This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 01 Oct 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

Handbook of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Volume One: Making the Games Vassil Girginov

Preparing and Winning the London Bid

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 Guy Masterman Published online on: 03 Oct 2012

How to cite :- Guy Masterman. 03 Oct 2012, Preparing and Winning the London Bid from: Handbook of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Volume One: Making the Games Routledge Accessed on: 01 Oct 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203132517.ch3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 at thetimeof bid. Minister Sport Government’s UK the Caborn, Richard and bid; London the for Affairs Public and Communications of Director the Lee, Mike member; Board Executive (IOC) Committee Sir Craig Reedie, Chair of the British interviews: Olympic three Association and (BOA) texts and documentation, an various on International draws Olympic and analysis Games The Games. Olympic Paralympic 2012 the for bid its won London how with concerned is chapter This Winning thebidinRafflesHotel,Singapore Preparing andwinningthe LONDON bid Guy Masterman Introduction 3 29 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 bids fromEngland’ssecondandthirdlargestcitieshadnotbeen capableofwinning. lacked support from the Government (Reedie, 2011). Second, despite three attempts, provincial had it and comparison in weak been had nomination BOA’s the be to campaigns its – city bid to what has since followed. First, London had clearly not been favoured in any way as a potential was left with was a series of failed bids. There are two important points to make here in relation BOA the what but third, ranking better, fared It Games. 2000 the for again went Manchester and aside put was failure this again but place), (fourth failed also bid This Olympiad. following the for opportunity immediate the given was Manchester thus and made be should bid further fifth-­ Birmingham’s Despite Games. Summer a hosting the capitalcity,wasnotputforward. ing a Britain-­ follow Committee) Olympic National Britain’s (Great BOA the by made was Birmingham of Games and in so doing was only the second British city to bid to host the Games. The selection Manchester and Birmingham for rivalled Britain’s 1992 bid. unsuccessfully The winner, Birmingham, city bid for the the 1992 recently More 2003). (Barker, Government the by supported London-­ west a into study London. post-­ first the consequence, a As War. event; however, these latter Games were also then cancelled due to the ongoing Second World 1944the for successfully and Games 1940 cancelled eventually the for bid unsuccessfully then London Games. these for bid not did therefore London out. pulled had Rome, city, bidding London hosted its first Summer Olympic Games in 1908, having stepped in after the winning ment andshapeofthebid. tion of London for the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, but also for the develop selected and how previous bidding contributed are important questions, not only for the selec It is important to consider where the London 2012 bid came from. Why and how London was enabled thatpresentationtobeeffective. question but is more focused on an analysis of the extensive planning prior to that event, which ite, the question arises as to how influential that presentation was. This chapter will look at that seemingly London With going host. into those final days in third place, certainly with the media extolling Paris as declared the favour was London when members IOC the to Singapore Reedie, the relatively new Chairman of the BOA, this was a key point at which to determine to which at point key a Craig was this BOA, the of For Chairman new relatively the forward. Reedie, press would BOA the how in factor significant a was 1993 in bid losing second Manchester’s 1993. as early as started this case London’s in idea; an of notion early an future a for seeds London bid. the Despite their sowing size and started prominence, an first Olympic Games BOA in any the one city when starts as factors only key were bids failed These n erset e a se ht h BA wt te oenet n upr, a ke on keen was support, in Government the with BOA, the that see can we retrospect In feasibility a undergo did Cutler, Horace by led Council, London Greater the and London in presentation final the around particular in bid, the surrounds that mystique a is There wide process; at the time this selection was somewhat controversial in that London, based and Wembley Stadium-­ Wembley and based How thebiddeveloped 1997 feasibilitystudy Previous bidding war Games, in 1948, were awarded to and hosted by hosted and to awarded were 1948, in Games, war Guy Masterman 30 focused 1988 Games, but this was not was this but Games, 1988 focused lc rnig i ws eie ta a that decided was it ranking, place - - - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 It also became clear to Reedie that a bid led by the National Olympic Committee (NOC) was (NOC) Committee Olympic National the by led bid a that Reedie to clear became also It capable ofwinninganyfuturebid: was then able to gauge critical opinion. What became apparent was that only London would be which direction the BOA should take. Reedie became an IOC member the following year and Jowell, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport following late financial assessments. financial late While avoiding a following financially disastrous event wasSport to be admired, unfortunatelyand London instantly Tessa Media of Culture, order for State the of on Secretary withdrew Jowell, Championships, Athletics World 2005 the stage to bid its preparation of development accepted and won having London, the 2001, July In not. or bid to whether on on decision a towards impacts contradictory had that events two were There would havetobefor2012. it study feasibility the in identified option favoured the of advantage take also and Olympiad to compete or trial for these Olympiads and so it became clear that if London was to bid for an by the process’ (Reedie, 2011). The BOA did not feel that it had either the time or the funding In retrospect it is clear