The budget is about to be revised upwards, sponsors are filing for bankruptcy and nobody knows how to pay for the athletes' village - these are just some of the headaches organisers of the next Olympics are facing.So, Vancouver, if you knew then what you know now would you have bid for the 2010 Winter Games?"We absolutely would have. It's all about timing. If this crisis was going to happen during our lifecycle, it's happened at the right time. Despite the challenges, we're very positive."
Those are the words of Dave Cobb, the Vancouver 2010 organising committee's (Vanoc) executive vice-president for revenue, marketing and communications, the money and "message" man.Compare that blast of Canadian confidence to Olympic Minister Tessa Jowell on the prospect of preparing for London 2012 during an economic meltdown. Last November, Jowell said we "would almost certainly not" have bid for the Games in 2005 if we had known just how nasty the second half of 2008, all of 2009 and we're not sure how much of 2010 would be.Admittedly, she has rowed back from this remark almost as furiously as Redgrave and Pinsent, but it was hardly the Churchillian conviction many were hoping for from the project's cheerleader-in-chief within government.And the mood wasn't helped a month later when senior International Olympic Committee member Kevan Gosper pitched up to tell London 2012 chief Sebastian Coe: "I think you and your team face the toughest time - short of war - to get the project to 2012." Hold on a minute, Kev, even the sourest of soothsayers predict a recovery before 2012: poor Vancouver has got to put on the slipping and sliding show in the full face of the storm's wintry blasts. Talk about northern exposure.But if they're regretting pipping South Korea's Pyeongchang to the right to host the Games in 2003 they're doing an admirable job of disguising it."We knew there would be ups and downs in the economy and we have been very fortunate that for the first five years it was all up and only in the last six months has it gone down," said Cobb."From a revenue standpoint our strategy was to get out there as early as possible - we're at over 90% of our sponsorship target and we've sold all our tickets. We're in good shape."
There is much that London, which has just passed the halfway mark between winning the bid and staging the Games, can learn from Vancouver's pragmatic and proactive approach. By using existing venues and tapping into already-planned (and largely paid-for) infrastructure improvements, Vancouver 2010 has been able to keep costs down.The process hasn't been entirely smooth - the forecast for the venues budget has been breached, the athletes' village development in Vancouver (there is another at Whistler, the famous ski resort) is in real bother and Vanoc is set to confirm it will need more money to stage the Games.But it is important to put this in context: the price tag for the venues is a modest £330m, what happens to the athletes' village on Vancouver's waterfront is somebody else's headache (Vanoc has just hired the development) and Vancouver 2010's running costs should go no higher than £1bn, half what Coe and co will spend on staging London 2012.
The organisers have also done a superb job in selling the Games. Vanoc has built on warm memories of the Calgary Winter Olympics in 1988 (a financial if not sporting success for Canada) and dismissed any lingering national hang-ups from Montreal's infamous Summer Games.
Those 1976 Games are almost as famous for the havoc they wrecked on the city's finances (the good people of Montreal only finished paying for the "Big Owe" in 2006) as anything the likes of Nadia Comaneci and Sugar Ray Leonard achieved in competition.
So despite concerns about the expense, the logistical challenge of using two sites (Vancouver and Whistler) 80 miles apart and the paradox of basing a Winter Olympics in a sea-level city with average February temperatures of five degrees centigrade, the Canadian public has bought into the 2010 concept. The box office opened in October and in just five weeks orders were taken for £190m worth of tickets - the Salt Lake Olympics in 2002, in comparison, took in £40m in its first nine weeks.
"Those tickets went on sale in the middle of this financial crisis," Cobb told me. "Winter sport is incredibly popular here, especially ice hockey. "But we're finding it doesn't really matter what sport it is. Sales were great for the sports we don't know so well. Canadians just want to experience the Games. "The Summer Games are different. They're larger and there are more sports that won't be familiar to the host country, wherever that might be. "So it's important to educate people about the different opportunities so they don't just plan to see the athletics and swimming. Everybody will want to see those.
"I would encourage the Locog team (London 2012's organising committee) and the British people to think more broadly than just wanting to go to that athletics final. They should grab the chance to experience as much of the Games as they can." The "experience" is something Cobb and his team are passionate about. Like the rest of us, they were impressed by the grandeur and organisation of the Beijing Games, but they also noticed the empty seats and flat atmospheres. It is something Vancouver 2010 is determined to avoid. London is too and will be watching how the Canadians balance the ticketing needs of sponsors and top brass, with the more democratic desire to pack 'em in, without compromising security.
London 2012's planners would also do well to look at Vancouver's legacy planning. What happens when the athletes, blazers and commentators go home has become the most fundamental question for any host city, apart from Beijing, that is, which didn't seem to care at all.
By mainly using venues that are already viable, the Canadians have given themselves an easier task than London's plans for using sport as a regeneration vehicle. But Vanoc has also taken the precaution of starting an endowment fund to finance those venues that may struggle in the future, in order to prevent them becoming millstones around tax-payers' necks.
But legacy isn't just bricks and mortar - Vancouver 2010 will be deemed a failure if it doesn't inspire a generation of kids to get off their sofas. And while Canada failed to win a single gold medal in Calgary, 18 years later in Turin they won seven and finished fifth in the 2006 Winter Olympics medal table. None of this will necessarily come as news to Coe and Locog, but with knockers lining up, and a difficult year ahead, London 2012 should look to Vancouver for counsel and encouragement.
"I look at (Locog's) situation now as very positive," said Cobb. "They're already secured a large number of big sponsors and while it may be tough to sign up anymore this year or the next, they've still got three and a half years. If they can get through this tough spell, they'll be able to enjoy a resurgence of commercial interest in the last year or two. "Apart from that, my advice to London would be to do as much as they can, as early as they can. "We've got a year now to run through all kinds of simulations so we can anticipate any problem. I think many organising committees haven't had that luxury because they've been so focused on putting the last nail in the last venue."
So the message from Vancouver is clear: get on with it but don't panic.
9 Feb 2009
Update: 2012 budget already using contingency fund
As I revealed last week the Government has today confirmed that they will be dipping into the contingency fund to make up for the lack of private money for the building of the Olympic village and media centres. I said several hundred millions would be taken. It has turned out to be £394 million from the Olympic Funders Group contingency, the part of the budget designed to guard against risks outside the control of the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA).
A further £67 million has been released from the ODA's programme contingency making a total of £461 million for the village and media centres. Of this, £326 million will go towards the Olympic village and £135 million towards the International Broadcast and Main Press Centres (IBC/MPC). In addition there is money for what may be called general contingency, £35m for a number of other projects like power lines and stadium work.
All this adds up to total of £496m, leaving £1.5 billion in the contingency pot. When the budget of £9.3 billion was agreed by ministers back in March 2007 it contained a contingency of £2.7 billion. The contingency was designed to meet cost over-runs not shortfall from the private sector, which is what it is now largely being used for. Then no-one had anticipated a credit crunch. Indeed in addition to public money the Olympics was meant to attract over £1.2 billion of private money for the village and media centres.
Private sector money may ultimately come but the project has to be funded and unlike other projects such as Wembley you cannot put the start date back. Despite this, Olympics minister Tessa Jowell remains confident the contingency is adequate and the budget robust. She said: "With private sector funding now much more difficult to secure because of the global economic downturn, it is right that we take steps to safeguard these projects. "The extra funds we have allocated today come from existing contingency funds within the overall £9.3 billion budget.
Lower than anticipated construction inflation and good progress across the project has reduced risks, meaning that the overall budget is unchanged and enough contingency funds remain. We are determined to deliver the Games within budget."
But as the contingency gets eaten into, and with no knowing how the credit crunch will bite, the robustness of the budget will be tested.
A further £67 million has been released from the ODA's programme contingency making a total of £461 million for the village and media centres. Of this, £326 million will go towards the Olympic village and £135 million towards the International Broadcast and Main Press Centres (IBC/MPC). In addition there is money for what may be called general contingency, £35m for a number of other projects like power lines and stadium work.
All this adds up to total of £496m, leaving £1.5 billion in the contingency pot. When the budget of £9.3 billion was agreed by ministers back in March 2007 it contained a contingency of £2.7 billion. The contingency was designed to meet cost over-runs not shortfall from the private sector, which is what it is now largely being used for. Then no-one had anticipated a credit crunch. Indeed in addition to public money the Olympics was meant to attract over £1.2 billion of private money for the village and media centres.
Private sector money may ultimately come but the project has to be funded and unlike other projects such as Wembley you cannot put the start date back. Despite this, Olympics minister Tessa Jowell remains confident the contingency is adequate and the budget robust. She said: "With private sector funding now much more difficult to secure because of the global economic downturn, it is right that we take steps to safeguard these projects. "The extra funds we have allocated today come from existing contingency funds within the overall £9.3 billion budget.
