Unrevised transcript of evidence taken before The Select Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Inquiry on OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC LEGACY Evidence Session No. 17. Heard in Public. Questions 250 - 263 WEDNESDAY 24 JULY 2013 10.45 am Witness: Barry Hearn USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and webcast on www.parliamentlive.tv. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither Members nor witnesses have had the opportunity to correct the record. If in doubt as to the propriety of using the transcript, please contact the Clerk of the Committee. 3. Members and witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Clerk of the Committee within 7 days of receipt. 1 Members present Lord Harris of Haringey (Chairman) Lord Addington The Earl of Arran Lord Bates Baroness Billingham Lord Faulkner of Worcester Baroness King of Bow Lord Moynihan Lord Stoneham of Droxford Lord Wigley ________________ Witness Barry Hearn, Chairman, Leyton Orient FC Q250 The Chairman: Good morning, and thank you very much for joining us today. I should explain, in case you are not aware of it, that this is a public session. Indeed, I believe we are being broadcast on BBC Parliament live as we speak. There will be a transcript made of today’s evidence. You will be sent a copy of the uncorrected version, so if there is some factual error that has crept in, or there is some mis-transcription, you will have the opportunity to correct it. However, as an incentive for a quick reply, we will put the uncorrected transcript on the website, so the sooner you correct it, the better. We have a number of questions to ask you; perhaps I could start. We have had a certain amount of evidence that suggests that, at the time of the bid, football expressed absolutely no serious interest in the possible future use of the Olympic stadium. At what point, from your point of view, did Leyton Orient become interested in the post-Games future of the Olympic stadium? Did you, at any point before 2012, have a realistic expectation that Leyton Orient would move into the stadium after the Games? Barry Hearn: I have to disagree with your opening comment 100%, my Lord. In fact, football was always the prime objective of the Olympic stadium in its early days. We were involved, 2 from 2006 or 2007, in discussions with the incumbent powers about a football usage of the Olympic stadium post-Games. The plan was quite straightforward. They were effectively offering us the lower tier, which is the only fixed part of the development, if you are aware of the construction basis of the stadium. Everything above the lower tier was almost like a Meccano set. It was just a temporary building with no facilities, just seats. I think Tessa Jowell and Ken Livingstone were the two incumbents at the time. The initial plan was to remove the Meccano, and to leave a 25,000-seater stadium. We were to be, effectively, the tenants of that building. We turned it down because of their decision to maintain the athletics track. We said, “You can’t play football with 50 metres of athletics track betwixt the crowd and the playing surface, as it destroys the atmosphere.” In 2007, we suggested: “The only solution here before you build it is that you must put in retractable seating”. It was a decision taken at the time by the powers that be that they could not afford the retractable seating. They were already running past the £2 billion initial budget in 2007, approaching the £9 billion-plus it eventually cost. They were looking at ways to save money and not spend money. It has turned out to be a very, very expensive and poor decision. At that early stage, as I understand it, we were always intended to be the football tenant post-Games in a small, 25,000-seater stadium, which is obviously in the proximity of Leyton Orient Football Club. The Chairman: At what point did you get back into the story? Barry Hearn: We came back into the story the moment they said those wonderful words, “We are going to put retractable seating in. We are going to spend a couple of hundred million quid, because we made a mistake”. Sometimes in life, you put your hands up and wipe your mouth, and say, “I have made a mistake”. They have appreciated that the only future for the Olympic stadium has to be a football-oriented future. It is going to do other things, of course. I am not sure that you know me so well, but obviously I have been a sports promoter for 40 years, and worked everywhere from Madison Square Gardens to the Great 3 Hall of the People in Beijing, so I am, modestly, a total expert in this field, if I may be so brief. We have a situation now where football is the only way forward. Once they said, “Yes, we are going to put retractable seating in,” we were in, but we were not in to be the sole occupant. In terms of the new structure of 54,000 seats, I am ambitious, but that is perhaps going to another planet. We were interested in the lower tier, with 18,000 seats. We were interested in a ground-share once we knew the experience for the fans was going to be compelling, rather than a distant memory of something going on over there. The Chairman: Is the bulk of the extra conversion costs for the retractable seating? Barry Hearn: And extending the roof, because once you extend the seats, you have to extend the roof. The Chairman: That expenditure only works, then, in the context of having a much bigger club as a joint user. Barry Hearn: Commercially you are absolutely right. Premiership football is this gigantic business now, with billions of pounds pouring in, of course. It is a wonderful brand of entertainment for people. If we are only looking at the commercial value, and not discussing legacy, then I would entirely agree with you that a Premiership club is the only future. My point is: can we not get the best of both worlds? Q251 Lord Wigley: You mentioned ground-share. Is ground-share a practical, long-term proposition? I know it has happened in the short term for Crystal Palace. Barry Hearn: With respect, sir, in Europe, it happens all the time. In France, Germany and Italy there are major clubs, which are obviously interested in money—because Premier League football, while it is a great form of entertainment, is a money-money business—taking the view that there is a wider benefit to the community to have a community club on alternate weeks. As I said, my experience in stadiums around the world is that usage is absolutely fundamental to getting taxpayers value for money. It is no good having a game a 4 fortnight. You have to have something happening every single solitary day and night to recoup your costs, and hopefully get back some of what I call “the mistake money”—in other words, the money that the Government is going to have to spend or get together, because of a poor decision made six years ago. Lord Wigley: That is a good accountant’s analysis. Barry Hearn: It was so easy to do, but unfortunately hindsight has always been our greatest adviser, has it not? Q252 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Can I just pick you up on a couple of things you said, Mr Hearn, which are very interesting? First of all, on the ground-share, are you saying to the Committee that if the proposition was put forward that Leyton Orient would share the stadium with West Ham, you would welcome that? Barry Hearn: Welcome it? My friend—excuse me for being familiar—I would welcome it. I would kiss you, right, and I do not normally kiss men. I am not sure how much you are up to speed on this. This is not a done deal. West Ham have been given agreement to proceed, but I have a challenge in the courts for judicial review, because we are questioning the whole basis of the bidding process with the LLDC. I also have an outstanding litigation with the Premier League, because we think that West Ham even moving is a breach of Premier League rules. There are two sides of my argument, because we are not interested in the ground-share. We are desperate to survive, and we believe that the only way we will survive is by a ground-share. Q253 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: That is very clear; thank you very much. Can I also pick up something else you said? You said at the outset that Leyton Orient were perceived as the front-runner. Barry Hearn: Yes. 5 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I have not seen anything in writing that has said that, other than an interview, which I think you gave to the BBC. Barry Hearn: I think you will find there is lots of correspondence in 2006 and 2007. Lord Faulkner of Worcester: The Committee would be quite interested to see it. Barry Hearn: I am sure we can find that for you, sir. The Chairman: Are you saying you were led on? Barry Hearn: Well, we are in an open forum. I think lots of people have been led on in this process. Tottenham Hotspur were led on to believe they had a chance, and that it was either them or West Ham.