Ah, I get it now. It's actually "more than one club".
Barcelona: Charged with corruption .... again!
- Thread starter The Boy
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Nou Qatar
Messi is mes que un club
Remember the rules… no wumming.
(At least I hope you’re wumming. No one could type that seriously)
This has just been leaked
- Every player has to surrender 5% of their weekly wage to Messi. This will fund 0.8% of Messi's salary.
- If Messi assists you to score a goal, 75% of your goal bonus goes to Messi. If you don't have a goal bonus clause, an individual bonus will be rewarded to you, of which 100% proceeds to Messi.
- Barca will set up a charity focusing on mental health, which purpose is to bring about happiness in Catalonia by ensuring Messi's long-term stay.
-As very credible reports explain, Messi is crucial to Barca's match day revenue, merchandising and sponsorships, Messi will earn 75% from profits of all shirts and tickets sold, as well as sponsorships entered into. Those with keen economic sensibilities speculate that this will increase Barca's revenues by 40% in the next fiscal quarter.
-Javier Tebas has privately confirmed that La Liga will place a 15% Messi tax on every transfer between now and end of June 2023 to help fund Messi's salary, as La Liga's most important asset. It is still not clear whether this only applies to transfers between Spanish clubs or whether this can be applied to transfer dealings between Spanish clubs and non-Spanish clubs. Reports suggest that UEFA have given La Liga positive signals that it will throw its weight behind the proposal, given the importance of the matter.
Messi is thought to be seriously considering joining PSG.
- Every player has to surrender 5% of their weekly wage to Messi. This will fund 0.8% of Messi's salary.
- If Messi assists you to score a goal, 75% of your goal bonus goes to Messi. If you don't have a goal bonus clause, an individual bonus will be rewarded to you, of which 100% proceeds to Messi.
- Barca will set up a charity focusing on mental health, which purpose is to bring about happiness in Catalonia by ensuring Messi's long-term stay.
-As very credible reports explain, Messi is crucial to Barca's match day revenue, merchandising and sponsorships, Messi will earn 75% from profits of all shirts and tickets sold, as well as sponsorships entered into. Those with keen economic sensibilities speculate that this will increase Barca's revenues by 40% in the next fiscal quarter.
-Javier Tebas has privately confirmed that La Liga will place a 15% Messi tax on every transfer between now and end of June 2023 to help fund Messi's salary, as La Liga's most important asset. It is still not clear whether this only applies to transfers between Spanish clubs or whether this can be applied to transfer dealings between Spanish clubs and non-Spanish clubs. Reports suggest that UEFA have given La Liga positive signals that it will throw its weight behind the proposal, given the importance of the matter.
Messi is thought to be seriously considering joining PSG.
I would absolutely lose my mind if I was a fan of any club, franchise, or team that bent over backwards so much for one player
And every player has to give Messi their second born child
If he was 28 or 29 then I can understand them doing whatever it takes to keep him - but, the reality is they haven’t won anything for years and they allow this circus to dominate everything they do - I appreciate he adds significant value but he is very much a depreciating asset now - his best days are very much behind him - he is almost like the ghost from the past that they cannot move on from……he could actually end up crippling them so much financially that they may never recover……what a carry on
United will be next the way they're going under the Glazer's.
What's the debt now? Close to 600 mill?
As far as I know Man city, Chelsea and Liverpool are all debt free.
What's the debt now? Close to 600 mill?
As far as I know Man city, Chelsea and Liverpool are all debt free.
Utd have sellable assets, Barca don't as they put every fecker on €250k+ a week.
What I find embarrassing is that they aren't doing it the honest way by removing the assets with value.
Trying to force pay cuts, getting rid of anybody no longer of value, whilst signing players they aren't able to pay.
Trying to force pay cuts, getting rid of anybody no longer of value, whilst signing players they aren't able to pay.
of what
So we both agree that Woody is incompetent in Sporting matters but has done an incredible to maintain United's financial clout without oil money
We've managed to spend almost as much as the oil clubs, but without having a title challenge for 8 years.
Comparing United’s financial situation to Barca’s pretty much demonstrates how little you understand about football economics.
I am sorry mate but that is an awful post. Please educate yourself on the club's finances and how debt works. United are rock solid economically.
Barcelona's debt estimated to be 1.7 billion and rising.
Manchester United' debt is close to 600 mill.
So enlighten me as to why when United's debt starts climbing into that range in 10 years or so, that it will benefit the club.
And while your at it, explain to me how the Glazer's leverage buy out of putting United millions in debt has been a net positive gain for the club?
