Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 179)
THURSDAY 27 JANUARY 2000
MR BOB
STUBBS AND
MR ROD
SHEARD
160. You feel that you have satisfactorily answered
that point in the Ellerbe Becket report?
(Mr Sheard) The thing that we have always tried to
point out, these buildings are hugely complicated and are balanced.
To give you an idea of getting that balance right, in the Olympics
in Sydney this September we will have about 62 hours of event
in the main stadium. If that same event was to be put into Wembley,
with 62 hours of Olympics at Wembley, around about eight minutes
of those 62 hours would be affected by the C value we are talking
about. For that eight minutes around about two to three thousand
people would be affected. As compared with the total viewing of
an Olympics, you are talking one ten thousandth of the period
of time of the C value. It is a balance. I think nobody can take
exception to the word "ideal" but it is a balance. Is
it worth moving everybody ten metres back for one ten thousandth
of the viewing time?
161. The second item which the Secretary of
State referred to is the east-west alignment of the track being
detrimental to athletics, that having something to do with the
sun being in their eyes. What do you think?
(Mr Sheard) Yes, it has to do with the fact that Wembley
was built on an east-west alignment and it is true to say, and
I have written books which say this, that it is ideal, again,
to have a north-south alignment. The theory is that as the sun
sets most athletic events and most sporting events are held late
afternoon, the sun sets low in the sky, therefore the sun can
blind the players. There are a couple of fairly important points
about this. One is that we have never had any complaint from goalkeepers
playing at Wembley who have been playing east-west for the last
50 years or so, so clearly it is not a big problem at Wembley
right now. Secondly that rule, or that guide, if you like, is
really more meant for an open ground stadium, it is not really
meant for a large stadium as we have. In the new stadium we have,
after we did the sightline analysis—and we have computer
programmes which analyse this—our building at the end of
the 100 metre straight is about 50 metres high in the air so we
just found that you are never getting the problem where the sun
is ever going to be in the eyes of the 100 metre straight, it
just is not a problem. Of course we checked this with the IAAF
being the technical standard around the world and they agreed
with us, they said it was not an issue.
162. The IAAF are happy?
(Mr Sheard) The IAAF are happy.
163. The third issue is one that Claire Ward
has referred to earlier which is the length of time it would take
to insert and remove the deck. The Secretary of State said in
his statement "it would render the stadium unusable for more
than two years". What is your view of that?
(Mr Stubbs) Clearly it is not correct. In terms of
our event programme, it is seasonal. Our event programme will
start now in late January, early February and it runs through
basically to about June with the Cup Final play offs and the rest
of it, typically, a number of concerts, then the Charity Shield.
From September through to about January, typically a couple of
England Internationals and it really depends which year we are
and whether they are qualifying games, but a couple of Internationals.
In terms of the compromises football has had to make, they accepted
this solution required the stadium to be shut from September through
to about February. Those two International events could go elsewhere,
football could go elsewhere, and we will be compensated for that
in terms of loss of revenue. It just so happens that we do have
that gap in our programme, that is why the solution works. Now,
I had to sell that to the football people and the board as being
a practical solution to the problem. Shutting the stadium for
six months before and six months after is the worst case scenario.
We actually think we can get that down much tighter than six months.
The period in between, if it was built in 80,000 athletics mode,
all that you would end up with is a stadium which looks something
like the Olympic Stadium in Rome, it would have a permanent athletics
track round it, full sized international soccer pitch in the middle
and 80,000 seats. From the February through to the September,
you would have the full season of football events, plus the Olympics
or athletics events in the summer then it would be reconverted.
So it is two six month periods at worst, four matches and it occurs
in our closed season.
(Mr Sheard) Could I just clarify one small thing.
Part of the concept of this deck was the legacy that we could
leave. The problem we have in any country in the world, and we
have it in this country, is that when you do get one off big athletics
events, there are very few facilities which can take it. The deck
solution, assuming that you could design a deck which could be
reassembled and assembled somewhere else, stored in a shed somewhere
and was perhaps owned by Sport England, they would be able to
call on that deck at any time, not only in the Wembley bowl but
in any other bowl. It would fit into Twickenham, for example,
and anywhere else. So suddenly you had the option that you did
have a legacy and the legacy was sitting in a warehouse somewhere.
