Next escalation in the FCL dispute: the six questions about the chaos in the Lucerne stadium

“We felt forced to do this,” says Mayor Züsli. He gives two reasons for this that emerged at the end of June. On the one hand, the city became aware that FCL Holding AG did not receive a purchase right in accordance with the building contract when transferring the shares in Stadion Luzern AG in 2018 and 2019. On the other hand, the city questions the composition of the current executive council. As a result, the city dutifully asked Stadion Luzern AG to demonstrate in detail before September 24 how the shares were transferred with regard to the purchase rights. Because the city believes that insufficient documents have been received during this period, the city is now making use of the rollback clause. “To protect public interests,” Züsli explains.

In 2018, ownership of Stadion Luzern AG was divided as follows: FC Luzern Holding AG owned 40 percent, the stadium’s then builder, Eberli Generalunternehmung AG, owned the remaining 60 percent. According to Blick-Infos, Eberli AG transferred the shares to Antoga AG, founded by Anton Eberli, that year. A year later, Alpstaeg bought Antoga AG, acquiring 60 percent of the shares. Since then he has been the majority shareholder of Stadion Luzern AG. It is these two transactions that raise questions for the city. The remaining 40 percent interest in Stadion Luzern AG is still owned by the holding company.

The city of Lucerne has signed a construction rights agreement with Stadion Luzern AG for the construction of the Swissporarena. This is valid for 99 years. In 2008, Stadion Luzern AG bought the right to build an arena on the city’s property and did not have to acquire its own land to do so. Because the city still owns the property, it can trigger the repossession clause in the event of serious violations of the construction contract. In this case, the building would become the property of the landowner. The city now assumes that “there has been a serious violation of the construction contract.”

There is still a long way to go before the stadium actually comes into the hands of the city. Now talks about an amicable agreement are on the agenda. The city aims to achieve this in the next three months. This is recorded in the construction contract. Who approaches who is completely open. However, it is clear that Alpstaeg must provide the required proof in this extrajudicial manner that it has made an offer to purchase to FCL Holding AG. If this does not lead to a solution, a mediator will be called in. If that does not help, an arbitral tribunal will ultimately decide. This decision would then be final. According to experts, an arbitration decision can only be appealed to a higher court in extreme cases.

Alpstaeg’s spokesperson, Sacha Widdorovits (71), is shocked by the move by the city politicians. Even before issuing a press release, he described the city’s approach to Blick as “completely legally untenable.” A moment later he puts it in writing. And clearly: “All accusations are false.” Within the deadline set by the city, a copy was sent to the municipal council, which “clearly stated” that FCL Holding “had no contractual right of first refusal” in the sale of the shares to Alpstaeg.

For the FCL Board of Directors, the legal steps taken to guarantee an early return are a small milestone. After all, he is the one who orchestrated everything and informed the city about it. The club may one day hope to acquire a majority stake in the stadium, which would make the entire FCL Holding AG more attractive and valuable. Nevertheless, the legal steps taken by the city of Lucerne do not change the other point of contention between the Executive Council and Alpstaeg. We still have to wait for the court to decide who actually owns the ominous 25 percent share package.