Olympic Stadium

Tottenham Hotspur are taking Olympic chiefs to court over the decision to hand the 2012 stadium to West Ham after the Games, the BBC has learned.

The Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC), which chose West Ham ahead of Spurs last month, confirmed Tottenham are pressing ahead with a judicial review.

Tottenham informed the OPLC of its decision this week, as construction on the Olympic Stadium was completed.

A spokesman for London's mayor defended the stadium bidding process.

An OPLC spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that a letter before action in relation to potential judicial review proceedings has been issued.

"The Olympic Park Legacy Company ran a very rigorous and transparent process in its selection of the recommended preferred bidder.

"We have been supported by independent experts in their field in terms of legal, financial, commercial and technical advice."
The spokeswoman added: "We have been consistent, fair, objective and entirely equal in our dealings with the bidders from start to finish.

"We are confident that if these judicial review proceedings are pursued, our approach will be entirely vindicated by the courts."

The UK government and the office of the mayor of London are joint owners of the OPLC and will both be involved in the court action.

They have four weeks to respond to the letter in writing, then Tottenham must decide whether to go ahead with the action by serving papers to the High Court.

The office of London Mayor Boris Johnson confirmed he had received a letter confirming Tottenham's action.

A City Hall spokesman said: "We are advised and believe that the decision to choose West Ham as the preferred bidder was properly taken."

Tottenham will be looking to challenge the process the OPLC followed in making its decision to choose West Ham as its preferred bidder.

Judicial reviews allow bodies to challenge decisions on grounds of illegality, irrationality and unfairness.

Dunno about you Vis but i dont want to be going to east london for home games - let wet spam have it. Mind you i dont know why they want it either, they will have trouble filling it.

The lawyer's view

If Spurs argue that the decision was illegal, the club will need to demonstrate that it was taken by a person or board without the requisite authority or, more realistically, that the decision failed to take into account a number of relevant considerations. If they appeal on the basis of irrationality, the test will be that the recommendation by OPLC was so unreasonable as to defy logic or that the decision was disproportionate to the ultimate aim of the recommendation process. If Spurs submit that there was some sort of procedural impropriety then they will have to show that a statute or act of Parliament has not been adhered to.

So what chance a successful appeal? Very little. Spurs' best case is to argue that the OPLC ignored a number of relevant considerations. The Spurs/AEG bid was premised on the belief that a dual purpose football and entertainment venue would be most economically beneficial. If an appeal was launched they would submit that the board did not properly take into consideration the fiscal element of both bids, and that Spurs had offered to redevelop Crystal Palace, which, in capacity terms, is perhaps a more suitable home for UK Athletics.

The merits of those arguments will depend on how stringent the committee has been during the process. However, Spurs would have to uncover serious impropriety and that seems unlikely. The reality is any appeal would fail on grounds of public policy, and the whole issue of legacy to athletics.

It would be difficult for Spurs to demonstrate that pulling down the Olympic Stadium and replacing it with a single-sport arena would be in the public interest. In fact, had the OPLC endorsed the Spurs bid, it would have faced a far more robust application for Judicial Review from West Ham.

Andrew Nixon is an Associate in the Sports Group at Thomas Eggar. Follow on twitter: @thesportlawyer

Why thank you kind sir. It seems this is the only plan B Levy has and apart from the cost of court procedures it will take something like a year to resolve. In that time no doubt the costs of any new development will have increased and will add to the time scale of any new stadium wherever it is.

BazSpur wrote:Rep for Vis and Seebee.

FFS just let it go Tottenham. Nothing is going to change now. As far as I'm concerned the Spams won it and they should have it. I think they will suffer for it. As Yid says, they will have trouble filling it. It will be their White Elephant IMO. It will take some upkeep to keep it looking good. OK they can use it for Rock concerts and Athletics but will that be enough. As a football stadium it will be dead. 30000 Spam supporters lost in a 60000 seater stadium.

People have got used to the O2 now, why on earth do they need to go to a football stadium (with running track) up the road when they already have a purpose built music venue.

Here's another lil nugget in the ever unfolding plot. The Porn Kings possibly won't even pay for the place. Just the people of Newham, and I appologise for my following statement, but it's a fact as Newham is one of the poorest places in this green & pleasent land; it will be all of us, the taxpayers . . . . . . .



Taxpayers in London's poorest borough would be liable for a £40m loan to help West Ham United move into the Olympic Stadium if the venture collapsed, its chief executive has said.

In January Newham Council used its credit rating to arrange a Treasury loan on more favourable terms than the football club could have secured.

That financed West Ham's bid, which defeated Tottenham Hotspur in the race to inhabit the stadium after the 2012 Games.

At the time the loan was agreed, the council refused to say whether taxpayers would be responsible for the debt if West Ham - currently threatened by relegation from the Premier League - were unable to repay it.

It said this was because of "commercial sensitivity".

Councillors due to vote on the plan were not told either, with 10 large background papers thought to detail the liability withheld until minutes before the vote.

One councillor spoke out anonymously, saying the public should be told, while a district auditor said "alarm bells" should ring.

It was eventually passed unanimously by the council, where all 60 sitting councillors are Labour.

Chief executive Kim Bromley-Derry, in an interview with the BBC, has admitted for the first time that taxpayers would be liable for the loan.

Asked if the council would have to repay the money if West Ham folded, he said: "On a theoretical perspective that's true. But we have worked out the worst case scenario and we are confident that's not going to happen.

"We have been working with KPMG on the business case. We are confident there is no risk to the local council taxpayer."

Mr Bromley-Derry said the authority considered the possibility of the club suffering a double relegation.

Newham Council, the Olympic borough, is the most deprived authority in London.

Anita Shields, an auditor who works with other local authorities to ensure financial transparency, said: "Obviously the risk to the taxpayer should have been mentioned at the start.

"It is the taxpayers who could be footing the bill.

"Probably they were hoping nobody was going to raise these questions."

She added: "Why did they not come forward about it at the start? It's big money - the risk is there."

Newham Council has finalised £100m of cuts over three years, the highest figure in London. Some 1,600 staff could be made redundant.

The council has previously said the loan did not affect front line services.

Mr Bromley-Derry conceded a loan could have protected jobs and meant the need for less severe cuts.

He said: "We could borrow money to do other things, there's no doubt .

"If we borrowed money to bail out the revenue budget it would be a one-off and there would be a cost to it."

WHFC jobs 'issue'

The council said it was currently unable to say how long the loan would take to pay back.

Mr Bromley-Derry also admitted it was "an issue" that council officers instrumental in financing West Ham's stadium bid could later move into well paid jobs with the club.

He said: "We are aware that may be an issue. If it happens to ex-employees, well that's fine, there's not a lot I can do about that.

"In terms of current employees it's not something I would expect to see."

He added it was likely Newham Council staff would get paid roles at the company they established to own the stadium.

Mike Law, a former Newham Labour councillor, said: "If Newham staff later wind up on nice salaries at West Ham serious questions will need to be asked.

"The stadium producing a profit after the loan has been repaid in 10 to 20 years time is cold comfort to the council employee who is laid off today.

"Yet again, it's the people of one of the country's most deprived boroughs paying for the extravagances of others."

West Ham United were unavailable for comment.




After reading the above and taking on-board Seebee's post, Spurs may well be able to prove that due-dilligence had not been followed. Mum's gone to Iceland & bought biscuits me thinks. The plot thickens . . . . ..