MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY UK ATHLETICS
INTRODUCTION TO
UK ATHLETICS
1. In October 1997 the British Athletic
Federation (BAF) went into administration and an interim body,
UK Athletics 98, was established to co-ordinate basic governing
body functions. UK Athletics was officially launched as the new
governing body in January 1999 with former 5,000 metre World record
holder David Moorcroft as Chief Executive. A Non-Executive Council
of four has been appointed with former Olympic 400 metre hurdles
Champion David Hemery as President.
2. UK Athletics represents a new era for
the sport and its work focuses on three distinct areas: the creation
of a dedicated performance structure, the creation of a new framework
for development work and the implementation of a competition structure
that meets the needs of all levels of athlete. The new bodyco-ordinates
and supports, rather than intervenes and controls and all honorary
and salaried appointments are based on competence and skills.
Over 50 appointments had been made by the end of 1999.
3. UK Athletics receives commercial income
from a variety of sources with the major ones being the BBC (television
rights), CGU (team/title sponsor) and Reebok (kit sponsor). UK
Sport Exchequer funding covers a proportion of central services
costs and the performance arm of the sport is funded through the
World Class Performance initiative run by the Sports Lottery Fund
Major Events Strategy
4. UK Athletics sees the successful staging
of major international events as an intergral part of its service
delivery to the sport and has developed a Major Events Strategy
to implement a strategic approach to this and increase UK influence
and representation at international level. The staging of major
championships in the UK will help enhance UK performance levels,
encourage participation, increase awareness, enhance the development
of athletics and improve opportunities for coaches, officials
and administrators.
5. The UK has staged 12 major athletics
events over the last 10 years and will host the European Cup in
Gateshead in 2000 and the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships
in Bristol in 2001. UK Athletics is currently bidding to hold
the 2002 European Race Walk Cup, the 2003 European Cross Country
Championships and the 2005 IAAF World Athletics Championships.
WEMBLEY OVERVIEW
6. The Wembley National Stadium saga illustrates
many of the inherent weaknesses in the administration of British
sport. It has highlighted a lack of clarity between the roles
and responsibilities of sport's key statutory and governing bodies
and it is essential that we are able to act upon the lessons learnt
from this exercise.
7. In recent years public funding, either
through Exchequer or Lottery sources, has become the most significant
resource available to sport in this country. Our current complex
structures do not reflect the most effective ways of agreeing
policy and distributing funds. Many of the problems associated
with Wembley illustrate the need for rationalisation of the roles
and responsibilities of the DCMS, Sport England, UK Sport and
other key agencies of sport in this country to reflect the new
realities of funding and to focus on the goals and outcomes that
we cherish.
8. The Secretary of State's recent decision
may, in the current circumstances, be the most appropriate one.
However, it is UK Athletics' belief that we have lost a unique
opportunity to create a wonderful national stadium for sport.
In the process a great deal of time and money has been wasted
and although a great football stadium will be built, the original
concept that British sport and the public supported is now lost.
BACKGROUND
9. The former British Athletic Federation
(BAF) was involved in early discussions with the English Sports
Council following the announcement in 1996 that Wembley was the
chosen site for the new English National Stadium. In March 1998,
David Moorcroft, Chief Executive of UK Athletics 98, wrote to
the Chief Executive of the English National Stadium Trust, Bob
Stubbs, outlining the major athletics events that Wembley would
be most likely to attract.
10. UK Athletics pointed out that it was
unlikely that athletics would use the stadium on an annual basis,
particularly if it would require a crowd of around 40,000 to break
even. A more likely pattern of usage would centre on a successful
bid for the IAAF World Athletics Championships and the possibility
of future bids for the European Championships and the IAAF World
Cup. UK Athletics recognised that it was probably more appropriate
to stage the European Cup final in one of the smaller stadiums
around the country. UK Athletics did not address the Olympic Games
issue as this was clearly the responsibility of the British Olympic
Association and for the purposes of this document, UK Athletics
will leave comment on the Olympics to the BOA.
11. Following the establishment of UK Athletics
in January 1999, it was agreed that a bid would be prepared for
the 2003 IAAF World Athletics Championships centred on the new
national stadium.
