March 8 2014 Latest news:
by Rory Brigstock-Barron
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Premier league pace-setters Arsenal are caught up in a legal wrangle with one of its corporate box holders over sliced bread.
The Gunners are suing Capstone Sports Management Ltd for £375,000 after the company stopped paying the bill for its private Emirates box because its executives were banned from slicing their own bread and eating food they brought with them.
Arsenal are claiming breach of contract.
In response to the argument over the food in December 2011, Capstone stopped paying for the box in April 2012.
According to a High Court writ, the Barclays Premier League leaders claim that the company, which was set up in 2007 by FA licenced football agent Samuel Okoronkwo, was obliged by a contract to pay a total of £465,000 in instalments for box number 48 at the Emirates up until 2016.
In the same writ Capstone argue that Arsenal breached the licence agreement for the box during the bread dispute, and that the level of service and hospitality was being “deliberately compromised” by catering sub-contractors at the stadium.
“Capstone’s specific complaint is that, at an isolated match at the stadium in December 2011, Arsenal prevented its employees from slicing bread that had been brought by a representative of Capstone into the box, and reprimanded its employees for assisting Capstone in ordering food to be consumed in the box”, the writ states.
Also in the document is a letter from Capstone’s lawyers which says the company ceased paying for the box because it had complained to the club about the packed lunch incident and the Gunners had “promised but failed to take any proper action.”
Arsenal’s lawyers deny that the service provided was deliberately compromised, or that the club failed to take any “proper action in relation to Capstone’s complaint.”
The defence to the action of Capstone Sports Management Ltd was not available from the court and the allegations in the writ have yet to be tested in evidence before a judge.
Arsenal could not comment on the case and were unable to confirm whether they had a policy preventing corporate clients consuming their own food inside boxes.