Friday, February 19, 2010

Elections could be called earlier

Barcelona blogger Sisco Pinyol reports on his blog that Barcelona assets vice-president Jaume Ferrer has said on a meeting with representatives of Barcelona fan clubs on Wedneday that the elections for president of FC Barcelona could be called earlier because of a judicial decision that same day.

After the elections in 2006, the Barcelona board didn't put down a bank guarantee because they considered themselves to be a continuity board and because they had made profits since they took power in 2003.

On Wednesday, a court in Barcelona nevertheless ruled that the losses made in the last eight days of the 2002-2003 season after Laporta became president should be taken into account, something that previously didn't happen.

This now means that in the end the board didn't met the conditions necessary to not put down the guarantee after the 2006 elections and that the eight directors who were part of the 2006 board and are still in office – Joan Laporta, Alfons Godall, Jaume Ferrer, Albert Perrín, Rafael Yuste, Joan Boix, Alfonso Castro and Josep Cubells – would still have to pay the 2006 guarantee.

The club has announced in an official statement on Wednesday that they will take the case to the Suprme Court but Catalan sports paper Sport claims that this doesn't stop the enforcement of the Wednesday decision if the complainant asks for the immediate payment. In interviews with the paper, both the complainant, Barcelona club member Vicenç Pla, and his lawyer have said they plan to do this.

Catalan news site E-notícies claims that each of the board members would be responsible for 3 million euros. Ferrer said during the meeting on Wednesday with fan clubs' representatives that some directors wouldn't want to pay their part which could lead to the elections being organized earlier than 13 June.

Read more:
Elections will be held on Sunday 13 June
Marketing expert: "It will be an Obama-type campaign"
How many people will be able to vote?


  1. The complainant asks for the immediate payment? Who should be payed? And how could this lead to earlier elections if they don't pay?

  2. - Nobody gets money, except for the bank. It's a guarantee in case they make the club lose money.

    - Since the verdict only applies to the board members that are still there, stepping down and calling elections is apparently seen as a possible way out.

  3. But if they step down does that mean that the new board will have 5 years and a few months or they will continue until june 30?

  4. According to the new statutes it's or six years, or six years plus the months/days before 1 July.

  5. As I said few weeks ago, the whole case of bank guarantee is unclear to me. I udnderstend it in general, but not everything :)

    Imho, try Pep to write a long article about bank guarantee. In my opinion it will be more useful than the 5th interview with Guixa ;)

  6. Thanks. I thought the same thing could happen like in 2003.

  7. yeah, kabum, but writing it would cost too much time because i always want to have my fact straighter than straight and in this case that would mean going into spanish law and stuff, for which i probably won't have enough time in the coming months.

    the basics are simple though:

    1. a board needs to put down a guarantee of 15% of the last budget, so they can be held accountable if they mess up the finances of the club. in that case, that sum, that is put on a bank account, will be used to make up for their management.

    2. a "continuity board" could not be forced to pay if they have done well and made profits over the past years.

    this is the big question for this year: can the godall and/or ferrer candidacies be considered to be "continuity boards" because the board kind of splits in two and new people will join.

    3. the story above deals with the 2006 elections and if the board had to pay after those elections.

  8. What happens to the deposit after the term of the board expires?

    And how would scheduling the election for an earlier date help them avoid putting down a deposit? Or would it mean that Godall wouldn't have to put down 2 deposits instead of one

  9. - i guess they get it back if they did a proper job.

    - if the rule would only apply if you are still on the board, maybe some might think stepping down could make them avoid paying. guess the lawyers are looking into the matter as we speak... for example joan franquesa, who only left last november, doesn't have to pay, just like the group who left after the vote of no confidence in the summer of 2008.

    - godall nil, one or two deposits? apparently certainly one (2006) if this judgment is correctly explained in the press. a second (2010) is possible if his board - if he wins the elections - is not considered to be a "continuity board"

    ps. thanks for the word "deposit", kamikaze...

  10. yeah, this needs a law review type explanation lol.

    So now they have to pay for 2006 and also put money up front for the next election?

    Do you have a link to the laws that explain it in detail so me and my buddy can review it Pep?

  11. - paying for 2006: yes (no matter the appeal, apparently)

    - paying for 2010: under discussion (but anyhow not before the elections, only the winner must pay)

    these links could be helpful, IBES (and if you write something comprehensive, we'll be glad to put it up here too...):

  12. I hope the losers get their money back or this would be a really good way to make up any budget deficits. We should have elections more often.

  13. note:
    the decision has been confirmed by chief executive joan oliver at a press conference after the meeting of the delegate commission on friday.