that when Paris bid against Beijing in 2001 they ‘got rather badly bruised as a trial run at best and that was considered to be a route too expensive to take (Reedie, 2011). bidding in 2001 for the 2008 Games appeared futile. Indeed, a 2001 bid would only have served and Beijing on taking of thought the Similarly, case. any in competitor a tough too be would quently, there was no point in submitting a bid that year and going for the 2004 Games. Athens relationships insportwerealsocomplicatedandtheGovernmentwasnotthatengaged;conse and successful hugely wasn’t sport British 1997, In 2006). (Lee, long for available remain not would it that was critical was what but Valley, Lea the along identified been had land derelict option was an east London bid with a regeneration angle. A long stretch of available and mainly feasible most the so and football, but anything for was that Stadium Wembley new a with that support not would Association Football the that clear became it However, table. planning the on was London west in based Games Olympic an and available, options different were There become clearuntil6July2005. focused on ensuring that was a winning that bid report could a be producing produced, of something task that ultimately the would about not set Luckes 1997, In 2006). team, (Lee, Luckes hockey David Olympic 1996 Britain’s from player hockey goalkeeping the to task that gave A for. go to one best the be research-­ would Olympiad which indeed and host, a be could London relations (Reedie,2011). be involved in the bid, history having shown that this is not the case where there are disjointed to stakeholders of set future a for base solid more a provide also would it IOC, the by received BOA-­ A NOC. Britain’s was BOA the – critical The idea remained small at this point and there were still important questions about how about questions important still were there and point this at small remained idea The how worthy. matter no city, provincial a with it do wouldn’t simply IOC] [the they London, with be to had it again, successfully bid to going ever were we if that clear quite became It underpinned feasibility exercise was required and BOA Chief Executive Simon Clegg Preparing andwinningtheLondonbid Early impactingfactors East Londonfocus 31 e bd ol nt ny e oe warmly more be only not would bid led (Reedie, 2011) - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 2003). (Parliament, Games 2012 the for bid would it that declare finally to Cabinet Blair’s for 2003 tive news that London had as good a chance as any other applicant city, it still took until 15 May ae sx er t dvlp Te ou nw a o te rprto o ases o h IOC the to answers of preparation the on questionnaire. was now focus The develop. to years six taken the in ‘mark’ a public domain that use denoted its status to as a 2012 London bidding city. By allowed this time the decision This to bid had month. following the paid was US$150,000 of the IOC that London was an applicant city. This was done by 15 July 2003 and the required fee to declaration official BOA a alongside run to having building team further with affairs, Public and Communications of Director as Lee Mike and Executive Chief as later. Mills Keith came months Next two role her up taking 2003, June in quickly relatively appointed was Cassani dent Jacques Rogge in January 2003 ( media had picked up on the significance of Tessa Jowell going to Lausanne tothe meet IOC Presi as concern internal an only being from far was This bid. a win could London if know to pro new whole a gramme ofticketsales. by The supported taxes. funding Lottery Londoners’ from come in to increase was billion an £1.5 remaining and (LDA) Agency Development London the from so agreed to a deal that provided the difference in costs via a model that saw £0.9 billion coming Livingstone, while not an expert on sport, was aware of what a Games might do for London and Ken Mayor London London. of City the with made deal a by supported and Caborn Richard was to be achieved. This came from key player Tessa Jowell, working with her Sports Minister progress if required was model financial new a and prohibitive too as seen was cost new This hosting an Olympic Games, but in any case the estimate was a formidable barrier to overcome. billion. It is difficult to know whether this was contrived by ministers who were clearly against £2.4 of figure higher substantially a with up came servants civil from estimation derived nally was received somewhat sceptically by a number of Government cabinet members and an inter Arup-­ an in billion £1.8 at estimated been had expenditure due totheIOCby15January2004. questionnaire, city applicant IOC the of completion target, first the towards work to required building the team from scratch and was critically acclaimed in providing the solid base that was first the was for responsible was She 2003. August in Bid Go, the of Chair as role her up took and appointment airline, budget Airlines British the with formerly Cassani, Barbara charge. in businesswoman American an with and beginnings humble very from began team bid The could indeeddeliveraninternationalsportsevent. Jacques success. Britain great that fact the a witnessed and firsthand hailed event that saw were IOC, the of President ways the Rogge, many in and Manchester in hosted were Games would beafactorstandingagainstgoingaheadwithbidatall. worst at and bid, a by addressed be to need would that mantle a be would this best At 2009). (Masterman, event sports international an deliver not could that city a as reputation a gained There was a nagging doubt at this time and, in particular, Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted 2002 late In costs. over wrangling of months of number a of back the on in came Cassani Commonwealth 2002 The counterbalance. a provided have may event another However, The Cassaniperiod The decisiontobid Sports Illustrated, 2003). Although she returned with posi Guy Masterman 32 produced study (Arup, 2002). This 2002). (Arup, study produced - - - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 as follows: were themes The City. Candidate a as round next the to through go to evaluation city a the select to convince team to detail sufficient was there ensure to was challenge the