Lower than anticipated construction inflation and good progress across the project has reduced risks, meaning that the overall budget is unchanged and enough contingency funds remain. We are determined to deliver the Games within budget."
But as the contingency gets eaten into, and with no knowing how the credit crunch will bite, the robustness of the budget will be tested.
London confidential
I've been determined to investigate 2012's efforts to stop people talking about the details of the Olympic project since I was told last year that new staff at London 2012 were required to sign confidentiality agreements.
I wondered why a project with so much public money going into it - £9.3bn - needed to be so secretive.
Now I have learned that companies building the facilities in east London are being forced to sign draconian gagging orders to keep quiet about the details of the project. Facing constant controversy about the cost of the Games, Olympic bosses are making companies sign unusually severe "confidentiality undertakings" which restrict them from talking publicly about all details of the work for six years.
I've seen copies of the contracts which even give the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) the right to search a company's premises and e-mails for evidence if they suspect that an employee has passed on information to the media or another third party.
The companies I have talked to are shocked that they have to sign a document which effectively allows 2012 to walk into their premises and start searching them. Legal experts have told me these contracts are draconian. You can read more about my investigation in the BBC News story, including the response from the ODA.
When I went to Beijing with the Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell in November 2007, I listened to her telling the Chinese about the importance of freedom of speech around their Games last summer. But it appears there are serious efforts being made to prevent people from talking publicly about our Olympics - unless 2012 want them to. One leading human rights lawyer has also told me that there are concerns about freedom of speech and human rights in the UK's Olympic Act which gives special powers to the Government regarding the organisation of the Games. Organisers of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics have told me they have no gagging orders in place ahead of their Games. So why have we?
Adrian Warner is BBC London's Olympics correspondent.
I wondered why a project with so much public money going into it - £9.3bn - needed to be so secretive.
Now I have learned that companies building the facilities in east London are being forced to sign draconian gagging orders to keep quiet about the details of the project. Facing constant controversy about the cost of the Games, Olympic bosses are making companies sign unusually severe "confidentiality undertakings" which restrict them from talking publicly about all details of the work for six years.
I've seen copies of the contracts which even give the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) the right to search a company's premises and e-mails for evidence if they suspect that an employee has passed on information to the media or another third party.
The companies I have talked to are shocked that they have to sign a document which effectively allows 2012 to walk into their premises and start searching them. Legal experts have told me these contracts are draconian. You can read more about my investigation in the BBC News story, including the response from the ODA.
When I went to Beijing with the Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell in November 2007, I listened to her telling the Chinese about the importance of freedom of speech around their Games last summer. But it appears there are serious efforts being made to prevent people from talking publicly about our Olympics - unless 2012 want them to. One leading human rights lawyer has also told me that there are concerns about freedom of speech and human rights in the UK's Olympic Act which gives special powers to the Government regarding the organisation of the Games. Organisers of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics have told me they have no gagging orders in place ahead of their Games. So why have we?
Adrian Warner is BBC London's Olympics correspondent.
Is Britain an Olympic superpower?
There was a wonderful moment towards the end of Five Live Sport's London 2012 special last week when co-host Steve Parry got a bit carried away with the excitement of it all and declared that Britain had become an "Olympic superpower".
My initial reaction was to think, "Steady on, Steve, does superpower status really go down as far as fourth place in the table?" I'm fairly sure there were only two superpowers after all the medals were dished out in 1945.
And shouldn't we perhaps do it a few more times to suggest we have really arrived? After all, England were a rugby union superpower in 2003, and I'm sure there was talk of cricket supremacy in 2005. Might it be an idea to try this under-promise, over-deliver stuff my wife has mentioned in relation to my DIY skills?
And then I thought again (it happens). Why shouldn't Steve call it as he sees it? Because if you're willing to look beyond the rattling of football's transfer window - who would have thought that Jonathan Ross is now worth only one and a bit Craig Bellamys? - it's possible to find evidence Parry might be on to something. And last week that evidence was in ready supply. Youth sport doesn't get much of a look-in, media-wise, in this country, even football.
Perhaps the most encouraging performance of recent years by (male) footballers in an England shirt came at the 2007 European Under-21 Championships in the Netherlands. The team was minutes away from the final - England's first in the competition since 1984 - when the hosts scored to send the game to extra time. Penalties followed, 32 of them, and you can probably guess the rest.
The team's Dutch courage attracted some interest but the bigger story for most was David Bentley's decision not to play in the tournament so he could rest up for the upcoming Premier League campaign. But the main point is that it was a rare good showing by a British team at that level. Italy has dominated the competition for 20 years. Need I say more? So that is why I was so impressed with Team GB's showing at the 2009 Australian Youth Olympic Festival, a five-day multi-sports event for 13 to 19-year-olds.
Britain's tally was 68 medals, 26 of them gold: a significant improvement on the fine AYOF debut they made in 2007, when they went home with 14 golds in their 48-medal haul, and more than enough to suggest there is more to come from our Olympians in 2012 and beyond. What was most encouraging about the performances was their range. Team GB sent competitors for 11 of the 17 sports on the schedule. It won golds in nine of those and medals in all but one.
There was the customary return on investment from rowing - seven golds, two silvers and three bronzes - and further evidence that British gymnastics is on a rapid upward curve - five golds, five silvers and eight bronzes.
But even more impressive were the results posted by fencing and shooting, both winning eight medals, four gold for the fencers and three for the shooters: impressive and surprising given recent 2012 funding announcements.
OK, most of the powerhouses of the piste from Europe were absent, as were many of the top Asian shooting nations, but there were 22 other national teams at the festival, with major delegations from China, Japan and the US, as well as a massive Australian team.
These medals weren't just handed out for turning up - the AYOF is a proven testing ground for future Olympic success. There were 2007 AYOF-ers in British colours in Beijing, two of whom, gymnast Louis Smith and rower Tom Lucy, medalled at both events. You might also have heard of another of the eight, diver Tom Daley. And the Australians have been using the AYOF as a dry run for its first team since 2001.
In fact, so seriously do the Australians take this event they almost didn't invite us - they were worried it would help our 2012 preparations, an offence tantamount to treason after our "Olympic Ashes" success in Beijing. So those medals for fencing and shooting, two sports that are still waiting to hear what their (greatly reduced) budgets for London 2012 will be, mattered.
As GB fencing coach Graham Watts said after watching his squad claim the men's and women's team titles: "This was way more than I hoped for. I expected us to medal, because we are such a strong team, but to win all gold is just absolutely fantastic."
Not bad for a sport whose "performance pipeline" was supposed to be too dry to warrant lubricating over the next four years (and yes, fencing fans, I have noticed Richard Kruse's recent results too). I could pick out similar statements from coaches throughout the British team but it would become a bit repetitive and I'd almost certainly upset somebody by forgetting them.
But before I move on I'd like to give a special mention in despatches to one of Britain's last gold-medal winning teams in Sydney, the women's hockey squad. They repeated their 2007 success by beating Australia in extra time. Enough said.
So where else are those green shoots of superpower status popping up, then? Well, it's early days yet but there are signs there is something stirring under the ice and snow too. Winter sport, for decades the poor relation in the British Olympic family, is also on the up. The British Olympic Association likes to keep tabs on our global standing during non-Olympic years by totting up results in leading competitions. While last year saw empirical proof of Britain's progress on the summer schedule, Team GB also climbed from 25th to 12th in the unofficial winter pecking order. That rise was down to Kristan Bromley's gold at the Skeleton Bob World Championships, the Scottish men's silver at the curling worlds and a men's relay bronze at the World Short Track Speed Skating Championships.
So it doesn't include the gold Shelley Rudman (who claimed a silver medal at the 2006 Winter Olympics and currently leads the World Cup rankings) won at the European Skeleton Bob Championships earlier this month, or Sinead and John Kerr's European ice dance bronze, Britain's first medal at that level for 15 years. These are superbly encouraging results with the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver now just a year away. Will they strike fear into the US, Russia and the Alpine nations? No, probably not. But you can bet the rest of the world is looking closely at our lottery-funded sports model and wondering what else we're doing right.
You can also forgive the likes of Steve Parry, who won Britain's first Olympic swimming medal for eight years in Athens, for lapsing into hyperbole when discussing Team GB's fortunes.
He remembers a (not too distant) time when a plucky bronze or 10th in the medal table was the Everest of our ambitions. He's not jealous of this, he is encouraged and energised.
So is Britain an Olympic superpower? Nah. But I know what Steve means, and I like it.
My initial reaction was to think, "Steady on, Steve, does superpower status really go down as far as fourth place in the table?" I'm fairly sure there were only two superpowers after all the medals were dished out in 1945.
And shouldn't we perhaps do it a few more times to suggest we have really arrived? After all, England were a rugby union superpower in 2003, and I'm sure there was talk of cricket supremacy in 2005. Might it be an idea to try this under-promise, over-deliver stuff my wife has mentioned in relation to my DIY skills?
