dave,
Serious question, and correct me if I'm wrong.
Wasn't the basis of our representation that:
1) Stadium naming rights granted to the Russian, to the tune of £200 million, was in place in all but signing the contract, with the first payment of £20m due in the period in question (and then we know what happened re the Government & Russia); and
2) Wasn't the value of 'he who could not be named', which value could be offset in the accounts balance sheet, reduced to £0 by the FA, thereby also crippling our overall balance?
As far as I understand, those mitigating circumstances were not accepted/ignored.
dave, or anyone, is the foregoing correct, or is what I have previously read incorrect?