You could move this deck in, and personally I think that the six
months could come down, that is a kind of, if you like, everybody
saying putting your hand on your heart, how long is it going to
take, and at this stage only really having taken the design to
a certain point you are going to be conservative in your estimate,
but personally I think we could get the time down considerably
and then we will have something which could be used all around
the country, frankly.
164. The next issue is the one of the capacity,
again Claire Ward has referred to it, the 80,000 or less. The
BOA have described your ideas as cramming an additional 30,000
spectators into the stadium. Can you tell us a little bit about
the BOA guidelines for size of seats?
(Mr Sheard) There are no specific BOA guidelines,
as indeed there are no specific IOC guidelines, if you like.
165. I meant IOC.
(Mr Sheard) Yes. Any other bidding city around the
world has to make a judgment of what is a reasonable bid and,
to be honest, we are working with three other cities around the
world presently putting together Olympic bids. What tends to happen
is that the last one built tends to set a bit of a benchmark so
Stadium Australia is setting a bit of a benchmark right now. When
we cram our 80,000 in, we never drop below the standards that
we set in Stadium Australia. It just so happens that for some
of the stadium it is even more generous than Stadium Australia.
We never drop below Stadium Australia's standards.
(Mr Stubbs) Can I also make it clear that these seats
which are described as crammed are the same size seats as currently
sit in the Royal Box. We are not talking about small seats. I
have no idea why they are described as crammed.
166. All of the first four issues are all points
which have been raised by the Secretary of State and by the BOA
as well. The Secretary of State in his statement made one further
statement, which presumably is not from the BOA. He said "It
seems unlikely that it could provide an appropriate training for
the World Athletics Championship, for which we hope to bid in
2005". Now Mr Moorcroft last week told us that advice had
not come from him, from UK Athletics. Have you any idea on what
basis the Secretary of State made that remark?
(Mr Stubbs) None at all.
167. Was that raised at the meeting you had
on 1 December before he made the statement to the House? Did he
say that he was going to say that?
(Mr Stubbs) From recollection he read sections of
his statement to the House and I cannot recall whether he read
that particular element. He made it quite clear that he felt that
it was not appropriate for athletics. We made it quite clear that
we felt the Ellerbe Becket report was fundamentally flawed.
168. We are at 1 December. You now have had
time to respond to the Ellerbe Becket report which you have done
in great detail, some of which you have described to us today.
In spite of your response, and in spite of UK Athletics saying
that they were happy, the Secretary of State made his written
statement on 22 December—I think it was—just before
Christmas, saying that he was still not convinced, that he believed
the Ellerbe Becket report. Did you discuss with Ellerbe Becket
their Report or did you just make a presentation to the Secretary
of State?
(Mr Stubbs) After the meeting on 1 December, from
recollection it was a Wednesday or Thursday, we worked through
the rest of that week and over the weekend and by the Monday or
Tuesday we got back a full response. We distributed that to all
the relevant parties. Then we discussed that with both civil servants
and ministers. We never entered detailed discussions with Ellerbe
Becket. There was an interchange between our technical people
and Ellerbe Becket. We never had a formal response either from
DCMS or from Ellerbe Becket responding to the points we had made
in our report.
169. I am aware that I am pushing the Chairman's
patience. I would just like to ask on one more issue which is
the Lottery agreement and the return of the £20 million.
The Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport have said that
the FA have offered £20 million back from the stadium design.
I understand the Lottery agreement does not allow you to make
any offer of repayment, is that correct?
(Mr Stubbs) I think we are in somewhat of a legal
problem in the sense that the Lottery agreement does not allow
us to make voluntary repayments of money. It is true that the
FA and the stadium company have agreed to make a payment of £20
million, the details are still to be worked out. The details of
how that happened, who takes responsibility for that payment between
the FA and the company and how the Lottery agreement is modified
are still to be determined.
170. Given that you feel you have fulfilled
all the requirements that were put before you, and the former
Minister for Sport last week used the word "exceeded",
and I think you have used the word exceeded requirements, how
do you feel about the way things have turned out?
(Mr Stubbs) I cannot obviously speak from the FA's
perspective but from the stadium's perspective and the board's
perspective, we believe we have succeeded and complied with the
letter of that agreement and the spirit of that agreement. We
have a stadium which can stage the Olympics and athletics and
in our view there is no case for modification to the agreement,
a payment of £20 million or a claim that we have somehow
breached the agreement. We think we have honoured their agreement.
