Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the British Olympic Association
1. What is the status of the draft study submitted
to the Government by the end of 2000? At what date and by whom
will it be made public?
1.1 The BOA's draft study was submitted
to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on Friday 15 December
1.2 The study remains in draft form and
as work in progress. It remains subject to change to take into
account future developments and the opinions of other key stakeholders.
Further substantial feasibility work will continue to be undertaken
over the coming years. It would be premature for the study at
this stage to be more than a draft, because the decision as to
whether to bid or not for an Olympic Games will be dependent upon
many factors including the feasibility of hosting such an event
and the level of commitment from Government, the Mayor of London,
other London agencies and the public.
1.3 The BOA met again with officials of
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 9 January 2001
to discuss further initial steps in any potential bidding process.
The BOA is scheduled to meet with the Secretary of State, the
Minister for Sport, other members of Government and officials
on 1 February 2001 to present on the issues covered in the draft
study, the Olympic Games bidding framework and to suggest and
discuss in further detail the next steps in the process. The BOA
wrote to the Mayor of London on 15 May 2000, seeking to open the
dialogue on a potential London Olympic bid. The BOA has since
written to the Mayor of London, most recently on 19 January 2001,
seeking to schedule a similar more detailed presentation and discussion.
Neither the Mayor of London, nor the GLA, has seen the draft study.
It is our intention to make a presentation on the prospects for
a London Olympic bid to the Mayor in the very near future.
1.4 Once the Government and the Mayor of
London have had the opportunity to consider our presentations
and to discuss matters further with the British Olympic Association,
those two key stakeholders will need to decide whether or not
to commit funding and resources to exploring the broader feasibility
issues involved in bidding successfully for a London Olympic Games.
1.5 The BOA will also need to involve other
governmental and non-governmental organisations in ongoing dialogue.
1.6 While this process is continuing, it
would be premature to make the draft study public. First, the
draft study contains sensitive confidential, commercial information.
If made public, the study's analysis of potential village sites,
potential Olympic venue sites and main stadium location options
could serve to distort the housing market and land prices in London
1.7 Secondly, there will need to be an expression
of public support (required as part of the IOC bidding process)
and a public consultation exercise, to allow the people of London
and the people of the United Kingdom to decide for themselves
whether or not they wish to support a bid to host an Olympic Games.
That exercise is best served by carrying out a professional exercise,
monitoring responses in an organised fashion. Making the draft
study public at this stage without key stakeholder commitment
and without input from the Government, the Mayor of London, the
GLA, other London and UK agencies and London Boroughs on key strategic
questions including funding, transportation and organisation,
would risk fracturing public opinion, inducing media speculation
and undermining any bid from the outset.
1.8 The draft study itself is a complex
document containing some 400 pages of detailed research into IOC
Games selection criteria; the IOC candidate acceptance procedure;
national, regional and city characteristics; legal aspects; customs
and immigration formalities; environmental protection and meteorology;
finance and economic impact; marketing; the general sports concept;
the sports of the Games and their requirements; the programme
of the Games; the Paralympic Games; the Olympic Village; medical
and health issues; security; accommodation; tourism; transport;
technology; communications and media; Olympism and culture; the
provision of guarantees and the IOC timetable. Publishing that
amount of information now without an indication of other key stakeholder
support, with much feasibility work still to be carried out and
with many questions remaining unanswered, would be counterproductive.
1.9 The public must and will be involved
in the process, but it is unlikely that it would be appropriate
for the draft study itself as submitted to Government or as amended
over time, to be published until nearer the deadline for the submission
of the `Questionnaire for Cities Applying to Become a Candidate
City to Host the Games of the XXX Olympiad in 2012' in the event
of us deciding to bid for this event.
2. Is it the case as stated in the memorandum
from London International Sport (SF15, page 2) that Picketts Lock
has been ruled out as the athletic venue for any London Olympics?
If so, when was this decision made and why?
2.1 The memorandum from London International
Sport states that "a decision was made fairly early on that
Picketts Lane was unlikely to be the principal stadium for athletics".
2.2 At a meeting of the Picketts Lock forum
on 27 July 2000, the BOA agreed that in the interests of ensuring
that the planning timetable for constructing the Picketts Lock
Stadium for the 2005 World Athletics Championship could be achieved,
that any requirement for the stadium to host the track and field
events or to act as the main stadium of a London Olympic Games
would be removed at that stage.
