Stadium legal battle

"I was concerned that this was a done deal for West Ham before the bidding began, but the fact that both clubs had to commit to teaming made me believe that we were getting involved in a fair process. However, the LLDC have not stuck by their own rules and have left Orient with no option but to challenge their decision in the Courts.

"We took an interest in the Stadium when we knew they were going to cover the athletics track, and our proposal for tenancy was built on a foundation of a large scale community project. Our plan was, and remains, to be the community offering alongside a wealthy Premier League club. We don't intend to interfere with West Ham's residency at the Stadium, but maintain the position that if they are going to be there, then we need to be there too.

"Our presence, alongside West Ham, would ensure weekly use of the stadium, vibrancy of the Olympic Park, and a lasting legacy for the Olympic Games. And as I have said many times before, if West Ham move to the Stadium and we are left a mile up the road, Leyton Orient will not survive. If we are both in the Olympic Stadium, we are at least being put on a level playing field, and Orient will find its own way for the future. I have big plans for the Club and the community."

"We have been notified that Leyton Orient have made the decision to issue proceedings for judicial review.

"Whilst this is disappointing, we believe that our processes have been robust, fair and transparent and that the challenge is misconceived."

"The rules of the bidding process created by the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) we do not believe provided for teaming, which is for all parties to share the stadium.

"It is our legal opinion that this is a fundamental flaw of the bidding process.

"We have gone to the High Court to have the decision struck out."