This thread doesn’t have anything to do with the Glazers. Discussion about debt and it’s role in businesses have been discussed as nauseum in the relevant threads. Stop fishing for likes just so you can get out of the newbies
United and Barca’s financial situations are completely different because they’ve been spending far more than their earn. Their wage to revenue % has been over 100% whereas United traditionally maintain a level of around 50-60%. They’ve been borrowing to fund their transfers and even to pay their wages. United doesn’t do that.
Don't try to evade the question. The Glazer's are bad owners, they've put the club in debt, and that debt keeps growing. Provide a link to the wage revenue please.
You think the Glazer's run the club financially well? Overpaying to purchase duds like Alexa Sanchez, and tying them down to luxurious wages, so that they have no resale value, is that fiscally responsible?
How about signing duds like Phil Jones, and Matic to 5 and three year contracts so you can't sell them....is that fiscally responsible?
Signing your top goalkeeper to such high wages that you can't sell him so, you have to eat the cost and look at putting him out on a loan, is that fiscally responsible?
When the debt starts to get paid off and stops going up instead of down, I won't be worried about it, but right now, United's 10 to 15 year trajectory on their debt does not look promising.
Lovely strawman argumentation there, I'm honestly baffled at how someone has managed to like a post with so much incorrect information. There's easy access to so many summaries on the subject, so easy it shouldn't be possible to get it this wrong.
Manchester Uniteds wages to income ratio is especially easy to find, we've always tried to keep it around 50%, which is rather impressive for a major club with the success we've had over a long period of time. It will fluctuate more in recent years, given that the contracts regulate wages depending results on the pitch, like participating in the CL. If you look at our total wage cost for the past 15 years, it's just about less than 50% of our income in the same period. We've never let the wages spiral out of control, to the point where a fall in revenue over a short period of time would result in us struggling to pay wages and fall off a cliff, ala Barcelona.
Our debts are manageable as long as our income doesn't collapse over a sustained period of time, which would result in the club limiting player purchases (as i'd be very surprised if they started limiting dividends)Even without supporters at Old Trafford, for over a year, and general revenue falls, there's been no danger of getting anywhere the point of "collapse". The problem is that the vast amount of money we're spending on debts and dividends could and should have been spent elsewhere, it should have been spent on much needed stadium improvements, it should have been spent on further improvements of the club.
Overpaying for players, either in terms of wages or transfer fees, has nothing to do with whoever owns us. It's a sporting decision made by those in charge of the daily operations of the club. No, we're not in any way whatsoever heading in the direction of Barcelona. If our income goes down our expenses, first and foremost player signings, will go down. Depending on why it's going down they'll also have to consider lowering dividends and/or sell things like stadium naming rights etc.
Why would Uniteds debt increase over the years? Since the PIK loans were repaid in 2010 they've been steady. Also, you don't even seem to consider interest rates. You do know that one dollar of debt isn't the same across clubs right? A debt is connected to an interest rate which can be more or less damaging. Also, the club can't just put all their revenue into suddenly start paying off the loans, that doesn't make any kind of financial sense and would leave investment into the actual squad and facilities at zero. It is the same as for people, most people live their lives in constant debt and it is not their first priority to pay it off, but to invest in other areas while paying off the interest of the loan. I hate the Glazer's as much as the next guy, and I wish they had never happened, but these kind of comments are just dumb. Until we see Woodward pay Pogba 800k/w and sign Kane for 120M with the same salary, we shouldn't be worried about an economical collapse.
Our debt is due to a leveraged buy out. Barcelona's debt if due to operating expenses that have gone out of control. Both bad but you cannot put them in the same category.
Furthermore, FFP rules look at both debt differently as it should.
Barca's wage to turnover ratio is 110%, ours is just over 50%.
Lastly, this thread is about Barcelona. If you want to talk.about the Glazer's, there are threads for that.
Furthermore, FFP rules look at both debt differently as it should.
Barca's wage to turnover ratio is 110%, ours is just over 50%.
Lastly, this thread is about Barcelona. If you want to talk.about the Glazer's, there are threads for that.
How am I evading the question?! Like others have said, this thread is about Barcelona. There’s been discussion after discussion about debt in the proper threads. Why does any thread about club finances have to devolve into a Glazer bashing session? I’m sure you’d be one of those “fans” who’d love the Saudis to take us over given you previously posted that you had no issues with how City and Chelsea managed to be “debt free”.
Theres a difference between debt due to a leveraged buyout vs debt accrued due to poor operating practices. How United and Barca are run are completely different. Our wage to turnover ratios are nothing alike. Our transfer spending is within the bounds of our earnings.
