Site icon The Esk

The Analysis Series: Olympique Lyonnais Groupe 2025/26 annual report – a detailed review, and what it says about Textor, Kang and Eagle Football

Source document: Olympique Lyonnais Groupe, Document d’Enregistrement Universel 2025-2026, filed with the AMF on 26 October 2026 (245 pages). All figures are in euros unless stated. Page references are to the URD’s own pagination.

OL groupe 2025-2026 (in French)

Translations from the French are our own.

Statements by John Textor, Eagle Football Holdings, Botafogo and the press are their own and are largely unverified. Nothing in this article is legal or investment advice.

1. Summary

This is the first annual report of Olympique Lyonnais Groupe (OL Groupe) published under Michele Kang’s ownership. It is also the first in which the company sets out, in an audited and AMF-filed document, its own account of the John Textor era. The document is more candid than any previous Eagle Football Group filing. It is also selective in places: it quantifies the claims made against OL by parties it disputes, but it does not quantify several exposures that matter, and it is light on the economics of the transaction through which its own chief executive acquired control.

Headline conclusions

1. The headline result flatters the underlying business. The net loss of €87.3m includes a €242.2m debt release and €205.1m of impairments. Excluding that net +€37.1m one-off gain, the operating loss is about €74.3m. Before financing, cash burn was €98.7m (operating −€76.0m, investing −€22.7m). It was funded almost entirely by shareholder money: €87.3m from Eagle Bidco in July 2025 and €31.0m from Olympe Bidco in June 2026.

2. OL is solvent only because its lenders and its owner are carrying it. Consolidated equity is −€248.3m. Parent-company equity has fallen below half of share capital, which triggers a statutory vote on dissolution (Art. L.225-248). Senior debt service is suspended until 31 December 2027, and interest is being capitalised meanwhile. Going concern rests on four stated assumptions, one of which is European qualification for 2027/28.

3. The intra-group legacy has been resolved in OL’s favour on paper, not in cash. €242.2m owed to Eagle Bidco, Eagle Football Holdings LLC and Textor personally was released by Eagle Bidco’s security agent. In return OL wrote off €141.6m due from Botafogo and €61.5m due from Eagle entities. OL still carries €96.9m of contested liabilities to Botafogo’s factoring creditors and three guarantees, signed by Textor and never previously disclosed, with a combined nominal maximum of about €80m.

4. The change of control was a related-party transaction, and its true price is not disclosed. Kang’s vehicle paid €0.1713 per share (€26.45m for 87.78%). The quoted price at 30 June 2026 was €1.80, a discount of 90.5%. The URD confirms that YMK Holdings (Kang) acquired Eagle Bidco “notes” as part of the deal, and that Kang was treated as conflicted because she held Eagle Bidco bonds. It does not disclose what YMK paid for those notes, which is where the real consideration sits.

5. The URD corroborates parts of Textor’s narrative and contradicts others. It confirms that Kang was a director of Eagle Football Holdings Ltd until October 2025. It also confirms that she was an Eagle Bidco creditor and signed a tripartite NDA with Ares-linked entities on 13 April 2026. It contradicts his position on the Botafogo balances and on the guarantees. Notably, it omits the 7 July 2025 letter agreement between Ares, Kang and Eagle Bidco, which OL itself disclosed in a regulated release on 10 March 2026. Under that agreement, no sale process would start before 30 June 2026 and Kang could not be removed as CEO before 30 June 2027.

6. There are disclosure gaps a regulator should test. The URD does not quantify Botafogo’s Brazilian claim (reported at €146m). It does not mention the UEFA settlement’s €37.5m of conditional penalties among contingent liabilities, or say whether 2025/26 targets were met. It does not mention the AMF investigation that Textor’s camp says is under way. And its figures for the Botafogo impairment are internally inconsistent (€109.6m, €141.6m and €143.6m in different places).

