West Ham’s bad landlords keep wasting YOUR money

THErE have been worse landlords than London Stadium owners, E20. rigsby from Rising Damp, for instance. He was miserly, interfering, parochial, gauchely aspirational, and a terrible snob with extreme right-wing views.

He lusted after one of his tenants, ruth Jones, and cheated at billiards.

Mind you, he could probably have done a better job getting a naming rights deal for an Olympic arena in London. As could his cat, Vienna.

The news that E20 have set aside £1.8million of their — meaning your — money to lose to West Ham in various unnecessary legal actions goes some way to capturing their belligerent incompetence.

How can we be so sure this money is to be frittered away?

Well, in court actions against their tenants so far, E20 and their predecessors the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) have lost four expert determinations, two injunctions and several technical points on the way to another major hearing in November.

Lose that case and £1.8m is unlikely to cover it. The legal costs of both sides — and E20 invariably end up footing West Ham’s bill, too, when they lose — is believed to come in at around £4m.

A recent Freedom Of Information request broke down the costs of all E20’s external legal services relating to the stadium, West Ham, UK Athletics and Vinci (who cover operations and maintenance), at £1,850,355.69 between November 1, 2017 and August 15, 2018. A previous FOI request put their prior costs at £3.3m. In addition, Expert Determination costs were £361,226.95 and the November hearing — a capacity dispute involving just 3,000 seats — currently stands at £1,694,852.52.

Your money, do not forget. Much like the £40,000 E20 pays Alan Fort, the former chief executive of American Golf, each month for commercial consultancy. This, in a world- renowned stadium still searching for a naming rights deal more than two years after its anchor tenants played their first game. Still, you don’t get much for half a million annually these days.

When West Ham played their most recent home game against Wolves a hoarding reminded the crowd that the London Stadium ‘is for everyone’. Meaning E20 still don’t get it. For much of the year, the London Stadium is most certainly for everyone and if the landlords can sell it — and they usually can’t — good luck to them. When West Ham, their tenants, are playing, however, it isn’t. It’s for West Ham, their club, their fans, their guests.

It is as if, having struck a poor deal as the LLDC, E20 have come to resent their only regular source of income. Lyn Garner, the chief executive with an annual salary that can rise above £ 250,000 with pension contributions and bonuses, recently told the London Assembly that West Ham’s £2.5m annual rent does not even cover usage costs. Even if this were true — and it is not, the revenue generated by West Ham and due to the landlords amounts to nearer £10m — this is not the fault of the tenants.

West Ham’s price was set by competitive tender and they were, by the end, the only viable game in town. Due to the colossal mismanagement of the legacy process, nobody actually wanted what the LLDC had to sell — which is why West Ham paid such an appealing price. Garner is said to be under pressure from Sadiq Khan, London Mayor, to bring West Ham to their knees.

Yet so far E20 have only succeeded in throwing good money after bad in court. As a result, relations between two parties that should work hand in glove are now at an all-time low. There is no trust and little co- operation. This makes the stadium inefficient and costs the taxpayer even more.

Two examples. When West Ham fans invaded the pitch and caused disturbances during a match with Burnley last season, the club received a letter from the Football Association demanding explanation: the correspondence

ran to 150 pages. The usual details were required: how many stewards were deployed, how were they deployed, where were they deployed.

Yet West Ham, alone among Premier League clubs, do not control match-day security. That is determined by their landlords. They wrote, asking for assistance in replying to the FA, and this request was refused. So that was injunction number one, which E20 understandably lost — at cost to you.

Then there was the plan for a second tier of LED advertising around the perimeter of the pitch. West Ham receive 90 per cent of the existing advertising, as per their agreement, but the landlords no doubt feel they have made another poor deal. Their threat was to place a second tier of LED signage on top of the existing hoardings, possibly containing conflicting advertising. Again West Ham sought an injunction, again they won, again you paid.

E20 are desperate to paint their tenants as the villains, but appear to have a problem getting any neutral arbiter to agree.

The most recent battleground is over the covering of the athletics track surrounding the pitch. It used to be green, but this made the surface area look huge which one former West Ham manager, Slaven Bilic, thought was advantageous to the opposition. The Expert Determination supported this view. West Ham offered to pay the costs and maintenance of a new surround, roughly £380,000, but understandably wished it to be claret and blue — or at least dually branded.

E20 remain insistent West Ham should pay an annual fee of £325,000 as if renting advertising space. The branding of the London Stadium, they add, is navy blue and white and this will be the

surround colour otherwise. Yet why is it navy blue and white? Once West Ham had been awarded their 99-year lease, what idiot, given a completely blank canvas, decided the colours of the stadium should not mirror that of its anchor tenants? The All Blacks have played at the stadium and so will the New York Yankees, but they are passing through. When the 22nd Century arrives there is only one club that will be approaching its centenary in the London Stadium and it is West Ham.

HOW can the brand colours be anything other than claret and blue? Why do E20 not wish their tenants to feel at home? Do they not realise that it is this disconnection, this alienation, that makes West Ham’s supporters feel dissatisfied with their new location, and that their anger and the resulting bad publicity is the main reason naming rights deals have been hard to strike? Do they not see it is all connected?

In the meantime, opportunities stay missed. West Ham would undoubtedly pay more to change the look and feel of the London Stadium, but not while their landlords are so dismally managed and losing above £20m annually. The fear is increased contributions will just be used to plug these inefficient gaps, without asking why such an iconic venue cannot be run successfully.

In one episode of Rising Damp, Rigsby and Ruth discuss the pill. ‘It doesn’t mean they’re doing anything wrong,’ she says. ‘It’s a precaution — after all, you pay fire insurance but you don’t expect the house to burn down.’

‘Yes,’ says Rigsby, ‘but you are supposed to try and extinguish the blaze, Miss Jones, not lie back and enjoy it.’