So what if a club like Valencia, Bilbao or Atletico have such owners who can buy anything they want, I think it's matter of time till big rich investors invades La liga too.
BBC Sport: La Liga asks Uefa to investigate Man City's financial fair play
- Thread starter #07
- Start date
Bilbao can't be owned by foreign investors IIRC. Otherwise, the European landscape will continue to change. Of course, this list isn't exhaustive.
-> 2003: Chelsea acquired by Russia
-> 2008: City by the UAE
-> 2011: PSG by Qatar
-> 2013: Inter Milan acquired by Indonesia (Thorir)
-> 2014: Valencia by Singapore (Peter Lim)
-> 2015: Atletico has a minority shareholder from China (20% of shares)
-> 2016: Marseille by the USA
-> 2016: Lyon has a minority shareholder from China
-> 2017: Milan AC by China
As a football fan, I don't care who owns who and don't see the philosophical difference between a Russian guy whose net worth is superior to 8 billions of US dollar, a multi-billions US company and a State.
It's pretty naive/ridiculous to think there are the "good clubs with values blah blah blah" and the "bad clubs that corrupts the game because they have unlimited funds"
As a citizen, I would prefer a system where the fans/socios own the club. Great respect for a club like Bilbao for different reasons.
540 million euros in debt (mainly to the spanish tax authorities, state finacial doping?) only to be bailed out by chinese billionaire ($86 bn fortune) investment. The billions come from property investment in china. Is property investment in China more moral than the oil business?
This forum is funny because a lot of posters don't consider high leverage as financial doping
After all, debt allows somebody to finance something with the money of third-parties (banks, state...).
Which you have to pay back + interest.This forum is funny because a lot of posters don't consider high leverage as financial doping
After all, debt allows somebody to finance something with the money of third-parties (banks, state...).
Also banks won't loan you any money if they think you can't pay it back so the potential for overspending by loaning alot of money is very limited.
For example PSG under normal circumstances would never have been able to loan 222m or 180m to purchase a football player. If you consider the club's financial resources and revenue making potential than there is no realistic way you could ever payback these amounts and no bank that would want to see its money back would ever loan you that much. So financial doping my ass. The only way you can spend those amounts is if Qatar gives you the money and you don't have to pay it back and you set it up through all kinds of dodgey constructs and deals that try to exploit loopholes so you can have an army of lawyers trying to justify and proof that in some weird way this isn't financial doping and isn't in breach with FFP regulations whilst in fact it is clearest form of financial doping you will ever see in the history of football...
Simple fact is that PSG and also City as clubs have been throughout their history been average clubs especially compaired to clubs like Real, Barca, United, Bayern. You haven't won much silverware, you haven't had european glory, the attraction you had to players has been limited, you don't have a big fanbase and you don't have alot of revenue making potential. Your tv-rights, your sponsorship deals have always been fractions of those of the really big clubs. Yet somehow now you are buying players and paying salaries for amounts never been seen in football that even the biggest clubs can't compete with and you think this isn't a form of doping ?
PSG signing Neymar and Mbappé and showing up Barca and Real in the process is the equivalent of a kid that has always been skinny and wimpy, competing in his first bodybuilding contest and winning first place, there is simply no way it is clean.
So clubs don't pay interests and repay the debt? Odd comparison.This forum is funny because a lot of posters don't consider high leverage as financial doping
After all, debt allows somebody to finance something with the money of third-parties (banks, state...).
I thought that clubs were not allowed to take out bank loans to buy players anymore, is that correct @JPRouve ?
Life isn't black or white. So, if you want to buy something, the choice isn't purely between a 100% leverage acquisition or a 0% leverage acquisition. If you prefer, let's take the scenario of a 100% leverage financing.Which you have to pay back + interest.
Also banks won't loan you any money if they think you can't pay it back so the potential for overspending by loaning alot of money is very limited.
For example PSG under normal circumstances would never have been able to loan 222m or 180m to purchase a football player. If you consider the club's financial resources and revenue making potential than there is no realistic way you could ever payback these amounts and no bank that would want to see its money back would ever loan you that much. So financial doping my ass. The only way you can spend those amounts is if Qatar gives you the money and you don't have to pay it back and you set it up through all kinds of dodgey constructs and deals that try to exploit loopholes so you can have an army of lawyers trying to justify and proof that in some weird way this isn't financial doping and isn't in breach with FFP regulations whilst in fact it is clearest form of financial doping you will ever see in the history of football...
