Tonight:
4°c
How much, who's paying and the key players
Matthew Beard, Evening Standard7 Jul 2008
The budget
The budget has been the most controversial aspect of preparations for the London Olympics. It was originally costed at £2.4bn during the bid, with around £1bn extra for "regeneration" purposes. After the bid was won it became quickly apparent that the budget was inadequate in March 2007 the Government confirmed it had jumped to £9.3bn. The budget breaks down as follows:
Key costs:
* Security - £600m
* Venues - £1.17bn, including:
Stadium - £525m
Aquatics centre - £242m
Velodrome - £80m
Olympic village and media centre - £496m
Olympic Park preparation and infrastructure - £1.942bn
Other park costs (eg site security) - £868m
Transport - £897m
Contingency fund - £2.7bn
Contributors
Central government - £5.975bn
National Lottery - £2.175bn
Greater London Authority - £925m
London Development Agency - £250m
Total - £9.325bn
Who is in charge?
The Olympic board is the key decision-making body within the 2012 project and comprises the mayor, the Olympics minister, the chairman of the 2012 organising committee and chairman of the British Olympic Association. It meets monthly and the chair alternates between the Government and the mayor.
Colin Moynihan, chairman of the BOA
The former Olympic rowing cox and Tory sports minister was elected chairman of the BOA when Sir Craig Reedie - a key architect of the 2012 project - stood down after the bid. Moynihan recently shaken up organisation to help it meet the challenges of hosting the next Games. Under Moynihan the BOA - whose main task is sending teams to the summer and winter Games - has targeted an unprecedented fourth place at 2012 with around 700 athletes - more than double the size of the Beijing squad. Former England Rugby coach Sir Clive Woodward was chosen by Moynihan to help turn potential into gold medals. The BOA is searching for a new chief executive to boost its fund-raising activities and will move premises in the New Year, probably nearer to the Stratford site of the Games.
Tessa Jowell, Olympics Minister
Convinced the cabinet under Tony Blair to back an Olympic bid after witnessing the success of the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester. Jowell's formidable networking skills and relations with former mayor Ken Livingstone were crucial to the bid win. Moved to the Cabinet Office as Olympics minister in Gordon Brown's first re-shuffle. Jowell is one of the few key figures remaining from the bid and has insisted that the £9.3bn budget will not be exceeded despite warnings to the contrary.
Sebastian Coe, chairman of the 2012 organising committee
Arguably the most influential member of the board, given his connections across Westminster and in the world of Olympic sport. Coe has used his political cunning to keep at a distance from budgetary rows while his team have earned praise from the IOC for progress on the event management side of the project. Most dear to him will be creating the legacy of a sports infrastructure in Olympic events which the capital so badly lacks. As a vice chairman of the International Association of Athletics Federations, he is expected to run for the top job in 2011.
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London
Johnson made cost-cutting at City Hall one of the key pledges of his election campaing and he has used the Olympics to highlight this. His 2012 supremo, the Carphone Warehouse boss David Ross, has warned that the £9.3bn budget may overrun but he has advised he mayor that major projects cannot be reversed to cut costs. Critics say that the Ross report said nothing new, but the mayor insists it has been important in creating more transparency around Games planning, especially the budget.
How we won the Olympics
When the London bid was launched by Tessa Jowell and then bid leader Barbara Cassani in the spring of 2003, few gave it any chance of success against front-runners Paris and Madrid.
Factors counting against London were thought to include withdrawal from hosting the athletics world championships at Picketts Lock and the war in Iraq.
After Cassani made some key appointments, she stood aside a year later for Seb Coe who turned out to be the perfect ambassador for a 2012 Games.
The race for 2012 was considered Paris's to lose and London exploited this. The Paris campaign was conservative bordering on complacent whereas London's was eye-catching.
It appealed to the International Olympic Committee's wish to attract a younger following and offered financial incentives to athletes from poorer nations.
At the vote in Singapore, the campaign was boosted by the star quality of David Beckham and the one-to-one appeals to IOC members by Tony and Cherie Blair.
On July 6 Madrid were knocked out in the third round of voting and their backers transferred votes to London in its head-to-head with Paris. But it was close - London won by 54 votes to 50.
Reader views (5)
Who cares how much money we have.Community spirit amounts to more than any sum of money.We can make this WORK.I don't see you doing anything to help 2012,and I bet you have no community spirit to boot.
- H.J.Jones, London UK, 08/04/2009 11:32
Report abuse
When you broke, do you go throw an expensive party! Well, the UK seems to subscribe to this theory. All this money for ONE WEEK of celebrating. Then it will cost another Billion to convert it is of any use whatsoever. This is insane. Politicians, just don't get it. Bonuses for bankers, 9 billion for a one week affair. They act like nothing is wrong on the financial front. Certainly the fist person is in DENIAL. (HJ JONES) Mr Jones, this country is broke!.
- Bernard, London, 28/01/2009 15:01
Report abuse
The UK is a beautiful,whimsical and proud nation.London is the greatest city on Earth and capable of hosting the greatest Olympics EVER.We have pride.We have money.We have dedication.
- H.J.Jones, London UK, 27/11/2008 17:45
Report abuse
I am laughing so hard. Olympics has always been a big show for the whole humanity. Beijing just had an epic performance and no one can top that for decades to come. I wonder why London even bothered to apply if they can not come up with the money or the dedication. UK now seems to be a second rate nation that only moan about things besides following the US. London is old and tired, I don't see how it can handle a mass production like the Olympics. How sad the London handover show, how sad the 2021 logo, how sad the clown mayor. It is ironic and UK worked the hardest to disrupt Beijing's torch, now I have heard London might not even have the torch relay. Funny how it comes back to haunt UK. A nation that does not respect others deserves no respect. I hope miracle will happen for London in 2012, but so far, things does not look good. The IOC should take the game to other nations that can afford them and where the people are passionate about Olympics.
- Snowman121, austin USA, 27/11/2008 16:45
Report abuse
Olympic Games - all hype and no substance. The biggest waste of money since the Millennium Dome. No one gives a thought to those, like me, who are not sports enthusiasts. I've been bored rigid by a fortnight of this Beijing rubbish forced onto me. I am biased towards the Arts & Heritage, which always gets less investment than sport. I am a volunteer steward at Shakespeare's Globe Theatre. We are currently trying to raise £20M for future projects. The Globe is an example of a great success story that is not a burden to the tax payer; it is something that values and preserves our heritage, it's great for tourism, and will create a more lasting legacy than any Olympics. If you want to give money to a worthy cause, donate it to the Globe. Judging by cities like Athens and Sydney, they have expensive sports facilities that no one uses, so once this vanity project is over and the hype dies down, it'll be quickly forgotten.
- Caroline G, Essex, UK, 27/11/2008 16:45
Report abuse