And then I thought again (it happens). Why shouldn't Steve call it as he sees it? Because if you're willing to look beyond the rattling of football's transfer window - who would have thought that Jonathan Ross is now worth only one and a bit Craig Bellamys? - it's possible to find evidence Parry might be on to something. And last week that evidence was in ready supply. Youth sport doesn't get much of a look-in, media-wise, in this country, even football.
Perhaps the most encouraging performance of recent years by (male) footballers in an England shirt came at the 2007 European Under-21 Championships in the Netherlands. The team was minutes away from the final - England's first in the competition since 1984 - when the hosts scored to send the game to extra time. Penalties followed, 32 of them, and you can probably guess the rest.
The team's Dutch courage attracted some interest but the bigger story for most was David Bentley's decision not to play in the tournament so he could rest up for the upcoming Premier League campaign. But the main point is that it was a rare good showing by a British team at that level. Italy has dominated the competition for 20 years. Need I say more? So that is why I was so impressed with Team GB's showing at the 2009 Australian Youth Olympic Festival, a five-day multi-sports event for 13 to 19-year-olds.
Britain's tally was 68 medals, 26 of them gold: a significant improvement on the fine AYOF debut they made in 2007, when they went home with 14 golds in their 48-medal haul, and more than enough to suggest there is more to come from our Olympians in 2012 and beyond. What was most encouraging about the performances was their range. Team GB sent competitors for 11 of the 17 sports on the schedule. It won golds in nine of those and medals in all but one.
There was the customary return on investment from rowing - seven golds, two silvers and three bronzes - and further evidence that British gymnastics is on a rapid upward curve - five golds, five silvers and eight bronzes.
But even more impressive were the results posted by fencing and shooting, both winning eight medals, four gold for the fencers and three for the shooters: impressive and surprising given recent 2012 funding announcements.
OK, most of the powerhouses of the piste from Europe were absent, as were many of the top Asian shooting nations, but there were 22 other national teams at the festival, with major delegations from China, Japan and the US, as well as a massive Australian team.
These medals weren't just handed out for turning up - the AYOF is a proven testing ground for future Olympic success. There were 2007 AYOF-ers in British colours in Beijing, two of whom, gymnast Louis Smith and rower Tom Lucy, medalled at both events. You might also have heard of another of the eight, diver Tom Daley. And the Australians have been using the AYOF as a dry run for its first team since 2001.
In fact, so seriously do the Australians take this event they almost didn't invite us - they were worried it would help our 2012 preparations, an offence tantamount to treason after our "Olympic Ashes" success in Beijing. So those medals for fencing and shooting, two sports that are still waiting to hear what their (greatly reduced) budgets for London 2012 will be, mattered.
As GB fencing coach Graham Watts said after watching his squad claim the men's and women's team titles: "This was way more than I hoped for. I expected us to medal, because we are such a strong team, but to win all gold is just absolutely fantastic."
Not bad for a sport whose "performance pipeline" was supposed to be too dry to warrant lubricating over the next four years (and yes, fencing fans, I have noticed Richard Kruse's recent results too). I could pick out similar statements from coaches throughout the British team but it would become a bit repetitive and I'd almost certainly upset somebody by forgetting them.
But before I move on I'd like to give a special mention in despatches to one of Britain's last gold-medal winning teams in Sydney, the women's hockey squad. They repeated their 2007 success by beating Australia in extra time. Enough said.
So where else are those green shoots of superpower status popping up, then? Well, it's early days yet but there are signs there is something stirring under the ice and snow too. Winter sport, for decades the poor relation in the British Olympic family, is also on the up. The British Olympic Association likes to keep tabs on our global standing during non-Olympic years by totting up results in leading competitions. While last year saw empirical proof of Britain's progress on the summer schedule, Team GB also climbed from 25th to 12th in the unofficial winter pecking order. That rise was down to Kristan Bromley's gold at the Skeleton Bob World Championships, the Scottish men's silver at the curling worlds and a men's relay bronze at the World Short Track Speed Skating Championships.
So it doesn't include the gold Shelley Rudman (who claimed a silver medal at the 2006 Winter Olympics and currently leads the World Cup rankings) won at the European Skeleton Bob Championships earlier this month, or Sinead and John Kerr's European ice dance bronze, Britain's first medal at that level for 15 years. These are superbly encouraging results with the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver now just a year away. Will they strike fear into the US, Russia and the Alpine nations? No, probably not. But you can bet the rest of the world is looking closely at our lottery-funded sports model and wondering what else we're doing right.
You can also forgive the likes of Steve Parry, who won Britain's first Olympic swimming medal for eight years in Athens, for lapsing into hyperbole when discussing Team GB's fortunes.
He remembers a (not too distant) time when a plucky bronze or 10th in the medal table was the Everest of our ambitions. He's not jealous of this, he is encouraged and energised.
So is Britain an Olympic superpower? Nah. But I know what Steve means, and I like it.
GB's have-nots are broke but not broken
There's a lot of talk at the moment about rock bottoms. I don't mean the Suzi Quatro in leather or anything by Limp Bizkit type of rock bottom - I mean the "is this rock bottom for house prices/consumer confidence/Southend United's season?" variety.I think it would be safer to assume the answer is no to all of the above, particularly the latter, no matter how much we want the answer to be otherwise, particularly the latter.But there is a group of Brits that can stop worrying about how bad it is going to get and start thinking about how it will be better tomorrow and the day after.Because last Thursday's confirmation that eight Olympic sports would have to make do with only a third to a quarter of what they hoped to spend pre-London 2012 was rock bottom. The uncertainty is over. Now they must get on with the job or go home, literally for many of them.
Having been told in early December that there isn't enough money in Team GB's kitty for everybody, the likes of handball and water polo have finally learned just how much money there is for them to spend on fripperies like away matches, kit and decent coaches. The news, when it came, hit hard. And that was with nearly two months to prepare for it. One performance director told me he wanted to cry when he heard his allocation, another was said to be lying down in a dark room after hearing hers. But my favourite response came when I asked one what he would do next: he said he was going to the pub - it was four in the afternoon.But we all deal with setbacks differently. I like to lie down in dark pubs and cry.What was more interesting was how each sport - and different people within each sport - reacted to the initial shock of being told Christmas has been cancelled and you might have to rethink your summer plans for 2012 too.Some of the damned, unable to comprehend why their medal chances were considered to be smaller than (let's say) basketball's, hit out at the saved. Some froze, paralysed by the unfairness of it all.But others were spurred into action. British Handball's chiefs, for example, toured north Europe's handball hotspots looking for homes for their soon-to-be homeless Olympic wannabes.
It is to their credit that they have largely pulled it off. The women's squad move en masse from the Danish academy in Aarhus to a new, Norwegian abode in Asker, and half a dozen from the men's squad are Bundesliga-bound, with high hopes that more will follow.But even amongst the proactive, there was still that most false of friends, hope, ahead of last week's announcement.The anxious eight knew there was only £11.2m left in the budget after athletics, cycling, rowing, sailing and swimming took a combined £130m - and they knew they were going to have to share those scraps with four Paralympic sports - but until they heard for sure, some harboured hopes of a haircut, albeit a severe one, as opposed to a scalping. But 12 into 11.2 doesn't go, particularly when three of those four Paralympic sports got themselves worried for no reason - they were getting big increases on their Beijing allocations, and the fourth was getting away with just a trim.
So there was anger from shooting, a recent medal-winner which saw its budget cut by nearly £4m, dismay from volleyball, which will now have to fund the beach and indoor teams on about 30% of what they've had since 2006, and resignation from wrestling, a sport so underground it should really be fashionable.
These emotions were shared, to varying degrees, by fencing, handball, table tennis, water polo and weightlifting, the other sports deemed by UK Sport, the funding agency, to be shots too long for backing in these straitened times.But the key questions for these sports now is not "what happened?" or "why us?"The missing £100m of private-sector cash that caused this crunch is not suddenly going to arrive - the usual suspects have been asked and they're all battening down the hatches - and UK Sport has made its "no compromise" call with characteristic firmness.But each of those eight sports can still get their most talented athletes to London if they start asking the right questions.Each of them needs to ask themselves about the size of their programmes.
Shooting has already signalled it will reduce its pool of athletes from a staggering 46 to a more
credible 10. It could, and probably will, concentrate that money even further.Water polo, on the other hand, has said it would drop its men's team if it got less than £2.5m. Well, it got much less than that but must think long and hard before it pulls the plug on the two dozen players and coaches who have given up jobs, degree courses and relationships to move to the sport's Manchester base.Perhaps the first question the sports need to answer is how they would like to receive their reduced rations: two lumps or four? UK Sport, mindful of the need to "stay in the race", has offered to frontload the cash in two payments, the last coming in 2010, as opposed to spreading it over four years. It's a risk, of course, they could be left with nothing 18 months out from the Games, but it's a roll of the dice they should take. This recession can't last forever, can it?But the sports should also be looking at sharing costs for admin, equipment, travel and so on.
