Abstract
Abstract The main stadium is the most high-profile part of any Olympic legacy plan. The London stadium has an end user, West Ham United Football Club. The process resulted in extra capital expenditure from public sources and a commitment to extensive annual expenses. The private tenant, by contrast, benefits from a remarkable deal that increases their income, reduces their expenditure, and enables them to make a capital gain from disposal of their previous ground. As this article reveals, there were failures in public policy and legacy planning from the start of the process. A flawed model, which was not economically viable, was adopted. Subsequent decision-making was handicapped by the complexity of governance, and the public interest was undermined. By contrast the eventual private stakeholder, West Ham United Football Club, exploited the second round of bidding brilliantly, recognizing there was a desperate landlord and only one possible tenant. This article traces the story and offers pointers for future Olympic Game host cities.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
