The reason? Once again a politician has decided a businessman is needed to make a public sector project work.

I find that assumption puzzling. Business is about value, but also profit. The ‘p’ word doesn’t enter into the equation of the Olympics. So why a businessman?

There’s no doubt that projects such as the Olympics need financial control ­ but the business side?
It’s not entirely a parallel, but when Gordon Brown appointed David Varney, a former BT executive, to sort out HMRC, few considered it an overriding success.

And how do you measure success? In business it’s pretty clear cut, but to estimate a storming games? While some business metrics might be useful, others won’t apply at all.

Then there’s the values a businessmen brings to the party. Risk taking and speedy decision making. You could argue that the public sector may dawdle with decisions, but it is spending public money. And in this case vast sums of it.

As a London council tax payer I’m not sure I want a particularly risky approach to the Olympics. Frankly, rather than say his man was in place to ensure a ‘lasting legacy’, I wish Boris had said he’s there to exercise the same kind of grip over the budget as Steve Redgrave does over his oars.

Then there’s Ross’s background ­ mobile phones. Wouldn’t it be better to have someone who knew something about staging big events?

I can only assume Boris thinks the London public will be reassured by this appointment. I should be backing the accountant but can’t help feeling my judgement needs to be firmly reserved.