It seems ‘nothing is impossible’ at West Ham United now that the boardroom (whoever is in it just now) is prepared to work with, rather than against, supporters and the club’s landlords at the London Stadium.
Gone for good are the litigious days of Sullivan and Brady seemingly having a hot line to lawyers over every facet of the club’s tenure at its former Olympic Stadium home.
The new-post-Sullivan era at West Ham has apparently ushered in a willingness to find solutions not battlegrounds.
From the statement on West Ham’s web site, it is clear that the club have just announced an agreement with the London Stadium LLP for the Stadium to be included as a host venue for the UK Government- backed bid to host the 2029 World Athletic Championships in London.
West Ham’s London Stadium: A new era of co-operation seems on the way with resultant claimed benefits for supporters
It sounds as though there’s been a huge amount of work by West Ham’s officials behind the scenes to negotiate as little disruption to football fans as possible, whilst not being seen to stand in the way of a flagship international sporting spectacle: Something the Brady – Sullivan regime couldn’t bring themselves to accomplish, hiding behind their legal rights rather than ‘doing the right thing’.
As the club statement says:
“Throughout the process, the Club’s highest priority has always been the West Ham United supporters, ensuring any agreed programme has minimal impact on the football schedule …
As part of the new agreement, the Club and London Stadium will work together to deliver a number of new initiatives that will enhance the stadium and the match day experience for supporters. That process will now begin, with further updates provided to supporters in due course…
Any impact on the football schedule will be confirmed once it is known which division West Ham will be competing in during the 2029/30 season. “
You can read the full statement here.
Reading between the lines, it seems the club have been working very hard to square the circle of being sympathetic to the Athletics bid whilst using the negotiations as an opportunity to get benefits for West Ham United fans, in a very grown up quid pro quo arrangement.
Something which looked very far away when I covered the “Keeley Hodginson – medals jibe” story back in March and commented at the time:
“The difference between having the legal right and ‘the right thing to do‘ is enormous. West Ham’s deal at London Stadium is so preposterously good for the club that it would surely do no harm to consider being a little more accommodating: It just seems that this current board don’t have it in them to consider anything but their own self centred little board room view on life.
Which can be mighty tiresome as a lifelong supporter. Just once, perhaps, the current owners could make us as fans proud by looking at ‘the greater good’. Not these owners, not this football club. A shame.” Claret and Hugh, March 2026.
It seems indeed that we are in a new era, in more ways than one. ‘Someone’ at West Ham appears to have been listening, which can only be to the ‘greater good’ for relations with the Stadium owners in the long run.
Now of course, some fans will be upset at having a couple of consecutive away fixtures to fork out for at the start of the season so this agreement isn’t going to be received with universal joy. It will be interesting, however, to see what improvements are forthcoming in exchange for -possibly – rearranging what is likely to be a couple of home games to later in the season.
At the very least, it doesn’t feel like ‘my ‘club is acting like a sporting pariah anymore.
Good on Kretinsky and the rest of the Board. I doubt Staveley would do this unless she got paid a huge commission for doing so.
When Sullivan resigned as the club Chairman did Kretinsky and Gold not say that the running track was going to be removed? Or did I mis-read or imagine that?
Which means another 3 years minimum of it being an athletics stadium ….
“Now of course, some fans will be upset at having a couple of consecutive away fixtures to fork out for at the start of the season so this agreement isn’t going to be received with universal joy.”
Funny you should say this Martin, but my recollection is that anyone who cared to comment thought that Athletics should accommodate the West Ham programme and that we should not have to bear the costs of a fixture reshuffle.
You are right to extol the virtues of co-operation with our landlords and others wishing to use our iconic stadium to extend the legacy mission. We never wanted Greater London to be treating us as one of the users, though. We are the ‘Anchor Tenant’ and we will remain so for many more years to come.
We are all in this together. We were before and will continue to be so in future.
COYI
Not true. I and many other posted our support for UK athletics at the time. Ther are always to accommodate both interests .