Money talks in the London 2012 script
In sport, as in politics, the modern buzz word is the 'narrative'.
Chelsea have been struggling with theirs, while Manchester City look like they are ready to change the script. London 2012 has always been keen to get its narrative right.
In the week leading up to that magical moment in Singapore in July 2005 Sebastian Coe and his team hid themselves away from the bright lights of the Orient preparing the presentation.
It worked so well that after London surprised Paris, one International Olympic Committee member put it to me: "I never thought I would see this - the French behaving like the tight-lipped English while the English, in very Gallic style, showed flair, passion and vision."
As Friday marks the halfway point between winning the bid and the start of the Games themselves, this is a good time to take stock of what the organisers have achieved so far and how much work still remains to be done.
In winning the bid Britain finally laid to rest the tag of loser that had haunted it for years. Manchester twice and Birmingham failed with Olympic bids; the country was almost reduced to third-world status when London - having got the right to stage to the World Athletic Championships - said it couldn't manage it; and all this while the new Wembley was built horrendously over budget and horribly late.
Yet in a way that winning narrative has also burdened 2012 and how the Games is perceived. So in the run up to Singapore every time Paris stressed it already had a stadium and London's bid was a virtual bid, 2012 made much of how many of the facilities were ready.
The fact is that the Olympic Park was a computer design. The story so far is the success of the Olympic Development Authority in turning those computer graphics into hard reality on the ground.
Here, in contrast to the Wembley mess, London 2012 is ahead of target and nobody who has visited the site at Stratford in east London can be anything but impressed by how much has been achieved.
Every visit seems to open a window on what the park will look like in 2012. And recall that this was a site that required extensive decontamination and where a park had to be constructed from a diverse area spread over five boroughs, diverting rivers and burying pylons in the process.
But the narrative, meant to be the most beguiling and strongest part of the project, has proved the most problematic.
So the bid book had said the cost would be £2.4bn. This cost was arrived at after the government had looked at the figures estimates by Arup, the consulting firm used by the British Olympic Association to argue the case for the bid. The government increased its estimates of £1.8bn to arrive at the bid book figure.
The final budget figure of £9.3bn was not arrived at until March 2007, after 18 months and much government wrangling.
Now as Ken Livingstone, the then London mayor whose insistence made Stratford the venue, admits when the bid book figures were prepared in 2004, nobody expected London to win. Treasury insiders have told me that the government department did not give it much attention as they did not think London would win. In Ken's colourful phrase it was seen as Ken and Tessa's (Tessa Jowell, the Olympics minister) little toy and in any case all bid books try to play down the costs.
It was only after the victory in Singapore that the Treasury had a hard look at the figures and insisted on having a big figure for contingency, other costs were added and we arrived at the final figure.
However all this hassle about costs could have been avoided had on the return from Singapore had the party-line been: "We did not expect to win but what a victory. But this victory comes at a price. There are also enormous regeneration costs and that means the Olympic budget is not what the bid book says but much more."
Yet for months afterwards even as the Olympic Bill was being piloted through parliament briefings given to MPs talked of the Olympic budget being £2.4bn. The government insist the final budget is robust.
However the £9.3bn assumed that there would be private sector funding of the Olympic village and other parts of the Olympic park, to the tune of £1bn.
With this money not available the contingency, set aside for cost overruns, is being used to make up the lack of this private money.
Before the downturn there was much confidence that the entire contingency of £2.7bn would not be used up, now it would be a surprise if it is not.
Of course this fits in with the new Olympic narrative. That in a time of bust the Olympics is the only good news story; the one place where Britain is booming and new houses are going up not being repossessed.
The irony here is the narrative is now being written by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who as chancellor was most sceptical of the Olympics and required a lot of persuasion from Tessa Jowell to come on board.
What is more doubtful is whether the centre-piece of the Singapore narrative can be met - that London deserved to make history as the first city to stage the games for the third time because Britain would show how sports can be used to help the youth of the world.
All Olympic Games promise legacy and do not deliver.
London's legacy promises took it to a higher level but the jury is very much out as to whether they can be delivered.
