Search questions

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 21 October 2009

In retrospect, do you regret perhaps not negotiating more robustly - I am choosing my words with care - with the IOC over some of its more elitist demands? For example, we spent vast amounts of money upgrading the transport system but it is insisting that nearly half the people have got the right to use the roads.

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

I am not arguing with the principle. I am just trying to understand how many of the 70,000 volunteer places will actually be available if the sponsors take up their allocation and do not decide to give them to the community. How many are going to be available for the community? Is it 60,000, is it 50,000 or is it 65,000?

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 10 November 2007

I will come on now to sponsorship. There have been reports in the press that sponsors are going to get an allocation of tickets, which is perfectly understandable. I suppose you share my view and hope that it will not be like Wembley, where so many of the tickets are sold to people who have no interest in football and have their back turned to the game. My main concern is it is also reported in the press that staff of sponsors are going to get the opportunity to have some of the volunteer places. First of all I want...

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 25 April 2007

I still find it extraordinary that your idea of producing facilities that are at least as good includes a facility of a road racing track that is both sides of a main road. That is just ludicrous.

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 25 April 2007

When I was in the negotiations with the LDA it was never, ever suggested that the track that the Eastway Users' Group would go back to would be on two sides of a main road. I can assure you. I was there. It was never even suggested.

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 25 April 2007

Can I come back to some of the specifics? Take the Eastway Users' Group specifically, which is what my prime concern is about and about which, as you know, I have been negotiating quite a lot with your officials. First of all your officials told me that British Cycling was in favour of the application that you had put in. British Cycling told me last night that they are certainly not in favour of it, and they referred me to their website. Their website describes the plans that you have as `unacceptable' and I understand from them that that has...

• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 25 April 2007

I want to put it on record I think it is totally unacceptable, particularly when your officers tell me that the way to enhance it is to put some screening up. The whole situation is appalling. It is not the way that you should be thinking. We are supposed to be leaving a sports legacy, and this is not the way to leave a sports legacy for cyclists.

• Reference: 2007/0022-1
• Question by: Dee Doocey
• Meeting date: 25 April 2007

Is the news that the ODA have reduced the area which will house the Olympic Velopark in legacy mode from the originally agreed 34 hectares to just 7 hectares just the start of things to come? How much more scaling down of legacy facilities do you anticipate might take place if the ODA faces additional budget deficits, and the need to increase revenues from land sales?