First, it's possible to get a 25-year loan and even a 30-year loan depending the appetite of banks.
Moreover, you're right to say expected revenues matter but banks also take into account other considerations: visibility of the deal, mortgage, covenants, pledge on shares........ and parent company guarantee (the credit rating of Qatar should be very good).
I don't know what "normal circumstances" mean in a world where it's possible to find negative interest rates for lenders...in a world where NINJA (no income no job and assets) were capable to be property owners in the US in the recent past... in a world where some sovereign and corporate bonds have a negative or low interest rate...
I consider both debt and capital increase as "financial doping", which means: "Hey! I don't have money and I need money! So I need to ask lenders or/and shareholders to finance me and enable me to implement my business plan."
Paris has the right to be a child like Madrid.
Mercato of Real Madrid in 2009
Cristiano Ronaldo (96 M€), Ballon D'or
Kaka (64 M€), Ballon D'or
Benzema (35 M€),
Xabi Alonso (30 M€),
Raul Albiol (15 M€),
Negredo (5 M€),
Granero (5 M€),
Arbeloa (4 M€).
Total : 254 M€ 8 years ago
You should study the history of the game. As you know, the "European Cup" is the most prestigious European trophy for a club: it was renamed "the Champions League" in 92.
In 1973, a red panther would have said "Bayern is an average club because they never won the European Cup". Indeed, they won their 1st European cup in 74.
In 1984, a red panther would have said "Juventus is an average club because they never won the European Cup". Indeed, they won their 1st European cup in 85.
In 1991, a red panther would have said "Barcelona is an average club because they never won the European Cup". Indeed, they won their 1st European cup in 92.
You only focus on the present and ignore the past while those in the business look ahead to the future.
So, let's further discuss your post in 2022.
- PSG founded in 1970 won 28 trophies including the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup in 96
- PSG the most popular club in France
- a fast-growing global fanbase
Last edited:
Bankers and Shareholder are providers of capital.
Bankers want a return >>> called interests
Shareholders want a return >>> called dividends. A shareholder is free to choose when he wants to get a return. Qatar can sell the club in 2030 and calculate a return on their investments: sale of the club and dividends received in the previous years.
Suffice to look at a balance sheet
I'm very much sure you know the difference and you are just posting for the sake of it. Taking loans from banks is different from rich owner bankrolling a team.
The mistake you make is to think Qatar doesn't expect a return on their investments.
Of course, they can't earn money in the short run but in the long run?
From what I understand the UEFA recognize cash inflows/outflows from related parties, shareholders and financial institutions, you have the obligation to report it though. Also player registrations acquisition is considered like an investing activity which in theory means that you could borrow money for investment and use it to purchase registrations(meaning players).
Though, in France the organism in charge of controlling clubs accounts and budgets don't like it.
Time for me to retire from this thread 
Not sure I'm the one who is making mistakes here.
Just my opinion. All the best
This is a very interesting question. Setting aside all the arguments and counter-arguments in this thread about City, PSG, state-aid, financial doping, etc, I'm intrigued to know why the whole concept of oil money is frowned upon so much in some quarters.
From a personal standpoint, somewhat amusingly wherever I turn I'm up to my neck in oil insofar as for 27 of the last 28 years I've worked in oil and gas. Which happens to be a far longer association with oil than Manchester City's involvement with it. Not only that, as much of a football fan as I am, I feel that cricket is a better sport - which winds some of my fellow City-supporting mates up chronic when I say that - but my favourite cricket team Lancashire are sponsored by Emirates
Some terrible examples.
He said hasn't won much silverware with EC just as addition.
Juventus was Italian record champion in 85. Barca had 6 european trophies and 11 spanish league titles, just not the european cup.
Nothing like PSG or City are now.
Cheers.
Well, PSG was founded in 1970... So your comparisons don't make sense... Also, you haven't understood my message...
If you are leaving just a quick word to say thank you for your contribution. You, and a few others (M18CTID, JP Rouve and several more) have made this a more interesting discussion than it could have been. Sheikhs, states and petro-dollars..etcTime for me to retire from this thread
The only logical conclusion is to ban all of Real, Barca, PSG and City and maybe Chelsea as well. Throw in Liverpool for the lolz because clearly being Liverpool isn't enough of a punishment.
