Supplementary Memorandum submitted by
the British Olympic Association
SYNOPSIS
1. The British Olympic Association (BOA) wish to
clarify the situation regarding the potential usage of Wembley
for a future London Olympic Games following comments made at the
Select Committee hearing of 15 January 2003.
2. The decision to progress work on the basis of
an East London bid was done according to:
- Stated wish of the Mayor of London to see the
Games help bring forward regeneration in the deprived areas of
East London.
- Conclusions of a report by Insignia Richard Ellis
on behalf of the Government/GLA/BOA to investigate potential Olympic
sites for Village and main stadium (IRE report of Nov 2001). It
recommended 4 sites in East London.
- IOC requirements stating the need for the main
stadium and Olympic Village to be in close proximity.
- No athletics provision being provided at Wembley.
Athletics was removed in December 1999 and was only reviewed in
April 2002 with substantial cost adjustments to the earlier proposals.
- Review of other potential sporting sites and
transportation infrastructure in London. The options of both East
and West London Games—with a main stadium location next
to the respective Village proposal— were investigated in
detail in the BOA report of Dec 2000 (provided to the CMS Select
Committee confidentially in Feb 2001).
- Assessment by GLA/LDA alongside Insignia Richard
Ellis of the regeneration and social legacy opportunities in East
London.
- The ability to provide a compact and logistically
attractive Games concept to the IOC by provision of a main stadium,
Olympic Village, media centre, and a number of sports located
close to one another and also close to public transport nodes
to facilitate access.
WEMBLEY
BACKGROUND
3. The BOA had no involvement in the decision to
locate the new national stadium at Wembley leading up to that
decision being taken in 1996.
4. The BOA did not have any input into, or indeed
any knowledge of, the contents of the Lottery Funding Agreement
that was put in place between the English Sports Council, the
Football Association and the English National Stadium Development
Company Ltd. Until the BOA was able to view a copy of this in
late 2000, we were unsure as to what was specifically included
in the contractual obligations for the new Wembley Stadium
especially with regard to Olympic use.
5. From 1997-1999 Wembley formed the proposed focal
point of the Olympic feasibility work that was taking place. The
BOA was given assurances from the English Sports Council that
the Olympic provision was being catered for, although we were
not invited to have input into any issues concerning the stadium.
6. As documented in evidence submitted to the CMS
Select Committee in January 2000, Simon Clegg wrote to Derek Casey
(then Chief Executive of ESC) on three occasions about the lack
of BOA involvement.
"Despite our offers of assistance to provide
the Olympic dimension, this has not been sought. We have been
left wondering who is providing this input and how much weight
is being given to the requirements of the facility in the context
of a future Olympic bid."
"If the Olympic dimension is not fully considered
by the appropriate people at the design stage it will be irretrievable
and any shortfall (in Olympic terms) in the main stadium will
seriously devalue any future Olympic bid".
"I do not want to be presented with a fait
accompli which will not meet the necessary future Olympic
requirements and will necessitate our announcement that we are
unable to mount a bid to stage a future Olympic Games."
7. Derek Casey submitted written evidence to the
Committee in April 1999 stating that "The major conditions
[of the Lottery Funding Agreement] are to: Develop a National
Stadium in England¼The
minimum capacities are 80,000 seats for football and rugby league
and 65,000 seats for athletics (capable of upgrade to a higher
figure for the Olympic Games)" (section 19.1, p.3).
8. Having now viewed the Lottery Funding Agreement
the bracketed words "capable of upgrade to a higher figure
for the Olympic Games" do not exist, a view confirmed by
Bob Stubbs (Chief Executive of ENSDC/WNSL) on 14 December 1999.
9. The Lottery Funding Agreement also erroneously
details UK Athletics as the eventholder for the Olympic Games,
rather than the British Olympic Association.
WEMBLEY
EVIDENCE
10. For further background information, we would
also refer to the BOA's written and oral submissions to the CMS
Select Committee over Wembley from 19992001.
EAST
AND
WEST
OPTIONS
IN
BOA REPORT
11. Following the decision to remove athletics from
Wembley on 1 December 1999, the decision was taken to assess two
options—a West London and an East London option.
12. The IOC requirements are laid out in the Manual
for Candidate Cities, Olympic Charter and Host City Contract.
IOC documentation is freely available on their website www.olympics.org.
The Manual states that "proximity of [competition] sites
to each other and to the nerve centres of the Games (Olympic Village,
IBC, MPC, etc) and to the city centre is highly recommended. Site
concentration if planned sensibly will certainly ease the running
of the Games."
