God Save The Queen…and London 2012. Or so it seemed after it was reported yesterday that the Queen told a community worker at a Palace reception she thought Paris would win the right to stage the Summer Olympics as London's bid lacked public support.
It certainly caught the London 2012 team by surprise, which was forced to use its rapid response team to quash reports that London had anything other than Her Majesty’s full backing. You could say that, by then, the royal horse had already bolted, but at least it gave far more publicity than would otherwise have been the case to the bidding team’s claim that support for the campaign was, in fact, growing, with recent polls putting it at between 70 and 75 per cent.
Perhaps the biggest surprise of all was that the comment did not come from the Queen’s gaffe-prone husband.
This week has also seen the International Olympic Committee (IOC) move to prevent the BBC screening a televised debate featuring each of the five bidding cities. This is because IOC rules forbid the candidates from criticising their opponents’ bids, so, in any event, the programme never had the scope to build up a head of steam like a full-on presidential contest.
Nevertheless, the BBC has since revealed it is negotiating with the IOC over plans for a televised “discussion” featuring leaders of the rival bids, saying it would give each city the chance to explain their bid to a global audience.
But the programme is unlikely to end up being any more than a glorified re-hash of what is already in each city’s bid book, a copy of which is downloadable from each of the official websites. This is because, not only do the IOC rules prevent criticism of other bids, but the nature of the voting effectively precludes any candidate from knocking its rivals, because once one of the cities drops out of the running its supporters’ votes can become available to the other contenders. So alienating another candidate could prove costly.
************
The need to make harsh, commercial decisions often sits uncomfortably with the wishes of fans, especially those that have been around long enough to savour and cherish some of sport’s richest traditions.
This week has seen an altogether different approach taken by two sports, albeit ones facing rather different commercial pressures.
Premier League rivals Liverpool and Everton finally confirmed what everyone expected - that they would not be sharing a new stadium. The decision seems all the more bizarre because the existing grounds, Anfield and Goodison Park, are next to each other, separated by a short stretch of parkland.
Fans have been opposed to the idea from the outset, but it also appears that both clubs’ boards of directors were against the ‘share option’ – probably a first for most of them, given its more common meaning. When you consider that Everton shelved plans to move to Liverpool's King's Dock when the projected cost sprialled to nearly £200million, and Liverpool’s planned stadium will eat up £110million (up from an initial estimate of £80million), this may come as something of a surprise. It’s hard to imagine that it’s a case of the board simply listening to the views of the club’s fans – especially as the decision to share a stadium would have delivered an instant saving of tens of millions of pounds.
Ground-shares are common in the US and the high-profile case in soccer analogous to this one is the Italian example of AC Milan and Internationale sharing the San Siro stadium. That relationship seems to have been successful for a number of years and even worked when the two clubs drew each other in the semi-final of the Champions League in 2003.
Whilst fans may, understandably, oppose the move now, it would be interesting to garner their views some years down the line when they settled into a state-of-the-art stadium that would surely rival any in the UK and most of Europe. By then the money saved could have secured the services of some serious talent, a level up from an ageing Fernando Morientes, Liverpool’s latest signing. The stadium might even be hosting regular Champions League soccer, involving one or both clubs, delivering considerably more revenue into the bargain.
Contrast this with the stance being taken by snooker, which is preparing to turn its back on the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield in 2006, home to the World Championships for more than a quarter of a century.
Given that snooker only seriously registered itself in the public consciousness in the late 70s and early 80s, many consider the Crucible the Championship’s spiritual home. But the game is bracing itself for a new venue, with Sheffield, Birmingham, Manchester, Preston, Newcastle and Liverpool already set to submit bids.
The new venue is likely to offer considerably more in capacity than the Crucible’s meagre 980 seats. There would also be more standout for sponsors with the Crucible synonymous with tobacco brand Embassy, which is ending its long-running association with the World Championships next year.
Even six-times world champion Steve Davis, who was at the peak of his powers during snooker’s so-called golden age of the mid-80s and someone you could understand being misty-eyed about the grand old venue, has stated there do not seem to be any strong arguments for snooker remaining there.
So there you have it. A game that has been forced to deal with the commercial realities it now faces, prepared to ditch one of its favourite venues. Perhaps soccer’s problem is it’s relative wealth, which is not just limited to the players.
*****************************
Heads have rolled this week, particularly at the Scottish Rugby Union (SRU).
First, chairman David MacKay was forced out following a vote of no confidence by the union’s general committee, only to be followed 24 hours later by non-executive directors Fraser Livingston, Andrew Flanagan and Eric Hagman, who quit in protest at Mackay's departure. The following day chief executive Phil Anderton stood down, amid threats of strike action by SRU staff and players.
Spare a thought for Keith Grainger. He started in his new post as marketing director on January 4 and, despite some simmering tensions within the Scottish game, surely couldn’t have imagined what the New Year and his new job had in store for him.
And the knock-on effects for Grainger and those remaining at the SRU could be serious. The Famous Grouse has been the single biggest sponsor of the SRU for 15 years, but has warned that its current deal - which runs until 2007 - is under threat unless the current problems get resolved, and quickly. The Scotsman Publications Ltd, publisher of The Scotsman, has reportedly suspended its three-year deal worth £750,000 in cash and advertising in protest at the sacking of Mackay.
This week also saw British Racing Drivers Club (BRDC) chairman, Ray Bellm, ousted after a vote of no confidence by the board.
The BRDC - owners of Silverstone, venue for the British Grand Prix – removed Bellm after a dispute with club president Sir Jackie Stewart about the terms of the contract to host the Formula One race. Bellm headed talks with Formula One supremo Bernie Ecclestone over the new five-year Silverstone contract – a drawn-out affair that at one stage threatened the very existence of a British Grand Prix.
The outgoing chairman would seem to have done a good job in saving the world’s oldest Formula One race, but Stewart, who is said to have wanted a three-year deal, is thought to have given the board an ultimatum – either I go or he does. So, in a bad week for the Scots, at least one of them prevailed.