171. Would you still like to see a bid for the
2005 World Athletics Championships go ahead?
(Mr Stubbs) We had an agreement with David Moorcroft
about that, indeed we were offering to open in athletics mode
in 2004 so they could stage a special event, and keep it in that
mode for 2005. As far as we are concerned that agreement is still
there. We have not changed the design one bit. We will still be
capable of taking athletics.
172. The ideal situation for you would be to
return to the 29 July position and start again.
(Mr Stubbs) And just continue as we were, absolutely.
(Mr Sheard) I think the only comment from that, from
that day onwards, the only real thing which separates this as
a tragedy as distinct from a farce is the potential mortal blow
it has delivered to athletics. I guess we will see how that turns
out.
Derek Wyatt
173. Good morning. Mr Sheard, a technical thing,
I do not know if it is possible but I will ask it, in opera and
in the theatre it is quite often possible to change scenes by
going down and having a lift underneath and reversing scenes and
coming back up. Quite technical. The Opera House is having huge
problems with it. Presumably you looked at that system and decided
it was not possible to do that because of the sheer scale of putting
a 400 metre track down and turning it?
(Mr Sheard) Theoretically it is possible. It has got
a huge capital cost but it can be done. It is all based on hydraulics
and all of these things can be done. It comes down to what do
you get in return for the huge and vast capital costs and for
that matter the maintenance and running costs. If athletics was
saying "Look we can guarantee an event schedule that can
give us a good athletic event every couple of years or something"
then you can look seriously at things like that but the reality
is the way athletics are around the world, it is very difficult
to fill such a large stadium with athletics events to really justify
those sort of huge costs.
174. Forgive me, I just noticed in a letter
that David Moorcroft wrote to Bob Stubbs he said he thought it
would be possible to have the World Championship, European Championship,
European Cup and possibly the World Cup every 20 years. That was
not said in quite so much detail on 29 July, some of those events
seem to have slipped off people's agenda. If there are four possibilities
every 20 years, is that worth it therefore? Did you look at it
and did you analyse that?
(Mr Sheard) Yes, we looked at all sorts of versions
of the moving pallets and the moving tiers. I guess that is really
a question for Bob, it is not my judgment as to whether it is
value for money or not.
(Mr Stubbs) It comes in two parts really, I think.
£120 million grant, we could not afford it. As I have described
already, when we were looking at various athletics options, some
were ruled out on the basis that the grant would have to go up
because there is no added value in terms of operation. As it was
quite clear there was no more grant, therefore we had to come
up with a solution of £120 million. I think that is absolutely
right. You would not invest in that kind of technology. You have
to remember it all needs maintaining and it needs replacing as
well. It is not that easy.
175. The former Minister for Sport said last
week he could not quite understand what had happened between 29
July and 1 December. It is quite clear that we are struggling
too, after your presentation last week we are probably struggling
even more. I said last week was it because the agenda had been
hijacked by the British Olympic Committee? It was not clear to
me what suddenly had happened between July and December? You have
already just said nothing has changed, you can still do athletics.
Unfortunately, it looks as though we have now lost the World Championships
for 2005. That is a very serious thing for athletics and actually
for sport in the UK. It gives all the wrong vibes just at the
time when we are bidding for World Cup Soccer. What did happen?
(Mr Stubbs) What I think you focused on was, if you
like, what happened within the envelope of the building. What
you have to focus on also is what is required externally to support
athletics. The first thing that is required is a warm-up track.
I think there are slightly different solutions for world athletics
and Olympics. If we focus on the Olympics—this is at the
heart of it—for the Olympics you need a full duplicate facility,
it does not obviously need 80,000 seats but a full track. Now
that requires a plot of land somewhere around ten or 15 acres,
it depends really what you are going to put into it. That plot
of land has to be adjacent to the stadium, that is typically how
it works. If you went to the Stade de France you would see that.