13. With regards to the Olympic Village—the
IOC state in the IOC Olympic Village Guidelines that "the
Olympic Village must be close to the main Olympic stadium or a
nucleus of competition venues, in order to keep the athletes travelling
time to a minimum". This situation is the same for the needs
of the athletes taking part in the Paralympic Games.
14. In 2000, the IOC introduced the Candidature Acceptance
Procedure which is a preliminary questionnaire designed to whittle
down prospective candidate cities by means of a general evaluation
of infrastructure. This is to prevent cities which do not possess
the basic infrastructure from spending large amounts of money
on a candidature.
15. The Olympic Village section (weighting 4) assesses:
- Location of Village (with particular emphasis
on travel times to venues)
- Post Olympic use
- Overall Village concept
- Financing
16. Only the location of Village/travel time to venues
are awarded a 'high weighting' within this section.
IOC AND
INTERNATIONAL
FEDERATION
REQUIREMENTS
17. Sporting requirements at Olympic Games are governed
by the relevant International Sports Federations. The requirements
for Olympic athletics are based upon the model for the World Athletics
Championships which has no seating capacity stipulation.
18. In 1999 the IOC had a requirement from the 2004
Manual for Candidate Cities that stated "The desired capacity
of the stadium to be used for official ceremonies is approximately
75,000".
19. Despite the statement in Mr Cunnah's letter about
correspondence from the IOC (dated 9 July 1998) this figure of
75,000 was confirmed via correspondence from the IOC's Manager
for Candidate City Relations and separately from the NOC Relations
Director (both 1 December 1999).
20. In 2001 the IOC brought out the 2008 Manual for
Candidate Cities which states "In addition to spectators
from the host country and from around the world, the proposed
venue for the Opening and Closing ceremonies must be sufficient
to accommodate accredited athletes, team officials and other entitled
persons".
21. In terms of numbers, the Olympic Games now has
to cater for up to 17,000 athletes and officials, 5,000 Olympic
Family VIPs, 2,000 judges and referees, 20,000 members of the
media, 7,000 sponsors, 45,000 volunteers and domestic and overseas
spectators.
22. Recent Olympic Games and 2008 bid cities main
stadia have the following capacities:
| 1996 | |
Atlanta | 85,000
|
| 2000 | |
Sydney | 115,000
|
| 2004 | |
Athens | 80,000
|
| 2008 | |
Beijing | 80,000
|
| bidder | Toronto
| 100,000 |
|
| bidder | Paris
| 75,700 |
|
| bidder | Osaka
| 80,000 |
|
| bidder | Istanbul
| 80,000 |
|
INSIGNIA
RICHARD
ELLIS
REPORT
23. The Key Stakeholders Group decided in 2001 to
endorse an East London bid following an independent evaluation
of land availability conducted by Insignia Richard Ellis. After
the Mayor's election in 2000, he stated clearly that he wished
to see an Olympic Games used to help speed up the regeneration
of the East End of London.
24. The Key Stakeholder's Group, via the London Development
Agency, employed IRE to assess the land availability, costs and
opportunities of sites across London. This was in order to identify
the potential options available for a stadium, village and media
centre. The executive summary of this report is also included
as Appendix E in the full Arup report (which has been shown confidentially
to the CMS Select Committee).
25. On the first page the report states:
"The Olympic Village, Media Centre and Indoor
Arena need to be located within reasonable proximity of the Olympic
Stadium. We interpret this as a maximum of 30 minutes". (1.2)
26. ***
27. ***
BOA REPORT
ON
HOSTING
THE
OLYMPIC
GAMES
28. The full BOA report was delivered in confidence
to the CMS Select Committee in February 2001.
29. The BOA report into the outline feasibility and
requirements of staging the Games in London was delivered to officials
in Government on 15 December 2000. It was presented to the then
Secretary of State (Rt Hon Chris Smith MP) and the then Minister
for Sport (Kate Hoey MP) on 1 Feb 2001. It was presented to the
Mayor of London on 9 March 2001. Sport England and UK Sport have
also had copies since 2001.
30. The report details the outline of the Facilities
Working Group with the key requirements being:
"International Federation Requirements which
have provided the necessary baseline criteria. A travelling
time of 30 minutes to most competition venues from the Village.
Location of suitable training facilities within a 45 minutes sector
from the Village." (p.97)
31. The working group had representatives from BOA,
London International Sport and Sport England.
32. The report details 3 Olympic options which are
outlined on p.97
"With the uncertainty, then removal of athletics
from Wembley, the focus of the group has now realigned itself
to looking at main stadium sites at Northolt (west), Stratford
(east) and Picketts Lock (east)."
33. On p.99 the report says:
"The most advantageous site for a stadium in
East London is on the northern part of the railway lands at Stratford.