language, to cover seven themes, with each answer required in both French and English. At had 25 pages per – Janeiro de Rio and Paris York, New Moscow, Madrid, London, Leipzig, Istanbul, rather than detail, of an intended event concept. In this case each of the applicants – Havana, the IOC. (2) a demonstrated compliance to the Olympic Charter, ethical and anti-­ and Games; the hosting in potential country’s host and city’s the (1) on: assessed are applicants evaluated by an IOC team consisting of technical experts to assess each applicant city. Generally then is which form, report in submitted is response a and short relatively is questionnaire The 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The questionnaire is designed to provide the IOC evaluation team with an overview, an with team evaluation IOC the provide to designed is questionnaire The eea cniin, oitc ad xeine Ti scin eurd nomto o city on information required section This experience. and logistics conditions, General Transport infrastructure. For many cities this is a section that requires considerable consid Accommodation. Hotel provision was confidently presented by London as it showed how new a build and reclaim would it how showed London where was section This Venues. Finance. This section required each city to give a breakdown of how it would fund both a for intent serious a demonstrate clearly to had London section this For support. Political support, public of measures covers section This opinion. public and concept Motivation, 2002 Commonwealth Gamessuccess. the up play to opportunity great a but issue, Championships Athletics World 2005 the ing major international sports events. Clearly this was another section to be wary of, consider- hosting in expertise of history 10-year a required also It provision. security and approach environmental conditions, meteorology event, the of time the at expectations population naire, sothiswasanareaofvulnerability. question this for prepare to had team the months five the in negotiated or prepared been had Little issues. congestion suffering already city capital a in rail light event-­ and underground of numbers large move would it how onstrate new any without adequately media, the including visitors, investment. event for cater could it was abenefitforthoseareasratherthangeographicalortransportation problem. Olympic Park to other venues at a distance from its main delivery centre, showing that this its relate to had also It venues. new of consisting focus sports a with London east in zone cial modelithadagreedthepreviousyear. hosting of the Games and also the upcoming candidacy phase. London submitted the finan tive wererequiredinordertodemonstratejusthowseriousthecitywas. and declarations of key personnel involved from both a political and management perspec BOA, the and City the Government, the from Letters asset. an were Games monwealth Com- 2002 successful the while factor, limiting a as perceived been have could pionships hosting the Games. Therefore the withdrawn hosting for the 2005 World Athletic Cham ferred choiceforthe1992,1996or2000bidsfromBOA. support for an Olympic Games in the city, bearing in mind London had not been the pre widespread was there how show to needed that section a was this London For spective. per geographical a from look would venues the how and legacies intended of indication eration; transportation was certainly an area of concern for London. It had to try and dem Preparing andwinningtheLondonbid The ApplicantQuestionnaire 33 eae pol b ar ra, rail, road, air, by people related doping codes as set by ------Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 tion tothispartofeastLondon(Reedie,2011). team had to function as a catalyst. For example, the issue of transportation was the city’s the was transportation but cost, if their was and to indeed London concern win of a had there to Games be considerable issue the example, For catalyst. a as function to had team bid the Ostensibly agendas. development and budgets own their with each involved, holders US in bid be to had dollars based it on 2004 that prices. This fact planning was further the complicated by by the numbers of stake complicated was which Book, Bid a in required also is budget firm A friendly. environmentally and sustainable Games the make to effort strong the eradicate to IOC’s damningevaluation. order in change effect to had it whereby curve learning high a entered fore the also and system, establishment of a link railway to the Games new using the Channel Tunnel a rail system. The of bid team there construction of implementation Railway, Light lands Dock the on extensions Underground, the on upgrades achieve to parties right the together pulling work of lot London’s a was transpired get What standard. necessary the to to up systems order transportation in stakeholders of set diverse new a with work of programme whole a address to was this of part critical A event. sporting great a organise would London how and be would they where be, would venues the what on detail technical sufficient provide would that Book Bid a produce to was task the meant This 2011). (Reedie, infrastructure’ transport to firstplace. was due on 15 November 2004, so the London team only had six months to progress from third this task; next the was File) (Candidature Book Bid a of production The 2011). (Caborn, win could London that unconvinced remained ministers many as for wished had Government the start the not certainly was This transportation. was concern of area critical most the However, Athletics Championships in particular appeared to be counting against London (Caborn, 2011). World 2005 the of loss The concern. of areas all were event experience of and expertise lack management a and cent) per (62 support public low security, that indicated gained London one of the seven themes, accommodation, and even that was a joint-­ in top came only London Worryingly, 2006). Lee, 2004; Mail, (Daily points 6.5 with behind way long a appeared Moscow points. 