A written response by Karren Brady to the Mayor of London’s independent review into the former Olympic Stadium has been published online after a freedom of information request. The eleven-page email was sent by Brady to Moore Stephens on 15th November just two weeks before the publication of the Moore Stephens report on 1st December last year.
Talking about the reason to move Brady said in response: “Our ground was too small to accommodate a large proportion of our local fanbase at a price they could afford. It was becoming increasingly difficult to access and was impossible to redevelop. We understood therefore that if we were ever to grow our capacity, it would have to be outside of the Boleyn Ground. West Ham United, along with the London Borough of Newham, seemed the obvious partnership as we were both here forever and the community being discussed were ours be they residents of the borough or supporters of the football Club. We also had quickly realised that many of our local community were priced out of being able to attend matches at the Boleyn Ground and with the capacity restricted there was little we could do to address that but with a greater capacity we realised we had an opportunity around something that my Board have always believed and invested heavily in – bringing affordable family football back to the Premier League. Many of our fanbase had also migrated out to Essex and we realised that with the transport links that Stratford enjoyed that would only improve as part of the Olympic investment, that there was an opportunity to bring many of them regularly back to East London to re-discover an area that we truly believed would at the heart of a significant regeneration project”
Later in the Email Brady said: “Our fans are at the heart of everything we do and we therefore saw the opportunity. We are only the custodians of our football Club on their behalf. Most football Clubs do not make money. Every penny we make is reinvested into our squad to keep us competitive in the most competitive league in the world. We saw that the Stadium could give us a platform from which to build. If we were to sell our ground and invest what we had into this proposition we could work hard to use the opportunity afforded by the increased capacity to grow in line with our supporters expectations. The Stadium is not failing to perform in line with expectation because of the deal struck with West Ham. At the time we bid we were told the Stadium could make a profit with West Ham but without it, it would make a substantial loss. Had the LLDC pursued any other option, we understand the long-term operational costs of maintaining the stadium would still have been highly substantial.”
Speaking about media coverage surrounding the London Stadium Brady added: “Every time a report, an investigation or scrutiny into the Stadium’s management takes place West Ham appear to take the brunt of the criticism. It makes for better headlines to talk about West Ham and the so labelled ‘great deal’ that we got. In reality we didn’t have to leave our Stadium that we owned and had full control over. We were asked to consider a monumental and costly move to the Olympic Stadium. At that time there were no other viable options that would retain the iconic building and deliver in line with the governments long term legacy goals to spark social and economic regeneration.”
