Should the Government pay G4S its £57m Management fee?

[barney15c]

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.

[Gromit]

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.

[Duncer]

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?

[IggyB]

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

[Duncer]

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?

[Kerosene]

Nah, they've been found banged to rights by that Commons Committee they had to go in front of. No excuses - no chance!

[zebo]

More importantly, they should never be allowed to even compete for future business in this country that involves public money.

[albaqwerty]

The London Olympics was years in the making. When were G4S awarded their contract? I'm sorry, I have no idea, hence asking the question.

From the small bits I've gleaned in the press and TV, no, they shouldn't get a penny.

[barney15c]

G4S handed £13m monitoring contract

http://www.google.com...N0320021348238273615A

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!!!

[Duncer]

Surely they should be made to cover the costs of the Hampden fiasco and, as one who was there, it was a total fiasco.