The London Stadium "has accounting value of zero"

Interesting piece by Oliver Wainwright in the Guardian on the  shortfall in the promised affordable housing in the Olympic Park, that was supposed to be the result of the 2012 Olympic Games. He also blames Boris Johnson for going ahead with the ArcelorMittal Orbit, a folly which is now £13 million in debt. 

There's also a revealing paragraph on the London Stadium, which points out that the London Stadium, owned by the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), is losing £10 million a year. Wainwright writes: "As a damning report by the London Assembly’s budget and performance committee noted last year: “It is ironic that by having fewer large-scale events, thanks to Covid-19, the park is haemorrhaging less money than if it were business as usual.” In the latest accounts, the stadium was listed with a value of zero."

The LLDC is handing back its planning powers to Newham Council in two years' time and will eventually be disbanded. With  the London Stadium technically valued at nothing, even though it cost £760 million to build, this surely puts West Ham in a very good position to buy the stadium at a knockdown price and redesign it as the club sees fit.

We've got our carpet back — and West Ham would consider buying London Stadium

Some interesting revelations from Karren Brady's appearance before the London Aseembly. The Daily Mail reports that an agreement has finally been reached about the carpet round the pitch. Sadly we can't have leopardskin, but it is going to be claret with a WHU badge and a dark blue border — something the LLDC could have agreed to a year ago. 

Brady also said that West Ham would definitely be interested in buying the London Stadium, "if it became a dedicated football stadium" with the odd concert and rugby match, but no athletics. She pointed out that West Ham originally offered to buy it during the bidding process, and that is surely Sullivan and Gold's long-term plan. You do wonder how long the LLDC can afford to lose around £20 million a year. 

Brady also claimed that the LLDC's estimate of the cost of staging each match had gone down from £250k a game to £43k a game, a figure she still disputed. At least relations with the LLDC appear to have improved slightly with the appointment of Lyn Garner as chief executive. 

Hopefully all this scrutiny from the London Assembly will ensure a better relationship between tenant and landlord — and better value for the taxpayer.

Four mill to the lawyer boys

A staggering £4 million has been spent by the London Legacy Development Corporation in legal disputes with West Ham. The figure emerged when the LLDC chief executive Lyn Garner was being questioned by the London Assembly's budget and performance committee. That's almost two seasons' rent squandered on fighting the LLDC's anchor tenant. West Ham might not be entirely blameless in this, but it does seem like the LLDC is arguing over every point following its poor negotiating over the original contract. 

Some of the legal fees have gone on the bizarre carpet dispute and rows over TVs and draught beer. For £4 million we could have installed a different-coloured carpet for every day of the week. While there's still no stadium naming rights deal. It's time to stop making the lawyers richer and to see some cooperation between the LLDC and West Ham.

Stadium woes and carpet baggers

The relationship between West Ham and its landlord appears worse than ever. There's yet another undignified row between West Ham and the London Legacy Development Corporation. First the LLDC claimed that West Ham's rent does not cover the cost of staging matches, followed by the club denying this and counter-claiming that the LLDC had "misled" the public about the costs. The LLDC then demanded a retraction, with the club refusing. The root problem is surely that the LLDC regrets making a poor initial deal (running for 99 years) with West Ham — you can't really blame the club for accepting a relatively low rent.

On top of this there's the ridiculous row about the carpet colouring. West Ham has offered to pay the £380,000 cost of changing the carpet to claret, while the LLDC fears a claret carpet might put off potential naming rights sponsors (which it has singularly failed to attract despite big expenditure). The carpet just might make a psychological difference, even if it's David Sullivan's shagpile. Surely it's better to have a successful core tenant and that in turn might generate a deal for naming rights. It's time for the squabbling to stop.