There are synergies to be had and they should not really impact on performance. Savings could also be made within the sports. English table tennis, for example, was recently given £9.3m to invest in grassroots projects. Might some of this money also help the elite too?And some fund-raising would not go amiss. Locog, London 2012's organising committee, has pledged to help pass the bucket around, as has the British Olympic Association. But the sports themselves can do more and there are encouraging signs that some have started.
Locog's promise of help is particularly promising. It is also a no-brainer as the sports and London 2012 want the same thing: British teams competing in every event. A volleyball tournament without a GB presence would be a less well attended, less vibrant event. That's something the international federations would be keen to avoid too, so I would think about tapping them up for assistance as well.
And there is one other revenue stream that was mentioned in the small print of last week's press release, £1.8m of "realigned" money from the Talented Athlete Scholarship Scheme, a pot of cash intended to support developing talent still in education. That scheme is operated by SportsAid, a charity with expertise in fund-raising and a track record in backing talent. The sports should cosy up to them. So the message is that the eight sports with reduced funding packages have options. Their situation is difficult but not impossible. And who knows, some of the money given to other sports could be reallocated. The UK Sport system does allow for that.
I have already blogged about the rights and wrongs of bidding for something as expensive as an Olympics and then penny-pinching on the important stuff, like what happens afterwards, so I won't spin that record again.We are where we are: £257m of public money has been allocated to 27 different sports and that is £22m more than those sports had to spend in the build-up to Beijing. And we didn't do so badly there. We can, and should, do just as well on our own patch.
How well Britain does in Olympics to come will depend on how much bang we get for our bucks over the next few years. Medals from each of the anxious eight in 2016 would be a great return on investment.
Having been told in early December that there isn't enough money in Team GB's kitty for everybody, the likes of handball and water polo have finally learned just how much money there is for them to spend on fripperies like away matches, kit and decent coaches. The news, when it came, hit hard. And that was with nearly two months to prepare for it. One performance director told me he wanted to cry when he heard his allocation, another was said to be lying down in a dark room after hearing hers. But my favourite response came when I asked one what he would do next: he said he was going to the pub - it was four in the afternoon.But we all deal with setbacks differently. I like to lie down in dark pubs and cry.What was more interesting was how each sport - and different people within each sport - reacted to the initial shock of being told Christmas has been cancelled and you might have to rethink your summer plans for 2012 too.Some of the damned, unable to comprehend why their medal chances were considered to be smaller than (let's say) basketball's, hit out at the saved. Some froze, paralysed by the unfairness of it all.But others were spurred into action. British Handball's chiefs, for example, toured north Europe's handball hotspots looking for homes for their soon-to-be homeless Olympic wannabes.
It is to their credit that they have largely pulled it off. The women's squad move en masse from the Danish academy in Aarhus to a new, Norwegian abode in Asker, and half a dozen from the men's squad are Bundesliga-bound, with high hopes that more will follow.But even amongst the proactive, there was still that most false of friends, hope, ahead of last week's announcement.The anxious eight knew there was only £11.2m left in the budget after athletics, cycling, rowing, sailing and swimming took a combined £130m - and they knew they were going to have to share those scraps with four Paralympic sports - but until they heard for sure, some harboured hopes of a haircut, albeit a severe one, as opposed to a scalping. But 12 into 11.2 doesn't go, particularly when three of those four Paralympic sports got themselves worried for no reason - they were getting big increases on their Beijing allocations, and the fourth was getting away with just a trim.
So there was anger from shooting, a recent medal-winner which saw its budget cut by nearly £4m, dismay from volleyball, which will now have to fund the beach and indoor teams on about 30% of what they've had since 2006, and resignation from wrestling, a sport so underground it should really be fashionable.
These emotions were shared, to varying degrees, by fencing, handball, table tennis, water polo and weightlifting, the other sports deemed by UK Sport, the funding agency, to be shots too long for backing in these straitened times.But the key questions for these sports now is not "what happened?" or "why us?"The missing £100m of private-sector cash that caused this crunch is not suddenly going to arrive - the usual suspects have been asked and they're all battening down the hatches - and UK Sport has made its "no compromise" call with characteristic firmness.But each of those eight sports can still get their most talented athletes to London if they start asking the right questions.Each of them needs to ask themselves about the size of their programmes.
Shooting has already signalled it will reduce its pool of athletes from a staggering 46 to a more
credible 10. It could, and probably will, concentrate that money even further.Water polo, on the other hand, has said it would drop its men's team if it got less than £2.5m. Well, it got much less than that but must think long and hard before it pulls the plug on the two dozen players and coaches who have given up jobs, degree courses and relationships to move to the sport's Manchester base.Perhaps the first question the sports need to answer is how they would like to receive their reduced rations: two lumps or four? UK Sport, mindful of the need to "stay in the race", has offered to frontload the cash in two payments, the last coming in 2010, as opposed to spreading it over four years. It's a risk, of course, they could be left with nothing 18 months out from the Games, but it's a roll of the dice they should take. This recession can't last forever, can it?But the sports should also be looking at sharing costs for admin, equipment, travel and so on.
There are synergies to be had and they should not really impact on performance. Savings could also be made within the sports. English table tennis, for example, was recently given £9.3m to invest in grassroots projects. Might some of this money also help the elite too?And some fund-raising would not go amiss. Locog, London 2012's organising committee, has pledged to help pass the bucket around, as has the British Olympic Association. But the sports themselves can do more and there are encouraging signs that some have started.
Locog's promise of help is particularly promising. It is also a no-brainer as the sports and London 2012 want the same thing: British teams competing in every event. A volleyball tournament without a GB presence would be a less well attended, less vibrant event. That's something the international federations would be keen to avoid too, so I would think about tapping them up for assistance as well.
And there is one other revenue stream that was mentioned in the small print of last week's press release, £1.8m of "realigned" money from the Talented Athlete Scholarship Scheme, a pot of cash intended to support developing talent still in education. That scheme is operated by SportsAid, a charity with expertise in fund-raising and a track record in backing talent. The sports should cosy up to them. So the message is that the eight sports with reduced funding packages have options. Their situation is difficult but not impossible. And who knows, some of the money given to other sports could be reallocated. The UK Sport system does allow for that.
I have already blogged about the rights and wrongs of bidding for something as expensive as an Olympics and then penny-pinching on the important stuff, like what happens afterwards, so I won't spin that record again.We are where we are: £257m of public money has been allocated to 27 different sports and that is £22m more than those sports had to spend in the build-up to Beijing. And we didn't do so badly there. We can, and should, do just as well on our own patch.
How well Britain does in Olympics to come will depend on how much bang we get for our bucks over the next few years. Medals from each of the anxious eight in 2016 would be a great return on investment.
We won't try to top Beijing - Coe
London 2012 chief Lord Coe has admitted that the current Olympics in Beijing will be the last Games of its scale. Coe insists that London's priority will be delivering a lasting legacy and community provision for the future. "We've never viewed these Games simply as 16 days of spectacular Olympic or Paralympic sport," he told BBC Sport. "The International Olympic Committee themselves recognise that this is the last edition of a Games which is going to look and feel like this."
Speaking to BBC sports editor Mihir Bose, he explained: "We work very closely with the IOC on a daily and hourly basis - they have set the agenda on sustainable venues, with sport as a bridgehead into other things. "We recognise that - although instinctively I think we'd have been drawn to it as well. "It's a mistake to think that Games model themselves on previous Games. Every Games I've been to has been very different. But we can be creative - we know that more people will probably come to London for the Games than to other cities. "I think we can deliver a fantastic Olympic and Paralympic Games, but we can do great things in the city to drive other cultural values."
Olympics minister Tessa Jowell and London 2012 chief executive Paul Deighton recently said London "can match" Beijing's spectacular opening ceremony. But while the 2012 stadium may not be on the same scale of the Bird's Nest, Coe is confident that it can play a central role in a lasting legacy for London. "The stadium will be a very different concept [to Beijing] - we're talking about leaving a 25,000-seater all-purpose stadium, for which we've been discussing a number of anchor tenancies, as well as possibly an educational legacy, or even an entertainment legacy," he said. "The days of just leaving 90,000-seater stadia - particularly in London, where you'd have two [with the new Wembley Stadium] - are over. "You have to provide something for local communities to do more than simply press their noses up against."
The last few Olympic stadia are all still in use - with the Athens 2004 stadium hosting top-level football including the Champions League final in 2007, Sydney's Olympic Stadium from 2000 staging the Rugby World Cup in 2003 amongst other events, while Atlanta's stadium from 1996 was reconfigured to host Major League baseball.
