WHU have PERMANENT right of veto, didn't tell The Select Committee that
The Daily Mail are suggesting Tottenham could share the Olympic Stadium with West Ham and that talks were held 18 months ago with owners with the London Legacy Development Company (LLDC).
'Olympic Stadium owners are still open to Tottenham sharing the Stratford venue in 2017-18 with long-term tenants West Ham, with Spurs needing to move out of White Hart Lane while their new ground is built.
A season at the Olympic Stadium looks the most sensible option for Tottenham now that the FA are set to prefer Chelsea’s three-year relocation to Wembley from 2017-18.'
The Daily Mail are acting under a misapprehension, one which they confirm later, I am in possession of an email from West Ham United that tells me a different story. Tottenham can talk to the LLDC as much as they like, but it isn't the LLDC who determine who uses the stadium, it is West Ham United.
Karen Brady made it clear previously that she will not share with Tottenham when she told the press about ground sharing:
"In reality they probably could - but only with our permission. No-one has asked us for our permission and if they did we would probably say no, depending on who it is - if you get my drift."
That was widely interpreted as meaning she would not share with Tottenham, but it also indicated she wouldn't share with anyone else either, she isn't interested in the taxpayer, only West Ham and wants a taxpayer funded stadium all to herself, in football terms.
The Daily Mail writes: 'West Ham are said to have no veto as the primary tenants but do have fixture-list priority, which Spurs could work around.'
According to West Ham that simply isn't true. West Ham have emailed me, responding to a specific question, telling me that West Ham have a permanent right of veto, they don't have a one year right, but a permanent right of veto for the duration of the lease..
That isn't what Karren Brady told a House of Lords Select Committee back on 24 July 2013 though, she said it is the LLDC's decision.
Baroness King of Bow: It does seem a bit strange from the outside, hearing that it is impossible to accommodate such a small club [Leyton Orient] next to your own. So you would not have a problem with it.
Karren Brady: It is not in my gift. These are questions more suited to the LLDC.
However, it is your 'gift' if you have a permanent right of veto. If West Ham doesn't have a permanent right of veto then why have they emailed me to tell me they do? It isn't just me they informed either, the Independent were asked to write a retraction and point out West Ham have a 'permanent right of veto', here is that retraction insisted upon by West Ham - The Independent Retraction.
Now that doesn't say it is a retraction, but the email from West Ham to me tells me it is a retraction, it is West Ham who gave me the link to it to, in their eyes, prove it to me, as they asked me to print the same retraction!
Nobody can use the stadium without West Ham approval. West Ham, the tenant, dictate to the LLDC who can and who can't use the stadium, not the other wat around. The tenant controls the owner or management company if you believe it is a taxpayer-owned stadium.
Why has West Ham asked the Independent to point out they have a permanent right of veto when Karren Brady ensures the House of Lords Select Committee goes away with the opposite view?
It is not for me to determine the answer, but the question has to be raised, does this constitute misleading a House of Lords Select Committee, do you think that is what has happened here or have we seen open transparency?
Who has the 'gift' to determine who uses the stadium? West Ham says West Ham have got it, Karren Brady says they don't.
How is it in the taxpayers best interests to hand over control of the stadium to West Ham?
3 comments