Games Lanes

In message , Phil W Lee
writes
The legacy from Beijing includes: from 2009 the China Open has been held
at the Olympic Green Tennis Centre (which got a new centre court in
2011). Four universities had new gymnasiums built. The National Aquatics
Centre remains in use as a public swimming pool, part of which has been
converted into a water park. The National Stadium while it doesn't have
a permanent use seems to be fairly profitable at running various one-off
events.

Profitable?

Only if you ignore the cost of building it.
A large proportion of the facilities built are derelict white
elephants.

Actually it didn't, most of the wikipedia articles on the Beijing venues
give current uses for the venues built for the games, the Wukesong
Indoor Stadium now called the MasterCard Centre is now a multi purpose
cultural, sports, leisure, recreational and commercial centre. The
Shooting range and Velodrome continue to be used for those purposes.
Quite a bit of the housing built remains unoccupied, however this is
more due to the speculative residential housing bubble in China than
anything else, there is an awful lot of empty housing in China.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:01:52 +0100, Brett Dunbar
wrote:

Quite a bit of the housing built remains unoccupied, however this is
more due to the speculative residential housing bubble in China than
anything else, there is an awful lot of empty housing in China.

Yes - I own two empty flats in China.

But you are wrong as to the reason. The reason is government control.
State controlled banks refuse mortgages on second homes except with a
40% deposit, and refuse mortgages on third homes.

Chinese savings rates are very high, but they have nowhere to put
their cash except low interest state bank accounts where the value is
eaten away by inflation.

As soon as the Chinese government relax the requirements for second
home purchases, property prices in holiday resorts such as Sanya,
where my flats are, will soar.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:28:00 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:01:52 +0100, Brett Dunbar
wrote:

Quite a bit of the housing built remains unoccupied, however this is
more due to the speculative residential housing bubble in China than
anything else, there is an awful lot of empty housing in China.

Yes - I own two empty flats in China.

But you are wrong as to the reason. The reason is government control.
State controlled banks refuse mortgages on second homes except with a
40% deposit, and refuse mortgages on third homes.

Chinese savings rates are very high, but they have nowhere to put
their cash except low interest state bank accounts where the value is
eaten away by inflation.

As soon as the Chinese government relax the requirements for second
home purchases, property prices in holiday resorts such as Sanya,
where my flats are, will soar.




Loadsamoney

What a ******.

--

Bertie Wooster's real name is Tom Crispin.
He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people involved with
Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists and John Ball primary school
can't see what a tosser he is.

On Jul 29, 6:28*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:01:52 +0100, Brett Dunbar

wrote:
Quite a bit of the housing built remains unoccupied, however this is
more due to the speculative residential housing bubble in China than
anything else, there is an awful lot of empty housing in China.

Yes - I own two empty flats in China.

But you are wrong as to the reason. The reason is government control.
State controlled banks refuse mortgages on second homes except with a
40% deposit, and refuse mortgages on third homes.

Chinese savings rates are very high, but they have nowhere to put
their cash except low interest state bank accounts where the value is
eaten away by inflation.

As soon as the Chinese government relax the requirements for second
home purchases, property prices in holiday resorts such as Sanya,
where my flats are, will soar.

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 02:39:05 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 29, 6:28*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:01:52 +0100, Brett Dunbar

wrote:
Quite a bit of the housing built remains unoccupied, however this is
more due to the speculative residential housing bubble in China than
anything else, there is an awful lot of empty housing in China.

Yes - I own two empty flats in China.

But you are wrong as to the reason. The reason is government control.
State controlled banks refuse mortgages on second homes except with a
40% deposit, and refuse mortgages on third homes.

Chinese savings rates are very high, but they have nowhere to put
their cash except low interest state bank accounts where the value is
eaten away by inflation.

As soon as the Chinese government relax the requirements for second
home purchases, property prices in holiday resorts such as Sanya,
where my flats are, will soar.

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!


On your other point, it is no secret that I have invested in the
future of the People's Republic of China, thereby indirectly I have
help lift 50,000,000 people from poverty between 2005 when I first
invested, and 2008, the latest year for which I have figures*.

*An article in The Economist suggests that 225m Chinese lived below
the poverty line in 2005, and that figure dropped to 175m in 2008.
http://www.economist.com/node/21548963

I now expect the number of poor people in China I have helped vastly
exceeds 100m.

On Jul 30, 1:38*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:


I now expect the number of poor people in China I have helped vastly
exceeds 100m.

Of course you will be reinvesting, for their collective benefit, any
profit you make?

On Jul 30, 1:38*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!

Why? where does it say I was referring to the borough.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:53:47 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:


I now expect the number of poor people in China I have helped vastly
exceeds 100m.

Of course you will be reinvesting, for their collective benefit, any
profit you make?

China now has some $2tn of foreign reserves. I am sure they can do
without the £180,000 profit I have made (£60,000 investment now worth
between £200,000 and £300,000).

Instead I will invest it to support the UK property market, and
provide much needed rental accommodation, in Inner London, to give
those people too poor to buy their own homes, a place to live.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:55:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!

Why? where does it say I was referring to the borough.

Oh! Were you referring to somewhere other than Royal Greenwich? If you
were please accept my sincere apologies, I had no idea you were
referring to Greenwich Village in New York or some other "Greenwich".

On Jul 30, 2:31*pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:55:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 30, 1:38 pm, Bertie Wooster wrote:

Well there you go, I had you marked as a leftie but you now show up as
a right wing capitalist looking to profit out of the toils of the
working class, do your 'right on' chums in Greenwich know what you are
all about?

The borough is now known as Royal Greenwich, and has been since 2
February 2012.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16839059

Do keep up!

Why? where does it say I was referring to the borough.

Oh! Were you referring to somewhere other than Royal Greenwich? If you
were please accept my sincere apologies, I had no idea you were
referring to Greenwich Village in New York or some other "Greenwich".

I was referring to Greenwich, the place I used to live and work in,
situated between Deptford, and Blackheath on the south bank of the
river thames.

I was not aware the Royal addition to the name of the entire borough
had in fact also been applied to the town as well, anyway I accept you
were misguided and hear your apology.