The 2012 stadium's post-Games future has yet to be decided, although nearby Leyton Orient FC have been in negotiations about a move. But as well as the physical legacy, Coe has pointed out that Britain's achievements in Beijing have also given the country a "fantastic platform" for success in four years' time. "We've been looking at the legacy from the very moment our teams started looking at the master plans," he said. "But the strongest legacy we're witnessing at the moment is the performance of Team GB. "I've always felt the primary purpose of a medal is that it signifies a big British moment - and big British moments in sport have to have a conversion rate. "For the Chris Hoys of this world, and our rowers and swimmers, the real challenge for our governing bodies and for sport more broadly is, how many people can you get into the sport off the back of that great moment?
"I'm a football fan, and we have to accept that it's our national sport - but I do think we can really elevate the status of some of our Olympic sports. "The BBC have had some of their highest viewing figures, and a large chunk of the population are now very familiar with the faces of swimmers, cyclists and rowers in a way they weren't 10 years ago. "We want fewer couch potatoes and more participants, but I also want full stadia."
Speaking to BBC sports editor Mihir Bose, he explained: "We work very closely with the IOC on a daily and hourly basis - they have set the agenda on sustainable venues, with sport as a bridgehead into other things. "We recognise that - although instinctively I think we'd have been drawn to it as well. "It's a mistake to think that Games model themselves on previous Games. Every Games I've been to has been very different. But we can be creative - we know that more people will probably come to London for the Games than to other cities. "I think we can deliver a fantastic Olympic and Paralympic Games, but we can do great things in the city to drive other cultural values."
Olympics minister Tessa Jowell and London 2012 chief executive Paul Deighton recently said London "can match" Beijing's spectacular opening ceremony. But while the 2012 stadium may not be on the same scale of the Bird's Nest, Coe is confident that it can play a central role in a lasting legacy for London. "The stadium will be a very different concept [to Beijing] - we're talking about leaving a 25,000-seater all-purpose stadium, for which we've been discussing a number of anchor tenancies, as well as possibly an educational legacy, or even an entertainment legacy," he said. "The days of just leaving 90,000-seater stadia - particularly in London, where you'd have two [with the new Wembley Stadium] - are over. "You have to provide something for local communities to do more than simply press their noses up against."
The last few Olympic stadia are all still in use - with the Athens 2004 stadium hosting top-level football including the Champions League final in 2007, Sydney's Olympic Stadium from 2000 staging the Rugby World Cup in 2003 amongst other events, while Atlanta's stadium from 1996 was reconfigured to host Major League baseball.
The 2012 stadium's post-Games future has yet to be decided, although nearby Leyton Orient FC have been in negotiations about a move. But as well as the physical legacy, Coe has pointed out that Britain's achievements in Beijing have also given the country a "fantastic platform" for success in four years' time. "We've been looking at the legacy from the very moment our teams started looking at the master plans," he said. "But the strongest legacy we're witnessing at the moment is the performance of Team GB. "I've always felt the primary purpose of a medal is that it signifies a big British moment - and big British moments in sport have to have a conversion rate. "For the Chris Hoys of this world, and our rowers and swimmers, the real challenge for our governing bodies and for sport more broadly is, how many people can you get into the sport off the back of that great moment?
"I'm a football fan, and we have to accept that it's our national sport - but I do think we can really elevate the status of some of our Olympic sports. "The BBC have had some of their highest viewing figures, and a large chunk of the population are now very familiar with the faces of swimmers, cyclists and rowers in a way they weren't 10 years ago. "We want fewer couch potatoes and more participants, but I also want full stadia."
Brown pays tribute to GB success
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has paid tribute to the achievements of the British team at the Beijing Olympics. Team GB beat all targets by collecting an impressive 19 golds and a total of 47 medals at the 2008 Games - their best haul for a century. Mr Brown told BBC Olympic Breakfast that the medal haul was an "incredibly impressive achievement". "It is remarkable. We should be really proud. Back home there is real enthusiasm for the Olympics." Mr Brown has already stated that the honours system will recognise the achievements of the team. With the end of the 2008 Games, the baton now passes to London - which will host the next Olympics in 2012. And Mr Brown says London has a tough act to follow.
"It's inspiring to see the level of organisation in China," he added. "It's a challenge. They have set a very high standard and we've got to do better. "I think it is the best organised Olympics, everybody says so, but as the focus moves today to 2012 then people will look at London, look at Britain afresh and they'll see that we're a tremendously diverse country, they'll see that we're totally focused on inspiring people through sports."
And Mr Brown also stated his desire to see a Great British football team at the 2012 Olympics.
The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland football bodies have opposed any such move in case it affects their status within governing body Fifa. "The British public would find it strange if there was no British team," Mr Brown told BBC Olympic Breakfast. The Prime Minister said he had spoken to Fifa president Sepp Blatter about the situation.
Blatter has stated that it would be better for Britain to field a team entirely made up of English players because "this will then not provoke a long and endless discussion of the four British associations". "I am very concerned about this," he added. "The issue is whether would affect the autonomy of the individual associations. "I talked to Mr Blatter about how we could find a solution to this and I am confident Fifa will give the assurances that the Scottish, Welsh and Irish Associations want.
"I am also confident that when the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland know that matches will be taking place outside London, they will approve of this idea. "We all want to see a Great Britain football team. It's the right thing to do to have a successful Olympics." He added that he has spoken to Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson, a fellow Scot, about the possibility of leading a GB football team.
Ferguson has previously said that he would not "try to commit myself to something that is four years ahead". However, Portsmouth boss Harry Redknapp says he would relish the chance to manage the team. "I'm absolutely flattered that my name is being mentioned about managing the Great Britain team," he told the Sunday Mirror. "Would I take it if they offered it to me? Absolutely, I would be a fool not to. I've had some great managerial jobs during my career but there is no doubt this would be the icing on the cake.
"The fact it is being held on my old stamping ground in East London makes it even more appealing." Great Britain won the Olympic football gold medal in 1908 and 1912 but have not competed in the tournament since 1960.
"It's inspiring to see the level of organisation in China," he added. "It's a challenge. They have set a very high standard and we've got to do better. "I think it is the best organised Olympics, everybody says so, but as the focus moves today to 2012 then people will look at London, look at Britain afresh and they'll see that we're a tremendously diverse country, they'll see that we're totally focused on inspiring people through sports."
And Mr Brown also stated his desire to see a Great British football team at the 2012 Olympics.
The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland football bodies have opposed any such move in case it affects their status within governing body Fifa. "The British public would find it strange if there was no British team," Mr Brown told BBC Olympic Breakfast. The Prime Minister said he had spoken to Fifa president Sepp Blatter about the situation.
Blatter has stated that it would be better for Britain to field a team entirely made up of English players because "this will then not provoke a long and endless discussion of the four British associations". "I am very concerned about this," he added. "The issue is whether would affect the autonomy of the individual associations. "I talked to Mr Blatter about how we could find a solution to this and I am confident Fifa will give the assurances that the Scottish, Welsh and Irish Associations want.
"I am also confident that when the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland know that matches will be taking place outside London, they will approve of this idea. "We all want to see a Great Britain football team. It's the right thing to do to have a successful Olympics." He added that he has spoken to Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson, a fellow Scot, about the possibility of leading a GB football team.
Ferguson has previously said that he would not "try to commit myself to something that is four years ahead". However, Portsmouth boss Harry Redknapp says he would relish the chance to manage the team. "I'm absolutely flattered that my name is being mentioned about managing the Great Britain team," he told the Sunday Mirror. "Would I take it if they offered it to me? Absolutely, I would be a fool not to. I've had some great managerial jobs during my career but there is no doubt this would be the icing on the cake.
"The fact it is being held on my old stamping ground in East London makes it even more appealing." Great Britain won the Olympic football gold medal in 1908 and 1912 but have not competed in the tournament since 1960.
Britain may aim for third in 2012
Britain could revise its medals target for London 2012 following the team's success at the Beijing Olympics. UK Sport, which provides the funding for elite sport, originally set a target of finishing fourth. But that was achieved in Beijing, where Britain won 19 golds and 47 medals, the best haul for a century. "It would be foolish not to aspire to even greater heights, especially as the host nation," said Lord Moynihan, head of the British Olympic Association.
The BOA chairman added: "Sure, we've got to see whether or not it is feasible to move to third place. We haven't made a decision on that. "But this is not a National Organising Committee which is going to sit on its laurels, and nor are the athletes. We will want to make sure that we deliver the best for Britain in 2012, so we are going to be looking to go higher."
UK Sport will not decide upon a new target until the autumn, by which time it will have discussed the subject with each sport individually. And UK Sport director of performance Liz Nicholl added: "If you had asked me this two weeks ago, I would have said 'impossible'.
"The phrase we used was: 'fourth in the medals is the best we can hope to achieve given a nation of our size'.
"But we look at these Games and what has happened to the Russians. If they are in reach then there's no reason to constrain our ambitions. "In terms of 2012, nobody is going to be happy with the same again, but we need to be bringing that to life, probably through more medals.
