OS Coalition meeting at City Hall

Olympic Stadium Coalition
Press release: 15/12/2016

For immediate release

OS Coalition meeting at City Hall

As part of its continued campaign on the costs of the Olympic (‘London’) Stadium, the Olympic Stadium Coalition has met with Liberal Democrat, Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM, to discuss London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s promise of an investigation into the finances of the cost of the development.

They issued the following statement

‘As a campaign we have put a great deal of work into uncovering the facts of the case, and ensuring that it’s in the hands of the people with the power to effect change and influence. We’ve worked hard to ensure support from across the political spectrum, and we’re immensely grateful to Caroline Pidgeon, Conservative AM Andrew Boff, and former Labour AM Murad Qureshi, who have put a considerable amount of work into this issue for some time.

‘We hope to meet with Sadiq Khan, and we will be writing to him to disclose the significant information we’ve gathered about the operational costs of the stadium and its cost to the UK taxpayer. Ultimately, we’re seeking to ensure that it does the least damage possible to Premier League and EFL clubs not just in London, but across the country.’

OS Coalition Statement

City Hall HDR

Olympic Stadium Coalition

Press release: 02/11/2016

For immediate release

Statement in response to announcement of Mayoral enquiry into spiralling stadium costs

The Olympic Stadium Coalition has welcomed the news of the London Mayor’s Sadiq Khan’s investigation into the finances of the Olympic (‘London’) Stadium with the following statement:

‘This is a breakthrough in our long campaign to highlight the intolerable burden on taxpayers of the rebuilding of the Olympic Stadium to the specification of a well off Premier League football club.

‘We have never objected to the idea of West Ham playing at the stadium; the question is simply one of how much the club should pay, and how much the taxpayer should be expected to fund.
‘Our attempts to seek transparency have been blocked at every turn by the London Legacy Development Corporation and Newham Council. It took two years for us to obtain release of the full rental contract under Freedom of Information law. We believe that all taxpayers deserve to be made fully aware of just how much we are all paying, and how much West Ham United are paying towards both capital and operating costs.

Only this week, we have learnt that the naming rights deal for the stadium has fallen through. As a result we believe this means the stadium will operate at a loss for the foreseeable future, especially if the police seek to recharge the costs of their increased presence at the stadium due to crowd control issues. The entire deal, and not just the rebuild costs, should be examined in detail, by the Mayor and the taxpayer.”

We hope to be able to meet the Mayor to present him with the significant information that we have gathered about the operational costs of the stadium.

‘Supporters trusts from across the country and across the divisions formed the Olympic Stadium Coalition, and have worked continuously to uncover the details of the deal. The Mayor’s investigation is good news, a good starting point, but it is only a start.’


Campaign Update

It’s been quite a while since we posted an update on this website. Obviously since April when the judgment was found in favour of our campaign for publication, the Olympic Stadium and many of the problems associated with it have been in the news a great deal. We have been busy ourselves, and as this is an entirely volunteer-led and run campaign, sometimes things don’t move as quickly as we’d like.

This is some of what we’ve been doing:

1. Investigating the contract

The contract is itself a complex document that required a great deal of investigation. Specifically, it raises a whole series of other questions and issues that themselves needed investigation, and in some case further enquiries made.

2. Speaking with our friends and supporters

We’ve also been speaking with some of those who have supported our campaign about what the next steps should be. There is a lot of support to continue to ensure that the current deal is fairer to the taxpayer and to football.

We’re nearly ready to move ahead with our next steps, so keep an ear out for more news.

Tribunal judgement now online


Following the release yesterday by the London Legacy Development Corporation of the agreement between itself and West Ham United FC, the judgement of the tribunal which ruled in favour of publication is now available.

The judgement completely dismissed one of the central claims of the LLDC of ‘commercial sensitivity’, amongst other issues, and at a mere 21 pages long is light reading when compared to the actual contract.

Olympic Stadium Agreement released


It appears that the entire, unredacted agreement between the London Legacy Development Corporation has been released, in full. However at 207 pages, it will take a while to asses it. The hard work now begins to understand the deal, its costs to the taxpayer, and to football, and any further implications.

It can be found on the Olympic Park website, here: http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/~/media/lldc/concession%20agreement%202016.pdf

We would first like to thank the LLDC for finally seeing commonsense and publishing what appears to be the full agreement. This is the right decision for the taxpayer, and the right decision for football.

We would like to place on record our tremendous appreciation to those 14 supporters’ trusts and fan groups who have shown their backing for this campaign. This is a victory for the power of football supporters: Organised, focused and willing to work together to achieve a collective goal.

We also need to thank the nearly 30,000 members of the public who signed the initial petition; the extraordinary unanimous cross-party support from Greens, Tories, Lib Dems and Labour at the London Assembly; and to a number of MPs too many to name who kept this issue on the agenda.

It should be noted that, as per the judgement of the tribunal that ruled in favour of publication, any claims of any commercial damage made by the LLDC were completely rejected by the tribunal. Any points on this should be directed to them, or to the text of their ruling.

We will be making no further comment at this stage.