12. A bid committee was established under
the chairmanship of Len Hatton. That committee became an incorporated
company in May 1999, operating under the title of World Championships
in Athletics 2003 Limited.
13. In August 1999, UK Sport confirmed World
Class Events Lottery support of £232,246 to develop the bid
and a number of presentations and events have been held focussing
on Wembley as the venue for the Championships.
14. Members of the bid company and senior
officials of UK Sport, Sport England, London Development Partnership
and UK Athletics have met regularly to review progress and the
minutes of those and other meetings are all on file. There were
occasional attendances by the DCMS, the BOA and Bob Stubbs on
behalf of Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL).
15. All contractual and design negotiations
with Wembley were handled by Sport England although UK Athletics
did appoint a three person team to advise on specific athletic
issues such as the technical specifications for track and field
competition and the media requirements for major events.
16. At various times within the last 18
months, both Ministers for Sport, Tony Banks MP and Kate Hoey
MP, the President of UK Athletics, David Hemery and Len Hatton
have attended meetings and functions with key officials from the
IAAF, including the recently deceased President, Dr Primo Nebiolo
and his successor Lamine Diack.
17. At the most recent steering committee
meeting on 16 November 1999, it was agreed by all parties that
UK Athletics would not bid for the 2003 Championships, but would
instead bid for 2005. The Minister for Sport, Kate Hoey MP and
Len Hatton confirmed that decision to the IAAF President at a
meeting with him in Monte Carlo on 21 November 1999.
18. The IAAF require all potential host
nations to submit their bids by 31 January 2000. The bids will
then be presented to the IAAF Council in Paris on the weekend
of 1-2 April 2000 when the decision will be announced. UK Athletics
believe that a strong bid will be submitted by Athletics Australia,
on behalf of the city of Melbourne.
19. Although there will be competition from
Melbourne and any others that may be submitted, it was felt that
the Wembley based London bid was a firm favourite. The European
Broadcast Union (EBU) television contract represents a major proportion
of the IAAF's total income and the indications are that the EBU
wants the 2003 and 2005 Championships to be held within the European
time zone.
EVENTS OF
DECEMBER 1999
20. The Secretary of State for Culture,
Media and Sport revealed at a meeting in his office on 1 December
1999 the outcome for an independent review of the Wembley project
by architects, Ellerbe Becket.
21. WNSL were given two weeks to prepare
a reply to the criticisms identified in the report and UK Athletics
agreed to co-operate with all parties during that period.
22. UK Athletics considered that there were
five main issues to address in connection with the provision of
athletics:
— The suitability of the new stadium
for a World Athletics Championships and a potential Olympic bid;
— The technical feasibility of the
platform solution for the conversion of Wembley from football
to athletics configuration;
— Whether the platform solution represented
good value for money, bearing in mind the anticipated conversion
and compensation costs;
— The extent to which the Wembley project
would provide a long term legacy for athletics beyond a World
Athletics Championships;
— The perception that the key figures
controlling the Wembley development were not interested in athletics
and would be likely to be more obstructive than co-operative in
issues involving the integration of athletics.
23. UK Athletics believed that the WNSL
design team had satisfied concerns relating to the technical viability
of the platform. UK Athletics had stated, in many meetings with
Sport England, our preference for the retractable or de-mountable
option, but had been assured that the platform would work. It
is an innovative design solution that has not previously been
tested. However, it was UK Athletics view that the expertise and
experience of the design team were such that their judgement should
be trusted.
24. Issues connected with value for money
were the responsibility of Sport England. However, it was UK Athletics
view that the original proposal of converting from football to
athletics then back to football with no real prospect of a long
term legacy did not appear to represent good value.
25. Following the publication of the Ellerbe
Becket report there was considerable communication between WNSL,
through Bob Stubbs and UK Athletics, through David Moorcroft.
WNSL agreed to the suggestion, originally proposed by Len Hatton,
that Wembley be built initially in an athletics and football configuration,
converting to football exclusively after the 2005 World Championships.
