Club statement following High Court ruling
We feel a real sense of injustice at today's decision.
Karren Brady told the House of Lords only a few weeks ago that West Ham United had no objection to a ground share with Leyton Orient, but West Ham United's barrister today claimed that to ground share would adversely affect the club because the Olympic Stadium is "part of the brand".
Our real concern is the lack of transparency that has been shown throughout the process by a public body. It is deeply disappointing that both the Court and the LLDC have made decisions based only on financial considerations, when the purpose of the Stadium's legacy was regeneration of the area with a community focus.
We believe that the LLDC exercised its discretion to favour West Ham United, no doubt under pressure from West Ham United to make them sole football tenants for the benefit of their "brand".
Delivering a new brand to West Ham United was not the intended purpose of the Olympic Stadium, and we now have to look to the House of Lords to find a common sense solution for Olympic legacy and local community.
As the judge noted, Leyton Orient are flying high in League One. We will enjoy our current on-pitch success whilst we contemplate how to proceed in the best interests of the Club.