Key figures

€m (year to 30 June) 2025/26 2024/25 Change
Revenue excl. player trading 143.3 162.6 −12%
Player sale proceeds 79.0 111.1 −29%
Total revenue (APM) 222.3 273.7 −19%
Personnel costs (114.5) (177.7) −36%
EBITDA (EBE) (4.7) (47.7) +43.0
Debt release (Eagle Bidco, Eagle LLC, Textor) 242.2 – one-off
Impairment of Botafogo / Eagle receivables (205.1) – one-off
Operating result (37.2) (150.7) +113.5
Operating result excl. net release/impairment (74.3) (150.7) +76.4
Net result, group share (87.3) (201.2) +113.9
Operating + investing cash flow (98.7) 31.9 −130.6
Cash at year end 45.4 62.1 −16.7
Financial debt 409.8 517.9 −108.1
Net debt incl. net player balances 442.8 576.6 −133.9
Total equity (248.3) (163.6) −84.7

Source: URD ch. 7.1.2, 8.2, 18.3.1. The adjusted operating result and the cash flow sum are CWTE calculations.

2. The document and the audit opinion

The URD was filed with the AMF on 26 October 2026 without prior approval, under Article 9 of the Prospectus Regulation. That is the normal route for a frequent issuer, but it means the AMF has not reviewed the content in advance. Michele Kang signs the responsibility statement as Présidente-Directrice Générale. The statutory auditors are BDO Paris (Sébastien Haas) and Forvis Mazars Lyon (Emmanuel Charnavel, Arnaud Flèche). Both are in only their third and fourth years respectively, so both signed off the Textor-era 2023/24 and 2024/25 accounts.

Opinion: unqualified, with three emphases of matter

Both the consolidated and the parent-company opinions are clean. The auditors draw attention, without qualifying, to three areas:

No material uncertainty on going concern is reported. Last year’s filing described “substantial doubt”, and the URD says this has been lifted by the change of control (p. 17).

Unusual: a single key audit matter in a year of €447m of one-offs

The only key audit matter in the consolidated report is the valuation of player registrations (€108m net). The €205.1m impairment, the €242.2m debt release and the contested €96.9m factoring liabilities appear only as emphases of matter, not as key audit matters. Given their scale relative to a €550m balance sheet, and given that the same firms carried the Botafogo receivables unimpaired at 30 June 2025 on the basis of a hoped-for tripartite netting arrangement, this is a surprising judgement.

Audit fees also fell. Forvis Mazars’ fees went from €270k to €207k and BDO’s from €196k to €186k, in a year with an internal fraud-related investigation, a criminal complaint, a debt restructuring and a change of control (Note 13). Boards and regulators should ask whether the scope of work was commensurate.

Going concern: four stated assumptions

Note 11.2 states that the accounts were prepared on a going-concern basis resting on four assumptions:

  1. player sales in coming windows, including January 2027;
  2. OL remaining in Ligue 1 at the end of 2026/27 and qualifying for Europe for 2027/28;
  3. the ability to draw some or all of the undrawn €40m Olympe Bidco facility, guaranteed by J.P. Morgan;
  4. no condemnation to pay significant sums within 12 months in any of the major disputes.

Making European qualification a going-concern assumption is unusual and telling. It means the board’s 12-month cash forecast does not close without UEFA revenue the following season. The fourth assumption sits uneasily with the company’s own risk factor, which says that adverse outcomes in the Textor-related proceedings “would weigh heavily on the Group’s cash” (p. 15). Neither the London High Court claim ($43m) nor the CAS claim (€28.5m) is said to be near determination, but the timetable is not under OL’s control.

3. Trading performance 2025/26

Revenue line, €m 2025/26 2024/25 Change Comment
Ticketing (league and other) 40.8 35.1 +16% Includes c.€5.1m of hospitality reclassified from partnerships
Ticketing (Europe) 4.2 7.7 −46% Europa League last 16, versus quarter-final in 2024/25
TV rights LFP/FFF 16.4 22.8 −28% DAZN exit; Ligue 1+ launch
TV rights UEFA 21.9 22.9 −5%
Partnerships and advertising 28.1 30.9 −9% +7% like-for-like; “payment defaults by certain major partners”
Merchandise 13.1 12.5 +5% Record
Other brand revenue 10.9 11.9 −9% Includes OL Féminin services agreement
Events 7.9 18.7 −58% Prior year had the Olympics and Top 14 semi-finals
Revenue excl. trading 143.3 162.6 −12%
Player sale proceeds 79.0 111.1 −29% Academy players only 7% (€5.6m)
Total revenue 222.3 273.7 −19% Restated from €223.3m announced in July

Source: URD ch. 7.1.2, pp. 67–69.

