On the occasion of this last Assembly in Trigoria we felt obliged to ask for some clarifications regarding news published in sector press organizations that deserved clarification. Unfortunately the confusion, very often desired given the total absence of denials, is increasingly creating a picture of total overlapping of roles, skills, but above all of "property" and "responsibility".

Obviously the theme is that of the stadium of the "Proponente" Society which they deliberately call the "Stadio della Roma", but which we all know is not our property.

The Romanist, on October 10, 2018 reported: "In February 2012 the report on the sites where the Stadium was to be built was completed. Three mayors have passed, six presidents of the Council, two public utility resolutions, two projects, with and without towers, an investigation that has ascertained the most complete cleaning of Rome that has already spent 70 million for a work that will give work to 4000 people. When will you give up? ”. (link first page)

During the Assembly MyROMA requested a clarification on this sum; in particular if part or the entire sum of this amount had been spent by AS Roma Spa and if it was attributable to the budget being approved by the same Assembly. If so, it was also required to specify any consultancy items.

DG Baldissoni replied to MyROMA that "AS Roma Spa has invested 2.1 million euros in the stadium project. This amount was invested before the establishment of the stadium company and today AS Roma SPA has a credit of this amount to the stadium company, I cannot answer with what subject the sum the President Pallotta invested 70 million because it does not concern the AS Roma SPA The external consultancies can be verified on page 113 of the budget where it is possible to view the individual items of cost and check do not relate to the stadium project. "

Ultimately, what was reported in Il Romanista is incorrect as the 70 million euros were not spent by AS ROMA (our Club), but by the Proposing Company which owes AS ROMA also 2.1 mln.

Therefore it is good to remember that the AS Roma has no role in the costs of construction and realization of the project and therefore it will not have any role in the revenues a tomorrow, in case the stadium was realized.

Furthermore, one always wonders what the opinion of the State Attorney's Office is, kept secret from the interested subjects, since the new law on stadiums foresees that the proponent is a sporting association or a sports society while neither the new stadium society, nor the Neep I am.

MyROMA also requested the Shareholders' Meeting because since AS Roma SPA was not the proponent of the stadium project, it felt compelled to respond to the inquiry in the Report transmission.

To this specific request the director Baldissoni replied that "the report was not issued any statement by AS Roma", denying what was said during the service. According to Baldissoni, "the editorial staff of Report would have contacted the AS Roma offices but they would not have made official declarations".

It would be interesting to have a reply from the broadcast to find out how things went.

After the well-known legal proceedings, we hope, in order not to tarnish the AS ROMA brand, that more and more clarity will be made on the roles, responsibilities and properties. When the director Baldissoni meets with the Institutions it is conceivable that he does so as a "Proponent" Company and not as AS ROMA, even if the name of our CLUB is always used in newspapers, radio and websites. We remind you that AS ROMA is a listed company.