Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Should the Government pay G4S its £57m Management fee?
They clearly didnt deliver and broke their contract but G4S seems to think they are entitled to their £57m management fee siting the fee was "substantially" real costs not profit. They also said they expected Games organisers to pay the company "exactly in line" with the £237m contract. It seems they still cant grasp the full gravity of how they put the games at risk.
So should the government say there and then without a comittee faffing about and say "you are not getting the money end of, and sue and be damned with it, and counter sue the company for not flfilling the contract and deceiving the government about their complete inability to supply the staff they said they could.
So should the government say there and then without a comittee faffing about and say "you are not getting the money end of, and sue and be damned with it, and counter sue the company for not flfilling the contract and deceiving the government about their complete inability to supply the staff they said they could.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by barney15c. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Depends what their contract promised and what they agreed to. From what I can tell, the London Olympics organising committee vastly under estimated the number of security personnel they required. It was at a relatively late stage when G4S were asked to supply far more people than it had initially promised to do.
G4S should only be paid for what they delivered.
But I think they might be getting a lot of grief for the fiasco that wasn't their fault.
G4S should only be paid for what they delivered.
But I think they might be getting a lot of grief for the fiasco that wasn't their fault.
If they were contractually obliged to provide X number and were then asked for X + Y at a late stage, then yes, they should be paid.
However, if the fcuk-up is of their making, then no, they shouldn't.
I guess we'll never know the truth because, with contracts of that magnitude, backhanders and water muddying press releases will ensure such.
Or am I just a great big cynic?
However, if the fcuk-up is of their making, then no, they shouldn't.
I guess we'll never know the truth because, with contracts of that magnitude, backhanders and water muddying press releases will ensure such.
Or am I just a great big cynic?
Just because they were asked to supply more at some point doesn't mean they had to agree to do it. If I asked a builder who was making me a bungalow to construct a skyscraper instead but still get it finished at the same time they would of course say no. G4S agreed to the contract so they should be subject to the penalties of the agreement for failing to deliver
I wasn't suggesting that, nor am I defending them, I am merely suggesting that if they were approached with a late amendment then this would change the terms and conditions of the aforementioned contract.
Perhaps they did supply what they were originally asked for?
What's that noise? Pigs overhead perhaps?
Perhaps they did supply what they were originally asked for?
What's that noise? Pigs overhead perhaps?
G4S handed £13m monitoring contract
http:// www.goo gle.com ...N032 0021348 2382736 15A
This is despite Strathclyde Police having to foot the bill for policing when they hosted the Olympic Football at Hamden Park - beggers belief doesn't it!!!
http://
This is despite Strathclyde Police having to foot the bill for policing when they hosted the Olympic Football at Hamden Park - beggers belief doesn't it!!!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.