APPENDIX 19
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the British Olympic Association
WEMBLEY INQUIRY—EVIDENCE
TO THE
CULTURE, MEDIA
AND SPORT
COMMITTEE OF
27 JANUARY 2000
Thank you for the copy of the transcripts of
the oral evidence of Wembley National Stadium Limited and Sport
England[11].
Both sets of witnesses made points in their evidence which related
specifically to the BOA and the Olympic Games. To the extent that
those points appear to us to be factually inaccurate, incomplete
or frankly untrue we have set out the BOA's understanding to assist
the Committee.
A. THE EVIDENCE
OF SPORT
ENGLAND
1. Responding to questions on the National
Stadium Monitoring Committee, Sport England stated[Q. 202] that
"in contradiction to the BOA's evidence, the BOA were in
fact invited to present to the Committee on 20 May 1999—unfortunately
it could not attend". Sport England also referred to a letter
from the former Minister for Sport of 24 May 1999 which mentioned
a meeting of the Monitoring Committee.
The BOA received no formal or written invitation
to attend or to present to the Monitoring Committee on 20 May
1999 and has no recollection of any oral invitation. It is also
true that the BOA received no invitation to attend or present
at any previous or subsequent meetings of the Committee nor was
it made aware that any such meetings were planned or taking place.
The BOA was not informed of the purpose for which the Committee
was established nor of what was discussed. The BOA has requested
copies of all the minutes of all meetings of the Monitoring Committee
but has so far not been offered nor has it seen such minutes (other
than the minutes of the 20 May 1999 meeting which were attached
to WNSL's response on 9 December 1999 to the Ellerbe Becket report).
The letter from the former Minister for Sport
of 24 May 1999 (a copy of which is enclosed[12])
does refer to a meeting of the Monitoring Committee several days
earlier. At that stage however, from the passing reference to
an unspecified Monitoring Committee it was not clear to the BOA
who sat on the Committee, what its remit was or simply whether
it was an internal DCMS group to monitor all the Department's
work. It is only in the context of what we now know, that the
significance of the Monitoring Committee is apparent.
2. Sport England was asked [Q. 234] whether
anyone anywhere was thinking "we might be an Olympic bidder?"
Sport England's reply stated that "at that time, the BOA,
having had unsuccessful bids in Birmingham and Manchester, was
taking stock about what should be done and a couple of statements
by the Association were saying round about that time that they
had not yet decided either to bid or indeed were to bid. Effectively
it was not until the spring or summer of 1998 that the BOA decided
that it would make a bid if it was viable and secondly it would
be London."
The BOA formally decided in its capacity as
the National Olympic Committee at a meeting of the NOC on 4 December
1996 that the only viable option for a future Great Britain Olympic
bid would be from London. At that same meeting it was also decided
to commission a feasibility study into London's viability to host
an Olympic Games and the BOA employed a projects officer to undertake
this work on 17 January 1997. Four working groups were established
to assist in the preparation of this study—the Environment,
Transport, Olympic Village and Facilities Working Groups. Sport
England is represented on the Facilities Working Group and has
attended regular meetings since December 1997.
3. Sport England was asked [Q. 238] why
they have failed to reply to the BOA's letter to them of 5 March
1998. In response, Sport England stated that they found it "somewhat
surprising, because clearly over that period there was a tremendous
amount of contact with the BOA by letter, by telephone, by briefings
and by direct contact."
The BOA's chronology appearing as an appendix
to its written submissions to the inquiry sets out the prolonged
lack of correspondence and interaction between the BOA and Sport
England. In particular, Sport England failed entirely to respond
to the BOA's letter of 5 March 1998 despite the BOA's efforts
to elicit a response in its letters of 20 May 1998 and 10 July
1998.
4. Sport England was asked [Q. 239] why
the BOA was not involved in the formulation of the design brief.
Sport England in their reply stated that at a meeting on 5 July
1999 "the Minister went into great detail on how you were
going to design the stadium in Olympic mode. I think that again
last week it was suggested that three days before the actual launch
was the first time they had seen the actual design. To be fair
to the Minister, on 5 July he had gone through with the BOA .
. . how that was going to be achieved".
No work had been undertaken by 29 July 1999
on how to achieve a solution to accommodate Olympic requirements
at Wembley. At their presentation to the BOA on 26 July 1999,
it was clear that the design brief had not changed from the original
brief to produce a football stadium which when converted into
a track and field configuration would accommodate 65,000 spectators.
Even at that presentation, the designers provided no information
on how to upgrade the stadium to Olympic specifications. In fact,
the BOA is not aware of any evidence to suggest that the Olympic
dimension was part of the design brief. What we were presented
with up to 29 July 1999 were the broad concepts and the broad
design principles of an athletics deck and a later increase in
seating capacity. It was not until the proposed solution of cramming
additional seats into the lower tier was presented to the BOA
in October 1999 that the BOA was aware that there were serious
problems in relation to sightlines.
B. THE EVIDENCE
OF WEMBLEY
NATIONAL STADIUM
LIMITED (WNSL)
1. WNSL were asked [Q. 122] how much consultation
there had been between them and the BOA during the design process.
