Olympic Stadium Rent, Select Committee given different story to West Ham fans

Karren Brady gave evidence to The House of Lords Select Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy on 24 July 2013

Karren Brady: First, good morning and thank you for inviting me here today. David Sullivan and David Gold took ownership of the football club in 2010, when in fact I was installed as the vice-chairman, which in effect was the CEO. When we arrived we made a commitment 2 that we would do three things. We would stabilise the club that we had inherited—we inherited £100 million of debt—we would put the culture and integrity back into West Ham, both on and off the pitch, and we would try to make the Olympic stadium our new home. We publicised that on the very first day that we took ownership of the club. 

If that were the case then why did she not report a conflict on interest when OPLC director, Dionne Knight was also doing 'paid consultancy' work for West Ham and she and a West Ham employee were having a relationship. How is not revealing a clear conflict of interest enhancing integrity? The they did'nt talk excuse simply isn't plausible, especially in light of the deceit to keep it secret.

In this series of articles you now know that West Ham have a PERMANENT right of veto and instructed the Independent to retract a statement and write that in it's place, as well as emailing me to tell me and asking me to make it clear.

You also now knows that co-owner David Gold and vice chairman Karren Brady have told West Han fans they get a share of the income from naming rights yet Karren Brady tells the House of Lords Select Committee that they do not, so who is telling the truth? Are West Ham fans being lied to or was the Select Committee mislead, which is a criminal offence I believe.

West Ham, as West Han fans like to point out, do not actually own the stadium so there is no way they should be receiving a share of the naming rights, that should go to the owner, but West Ham stitched the taxpayer up because they had the LLDC over a barrel and could demand what they want, which is why they pay a token rent and a virtual free ride.

WHUFC.com Statement on Olympic Stadium decision dated March 2013
Vice-Chairman Karren Brady said: “Anyone who thinks we got a free ride, we most certainly haven’t. We want to pay our way and accept that we have to pay our way and the two owners of West Ham have been very clear on that. We will put in a lump-sum and pay a rent that will cover most of the running costs and then we will share naming rights and other revenues.”

Yet to the House of Lords Select Committee just 3 months later she painted a very different picture.

Baroness King of Bow: When do you think that taxpayers might be able to see a return on their investment?

Karren Brady: I do not know what the running costs of the stadium are.

The two statements are once again totally at odds with each other, one appears to be misleading, so which one is it?

You will note that she tells West Han fans they will pay a rent that will cover most of the running costs and just 3 months later claims to the House of Lords Select Committee she does not know what the running costs of the stadium are! She did 3 months earlier or was she lying to the West Ham fans.

You can see that it isn't just one aspect of her testimony to the House of Lords Select Committee that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, to the man on the street i would suggest it paint a very different picture to the one she and the club are painting West Ham fans. It is hardly surprising to me that details of this deal should be made public, quite frankly the who West Ham bid needs investigation given the number of discrepancies in the testimony to the House of Lords Select Committee.

The full unrevised transcript can be read at the link below and while you are reading it ask yourself a question, does Karren Brady want to share the stadium with another football team or does she want to control the usage of it, given West Ham have the PERMANENT right of veto to anyone else using it and has only agreed to the 'principle' of sharing because she had to. Do you get the impression she had any intention of sharing it, Leyton Orient being the local club wanted to use it. - Karren Brady Transcript


Do you interpret the testimony and the discrepancies the last three articles on the subject have uncovered to be bringing back the 'integrity' to West Ham?


Dubious West Ham Olympic Stadium deal must be published