Blind hammer investigates possible motivations underlying mayoral hostility towards West HAM.
I voted for Sadiq khan. I support many of his initiatives. I am a lifelong Labour voter. I have no political agenda feeding my criticisms here. I am nevertheless saddened by his apparent hostility towards West ham and its supporters.
Let us review the basics. In the process of allocating first virtual ownership and then, once this collapsed, tenancy of the London Stadium, West Ham had to win, in a competitive process, not once but twice. At no stage, despite the most snide of allusions from the Mayoral office has anybody established that West Ham did anything wrong. Instead the club are lambasted for negotiating what is cynically described as “a good deal”. What is unspoken but constantly insinuated, is that the deal is not just good but unfair. It is suggested that West Ham somehow pulled the wool over the eyes of poor naïve and deluded LLDC negotiators. Dark villains of skilful West Ham lawyers duped the Government representatives into an unfeasible Business Plan. This cheating negotiating strategy, robbing the tax payer, needs redressing.
The problem is that this bizarre description has no basis in reality. Instead it exists purely to support a political agenda. The description of West Ham as skilled City Slick financial negotiators able to out manoeuvre the cream of government Lawyers will baffle most. Whilst arguably some incompetence may be attributed to government representatives, the depiction of smart brained West Ham operators is less convincing. Remember this is a club which has failed to negotiate basic football transfers with clubs like Sporting Lisbon.
Khan Seemed disappointed after his investment into the Moore-Stephens inquiry. The report did not deliver expected condemnation. What is striking is the lack of fit between Moore-Stephens and the Mayoral response. At no time did Moore-Stephen attribute any blame to West Ham. He does however criticise LLDC negotiators for not achieving a better deal. This point is mute. There is no evidence given the competitive process that any better deal was available. Moore-Stephens unconvincingly argues that a “no deal” could have pressured better terms. In reality a “No deal” approach would have placed more pressure on the State and legacy ambitions than West Ham.
What is inescapable and foremost in Moore-Stephens is his focus on the budgetary pressures and long term infeasibility of hosting Athletics. A solution must be found to the crippling need to annually relocate seating. The failure to deliver income from naming rights also figure but overwhelmingly budgetary pressures will not be relieved until a political nettle is grasped to resolve the accommodation of Athletics.
It is little short of astonishing then that the mayoral response to Moore-Stephens does not highlight this dysfunctional Athletics Business Structure. Instead it focusses overwhelmingly on the deal with West Ham. It is hard to conclude that this is driven by anything but cynical political posturing.
The problem is that it is not just West Ham but UK Athletics who have rights in the Stadium. Any breach will result in compensation. The political as well as financial fall out from this failure would be considerable. The responsibility for breakdown would lay unequivocally with those who originally envisioned the shared use Model. The “National Athletics Legacy” would lie in ruins. The politically uncomfortable consequence is that West Ham would emerge as the major benefactor. It would be politically most expedient then if blame and consequent financial accountability could be somehow deflected to West Ham.
It appears then that Khan’s has decided his best strategy is to scapegoat West Ham. If he can achieve this he may shift at least some of the responsibility for this collapse. If the Stadium has no future as a vehicle for an Athletics Legacy then someone else should pay. He may want to force West Ham to assume responsibility by re-locating the duty to compensate from the State to them. Such a strategy is only viable if he can sustain a view that West Ham, and not the State planners, are the real villains.
Such an approach seems to explain the constant negativity and obfuscation which has characterised Khan’s direct dealings. Correspondence released by Freedom of Information request show Karen Brady pleading with Khan to meet positively and plan together a future for the Stadium. Repeatedly Khan Rejects these overtures by claiming his diary is full or referring issues to junior Managers. He did not agree to meet West Ham until this year. Despite showing an extraordinary reluctance to talk directly, he has in contrast, hurled himself onto any negative available public bandwagon to criticise West Ham and/or its supporters.
Objectively this campaign of hostility is puzzling. West Ham is the only Stadium partners which significantly provide income for the Business Model. They are the only partners which have offered any extra infrastructyural investment. The response of E20 and the LLDC has been to block any positive development of the Stadium, whether this relates to maximising capacity, installing pitch surrounds, or making ridiculous demands for payments to facilitate concourse TV. They are determined to negatively “work to rule” in an attempt to force a renegotiation. Rather than working with West Ham to deliver Stadium legacy potentials they seem determined to create a series of increasingly desperate bickering legal disputes. These will come to Court later in the year. In contrast UK Athletics are seen as pristine with no responsibility for current Stadium difficulties. This approach does not help anybody, least of all, in delivering the Olympic Legacy.
The shared Use Athletics model is now widely seen as disastrous. Disentangling this will be complicated. Yet the attempt to vilify West Ham for this failure of vision smacks of desperate measure by the increasingly desperate. Some are frantic to avoid political accountability for this debacle. Yet whipping up hostility to a football club and its supporters has risks.
Football is tribal. Unfortunately rivalries, especially amongst London clubs can easily develop into levels of hatred and violence. Hatred of opposition supporters, though objectively illogical, can result in not just mayhem and disorder but serious physical harm. West Ham and its supporters may be one of the few remaining minorities against which it may be legal/conceivable to raise a hostile negative prejudice. The whipping up of this antagonistic narrative in the hope of achieving a longer term political objective is particularly unsavoury. Yet khan must know that to indulge in this game has risks. A vendetta which supports a campaign of vindictiveness could provide validation for those football rivals with hatred and violence in their hearts. These opposition rivals could grasp any justification for their assaults. If the anti-West Ham campaign spills over into a return to the lethal viciousness which has marred our game in the past all those presently playing political games will have to look to their consciences. I desperately hope that Khan adjusts his approach, and even at this stage repudiates the torrent of anti-West ham briefings. He should instead agree to work positively with the club. Whether this all descends into court battles later this year or even worse physical battles from opposition fans will provide a litmus test.
David Griffith