7.5 at pegging level almost was York New points; 7.6 only with points), (8.3 Madrid and points) (8.5 Paris behind way good a was London Indeed, tive feedback and a clear indication that it would have to improve its bid if it was going to win. New York and Paris as a Candidate City. However, this success came with a fair degree of nega to waituntil18May2004findoutifLondonwasindeedbetakenseriously. promote to order have would but – bid the in registering – task first the achieved had House It support. media and public Opera Royal the at event launch a provided team London the 2004 January 15 on response Questionnaire Applicant the of submission its with coincide To new the because particularly legacy, substantial a venues would be located in a new park setting that would bring about much-­ be would there that felt also was It Park. very a on based compact was plan concept and that its there would that therefore was be a London Games predominantly for based highlight in a overall new Olympic The 2011). (Reedie, sport’ from and sport on based was campaign whole the that so else anybody or city the from it was clearly coming from Britain’s NOC (the BOA) and from a sport perspective, ‘rather than Other key Bid Book considerations were Government support and guarantees and also a also and guarantees and support Government were considerations Book Bid key Other ‘obsolete its with problem a have would London that was IOC the from message clear The Moscow, Madrid, joining London with phase, next the to through went cities five Only What was important for the BOA was that the Applicant Questionnaire was produced so that Guy Masterman Candidacy 34 first placing. The feedback needed regenera - - - - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 was arelativelypositiveplacetobe(Lee,2011). to hand. Getting through that stage and then having the chance to build that expertise and detail detail and bid teams at this stage of the process are small and generally without specific expertise London bid team that this could be achieved. The Applicant Questionnaire allows only so much the in confidence a was there required, now was work original and new of lot a While tively. event the of (LOCOG, 2004). day the on Underground London the on travel included that price a at sold be to were tickets facility’ spectator sports that declaration the a with applied was also was 25% Innovation 2011). and (Reedie, infrastructure effectively was cost enhanced total the of 75% that ‘so site, Olympic the on focused programme a of development part as infrastructure improved an build to a plan was transpired What a solution. producing in effort collaborative e mr frial opnn ta Prs f t ae on o two- ­ a to down came it 2011). if Paris than opponent formidable more a be the for executive leading even could Madrid that fear a was There IOC. the to connected well visibly were bid, the Madrid Jr, Samaranch Antonio Juan son, his and Samaranch Antonio Juan President IOC Former 2011). (Lee, factor’ ‘Samaranch the also was There turn. Madrid’s was it then Paris, not was it if that fear a was there Games a hosted have to Spain in city only sidered to have put on a successful Games and indeed developed its legacy since, and as it is the con generally is Barcelona before. hosted not had that city capital a also was and disposal its at Madrid was generally seen to have built its concept well. It had a large indoor convention centre game’ ‘winning a (Lee, 2011). upset to wanting not if as campaign their throughout conservative ing was considered by some to lead to the city’s downfall, their communications strategy appear London bid team that Paris had a key factor of ‘it’s our turn’ (Caborn, 2011). Ironically, this the within feeling a was there times, recent in bid third their was this because and Overall, ceived tobeina‘safesetofhands’fromanevent-­ to a better set of existing facilities than London had, and utilisation of those venues was per already an multi- in the addition, Paris looked to base have a reasonable, stadium, centrally located village concept. This main technical amounted its strong in a point had focal also established city The 2011). (Reedie, alike tourists and athletes majormembers, IOC for a City Host good a considered make would therefore is and destination tourist city the that was factor key A 2011). (Lee, too favourite of the air’ being ‘an have to appeared also They favourite. 2012 the be to many by considered was Paris (2008), Games previous immediate the and (1992) Games recent one for bid Having Applicant Questionnaires. the of scoring the following lead the in clearly were Madrid and Paris that a perception public was there but differential, own their had cities four other the of Each competition. the on eye an keep to need the always is there bid, own its on focus course, of would, London While From a communications perspective the post-­ the perspective communications a From Preparing andwinningtheLondonbid The competition Madrid Paris 35 questionnaire position was seen more posi more seen was position questionnaire management perspective(Caborn,2011). use Stade de France (Lee, 2011). In In 2011). (Lee, France de Stade ­use os rc (Caborn, race horse - - - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 factors thatcombinedtohelpthemgetthejobdone.These are discussedbelow. success key of number a had London analysis, In factors. success own its promote and create to then uptothedecisiondayitself.Thisishowandwhenabid iswon;ateamhastoworkhard be considerable activity in the public domain throughout the six months prior to submission and to needs there that for and believed be to needs content Its alone. stand cannot Book Bid The ation commissionwithconfidence.Theoutcomewasavery satisfactory report(Reedie,2011). revealed a number of issues that the team were then equipped to address and thus receive the evalu side a team of other experts, Reedie presided over five days of rehearsal and as a result this process able to bring expertise to that role, having previously been on two evaluation committees. Along event right, the team ran its own trial event with Craig Reedie chairing a mock-­ this get to order In winning. of chance a had it that notion the promote to this used also London evaluationthevisitof commission Februarysuccessincourse, a2005.of Thisneeded butbe to London became a Candidate City the bid seemed to pick up momentum. A key moment was the sign- supporter and communications bid via support public in growth bid also coherentwas There 2011). a (Reedie, achieve to use as well as promote to position helpful a being this do’, always was done. back and used that to produce a winning position. It is therefore important to consider how this November 2004 was 15 clearly a successful on Bid Book. It submitted had taken and the previous Applicant together Questionnaire feed put eventually London that File Candidature The seen astiredandinneedofupgrading(Reedie,2011). generally were These Games. 