2.3 Nevertheless, it was discussed that
despite the forum's decision in relation to track and field athletics,
the stadium could nevertheless be considered as a venue for other
Olympic events in the event of a decision being taken to bid for
a London Games.
3. What was the BOA's response to Sport England's
consultation on proposed changes to the Lottery Agreement with
Wembley National Stadium Ltd and the Football Association?
3.1 The British Olympic Association wrote
to Sport England on 10 October 2000 (attached at Appendix 1*)
(responding to Sport England's letter of 5 October 2000), re-stating
the position the BOA has consistently held for over two years
that the National Stadium should be made available to the BOA
on a "`not for profit' basis in conjunction with any future
Olympic Games requirement". In addition, the BOA reiterated
its request that the Lottery Funding Agreement be amended to show
the BOA and not UK Athletics as the event organisers for any future
Olympic Games. A change of this nature would reflect the true
position more accurately in the Olympic Games context.
3.2 The BOA had already written to Sport
England on 26 April 2000 on the same subject (attached at Appendix
2*) requesting that the Lottery Funding Agreement be amended to
acknowledge the BOA as the rights holder for any future Olympic
Games and seeking to ensure that the National Stadium be made
available to the BOA on a "not for profit" basis in
conjunction with any future Olympic Games. Having not received
a reply to that letter, the BOA wrote again to Sport England on
15 June 2000 on the same issue (attached at Appendix 3 )
requesting a reply. Sport England's response of 6 July 2000 updated
the BOA on current progress but did not address either issue relating
to proposed amendments to the Lottery Funding Agreement.
4. What does the BOA view as the main lessons
of the Sydney Olympics for any future London Olympic bid?
4.1 The BOA learned from its experience
at the Sydney Olympic Games that what was right for Sydney, will
not necessarily be right for London. Although concentrating 14
of the 28 sports in Homebush Bay proved extremely successful in
Sydney, a facilities park based on the Homebush model is not necessarily
a prerequisite for Olympic success, nor necessarily the best model
4.2 The main lessons which the BOA has learned
over the past 104 years of bidding for, organising and attending
Olympic Games, were largely reinforced at the Sydney Olympic Games.
The main lessons for any future London Olympic bid are set out
in the BOA's memorandum to the CMS Select Committee in this inquiry
(December 2000) and in particular at paragraph 22 (i) to (vii).
4.3 In addition, the BOA witnessed the positive
effect shifting the use of private vehicles to highly efficient
public transport had on easing the flow of spectators and competitors.
5. What role is envisaged for a) Wembley and
b) Picketts Lock in any proposed facilities strategy for a London
5.1 The BOA's draft study submitted to officials
on 15 December 2000 highlights options for potential Olympic Games
facilities in all 28 Summer Olympic sports. The BOA in its work
has examined in substantial detail the options which a) Wembley
and b) Picketts Lock might present for any London Olympic bid.
The draft study examines the duration for which facilities are
required; International Federation requirements; warm-up facilities;
capacity; distance from the village; other venues and press and
broadcasting centres; spectator access; current use; the need
to build new permanent or temporary structures; estimated cost;
and after use.
5.2 Until such time as the key stakeholders
in any future London Olympic bid have had the opportunity to consider
the options which the BOA has researched and until such time as
they have formulated the questions which need to be asked to determine
whether or not Wembley or Picketts Lock could form part of a facilities
strategy, it would be premature for the BOA to draw conclusions
in isolation. Any role for Wembley and/or Picketts Lock would
be dependent to a very large extent on:
(a) the results of ongoing feasibility in
relation to Picketts Lock;
(b) the views of each of the other key stakeholders;
(c) the designs of Wembley Stadium and Picketts
Lock becoming finalised and the facilities being constructed.
6. Does the British Olympic Association consider
that any London Olympics should be focused on East or West London?
6.1 The BOA's draft study sets out a variety
of options not only for sports facilities but also for a potential
Olympic village, a media village, a main press centre, an international
broadcasting centre and a main stadium. The BOA has considered
all areas of London and all potential venues and facilities in
and surrounding London. However, the detail of the location of
individual facilities set out in the BOA's draft study is commercially
sensitive and must therefore remain confidential until consensus
has been reached and a decision made to proceed. The draft study
was made available to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
on a confidential basis and the Department accepted its sensitivity
and agreed to maintain that confidentiality.