The sporting outcome, 4th in Ligue 1 with 60 points, was achieved on a wage bill cut by €63.1m (−36%). Of that cut, €53.5m came from the playing side. This is the strongest operational evidence for the new management. Two qualifications apply.

The cash reality behind near break-even EBITDA

EBITDA of −€4.7m is a genuine improvement. But the cash flow statement shows operating cash flow of −€76.0m, against −€4.3m the year before. The difference is working capital. In 2024/25 OL generated a €151.4m working-capital inflow, largely by stretching payables and through the Botafogo-linked factoring structures. In 2025/26 it unwound €16.5m. The cash flow statement shows how much the prior year’s apparent liquidity depended on the intra-group machinery now under criminal complaint.

Cash flow, €m 2025/26 2024/25
Cash generation before tax (95.7) (183.2)
Working capital movement (16.5) 151.4
Operating cash flow (76.0) (4.3)
Player acquisitions net of payables movement (80.9) (75.7)
Player disposals net of receivables movement 59.8 103.8
Investing cash flow (22.7) 36.2
Shareholder / current account advances 118.3 (40.0)
Loan repayments, interest, leases (35.9) (59.8)
Financing cash flow 82.4 (99.7)
Change in cash (16.3) (67.8)

Source: URD consolidated cash flow statement, p. 141.

4. Balance sheet, debt and liquidity

Financial debt, €m 30 June 2026 30 June 2025 Terms
FCT OL StadCo notes (stadium) 298.4 305.1 €320m, 5.83% fixed, amortising to June 2044; first-ranking mortgage on Groupama Stadium
Term loan (Goldman Sachs, MUFG) 41.8 41.3 E3M+3.5% (5.5% if relegated); November 2028
RCF (fully drawn) 32.2 32.1 As above; pledge over OL SASU shares
Olympe Bidco shareholder loan 31.0 – 5.83%, payable at maturity 30 June 2030; subordinated; €40m undrawn to June 2028
Eagle Bidco loan (Dec 2022) – 27.4 Released 26 June 2026
Current account advances (Eagle) – 83.3 Released
Textor current account – 17.5 Released
Leases and other 6.4 11.2
Total financial debt 409.8 517.9
Net player-trading payables 78.3 120.8
Contested Botafogo factoring liabilities (in other liabilities) 96.9 102.2 Current €65.5m, non-current €31.4m

Source: URD ch. 7.1.2 (p. 74), notes 4.6 and 8.3. The 2025 factoring figure combines €36.6m current and €65.6m non-current.

What the June 2026 amendments actually did

My estimate: debt grows by c.€33m during the holiday

On our estimate, capitalisation over 18 months adds about €27m to the FCT (€298.4m at 6.0%) and about €6m to the RCF/TL (€74m at an assumed all-in 5.5%). That is about €33m before any deferred FCT amortisation is restated. A further c.€2.7m of interest accrues on the €31m Olympe loan, payable only at maturity.

Cash debt service restarts in January 2028. The RCF/TL matures in November 2028. The squeeze therefore falls in 2027/28, the season that the going-concern assumptions say must deliver European football. The KBRA downgrade from BBB+ to BBB (15 July 2026) reflects exactly this: “the amendments reduce projected DSCRs and increase the link between StadCo and wider club financing”.

Equity and the dissolution vote

Consolidated equity is −€248.3m. At parent level, OL Groupe recorded a further €234.1m impairment of its OL SASU shares (cumulative €443.3m) and a €60m impairment of OL SASU current accounts. It made a net loss of €236.8m. Equity is now below half of share capital, so an extraordinary general meeting must decide within four months whether to dissolve (p. 225). With Olympe Bidco holding 91.46% of exercisable votes, the outcome is not in doubt. But it is a formal marker of insolvency on a balance-sheet basis that the URD mentions only in passing.

The parent impairment test was built on the enterprise value implied by Kang’s acquisition price, less net debt. The company has therefore used a related-party, distressed, administrator-led sale price as the fair measure of value for its own accounts and for its treasury shares (written down to €0.17). That circularity matters for the forthcoming tender offer (section 5).

