Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum submitted by the Genesis Consortium


  Further to our recent telephone conversation I write to confirm that the Genesis consortium has a fully funded solution to finance and build a new Wembley Stadium. We have held detailed discussions with Sir Rodney Walker, and have recently made presentations to various most professional parties that for confidential reasons I must not name here. Furthermore, we are currently reviewing our funding approach with KPMG at the request of Patrick Carter's office.

  In response to some of the statements that have been made to the Select Committee, we would like to make the following observations:


  It is true that while stadia in the past may have been funded by nations, specialist-banking arrangements, which include the securitising of future revenues and bond schemes, have commercially funded the majority of the stadiums built in more recent years.

  The international funding institution, which has confirmed the ability to fund 100 per cent of the Wembley solution that Genesis is proposing, has funded other national stadia in this manner.


  A build programme of 39 months is not necessary for all stadium designs. It may be correct for the complex design of the current Foster/HOC scheme, but the DLA/Ellerbe Becket stadium design will not require such a lengthy build programme.


    (a)  The IAAF issue needs to be better understood in that perhaps the IAAF did make a mistake in increasing the number of events by staging the Championships every two years instead of four. One of the Genesis members was in fact involved with the IAAF in creating the World Athletic Championships, writing the rules and regulations, and funding the inaugural event in Helsinki in 1983 and is, therefore, fully conversant with the commercial funding arrangements through the IAAF's marketing agency and its sponsors, and the Eurovision television rights agreement.

    The IAAF has made a categorical decision that all future World Championships will be staged in capital cities. They cannot, therefore, recognise a bid from Sheffield, as it is not our capital city. London is a prime target for the IAAF in terms of prestige, presentation and world recognition, and they are still waiting to hear news that the Championships can be hosted in London.

    (b)  The IAAF are fully supportive of the Genesis Wembley plan, and they have confirmed their endorsement in writing.

    (c)  The Football Association has recently stated to us that they would not object to athletics being staged in Wembley as long as the stadium is not compromised when it is in football mode. Our design achieves this. Not only can we accommodate 91,000 spectators with perfect sight lines for football but also have the ability to seat an acceptable 46,000 spectators for the World Athletics Championships.

    (d)  It is highly likely that the debacle over Wembley has caused the problem for UK Athletics and its desire to host a World Championships. There is clearly an opportunity for a new Wembley for both football and athletics being funded through the private sector, and evidence has been provided accordingly.


  Again, there is a misunderstanding about Olympic bids, which needs to be clarified. A stadium that is suitable for the World Athletic Championships is not a stadium that is suitable for the Olympics. A new Wembley would be a perfect facility for some Olympic sports, especially the football events, but Olympic bids require an entirely different approach.

  However, any Olympic bid by London would not be acceptable if a resolution cannot be found for the IAAF World Championships.

  Contrary to arguments put forward at the Select Committee hearing, there is still a very real opportunity for the 2005 IAAF World Championships to be hosted in London. Our stadium design offers a timely and economical solution both for the Football Association and the Government, and will keep any future Olympic bid alive.

  Our design, which is as previously stated, fully fundable by the commercial sector and resolves the problems for both football and athletics, can be built in time. Our architects, DLA/Ellerbe-Becket, are leading designers of sport stadia around the world, and the Genesis design in no way compromises the standards and imagery of a national stadium. It also provides a solution for the Twin Towers, which although moved, are an integral part of our nation's tradition and heritage on the world's sport stage, a tradition endorsed by the President of FIFA in his letter of support for our proposal.

  We would really appreciate any assistance you might offer in us being able to brief your committee further on this matter that we have only touched on in this letter.

  Please feel free to call me today or at any time over the weekend. For too long we have kept very quiet on this matter. We feel it very appropriate to inform the Select Committee of some very important facts on the matter that we know they will find of the utmost interest.

25 October 2001

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 20 November 2001