Is legacy reveal one step closer?

An important part of London’s bid to host the 2012 Olympics – and certainly one of the main arguments used to sell the bid to Londoners – was that we would all get a legacy from the public spending on the sporting event. Unfortunately, most of us are still looking for a bit of legacy, nearly four years on.

We hoped for some social housing – but all we got was around 1,500 units to share between five boroughs with a combined housing waiting list of around 100,000. We hoped for some sporting facilities – but they have been far and few between, and often difficult to afford.

What makes the value of our legacy very difficult to assess is the secrecy over money. How much of what has been sold off is refunding the public purse, which ended up paying out more than it had estimated? How much did visitors spend in London (so many local businesses never saw them, as they were frogmarched into the Olympic area where the sponsors’ refreshments kiosks were)?

However, things may have taken a turn for the better in this area. One of the largest single assets of the Olympics was, of course, the Olympic stadium itself. The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) was in charge of disposing of it and, after a period of some uncertainty, it finally agreed a rental deal with West Ham United. The problem for legacy watchers was that the contract governing the deal was secret.

Now the Information Tribunal has ruled that the LLDC must make the contract public. Before the decision, the LLDC had argued against publication. Afterwards, it gave a statement, saying that the decision might have a significant negative impact on the stadium’s ability to act competitively. This is quite bizarre: what on earth do they mean?

Public concern centres around what West Ham is paying for the stadium. West Ham is not a rich club, and it would obviously have wanted to keep the cost low. The LLDC was, at least by implication, tasked with obtaining the best deal for the taxpayer – so it should only have accepted a deal for a reasonable price. However, there were political pressures on the LLDC to get some income out of the stadium – so that the cash-strapped Government could at least get some cash in the bank; because if West Ham didn’t rent it, it is not at all clear if anyone else would; and to “prove” that the Olympics were not costing much more than planned, because the public money being advanced was being recouped.

West Ham is ambivalent over the publication, stating that it has nothing to hide – while the LLDC are now considering what to do. They only have a right of appeal on a point of law – i.e., if they have grounds to argue that the Information Tribunal misunderstood the law. The fact that the two parties so strenuously resisted making the contract public is probably the best argument for why it should be made public immediately.

[Adverts]