Mate, why would a bank, any bank, care about the legitimacy of our sponsorship deal?
What exactly is meant to be "illegitimate" about it? And why would that concern the bank?
The only reason I could imagine any bank being concerned with "legitimacy" is a concern that the payments we are owed are being legitimately paid. Even then, say for some reason they were not, we have a 60 million quid credit facility from a separate bank to the one your mate is claiming is concerned.
I've no idea why Barclays would give a fart about our sponsorship deals? Has that ever been related to any of our financial dealings with them? Not that I'm aware.
Barclays had cut our overdraft limit down years before when we sold Arteta and we used another funding vehicle to leverage the tv revenues and season ticket sales I believe.
So please ask your mate why any bank would take issue with the legitimacy of the sponsorship deal?
Reading what you've posted about it would indicate that neither you nor your mate have any actual clue given the vagueness of the claims. "Unhappiness is something to do with the legitimacy of our sponsorship deal", "large bank shaped cloud on the horizon - could put a dent in our spending plans"
It's awfully light on relevant details mate and doesn't make much sense.