Fury at huge bill for taxpayer in £700m Olympic Stadium deal
ANGER is mounting over a deal brokered by Apprentice star Karren Brady to turn the Olympic Stadium into a football ground.
The Tory peer’s club, West Ham United, is paying just £15million towards the £272million cost of converting the venue of the London 2012 Games into its new home.
But yesterday it emerged that the taxpayer will pay for running costs – even covering goalposts – when the club moves in at the start of the 2016-17 season.
Critics of the deal point out that should West Ham still be in the Premier League next year, it will – under the terms of a new broadcasting deal – be entitled to at least £99million in TV money.
Last night there were calls for an inquiry into the tenancy agreement between the London Legacy Development Corporation, the public authority that owns the stadium, and the East London club.
The deal, approved by London Mayor Boris Johnson and signed off by Lady Brady, West Ham’s vice-chairman, has been shrouded in secrecy.
By the time the conversion is complete, a total of £702million will have been spent on the stadium. Now, amid concerns about the budget, details of the deal between the LLDC and West Ham have begun emerging through requests under the Freedom of Information Act.
Much of the contract has been redacted, but what is left shows a large number of ‘facilities and services’ at the 54,000-seat stadium will be paid by the taxpayer rather than the club. These include the cost of stadium utilities, security, pitch maintenance and even goalposts, nets and corner flags.
According to the BBC, other overheads that could also be paid by the LLDC include the cost of stewarding and policing on match days, which amounts to hundreds of thousands.
West Ham are expected to pay a nominal rent of about £2million to £2.5million a year.
Chris Bryant, the shadow secretary of state for culture media and sport, urged the Government to publish all the details of the deal. He said: ‘We’re talking about such enor- mous sums of money that most British taxpayers would want to know what the deal was that was signed on their behalf.’
If the Government did not give details, he said demands for a public inquiry would grow and he could back those.
The LLDC said it has not revealed full details of the tenancy deal because it is ‘commercially sensitive’.
The stadium was designed to be converted into a 25,000-seat athletics facility after the Olympics. But after 2012 bosses realised having a Premier League football club as tenants would be more lucrative and West Ham won the right to occupy the stadium, agreeing that it could also be used for athletics and other sporting events.
Mr Bryant said it looked ‘as if, because there was only ever one player that anybody was really interested in, Boris Johnson (former LLDC chairman) bent over backwards to accommodate them and West Ham ended up with a deal which is astoundingly good for them’.
Andy Silvester, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘Such a cutprice deal simply isn’t appropriate when you consider the extraordinary windfall coming the Premier League’s way as a result of the new TV deal.’
The LLDC said the stadium deal had resulted in the creation of a venue that would contribute more than £3billion of ‘economic benefit to some of the most deprived parts of London and… a share of the profits will be paid back into the taxpayers’ coffers’. West Ham United said: ‘Without us, the stadium would lose money.
‘We are only renting the stadium for 25 match days a year and do not own the ground or facilities. The LLDC requested that they supply items such as corner flags, goals etc as they will be used for other sporting events.’
The club added Lady Brady, appointed David Cameron’s ‘small business ambassador’ in 2013, negotiated the best deal for West Ham ‘but was always mindful of the club’s commitment to serving the local community and the taxpayer’.
A spokesman stressed the deal was struck before she became a Tory peer last year.
Details of the cost to the taxpayer have emerged only through freedom of information requests to the LLDC. Yet in June it emerged that ministers are considering ways to restrict the laws that help bring such information to light.
‘Taxpayers want to know’