"When we get back, we will be discussing 2012 targets with each of the individual sports. Then UK Sport will be setting a collective target as a result of that."
The BOA chairman added: "Sure, we've got to see whether or not it is feasible to move to third place. We haven't made a decision on that. "But this is not a National Organising Committee which is going to sit on its laurels, and nor are the athletes. We will want to make sure that we deliver the best for Britain in 2012, so we are going to be looking to go higher."
UK Sport will not decide upon a new target until the autumn, by which time it will have discussed the subject with each sport individually. And UK Sport director of performance Liz Nicholl added: "If you had asked me this two weeks ago, I would have said 'impossible'.
"The phrase we used was: 'fourth in the medals is the best we can hope to achieve given a nation of our size'.
"But we look at these Games and what has happened to the Russians. If they are in reach then there's no reason to constrain our ambitions. "In terms of 2012, nobody is going to be happy with the same again, but we need to be bringing that to life, probably through more medals.
"When we get back, we will be discussing 2012 targets with each of the individual sports. Then UK Sport will be setting a collective target as a result of that."
More Britons 'to attend Olympics'
Public enthusiasm for attending the 2012 London Olympic Games has risen almost 30% following the Beijing Games, a survey for the BBC suggests. A phone poll of 1,000 adults during the closing weekend of the Beijing Games suggested that 32% would attend the London event, up from 25% in February. The poll was carried out by GFKNOP and compared with a similar survey conducted in February.
Beijing handed over to London as the host city on Sunday. Despite Team GB having its best Olympic performance in 100 years, coming fourth in the medal table and bringing back 47 medals, only 19% of respondents thought the Olympics would inspire them to participate in sport and exercise, with 79% saying it would not. This was a decrease from February's 20% of respondents who expected to be inspired to get active.
In the February and August polls the BBC asked whether respondents thought the London Games would benefit the region where they lived - at both times 73% said no and 22% said yes.
Two further questions were asked in the August poll. Twenty percent of respondents were feeling "very positive" about the London Games now that the Beijing Games were finished and 37% were "quite positive".
Seventeen percent were "very negative" or "quite negative". When asked should the government spend more or less money on the Games in 2012, 28% said more, and 33% said less, while 34% said no difference. China spent £20bn on the games, but London's mayor Boris Johnson has said he is "absolutely determined" the 2012 Olympics will cost less than the current £9.3bn budget.
Beijing handed over to London as the host city on Sunday. Despite Team GB having its best Olympic performance in 100 years, coming fourth in the medal table and bringing back 47 medals, only 19% of respondents thought the Olympics would inspire them to participate in sport and exercise, with 79% saying it would not. This was a decrease from February's 20% of respondents who expected to be inspired to get active.
In the February and August polls the BBC asked whether respondents thought the London Games would benefit the region where they lived - at both times 73% said no and 22% said yes.
Two further questions were asked in the August poll. Twenty percent of respondents were feeling "very positive" about the London Games now that the Beijing Games were finished and 37% were "quite positive".
Seventeen percent were "very negative" or "quite negative". When asked should the government spend more or less money on the Games in 2012, 28% said more, and 33% said less, while 34% said no difference. China spent £20bn on the games, but London's mayor Boris Johnson has said he is "absolutely determined" the 2012 Olympics will cost less than the current £9.3bn budget.
Uefa chief warns against GB team
Uefa general secretary David Taylor says that a British Olympic football side could be fatal for the Scottish national team's continued existence.
Great Britain's Scottish Prime Minister Gordon Brown is among those keen for a united team to compete in 2012. But Taylor said: "It is the quickest way for Scotland to disappear off the international stage." The Scottish FA, along with their Northern Irish and Welsh counterparts, have rejected a united team for London. Britain has not had a united team competing at the Olympics since 1960.
"The official position of Uefa, indeed of Fifa, whose responsibility it is, is that this has to be purely a football matter and nothing to do with world of politics," said Taylor. "It is about the identity of the countries and it is a matter for the football associations. "But, when I was in Scotland and chief executive of the Scottish FA, we had a clear and firm position and I understand that is still the position - that Scotland should not take part in an Olympic GB team."
Taylor did not envisage a change of position by any of the three Celtic nations, even though there are other sports where they compete as a GB team at the Olympics and separately in other competitions. "When I was there, which was not a long time ago, those other countries had the same sort of feelings as we do," he said while stressing that he was speaking as a Scot rather than Uefa's general secretary.
"We have more than 100 years of history of competing as a separate national in football terms.
"It is not like other sports as Scotland competes as a separate entity in all international football competitions." Taylor was not swayed by assurances from Fifa that competing at the Olympics would not compromise their position. "Fifa is comprised of 208 countries and we have had situations in the past when the privileges of the British associations, one of which is to compete separately in international football tournaments, has come under attack.
"What I would say is that we should be very careful about that as it's difficult to see what guarantees can be given."
Great Britain's Scottish Prime Minister Gordon Brown is among those keen for a united team to compete in 2012. But Taylor said: "It is the quickest way for Scotland to disappear off the international stage." The Scottish FA, along with their Northern Irish and Welsh counterparts, have rejected a united team for London. Britain has not had a united team competing at the Olympics since 1960.
"The official position of Uefa, indeed of Fifa, whose responsibility it is, is that this has to be purely a football matter and nothing to do with world of politics," said Taylor. "It is about the identity of the countries and it is a matter for the football associations. "But, when I was in Scotland and chief executive of the Scottish FA, we had a clear and firm position and I understand that is still the position - that Scotland should not take part in an Olympic GB team."
Taylor did not envisage a change of position by any of the three Celtic nations, even though there are other sports where they compete as a GB team at the Olympics and separately in other competitions. "When I was there, which was not a long time ago, those other countries had the same sort of feelings as we do," he said while stressing that he was speaking as a Scot rather than Uefa's general secretary.
"We have more than 100 years of history of competing as a separate national in football terms.
"It is not like other sports as Scotland competes as a separate entity in all international football competitions." Taylor was not swayed by assurances from Fifa that competing at the Olympics would not compromise their position. "Fifa is comprised of 208 countries and we have had situations in the past when the privileges of the British associations, one of which is to compete separately in international football tournaments, has come under attack.
"What I would say is that we should be very careful about that as it's difficult to see what guarantees can be given."
Cultural Olympiad plans unveiled
A William Shakespeare festival and 12 new public works of art will form part of a 'Cultural Olympiad' planned for the run-up to the 2012 London games. Set up to showcase Britain's arts and culture, the four-year programme will comprise 500 events designed to involve and inspire people at home and abroad. Details were announced on Thursday by 2012 chief Lord Coe at the National Theatre on London's South Bank.
The scheme was a key factor in London winning the bid to host the Olympics. The Cultural Olympiad will co-ordinate the opening and closing ceremonies at the London games, as well as local and regional events. It will begin with an open weekend, to be held later this month - between 26 and 28 September - for which hundreds of events have already been planned.
One of these will include the illumination of Blackpool Tower in pink, blue, orange and green - the colours of London 2012 - at 2012 BST at 26 September.
Lord Coe, meanwhile, will take part in Martin Creed's current conceptual art piece at Tate Britain, in which runners sprint the length of the museum's sculpture galleries.
"The Cultural Olympiad will leave a legacy of cultural engagement in communities across our country," the athlete-turned-politician told reporters on Thursday.
Future projects include Film Nation, a digital film competition for young people, and Unlimited, described as a celebration of disability arts, culture and sport.
There will also be National Singing Day, held as part of the BBC-backed Sounds strand.
A World Cultural Festival will be held in 2012 itself featuring contributions from all participating countries.
"We want to welcome great artists of the world to take part," said Jude Kelly, chair of Culture, Ceremonies and Education for the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG).
'Absolutely central'
It was Pierre de Coubertin, founder of the modern Olympic movement, who first conceived the idea of a marriage between sport and the arts.
More than £40 million has been earmarked for cultural activities across the United Kingdom.
When London's selection as the next host of the Olympics was made in July 2005, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell described the Cultural Olympiad as "absolutely central" to the vision of what could be achieved.
The major projects announced on Thursday are:
• Artists Taking the Lead - 12 "cutting edge" commissions from artists across the UK. (These can include sculptures, symphonies, plays or films.)
• Stories of the World - a national network of exhibitions "telling new stories in new ways".
• Sounds - a four-project approach to "celebrating music as a universal language".
• Somewhereto - a project empowering young people to find somewhere to practice sport and culture "on their terms".
• Discovering Places - a project dedicated to "opening up the historic and built environment to new audiences".
• Film Nation - a programme "designed to get young people behind the camera".
• World Shakespeare Festival - a celebrate of the Bard co-ordinated by the Royal Shakespeare Company.
• Festival of Carnivals - five themed street carnivals to be held during the Olympic period.