1980 the hosted city the when used been had that facilities the were these asset, an considered be could this some for while and built already were plan cow’s The London team saw Moscow as being last in the race. The venues that were the base of Mos intended its as stages Manhattan-­ latter the in downfall York’s New be to prove indeed did This 2011). (Reedie, stadium main proposed its and security surrounding issues be would there that early saw and concept extends Games strong a that offered it convinced aura not were team an London the has worldwide, York New While 2011). (Lee, IOC the and Committee Olympic US the between relationship the in strains be to appeared also There Doctoroff. Dan in leader charismatic strong, a despite competition, strong offering be to considered not was York New so whatever decisions are made the event has a date on which it must take place. This makes for they make. For an event project there is an overarching target and an immovable deadline, and The outcome of any project is entirely dependent on the quality of the people and the decisions There was a sense that ‘British sport was beginning to come together in a way that it didn’titthat way atogether‘British beginningcomethatsenseinwassportto a was There ­up mechanisms, and while the British media can be sceptical, even cynical on occasions, when based sitefellthrough. Highlights fromtheCandidatureFile The Londonbid:keysuccessfactors The bidteam Guy Masterman New York Moscow 36 up event. He was - - - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 access toothermembers,providing invaluableinsightintowherethebidneededtofocus. Mills after the submitting of the Candidature File. His position as an IOC member allowed him cussion above, but Reedie continued to play an important role, in particular alongside Coe and f h tre ao saeodr (O, h Gvrmn ad h Ct o Lno) working London) of City together wasasignificantadvantageandnomeanfeattoachieve(Caborn,2011). the and Government the (BOA, stakeholders major three the of comradeship among members demonstrates just how close this team became. The combination was made up of a disparate set of individuals. There was a pride in the job that was done and the loyalty, respect and admiration between members of the bid team, and yet at the outset this team a cohesiveunitwherebyindividualsaremouldedintoteamforoptimumperformance. are selected. However, what is also critical is the composition of the event-­ individuals talented that then, important, is It waste. to time little have periods planning event and mind, in target one that with composed are teams Management environment. intense an Richard Caborn, having decided that they wanted to back the bid around late December 2002, Minister Sports her and She outset. the at important was Sport, and Media Culture, for State deal-­ of amount great a making skilltotheteamaswelldedication(Caborn,2011; Reedie,2011). both brought doing so in and it, of love the for role the on take to the London Bid, but was already a very successful businessman and sports enthusiast. He appeared what Coewasthenabletodevelop. require clear lines of communication within those structures and that is what Cassani started and decision-­ The 2009). (Masterman, tures struc hierarchy and leadership clear require that projects are events that is here make to point The role he played is seen as critical in winning the bid and is discussed below, but an important seen since to have taken on the role and dispelled any thoughts that he was not the right choice. appointment of a former Tory Member of Parliament (Caborn, 2011). However, Coe has been Cassani. Indeed, it was an interesting issue for the Government’s Labour Cabinet to endorse the the after decision (Caborn,2011;Lee,2011). until wraps under kept expertly but quickly very found been had Chair new a that and decision IOC the before days several resigned had she that is reality the aside, moved was she whether questioned media the While 2011). (Caborn, understand not did she membership IOC an to bid the take and point this beyond role lead the take not could she that recognised perhaps herself she However, 2011). (Caborn, shortlist the onto and stage first the through bid when she did. She was pivotal in bringing people together to achieve the mission of getting the Cassani was appointed to successfully kick things off and equally important that she left the post first stage but was sitting in third place. However, in retrospect it appears to be both critical that the through come just had that bid a for timing bad be to looked This 2004). (Telegraph, City her resignation as it came at a time when London had won through to be declared a Candidate of out deal big a quite made the media The 2011). in (Reedie, 2004 factor May in post a the left been she reason have may this indeed and role, a such to appointed being American an at surprise some was there particular, In 2011). Reedie, 2011; Lee, 2011; (Caborn, resignation of controversy created by the media both at the time of her appointment and at the time of her amount certain a was there yet and this for praise of deal great a receives She team. winning a team from scratch, putting all the initial blocks in place in order to assemble what was ultimately The London bid team did this very well. What is clear to see is that there remains great remains there that is see to clear is What well. very this did team bid London The There were several figures from politics who played key roles. Tessa Jowell, as Secretary of Secretary as Jowell, Tessa roles. key played who politics from figures several were There Craig Reedie’sroleasBOAChairmanandtheinitiatingof bidiscleartoseeinthedis Keith Mills is seen to have played a significant role. Mills was appointed Chief Executive for from over take