Jump to content

Recommended Posts

fazer71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> ?1.2 bn on a media centre !!!!!!!!! FFS total

> insanity ,,, unless someone can explain how that

> number happened?


I have pointed you to a site that a) breaks all this down and b) shows you why that number is wrong.


Hmmm - I am starting to concur with your claim you are not a troll. The other option is looking far more likely.

Fazer won't look at the spending breakdown because it will tell him what he's probably beginning to suspect - that he's talking out of his behind.


I'm particularly impressed by the 'common knowledge' argument - ever the domain of the charlatan. What it actually means is 'me and my mates have started a rumour and if we repeat it enough that makes it true'.

Hugenot

Ahhh you just twist everything into a direct insult you really should stop showing yourself up.

Have you spoken to anyone who worked on the Olympics?

I have, individual contractors they were earning great rates they worked hard and were well paid.

I have a problem with the Companies who employed them who still made excessive profits.



Loz

An argument which can never be won.


The figures will add up and result in ?1.2 Bn for a media centre.

?6.7 Bn total etc etc


If it looks like a duck sounds like a duck it probably is a duck.


I can point you to a legal bill for a contract all that will tell you is what the lawyer charged per hour worked.

It won't compare the hourly charge with another it won't tell you if he actually worked the hours he charged.

It's just a load of numbers which are there to show what was paid and charged.

It won't show if the rate was high or low or exactly how many hours were actually worked.


So to suggest I look at a load of numbers is pretty stupid unless you are able to prove the hours worked and the rates were the market rates.




If my ecomparisons don't mean anything to you fine but even Hugenot was surprised by some of the contract works!


If all you can offer is a link to a load of numbers and you're not bothered to justify those numbers what the F are you replying to my posts for ? Are you stupid?

fazer71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Loz

> An argument which can never be won.

>

> The figures will add up and result in ?1.2 Bn for a media centre.



No they don't.


Try again.


(Clue: if you click on the pretty circles, magic things happen...)

I've just had a look at the figures, and guess what - fazer is wrong again.


The Shard cost around ?450m for 1,200,000 square feet. That's around ?375 per square foot.


The Olympic Media Centre cost ?350m for 900,000 square feet. That's around ?388 per square foot.


There's nothing in it, the slight additional cost is easily justified by the huge technical demands of outfitting communications technology for 20,000 journalists.


The hourly rate of a lawyer is irrelevant. The claim that fazer made is that the Olympics infrastructure was subject to to price gouging and over charging (and now the accusation of fraud)on behalf of contractors.


In fact we are discovering that the prices, whether compared with the Shard or the Emirate stadium, are nothing of the sort.


What's that smell?

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> fazer71 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Loz

> > An argument which can never be won.

> >

> > The figures will add up and result in ?1.2 Bn

> for a media centre.

>

>

> No they don't.

>

> Try again.

>

> (Clue: if you click on the pretty circles, magic

> things happen...)


Yes

I know it shows what was spent.

What exactly are you saying I'm missing ?



lpool Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So which of the CLM contractors have told you

> this? Please tell.


Yea right.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The hourly rate of a lawyer is irrelevant. The

> claim that fazer made is that the Olympics

> infrastructure was subject to to price gouging and

> over charging (and now the accusation of fraud)on

> behalf of contractors.


It's not fraud don't be rediculous its the equivalent to weekend rates double the daily or hourly rate.


Ffs Fraud !


How can we continue to discuss this with rediculous comments like this are made?

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've just had a look at the figures, and guess

> what - fazer is wrong again.

>

> The Shard cost around ?450m for 1,200,000 square

> feet. That's around ?375 per square foot.

>

> The Olympic Media Centre cost ?350m for 900,000

> square feet. That's around ?388 per square foot.

>

> There's nothing in it, the slight additional cost

> is easily justified by the huge technical demands

> of outfitting communications technology for 20,000

> journalists.

>

> The hourly rate of a lawyer is irrelevant. The

> claim that fazer made is that the Olympics

> infrastructure was subject to to price gouging and

> over charging (and now the accusation of fraud)on

> behalf of contractors.

>

> In fact we are discovering that the prices,

> whether compared with the Shard or the Emirate

> stadium, are nothing of the sort.