The scheme was a key factor in London winning the bid to host the Olympics. The Cultural Olympiad will co-ordinate the opening and closing ceremonies at the London games, as well as local and regional events. It will begin with an open weekend, to be held later this month - between 26 and 28 September - for which hundreds of events have already been planned.
One of these will include the illumination of Blackpool Tower in pink, blue, orange and green - the colours of London 2012 - at 2012 BST at 26 September.
Lord Coe, meanwhile, will take part in Martin Creed's current conceptual art piece at Tate Britain, in which runners sprint the length of the museum's sculpture galleries.
"The Cultural Olympiad will leave a legacy of cultural engagement in communities across our country," the athlete-turned-politician told reporters on Thursday.
Future projects include Film Nation, a digital film competition for young people, and Unlimited, described as a celebration of disability arts, culture and sport.
There will also be National Singing Day, held as part of the BBC-backed Sounds strand.
A World Cultural Festival will be held in 2012 itself featuring contributions from all participating countries.
"We want to welcome great artists of the world to take part," said Jude Kelly, chair of Culture, Ceremonies and Education for the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG).
'Absolutely central'
It was Pierre de Coubertin, founder of the modern Olympic movement, who first conceived the idea of a marriage between sport and the arts.
More than £40 million has been earmarked for cultural activities across the United Kingdom.
When London's selection as the next host of the Olympics was made in July 2005, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell described the Cultural Olympiad as "absolutely central" to the vision of what could be achieved.
The major projects announced on Thursday are:
• Artists Taking the Lead - 12 "cutting edge" commissions from artists across the UK. (These can include sculptures, symphonies, plays or films.)
• Stories of the World - a national network of exhibitions "telling new stories in new ways".
• Sounds - a four-project approach to "celebrating music as a universal language".
• Somewhereto - a project empowering young people to find somewhere to practice sport and culture "on their terms".
• Discovering Places - a project dedicated to "opening up the historic and built environment to new audiences".
• Film Nation - a programme "designed to get young people behind the camera".
• World Shakespeare Festival - a celebrate of the Bard co-ordinated by the Royal Shakespeare Company.
• Festival of Carnivals - five themed street carnivals to be held during the Olympic period.
Public 'fearing Olympics failure'
Nearly nine out of 10 Britons do not think the government is capable of managing the 2012 Olympics, a survey taken after the Beijing Games suggests.
The biggest concern expressed was over the cost, currently budgeted at £9.3bn.
The survey by Opinium Research found just 12% of the 2,000 people surveyed believe the Games will come in on budget or within 10%.
A government spokesman said people with "experience and expertise" were in place to "deliver a fantastic Games".
The survey suggests Great Britain's most successful Olympic Games in a century has generated an air of excitement about 2012.
Nearly two-thirds feel proud of Britain following the team's performance in Beijing and almost half now feel more excited about hosting the 2012 Games. However, 60% said that the athletes' performance has not made them feel more confident about the government. And just 21% think the Olympics will be good for Britain's international reputation - an increase from 15% before the Games.
Sporting revival
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." The research also says that the Olympics has inspired one in seven people to take up or revisit a sport.
This is more than double the number of people who were expected to be inspired prior to this summer's Games. A Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokesman said: "We have in place the experience and expertise - both within government and The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and The Olympic Delivery Authority - to deliver a fantastic Games and long term legacy that will benefit millions of people for decades to come."
The biggest concern expressed was over the cost, currently budgeted at £9.3bn.
The survey by Opinium Research found just 12% of the 2,000 people surveyed believe the Games will come in on budget or within 10%.
A government spokesman said people with "experience and expertise" were in place to "deliver a fantastic Games".
The survey suggests Great Britain's most successful Olympic Games in a century has generated an air of excitement about 2012.
Nearly two-thirds feel proud of Britain following the team's performance in Beijing and almost half now feel more excited about hosting the 2012 Games. However, 60% said that the athletes' performance has not made them feel more confident about the government. And just 21% think the Olympics will be good for Britain's international reputation - an increase from 15% before the Games.
Sporting revival
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." The research also says that the Olympics has inspired one in seven people to take up or revisit a sport.
This is more than double the number of people who were expected to be inspired prior to this summer's Games. A Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokesman said: "We have in place the experience and expertise - both within government and The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and The Olympic Delivery Authority - to deliver a fantastic Games and long term legacy that will benefit millions of people for decades to come."
2012 bosses deny demolition plan
London 2012 bosses have denied they are seriously considering a plan to flatten the Olympic Stadium after the Games. Reports have suggested the £525m venue could be demolished and replaced by a Premier League football ground.
But the London Development Agency (LDA), the body responsible for the post-2012 use of the site, has moved quickly to play down these claims. And a spokesman for London Mayor Boris Johnson said Johnson was "not aware of any plans to demolish the stadium".
He added that the mayor remained committed to finding a viable, long-term use for all the permanent Olympic venues and wanted "athletics to be part of that legacy".
A spokesman for the LDA said "no stone had been left unturned" in exploring all the options for the Olympic venues and the drawing up of a range of possible scenarios was part and parcel of the legacy planning process.
A source close to the process told BBC Sport the leaked demolition plan was simply one of "more than 10" options currently on the table. He also strongly hinted it was the most radical - and least likely - of those choices. The favourite option remains converting the 80,000-capacity venue into a 25,000-seat stadium with an athletics track and at least one "anchor tenant", a football or rugby team capable of filling the venue on a regular basis.
A guaranteed revenue stream is crucial to the venue's future as no local or national authority wants to be responsible for the upkeep of a rarely used athletics centre - all interested parties are desperate to avoid the mistakes of previous Olympic hosts and their expensive "white elephants".
The LDA has been actively looking for an anchor tenant for over two years and is currently talking to League One club Leyton Orient, the Rugby Football League and UK Athletics, and is widely believed to have also put out feelers to rugby union sides Saracens and Wasps.
Initial talks with West Ham United about a move to Stratford collapsed early on over the issue of the athletics track and its use for international events, and Tottenham Hotspur, the other Premier League side close enough to be a realistic candidate, appear to favour redeveloping their current home.
Chelsea have also been touted as possible future tenants although there seems to be little substance to those claims as they want to stay in west London.
A spokesman for West Ham told BBC Sport the situation had not changed in regard to any possible move to the Olympic site and the club's preferred options were building a new ground at a former Parcelforce depot next to West Ham tube station or upgrading Upton Park.
That said, both West Ham and Spurs have not ruled out the Olympic option, providing a workable solution can be found to the athletics issue and, most importantly, the numbers make sense. Both are mindful of the fantastic deal Manchester City's owners were given when they were handed Eastlands after the 2002 Commonwealth Games.
But what makes a similar transition from multi-sport event centrepiece to gleaming Premier League palace far less likely in London is the unlikelihood of any government agreeing to the demolition of such an expensive and high-profile venue after just a few weeks' use.
London 2012's organisers would also be vehemently opposed to any dilution of the athletics legacy in Stratford as that was promised to the International Olympic Committee in the bid for the Games.
But the London Development Agency (LDA), the body responsible for the post-2012 use of the site, has moved quickly to play down these claims. And a spokesman for London Mayor Boris Johnson said Johnson was "not aware of any plans to demolish the stadium".
He added that the mayor remained committed to finding a viable, long-term use for all the permanent Olympic venues and wanted "athletics to be part of that legacy".
A spokesman for the LDA said "no stone had been left unturned" in exploring all the options for the Olympic venues and the drawing up of a range of possible scenarios was part and parcel of the legacy planning process.
A source close to the process told BBC Sport the leaked demolition plan was simply one of "more than 10" options currently on the table. He also strongly hinted it was the most radical - and least likely - of those choices. The favourite option remains converting the 80,000-capacity venue into a 25,000-seat stadium with an athletics track and at least one "anchor tenant", a football or rugby team capable of filling the venue on a regular basis.
A guaranteed revenue stream is crucial to the venue's future as no local or national authority wants to be responsible for the upkeep of a rarely used athletics centre - all interested parties are desperate to avoid the mistakes of previous Olympic hosts and their expensive "white elephants".
The LDA has been actively looking for an anchor tenant for over two years and is currently talking to League One club Leyton Orient, the Rugby Football League and UK Athletics, and is widely believed to have also put out feelers to rugby union sides Saracens and Wasps.
Initial talks with West Ham United about a move to Stratford collapsed early on over the issue of the athletics track and its use for international events, and Tottenham Hotspur, the other Premier League side close enough to be a realistic candidate, appear to favour redeveloping their current home.
Chelsea have also been touted as possible future tenants although there seems to be little substance to those claims as they want to stay in west London.
A spokesman for West Ham told BBC Sport the situation had not changed in regard to any possible move to the Olympic site and the club's preferred options were building a new ground at a former Parcelforce depot next to West Ham tube station or upgrading Upton Park.
