The Queen’s Club in west London is one of the most exclusive private members’ clubs in the world. For a start, inductees are expected to cough up £15,000 before committing themselves to a £2,000 annual subscription. Food, drink and guest passes are extra, of course.
And yet, money alone isn’t enough. For the tennis and rackets club – which boasts 28 outdoor grass courts – closed its 15-year waiting list in 2019.
In other words, this historic sporting club is the preserve of its 4,500 members, who include aristocrats, film stars, CEOs and politicians.
The Prince and Princess of Wales play there, as do the TV presenter Ainsley Harriott, West End star Elaine Paige and the American billionaire investor George Soros.
But now this rarefied enclave is in a spin. For the club – known simply as ‘Queen’s’ after founding patron Queen Victoria – finds itself embroiled in one of the most vicious scandals in its 140-year history following a unilateral decision by the Lawn Tennis Committee to dismiss two of its most beloved tennis coaches.
Dr Floyd Williams, believed to be 61, and Andrej Jankov, 57 – who have both played professional tennis and have coached at Queen’s for a combined 36 years – were informed last month that they were no longer welcome to teach at the club.
Their dismay was matched only by that of the membership – which includes the actor Hugh Grant and Restore UK leader Rupert Lowe MP – who have started a petition to have the pair reinstated.
The rebel members claim that what was presented ‘as a voluntary departure was in fact a dismissal’ and are now demanding the club reverse its decision and commission ‘an independent review of how this decision was taken and communicated’.
Dr Floyd Williams, believed to be 61, was informed last month that he was no longer welcome to teach at The Queen’s Club
Founded in 1886, the 14-acre club in Barons Court, London, was ‘the first multipurpose sports complex ever to be built, anywhere in the world’, according to the club’s own website
The Daily Mail has been shown a damning tranche of email correspondence between Queen’s Club members – including celebrities and captains of industry who the Daily Mail has agreed not to name – and the Head of Lawn Tennis (HOLT), Lee Childs, in which members express their incredulity at the sackings, with some even making accusations of racism and ageism.
‘We as members are astute and powerful enough through our pockets to decide who we wish to play, and be coached by,’ wrote one member. So why is this most historic of London clubs, and its incredibly well-heeled membership, getting hot and bothered over the dismissal of a pair of tennis coaches?
Founded in 1886, the 14-acre club in Barons Court was ‘the first multipurpose sports complex ever to be built, anywhere in the world’, according to the club’s own website.
Today, it is most famous for hosting the grass court Wimbledon ‘curtain-raiser’ tournament, which is currently known as the HSBC Championships. This year the perennial British hopeful Emma Raducanu lost in the women’s final in straight sets to American challenger Amanda Anisimova.
Beyond sport, Queen’s is something of a society hideout. For members are as likely to be seen sipping at a G&T in the historic pavilion or tucking into ‘oven roasted halibut’ at £52 a pop in the restaurant as they are to be caught breaking a sweat on court.
Formerly owned by the sport’s governing body, the Lawn Tennis Association, the membership acquired a 120-year lease on the facility in 2007 for £35million, making it fully member-owned for the first time.
As shareholders in the business, they now understandably feel they have a right to be involved in its everyday governance – including the hiring and firing of staff. ‘I’ve been a member since I was a child,’ declared one gentleman who didn’t wish to be named for fear of jeopardising his priceless membership. ‘The membership has changed since then. Now it’s full of people with an awful lot of money who are used to having things their own way.
‘They think they know best about everything from which champagne to stock behind the bar to headline sponsorship deals.’
The Prince and Princess of Wales play at the exclusive tennis club. Pictured: Prince William and Prince George at Wimbledon last year
Today, Queen’s is most famous for hosting the grass court Wimbledon ‘curtain-raiser’ tournament, which is currently known as the HSBC Championships
This latest contretemps began on May 16 when, according to the minutes of a Lawn Tennis Committee meeting, Mr Childs, confirmed he had begun the annual coaching review and hoped to complete the process by the end of the month.
The minutes go on to explain that ‘the Committee expressed its support for HOLT’s approach designed to enhance the service of coaching provided to Members’.
Following the committee meeting, a letter of termination was sent to both Floyd Williams and Andrej Jankov on June 23 giving them eight weeks’ notice before they would no longer be granted access to the Club. This was later cut down to just four weeks, meaning July 21 was their final day in post. This decision was communicated to members a week later on June 30.
