On May 21, 10:19*am, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 21 May, 17:05, 1506 wrote:

On May 21, 7:55 am, The Real Doctor wrote:
Nope. People with a financial interest in having it built have
proposed a very modest benefits to cost ration. Even then, we'd do
rather better, as I recall, sticking the money in a building society
account.
One wonders if you will still think this is true when Europe's
fianancial center has moved to Frankfurt?

Ridiculous scaremongering. If Europe's financial centre moves to
Frankfurt, it won't be because the commute in from Maidenhead hasn't
been reduced by ten minutes.

Ian

Allow me to appraise you of some facts.

Many US companies favor London as a European base of operations.

For several years now US companies have been under the thumb of a
nasty piece of Legislation called Sarbanes Oxley. One partial
solution to this is to de-list on the US stock exchanges and list on
an oversea exchange. London has until now been the exchange of
choice.

Another method of reducing the impact of state and federal legislation
is the creation of upstream, offshore holding companies. Again
England & Wales is the obvious choice. Although Dubai seems to be
competing well for offshore incorporation and banking.

Against these advantages US CEOs and CFOs have to consider the
following:

London's expensive second rate hotels.

Dumb UK airport rules. One can deplane with two pieces of hand
luggage, but enplane with only one.

The almost complete inability to move about within London. Taxis are
very expensive compared with US cities and move at walking pace.
London's subway is overcrowded uncomfortable and unreliable.

It would be very easy for another European City to replace London as
the US offshore City of choice. It would only take the right tax
regime, good accommodations and good transportation. Although
availability of English would also help.

When, Frankfort, or wherever, takes the initiative London will lose
jobs.

Wake up and smell the coffee.