Assembly Meeting Focuses On London Stadium Finances
Having watched the London Assembly’s July 2026 session discussing the London Stadium on a broadcast via YouTube, it felt less like a committee meeting and more like a West Ham post-match debrief!
Sadly, there were no representatives present from West Ham United, though the club did issue a statement, which, in short, acknowledged the LLDC’s problems, promised better cooperation, and, most importantly, supported ongoing improvement talks.
With Lynn Garner, Chief Executive of the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), in the hot seat, the conversation kept circling back to one thing, West Ham’s relegation, which has made an already tricky stadium model even harder to defend.
The drop to the Championship hasn’t just hurt on the pitch, it’s hammered the stadium’s finances. The Assembly was told the venue now faces £1.8m–£2.5m in extra annual subsidy pressure, plus a projected £19m operating loss for 2025/26. Big stadium, big bills, fewer matchday benefits.
Garner didn’t sugarcoat it, the contract with West Ham, now into its tenth year, is fantastic for the club and terrible for taxpayers.
She even said she wouldn’t recommend it today, but it’s locked in, with no break clauses.
In football terms, the stadium is stuck playing out the full fixture list.
Future Improvements Still Under Discussion
Despite the losses, it was pointed out that Major League Baseball games, concerts, and athletics meets bring serious money into London. It may not be profitable, but it’s undeniably a major venue with global pull.
Naming rights could be a financial lifeline, but the stadium and West Ham split the rights, making deals messy. Interestingly, a big sponsorship attempt collapsed in 2024 because both sides weren’t aligned. New club leadership is now trying to fix that.
The stadium’s biggest operational issue is obvious, switching between football and athletics can take up to two weeks.
That kills flexibility and limits summer events.
It was suggested that West Ham’s new leadership is exploring an accelerated reconfiguration programme to speed things up.
The Assembly floated a few future ideas that included West Ham-coloured seats, more summer events beyond the current 10-event cap, better commercial partnerships and a long-term push to reduce public subsidy.
Daniel Křetínský’s long-term intentions for the stadium are still completely unclear, and none of this was discussed. Yet as Claret & Hugh previously reported, we believe the Czech Sphinx has drafted up plans to modify the stadium.
Despite how much I and plenty of other supporters dislike the ground as a football venue, the reality is unavoidable, the meeting only further reaffirmed that, financially, it’s the deal of the century for West Ham.
I guess an additional reason for taking over the stadium was the fact that spurs would have got the site otherwise and been forever on our manor. They would have done to us what Arsenal did to them. Our best outcome may well be to buy the stadium cheaply and gradually convert it, probably with a built in hotel.
this just shows Sullivan and Brady in their true light.
we may have got a good deal, but we can’t increase revenue like other clubs can with the use of the stadium.
if you can’t increase revenue the football club just falls further and further away from the top of the pile
Arsenal and Spurs make £5m profit per game.
we’ve got a ground with hardly any boxes, limited catering, no income from food or drink sales, no stadium branding.
the rent seams cheap now but when you inflate is over 50 years it’s eye watering numbers each year.
we already pay 2.5 m a year more than when it started.
if you average 10m a year over 90 years plus the lost revenue each season, we could have built a stadium the same as Spurs or arsenal and it would be ours to do as we wish and allow us to compete…..
I reckon Kretisnky will do (or is already doing) a deal with City Hall, but that the details will only emerge once it’s done.
Let’s be honest it wasn’t the deal of the century at all.
It was the best & cheapest option for Sullivan & Brady, but it’s not a football stadium and fans and taxpayers alike are stuck with it.
We can only hope that when Sullivan sells his shares and is gone completely a deal can be struck to buy the stadium and convert it.
Losing nearly £20m a year over a 99 year lease is absolutely crazy. Things have got to change!
Let’s be honest it wasn’t the deal of the century at all.
It was the best & cheapest option for Sullivan & Brady, but it’s not a football stadium and fans and taxpayers alike are stuck with it.
We can only hope that when Sullivan sells his shares and is gone completely a deal can be struck to buy the stadium and convert it.
Losing nearly £20m a year over a 99 year lease is absolutely crazy. Things have got to change!
They agreed to it and signed end of story
Hammers got a great deal, but what has the club gained?
Financial health issues, relegated and the status of our club sullied.