Queen’s does not employ tennis coaches directly but permits roughly a dozen licensed coaches to use the facilities as self-employed sub-contractors under the terms of a Facility Licence Agreement, for which coaches pay the club £650 a month.
It was this agreement which the club terminated with Floyd and Andrej, though – as the pair often worked there five days a week – it is reasonable to equate this with dismissal.
On July 7, coach Andrej wrote to some of his clients to inform them the club had decided to let him go. ‘The reason given was that “my coaching is not good”,’ he explained in one such email seen by the Daily Mail. It should be stressed, however, that neither coach agreed to comment or contribute directly towards this article. The news of the coaches’ imminent departures prompted an outpouring of dissatisfaction from members.
‘I have had many coaching sessions with Floyd and Andrej and can only support their technique of teaching,’ declared one lady who plays competitive tennis for the club. ‘Having come to this game so late in life, they have helped me correct my style and improve my performance. No one could ever say they are not good coaches.’
Another individual wrote that they had been ‘impressed by the exceptional diligence and professionalism of Andrej in making himself available at almost any time when he was not already booked… often agreeing to play with me or my children at barely half a day’s notice’.
Pictured: the gates of Queen’s, where this year the perennial British hopeful Emma Raducanu lost in the women’s final in straight sets to American challenger Amanda Anisimova
This was a sentiment echoed by numerous others. One member suggested that Andrej’s professionalism was not always displayed ‘by some other tennis coaches at the club’.
Another common complaint was that the decision had been taken ‘without much consultation’.
One particularly distraught individual said: ‘I feel like shouting from the rooftops, MEMBERS’ VIEWS MATTER.’
The chorus of messages, however, clearly fell on deaf ears.
For on July 17, just four days before the coaches’ notice period was up, the chairman of Queen’s, Alan Giddens, showed no signs of backing down.
‘While it is clear there are lessons to be learnt with regard to the communication with members,’ he wrote in an email to members, ‘the majority of the Board were nevertheless satisfied that the correct decision had been made.’
In another leaked email, club CEO Ross Niland claimed: ‘There are a limit to the number of coaches we can have at the club and the issuances of contracts to coaches are based on Lee’s assessment of the range and quality of the various coaches available.’
Was this a case of the CEO trying to deflect blame onto Head of Lawn Tennis Lee Childs, or could there perhaps be a more sinister explanation?
The actor actor Hugh Grant, pictured, and Restore UK leader Rupert Lowe MP are both members of Queen’s
In an incendiary piece of correspondence seen by the Daily Mail, a disturbing new theory was touted. ‘With all the letters of support and confirmation of coaching skills,’ read the email from a member to the management, ‘it is now not unreasonable to come to the conclusion of the strong possibility that other unspeakable reasons are behind their termination…
‘Regrettably one can understand why Floyd, a black, a very highly qualified coach and Andrej a popular LTA Level 4 Eastern European, now strongly feel they are being singled out due to their racial profile.’ Such an allegation is calculated to send shivers up spines in the boardroom of The Queen’s Club. But the member who made it didn’t stop there.
‘One look at the coaching pool at QC and one can see clearly it is NOT a reflection, by any stretch of the imagination, of the racially diverse society in London and it will become considerably less representative with Andrej and Floyd removed.
‘I believe that the unfairness and unjustified terminations, the ignoring of the members’ views, and possible exposure risk of allegations of racial discrimination and associated negative publicity to the club which could have catastrophic consequences to QC by us losing sponsors etc leaves me with no option [but] to bring this to the direct attention of the Board and the Trustees.
‘Queen’s Club cannot be put in a position of having its long tradition tarnished.’
An email from another member even suggested that ‘without evidence of a qualitative assessment process your action appears to have an element of ageism’.
Accusations of racism and ageism were both rebutted in private correspondence. However, The Queen’s Club refused to comment when approached by the Daily Mail.
But could there be one further sting in the tail of this story? For although the coaches were officially self-employed, they may be viewed as direct employees of the club in a court of law should the case go to tribunal.
There is precedent here in the shape of the case of Uber vs Aslam in 2021 in which the Supreme Court ruled that self-employed Uber drivers were in fact ‘workers’ rather than contractors.
Could the same be applied to the two tennis coaches, given that they worked at the club regularly? If so, they could be entitled to compensation and could even sue for unfair dismissal.
The decision to fire the coaches has emerged as something of an unforced error. The question now is whether the pair will be reinstated, or whether The Queen’s Club will be judged, in the case of these two, to have served a double fault.