And I don’t get why you’re pinning overpaying for players on the Glazers? Player acquisitions are made for sporting reasons, the owners only sign off on players that are recommended by our manager/coaching/scouting staff.
The Glazers have their (many) issues, but if you think our current debt makes us in any way similar to Barca, you’ve completely missed the point.
Is there a thread about the racism stuff from Griezmann and Dembele?
People think they're on the brink, but in reality, they're already freefalling. Hasn't quite hit the ground yet, but it's too late. Icarus.
One, invigorated by the ecstasy of flight, gets too close to the sun and perishes with melted wings.
The other, spends 400 million Euros on Greizmann, Dembele and Coutinho and pays them 1.4 million a week, in order to, emmmm…, win La Liga I guess?
In the Griezmann thread I think. This one seems to have been sidetracked.
cheers buddy
Just a reminder that my post was in relation to someone claiming PSG, City and Chelsea will be the only forces in football due to being able to blow everyone out of the water. I was providing 5 and 10 year figures to show that other clubs have spent more (Barca, Utd etc). It wasn't a debate about where money came from.
According to transfer league, Chelsea net spend post Roman is £704m, Utd's is £688m, almost identical. So i don't see how someone can say we can spend a net of £250m per season when we've averaged a net of nearer £40m per season.
In fact it is City who are the outliers at £1.073bn net spend
Sid Lowe in the guardian, just quoted a small portion.
Barcelona’s total debt is around €1,173m. In the winter, they took a €525m loan from Goldman Sachs to help them restructure their finances, while players agreed to salary deferrals back in November. Laporta admits that Barcelona’s salaries currently account for 110% of their income. “We do not comply with financial fair play regulations,” he said. Right now, put in blunt terms, Barcelona cannot pay their players.
Barcelona’s total debt is around €1,173m. In the winter, they took a €525m loan from Goldman Sachs to help them restructure their finances, while players agreed to salary deferrals back in November. Laporta admits that Barcelona’s salaries currently account for 110% of their income. “We do not comply with financial fair play regulations,” he said. Right now, put in blunt terms, Barcelona cannot pay their players.
I've been hearing that Busquets has been finished for some time. Is he really one of their key players?
This is pretty obvious.
It insanity. Let Messi go and start a financially sustainable rebuild is the only sensible option. He is 34 FFS.
I don’t know if those numbers are accurate, but assuming they are - as they sound reasonable - the difference I suppose is that United have spent money they generated. Whereas Chelsea have spent money artificially pumped into the club. If one was interested in that sort of thing.
See posters like daysleeper and anybody that has the audacity to defend this shit.
They all seem to forget that Barcelona were a giant club before Messi and will be after…
Barca are like a rich old desperado who got seduced by a hot young 25 year old who they now have feelings for. So in order to keep her, they will now let her feck younger guys in front of them. Despite the fact their wealth and position of power will just attract other hot 25 year olds. It may not be the same feeling, but they don’t have to lose sleep over it…
They should have sold him last season. As ridiculous a player as he is, they very clearly need the money. City would have paid up, they would have got his wages off the books and they could have hopefully fixed the mess they're in due to their absolute dog shite management.
That being said, I wouldn't trust that board to fix this mess, with or without Messi anyway. Look at the signings they've made and the fecking ridiculous wages they're all on. They've essentially got a squad composed of mostly rubbish who no-one wants, veterans who are very clearly past their prime or good players on wages so ridiculous it makes them almost impossible to move on.
Ridiculous how they've got to this point.
That being said, I wouldn't trust that board to fix this mess, with or without Messi anyway. Look at the signings they've made and the fecking ridiculous wages they're all on. They've essentially got a squad composed of mostly rubbish who no-one wants, veterans who are very clearly past their prime or good players on wages so ridiculous it makes them almost impossible to move on.
Ridiculous how they've got to this point.
Boggles the mind that they would give €800k / week to Griezmann when their issues on the financial side were already quite visible. Griezman has cost them €250m (between wages and transfer fee) of that €1.1bn of debt they have.
No one said the Glazers were good owners, you added that perceived angle yourself. What they did do was ridicule your post comparing utd’s economic position and debt to coverage ratio with Barcelona’s; because it just exposed your ignorance. You then got bent out of shape and tried to fit your argument to a different narrative.
Hopefully in the ten days since your post you have been brought up to speed on the specific economics of both clubs.
Are all these reports for real? How is the Messi brand generating so much revenue for all clubs of La Liga?
How did Barcelona and La Liga survive before Messi came on to the stage?
How did Barcelona and La Liga survive before Messi came on to the stage?