Cheers mate!! I don't like to repeat myself even if I do like to point out inconsistencies ahahah
As you have noticed, it's mainly a discussion between those who can live with the ongoing change and those who want to keep the status quo, their comfort and fixed ideas.
I would like to be provocative once again: saying that City/PSG are not legitimate to win a Champions League one day because they never did it in the past; that's like a white American in the early 20th century saying "Oh, negro. You're black. Know your place and shut your face".
Little bit different. Atletico won 2 Europa Leagues, Copa Del Rey and La Liga with an appearence in the UCL final before the 20% Chinese ownership. They haven't spent crazy player on money either or created crazy inflation in wages and fees. What they have had is a new stadium built and now the ability to kept their best players longer than usual.
Hardly the same as what City and PSG have done. City had gone over 30 years without winning anything and weren't on their way anywhere until their investment.
I understood your message. Your example is still garbage regardless. Should have stopped after Bayern.
For whoever is interested I found this a very interesting read:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/09/soccer-barcelona-fifa-qatar-migrant-labor-human-rights
It is about how rich oil states like Qatar and UAE who are serial human rights offenders use football to launder their public image.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/09/soccer-barcelona-fifa-qatar-migrant-labor-human-rights
It is about how rich oil states like Qatar and UAE who are serial human rights offenders use football to launder their public image.
the point is that atletico achieved all that by running up the debts, debts that were only cleared by outside investment.
The only difference between them and city and PSG is that they got their cash injection from borrowing initially, but then this was replaced by investment/sugar daddy. They spent money they didnt earn and couldnt earn back without outside investment/sugar daddy.
Its also a more dangerous way for a club to succeed because there is always the possibility that you dont get the investment/sugar daddy after the success, have no way to pay off the debts and then a colapse of the club. Think Portsmouth on a grand scale.
Link isn't opening.
its not really a surprise is it.
Franco did this in the 50's with Real Madrid.
The junta in Argentina did this with the Argentina national team in the 70's
Hitler did it with the German national team in the 30's
USSR did it with the Soviet national team in the 60's and their clubs sides in both the 60's and 70,s
the only differencenow is that with open trade they can use clubs from other countries
I'm sorry but I don't think you have understood my message that was a reply to a specific post btw...
Bayern was founded in 1900: they were German champion for the 1st time in 1939 and the 2nd time in 1969. They won their first European Cup trophy in 1974.
Bayern is rightfully considered as a great legendary club nowadays.
In the 1960s, do you really think Bayern was considered as a European giant like Real Madrid? The answer is no. And, I could develop a similar reasoning with Juventus for example.
PSG has won much more trophies in its 30 first years of existence (before Qatar) than Bayern in its 30 first years of existence: PSG founded in 1970, French champions in 1986, winner of the European Cup of Cup in 1996...
So, it's ridiculous to say the clubs with a long history of success are unarguably more deserving.
Let's agree to disagree ++
The premise of this article is fundamentally wrong, Qatar is investing in football for their image but it doesn't "launder" anything, on the contrary it also puts the spotlight on the negatives aspects of the country. Who would have heard of the state of labour rights in Qatar if not for their involvement in football?
Someone should ask UEFA to investigate if La Liga has any toys left in their pram.
'Deserving' is just a way to sugarcoat the inherent tribalism in football. If you don't hold the same values as me or do it like I do then you arent a 'real' club. It is a very primitive way of thinking.
You can tell that most football fans are either unintelligent or indoctrinated from a young age regarding certain 'rules' about football which dont apply in the real world; only in the imaginary world of banter between fans.
Imagine if a billionaire wanted to invest in a small phone business and they were blocked by the government because that's not fair on the big corporations like Google and Apple. Its absurd.
@breakout67
You're right mate.
Logical that some fans/clubs want City/PSG to be sanctioned.
Just surprised to see a lot of posters with a Manichean view on some matters.
As a football fan, I want to see in the near future clubs like Manchester United, PSG, City, Napoli, Porto...capable to challenge the trio Real/Barcelona/Bayern.
You're right mate.
Logical that some fans/clubs want City/PSG to be sanctioned.
Just surprised to see a lot of posters with a Manichean view on some matters.
As a football fan, I want to see in the near future clubs like Manchester United, PSG, City, Napoli, Porto...capable to challenge the trio Real/Barcelona/Bayern.
I thought Mani was in the Stone Roses, turns out he was an Iranian prophet!