5. The change of control: what the URD discloses

Element URD disclosure Ref.
Seller Eagle Football Holdings Bidco Ltd, in administration since 27 March 2026 (Cork Gully). Shares were pledged to Ares Capital as agent; pledge released before sale pp. 33, 225
Buyer Olympe Bidco SASU (Paris), owned 100% indirectly by Kang via YMK Holdings LLC; parent Olympe Topco pp. 122, 210
Shares 154,382,133 (87.78% of capital; 91.46% of exercisable votes; 85.34% of theoretical votes) pp. 120–121
Price €0.1713 per share, c.€26.45m. Market price at 30 June 2026: €1.80. Nominal value: €1.52 pp. 121, 225
Financing “Financed by an intra-group loan without any guarantee” p. 121
Notes Transaction Implementation Agreement (23 June 2026) covers “the acquisition of the relevant notes by YMK Holdings LLC”. Price not disclosed p. 126
Debt release €242.2m owed to Eagle Bidco, Eagle LLC and Textor, released by the security agent of Eagle Bidco’s creditors under an English-law agreement to which OL is not party pp. 34, 82
New money €71m subordinated loan (€31m drawn); €40m balance backed by a J.P. Morgan standby letter of credit, counter-guaranteed by a Kang entity p. 82
Condition Written DNCG confirmation that OL would not be relegated for 2026/27 p. 126
Mandatory offer To be filed after the accounts; AMF pre-offer period opened 24 June 2026; no squeeze-out intended within 12 months pp. 85, 121

Source: URD as referenced.

Unusual features

Kang was on every side of this transaction

The URD, read with OL’s own earlier regulated disclosures, shows that Kang was at once:

(i) PDG of OL Groupe and president of OL SASU;

(ii) a director of Eagle Football Holdings Ltd until October 2025 (her list of mandates, p. 102), the parent of the seller;

(iii) a holder of Eagle Bidco bonds: the 24 April 2026 delegation to Gilbert Saada was made to avoid any perceived conflict with entities “with which she could be affiliated as holder of bonds of Eagle Football Holdings Bidco Limited” (p. 126);

(iv) a co-signatory, through YMK, of a 13 April 2026 confidentiality agreement with OL Groupe and “entities linked to Ares Capital” (p. 125);

(v) the buyer, through Olympe Bidco;

(vi) the counter-guarantor of the J.P. Morgan guarantees of July 2025 (€30m) and June 2026 (€40m); and

(vii) a party, as a creditor of Eagle Bidco, to the 7 July 2025 letter agreement with Ares (as noteholders’ agent) and Eagle Bidco. OL disclosed this agreement in a regulated release on 10 March 2026. It provided that no sale of EFG would be launched before 30 June 2026, that Ares would not enforce over the EFG shares before that date, that Kang would not be removed as CEO before 30 June 2027, and that a committee would be created. The URD does not mention this agreement, even though it was signed on the same day the board approved the €87.3m Eagle Bidco loan, with Kang recorded as a conflicted director.

The board’s response was proportionate on paper: an ad hoc committee of three independents (13 April 2026), Saada’s sole authority to negotiate, and CSE consultation. But the economic terms struck between YMK and Ares are not disclosed. Those terms determined who paid what for what.

6. The Eagle / Botafogo legacy: reconstructing the ledger

The URD lets us reconstruct OL’s position against the former Eagle multi-club group at 26–30 June 2026 for the first time on an audited basis.

€m Amount Treatment at 30 June 2026
Owed TO OL
Botafogo SAF (trade and financial) 141.6 Fully impaired
Eagle Football Holdings Bidco (incl. €10.7m cash pool at OL Groupe; €28.9m trade) 39.6 Fully impaired
Eagle Football Holdings LLC 21.9 Fully impaired
Total impaired 203.1 URD headline: €205.1m
Owed BY OL (released 26 June 2026)
Eagle Bidco shareholder loan 14 Dec 2022 (principal €21m) 29.3 Released
Eagle Bidco shareholder loan 7 Jul 2025 (principal €87.3m; $102.4m at SOFR+8%) 97.4 Released
Eagle Bidco cash-pooling advances to OL SASU 55.1 Released
Eagle LLC advances to OL Groupe 7.6 Released
Eagle LLC advances to OL SASU 34.4 Released
Textor current account, 25 Oct 2024 (principal €16.4m) 18.4 Released
Total released 242.2 Booked as other operating income
Owed BY OL (still recognised, contested)
Botafogo factoring creditors, current 65.5 Recognised; litigated (London $43m; CAS €28.5m)
Botafogo factoring creditors, non-current 31.4 Recognised
Off balance sheet (contested guarantees)
Swiss-law guarantee, Aug 2023, OL Groupe for RWDM (max €30m; €1.1m claimed) 30.0 Disclosed, no provision
English-law guarantee, Mar 2024, OL SASU + Eagle Bidco for Botafogo (max €19.9m; €3.9m claimed) 19.9 Disclosed, no provision
English-law guarantee, Apr 2025, OL SASU for Botafogo loan (max c.€30m; €14.8m reserved) c.30.0 Disclosed, no provision