6.2 The BOA's draft study sets out options
based on an East and West London scenario (both of which options
involve sites in North and/or South London). It would be premature
and unwise for the BOA to express a preference for either an East
or West London option at this embryonic stage until further feasibility
work has been carried out with the support of other key stakeholders.
Substantial questions remain unanswered, not least of which are
the comparative costs, and the relative and reasoned preferences
of the other key stakeholders in any bidding process.
7. What are the BOA's views on possible locations
for a main Olympic stadium and associated venues and on means
of ensuring their long-term viability?
7.1 The BOA's draft study sets out a variety
of options for main stadiums. That information is at this early
stage commercially sensitive and therefore confidential for the
reasons set out above. Much work remains to be carried out to
assess the environmental impact, the long-term viability, the
financial viability of building new venues, converting old venues
or building temporary facilities. Once the BOA has an indication
from key stakeholders of their level of commitment, the BOA will
have a clearer idea as to whether it is appropriate to commit
further time, resources, energy and funding to examine in further
detail the feasibility of any proposed main stadium for an Olympic
8. What is the current state of the BOA's
consideration of possible sites for a London Olympic village?
8.1 The BOA has carried out substantial
work with the London Planning Advisory Committee (now part of
the Greater London Authority) into examining 51 possible sites
for an Olympic village throughout Greater London. The work of
the BOA's Village Working Group from 1997 onwards, has examined
issues such as land procurement, the needs of the village, the
purpose of a village, sustainable development, the site design,
service infrastructure, heating and power, landscape design, water
resources, solar heating, minimising heat loss, bio-diversity,
waste management, building design, environmental aspects, crime
prevention, transport and location. Each site was analysed against
a set of objective criteria and ranked accordingly.
8.2 That analysis forms one chapter of the
BOA draft study.
9. What is the current state of the BOA's
consideration of a transport strategy for a London Olympic bid?
9.1 Chapter 19 of the BOA's draft study
submitted to Government sets out the BOA's substantial and detailed
work considering transport issues associated with bidding for
and staging an Olympic Games in London within the IOC's requirements
(as set out in the Manual for Candidate Cities for 2008) and within
the objectives outlined in A Transport Strategy for London 1996.
9.2 The BOA's work was carried out in association
with the Metropolitan Police, London Docklands Development Corporation,
Government Office for London, London Planning Advisory Committee,
Association of London Government, Railtrack, Traffic Director
of London, London Transport Highways Agency, British Airports
Authority and Transport for London. The work to date has considered
air travel, sea travel, road travel, innovations to reduce congestion,
public transport, rail travel, river travel and also proposes
options for a way forward.
9.3 Once a consensus is established among
key stakeholders and once there is commitment for the process
to move to the next stage, and preferably once a decision has
been taken on principle venues, the next logical step would be
to commit further funding to carry out more detailed and more
focused work on any specific requirements to upgrade or redevelop
any particular elements of transport and the transport network
for any London Olympic Games.
10. What is the BOA's current assessment
of the total public cost associated with staging the Olympic Games
10.1 The Committee's question is unclear
as to precisely what is meant by the term `public cost', and whether
that means Government costs, local authority costs, public/private
partnership costs, the costs of the organising committee or a
combination of some or all of these.
10.2 Budgeting and accounting sensibly for
the costs and revenues associated with bidding for and staging
an Olympic Games is a unique challenge. It requires the balancing
of governmental costs and revenues with the income and expenditure
of the organising committee, those of private sector and those
of public/private partnerships. Organising committees at previous
Olympic Games have accounted for the costs of constructing airports,
roads and railways, visitor accommodation, sports venues, the
Olympic village and media centres as costs of the Organising Committee
budget. Others, however, have treated such costs as governmental
costs on the basis that capital municipal projects have a longer-term
public benefit beyond the Olympic Games. At the Montreal Olympic
Games of 1976, the Canadian Government did not grant to the City
of Montreal any financial guarantees, leaving the organising committee
to self-finance the Games with support only from the City of Montreal.
The deficit of $2,029 million dollars was covered exclusively
by that Guarantee, which to this day is still in operation, seeking
to balance the deficit. Whereas at the Seoul Olympic Games of
1998, 53 per cent of costs were covered publicly, 25 per cent
by the Organising Committee and 22 per cent privately. The reported
surplus of approximately $148 million attributed as a Games surplus
is due arguably in large part to the high comparative degree of
public finance. The attached chart (at Appendix 4)
shows that where public investment is removed from the calculation,
the vast majority of Olympic Games since 1972 created a Games
surplus of around $500 million.
