The government is to announce that the Olympic Stadium deal with West Ham and Newham Council has collapsed, sources say.
Legal challenges by Tottenham and Leyton Orient, plus an anonymous complaint to the European Commission, have led to fears that court action could drag on for years while the stadium remains empty.
A ministerial statement is expected around noon, saying that the stadium will remain in public ownership and leased out to an anchor tenant following a new tender process.
It is likely that under the new tender process any costs of transforming the stadium after the 2012 Games will be covered by the Olympic Park Legacy Company. Prospective tenants will then be asked to bid for the stadium with the running track remaining in place.
The tenants would pay an annual rent to the OPLC, which could actually prove to be less costly for the likes of West Ham.


Several points spring to mind on reading this.
Why does anyone bid for the olympics? It always results in over spending, debt burdens and stadiums that no one wants.
Prestige? 
It must be a huge comfort for the Greeks as they approach financial ruin to look back upon the 2004 Summer Olympics.
Legacy?
The Olympic village will be turned into housing. Why do you need to host an Olympics to spend money on housing and infrastructure? I'd settle for the amount of money  they spend on bidding for the Olympics to be spent on housing and infrastucture.
The east end of London will have a 60,000 seater athletic stadium that no one wants, but apparantly it will be usefull in our bid for the 2017 world athletics championships.
Finally on a footballing note. I have watched football at stadiums with running / dog tracks around them: The old Wembley, the old Stamford Bridge and the Olympic Stadium in Munich (a stadium that Bayern München couldn't get out off quickly enough) and to put it mildly from a spectator's view point they were all terrible.