>

> What's that smell?


Excellent now we're getting somewhere.

I'm more than happy to be proven to be wrong thank you for that information good work, a nice comparison.


The smell could be a personal thing you do appear to be getting rather angry and over reacting maybe causing you to perspire more than usual? Some deodorant or regular showering would sort it out.

If not maybe it a side affect of your rudeness filthy caustic breath or worst... Flatulence ?


Do calm down .


The only issue I've got with those numbers is sqft for sqft the shard given it's cutting edge build could easily cost twice as much to build per sqft when compared to the olympic media centre.


I wonder what will happen to the media centre once the Olympics / Paralympics are over?


Little point in continuing this it's impossible to prove over or under spend but the numbers speak for themselves when compared to other projects what have we got for our money?


In my book It isn't the equivalent to 17 shard towers.

In your book it's the equivalent or more.


What We can all see with total clarity is you are rude insulting and happy to use those traits before engaging your brain which is a pity, once your brain is engaged you achieve rather more impressive results. Although it appears to cause a smell.


Cheers

fazer71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Yes

> I know it shows what was spent.

> What exactly are you saying I'm missing ?


Then why do you keep quoting weird figures? The media centre did not cost the 1.2bn that you keep complaining about.

That's not the media centre then is it?


You're just adding in bits and bobs until it gets to the figure that you like.


You don't know why the cost went up do you? Instead of finding out you've just christened them all liars and thieves. Bollocks.


Go and break that down and you'll discover that it all makes sense.


Just as you've discovered with everything else. The Emirates stadium bollocks, the Shard bollocks, it's all pointless bollocks.

fazer71 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The media centre village

> Total Media Centre and Media Centre Village

> estimate ?492 million

> actual ?1.23 billion

>

> I'm finished with this it's pointless.


The final cost of building the media centre was ?292m. You're right, it is pointless as you don't understand how the figure breaks down to its components. Substantial money was spent on acquiring the land, CPOs, compensations to local businesses, infrastructure, etc.



The original Nov 07 estimates for building media centre and olympic village did not include village construction cost of ?707m. Receipts for Stratford City development plots were scaled down from ?250m to ?70m. It's quite easy to see where Fazer confused his figures.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Just had this team/ company demolish a front wall, dig out the trees, build a wall, a place for the bins, landscape the front with stones and the liked and lay a new path and porch with a bull nose stone step. We are very happy with their work, diligent and attentive to detail, (it’s always difficult to know until things have bedded in for a few years but) good quality. Excellent communication. They’re very local, they know the East Dulwich clay, that the buildings and grounds are essentially mobile, and very dependant on the temperature and moisture in the ground. I think the key things for us - busy, always in and out, young kids etc - were we felt perfectly safe with them here, I don’t think they mucked about with pricing or quality once we were set (bits and bobs come up and were effortlessly sorted) and all in all, over the time it took for them to get the right quality (for them! the finish is good) we quite liked the team. We’d have them back in a moment, and are very happy to recommend them.
    • Sorry to hear that this is happening to your son. East Dulwich Grove doesn't fall into Dulwich Hill ward, it is split depending on the postcode it would either be Goose Green SNT or Dulwich Village SNT, you may check which one using the link below. On the website would also be the team and any events being held in the future. If it is an emergency please call 999 or non-emergencies 101. https://www.met.police.uk/area/your-area/
    • CIC is not the appropriate vehicle for a fund-raising intermediary.  CICs are for businesses that typically sell something or provide a service for social good  but are not for profit; a community cafe or arts centre, or an IT skills training centre for  unemployed people. it costs £65 to set up  a CIC, the scrutiny is less than for a full charity, and the administrative burden is pretty low if you don’t file accounts. It’s hard to prove a negative, but if you were trying to build a credible, positive case for giving money to street collectors for CityHive CIC, that might be a little harder still… tho thank you, Zahid for joining the Forum to give it a go.
    • Interior Design Layout planning, Spatial Orientation, Choice of Materials, Consultation, Project Management   Testimonials available  Residential and Commercial projects  Prestigiously qualified UAL Chelsea College Over 10 years experience   Phone Number: 07595953674 Email Address: [email protected] Website: https://aleksandrasinan.com/ View full listing
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...