Source: URD pp. 18, 82, 129, 134–135, 153, 167–171. Sub-totals are CWTE arithmetic. The €2.0m difference from the €205.1m headline arises because ch. 7 gives Botafogo as €143.6m.

Internal inconsistency: three different Botafogo impairment figures

The Botafogo impairment is stated as €141.6m (risk factors p. 19; key events p. 135) and €143.6m (management report p. 73). The 21 October results release gave €109.6m, which the URD uses only for the 30 June 2025 balance of player-related receivables (p. 75). The €205.1m total reconciles only with €143.6m. A €2m discrepancy is immaterial to the result, but in a document certified in the context of a criminal complaint alleging “inaccurate accounts”, the company and its auditors should state which figure is correct.

How the mirror-image transfers sit in the accounts

The structure that drives the dispute is visible in the prior-year comparatives. In 2024/25 OL sold the economic rights of four players to Botafogo for €117.7m and acquired the future economic rights of five players from Botafogo for €125.6m. Botafogo factored the amounts OL owed it (p. 137). OL’s receivables from Botafogo are now worthless. Its payables under the same structure, now owed to the factors rather than to Botafogo, remain on the balance sheet at €96.9m.

Our reconciliation suggests the current factoring liability of €65.5m corresponds closely to the two litigated claims: the London High Court claim of $43m (about €37m) over Igor Jesus, and the CAS claim of €28.5m over Savarino and Jair Paula. That is a CWTE inference, not a URD statement. OL says the Luiz Henrique and Thiago Almada transactions, which underlie Textor’s New York case, “never took place”.

Three incompatible ledgers

Party Position on OL–Botafogo balance Basis
OL Groupe (URD) Botafogo owes OL €141.6m (impaired); OL owes Botafogo’s factors €96.9m (contested) Audited IFRS, contractual balances
Botafogo SAF (Rio claim, recuperação judicial) OL owes Botafogo c.€146m (R$874m) transferred March 2024 to April 2025 Cash-pool transfers; SAF’s own characterisation
John Textor (Dec 2025; Oct 2026) Botafogo wired €146m, OL returned €42m; net owed by OL c.€104m on a cash basis, falling to €12–15.8m after €95.2m of non-cash credits incl. €86.0m of allocated player rights Textor schedules, as reviewed in our 18 October 2026 Analysis Series

Sources: URD; Gazeta Botafogo (Aug 2026); johntextor.org; theesk.org (18 Oct 2026).

The three positions cannot be reconciled because each counterparty books the same flows differently: as player-rights consideration, as loans, or as cash-pool advances. This is the single most important finding for anyone assessing the litigation. There was never an agreed inter-company ledger. The 2024/25 accounts carried the Botafogo receivables unimpaired, on the premise of a “tripartite netting” between OL, Botafogo and Eagle Bidco. The URD now says that premise has fallen away (p. 134). It was always contingent on a counterparty that has since entered recuperação judicial with a negative valuation of about −€84m (April 2026 independent valuation cited by OL).

Correction to earlier analysis

Our June 2026 Analysis Series article suggested that the intercreditor release might capture Botafogo’s claim of about €125m against OL. The URD describes the release as covering debts owed to Eagle Bidco, John Textor and Eagle Football Holdings LLC only. Botafogo does not appear among the released creditors. The related-party tables show no balance with Botafogo after impairment, and the Botafogo-linked liabilities survive through the factoring creditors. The release did not extinguish Botafogo’s claim. OL’s defence to it rests on its own receivables and on contesting the underlying transfers, not on the release.

