G4S expects full Olympic Games payment

They are an absolute shambles of a company and i would be glad to see the back of them. However, it would be a shame as may hard working people would lose their jobs.
 
Didn't they have to pay for the troops to be there?

Seems like that would eat into the profits right? Must work out to be a similar cost to the taxpayer if we're not directly paying for the troops.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong, i've not been following it closely.
 
I have no problem with them being paid the full contractual amount, PROVIDED it is less the cost for our armed forces attending the events.
 
ci_newman said:
I have no problem with them being paid the full contractual amount, PROVIDED it is less the cost for our armed forces attending the events.
Click to expand...

What about the cost of damage to reputation? Where this a contract between two companies, and not a company and the government, this would definitely be a factor.
 
They're lucky they're getting anything, let alone full pay.

The government should be prosecuting them for failure to deliver important security personnel as contracted, for an event which could have potentially posed serious risk to all attending. They are the law after all.

If they pay out I'll be ****ed the hell off.
 
Woden said:
Not locog itself, hardly anyone knows what it is. But the reputation of the UK, and London itself (which formed locog) most certainly has.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that only G4S reputation has been damaged. The UK was met with a problem and resolved it in a very short time scale.
 
G4S should have just stayed with the two thousand personnel contract and left the fallout to whoever came up with the original number. Unless there was a clause that they had to accept new revisions and in which case it increased the requirement by a factor of four but only increased the cost by three.
 
pitchfork said:
They're lucky they're getting anything, let alone full pay.

The government should be prosecuting them for failure to deliver important security personnel as contracted, for an event which could have potentially posed serious risk to all attending. They are the law after all.

If they pay out I'll be ****ed the hell off.
Click to expand...

lol.

G4S will be paid the full contractual amount minus services they didn't provide and penalties incurred from not meeting what was contractually promised. As it should be.
 
6 years of planning vs thousands of chavs suddenly deciding to riot across the capital and parts of the UK. Two very different situations. No actual threat? Would you rather there be lax security in the hope that a threat might arise? The measures were there to stop any threat happening or act very quickly if one were to happen. The army you speak of had just returned from duty.
 
Its simple, they have a contract and they will be paid by what that contract says and they should have damages clauses for failure to perform which should be enforced to the full.

As for "consequential losses" which would be what the costs of getting someone else do what you didnt would be under, I would be seriously suprised if G4S signed up for that as it would be pretty foolish given the nature of the contract.

I have a freind who does cash collections for G4S who was accosted in a supermarket by some old bloke calling him a disgrace to the country poking him with his walking stick, my mate is doing his job and its not his fault and he doesnt even work for the same part of G4S.
 
All I know, is if I was a terrorist and I wanted to make a big statement.
The Olympic games is where I would strike, that is a real threat to the games in my opinion. G4S have a contractual duty to keep the event secure and keep everyone safe, which they would not have done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom