London opening ceremony budget doubles

[mr friendly guy]

linky

London 2012 Olympics: David Cameron steps in to double budget for opening and closing ceremonies
David Cameron has personally been involved in drawing up plans that will double the money needed to produce spectacular opening and closing ceremonies of next year’s Olympic Games.

By Jacquelin Magnay and Christopher Hope

7:00AM GMT 06 Dec 2011

Despite the worsening economic climate, the Prime Minister sanctioned spending more on fireworks and acrobats at the beginning and end of the London Games.

The news came as the public spending watchdog warned that the bill for security at the Games next year will be twice as high as previously thought.

The National Audit Office also found that the Games’ organisers had spent or committed to spend nearly all of its £9.298billion budget, prompting a fear that more money will be needed to spend on the Olympics next year.

Sports minister Hugh Robertson disclosed that ministers had sanctioned an extra £41million to stage the ceremonies of the Olympic and Paralympics, adding to the £40 million previously set aside by the Games organisers.

Mr Robertson said a meeting of the Prime Minister, the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and himself had decided that they needed to maximise and promote London to the four billion television viewers after being presented with a range of ceremonial components across the ceremonies.
Related Links

You might like:

* Duke of York's jet-set life continues despite trade role ending25 Nov 2011(Telegraph News)
* HOLD MoD and Home Office in row over who will pay for Olympic troops02 Dec 2011(Telegraph News)
* Nick Clegg: pensioners' benefits should be means tested04 Dec 2011(Telegraph News)



From the Web
FORM THE WEB
:

* This will not end well, says the man who predicted the Euro crisis22 Nov 2011(Motley Fool)
* What to Know About 401(k)s in Your 40s20 May 2011(Money & Business)
* Oil production in Americas will save world from impending energy crisis31 Dec 1969(BBC Podcast)

[what's this]

Mr Robertson acknowledged the current economic conditions but said the potential benefits that could flow through enhanced tourism numbers justified the increase.

He said: “This is a great national moment. It is about seizing this great ceremonial and economic moment to benefit the economy and the public and tourism in the long run.

“This money will not be spent on fireworks, it will not be money going up in smoke, and it will be an important investment in the economic future of the country.”

For some time there had been creative tensions between the designers behind the ceremonies and Olympic officials because their grand creative ideas couldn't be contained within the initial modest budget of £40 million.

This led to the officials presenting the more grandiose plans to the Government for serous consideration on the understanding that the Government would contribute the extra costs if they were adopted.

Olympic sources told The Daily Telegraph the Prime Minister had personally insisted on including the elaborate elements of the ceremony that were just options.

They said the extra cash would not be used to pay for the top line talent - many of whom are donating their services - but for production and technical enhancements.

A Downing St source said that Mr Cameron had been actively stepped in to change the plans for the ceremonies but had approved the suggestions when they were presented.

The Government also said it was doubling the Games security budget as the numbers of guards required to secure Olympic venues ratcheted up to 24,000.

The total Games security budget will now exceed £1.1 billion after the money to protect the Games venues security budget rose by £271m.

Total costs of securing the venues is now £553 million, while the Metropolitan Police Games budget for its 12,000 strong Games force is an additional £600 million.

The security budget had increased because of the unstable international security environment, more detailed design of venues and the release of competition schedules.

Mr Robertson said: “Only now have we been able to make a judgment with such detailed clarity to produce a safe and secure Games.”

There would be around 2000 X-ray machines, 60kilometres of security fencing and 30 control rooms involved in the venue security operation.

He said he was as confident as he could be, within the moving shift of international politics, that there would not be a further demand on the security budget.

After paying for the extra security and ceremony elements, a report from the NAO found that there was just £36million “in headroom” from the original budget.

Margaret Hodge, the Labour chairman of the Public Accounts Committee which has oversight of the NAO, described this contingency as “wafer thin” and said that MPs on her committee would be seeking more detail during a public hearing next week.

She said: “The Olympics budget contains a wafer thin contingency of just £36m. This announcement show that the risks are even higher than we thought.”

Well, so much for austerity measures. They better hope the extra money spent will lead to more money in terms of advertisement to recoup the extra costs. Or they could increase ticket prices, but apparently one of the reason they got the 2012 games was the promise they will keep ticket prices affordable, so I don't think they will try this route.

[Crossroads Inc.]

She said: “The Olympics budget contains a wafer thin contingency of just £36m. This announcement show that the risks are even higher than we thought.”

Ok I had to check to make sure that wasn't a joke. I mean, in sthere anyone in the UK who won't get that Monty Python referance?

[Count Chocula]

15 billion dollars for the Olympics? Holy crap...now I'm even more glad Chicago didn't get the nod. That's insane. How does one recoup that high an expenditure for an amateur sports championship?

[ray245]

You don't. The only main reason why countries want to host them was because such event allows them to increase their prestige worldwide.

[Teebs]

Some of the costs should be recouped through guests and redevelopment, but the loss should, in theory, be made up for by increased tourism and such from the city's increased profile. I'm very sceptical of that in the case of London since it already has such a huge international status.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I really doubt it.
Do we have hard numbers for cities that housted and theri income say, 5years or 10 years down the road? I am curious how long it has taken them or if any of them ahve fully recooped the massive investments into the games.

[Zaune]

Some of the costs should be recouped through guests and redevelopment, but the loss should, in theory, be made up for by increased tourism and such from the city's increased profile. I'm very sceptical of that in the case of London since it already has such a huge international status.

Actually, given the events of the last few months I'd be surprised if the Olympics boosted London's tourist numbers to their usual pre-mass rioting levels. Which might be a blessing in disguise, actually, at least for people who actually have to live and work in London; the city's transport infrastructure doesn't have a lot of slack in the system as-is, and the government's efforts to upgrade it are going about as well as anything else we've done with public transport lately.

[Sriad]

“This money will not be spent on fireworks, it will not be money going up in smoke, and it will be an important investment in the economic future of the country.”

I dunno, I'd very much like to see a £40,000,000 fireworks display.

[Kanastrous]

Hosting the Olympics is kind of like an international potlatch.

That said, we were walking along the Thames on the morning London's selection was announced, and like fireworks the four-ship flight of smoke-trailing RAF Hawks that came thundering down the river and zoom-climbed over the Houses of Parliament was fun to watch.

[Teebs]

Actually, given the events of the last few months I'd be surprised if the Olympics boosted London's tourist numbers to their usual pre-mass rioting levels. Which might be a blessing in disguise, actually, at least for people who actually have to live and work in London; the city's transport infrastructure doesn't have a lot of slack in the system as-is, and the government's efforts to upgrade it are going about as well as anything else we've done with public transport lately.

Hey, the Jubilee line signalling upgrade has stopped crashing every couple of days by now, right? More seriously, I'm not sure it's fair to say their capacity upgrades are going that badly. The Overground is considered to be a roaring success, the introduction of new trains for the sub-surface lines doesn't seem to be causing serious problems, the Victoria Line upgrade's glitches have been ironed out and Thameslink + Crossrail are on schedule as far as I know. The only fly in the ointment, so to speak, is the Jubilee line which I lived on until pretty recently, and I assume the problems there either have been ironed out or will be shortly.

[LaCroix]

Usually, the games result in a lot of stadiums being built, which (clever) planners intend to be used for something, later. (Teams, concert halls, etc.)

So it also creates a couple of good years for the construction branch, which can help driving the economy. Usually, governments have less problems getting the funds for olympics approved than for rebuilding roads and bridges to achieve that same effect.

[Alkaloid]

Plus the Olympic village normally becomes relatively cheap new housing once all the athletes move out.