Campaigners for transparency over EPL side West Ham’s move to the Olympic Stadium "have scored a major victory after the information commissioner ruled the terms of the deal should be made public," according to Owen Gibson of the London GUARDIAN. Both the London Legacy Development Corp. and West Ham "had long argued that the deal for the largely-taxpayer-funded stadium should remain buried beneath a sea of black ink for reasons of commercial confidentiality." The decision "could be embarrassing" for London Mayor Boris Johnson, "who was desperate to conclude a deal with a football club to give the stadium a sustainable future, and West Ham, battling to convince the public the terms do not amount to a taxpayers’ subsidy for a rich football club." It "may also reopen the argument over whether the LLDC broke European state-aid rules." It is already known that West Ham will pay only £15M ($23M) of the £272M ($417M) needed to make the 54,000-capacity stadium "suitable for Premier League football, athletics and other events." The annual rental agreement on the 99-year lease is believed to be around £2.5M ($3.8M), "although the true figure has never been confirmed." A host of other details around the proportion of the naming rights, catering, merchandising and hospitality revenues taken by West Ham "have remained secret, meanwhile." The LLDC "will also be obliged to reveal which costs it is meeting, on matchdays and elsewhere, and which are being met by West Ham." West Ham argued in its submission that it was "deeply concerned that the disclosure of the commercially confidential and sensitive information will inevitably have an adverse impact on the stadium partnership." The LLDC argued that "it would have an impact on its search for a naming-rights partner and prejudice future negotiations between the stadium operator, Vinci, and other potential users of the stadium." It also revealed that "West Ham had threatened to sue for breach of confidence if confidentiality clauses were broken" (GUARDIAN, 9/15).
