APPENDIX 8
Memorandum submitted by London International
Sport
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to give
evidence in respect of the Committee's inquiry into Wembley Stadium.
London International Sport (LIS) was delighted
that Wembley was chosen as the location for the new national stadium
for football, rugby and athletics. It was and remains the right
location for a national stadium. From our point of view, as an
organisation established to bring large-scale events to London,
the choice of Wembley enhanced our prospects of bidding for and
winning three of the greatest prizes in sports events in the world—the
Football World Cup, the World Championships in athletics and not
least the Olympic Games.
For the last three years we have had growing
concerns about the direction the stadium was taking and in particular
the place of athletics within it. They have primarily been about
spectator capacity, the warm-up track and the prospects for Wembley
to be developed as a hub of sport.
SPECTATOR CAPACITY
We first wrote about the spectator capacity
question in April 1997 having previously had discussions with
Wembley Plc the then owners. This letter and the response are
attached[6].
The reason it was sent was that for the first time there appeared
to be some uncertainty about whether or not the capacity of the
stadium could be raised sufficiently for an Olympic Games. As
you can see, we circulated it to a number of organisations as
we did the response from Sport England. The response did not alleviate
our concerns, as the spectator capacity was nowhere near the size
needed for an Olympics and, as it turns out, insufficient for
the World Athletics Championships as well.
Over the following months we continued to raise
the issue at various meetings. We then suggested to the BOA, that
as the appropriate sporting body, it should take the lead on the
stadium and it did so, first communicating about it in January
1998. Our understanding was that, as a consequence, the BOA was
going to be more integrally involved in the design process. During
1998 we were led to believe in all the discussions we had that
the capacity question would be resolved in the design brief. During
much of the year athletics was not represented properly because
of the governing body's internal problems.
We became particularly concerned again in the
period leading up to the contract between Sport England and the
Development Company. We were informed that the contract might
still only stipulate a spectator capacity of 65,000 for athletics
and that the Olympic Games were not mentioned. We were also told
that athletics had not been involved in recent months and that
work on the design brief had until that point ignored athletics
altogether. Any conversion to athletics mode would be likely to
be at considerable cost. We wrote again to Sport England about
this (the salient part of this letter and the reply are attached)*
and were told that the stadium would be able to host the major
athletic championships, including the Olympics, as the capacity
for athletics was expected to be able to reach 75,000.
The next significant occasion which cast doubt
on the design of the stadium was the evidence given to the Select
Committee by Ken Bates and Bob Stubbs in April 1998. As a result
we made a second submission to the Committee which was published
in the appendices to the Report on Staging International Sporting
Events. We also arranged a meeting with Bob Stubbs and brought
the BOA to it. What we heard alarmed us because it was clear that
the design brief had been developed with football in mind and
that athletics, particularly the capacity needed for the Olympic
Games, had effectively been ignored. We were told that at a push
the capacity for athletics could be 70,000. Following that the
BOA had a meeting with the then Minister for Sport and raised
our joint anxieties about what was happening. LIS also wrote to
him expressing our views in support of the BOA (see attached letter)*.
In July 1999 the design of the new stadium was
published by Wembley National Stadium Development Company. Attractive
as the design was, what quickly became obvious was that the cost
of conversion to athletics, including taking into account the
time the stadium would be lost to football, was very high indeed
and might not be possible. Events since then have been well publicised
and we have nothing new to add.
THE WARM-UP
TRACK
For any major athletics event there has to be
a warm-up track and this is certainly the case for the World Athletics
Championships and the Olympic Games. This did not seem to be considered
when the original decision was made about Wembley nor during the
contract negotiations. It was felt that Sherrins Farm which is
on the other side of the railway line might be appropriate as
might be a site at Copeland School on the other side of the Harrow
Road. We are not aware of any detailed feasibility being carried
out.
On visiting the sites earlier last year it was
obvious that Sherrins Farm would be difficult on the grounds of
size and planning whilst Copeland School, at least for the Olympic
Games, was totally unsuitable. We discussed the situation with
Brent Council and at first a possible solution seemed to be provided
by putting decking over the railway line. A second and better
solution of having the warm-up area behind the stadium soon emerged
although this would have required the CPOing of the land concerned,
the cost of which was not known. Plainly this was an issue which
should have been fully resolved much earlier before the deal with
Wembley Plc was concluded; instead of which the Task Force, established
to look at the whole site, was left to come up with solutions.
