The recent purchases would have increased this number?
Real Madrid and Barcelona's debt
- Thread starter Trizy
- Start date
Indeed. As FFP "writes off" payments on stadiums and training facilities and lots of other rubbish, you can get into heavy debt whilst being FFP approved.
Likewise, as "non-footballing income" doesn't count (I wonder if worldwide Manchester united branded hotel chains would count?), you could be in no debt whatsoever but fail FFP.
With the current state of the economy I doubt Madrid will be able to get away with a government bail-out so easily. Maybe the debt is why they didn't buy Falcao in the end?
No, the club can afford to fund a splurge, even as big as this summer's one, without borrowing money.
We had available cash of over 100m. In not saying that will have been correct or incorrect though
Debt isn't just borrowing money. If you're paying the transfers in instalments then the future fees to be paid will be included as debt, probably.
It's the elephant on the room for me. The rules are supposed to be for the good of the game and prevent clubs getting into difficulties.
A City supporting mate pointed out an obvious issue. It's not acceptable to spend cash your owner gives you but it's ok to be hundreds of millions in debt? The former club looks healthier than the latter it seems.
Probably not, but the net debt has increased.
You can't make a financial loss under FFP unless the owner puts in additional equity. You can't just borrow money and spend it.
Debt isn't really equivalent to losses in terms of adverse impact. I have a mortgage on my house, which means that technically I'm over £200K in debt. But mortgages aren't a bad thing by any means. As long as I can afford to repay that debt each month, no problem.
Arsenal have somewhere in the region of £200M to £300M debt on their stadium (can't remember exactly). But the payments are low and they can easily make them so its not a problem in the least. Indeed taking on that debt and getting the new stadium was an exceptionally good idea, put them on a great financial footing compared to their old stadium.
On the other hand, if I earn £1000 a month but my minimum outgoings are £1500 a month, I'm up shit creek. Before you know it I simply can't pay the mortgage, buy my dinners or get to work. A club making a regular year on year loss will find it hard to borrow (since lenders know they wont get it back) and will soon be unable to pay people's wages.
So even though the big number sounds like it should be worse, managed debt is no problem at all while year on year losses is a major risk.
As for your friend, he's mixing up two different issues, financial doping and keeping clubs solvent. Two very different issues and can't really be considered side by side.
I'm not saying you can.
You can though be heavily in debt owing cash all over and spend what you bring in rather than pay some of that debt off.
Similar rules apply in the lower leagues and the likes of Swindon and Portsmouth (after administration and with substantial debt) have in recent years brought in players my local club (debt free) could only dream of and our owner can't invest as we get small crowds in a small town. It's a joke.
The rationale of FFP is supposed to be stopping clubs going under for reckless spending but that isn't going to stop Leeds or Portsmouth situations or worse, leveraged buy outs of clubs by people who can't afford it.
For me it's a wasted opportunity. There is money to be made for clubs at the top level and that could attract various unsavoury sorts wanting to cash in. UEFA should tighten up the regulations and set down rules for buying and running clubs.
Last edited:
If the point of FFP is to prevent "financial doping" them you assume it seeks to try and level the playing field. For me it doesn't do that at all. It allows the traditionally rich clubs with established commercial prowess to continue to get bigger and spend more money leaving everyone else behind.
As for debt you are correct - it's fine if you can service it, but that highlights my point. Clubs fail when they can't service it and it happens a lot.
Clubs are not always ran properly and at the higher end, like at United, borrowing huge sums of money regularly to refinance debt is complicated and you would think, be dependant on the markets. It's fair to say a big financial crash potentially leaves any big business with debt in a difficult position.
Seems to me FFP does neither of the things it should, or could be doing.
Clearly my friend is looking at the reality for his club, as anyone would do. He sees a situation where we can spend and they can't and he doesn't think that's fair. I sympathise with that to be honest as my local side are in the same position in league 2.
Last edited:
It doesn't seek to level the playing field completely, which would be impossible. How do you allow United and Bournmouth to compete equally? What it does is look to restrict the sources of income to those that are (in theory) available to all. PSG, City and Chelsea would have access to resources that others clubs don't, and never could, have. There aren't enough billionaires out there.
In practice of course not all clubs do have access to the same resources. United's high commercial revenue for example is built on our last 50 years of fame. That's not an easy problem to deal with.
However just because there's a more difficult inequality in the game remaining, it doesn't mean that the simpler one shouldn't be addressed.
Obviously it doesn't seek to level things between all clubs, but I assume by stopping clubs with rich owners overspending it tries to keep it tighter at the top level. This is where is fails as United and others can spend £150 million every summer while other top clubs can't. Whichever way you cut it up eventually those who can do that will pull clear of those who can't.
The accusations levelled at the sugar daddy clubs of "they can just keep spending until they get it right" can be levelled at the rich clubs now as well. We can spend a lot every year if we want.
I take the point that our money may be "earned" but regardless the effect is the same - we can spend more than other clubs. Certain clubs across Europe are the same, they will sign the best players, will likely have more success and generate more commercial income as a result.
In short I don't really see the point.
The rationale seemed to be saving football from itself. It's not an easy problem to deal with but frankly I don't see what benefit FFP brings to football as as whole at all. It doesn't deal with any real problems at all.
All it seems to do is stop billionaires splashing the cash. I can't see how anyone benefits from it other than a few clubs who are already at the top table.
The smaller teams will still lose their best players. There will still be "tiers" of club. All it seems to do us potentially reduce the top tier in the PL.