I think the problem that has started to emerge is that if Wembley
is the Olympic venue, and you wish to preserve that, you now have
to buy that land to preserve that opportunity. It is not an option
to do nothing. Simply, that would involve a CPO of private sector
land. It would probably be contested. This is not for world athletics,
you can do another solution for the World Athletics Championships,
this is for the Olympics. I think probably what started to happen—and
this was driven to some extent by the Wembley Task Force—was
what was the Government's intention in relation to Olympics at
Wembley, if we could convince the BOA and DCMS that this was the
Olympics venue, then I think a chain of events would start to
unfold which was politically probably sensitive and fraught with
difficulty and expense. I can only assume that what started to
happen was people started to realise the consequences of staging
the Olympics at Wembley and the external issues which arose. That
is my only explanation for the sequence of events that we describe.
176. As far as the IOC is concerned, I cannot
think they can be too much bothered whether it is 65,000 or 80,000
for an opening and closing ceremony. All they care about is whether
four, five or six billion viewers watch so that the sponsorship
money is secured for the next Olympics contract. Is this really
a ridiculous debate that we have had and a rather absurd debate?
(Mr Stubbs) It really depends on how you view an Olympic
bid and where you are in the cycle of bidding. We were asked to
build basically a stadium which was not a white elephant and could
be funded largely by private sector money but capable of converting
to the Olympics. I think the difference between us and the BOA
is in their mindset, they see themselves in Olympic bid mode now
and they want an Olympic stadium built. If you are trying to maximise
your chances of winning the Olympics, and remember it is one country
versus another type of thing so you have to recognise how other
countries are going to respond, the only way of maximising the
opportunity is to build a purpose built Olympic venue. Ideally
that is what the BOA want. What they have got at Wembley is not
a purpose built venue, it is something similar to Stade de France
in terms of the way it performs its characteristics. I think it
is a mindset issue therefore which is the BOA saying "Unless
we have something similar to the Olympic Stadium in Sydney we
are never going to be happy". Unfortunately if you are going
to have a stadium which is multi-functional and is funded by the
private sector, you cannot have an Olympic stadium. It is quite
clear from our response to Ellerbe Becket both Atlanta and Sydney
do not function as long term stadiums. In the case of Atlanta
it had to be virtually demolished, and as Rod described, Sydney
will never stage another athletics event. It is also quite clear
if you look at Manchester, it is the same issue for the Commonwealth
Games. If we use it for the Commonwealth Games it will never be
used for athletics after that. I think it is a mindset issue that
the BOA have. My distinct impression from talking to them and
dealing with them is that they are never going to be happy unless
we build a purpose built Olympic stadium and clearly it does not
make sense for us to do that.
177. My last question, and the Secretary of
State mentioned this, there is no obligation from the Football
Association or anyone to pay back the £20 million, £30
million, £50 million or whatever, but it is out of the goodness
of their heart—I am uncertain whether people do things out
of the goodness of their heart. Do you accept the reason why the
FA have made the statement is to ward off the football regulator?
(Mr Stubbs) I think football had discussions with
Government and it was in their long term interest to make the
payment of £20 million.
Mr Maxton
178. Could I just follow up one question about
the stadium for the Olympics. Basically what you are saying is
that a new Wembley is built and an 80,000 new seat stadium for
the Olympics simply would not be viable, would that be true?
(Mr Stubbs) In most situations unless you have something
like Twickenham, where you have a continual series of events,
if you build an Olympic stadium with no secure long term use for
events it will be a white elephant and basically it will either
have to be demolished or given away free to a football club. It
just would not be something which made any sense.
Mr Keen
179. One or two unrelated questions, three or
four which other people have mentioned. First of all, the seating,
how many seats are restricted? Presumably it is the events, the
outside lanes, outside two lanes on 100 metre relays?
(Mr Sheard) In our view, there are no seats which
are restricted. In our view, we have designed every seat in the
house in 80,000 mode to a C value of 60 to the second lane. That
means that anybody in the outside six to eight lanes, depending
on how many they are using, you will not see everything from their
foot up, you will see either from their knee up or from their
waist up, or whatever the case may be. In that condition at any
point in time when the runner is on one of those lanes it affects
that viewer for perhaps ten seconds, something like that as they
run past. Out of 53 Olympic track and field events you are probably
talking about 14, you are talking about 400 metres, the beginning
of the 200, the 800 and then the hurdles that go with it, the
pentathlon for that particular time of the event and the heptathlon.
|
