NUFC and other Sportswashing 2022 - Part 3


Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited by a moderator:


"In court papers seen by the Daily Mail, Amanda Staveley described some of the claims against her as 'embarrassing' and 'irrelevant' in a fierce defence against the Sports Direct founder and retail tycoon"

Has she described them as "false" though? She has now admitted that Ashley loaned her £10m, contrary to what she was saying before, but it seems she is unwilling (or unable?) to pay it back now:


"She admits that Ashley provided a £10million loan to cover costs incurred in the transaction, but has rejected calls for 'immediate repayment'. "



And it looks as if she may also owe him another £4.5m on top of the £10m as well:

Accusations that she reneged on a deal to fund Ashley's £4.5million legal bill from a takeover-related dispute were also contested. She has denied personally making an 'initial agreement' to pay 100 per cent of Ashley's legal costs, and claimed she did not have the authority to do so.

The obvious question is "why do you need to borrow money from Big Mike if you're the richest club in the world?" and why agree to loans on conditions that enable Ashley to dictate what you can and cannot say regarding his running of the club? Surely you'd just throw some of your riches in his direction and that would be that? This £4.5m is new information as well. Presumably the fee for the CAT case? Are Staveley or the club on the hook to Ashley for anything else?

Lots of questions there for Caulkin and the other fanzine writers to fail to ask.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top