to choice controversial a also was Coe Sebastian commentators, some For the built She Bid. London the of Chair as appointment first critical a was Cassani Barbara Preparing andwinningtheLondonbid aig rcse fo pann t implementation to planning from processes making 37 management team as - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 team had been involved. They ostensibly distanced the London bid from the broadcast. The broadcast. the from bid London the distanced ostensibly They involved. been had team were waiting outside, and after the screening spent their time quashing the rumour that the bid Lee, Mike and Reedie Craig Coe, Sebastian including team, the of Members Rogge. Jacques to see the programme, but in a private airing as had previously been agreed in by Craig Session Reedie and IOC an got members IOC the ensure to was at team the by response key the Games, 2004 raised the at Athens was issue the When 2006). (Lee, with contend to crisis damaging had potentially London most the became consequently and IOC the on attack BBC a as perceived was it but practice, prohibited this about going was London that allegations no were BBC’s the unearthed a bribery issue with 2004, a claim that IOC votes August for bidding cities could In be bought. There elements. these of all required that threat particular one was There systems. response planned with quickly react to is key The surprises. End ofLondon(Lee,2011). Daley Thompson was cleverly used to show how a global sports star could emerge from the East High-­ 2005). (London.net, campaign its in sport alongside landmarks its using cities great world’s the million three generated campaign signed-­ Bid’ the ‘Back The period. bid the during team London There were a number of successful aspects to the communications that were undertaken by the for infrastructure the delivering for London 2012. responsible now is which (ODA), Authority Delivery Olympic the establish to on went then and Park Olympic the for put plans original who the together Nimmo, Alison introduced also Bernstein Games. Commonwealth 2002 chester’s Man of delivery successful a in instrumental been having advice, important brought Council, City Manchester of Executive Chief Bernstein, Howard Sir 2011). (Lee, process the in stage Olympic Games hosted by Sydney, an appointment that in itself was a good story to tell at that 2000 the at officers operating key the of one was Sloman File. Candidature detailed more the to through and Questionnaire Applicant the from on move help to consultancy Associates MI Marketing Directorandplayedakeyroleinthewholecommunicationsplan. and his team (Caborn, 2011). David Magliano worked very closely with Mike Lee in his role as BBC skilful a be operator and shrewd to in identifying proved issues early. An he example of one Affairs of the trickiest Public issues was the and Communications of Director as and Cassani, by the teameffortrequiredtowin(Lee,2011). approached his role by ensuring that no-­ ical figure with an agenda for the redevelopment of the city but, along with his counterparts, he and stood back to let the BOA develop the project (Reedie, 2011). Livingstone was a key polit- funds the provided Jowell Livingstone. Ken Mayor from support with London of End East the just a number of enthusiasts and a report from Arup indicating that an event could be hosted in committee, or funding offices, no were there outset the At 2011). (Lee, around way other the than rather Government, the by underpinned but sport by led be to need would bid successful a that understanding clearly support, of worthy was bid the that colleagues her persuading in became very supportive of the BOA. She, more than any other Cabinet member, was influential Successful plans need to be able to respond to issues because they can often be usurped by usurped be often can they because issues to respond to able be to need plans Successful his and Sloman Jim of hiring the was importance particular Of used. also were Consultants A number of team executives stood out. Mike Lee was one of the first employees appointed broadcast dealing with bribery (see below), but this was ably dealt with by Lee by with dealt ably was this but below), (see bribery with dealing broadcast Panorama profile supporters such as politicians and Olympians were well utilised. Forexample, wellutilised. were andOlympians aspoliticians such supporters profile up supporters to show that London wanted the Games. London was presented as one of Communications one or their individual agenda was more important than Guy Masterman 38 programme Panorama - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 stakeholders becauseoftheirconcernsoverfutureaudiencesandmarkets. many welcomedby hopefullybewould that focus a sport,into them get to worldthe around 2006, (Lee, engaged 2011).more Ityoung wasthe a getting bold on decision,focus a but Londonof hear decidedto to keen focusbe on might an broadcasters inspiration of young people from consequentlyso Olympictelevisionconcernsandthatgettingolderaudiences were werethere sponsors as well as IOC members, and, interestingly, broadcasters. In the United States, for example, this should be a bid that was focused on inspiring the young was further enhanced by talking historicwith point for the IOC and that a similar impact might be required momentous, a forwas China 2012.to Games 2008 Theprevious the take conceptto decision the that thatagreed team The Movement. the and IOC the transform might London how identify to used was he and advisor could be developed for the future. Michael Payne, a former IOC MarketingOlympicMovementthe concentrate how Director, toon lighting andcitiesothercomparisons the with served as an high on focus to temptation the ignore to made also was decision critical a approach, this of part The focus on using a London Games to inspire young people to take up sport was a key vision. As from fourothergreatcities,andthiswascapturedinthevision(Lee,2011). in whichtwosprintersfaileddrugtests,pullingmediaattentionawayfromLondon. was critical in dampening this touch paper. Fortuitously this was also helped by another incident suspicion may still have remained, but the quick and personal response from key team members second-­ might who of consisting