The guarantees: why OL Groupe’s defence is stronger than OL SASU’s

Under Article L.225-35 of the Code de commerce, sureties, endorsements and guarantees given by a société anonyme require prior board authorisation. A guarantee given without it is unenforceable against the company. OL Groupe is an SA, so the August 2023 Swiss-law guarantee for RWDM signed by Textor is exposed to that defence, whatever the governing law of the guarantee itself. OL SASU, by contrast, is a société par actions simplifiée. Limits on its president’s powers are generally not enforceable against third parties (Art. L.227-6), so the March 2024 and April 2025 guarantees for Botafogo must be resisted on other grounds: corporate interest, abuse of corporate assets, or the beneficiary’s knowledge. That is a harder defence. This is our analytical view, not legal advice.

The April 2025 guarantee is particularly irregular on OL’s account. It would secure the same Botafogo loan that is also secured by an assignment of supposed receivables from OL SASU, for transfers that “never took place” (p. 168). In other words, the lender may have taken two forms of security from OL for one loan to Botafogo, one of which refers to non-existent receivables.

7. Litigation and contingent exposures

Matter Forum Claim Accounting CWTE view
Botafogo factor 1: Igor Jesus High Court, London $43m + interest and penalties Liability recognised Highest near-term cash risk; English court; recognised liability limits P&L hit
Botafogo factor 2: Savarino, Jair Paula CAS €28.5m + interest and penalties Liability recognised Material; CAS award enforceable via FIFA disciplinary route
Textor and Eagle LLC: management fees €2.5m + advance €18.4m Tribunal de commerce, Lyon (summons 30 Jul 2026) €20.9m No provision; debt treated as released Turns on enforceability of the release against Textor personally (see below)
Textor v Botafogo SAF and OL SASU NY Supreme Court (13 Oct 2026) €14.4m + interest No provision; factor’s claim already recognised Logic of OL’s footnote is sound: no double count
Botafogo v OL Rio de Janeiro (reported March 2026) Reported €125–146m Not quantified; “no official notification” Disclosure gap: should be quantified as a contingent liability
Contested guarantees (3) Pre-litigation Max c.€80m; €19.8m claimed Off balance sheet; no provision OL Groupe guarantee weakest; OL SASU guarantees more exposed
Other Botafogo factors Not yet filed Unquantified Risk factor only URD warns of “similar claims” to come
OL v Botafogo (Jeffinho) FIFA Unpaid fee (€4.8m sale) Receivable impaired Low recovery value
UEFA settlement (June 2025) UEFA CFCB Up to €37.5m conditional penalties Not listed in contingent liabilities Disclosure gap: compliance status for 2025/26 not stated
Criminal complaint against X (4 Jun 2026) Procureur, Lyon n/a No accounting impact Covers May 2023–June 2025; abuse of corporate assets, false accounts, market manipulation
Textor complaints against Kang personally PNF (per Textor); Florida $400m (Florida) OL not party Reputational and key-person risk for lenders, given the key-person clause

Source: URD ch. 3.1.2.2, 18.8, note 7.2, note 12; public reporting as cited.

The release and Textor’s Lyon claim

Textor’s €20.9m Lyon claim is the clearest test of the release mechanism. The release was executed by the security agent of Eagle Bidco’s creditors under an English-law agreement to which OL is not party. For Eagle Bidco’s own claims, and probably for Eagle LLC’s if they were subordinated and assigned or charged within the security package, that is orthodox intercreditor enforcement. Textor’s personal current account (€18.4m) is different. The URD does not explain the legal basis on which a creditor agent could release a debt owed to an individual who, on the public record, has not consented. This may rest on a subordination deed Textor signed. If so, OL should say so. If not, the €18.4m “release” is a contested asset of the restructuring, and the €242.2m gain is not wholly secure.

8. Governance and internal control

9. The URD against the public record

The table sets the principal public claims by Textor, by Kang’s side and by Botafogo against what the URD now shows. Ratings: Supported means the URD corroborates the claim; Contradicted means it is inconsistent with audited disclosure; Not addressed means the URD is silent.

