Re-arranged for this Friday. Gave my football ticket to a Brazilian friend - who wasn't exactly thrilled - and decided we would avoid the crowds empty seats and lack of atmosphere.
Always thought the Musicals would do better than the wordy plays and do better than usual during the Olympics as who went to the Olympics every day? Moure tourists, more tickets sold. As Andrew Lloyd Webber trades in musicals, I was very puzzled by his pre Olympic statement.
The UK economy has seen a £9.9bn boost in trade and investment from hosting the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games, research suggests.
A report by the government department which promotes UK businesses put new contracts, sales and foreign investment in the last year down to the Games.
But the claims were met with scepticism by some economists and the Federation of Small Businesses.
Government estimates put the cost of hosting the Games at £8.9bn.
The report, for the UK Trade and Investment department (UKTI), said the Olympics resulted in:
£2.5bn "additional inward investment", 58% of which was outside London £5.9bn additional sales following Olympic-related promotions by the Foreign Office and UKTI £1.5bn high value overseas contracts - such as helping to design venues in other host-nations Much of the Olympic park and stadium for the Winter Olympics in Russia was "designed and built by British businesses", Mr Cameron told BBC Radio's Test Match Special.
"So there's real jobs, real money in the Olympics if we get it right."
But sports economist Stefan Szymanski said it was impossible to tell how much of the economic activity could be put down to the Games.
"It's almost like a bit of creative accounting. There's no way of testing whether what they're saying is really true."
Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and a former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, said attributing the economic benefits to the Olympics was "a little far-fetched to say the least".
Business Secretary Vince Cable defended the figures in the report.
"A lot of people were very cynical about this... but as a result of all the work that was done we have this very considerable amount," he said.
He added there was an "upward estimate" that, by 2020, the Games could have benefited the UK by as much as £40bn.
Analysis Stephanie Flanders Economics editor It would be rude to call the benefit numbers flakey. But most economists would say they were deeply speculative, at best.
The point is not that the Games didn't bring economic benefits - it would be hard for something that cost roughly £9bn not to have any economic benefits. And of course they brought lots of more intangible benefits, for all of us.
But the £9.9bn figure we got today is supposed to be the extra business for UK firms from 2012, in addition to the jobs and income that were directly generated by building the stadium and other investments to prepare for the Games.
To make even a rough guess of the extra business generated, you need to have a sense of what would have happened anyway; what academics would call "the counterfactual".
They never really provide that in today's glossy report. The implicit assumption seems to be that - had it not been for the Olympics - that £9bn would simply not have been spent.
It was a great great event. Don't care how many people crawl out of the woodwork now to try and discredit it - those memories of sitting there watching it with my kids and taking my son to Wembley will live with me forever.
The Olympics should be about sport, not economics. If there's an economic benefit, that's all well and good but don't go looking for one. And don't whinge if ends up costing. We had a marvellous summer of sport and the feelgood factor was everywhere. We should just enjoy that.
It strikes me that the sort of people who want to make The Olympics into an economic issue are the sort of people who'd throw a house party and then go around counting the booze bottles afterwards to see if they made a profit or a loss.
It was a fantastic event, the world saw London and the UK in a new light. The sports were successful, the opening ceremony breathtaking, the torch relay all encompassing, everything was ready on time and the transport links worked. The nay sayers all gradually shrunk into the background as the build up and then the games themselves proved their cynicism wrong time and time again. Some of them even had the balls to admit they were wrong, and ended up joining in the fun!
Stig is about right if you ask me. After all, who can take seriously a person who suggested the Aussies would get 400 runs in their first innings... ;-)
The Olympics should be about sport, not economics. If there's an economic benefit, that's all well and good but don't go looking for one. And don't whinge if ends up costing. We had a marvellous summer of sport and the feelgood factor was everywhere. We should just enjoy that.
I agree wholeheartedly BUT the fact is it's not the whingers who have come out with these figures is it? It's our government who have tried to spin it exclusively for political purpose so that it looks like it was a fantastic economic success as well and in fact we made money. When you include spurious claims that a £100m+ shopping centre planned for Croydon is a direct result of the games, for example, then I'm afraid it's natural that the figures are going to be under scrutiny. That's not whinging, that's not accepting being treated like an idiot by our leaders.
Same can be said about anyone's figures on either side though. I guess I am getting too long in the tooth but am completely fed up with this sort of argument and counter argument, usually wheeled out by political groups and self serving organisations with vested interests in scoring points off the other side and eaten up and regurgitated slavishly by a rabid media.
That was a bloody good Olympics agreed, It did not loose millions like previous have and has left a legacy at the Olympic Park not a wasteland.
Comments
Those figures were completely made up by Lloyd Webber and the head of tfl.
"An increase in demand was reported by 42% in the first week of the Games, compared with the 80% that anticipated an increase in January 2012."
So, an increase, but not as much as some people had hoped.
crowdsempty seats and lack of atmosphere.What do you think of the figures Offy posted?
;o)
The UK economy has seen a £9.9bn boost in trade and investment from hosting the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games, research suggests.
A report by the government department which promotes UK businesses put new contracts, sales and foreign investment in the last year down to the Games.
But the claims were met with scepticism by some economists and the Federation of Small Businesses.
Government estimates put the cost of hosting the Games at £8.9bn.
The report, for the UK Trade and Investment department (UKTI), said the Olympics resulted in:
£2.5bn "additional inward investment", 58% of which was outside London
£5.9bn additional sales following Olympic-related promotions by the Foreign Office and UKTI
£1.5bn high value overseas contracts - such as helping to design venues in other host-nations
Much of the Olympic park and stadium for the Winter Olympics in Russia was "designed and built by British businesses", Mr Cameron told BBC Radio's Test Match Special.
"So there's real jobs, real money in the Olympics if we get it right."
But sports economist Stefan Szymanski said it was impossible to tell how much of the economic activity could be put down to the Games.
"It's almost like a bit of creative accounting. There's no way of testing whether what they're saying is really true."
Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and a former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, said attributing the economic benefits to the Olympics was "a little far-fetched to say the least".
Business Secretary Vince Cable defended the figures in the report.
"A lot of people were very cynical about this... but as a result of all the work that was done we have this very considerable amount," he said.
He added there was an "upward estimate" that, by 2020, the Games could have benefited the UK by as much as £40bn.
Analysis
Stephanie Flanders
Economics editor
It would be rude to call the benefit numbers flakey. But most economists would say they were deeply speculative, at best.
The point is not that the Games didn't bring economic benefits - it would be hard for something that cost roughly £9bn not to have any economic benefits. And of course they brought lots of more intangible benefits, for all of us.
But the £9.9bn figure we got today is supposed to be the extra business for UK firms from 2012, in addition to the jobs and income that were directly generated by building the stadium and other investments to prepare for the Games.
To make even a rough guess of the extra business generated, you need to have a sense of what would have happened anyway; what academics would call "the counterfactual".
They never really provide that in today's glossy report. The implicit assumption seems to be that - had it not been for the Olympics - that £9bn would simply not have been spent.
I'm glad we did it.
It strikes me that the sort of people who want to make The Olympics into an economic issue are the sort of people who'd throw a house party and then go around counting the booze bottles afterwards to see if they made a profit or a loss.
Stig is about right if you ask me. After all, who can take seriously a person who suggested the Aussies would get 400 runs in their first innings... ;-)
That was a bloody good Olympics agreed, It did not loose millions like previous have and has left a legacy at the Olympic Park not a wasteland.
Back to Pompey match and Ashes thread...
sorry