Is peace in sight in 2012 cash row?
The decision to suspend their legal action at the came completely out of the blue.
For days now it seemed the row with the , was getting more entrenched, not less. Just last week Locog chairman ".
But then, perhaps sensing they were running against the public mood and running out of options, the .
On Tuesday, they wrote to Locog to inform them they had suspended their request for CAS to rule on the financial dispute. At the same time they requested fresh talks at which they promised to make a new offer.
Lord Coe wants to fully focus on the build-up to the 2012 Games
And despite all the rhetoric of recent days, Locog agreed to the meeting saying their door was always open to brokering a deal out of court.
No timetable has been set but it does seem that the two sides have finally realised that while many people are still struggling to understand exactly what this row is all about, it's doing no one any good to carry it on.
So, what chance of a compromise being reached?
It is worth pointing out that this dispute goes all the way back to 2006 - in the early months after . Then the BOA agreed to sign over its Olympic marketing rights to Locog so it could raise money to stage the Games.
That deal was worth about £30m, but the leadership of the BOA has changed since then and believes they should have received much, much more. The argument centres on whether the costs of Paralympics should be taken into account in calculating any profits from 2012.
The BOA believes its agreed 20% slice would be that much bigger if those costs were taken out of the equation.
As a result the two bodies have been at loggerheads for the last year or so - long before this all broke into the public domain last month. Finding a resolution will not be easy, even if it will now take a relatively small amount of money, perhaps as little as £5m to settle this.
That's because the International Olympic Committee president .
Lord Coe and Locog risk losing face if they now go back to Rogge to explain they have done a backroom deal to make the problem go away.
But Rogge and other Olympic observers recognise there is potentially more at stake if the case ends up with CAS. That could be a dangerous precedent for the IOC, even though their jurisdiction is outlined in the host city contract with London.
And Locog recognise that, for all their public posturing, they have to now try and find a way to give Moynihan and the BOA a dignified exit.
So hopes will be high that these talks will bring an end to an unseemly squabble which may have little material effect on Team GB or London's preparations but which have done little for London's image over the last few weeks.
I'm David Bond, the Ö÷²¥´óÐã's Sports Editor. This blog will give you an insight into the big stories and issues in sport. 
Comment number 1.
At 6th Apr 2011, joe_Wolves wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 6th Apr 2011, cadifblues wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 6th Apr 2011, global_citizen wrote:OK...
So some politician gave a mate of his a job to negotiate a contract, which ended up being a bad deal, binding none the less...
Then some other politician realized the deal that had been signed didn't make them as much as they had thought it would, so they have asked the administrators to renege and renegotiate?
On what grounds?
Politicians wonder why the public are sick of them... its because of things like this - politically fuelled appointments leading to mediocre people being out of their depth. Incompetence & greed are a lethal combination.
I am with Locog all the way on this one, and don't think they should give an inch.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 6th Apr 2011, Kapnag wrote:Another inspirational story from the London olympic legacy
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 6th Apr 2011, LouSmorals wrote:For the BOC to reneg and be looking for a larger slice of what may be non-existent profits by arguing the Paralympics should not be included in the calculations is sending a painful and obvious signal to disabled athletes about exactly how the BOC feels about them. Quite disgraceful and disgusting behaviour by Lord Moynihan and the BOC.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 6th Apr 2011, PaoloRossiJohnson wrote:no.5 - "For the BOC to reneg and be looking for a larger slice of what may be non-existent profits by arguing the Paralympics should not be included in the calculations is sending a painful and obvious signal to disabled athletes about exactly how the BOC feels about them. Quite disgraceful and disgusting behaviour by Lord Moynihan and the BOC."
Spot on. 100%. Absolutely. Nail on head.
And any other way that says THIS IS THE CORRECT ANSWER...!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 6th Apr 2011, photo762 wrote:The 2012 London Olympics are mere power games for those who like to play on a massively big stage.
Money is all, and the games a humble progenitor of all that is bad, when huge amounts of money are involved.
Still, I guess the balance sheet dividend distribution will rumble on, well past the close of the games.
Probably cost Coe an arm and a legacy !
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 7th Apr 2011, Graham Newsom wrote:I believe that this has been a massive misjudgement on behalf of the BOA Chairman and his board.
This issue has been around for nearly four years and has been written about on this site and in many other sports politics pages. From the day the original deal was signed by the then Chairman and Chief Executive, it has been clear that the IOC believed it reflected the rules set out by that organisation and delivered in the Joint Marketing Agreement with Locog.
Why then should Lord Moynihan risk his reputation both within this country and in international sport. His position has undermined the aspiration that the competitions for both able bodied and disability athletes should be seen as part of the same celebration of sport. To this end he has been rightly critisised.
In many ways that is a pity. In the late 1980s Lord Moynihan was responsible for the publication of a report on sport for those with disabilities called 'Building on Ability'. In part this was one of the catalysts that brought us to the point of a combined Olympic and Paralympic event.
So, for someone who has been a strong supporter of the Paralympic ideal, it is all the more perplexing that Lord Moynihan didn't see this juggernaut coming.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 8th Apr 2011, maxmerit wrote:The financial black hole within the BOA must be investigated by a statutory body. Both Moynihan and Hunts positions are now untenable and they should be forced to resign.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 11th Apr 2011, wellrounded wrote:Am I missing something. Any surplus should be put returned therefore mitigating some of the cost of the games on the tax payer.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 12th Apr 2011, Graham Newsom wrote:Wellrounded - I fear you are missing something.
When we won the bid in 2005, the National Olympic Committee (the British Olympic Association) was required to hand over its UK marketing rights to the Olympic Rings so that the organising committee (Locog - Seb Coe's team) would be in a position to attract worldwide sponsors, to help fund the running of the Games ie the 15 days of Olympic sport.
It is this transfer of marketing rights that is causing all the angst.
This should not be confused with the cost of building the facilities/infrastructure required to host the Games. These were the costs the Government (sorry, you and me the tax and council tax payers) agreed to meet as part of the bidding process.
Two very different costs.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)