Public claim Source What the URD shows Rating
Kang had a “secret side deal” with Ares and a “shadow board” to push Eagle into insolvency Textor, Florida complaint (Jul 2026) Tripartite NDA between YMK, OL and Ares-linked entities, 13 Apr 2026; Kang treated as conflicted as an Eagle Bidco bondholder; YMK bought “notes”. Silent on the 7 Jul 2025 Ares–Kang–Bidco letter agreement that OL disclosed on 10 Mar 2026 Alignment supported; the earlier agreement is omitted
Kang was conflicted Textor complaint, 17 Apr 2026 Director of Eagle Football Holdings Ltd until Oct 2025; Eagle Bidco bondholder; buyer Supported
Kang offered a €30m loan on high-interest terms, rejected by Ares johntextor.org (Dec 2025) July 2025: €30m J.P. Morgan guarantee counter-guaranteed by a Kang entity; no fee disclosed; terms of any Kang bond offer not disclosed Partly supported; terms not addressed
The Botafogo receivable is “fabricated”; the transfers were valid and FIFA-compliant Textor (Dec 2025; Oct 2026) Receivable recognised by OL, now impaired in full; OL says the Henrique/Almada deals “never took place” Contradicted on characterisation; the receivable existed in OL’s audited books
OL owes Botafogo only €12–15.8m net Textor (Sep–Oct 2026) Botafogo owes OL €141.6m; OL owes factors €96.9m Contradicted on OL’s basis
The guarantees were known to the group Textor (Oct 2026) Not known, not in prior accounts; disclosed now as discovered in Q1 2026 Contradicted; no board minute published by either side
Debt did not “explode” under Textor Textor (Dec 2025) Financial debt €517.9m at June 2025 and net debt €602.2m at Dec 2025, both before the release Not addressed directly; the trajectory is unfavourable to Textor
Eagle invested c.€300m; Textor lent €56m personally and guaranteed >€70m Textor (Dec 2025) Released Eagle debts €242.2m (incl. interest); Textor current account €16.4m principal; Textor ordered by NY court to pay €14.4m on a guarantee Scale partly supported; the €56m personal figure is not reconciled
Wage bill cut by 1 Jul 2025 Textor (Dec 2025; Apr 2026) Cut credited to Kang plan and DNCG cap; €53.5m sporting saving in 2025/26 Contested; both partly right
Internal audit found €700m+ of suspicious transactions Inside World Football headline (Jul 2026) URD: flows of “several hundred million euros” lacking economic justification The €700m figure is not supported by the URD
Botafogo claims €146m (R$874m) from OL Botafogo SAF, recuperação judicial (Aug 2026) Mentioned; not quantified; “no official notification” Not addressed (disclosure gap)
The AMF has opened an investigation Eagle Football Holdings statement, 9 Jun 2026 No mention Not addressed
Deal “worth up to €101m” Inside World Football (Jun 2026) €26.45m equity + €71m facility = €97.45m; notes purchase excluded Approximately consistent
FCT capitalisation rate KBRA (15 Jul 2026) Rate not stated KBRA gives 6.0%

Sources are listed at the end of this article.

Overall assessment of the Textor–Kang contest on the URD evidence

On the accounts, the URD is damaging to Textor. It documents guarantees given without disclosure, intra-group balances that could not be reconciled with the counterparty, a cash pool approved 16 months after the fact, and a working-capital structure that flattered 2024/25 liquidity by about €151m.

On conduct of the sale, the URD is more helpful to Textor than OL may intend. It confirms Kang’s triple role as Eagle Football Holdings director, Eagle Bidco creditor and buyer, and her coordination with Ares-linked entities from 13 April 2026. It discloses a price roughly 90% below market, while omitting the price paid for the notes. It also omits the July 2025 letter agreement, which protected Kang’s position as CEO and deferred any sale until after 30 June 2026.

None of that proves the pre-administration conspiracy alleged in Florida. But it means Textor’s claims cannot be dismissed as baseless, and the fairness of the mandatory offer will be scrutinised against this record.