26. Assuming Wembley would be available
for the summer season of 2004, it would have been the intention
of athletics to stage a major grand prix style meeting in that
year. This would have been an event to celebrate both the new
Wembley and the 50th anniversary of Roger Bannister breaking the
four minute mile. It would have been possible to fill Wembley
for a one off event, particularly bearing in mind the novelty
value of the new stadium.
27. As part of the first year's celebrations,
it would have been possible to organise, with the appropriate
funding, other activities involving young people in the new stadium.
Either the English Schools Athletics Championships, which annually
attracts in excess of 1,500 competitors or a British Schools Challenge
would have been an excellent way of inspiring a new generation
of athletes.
28. The 2005 IAAF World Athletics Championships
would be held over a ten day period, incorporating two weekends,
probably in the month of August. Other events could have been
held at Wembley in 2005 as part of the build up to the Championships.
29. A futher in principle commitment from
WNSL was to work towards the creation of a purpose built athletics
facility which could function as a warm up track for the World
Championships and could subsequently be developed as a national
stadium for athletics. The intention was for this to be a 20-25,000
seat stadium, possibly with a retractable roof.
30. Although there were many unresolved
issues connected with land acquisition, planning and building
costs, this represented a significant new commitment from WNSL.
An important element of that offer was the use, for revenue purposes,
of a proportion of the total turnover of Wembley Stadium.
31. A condition of the Lottery agreement,
requires WNSL to invest one per cent of their turnover into a
trust for use on other sporting activites. WNSL felt that up to
one million pounds of that money per year could be used to fund
the cost of operating the national athletics stadium.
32. UK Athletics believe that WNSL saw the
national athletics stadium as a potential enhancement of the Wembley
complex and that creative links with either other sports or entertainment
could make that stadium a viable option. For athletics, the scheme
represented better value than the original solution.
33. UK Athletics understands why the Secretary
of State found it difficult to support that option with so many
questions remaining unanswered. With the advantage of hindsight,
it now seems clear that, once football had been allowed to rule
out a permanent or semi-permanent athletics track, the original
concept of a multi-sports statium was fraught with too much expense
and uncertainty.
THE WAY
FORWARD
34. The IAAF have extended the deadline
for bid submissions for the 2005 World Athletics Championships
to 31 January 2000. The decision will be made following presentations
by all the potential host cities to the 26 person IAAF Council
on 2 April 2000.
35. Having spent three years to reach the
conclusion that Wembley will not be a venue for athletics, it
will not be easy to identify within the time available an alternative,
viable solution.
36. Twickenham has been suggested by the
DCMS as an option and UK Athletics will work with the RFU and
other agencies to determine whether this will produce a solution
for the 2005 World Athletics Championships and provide a legacy
beyond that event. UK Athletics appreciates the work that the
RFU have already done in seeking a solution that is suitable for
both athletics and rugby.
37. It is our understanding that with a
developed South Stand, Twickenham will have a capacity in excess
of 80,000. This is on the high side for the World Athletics Championships,
but could be viable. However, it would not be appropriate for
athletics to hold other grand prix type events on an annual basis
in a stadium of that size.
38. There are other significant logistical
issues connected with a ten day event involving two sessions per
day for at least five of those days. In addition, there are three
race walks and two marathons which will take place on the roads
outside the stadium.
39. UK Athletics are mindful of the problems
associated with a stadium situated within a dense residential
area and an event of the nature of the World Athletics Championships
could cause disruption. Solutions to the likely issues raised
by the local authority and residents are beyond the remit of UK
Athletics, but a strong indication that they will be resolved
would be required before we could submit a bid to the IAAF.
40. As already stated, circumstances now
dictate that UK Athletics are working to a very tight deadline
with regard to the World Athletics Championships. It is vital
that all parties are clear about what we are now trying to achieve.
Our objective remains both to secure the 2005 World Athletics
Championships and to provide a legacy to help ensure the sustainability
and future success of our sport.
41. There is now a significant amount of
money available to athletics and it is essential that it is not
all allocated to a solution which will provide rugby with an answer
to its development needs and which could satisfy a World Athletics
Championships bid, but leaves little in the way of a legacy.
January 2000
| 