10.3 Many of the costs associated with staging
an Olympic Games are offset by the sale by the IOC of worldwide
sponsorship and television rights. Those rights sold for over
$1 billion at the Sydney Olympic Games and that figure is likely
to rise at future Games. Games costs are also offset by the sale
of local sponsorship, licensing and suppliership rights and tickets.
Traditionally, the main expenditure of the Organising Committee
is spent on capital investment in sports facilities, the Olympic
village, the main press centre, the international broadcasting
centre, the costs of staging the ceremonies and programmes, providing
medical services, catering, transport, security, the Paralympic
Games, advertising and promoting the Games, administering pre-Olympic
events and co-ordination.
10.4 The BOA's draft study sets out a detailed
analysis of the financial aspects of bidding for and staging an
Olympic Games including the various options as used by previous
host cities and by 2004 bidding cities. The draft study also highlights
the economic impact of staging an Olympic Games on the host country,
setting out the macro-economic aspects, the cost-benefit analysis,
organising committee revenues looking at past Olympic Games host
10.5 Further detailed financial analysis
of the public, private and organising committee and other revenues
and expenditures is needed. Key stakeholders are likely to require
their own independent cost-benefit analysis of bidding for and
staging an Olympic Games in London. Until such time as there is
consensus to proceed to the next stage and until it is clear what
principal sites are preferred and so what transport and other
infrastructure development would be required, any study of the
likely costs and revenues associated with a London Games would
be wholly provisional and potentially misdirected and misconceived.
A full financial feasibility assessment we believe will greatly
assist key stakeholders and indeed the people of the United Kingdom
to decide whether it is worth their while to support any London
11. Does the BOA consider that the new IOC
Games selection system outlined in its memorandum meets the requirements
set by the Government of the system which is seen to be transparent
and honest and can enjoy the confidence of all bidding cities
and of the entire Olympic movement?
11.1 The BOA welcomes the Government's own
assessment of the new bidding process for the election of host
cities for the Olympic Games as adopted by the IOC session in
December 1999. In paragraph 26 of the Government's memorandum
to the Committee for this inquiry (December 2000), the Government
states that "the International Olympic Committee have substantially
revised their bidding process including a pre-selection stage
which draws up a shortlist. The Government welcomed the IOC's
enquiry to investigate allegations of corruption as it is imperative
that the choice of an Olympic venue should be seen to be made
in a manner that is transparent, open and fair. The Government
fully supported the IOC's efforts to root out any indications
of corruption and supported the system of bidding as was recommended
by the BOA. The UK welcomes any move to restore confidence in
11.2 The BOA positively promoted the case
for reform of IOC procedures. Although only time will tell, the
BOA believes that the new bidding, evaluation and selection system
will be proved to be transparent and honest, and will enjoy the
confidence of all bidding cities, the entire Olympic movement
and the public.
12. Has the Manual for Candidate Cities for
2008, been published? If so, how did it differ from previous editions
and could a copy be provided to the Committee. If not, when will
it be published?
The Manual for Candidate Cities for 2008 was
published at the very end of the year 2000. We have pleasure in
enclosing a copy of the manual for the Committee's assistance
(attached at Appendix 5).
13. When does the BOA expect to hold formal
discussions with the British Paralympic Association about a London
Olympic bid and what consideration has been given to the Paralympic
requirements in the BOA's work so far?
13.1 The reforms adopted by the IOC in December
1999 make it a formal requirement that the Paralympic Games must
be organised in the same city as the Olympic Games. The obligation
for the host city to organise the Paralympic Games must be included
in the host city contract. It is also a requirement for the Paralympic
Games always to follow the Olympic Games.
13.2 Chapter 13 of the BOA's draft study
deals entirely with issues surrounding bidding for and staging
a Paralympic Games. The British Paralympic Association was fully
involved in drafting the chapter of the BOA's draft study which
deals entirely with the bidding process in relation to the Paralympic
Games, the Paralympic strategy, and the Paralympic principles
for working within the IOC's Olympic Games framework. We look
forward to continuing to work closely with the BPA in the future.
1 Not printed. Back
Not printed. Back
Not printed. Back