scenarios of set complex a and cities other the of favour in be would who London, towards sympathetic be not would and would who members IOC of intentions likely the of analysis ongoing an was outcome The heads. their in was strategy the Essentially, strategy. the evolving always and other each with contact constant in were they time, the of this of success approach was the communication they had between themselves, despite real being miles apart most the However, effectively. operate provided could they leads three and the process whereby this analysis for up set was department relations international An world. the of parts different in feelings and opinions members’ IOC about knowledgeable were who gence gathering, and so the team of three was underpinned by a whole host of other executives intelli to approach comprehensive a by supported was This people. contact should they how and be, should and could they where out worked they Together member. IOC fellow a was or Mills, Reedie was able to legitimately access IOC members at many more events because he this was something that evolved between three key players: Coe, Mills and Reedie. Unlike Coe while the London team had a strategy, it was not one to be found in any document. Effectively sport-­ with in active were (Caborn, 2011).AttheoutsetCityofLondonwasalsoan important stakeholdertowinover. they countries 30+ the in it behind got Council British Council all This working side. towards on this common Cabinet goal. Government’s Caborn the himself and travelledworked politicians many andmiles get itto led to ensure to the job the Diplomatic focused nationally Service, a Foreign was Office,it UK Trade and Investment and British needed to be swayed and brought on board throughout the differentA successful skill and tactic adopted by the team was in the lobbying of all the different people that stages of the bid. At the outset h ky hm truhu al omnctos a te ed o dsigihn London distinguishing for need the was communications all throughout theme key The The latter stages became highly focused on one target area – IOC members’ votes – and – votes members’ IOC – area target one on focused highly became stages latter The pick Londononce citieswereeliminatedinthe voting(Reedie,2011). Preparing andwinningtheLondonbid The vision Lobbying 39 led projects projects led - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 (Reedie, 2011). members in this way was seen as a critical advantage IOC compared with with the spent other time teams’ The approaches spouses. members’ IOC to Blair Cherie introduce to able also was Rosemary, wife, Reedie’s Craig Livingstone. Ken and/or Caborn Richard Blair, Cherie Blair, personal audiences with IOC members. They planned it so that some members would see Tony the approaches they needed to make. The main thrust of this was the use of a Prime Minster and organise would they how about plan clear a had and hotel the in established comfortably were they time that By July. 4 around town to came members IOC when ready were so many and times presentation their rehearsed they Here hotel. another in early, week a there was team London The that. to prior just town into came teams other the and 2005 July 6 was day sion who camein,madetheirpresentation,andthenleftdirectlyafterwards(Reedie,2011). politicians by led were presentations which in example, for approach, Paris the with contrast in was This approach. this in key was later, coming only politicians with athlete, Olympic an sport. The fact that Reedie led, demonstrating his IOC and BOA affiliations, followed by Coe, the that clear London made bid was derived out of sport rather than politics and that it was for the development was of it so athletes, distinctive by accompanied be frequently would they tation system. When the team was allowed to go and make presentations to NOCs, for example, on the other cities going with the usual approach, and in particular London needed Paris to go to Paris needed London particular in and approach, usual the with going cities other the on but as an East End lad wanting to host the Games (Caborn, 2011; Lee, 2006). They did gamble world, the in persons sports famous most the of one as there being not him on based was ence young swimmer. Including David Beckham was also carefully thought through in that his pres and gymnast young cyclist, young runner, young a particular in children, on focusing by focus would need. The films that were used wereit inexpensivebelieved but wereit abledifferential to supportthe this integrated them gave it because approach this with go to team the inspired focus. The prospect of competing at an event against four of the greatest cities in the world also whole the as that with and front out bravely, so do to needed they then hall presentation the decision was made to go into it wholeheartedly, and if they were going to take 30 children into the However, unprecedented. was it as route risky new, the pursue to whether about hard and what they could offer, more or less from a visitor’s perspective. The bid team had thought long and country and city a of aspects key on focus to cities for been always had norm the as cially a planthattooktwoyearstocreate(Lee,2011). its success was that it was able to draw on the vision of inspiring young people to take up sport, a presentation but you could lose one with a bad presentation.’ The key to the presentation and and built (Caborn, 2011). Reedie (2011) put it succinctly: ‘You could never win the Games by conceived well very already was that bid a of depth the portrayed it that was presentation this of success the and prepared already is what portray only can this as such presentation day final favourites, for many what transpired was a presentation that won the day. However, a successful the as day that into went Paris that feeling widespread the of because and bid, winning the be into perspective. It was of course a presentation that was given on behalf of what turned out to A lot has been made of the effect the presentation in Singapore had, so it is important to put this technical video thatfocusedonthecity,itsbuildings andlifestyle. this way. The other cities did take a tourist-­ The decision to focus on this vision and devote the presentation in this way was brave, espe The London team made another critical decision – to go to Singapore early. The IOC deci Another successful aspect in support of this approach was the development of a good presen The presentation Guy Masterman focused approach, with Paris using a very expensive 40 - - - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 Moscow Source: Gamesbids.com, 2011. New York Madrid Paris London was critically important. He is said to have thrown himself to give it full enthusiasticallysupport; his decision to work the two days in Singapore and meet the IOC members into this task, conducting critical (Caborn, 2011; Lee, 2006). Once he was convinced the bid could win, Tony Blairhard to wanted ensure their presence and support were felt. This alone is perceived by some to have been Tonyand Cherie Blair committed time to go out to Singapore. Not only that, they worked very the in behind ever only second round(seeTable3.1). was and ahead round first the of out came London as match, good a were presentation and preparation that shows Singapore in round to round from scoring the Interestingly, 2011). (Reedie, win could that bid a with Singapore to going were they feeling Table 3.1 critical Of bid. this won that making decision strong and work of years many of culmination It can be seen above that while the presentation in Singapore was strongly delivered, it was the the bid(BBC,2005;Lee,2011). winning in difference a made have to many by seen been has factor’ ‘Coe the Generally, style. that of example an is event, that in role own his by capped delivery, polished its and entation strated this particularly by leading from the front. His thorough rehearsal of the Singapore pres- demon and presentability and thoroughness brought Coe bid. the of good the for harmony in ingstone – two Labour politicians often opposed to each other – were brought together to work Liv Ken and Blair Tony particular in stakeholders, various inspire and with work to able was ence. He had also been one of three vice- ­ experi- business and political hero, national medallist, gold double Olympic credentials: of set When Sebastian Coe took over as Chair for the London bid in May 2004 he came with a strong go totheG8)wasperceivedbeacomparativelypoorone(Caborn,2011;Lee,2006). (to early leave also and before night the town to come only to decision his but day that attend did President, French the Chirac, Jacques hand, other the On Scotland. in Conference G8 significant internationally the attend to was reason his as significant, been have to not appears this day, final back-­ In further testament to the whole approach taken by the London team, the team had a strong to-back meetings over an intense few days (Lee, 2011). Whilst he was unable to stay for the the for stay to unable was he Whilst 2011). (Lee, days few intense an over meetings to-back Election ofthe2012HostCitybyIOCSession,Singapore,6July 2005 15 19 20 21 22 First round Preparing andwinningtheLondonbid Summary andconclusions Eliminated 16 32 25 27 Second round Sebastian Coe Tony Blair chairs for the bid and so he had prior experience. He 41 Eliminated 31 33 39 Third round Eliminated 50 54 Fourth round - - Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 20:08 01 Oct 2021; For: 9780203132517, chapter3, 10.4324/9780203132517.ch3 Lee, M. (2006) M. Lee, www.gamesbids.com/eng/bid_ Available: documents’. and profiles city bid ‘2012 (2011) Gamesbids.com Arup (2002) to Londonwinningitschancehostthe2012Games. led that factor one any not and above the of all of combination the is it that is clear is what but The cohesion that can be seen in the delivery of not. these did factors particular, was in Paris, also when inspired IOC by the Sebastian on Coe, impact an provide to able being Blair Tony as such players political key including Government, the by well supported was bid The fore. the to coming lobbying to approach personal very a and communications with required, was team great appeal to had IOC voters. therefore This had and to be ideals built and Olympic promoted at well and aimed so a successfully strong and was cohesive that bid a produced also London heart of the London bid. This decision led to a bid that had significant competitive differential. the at was sport whereby vision, the with go to decision the of boldness the was importance alaet (2003) Parliament Masterman, G.(2009)StrategicSportsEventManagement:OlympicEdition(2ndedn),Oxford:Elsevier. (2004) ‘This is a wake up call not a death knell’. death a not call up wake a is ‘This (2004) Telegraph bid’. London affect not will ‘Prevarication (2003) Illustrated Sports Reedie, C.(2011)Telephoneinterview,13September2011. London.net (2005) ‘The London 2012 Olympic bid’. LOCOG (2004)2012OlympicsandParalympicsCandidatureFile,Transport,Volume14. Lee, M.(2011)Telephoneinterview,14September2011. Barker, P. (2003) ‘Wembley Stadium: an Olympic chronology 1923–2003’, chronology Olympic an Stadium: ‘Wembley (2003) P. Barker, Daily Mail (2004) ‘London blasted by Olympic chiefs’. Caborn, R.(2011)Interview,Sheffield,15September2011. BBC (2005) ‘The Coe factor’. archives.html (accessed17May2011). 6 October2011). article-­ com/olympics/news/2003/02/17/london_bid (accessed10October 2011). Idhansrd/vo030515/text/30515–14 (accessed10October2011). pics/2379272 (accessed6October2011). Virgin. 21 May.Available:www.olympics.org.uk/library/boa(accessed11November2002). stm (accessed17May2011). (2): 14–18. 303354/London-­ London Olympics 2012 Costs and Benefits: Summary. The Race for the 2012 Olympics: The Inside Story of How London Won the Bid the Won London How of Story Inside The Olympics: 2012 the for Race The asr, 5 a 2003 May 15 Hansard, blasted-Olympic (accessed6October2011). Available: http://bbc.co.uk/sport/hi/other_sports/olympics_2012/4618507. Guy Masterman . References vial: www.publications.parliament.uk.pa.Id200203. Available: 42

Available: www.london.net/olympics-­ Available: www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/

Available: www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olym- Available: In association with Insignia Richard Ellis,

Available: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.Available: Journal of Olympic History Olympic of Journal bid (accessed , London: 11