As it stands with numerous rich clubs the competition is stronger than its ever been and for me it's a good product. I don't see how the overspending this stops has damaged football in any real terms as the TV deals and commercial deals just get bigger.
I think it solves a problem that didn't exist and ignores problems that do.
Last edited:
Real M to announce a stadium naming deal with Abu Dhabi worth 500m€ over 20 years
www.marca.com/2014/09/21/futbol/equipos/real_madrid/1411257011.html
www.marca.com/2014/09/21/futbol/equipos/real_madrid/1411257011.html
The first of the big clubs to sell a part of their history. I know I'll get slaughtered for this but I myself wouldn't mind renaming Old Trafford if the money was right, but €25 million extra a year isn't enough, we get that from our training complex/kits alone
. £50-£75 million a season and you'd have my vote, as much love our club and everything about it that money is hard to turn down since it can be used towards the success of the club, even if it was use to expand the stadium and drop ticket prices.No chance should we do it.
Are Arsenal and Bayern not big clubs?The first of the big clubs to sell a part of their history. I know I'll get slaughtered for this but I myself wouldn't mind renaming Old Trafford if the money was right, but €25 million extra a year isn't enough, we get that from our training complex/kits alone
£20m a year is roughly about what United would get for stadium naming rights, personally I'd take it, £20m is too good to turn down IMO.
It's what I really like about the Allianz Arena. I would have hated it, if we had a stadium for decades with a given name and changed it, but I don't mind it that a newly build stadium instantly got a sponsored name. And I actually like the name, it has a nice ring to it, the word Allianz (alliance) has a somewhat suitable meaning itself and since the company is a shareholder at the club and a local partner for many many years, it's highly unlikely that the name will be changed. I understand that it's a necessary evil to make money, but at least we didn't just sell it to the highest bidder and are named after a foreign company.The first of the big clubs to sell a part of their history. I know I'll get slaughtered for this but I myself wouldn't mind renaming Old Trafford if the money was right, but €25 million extra a year isn't enough, we get that from our training complex/kits alone
They didn't change. They were named like that from the beginning I believe.
They're two newly built stadiums mate. Highbury was known as such because of its location, naming their new stadium Highbury would've been stupid considering they complete relocated to another side of London. Plus it helps pay for a new stadium when its needed so I'm sure both club's fans were more than happy with it.
The money is supposed to fund Madrid's stadium remodelling and the name change is expected to happen once it gets its new skin. It's being done to avoid borrowing money to rebuild.
I know most won't want to sell the name but if it meant a remodeling of Old Trafford what would you think? No money towards anything else but expanding Old Trafford to a 95,000-100,000 seated stadium. Of course that wouldn't cost £500 million pounds so it could be used to revamp the whole place too.
Someone was talking the other day again, about that idea of extending South stand over the railway tracks. I don't think I'd mind them selling the naming rights to that new bit - the Greggs Pie Stand or whatever.
Mind you, I can't imagine anyone ever calling it anything except Old Trafford, whatever name they stuck on the place.
And nobody who isn't a Jeremy can remember what your stadium used to be called. The only thing I would add is that I would be content for Old Trafford to be renamed so long as it wasn't sponsored by ISIS. The Isis Arena would be taking what you call "a necessary evil" too far.
We moved about 100 yards away as the crow flies. I understand why the management did it, I don't understand why the fans did.
Madrid would be hard pushed to find a Spanish firm with enough money or one brave enough to alienate half the country and risk putting their Catalan branches out of business. That said, apparently they are still considering using the Cepsa name instead - that's a Spanish petrol company owned by the same investment fund.
The Allianz Arena never had a different name and we actually never had our own stadium before, so there isn't anything to remember. We played in the Olympic Stadium from '72 til 2005, which isn't really the most difficult name to remember if you were refering to that
.Fair enough, wasn't really meant as a criticsm. I'm just glad that we were able to make the best out of the 'selling the stadium name' - problem.
There you go, I couldn't even remember that. Teams that move to a new stadium end to have no problem accepting a sponsors name, except for Derby County who used Pride Park as a way of coming out.The Allianz Arena never had a different name and we actually never had our own stadium before, so there isn't anything to remember. We played in the Olympic Stadium from '72 til 2005, which isn't really the most difficult name to remember if you were refering to that
Allianz shouldn't have been yours either! How are 1860 Munich doing these daysThe Allianz Arena never had a different name and we actually never had our own stadium before, so there isn't anything to remember. We played in the Olympic Stadium from '72 til 2005, which isn't really the most difficult name to remember if you were refering to that
Not sure what you're trying to say here. I've never claimed that we build it on our own from the start, the plan was to own it together with 1860, which clearly didn't work out. They are shit these days, which is a pretty good reflection of their incompetent management for more than a decade now.
I was only busting you. Interesting
Should have sold Messi to City 5 years ago for £1bn
Wasn't many years ago when people used to claim that they had the perfect ownership model.
We keep hearing about the debt but nothing of significance happens. It's not the shocking news some think it is.
Real & Barca will find ways to deal with it.
Real & Barca will find ways to deal with it.
Why didn't they sell him in the summer and get a fee? Now he can leave for nothing
The problem isn't in its model but the way their administrators wasted the money (fees and/or salaries) on players that aren't worth it. They also allowed Messi to become bigger then the club which explains the absolute ridiculous salary he's got. That mistake can happen under every system being sole owners (us with Sanchez) or PLC.
Football administration is simple really. Clubs shouldn't spend ridiculous fees on 28 + year old players and they shouldn't dish salaries that they can't afford paying. Sir Alex figured that out long ago and he wasn't an accountant.