Commonwealth Games England boss Paul Blanchard has denied Birmingham was picked as the recommended city for a UK bid for the 2022 event because it was its turn to get a major event.
England's 'Second City' narrowly beat Liverpool to win the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport's backing, and will learn in the next three weeks if the UK government will approve the bid and underwrite most of the costs.
Already considering a bid for the 2026 Games, Birmingham had an early advantage over Liverpool when the 2022 edition unexpectedly became available after South African city Durban was stripped of the event because of financial problems.
But Liverpool was widely considered to have closed the gap over the summer, with some insiders suggesting it had even edged in front after positive meetings with the independent assessment panel set up by DCMS and the Commonwealth Games Federation.
The Merseyside city's late push, however, clearly came too late, and Birmingham now has a great chance of landing the 2022 Games after seeing bids for the Olympics, Millennium Dome and 2008 European Capital of Culture come to nothing.
Blanchard, a member of that six-strong panel, told Press Association Sport those near misses did not play a part in what he described as a "very difficult decision".
"There is no sense of this being a preordained decision and at no point were we put under any pressure or given any direction to make a certain choice," Blanchard said.
"If there had been anything like that, most of us would have walked away. This was a thorough and robust decision and the best process I've been involved in.
"In a two-horse race, particularly one this close, there is always going to be somebody left very disappointed.
"And if I was from the Liverpool bid, I'd be disappointed. But when we looked at our 20 criteria, by a relatively small margin, Birmingham was the stronger bid and the most likely to win approval."
Blanchard explained the two cities were given a score on each of those criteria - quality of venues, sports programme, connectivity, sporting legacy and so on - by each member of the panel and the total was the deciding factor.
Given the shortened time-frame caused by Durban's problems, Blanchard said Birmingham's budget will now be analysed by the Treasury, as it will provide 75 per cent of the up-front costs, with Birmingham City Council chipping in with the rest.
The actual sums involved have not yet been confirmed but it is understood the Games will cost more than £500million to stage.
That figure has raised some eyebrows, particularly as Birmingham is currently in a pay dispute with its refuse collectors, but West Midlands mayor Andy Street has said the city has done the maths and is convinced the Games will have the same impact on the city that the 2002 event had on Manchester and 2014 Games had on Glasgow.
Assuming Birmingham's bid does get Treasury approval, the bid will be submitted to the CGF by September 29, with its decision coming by the end of November.
In terms of global competition, so far only Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur has declared its hand but Blanchard said bids may still emerge from Australia and Canada.
Blanchard denied that Liverpool lost this summer's beauty contest because of uncertainty over its plan to put a temporary running track into Everton's proposed new stadium in north Liverpool, and said Birmingham's legacy plan for the expanded Alexander Stadium was scrutinised.
Despite concerns over the number of major events the stadium will get every year because of UK Athletics' long-term deal with the London Stadium, Blanchard said the panel was impressed with Birmingham's plan to use it as an elite and community venue.
And as previously revealed by Press Association Sport, he said talks were ongoing with sports teams about becoming an anchor tenant and the stadium's expansion would be part of a wider development plan for the Perry Barr area.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here