They replied that there had been none. They continued [Q. 124]
by stating that the first time they had "heard from the BOA
was in the spring/summer of 1999" in relation to the 1948
Olympic plaque. "We are not exactly a low profile organisation
. . . I think one of the questions you should ask is why did not
the BOA come to us and express their concerns some way back? We
assumed that given our contact with UK Athletics, Sport England
and DCMS, the BOA were completely happy."
WNSL were commissioned by agreement with Sport
England to carry out and implement Sport England's design brief
for the stadium. As it was Sport England that conceived the design
brief for the stadium in consultation with the English National
Stadium Trust, it was not unreasonable that the BOA should have
concentrated its efforts on the body responsible for determining
what was to be constructed.
2. WNSL stated [Q. 126] that 80,000 seats
for the Olympic Games "may be the Secretary of State's view,
but that is certainly not the IOC's view or our view. We consulted
the IOC . . . Statements from the IOC are 65,000 would be an acceptable
capacity. What you had was the BOA's view of what they desired
rather than the Olympic requirement."
The IOC in fact stated in their letter to WNSL
of 30 November 1999 that "the IOC does not have any specific
requirements as to a capacity for Opening and Closing ceremonies
at the Olympic Games. The IOC negotiates this number with the
bid or host city. The capacity should be around 75,000 to 80,000
to be considered adequate, but it can go as high as 115,000".
The BOA is the sole authority as to whether
to allow a bid to proceed. Therefore the BOA's needs are a prerequisite.
The IOC's procedures for Olympic bidding put the National Olympic
Committee (the BOA) at the very centre of the process, requiring
them to enter into a formal contract with the IOC. The ultimate
authority as to where and when to bid rests with the BOA. It is
therefore the BOA which must first be convinced of the viability
of all facilities before it considers that a bid should be made.
If the BOA is not satisfied that Olympic requirements have been
met, the BOA will not make or sanction a bid. The BOA's views
are therefore paramount.
3. WNSL stated [Q. 138] that the "Olympics
is a collection of a whole range of sports and the sport we happen
to be talking about at Wembley only is track and field events.
"There is one clear technical adviser in the world of track
and field and that is the IAAF. They lay down the rules to all
track and field events, whether it is the Olympics or the World
Championships or anything. That is the technical requirement we
have conformed to."
Olympic formality dictates that there is a main
stadium for the Olympic Games in which the Opening and Closing
ceremonies take place and in which the track and field events
are run. The main stadium at an Olympic Games would therefore
have a dual purpose. Whilst the IAAF decides on the technical
specification for track and field athletics, the BOA decides on
the adequacy of specifications for the Olympic stadium based on
IOC, IAAF and other guidelines.
WNSL stated [Q. 165] that they "have no
idea why [the seats] are described as crammed". "These
seats which are described as crammed are the same size seats as
currently sit in the Royal Box."
In athletics mode, in order to convert the stadium
from 67,000 to 80,000 the lower tier would require over 80 per
cent more seats to take the lower tier capacity from 16,100 to
29,100 in an area only 40 per cent larger. The BOA stated to the
current Minister for Sport on 20 October 1999, that "if this
can be achieved within the bounds of safety and without compromising
the quality of seating, then it becomes a viable, albeit less
attractive, Olympic option". The BOA was not asked to provide
guidelines on seating quality. It is not unreasonable however
for the BOA to have expected that the quality of seating in Olympic
mode would be of a similar quality to the seating in non-Olympic
mode.
5. WNSL stated [Q. 176] that the BOA "see
themselves in Olympic bid mode now". "If you are trying
to maximise your chances of winning the Olympics . . . the only
way . . . is to build a purpose built Olympic venue. 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 . . ."
The point is not whether the BOA is in Olympic
bid mode now, what is important is that it has throughout this
process sought to ensure that the design and construction of the
new national stadium do not prevent it from being adapted satisfactorily
for the Olympic Games. It is also contrary to the BOA's position
to suggest that it would not be happy unless a purpose built stadium
is built. The BOA has stated on many occasions and in correspondence
to the current Minister for Sport (20 October 1999) that "if
totally independent advisers can confirm that the additional seats
can be added without compromising the quality of seating then
I think it would be unreasonable for the BOA not to accept this
option at the present time". WNSL's view that the BOA requires
a purpose built Olympic Stadium is also contrary to the BOA's
position that the stadium should be designed to be capable of
being satisfactorily upgraded at a later stage in the event of
a successful London Olympic bid.
WNSL also stated [Q. 184] that the "BOA
have become obsessed that if you build a stadium you win the Olympics.
They have forgotten about the raft of other problems . . . Even
if we build the stadium to satisfy the BOA they would not commit
at this point to Wembley being the Olympic venue. I think they
wish to keep their options open. That seems to be a ludicrous
position".
The BOA is fully aware of all the complexities
of staging an Olympic Games. The BOA has not "forgotten about
the raft of other problems". On the contrary, the BOA's Olympic
bid Working Parties have been considering the environment, transport,
Olympic Village and facilities issues for over two years. The
feasibility study which is being prepared in tandem not only considers
these core factors but also other issues such as costs, changes
in law and the media. The resultant 250-page report has concentrated
(as a result of assurances the BOA was given as to Wembley's suitability)
on Wembley acting as the centrepiece of a future London Olympic
bid.
We hope that these explanations may be of assistance
to the committee. Please let us know if there is any further clarification
we can provide.
January 2000
11 HC (1999-2000) 164-ii. Back
12
Not printed. Back
| 
