Olympic Games  Updated: 2011.07.27.

The Olympic juggernaut: As Britain makes savage savings, 2012 spending is careering recklessly out of control. By Robert Hardman 2009.02.14

A short walk from London’s Olympic Park, there is a sporting venue which is bright and shiny and ready to go.  Indeed, it does not need so much as a lick of paint. Just open the turnstiles, fire up the tea urns and you could have 10,000 Olympic spectators in their seats in minutes.  But what makes this venue so remarkable the price. It is absolutely free. That’s right. Zilch.

So how come the organisers of the 2012 Games have no intention of using it?

Enlarge  

The London Olympics are due to cost us at least £9.3 billion on present projections, that’s £1,200 for every man, woman and in London — and yet here is a proven public sporting venue available for absolutely nothing.  ‘The Olympic organisers can have it for because it would be such an honour just part of the Games,’ says its owner, Barry Hearn, chairman of Leyton Orient Football Club, of League One.

There will, however, be no Olympic sports taking place at ‘The Orient’.  Mr Hearn’s all-seat arena in Brisbane Road would make, say, a very decent hockey stadium, saving the taxpayer over £20 million and the task building a brand new 15,000-seat Olympic hockey centre just across the tracks.  What’s more, it’s not too late.

The Olympic authorities have yet to sign contracts on a hockey stadium. Yet they say they will even consider using Orient’s ground.  But times are hard.

  Extravagant: No amount of money is being spared on building the stadium.

The East End is no more crying out for multimillion-pound hockey facilities than Glasgow wants Morris Dancing.   But why let common sense and a global recession get in the way of Olympian extravagance?  The facts of life do not apply to the Lords of the Rings. The rest of us mere mortals must slash our budgets as the economy collapses.  But at least we can all sleep soundly in the knowledge that the Olympic monster is wolfing down more money than ever.

An Olympic budget which stood at £2.375 billion when London won the Games in 2005 has already quadrupled to £9.3billion.  And we are only half-way to opening night.

The Government is begging us to believe that the bill will not go any higher. But Jack Lemley, the last man to run London’s Olympic Delivery Authority — which is spending the budget — has said that London’s final bill could be a dire £20billion.  In the past few days alone, Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell has announced that she is spending another half a billion pounds of our money (from contingency funds) to bail out the Olympic village, where the athletes will stay, and the media centre.

The original plan was for private developers to finance these schemes. But they operate in the real world and cannot find the cash, so taxpayers will take the hit.  Do the 20,000 journalists expected in London really need a £355million media centre? In fact, it works out at a preposterous £17,500 for every hack.

Temporary boost: £104million is being spent on Stratford International station to accomodate Games visitors

At least the Government plans to claw back a few £'s by selling the media centre later on (ITV is allegedly contemplating a move to Hackney). No such luck with the Olympic Stadium.  Last week, the centrepiece of the Games generated another piece of comedy accounting. When London bid for the Olympics, the budget for the stadium was £274million.  By last week it had ballooned to £547 million. Apparently, someone had miscalculated the loadings on the roof. So the taxpayer is left paying millions to repair a roof that does not yet exist.

But the real scandal of the 80,000-seat stadium is its post-Olympic future — or ‘legacy’, as Lord Coe likes to call it.  Once the Games are over, most of the stadium will be torn down to leave a 25,000-seat athletics site.

The original plan was to find a commercial tenant to keep the thing going. But this week, the London Mayor, Boris Johnson, admitted that there were no takers.  Deep down, everyone knows this is a financial disaster waiting to happen. Even sitting idle, it will cost London around £1million a year in maintenance bills.

   Plan: The view above Stratford

Here is a capital city already blessed with two 80,000-plus stadia (Wembley and Twickenham).  And we are spending half a billion pounds on yet another arena which will last a fortnight, then shrivel to nearly a quarter of its size and sit empty.  What’s more, there were two commercial outfits which were prepared to move into the stadium: Saracens Rugby Club — and Leyton Orient Football Club.  The problem is that neither could make it work, with an athletics track separating the crowd from the pitch.

The Olympic organisers insist that the athletics track must remain. Legacy, innit. So bang goes any return on that £547million.  ‘I can’t tell you how frustrating it’s been,’ says Barry Hearn at Leyton Orient. ‘I would have loved to move our club into that stadium.  'We have been meeting consultants with clipboards for three years, but now they say it’s too late to change the design and the athletics track must stay. There’ll be grass growing between the seats.’