10. Register of unusual and irregular items

# Item Severity Ref.
1 Three Textor-signed guarantees (max c.€80m) never disclosed in prior accounts; the OL Groupe guarantee was given apparently without the board authorisation required by L.225-35 High pp. 15, 167–168
2 April 2025 guarantee duplicates security over an assignment of receivables for transfers that “never took place” High p. 168
3 Price paid for the Eagle Bidco notes by YMK not disclosed, although it is the economic consideration for control High p. 126
4 Mandatory offer floor of €0.1713 against a €1.80 market price (−90.5%) and €1.52 nominal High pp. 121, 225
5 Botafogo’s c.€146m Brazilian claim not quantified among contingent liabilities High p. 222
6 UEFA settlement conditional penalties (up to €37.5m) and 2025/26 compliance status not disclosed; cross-references to ch. 10 lead nowhere Medium–High pp. 14, 137
7 Going concern conditional on 2027/28 European qualification and on no adverse litigation outcome within 12 months Medium–High p. 182
8 Botafogo impairment stated as €141.6m, €143.6m and (in the results release) €109.6m Medium pp. 19, 73, 135
9 Legal basis for releasing Textor’s personal €18.4m current account not explained Medium p. 82
10 Single key audit matter (player registrations) despite €447m of gross one-offs; audit fees down Medium pp. 212–213, 190
11 Cash pool (effective Jul 2023) ratified 16 months after conclusion; Textor current account signed the same day Medium p. 129
12 YMK Holdings charged €1.104m; OL Féminin financial charges €1.238m; purpose not stated Medium p. 181
13 Kang was a director of Eagle Football Holdings Ltd until Oct 2025 while OL Groupe PDG; no specific conflict narrative beyond the Saada delegation Medium p. 102
14 Audit committee chair’s independence not reconciled with 16 years’ prior board service Medium pp. 105, 108
15 Retrospective €75k fee and directors’ envelope increase for 2025/26 Low–Medium p. 95
16 ComEx post-employment benefits (€4.083m) exceed the total retirement provision (€1.661m) Low–Medium p. 156
17 Treasury shares bought from Holnest at €3.00 now worth €0.17: about €32m of value lost Low (legacy) pp. 130, 198
18 Stephen Welch’s 20-day directorship unexplained Low p. 100
19 The 7 July 2025 Ares–Kang–Eagle Bidco letter agreement (no sale before 30 Jun 2026; Kang protected as CEO to 30 Jun 2027; committee) is omitted, although OL disclosed it on 10 Mar 2026 High –
20 Alleged AMF investigation (per Eagle Football Holdings) not mentioned Unverified –

Severity is my judgement of significance to investors, creditors and regulators.

11. Outlook: what has to go right

Balanced view

Operationally, the new management has delivered: wage discipline, a 4th-place finish, a record merchandise year, restored relationships with the DNCG, UEFA and the lenders, and a candid account of the past. The URD is a markedly better document than its predecessors. The criticisms in this article go to what remains undisclosed: the price of control, the size of the Botafogo claim and the UEFA exposure. They do not suggest the restated figures are unreliable.

12. Questions for the board, the auditors and the AMF

  1. What did YMK Holdings pay for the Eagle Bidco notes, which holders sold, and what upside-sharing or contingent value arrangements survive with Ares or other creditors?
  2. Will the independent expert’s report value OL on a multi-criteria basis independent of the €0.1713 block price, and will the notes consideration be taken into account?
  3. What is the legal basis for releasing Mr Textor’s personal €18.4m current account and Eagle LLC’s advances? Did either sign subordination deeds that brought them within the security agent’s release power?
  4. What is the quantum of Botafogo’s Rio de Janeiro claim, and why is it not presented as a quantified contingent liability?
  5. Has OL met the 2025/26 obligations under the June 2025 UEFA settlement? What is the remaining exposure to the €37.5m of conditional penalties?
  6. Which is the correct Botafogo impairment figure: €141.6m or €143.6m?
  7. Did OL Groupe’s board ever authorise the August 2023 Swiss-law guarantee, as Article L.225-35 requires? Who at OL SASU knew of the March 2024 and April 2025 guarantees?
  8. What did the €1.104m charged by YMK Holdings and the €1.238m of OL Féminin financial charges relate to? Is any fee payable for the counter-guarantee of the J.P. Morgan letters of credit?
  9. What wage cap did the DNCG set for 2026/27, and what are the cash threshold and other triggers for the stadium fiducie-sûreté?
  10. Why were the Botafogo balances, the debt release and the guarantees not key audit matters, and why did audit fees fall?
  11. How was Mr Saada’s independence assessed against the AFEP-MEDEF 12-year criterion?
  12. Is the company aware of any AMF investigation, whether concerning the company, its former management or its current management?
  13. Why does the URD omit the 7 July 2025 letter agreement between Ares, Ms Kang and Eagle Bidco? Is it still in force, and what powers did its committee have?
  14. Why did Mr Welch resign 20 days after co-optation?

13. Methodology and caveats

Sources

Exit mobile version