one positive might come from the fact that if there is less funding for competitors this might mean that self funded athletes such as yours truly ( might have more of a chance.