Not so, insists a spokeswoman for Lord Coe’s organising committee:  ‘London deserves a decent athletics venue and the stadium can work as a venue for lots of events. We don’t need yet another football stadium.’  We don’t need another white elephant, either. The £750 million Millennium Dome was a good example of what happens when wishful thinking by grand public committees shunts commercial realism aside.

The root of the problem is the Olympic mindset. ‘We can’t change our plans,’ say the organisers. ‘So what if the world has turned upside down? This is the Olympics.’  So the ODA is still spending more than £300 million on a swimming centre which was originally due to cost £75 million.  The reason? They hired a swanky architect whose ‘clever’ roof design has quadrupled the price.

Who is to blame? Well, take your pick. The 2012 Games are, variously, the responsibility of GLA, LOCOG, GOE, ODA, LDA, DCMS or IOC (to name the more important acronyms on the list).  And who’s in charge? Lord Coe? Boris Johnson? Tessa Jowell? Gordon Brown? Who knows? But if it ruins Britain, watch them scarper.

The spending continues. In the next few months, the ODA will sign contracts for an artificial whitewater river in Hertfordshire for canoeing events.  The sum is undisclosed but, given that the whitewater course in Athens cost £30 million eight years ago, this one will cost at least as much.

Now, many people know that there is a perfectly good international whitewater course outside Nottingham — with plenty of rooms at the nearby university campus. So why not save at least £30million and send the Olympic canoeists there? Out of the question, say the organisers.  No wonder, the public — and, increasingly, the Opposition — are angry at the yawning gap beyween the real world and the Planet Olympic.

The comparison with the 1948 London Olympics is an important one.  The so-called ‘Austerity Games’ cost just £600,000 (and made a small profit).  The athletes ate rationed food, slept in barracks and were handed cups of tea by Boy Scouts as they crossed the finish line. But the sense of occasion was as thrilling as any in the 21st century.

‘We don’t want to hold events in old sheds, but nor do we want to be left with big empty buildings afterwards,’ says Nigel Evans MP, a Tory member of the Commons select committeee monitoring the Games. ‘There are too many Olympic bureaucrats who think they have a blank cheque.’

The Shadow Olympics Minister, Hugh Robertson, has another concern: ‘I think the organisers are happy for the press to focus on stadium costs because there is one expense which could blow the budget sky high.  That is security and no one is discussing it.’ Just last month, General Sir David Richards, the next head of the Army, said uncertainties about Olympic security kept him ‘awake at night’.

Now, there are some notable success stories. The London Organising Committee (LOCOG) is still well on course to find enough sponsorship, TV revenues and ticket sales to cover the £2 billion cost of running the actual Games without any pubic money. The ODA — which is building everything — has just announced savings of £193 million in various reclamation and transport costs.

But there is still much to do if Britain — not just London — is to avoid paying an Olympic overdraft for generations. The rest of the world has had to tear up its plans and ‘think the unthinkable’.  The Olympic movement can follow suit — or die.

Olympics stadium hailed as beacon for London's future - From

The Daily Mail (London)

Last updated at 11:16 07 November 2007

The Olympic stadium was today hailed as a "beacon" for London as the final designs of the venue were unveiled.

Olympics chiefs said the architectural flagship of the 2012 Games would stand out on the east London skyline and herald a "new era" of stadium design around the world.

Reaching the biggest milestone yet for the Games project, the designs detailed how the 80,000-capacity venue would be transformed after the Games in an unprecedented feat of engineering.

This is the first image of the Olympic Stadium that will be flagship of the 2012 London Games. Work on the 80,000-capacity venue will start next April and will cost £496 million

Mayor Ken Livingstone said: "The stadium will act as a beacon symbolising the extraordinary transformation and regeneration of east London as a result of staging the 2012 Games and the permanent legacy of new sports and community facilities for London."

Stadium architect Rod Sheard, of HOK Sport, said: "The design is a response to the challenge of creating the temporary and the permanent at the same time - that is the essence of the design for the stadium.

"A new era of Olympic stadium design will be launched in 2012, demonstrating how a successful event can be blended with the long-term needs of the community."

Scroll down for more...

