Scott sees 'ignorant' attitude as danger to London 2012 bid

For months now it seems that Tony Blair has required only two guarantees before committing London to a bid for the 2012 Olympics – that Britain will succeed, and that the Games will cost the British taxpayer nothing.

As the Government weighs up all the arguments, with a decision by the Cabinet now delayed until next week, few men are better qualified to assess the nuances of the situation than Bob Scott, the leader of the last two British Olympic bids. In his unsuccessful efforts to secure the 1996 and 2000 Games for Manchester, Scott – Sir Bob since 1994 – has lobbied and glad-handed his way the length and breadth of the Olympic movement. At 59, he has been there, done it, got the dress shirt. And he knows that this is not a business where guarantees operate.

"If you ask me whether London can win the Games, I would say: 'Yes, of course'," Scott said. "But will they win? That's very much more difficult. Only maybe.''

First, however, the capital has to be given permission to seek what would be Britain's first Olympics since 1948. And that, Scott believes, is still far from certain. Yet he feels that recent developments may have altered the Government's attitude towards an event likely to cost £5bn, of which half would be covered by funding from the International Olympic Committee and revenue from television rights, sponsorship and ticket sales.

These fresh factors included the proposition aired last week that a special Olympic Lottery game could raise up to £1.5bn, as well as the deal reportedly agreed between the Government and Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, which would commit the capital to contributing £1.1bn towards the Games.

"If you had asked me three weeks ago whether I thought the Government would back the bid I think the answer was palpably 'No','' Scott said. "It was almost as if they were gathering information in order to be able to turn it down. But I'm not so sure now. The House of Commons select committee softened their view, the British Olympic Association has got influential people to speak in favour, and there has been quite a bit of encouragement from within the media. It is, though, incredibly difficult to read.

"There is a slight smell of equivocation in the air at the moment. I just don't know whether the Government, which has spent so long minutely inspecting the finances, would then be able to back an all-singing, all-dancing, wildly enthusiastic bid. But that will be a hugely important test, because the IOC requires that kind of absolute commitment these days.''

Should London throw its hat into the rings, it will face strong competition for the IOC's final endorsement in 2005. Madrid and New York have already entered the race; Moscow, Paris and a German city are expected to do so by the deadline of 15 July.

Of these likely opponents, Scott picks out Paris as the strongest, despite the fact that the city was beaten into fourth place in the contest for the 2008 Games, which went to Beijing. "My instinct is that if Paris bids it will be a formidable bid,'' Scott said. "The French have a much greater strength than we do in the corridors of power.''

In Scott's view, London should also beware overconfidence. "There is a slightly ignorant feeling around that all London has to do is decide whether it's going to bid and then it will automatically win,'' he said. "The reality is very different. There is a danger of thinking that the decision about the Games is made in London, but it isn't. The decision is made in Togo, it is made in Uruguay, it is made in Western Samoa.

"I think the business of earning support for an Olympic bid is still very personal. At that point you have to ask, 'How well connected is Britain in the Olympic movement?' We haven't heard, have we, who is to be the leader of any bid.''

The proposed site is expected to be redeveloped after 2012, but Scott remains to be convinced that this will be London's one and only chance in a generation to bid for the Olympics. "It adds to the sense that London cannot afford to lose," he said. "And that is Blair's dilemma. How could defeat in an Olympic bid be seen other than as a slap in the face?

"It was much easier with the Manchester bid. If we'd won, people would have been staggered. The fact that we didn't win but came out of the exercise with credit was exactly what we aimed to do. The money for bidding created a new velodrome and indoor arena for the city, as well as preparing the ground for the stadium where last year's Commonwealth Games were centred.

"The real skill here could be to create a kind of second agenda, where even if London didn't win the Games, there were likely to be obvious benefits to the city, perhaps in terms of transport links such as Crossrail. So everyone wouldn't feel it had been a terrible waste of effort and money.''

Scott also suspects that London's fate could be influenced by what he terms "the Athens backwash factor'' when the IOC makes its decision in 2005. "If for any reason Athens 2004 is a bad memory a year later, the IOC will be averse to taking any risk. It will want the Games to go to someone it feels can absolutely guarantee success. And I think that would be better for others than London. The Picketts Lock climb-down and the failed World Cup 2006 bid both had a negative impact internationally.''

Recent reports that Lamine Diack, the president of the International Association of Athletic Federations, and the IOC president, Jacques Rogge, have welcomed a London bid for the Games draw a scornful snort from the former theatrical impresario.

"Of course you encourage London to bid,'' he said. "If you have London v New York v Rome, the big guns, you've got the interest of the world. It shows the Olympic movement is healthy."

Whether London will be in a position to contribute to the movement's continuing health is likely to be revealed shortly after noon today.