F
Flavia
Guest
That's right.I thought Rosell tried to claim that Laporta ran up debt and wanted him liable for it??
That's right.I thought Rosell tried to claim that Laporta ran up debt and wanted him liable for it??
That's right.
You can't hold someone liable for running up the debt if it was pure business decision. Club may lose money and it's not always someone's fault. Rosell tried to prove breach of fiduciary duties on Laporta. You almost never win cases like this , especially with Laporta. But Laporta was spending like crazy and he indeed presented the club debts in funny way. The short term debt was presented as long term on financial statements, which was ticking bomb for Rossel. Rosell had the reason to be pissed, but taking Laporta to court was waste of money.I thought Rosell tried to claim that Laporta ran up debt and wanted him liable for it??
You can't hold someone liable for running up the debt if it was pure business decision. Club may lose money and it's not always someone's fault. Rosell tried to prove breach of fiduciary duties on Laporta. You almost never win cases like this , especially with Laporta. But Laporta was spending like crazy and he indeed presented the club debts in funny way. The short term debt was presented as long term on financial statements, which was ticking bomb for Rossel. Rosell had the reason to be pissed, but taking Laporta to court was waste of money.
Kind of. He was trying to prove that Laporta spend the money because he was careless, also for intentional misrepresentation on financial statements.So essentially taking him to court to make him personally responsible for the debt is what he was doing?
Based on all the reports that ive read, he took him to court for 46.7M of undeclared losses during his 7 year tenure at the club. he wasn't suing him for "all debt" alot of major companies/ clubs operate with a manageable amount of debt.
The judge backed Laporta on the basis of assets being taken into account. I am not saying the judge was wrong or Rosell was right to take it to court as I dont think he was.
But the club had huge liabilities when Laporta left and the club debt when calculated in the way club debts always are was close to 600m and needed to be addressed.
So this idea that the club was left debt free is totally wrong in the way football debt is normally understood.
Anyway, what do you guys think is the punishment Barca could receive if Bartomeu loses in court and they decide to sanction the entire club? Dissolution was mentioned, which obviously won't happen, but is relegation even a possibility?![]()
Anyway, what do you guys think is the punishment Barca could receive if Bartomeu loses in court and they decide to sanction the entire club? Dissolution was mentioned, which obviously won't happen, but is relegation even a possibility?![]()
castration of club executives