The resentment against sugar daddy clubs is only partly a question of FFP. As mentioned before, FFP as such wasn’t put in place to keep the likes of City from upstaging the aristocrats of European football. The latter is an idea peddled by fans of clubs like City - and it seems like a fantasy to me: UEFA don’t mind sugar daddy money, why should they? The idea is only plausible if you believe in what I would call conspiracy theories: FFP is all about the traditional power houses trying to keep newcomers from getting in on the action, etc. Sanctioned by UEFA puppets who are on the payroll of Rummenigge et al. It’s laughable to me because the supposed puppet masters clearly don’t benefit from the supposed shenanigans.
Conspiracy theorists take the - obvious - fact that clubs like United and Bayern welcome FFP (because it’s a nuisance to certain clubs that don’t generate money in anything like a legitimate sense from most people’s perspective) and jump to ridiculous conclusions. And they do so faced with overwhelming evidence that UEFA - again - don’t give a feck (as long as they get paid, I’m tempted to add). If they did, FFP would have hampered City or PSG in a big way. It never has, though, and probably never will. It’s been slap-on-the-wrist style sanctions and nothing more. UEFA couldn’t very well make the likes of City exempt from FFP, could they? The basic principle has to be followed. So, a slap when the “sponsors” are too ridiculous - nothing beyond that. The “sponsors” can still be perfectly ridiculous, mind. But there’s a certain limit, apparently. Reasonable market value and so forth. But only a slap. No chance of a “this is a mockery, you’re fecked”. Obviously.
Neutral fans (that is, fans that aren’t supporting either sugar daddy clubs or traditional power houses) don’t care much for the likes of City and PSG because they have no status historically (compared to the aristocrats). It’s as simple as that. Football fans generally respect a rich history (of great vintages and players) more than money. Many fans, that is: Others don’t mind City or PSG because they like to see the aristocrats get challenged. Fair fecks to that, but the first category is significant - and it has nothing to do with envy or tribalism.
I suppose you can regard sugar daddy clubs in two possible ways: They challenge the old order (who wouldn’t otherwise be challenged, for the very reason the sugar daddy clubs are denounced - riches, or more precisely riches that stifle the competition and reinforce set patterns, something which has grown worse over time, with more money on the table for the biggest players to grab) - or, the other view, they represent an escalation of the money bags trend: Their presence means that money rules, more than ever before: The fact that it’s spread around slightly more than before is a laughable argument against sugar daddyism since the number of sugar daddy clubs is very slender: If “leveling the playing field” amounts to City and PSG being able to outspend Real Madrid in the transfer market, then well, what can you say - it’s hardly a triumph for the little guy (or any guy other than a City or PSG fan).
Does the emergence of sugar daddy clubs mean that what most would call sound methods (develop talents, try to keep hold of them, hire competent people, try to keep hold of them, do clever moves in the market, etc.) are more or less likely to bear fruit than it did before Roman et al?
Less likely, I would say. Clearly so, in fact. This sound approach faces a greater number of super clubs than it did under the old order of things - simple as that. The fact that the aristocrats have been upstaged by a small handful of sugar daddy clubs is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The problem, for smaller clubs (and sounder approaches), remains exactly the same: How do we compete with money bags teams? Increasing the number of money bags teams obviously won’t solve the problem unless everyone wins the lottery (which is sort of against the very idea of the lottery in the first place).
In my opinion sugar daddyism means but one thing: It becomes even more likely that the significant layer of clubs just beneath the absolute top are more likely than ever to become sidekicks for a tiny number of “elite” clubs, whether the latter are aristocrats or upstarts. Is that problematic? I don’t know. It is to me, at least. It takes something away from the whole feckin’ lark. But then again, to me the whole feckin’ lark isn’t nearly as interesting as it once was for numerous reasons.
Conspiracy theorists take the - obvious - fact that clubs like United and Bayern welcome FFP (because it’s a nuisance to certain clubs that don’t generate money in anything like a legitimate sense from most people’s perspective) and jump to ridiculous conclusions. And they do so faced with overwhelming evidence that UEFA - again - don’t give a feck (as long as they get paid, I’m tempted to add). If they did, FFP would have hampered City or PSG in a big way. It never has, though, and probably never will. It’s been slap-on-the-wrist style sanctions and nothing more. UEFA couldn’t very well make the likes of City exempt from FFP, could they? The basic principle has to be followed. So, a slap when the “sponsors” are too ridiculous - nothing beyond that. The “sponsors” can still be perfectly ridiculous, mind. But there’s a certain limit, apparently. Reasonable market value and so forth. But only a slap. No chance of a “this is a mockery, you’re fecked”. Obviously.