Additionally for the last eighteen months to
two years we have been making the case for the warm-up track at
Wembley, like Sydney, to be built as a stadium with capacity for
about 20,000 people which could house grand prix events and be
a home for athletics. It would have replaced Crystal Palace in
this respect. There were two reasons for suggesting this. Firstly,
access to Wembley is very much better than to Crystal Palace,
which should be retained as the principal training venue in the
South East. Secondly it could have helped develop Wembley as a
hub of sport which would comprise of significantly more than one
major stadium. Sport England did not support our case partly on
the grounds of costs. UK Athletics have, however, publicly backed
it.
WEMBLEY AS
A HUB
OF SPORT
It has long been recognised that the environment
around Wembley needs dramatic improvement and that a major regeneration
initiative is required. Looking at the needs of the Olympic Games
and being aware of the importance of providing an appropriate
legacy, one real possibility which LIS has been supporting has
been to build arenas and even possibly the Olympic Swimming pool
on the Wembley site. It would thus create a major hub of sport
with perhaps 10 to 12 Olympic sports being based there.
The loss of Wembley to athletics will make it
more difficult to bring this idea to fruition but not impossible.
After all Wembley would no doubt still host football at an Olympic
Games and access to the area by public transport is excellent.
WHAT WENT
WRONG
From our position it would appear that what
went wrong was that:
(a) the needs of athletics were poorly understood
and the voice of athletics was neither deemed important nor did
it make itself heard. The BOA should have been involved throughout
to ensure the Olympic dimension was understood;
(b) when it came to the design brief, this
seemed to be dictated by the English National Stadium Development
Company which, with the FA controlling it, not surprisingly, was
only really concerned with football. Conversion to athletics was
achievable at far too high a price;
(c) the opportunity to regenerate the area
around the stadium was considered much too late and should have
been integral to the stadium development from the very beginning.
The warm-up track was also ignored for far too long and should
have been covered in the land purchase. When finally the Task
Force was established it had little in the way of resources to
do the job required; and
(d) although sporting organisations could
and should have sorted out the capacity question, they could not
by themselves deal with the other issues posed by the whole site
around the stadium. What was required from the outset was joined
up action including closer liaison and collaboration with Brent
Council.
THE LESSONS
TO BE
LEARNT
There seems to be no ostensible reason why a
stadium cannot be constructed which takes into account the needs
of football, rugby league and athletics, including in Olympic
mode, although there would need to be compromises in the design.
Athletics, of course, requires more than the stadium itself for
major events.
Wembley is not a green-field site and no stadium,
especially one that is designated as a national stadium can ignore
the environment around it. A development like Wembley requires
the co-operation of a whole range of agencies not just those involved
in sport and this must be integral to the project development
from the very beginning. It also requires co-ordination across
government departments to make sure projects like this work.
Football is very powerful and influential in
British sport, and especially now, must be supported in its bid
to win the World Cup in 2006 at which the centrepiece will be
the new Wembley Stadium. With, in effect, a multi-purpose stadium
like the one at Wembley proposed, however, no one sport should
have been allowed to dominate in the way the FA was when public
or lottery money is involved.
THE WAY
AHEAD
Wembley was going to be the focus of a bid for
the World Athletics Championships and was likely to be for an
Olympic bid also. It was not and is not the only option for either
event. It is also the case that, with the decision now made on
Wembley, what may be the right location as the principal stadium
for one is inappropriate for the other. Alternatives need to be
assessed carefully.
Current stadiums like Twickenham which are able
to be converted should be looked at as well as the building of
new stadiums which can be converted afterwards to other uses such
as football. Among other things, what is essential is good access
by public transport. The Olympic Games may offer opportunities
in East London as well as West London.
In our view what is needed for athletics generally
in London is a stadium which can regularly host large events of
grand prix status. This may not be the stadium which would host
the World Championships in athletics.
We are willing and able, in the same way as
the input we are making in respect of the Olympic Games, to play
our full part on behalf of London in assisting with the work which
now needs to be carried out.
January 2000
6 Not printed. Back
| 
