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.

"1506" wrote in message

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.

True

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

No longer true. You can now take two hand bags on again at London
airports.

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.

The light regulation in London is also a factor.


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

But the traffic has been to, rather than from, London

On May 21, 1:28*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message







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.

True

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

No longer true. You can now take two hand bags on again at London
airports.

Good news.

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.

The light regulation in London is also a factor.



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

But the traffic has been to, rather than from, London

Thus far, yes.

But, London baddly needs an infrastructure upgrade. Crossrail is
needed.

Adrian.

1506 wrote:

Allow me to appraise you of some facts.
....
The almost complete inability to move about within London.

Rubbish. Over 1 billion passenger journeys are made on London Underground
every year, and nearly twice that number on the buses.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On May 21, 3:04*pm, "Richard J." wrote:
1506 wrote:

Allow me to appraise you of some facts.
...
The almost complete inability to move about within London.

Rubbish. *Over 1 billion passenger journeys are made on London Underground
every year, and nearly twice that number on the buses.

At speeds, and comfort levels, that would be entirely unacceptable in
Atlanta, Berlin, New York, or Paris.

You need to get out more.

1506 wrote:
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.

Ok, but you'll first have to learn German and then Rhineland German.
Though most ex-gymnasium scholars speak English, they are in a minority.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

Richard J. wrote:
1506 wrote:
Allow me to appraise you of some facts.
...
The almost complete inability to move about within London.

Rubbish. Over 1 billion passenger journeys are made on London Underground
every year, and nearly twice that number on the buses.

I suspect he means that you have to mix with oiks, and people of
excessive skin pigmentation.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

1506 wrote:
On May 21, 3:04 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
1506 wrote:

Allow me to appraise you of some facts.
...
The almost complete inability to move about within London.
Rubbish. Over 1 billion passenger journeys are made on London Underground
every year, and nearly twice that number on the buses.

At speeds, and comfort levels, that would be entirely unacceptable in
Atlanta, Berlin, New York, or Paris.

You need to get out more.


People do business in Baton Rouge with almost nonexistent public
transport, and don't get me started on lake Charles.

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

On May 22, 7:39 am, Martin Edwards wrote:
1506 wrote:
On May 21, 3:04 pm, "Richard J." wrote:
1506 wrote:

Allow me to appraise you of some facts.
...
The almost complete inability to move about within London.
Rubbish. Over 1 billion passenger journeys are made on London Underground
every year, and nearly twice that number on the buses.

At speeds, and comfort levels, that would be entirely unacceptable in
Atlanta, Berlin, New York, or Paris.

You need to get out more.

People do business in Baton Rouge with almost nonexistent public
transport, and don't get me started on lake Charles.

Ah Baton Rouge that global finance centre (center?). Just try driving
to work in the City then.
Tim

On May 21, 9:28*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message







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.

True

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

No longer true. You can now take two hand bags on again at London
airports.

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.

The light regulation in London is also a factor.



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

But the traffic has been to, rather than from, London- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Rubbish.

London does have it's problems but other cities in Europe are no
different.
And most of those cities are not as large population wise or as vast
in terms of infrastructure.

Travel a bit in Europe and you will find it's pretty much similar.
Public transport woes, bad airports, expensive hotels.

I travel to Frankfurt for example frequently.
Hotels in central frankfurt and fairly expensive. Plus if there's a
trade show on, forget about it.
Plus theres nowhere near as much choice as London.

Frankfurt Airport also suffers at times. Delays there are just as
prevalent.
I've queued for 45 minutes at security.

Their subway system is good. But isnt over 100 years old.
And there are times i've waited 20 minutes for a train during the
daytime.

These aren't isolated incidences.

London also has a huge talent pool (both domestic and those who come
here to work from other EU nations)
Plus culture, fashion, entertainment. Other European cities struggle
for this variety