National Stadium Mockery Politics

There is also the issue of the architects involved in the process. Initially the local entity, TVA, was the choice of those in authority. At some point there appears to have been some issues, none of which has been explained to the public. A company by the name of ARUP was then involved in evaluating the situation regarding the status of the project. The end result was that TVA lost out. Their agreement or contract whatever, was brought to an end. To the surprise of many who took an interest in the stadium project, the same ARUP that was involved in evaluating the work/performance of TVA was awarded the contract as the replacement of the former local entity in relation to the designs and attendant works relative to the stadium.
It must be remembered that very early in the ULP’s term in office the athletics’ governing body facilitated the first activity at the stadium site at Diamond when it brought representatives from the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) – Vice President Amadeo Francis, Marketing Manager of Mondo (synthetic surface manufacturers and suppliers) for the Americas, Nicolo Bagni, and Marketing Manager for UCS (athletics equipment supplier) – m . They were all in St Vincent and the Grenadines to indicate their readiness to be part of the undertaking. The IAAF Vice President explained the organisation’s commitment of some financial resources to the track surface as well as an additional sum to the procurement of competition equipment.
At the activity at Diamond, the Prime Minister reminded the nation of his government’s commitment to the sporting youths of the country and to the realisation of the stadium.

Not long after the ceremony we were told that monies had been secured from Libya to the tune of $1.5m USD and that this was approximately one third of the way to the realisation of the facility. It was the athletics representative who reminded the Minister of Finance and Prime Minister that he was way-off if he thought that this paltry sum was indeed one-third of the cost of the national stadium. That was apparently when reality set in at the highest level.
We were given the impression that the funding for the stadium would come primarily from Libya. For a number of years this is what appears to have been reflected in the budget estimates presented to Parliament. This was maintained for some years even when we were not receiving monies from Libya. We had only received one contribution from the Libyans, part of which was placed towards the stadium. No more monies were received from that source for this or any other undertaking since then. Here again we received no explanation from the government.