That said, both West Ham and Spurs have not ruled out the Olympic option, providing a workable solution can be found to the athletics issue and, most importantly, the numbers make sense. Both are mindful of the fantastic deal Manchester City's owners were given when they were handed Eastlands after the 2002 Commonwealth Games.
But what makes a similar transition from multi-sport event centrepiece to gleaming Premier League palace far less likely in London is the unlikelihood of any government agreeing to the demolition of such an expensive and high-profile venue after just a few weeks' use.
London 2012's organisers would also be vehemently opposed to any dilution of the athletics legacy in Stratford as that was promised to the International Olympic Committee in the bid for the Games.
Plans for 2012 VeloPark unveiled
Triple Beijing gold medal-winning cyclist Chris Hoy has helped unveil plans for the VeloPark for London's 2012 Olympic Games.
The VeloPark will include a 6,000-seat velodrome to host the cycling events as well as a BMX circuit.
After the games, a road cycle circuit and mountain bike course will be added, so the park can be used by everyone.
A planning application will be submitted later this month with construction work due to start in 2009.
The VeloPark designs have been developed following consultation with British Cycling and local cycling groups.
After the games, the park will be linked into cycle routes across London, connecting the whole of the city with the new facilities.Hoy said: "Becoming Olympic champion simply wouldn't have been possible without the local cycling facilities I used when I was growing up, so I'm delighted to help launch the designs of the London 2012 VeloPark which will provide first-class facilities for cyclists of all ages and abilities".
Olympics minister Tessa Jowell added: "The designs meet the challenging brief to provide not only a first-class games venue, but also a springboard in legacy for future British Olympians and will make a valuable contribution to increasing sport participation from grassroots to elite level."
The launch of the latest plans for the London 2012 VeloPark follows the opening of the Redbridge Cycling Centre last month. The £4.5m facility was built by the London Development Agency (LDA) for community and competition use to replace the former Eastway Cycle Circuit which made way for the site of the London 2012 VeloPark. Hoy was joined by Locog chairman Lord Coe and London Mayor Boris Johnson for the unveiling of the plans.
2012 to be 'cosier' than Beijing
Boris Johnson has said the 2012 Olympic Games will be "cosier" and have more "intimacy" than those in Beijing.
Updating MPs on progress, the London mayor pledged to deliver a games "every bit as good as Beijing" without spending "colossal" sums of money.
He vowed the event would not go over its £9.3bn budget even though the credit crunch had hit planning.
He also warned that security would be a national issue even though the games are being staged largely in London.
He told the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee: "If you think that during the G8 (in July 2005) 12,000 police were moved to Scotland and terrorists struck in London.
"The security threat is not just for London, the security threat can be anywhere during the Games.
"My opinion is that the security architecture of the Olympics has been held up for too long. I now think that we are making much faster progress and there will be quite substantial protection around the main venues." 'Fantastic games' He said that more detail about that would come, but predicted "it will not be like China", whose security levels, he said, "many people found oppressive".
Mr Johnson was pressed on whether costs would escalate as a result of the credit crunch. He said "increasingly difficult market circumstances" had forced changes in planning but added: "I am satisfied that we are going to be able to deliver a fantastic Olympic games, while not going over the £9.3bn budget."
He said London would avoid the "great soulless piazzas" he had seen in Beijing and provide a "more friendly event for the spectators".
You can count on me, as one who has attended many international summits and eaten in many a marquee, that I see absolutely no reason why there should not be some economies there
Boris Johnson
Among the ideas being explored to give a better "spectator experience" than Beijing, were hand-held electronic devices being handed out to spectators, so that they could view instant replays and find out what was happening elsewhere.
An "RSVP" scheme for corporate guests - so that they could return unused tickets would help
avoid some of the empty seats seen at venues in Beijing and there would be free tickets for school children, said the London mayor.
And he vowed that there would be "a party atmosphere in the centre of London for the duration of the games".
He said London would spend "half what the Chinese spent but we will deliver a games that is every bit as good".
Controlling costs
The biggest cost pressures were on the Olympic village, the stadium and the media centre, he told the MPs, but he was "determined to extract value" for "generations to come".
He would not be afraid to defy the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and move a venue "off site" in order to keep costs down.
Asked to describe how London would differ from Beijing, he said: "The London Olympics will have, what's the word I want?, an intimacy. The site will be smaller than the Beijing Park, it will be cosier, as estate agents would put it.
"It will still be a vast site and there will be many spectacular things to see there, but there is no need, we think, to spend that amount of money."
He said he had cut the budget for London 2012's party at the Beijing Games by £1.4m which he said was "widely thought to be the best event in Beijing".
He also said he wanted to cut costs at the £386m media centre, He said the budget could not be slashed too far as it could lead to negative coverage from foreign media but the catering budget may need to be revised.
"You can count on me, as one who has attended many international summits and eaten in many a marquee, that I see absolutely no reason why there should not be some economies there," said Mr Johnson.
GB football team
Olympic medal-winning kayaker Tim Brabants was quizzed by the committee about whether performance-related cash bonuses should be introduced for British athletes.
"It's not going to drive me on more knowing I am going to get a bonus," he told the committee before producing his gold medal to show the MPs.
This is bonus enough for me. This is what we work for," he added.
Lord Moynihan, chairman of the British Olympic Association, said the issue of bonuses was being examined but the views of athletes would be taken into account.
He also repeated his commitment to entering men and women's Great Britain football teams in the 2012 games, although he stressed he wanted to address the concerns of the football associations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who have opposed the plan.
"It is important that we listen, it is important that we give all the FAs the confidence that their status in international football will not be detrimentally affected," he told the committee.
Updating MPs on progress, the London mayor pledged to deliver a games "every bit as good as Beijing" without spending "colossal" sums of money.
He vowed the event would not go over its £9.3bn budget even though the credit crunch had hit planning.
He also warned that security would be a national issue even though the games are being staged largely in London.
He told the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee: "If you think that during the G8 (in July 2005) 12,000 police were moved to Scotland and terrorists struck in London.
"The security threat is not just for London, the security threat can be anywhere during the Games.
"My opinion is that the security architecture of the Olympics has been held up for too long. I now think that we are making much faster progress and there will be quite substantial protection around the main venues." 'Fantastic games' He said that more detail about that would come, but predicted "it will not be like China", whose security levels, he said, "many people found oppressive".
Mr Johnson was pressed on whether costs would escalate as a result of the credit crunch. He said "increasingly difficult market circumstances" had forced changes in planning but added: "I am satisfied that we are going to be able to deliver a fantastic Olympic games, while not going over the £9.3bn budget."
He said London would avoid the "great soulless piazzas" he had seen in Beijing and provide a "more friendly event for the spectators".
You can count on me, as one who has attended many international summits and eaten in many a marquee, that I see absolutely no reason why there should not be some economies there
Boris Johnson
Among the ideas being explored to give a better "spectator experience" than Beijing, were hand-held electronic devices being handed out to spectators, so that they could view instant replays and find out what was happening elsewhere.
An "RSVP" scheme for corporate guests - so that they could return unused tickets would help
avoid some of the empty seats seen at venues in Beijing and there would be free tickets for school children, said the London mayor.
And he vowed that there would be "a party atmosphere in the centre of London for the duration of the games".
He said London would spend "half what the Chinese spent but we will deliver a games that is every bit as good".
Controlling costs
The biggest cost pressures were on the Olympic village, the stadium and the media centre, he told the MPs, but he was "determined to extract value" for "generations to come".
He would not be afraid to defy the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and move a venue "off site" in order to keep costs down.
Asked to describe how London would differ from Beijing, he said: "The London Olympics will have, what's the word I want?, an intimacy. The site will be smaller than the Beijing Park, it will be cosier, as estate agents would put it.
"It will still be a vast site and there will be many spectacular things to see there, but there is no need, we think, to spend that amount of money."
He said he had cut the budget for London 2012's party at the Beijing Games by £1.4m which he said was "widely thought to be the best event in Beijing".
He also said he wanted to cut costs at the £386m media centre, He said the budget could not be slashed too far as it could lead to negative coverage from foreign media but the catering budget may need to be revised.
"You can count on me, as one who has attended many international summits and eaten in many a marquee, that I see absolutely no reason why there should not be some economies there," said Mr Johnson.
GB football team
Olympic medal-winning kayaker Tim Brabants was quizzed by the committee about whether performance-related cash bonuses should be introduced for British athletes.
"It's not going to drive me on more knowing I am going to get a bonus," he told the committee before producing his gold medal to show the MPs.
This is bonus enough for me. This is what we work for," he added.
Lord Moynihan, chairman of the British Olympic Association, said the issue of bonuses was being examined but the views of athletes would be taken into account.
He also repeated his commitment to entering men and women's Great Britain football teams in the 2012 games, although he stressed he wanted to address the concerns of the football associations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who have opposed the plan.
"It is important that we listen, it is important that we give all the FAs the confidence that their status in international football will not be detrimentally affected," he told the committee.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)