These sponsorship deals were documented and had a multi-year history.
We did this with the first charge where argued that loan repayments for working capital at the club were actually for the stadium build.
Now it looks like we're going to argue on nuances about losses on sponsorship deals that have fallen through.
On one hand, I get that the rules are poorly defined so that gives us room to plead our case. On the other hand, I cannot understand why we ever voted for these rules to come in. We are (were) clearly so reliant on handouts rather than expanding our commercial footprint - what on earth was our club thinking of when they waved thisbthrough
In terms of USM, the first hearing we mentioned the potential stadium sponsorship. But nothing was signed, so it was ignored. The actual existing sponsorship such as Finch Farm, or the signage at Goodison was still in place, so not part of the hearing.
The second charge (waiting on results) is the first charge to actually include the year we lost the Finch Farm & Goodison signage sponsorship. This is what I meant by the 'suspended' comments in the accounts. I guess we'll find out in the next week or so if I've misunderstood that or not.
In terms of the second part, yes to a degree. But all financial deals are a gamble to some extent. Should I take this mortgage/ISA/car loan or keep looking around for a better option?
Responses