Neutral fans (that is, fans that aren’t supporting either sugar daddy clubs or traditional power houses) don’t care much for the likes of City and PSG because they have no status historically (compared to the aristocrats). It’s as simple as that. Football fans generally respect a rich history (of great vintages and players) more than money. Many fans, that is: Others don’t mind City or PSG because they like to see the aristocrats get challenged. Fair fecks to that, but the first category is significant - and it has nothing to do with envy or tribalism.
I suppose you can regard sugar daddy clubs in two possible ways: They challenge the old order (who wouldn’t otherwise be challenged, for the very reason the sugar daddy clubs are denounced - riches, or more precisely riches that stifle the competition and reinforce set patterns, something which has grown worse over time, with more money on the table for the biggest players to grab) - or, the other view, they represent an escalation of the money bags trend: Their presence means that money rules, more than ever before: The fact that it’s spread around slightly more than before is a laughable argument against sugar daddyism since the number of sugar daddy clubs is very slender: If “leveling the playing field” amounts to City and PSG being able to outspend Real Madrid in the transfer market, then well, what can you say - it’s hardly a triumph for the little guy (or any guy other than a City or PSG fan).
Does the emergence of sugar daddy clubs mean that what most would call sound methods (develop talents, try to keep hold of them, hire competent people, try to keep hold of them, do clever moves in the market, etc.) are more or less likely to bear fruit than it did before Roman et al?
Less likely, I would say. Clearly so, in fact. This sound approach faces a greater number of super clubs than it did under the old order of things - simple as that. The fact that the aristocrats have been upstaged by a small handful of sugar daddy clubs is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The problem, for smaller clubs (and sounder approaches), remains exactly the same: How do we compete with money bags teams? Increasing the number of money bags teams obviously won’t solve the problem unless everyone wins the lottery (which is sort of against the very idea of the lottery in the first place).
In my opinion sugar daddyism means but one thing: It becomes even more likely that the significant layer of clubs just beneath the absolute top are more likely than ever to become sidekicks for a tiny number of “elite” clubs, whether the latter are aristocrats or upstarts. Is that problematic? I don’t know. It is to me, at least. It takes something away from the whole feckin’ lark. But then again, to me the whole feckin’ lark isn’t nearly as interesting as it once was for numerous reasons.
I think you are wrong
but I think we will have to agree to disagree, because we will not be able to convince each other
If you are from Chester le Street perhaps you could review how your local Sunderland fans celebrated City winning the league in 2012 to ascertain how neutrals felt?
Weird In van open it without any problems.
@Chesterlestreet
You have made excellent contributions in this thread even if I don't fully agree with you.
Some remarks:
1. You're right to say the FFP was originally implemented to prevent some clubs from going bankrupt.
2. The FPP has a recent additional objective supposed to ensure a "kind of fair competition" with a focus on newly rich clubs: vague concept subject to different interpretations as you can see here
3. A conspiracy is generally something hidden. Here, the UEFA is transparent: rules and sanctions are publicly announced. Clubs like Bayern and Barcelona have expressed their views publicly.
4. TV rights show that Football is a prospering business: small English clubs can easily acquire some talented players abroad.
5. Money matters but the case of Leicester or Monaco shows that success isn't automatically granted for rich clubs.
6. The market driver #1 is the revenues provided by TV channels.
You have made excellent contributions in this thread even if I don't fully agree with you.
Some remarks:
1. You're right to say the FFP was originally implemented to prevent some clubs from going bankrupt.
2. The FPP has a recent additional objective supposed to ensure a "kind of fair competition" with a focus on newly rich clubs: vague concept subject to different interpretations as you can see here
3. A conspiracy is generally something hidden. Here, the UEFA is transparent: rules and sanctions are publicly announced. Clubs like Bayern and Barcelona have expressed their views publicly.
4. TV rights show that Football is a prospering business: small English clubs can easily acquire some talented players abroad.
5. Money matters but the case of Leicester or Monaco shows that success isn't automatically granted for rich clubs.
6. The market driver #1 is the revenues provided by TV channels.
Last edited:
@el magico - Try to debate constructively in this thread like @M18CTID, @Ecstatic etc rather than posting sly comments all the time. It's getting tiresome.