The Government has hit back at Sky News' claim that the "real cost" of the Olympics will be £12bn.
As I understand it, government chiefs spent the last week arguing Sky down from a story they initially planned to run saying it would cost more than £20bn.
In essence, the government's argument is that it is a bit disingenuous to add many of the things that Sky have added to the bill - things the Government have argued would happen anyway.
And you can see their point. Just because a council or any other body says they will carry out a piece of work in time for the Olympics, doesn't necessarily make it an Olympic cost.
For instance, Sky's original take on the situation would have included £6.5bn of transport improvements which it said have been brought forward due to the Olympics and can't now be cancelled as part of Government cuts.
It argues that perhaps, if anything, having the deadline of the Games hanging over the country has sharpened the focus to get the job done.
According to the department for culture, media and sport, the public sector budget for the Games is £9.3bn and that currently there is more than £500m of that money sitting in a contingency pot.
Around £7bn of the money that has been spent has gone into regenerating East London, what was previously one of Europe's poorest areas.
Around 75p in every pound spent on the Olympic Park can directly be described as regeneration spend for East London - money that almost certainly would never have been spent so quickly without the Olympics as a catalyst.