The Olympic stadium has been hailed as a 'beacon' for the capital by Mayor Ken Livingstone

  Latest pic of The London Stadium - 12.11.2008.  The circular venue will host the track and field events as well as the opening and closing ceremonies.

The main features of the design are:
• A sunken bowl housing the field of play and a lower tier. The 25,000 permanent seats bring the fan closer to the action.
• 55,000 seats on an upper level to be removed afterwards. Games chiefs are looking for a buyer, possibly the host of the 2016 Olympics.
• A cable-supported roof 28 metres in circumference, providing cover for two thirds of the spectators. Games chiefs have taken the calculated risk of not having a more expensive full roof as the event takes place in the drier weeks of the year. After a six-month study they are convinced the venue will not be plagued by cross-winds that might invalidate world records.
• A "wrap" around the stadium structure decorated with art, probably illustrations of former Olympic greats. The fabric curtain also serves to cover the stadium's rudimentary temporary structure.
• Groups of pods situated around the concourse for merchandise and catering facilities These are inspired by the "fan zones" at last summer's football World Cup in Germany. 

John Armitt, chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority, said: "London's Olympic stadium is designed to be different.

"'Team Stadium' have done a fantastic job against a challenging brief - their innovative, ground-breaking design will ensure that the Olympic stadium will not only be a fantastic arena for a summer of sport in 2012 but also ensure a sustainable legacy for the community who will live around it."

Construction firm Sir Robert McAlpine - builders of Arsenal's Emirates stadium - is expected to begin building work on the venue as early as next April, which would be several months ahead of schedule.

Meanwhile Olympics chiefs continue the search for an "anchor" tenant, having ruled out the possibility of it becoming home to a Premiership football club such as West Ham or Spurs.

The ODA says the venue will have a "multi-sport" use but is primarily a much-needed world-class athletics facility for London as promised to the International Olympic Committee during the bid.

London Olympics chiefs received a high-level endorsement today following concerns that the facility might not meet standards for international competition once it is converted after 2012.

Lamine Diack, president of the International Association of Athletics Federations, appears satisfied that an athletics warm-up track sufficiently close to the stadium - a prerequisite of IAAF meetings - is integral to London's plans after 2012.

He said: "The sport of athletics has been in desperate need of a worldclass competition facility in London especially for international events. These plans guarantee long-term benefits to Londoners and the future of international athletics competition within the city."

Last month the ODA announced that the stadium budget had risen from £280 million to £496 million.

They said the increase was largely due to the inclusion of VAT and the fact that costs were now at 2012 instead of 2004 prices.

Sebastian Coe, chairman of the organising committee, Locogs, said: "The stadium will stand for everything we talked about in the bid - the theatre within which the Games will be played out and leaving behind a top class sporting and community facility."

London poised as countdown to 2012 Olympic Games begins

London's 100-strong army of officials and organisers began heading home from Beijing, nursing sore heads from the handover party but buoyed and inspired by the enormous challenge which now lies in store for 2012.   By David Bond, Sports Editor
Last Updated: 8:22AM BST 26 Aug 2008

Vision: London has an awesome act to follow after Beijing's impressive show of organisation

Besides the embarrassing and insensitive Myra Hindley gaffe, London 2012 officials generally said they felt pleased and relieved with the way Sunday's closing ceremony had gone. There were a few grumbles at the sound quality in the Bird's Nest for London's eight-minute handover show, and there is no question that the sight of Leona Lewis, Jimmy Page and David Beckham aboard a red bus was dwarfed by the gigantic scale of the closing spectacular.

London's planners say they will learn valuable lessons from that experience as minds turn to exactly what image Britain wants to project to the world at the opening and closing ceremonies in 2012. But they should not dwell too much on their first foray into the Olympic spotlight. Far more important issues await.

During the seven-year cycle of any host city, there are clear and predictable peaks and troughs. After the euphoria of being selected there usually follows a massive backlash. London has already felt that, having spent the past three years under pressure about the £9.325 billion budget.

There then follows a lift during the preceding Games as the Olympic flag is transferred and public excitement rises at the prospect of seeing close up what they have just been watching on television.

What tends to happen next is an even bigger backlash than the first, as the feelgood factor is quickly replaced by the sober reality of having to deliver the venues and structure needed for the Games. However, because of the extraordinary performance of the British team, officials are privately hoping that they are in for a slightly longer honeymoon.