The stadium would be next to one of the principal transport hubs
in Europe and close by the most likely Olympic Village site."
34. Between pp.97 and 207 the options for sports
are given predicated on either a West London Games based around
a Village and Stadium at Northolt Aerodrome or an East London
Games based upon a Village at Hackney Wick and a main stadium
at either Stratford or Picketts Lock.
35. The proposed athletics options are on p.117 which
details an East London (Stratford) scenario with a new stadium
venue at Stratford.
36. On p.215 the text in the Village section reiterates
the IOC's requirements about close proximity to the main stadium
which is again noted on p.235.
37. On p. 236 the report states:
"The chief criterion is the ease of access to
the main Olympic venue."
38. "In the West London option this is likely
to be a new stadium located at, or close to, the site of the Village.
In East London the accessibility of Stratford, in terms of public
transport (enhanced by the CTRL link) means that this location
is preferable for the siting of a new stadium in this sector of
London." (p.236)
39. The issue of quality of the bid with regard to
this is also discussed:
"The general locational criterion for the village
is a thirty minute travelling time from an assembly point in the
Village to the athletes' changing or warmup facilities at
the main stadium. Quicker journey times would enhance the bid."
40. Explicit references to the main stadium location
in the East are also made in the transport chapter (19).
41. Village venues were sought initially according
to the following criteria:
- At least 50 hectares
- Reasonably well located with the respect to the
main Olympic stadium (initially using Wembley as the focal point
in the West and Stratford in the East)
- Reasonable degree of certainty as to their availability.
(p. 242)
42. In summary the BOA report of December 2000 states
throughout that there are two location options (West and East).
At the time of this report there was no athletics provision in
Wembley and a notional new stadium development was considered
as part of an Olympic Village development. In the East a Village
development in Hackney Wick/Temple Mills was the primary option
with a main stadium development either at Stratford, or at the
newly conceived Picketts Lock (dependent on the outcome of discussions
on this).
43. At no point in the report is there an option
of an East London village and a main stadium at Wembley.
ATHLETICS
POSTWEMBLEY
44. Following the decision to remove athletics from
Wembley on 1 December 1999, the option of athletics at Wembley
has not been an issue for discussion in Olympic terms as focus
turned to Picketts Lock. Following the collapse of Picketts Lock,
and a subsequent hiatus in proceedings, the BOA were asked to
comment alongside UK Athletics on the new platform solutions being
devised for Wembley.
45. The basis of this evaluation was a report by
Citex/Sport Concepts which was prepared for Sport England on 30
April 2002. This was a review of the athletics provision in Wembley.
46. The report states on p.4:
"In light of the decision by the Mayor of London
that any London Olympic bid should be focused on East London,
for the purposes of this report and to more accurately compare
like for like, the 1999 cost is based upon the 67,000 spectator
seats illustrated in the design at that time without the additional
temporary seats to deliver an 80,000 capacity Olympic facility."
47. On p.17 the report says:
"For the purposes of this report, the British
Olympic Association have stated that sightlines are a compliance
issue for UK Athletics, given that the study relates to the staging
of the IAAF World Championships in Athletics."
TIMESCALES
48. Following the election of Athens as Host City
for 2004 in Lausanne in 1997, the BOA made the decision that due
to continental rotation (Athens 2004, Turin 2006) and Beijing's
strong candidature then a bid for 2008 would be unlikely to succeed.
2012 therefore became the next opportunity to mount a viable and
successful bid.
CONCLUSION
49. If we are to bid for the Olympic Games in 2012
then this must be a credible, technically viable and attractive
proposal to the members of the IOC. The compactness of the Games
is important as is the issue of legacy of facilities which the
Stakeholders Group has always sought to address. We thank Mr Cunnah
for the offer of Wembley as a potential venue for the Olympic
Games, which is in line with the obligations set out in the Lottery
Funding Agreement. We hope to see the finest football stadium
in the world staging the final of the 2012 London Olympic football
tournament.
50. However for all the reasons stated above the
need to create a new stadium at the heart of a compact and viable
Games concept is important to the development of a worldbeating
Olympic bid centred on the Lower Lee Valley. The potential benefits
to this deprived area of London, and the UK as a whole, should
not get snagged on the desire to reincorporate Wembley into an
East London proposal that will therefore be destined for failure.
51. As the BOA said at the Select Committee on 14
January:
"The more you disperse the Games, the more you
dilute the effectiveness of your bid and at the end of the day
there is no silver medal in this race. If we are going to bid
for the Olympic Games we have got to put together the most compact
and the most attractive bid in the eyes of the voting constituency
because at the end of the day if it is not acceptable to them
then all the rest of the issues and work that has been done are
purely academic."
16 January 2003
| 
