Annex 21
Letter, 23 January 2001, from Sport England
to the Chairman of WNSL
ENGLISH NATIONAL STADIUM, WEMBLEY
I am writing to you as a matter or urgency in
relation to progress on the Wembley project, following your announcement
of 18 January on athletics. I must say we are disappointed that
you have not replied to my letters of 3 and 18 January 2001, specifically
my offer to meet with you to discuss the key issues. Given your
reported meetings with many parties over the past few weeks, it
seems something of an oversight that, apart from the unexpected
opportunity to chat in the back of a cab, you have not sought
to discuss your proposals with us, as the major funder of the
project to date. Neither have I had a substantive reply to my
letter to Bob Stubbs and Adam Crozier (copied to you) of 8 January.
I have now asked and arranged to meet with Bob
on Thursday of this week to discuss a range of issues, not least
the need to ensure that there is an agreed way forward for the
project by the end of January. I am hopeful that the FA may also
be able to attend. It is critical that there is clarity as to
the revised package in order for the Council to consider fully
the implications of further extensions to the section three milestone
under the Lottery Funding Agreement which currently ends on the
31 January.
There is, however, one specific issue upon which
I would welcome clarification by return of post. We have been
picking up from a variety of sources the following scenario which
has been attributed to WNSL:
— It would be technically feasible
to accommodate athletics at Wembley possibly as shown in the report
and drawings received by us from WNSL on 18 January in respect
of both the stadium and the warm up track. However, WNSL are not
prepared to host the 2005 World Athletics Championships on the
basis that there is insufficient time to guarantee completion
of the project for the event. As I understand it, the key issue
is not whether the project will be completed on time, as the current
programme estimates completion in the autumn of 2004. The key
issue is whether a contractor will commit to this timetable under
the construction contract.
— However, it was suggested that WNSL
is intent on retaining the technical capability to host athletics
after 2005, and indeed, the obligations under the Lottery Funding
Agreement in respect of athletics events. I would be grateful,
therefore, if you could clarify the design solution to be employed
should athletics events be committed to the stadium in the future.
— In these circumstances, WNSL believe
that they should be under no obligation to pay £20 million
to Sport England.
I would welcome your urgent clarification that
the position outlined to you in my letter of 18 January is correct,
ie. that, following your announcement, the £20 million will
be repaid in accordance with your re-submitted application of
29 September 2000, and the decision of Council on 4 December.
As you know, whilst we were not party to the discussions, we know
from subsequent correspondence that this was a key part of the
agreement between the FA and the Secretary of State in December
1999, and is critical to the funding package for the Lee Valley
National Athletic Centre project.
We shall write to Bob under separate cover itemising
the issues to be discussed at our meeting on Thursday. In the
meantime, I look forward to your response.
|