"For the last three years we've all been banging on about the magic of the Games and the great thing about Beijing is that people at home have felt that magic for themselves," one London 2012 official said.

Carrying that enthusiasm all the way to 2012 is never going to happen, but what the British team might have done is buy the project a bit of goodwill. That is likely to be boosted as the main Olympic venues start rising from the ground in Stratford over the next 12 months.

The next six months are crucial for the Olympic Delivery Authority as they look to build on the promising start they have made with the main stadium's construction, and solve the financing problems of the village and media centre.

The biggest hurdle lies slightly further down the road, though. Boris Johnson's election as mayor has already shifted the project's political balance of power and, with a general election defeat looming for Labour in 2010, more changes look likely.

Officials say they can only hope that the golden memories of Beijing help to lessen the impact of any political infighting which may derail the project as it gears up for its four-year push for the finish line.

The Legacy
London's promise to re-engage the youth of the world with sport was one of the key reasons why the IOC awarded the Games to London. However, there is uncertainty over how to deliver that promise.
Culture Secretary Andy Burnham has urged governing bodies to drive up the numbers of people playing sport, but Lottery money is being diverted from grassroots sport to help pay for 2012.
As for the main Olympic Stadium, Boris Johnson wants to reopen the debate about moving a Premier League team into the venue, but the ODA say it is too late and Lord Coe dare not renege on another of his promises to the IOC, namely to deliver a permanent national home for athletics.

Key Players
Lord Coe is chairman of the London Organising Committee and is responsible for staging the Games.
John Armitt chairs the Olympic Delivery Authority, the body delivering the stadiums and venues.
Tessa Jowell is the Olympics Minister and acts as the Government’s official representative.
Mayor Boris Johnson is ultimately in charge of the Olympic Park project and represents London’s taxpayers, who are contributing £1 billion to the cost.
Lord Moynihan, the chairman of the British Olympic Association, has a seat on the Olympic board and will play a role in ensuring we have the strongest possible team in 2012.

The Pitfalls
With the Olympic flag due to arrive in London today, the pace of the project will start to pick up.
The International Olympic Committee and Beijing organising committee will fly to London in November for a debrief on what the Chinese got right and wrong. The IOC will also make an inspection before Christmas, and another in the spring.
Perhaps the biggest worry is the financing of the athletes’ village and media centre. The credit crunch and falling property values mean the contractors cannot raise £450 million for the £2 billion project. Already the size of the village is being scaled back.
Another potential hurdle is a change of Government, possibly in 2010, which could create instability.

The Budget
The budget for the Olympic Park infrastructure and venues at Stratford is £9.325 billion – almost four times the £2.4 billion estimate at the time of London’s winning bid in 2005. Included in the figure is a contingency fund of £2.7 billion.
Despite the increase, the Government said the £3 billion projected cost of the stadium, village and other key venues had not gone up. They put the rise in overall funding down to general regeneration and infrastructure costs, contingency provision, VAT and security.
However, the stadium cost has doubled to more than £500 million since the bid, while the aquatics centre has trebled to £242 million.

Britons doubt (2012) Olympics will be a success

   Most Britons believe the Government is incapable of managing the 2012 Olympics, according to a survey.  Just 11 per cent of those questioned said the Government was up to running the project.

The study, by Opinium Research, questioned 2,000 British adults before and after the Beijing Games.  It suggests that Great Britain's most successful Games in a century has generated some excitement about 2012 but there are still concerns.  Nearly two-thirds feel proud of Britain due to the team's performance in Beijing and nearly half now feel much more excited about hosting the Games.

But Gordon Brown has missed out on any reflected glory - 60 per cent said that the performance has not made them feel more confident about the Government.  The biggest concern is over the budget. Just 12 per cent expect that the Games will come in on budget or within 10 per cent.  And just 21 per cent think the Olympics will be good for Britain's international reputation, a rise from 15 per cent before the Games.

Mark Hodson, head of research at Opinium, said: "The Beijing Olympics has ignited people's enthusiasm for 2012, mostly due to the amazing success of our medal-wining athletes.  "However, people continue to have major concerns. Nearly a third of Brits still think that the Games will not provide any long-term benefits to the UK, and taxpayers' money spent on the 2012 Olympics would be better spent on other things such as the NHS, transport and infrastructure."