Add to this the still open question of a security plan promised at the end of the year but still not forthcoming and this means that while the halfway house has success on the ground to celebrate there are still issues that need to be dealt with. And no certainty as to whether they can be dealt with successfully.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~20~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"Treasury insiders have told me that the government department did not give it much attention as they did not think London would win." I hope that you reported the "insiders" to the police - leaking information to journalists in the way you describe is illegal.
Complain about this comment
Lets just hope the stadias and improvement to transport areas are built on time!
Complain about this comment
Mihir,
I know it's the halfway point between the bid and the games starting, but if you've nothing to say, please don't spend column inches saying nothing, unless it really matters to you that much to mention that IOC members talk to you and you've been to the site.
Basically all you've said in many many words is that we won the bid, the budget then rocketed, the Chancellor became Prime Minister, progress is underway on the Olympic site, the Games promised a legacy of participation which will be hard to achieve and nobody will know for many years how well that goes, and they are late in delivering a security plan.
All old stuff rehashed, and half of it wasn't even exciting news when it broke.
And that's the inside line on sport is it? I might start calling my washbasket the inside line on fashion.
Complain about this comment
I feel like I'm definitely in the minority of supporters of 2012. It feels like the public/press see it as the next Millennium Dome, waiting to fail so that they can say 'told you so'.
But if the nation gets behind it, its going to be brilliant; a spectacular success and I don't see why the British public have to be so typically miserable about the whole issue.
Of course it won't beat Beijing, but how do you beat a computer generated opening ceremony, dubbed singers and a win at all costs mentality?
We'll do the best we can and given the gloomy economic spirit of the country which is bound to hangover for the next 3 years, it will be the perfect tonic. Get behind the Games!
Complain about this comment
p-unit-neville - I think most people who enjoy sport are looking forward to the actualy Olympics but quite frankly a lot are fearing a lot of taxpayers money will go to waste and there won't be a great legency left afterwards.
The main sports will still be football,rugby and cricket despite the fact for a couple of weeks people will take some interest in cycling and swimming but most of the sports in the Olympics to a vast majority of Brits are minority sports or expensive to compete in like sailing/rowing.
Complain about this comment
P-unit,
I can assure you I'm excited about the Games, just depressed by Bose's pointless article about it!
I do agree wiyh kingwfc4ever though - I think it is the fear that financially we'll make a pig's ear of it that brings about the negative headlines, and the journey so far has exacerbated concerns.
Wembley Stadium is amazing now it is finally here, but we made a right old hash of building the thing financially, and the overriding worry is that the Olympics could be the same. Except with the Olympics, it simply can't take years too long since there is a rather strict deadline, so getting done on time could stretch the taxpayers purse strings to a painful extent.
Still, whilst the Millennium Dome in istelf was a disaster, the Olympics would do well to create a stadium to match it's legacy: the O2 must absolutely rake it in now and as a music venue it is far superior to its equivalents of similar capacity in London!
Complain about this comment
Ofcourse some of the complainers will be people who don't like sport/Olympics anyway or hate Labour and wish money was spent elsewhere which is fair enough (we live in a free country so withint the laws can have their view) but then you'd have endless debates in does the NHS or Educatio need more etc.
I went to the Millennium Dome once and it seemed ok but I was quite young and not aware of the costs etc and I know it was left standing for a number of years which did cost money.
Think there is a concern about the crowds that will be at certain events too which seem popular elsewhere in Europe but not hear like handball/Water Polo.
It will be the events that GB are likely to succed in that will be popular...
Mind you it probably rain for the Rowing and Sailing!
Complain about this comment
Ah, the Olympics. A time where the leaders of countries get together, forget the carnage they have caused back home and, in some cases, in other countries too. A few slaps on the back, a bit of waffle about world peace and harmony and all's well.
I despise the Olympics. I despise the Olympics for preaching on abotu the purity of sport whilst simultaneously athletes cheat gratuitously and allegations of corruption regularly pop up in connection with the IOC. I despise the amount of money frittered away on it. I despise the hypocrisy in allowing Beijing to stage what was one of the greatest PR stunts in history.
I didn't want London to win the 2012 Olympics. Taxpayers cash going on sporting ventures with absolutely no clue of the legacy left behind. 'Oh, but it will provide 30,000 jobs'. So what? Are 30,000 jobs a good return for all those billions spent? Build a new hospital. Build new schools. They will provide jobs. Build new railway track and stations needing guards, conductors etc. Of those 30,000 jobs, how many will still be in existence two years after the Games are over?
