LLDC now claims Irons ‘elephant in the room’ not to blame

Let’s address the elephant in the room. What’s really  driving the problems here are the low rents paid by concessionaires, particularly West Ham United.” Lyn Garner CEO E20 addressing the London Assembly September 5, 2018

To most of us E20 chief executive, Lyn Garner’s words are pretty explicit – West Ham’s contract is”driving” the London Stadium problems.

We as a club are apparently ‘the elephant in the room’ and whatever happened in negotiations over us becoming anchor tenants back in 2013 is now history and unpalatable history for those currently responsible for operating the stadium.

They have got the hump with the Hammers and called for a retraction of some comments made on the club website over quoted costs.

If the Hammers are lying over them, as they claim, the LLDC should sue then – they are no strangers to such activity having spent or put aside a sum totalling £6 million on legal costs with us so far.

That’s why the statement from the LLDC chairman Sir Peter Hendry which emerged yesterday evening is so bizarre in trying to justify comments made by the CEO Ms Garner.

He claims: “We said that the West Ham contract was just one area which caused financial problems for the Stadium.”

Well no actually, what was actually said is that our contract – and we were the only concessionaire mentioned – was driving the problems

He adds that our low rent of £3 million doesn’t cover the costs of the 25 days activity but fails to explain how UK Athletics need only pay £32k for 28 days.

He mentions that security costs have risen since the Burnley pitch invasion which is a fair point but one he would be better off talking to the club about perhaps than including it in a public letter.

Moving on to catering issues he says: “We do receive a share of the profit from match day catering and that the net money received by E20 from the catering operation averages out at around £30,000 per game.”

We aren’t in a position to give a view on the figures but  E20 are responsible for the catering operation and should perhaps have done a somewhat better deal – not West Ham’s problem!

Onto the claret carpet where he claims this is something West Ham should pay for whilst failing to mention the operators want a ridiculous £300k a year for something which can’t carry sponsorship because of PL rules.

Not quite sure what world that has come from but the Irons have walked away from that nonsense now anyway!

He adds: “And just to be clear, on top of that there is no additional fee from the club for continuing maintenance and upkeep of the stadium which means it is ready every season to stage the matches.”

Nope that’s your job as it is when you look after UK Athletic’s requirements or the Rolling Stones or AC/DC etc.

He concludes: As you can see, we are not “laying the blame” at West Ham for the “financial struggles” of the stadium and did not mislead the London Assembly or the public in our appearance.

The contract with West Ham is just one of the historic issues that face us. We are attempting to work with the club to give them the extras they want but that does come at a price.”

Given that vice-chairman Karren Brady has had one 45 minute with Mayor Kahn that takes a bit of swallowing.

The real elephant in the room mate is UK Athletics getting the stadium for ten bob with all the costs of the retractable seating that go with that and West Ham being described as the “elephant in the room” DRIVING the problems.

Sorry, such hyperbole doesn’t wash with us but four out of ten for a good try.