'Ah Andy, the tourists will bring money into the country'. Well, yes. Mostly into London. The nation pays as a whole and London reaps the rewards of tourist cash and improved sporting facilities. Meanwhile, other areas more deprived than London can smile, knowing their contribution has gone to making a capital city miles away a little better.
Personally I'd favour having the Olympics in one venue each and every time. it stops it becoming an event that politicians can hijack for their own needs. It would restore a bit of credibility to the IOC and stop countries wasting armfuls of cash.
Complain about this comment
' didn't want London to win the 2012 Olympics. Taxpayers cash going on sporting ventures with absolutely no clue of the legacy left behind. 'Oh, but it will provide 30,000 jobs'. So what? Are 30,000 jobs a good return for all those billions spent? Build a new hospital. Build new schools. They will provide jobs. Build new railway track and stations needing guards, conductors etc. Of those 30,000 jobs, how many will still be in existence two years after the Games are over?'
Well I did want the Olympics in London! With the country in urgent need of new infrastructure projects to provide jobs in a recession, 2012 is a blessing in disguise. Planning for a load of hospitals and schools now will mean that it will take a few years for them to even start to be built, meaning that jobs will come into existence after the recession has passed and we will have to import labour from overseas. We need jobs now, and 2012 is providing that.
Anyway it would seem the government is building new school and hospitals anyway, so stop moaning. Those jobs won't exist 2 years after they are build either - thats what you get in constuction, there is a time limit to how long a job on one site lasts! lol!
Complain about this comment
Neville, the reason we are miserable is because £9.3bn is a lot of money to waste on something which will benefit only a tiny minority - the athletes, construction workers, and the people of Stratford who get a 25K seater stadium they won't use.
To put this number into perspective, in 2002, we spent £65bn on the NHS.
This year we will spend £36bn on Defence (yes those people who are fighting and dying for us in Afghanistan and Iraq).
Not only that, £9.3bn is just the estimated cost, history tells us these White Elephants will cost us much more in the long term in upkeep.
Complain about this comment
You seem to forget that the 9.3 billion is not just being spent on building sports stadiums. It's being spent on other things like improving the transport infrastructure, building a new park, building new homes, building a new shopping centre, building new utilities, decontaminating a wasteland, etc etc....
Complain about this comment
'This year we will spend ?36bn on Defence (yes those people who are fighting and dying for us in Afghanistan and Iraq).'
Yes... and how much is that since the invasion of Iraq? Over a 100bn one suspects. Some people could argue we are wasting billions on an illegal war in Iraq. Afganistan is a different matter.
'To put this number into perspective, in 2002, we spent ?65bn on the NHS.'
Yes and? The government threw money at the NHS which has not really improved much and billions have been wasted on middle managers and a load of other jobs it did not need. I suspect over recent years more than a 100billions has been spent and not much has been acheived. So basically the argument shows that it is not how much you spend but how that money is properly implemented. As such with most Olympic venues well ahead of time to be finished, the allocation of money to the Olympics is being far better used than the money put into the NHS.
Complain about this comment
"all this while the new Wembley was built horrendously over budget and horribly late."
Still opened before 2010 though eh, Mihir?
http://tinyurl.com/7xe5mo
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/england/2345107/Wrangle-could-stall-Wembley-until-2010.html
Complain about this comment
thing are on the move
Complain about this comment
Can you ever write a story without using the words me and I constantly, Mihir? It becomes very irritating and makes you sound like an egomaniac.
Complain about this comment
On another subject, better the taxpayers get an Olympics for their money than just giving it all to the banks where it will disappear to keep overpaid fat cats in the style they are accustomed to.
Complain about this comment
Lord Coe is rather shy about how much remuneration he has received so far.
With £3,500,00 plus being talked about, this may explain why he was such an enthusiast for the Games.
Since much of this is from the public purse, he should come clean and stop the speculation.
Complain about this comment
100% behind the games - the country deserves a treat, and compared to the cash spent bailing out the banks (or should that be, bankers), the Olympic budget is nothing - and indeed the recession in theory at least could see the amount spent actually begin to fall rather than spiral out of control.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS