• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Barcelona and Real Madrid face removal of their privileges

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,101
Reaction score
12,358
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Now then, this is a story the rest of European club football has been awaiting for some time now.

Exclusive: Real Madrid and Barcelona face removal of privileges - European - Football - The Independent

For those unaware of the issue, FCB and Real Madrid, the two biggest football clubs in Spain, Europe and the world have been able to maintain their re-eminence through two main advantages. Firstly, they enjoy member-owned status (along with Bilbao and Osasuna) that was specifically denied to other Spanish clubs and which allows their local governments to subsidise their business operations through preferential tax and land deals. Secondly, they are allowed to negotiate their TV deals separate from all the other clubs in Spain such that the two big boys hoover up the vast majority of TV revenues. There is structurally no way in the world that any other Spanish or European club can compete with them financially and that is the status that the EU competition commission is looking at.

About time too! The plc and privately-owned football clubs of Europe are under immense financial scrutiny; there's no reason why these patently unfair sweetheart deals that have everything to do with nationalist politics and nothing to do with sport should continue.

Thoughts? Pete? Higgins?
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
33,654
Reaction score
39,179
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm with you on this one.

Everyone should be on an equal playing field, period.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
33,654
Reaction score
39,179
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sorry, Jet. I should have mentioned you too when calling out footie fans.

mad.jpg
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
38,896
Reaction score
28,011
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Bournemouth beat Portsmouth one-nil last night! On the one hand, the idea of a fans cooperative ownership in itself is attractive to me, but not when it gives an unfair advantage.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,101
Reaction score
12,358
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Bournemouth beat Portsmouth one-nil last night! On the one hand, the idea of a fans cooperative ownership in itself is attractive to me, but not when it gives an unfair advantage.

I'm not against it in principle, but the preferential treatment that it provides is clearly discriminatory against the other clubs and, I'd argue, a clear breach of fair trading rules.
 

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,362
Reaction score
1,342
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm not against it in principle, but the preferential treatment that it provides is clearly discriminatory against the other clubs and, I'd argue, a clear breach of fair trading rules.

Oh but to Pete... teams like Man City and Chelsea are just rich owners play toys.. and Barca is playing it fair. :lol:
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,101
Reaction score
12,358
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Oh but to Pete... teams like Man City and Chelsea are just rich owners play toys.. and Barca is playing it fair. :lol:

Well, he's half right. As one of the biggest Man City fans in the world I can still recognise that if Sheikh Mansour gets bored with it he could just sell, ignore or run-down the club according to his whim. I'd rather City were run as a fan-owned club, but I wouldn't expect that to mean it would bring preferential conditions.

Barca is far from being as pure as the driven snow however. In that you are correct.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,948
Reaction score
13,556
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Now then, this is a story the rest of European club football has been awaiting for some time now.

Exclusive: Real Madrid and Barcelona face removal of privileges - European - Football - The Independent

For those unaware of the issue, FCB and Real Madrid, the two biggest football clubs in Spain, Europe and the world have been able to maintain their re-eminence through two main advantages. Firstly, they enjoy member-owned status (along with Bilbao and Osasuna) that was specifically denied to other Spanish clubs and which allows their local governments to subsidise their business operations through preferential tax and land deals.

Yes that should be stopped. All teams should be able to be member owned. However banning it would go against EU regulations as well.. plus considering all German clubs are member owned.. then how would they react?

And the thing about "subsidies" from local government.. everyone does it for **** sake, even the UK. Sure the UK tax man might not be a friend like the Spanish one is, but local government has given land, done rules to please a football club and so on all across the UK. Look at your own team... it got a tax payer funded stadium and massive subsidies to remake it from an athletics stadium to a football stadium. I would also wage that the lease price is considerably lower than the market price. If you are going to ban such things, then it has to be Europe wide.. and that could easily kill football off.

Also not being member owned does not stop "subsidies" from local government. Valencia FC is the king of local government subsidies.. It got its new stadium ground for free as far as I understand.. granted it does not have the money to finish the stadium, but hey. I know Malaga FC got some nice sweet heart deals going with the local government and regional government. A vast training and academy plot has basically been given to Malaga FC.

But yes, any ban on fan owned clubs or discriminatory rule-set must be removed or changed. It should be open to all.

Secondly, they are allowed to negotiate their TV deals separate from all the other clubs in Spain such that the two big boys hoover up the vast majority of TV revenues.

Well that is how the Spanish tv money distrubution system. That is how it is. Barca and Real dont want to be part of any collective sharing. That is their right... I dont agree with the attitude, but it is their right. I dont see the EU or even Spanish government going in to regulate basic contract law for one industry alone because it pisses off some people.

There is structurally no way in the world that any other Spanish or European club can compete with them financially and that is the status that the EU competition commission is looking at.

Jealous? :) Man U does well as well.. as does a few other teams that are actually popular in the world. The key here is popularity, not the structure. Real and Barca and Man U and even Liverpool are popular world wide teams with a well known brand. The issue here is a bunch of teams that no one has heard off, suddenly have very wealthy backers and want to be as popular as the 4 named. It has taken Chealski over a decade of massive spending to even get close to their popularity and ability to generate income from selling crap to fans.. and they are still far off relatively speaking.

Like it or not, people want to see Man U, Liverpool (90k spectators at a friendly in Australia), Barca, Bayern and Real and somewhat Chealski now... they dont want to see Everton, Man City, Valencia, PSG, Napoli, Monaco and so on. This comes from history and winning. Chealski went up the ladder because of its CL win, and the others need to do the same.

About time too! The plc and privately-owned football clubs of Europe are under immense financial scrutiny; there's no reason why these patently unfair sweetheart deals that have everything to do with nationalist politics and nothing to do with sport should continue.

And how is that going... not very well.

Napoli spending = near 200 million. Hardly a big club but its private owner has money! In no way does Napoli generate any where near the money to pay for that spending.

Monaco spending = nearing 300 million.. has an average of 8000 people watching per game! Their income is pathetic.. they just got promoted! They will not have an income to meet the financial fair play rules any time soon..

And your own team Man City. 120 million euros so far this year. Considering the rules of break even over 3 years, then you will have to generate a massive amount of profit the next 2 years.. hell the next year to meet those rules. But wait, the rules actually have already been in place for a year, so last years profit should balance it out right.. no wait, last year Man City lost over 90 million. So the next 2 years Man City has to turn a 90 million loss last year into a profit, and not have any more losses. Good luck with that!

The financial fair play rules are not being enforced.. and suddenly UEFA/FIFA wants to go after Real and Barca for things they have been doing for the last 50+ years? Pathetic.

Yes I believe in having a level playing field, and I fully believe that Spanish clubs should all be able to become member run clubs, and I would love to see a better distribution of tv money in Spain but as long as you have the billionaire owned clubs around and they are allowed to spend like there is no tomorrow.. then I dont see it as a priority at all.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,948
Reaction score
13,556
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Oh but to Pete... teams like Man City and Chelsea are just rich owners play toys.. and Barca is playing it fair. :lol:

Never said Barca plays fair. But like it or not, the model Barca uses for ownership is the better one. It is the same one that the German clubs uses and that is mandatory (51% must be fan owned) by law.

Does Barca have sweetheart deals from banks and local government? You betcha, but so do all big clubs.... even the German ones. The amount of teams in stadiums that were originally built by tax payer money is quite large.. in the UK and elsewhere. Built on land given cheaply or free, and regulations being bent to favour the club.

Sorry but Barca is hardly the worst offender out there.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,948
Reaction score
13,556
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
BBC News - Manchester United fans win Old Trafford 'protection'

United seem to be doing that sort of thing if the Glazer brothers ever decide to sell it.

Do you blame them? Look at what happened to Wimbeldon.. and what is happening to Coventry at the moment. In no way do I want an American situation where the owners of professional teams move the club from city to city depending on what perks, tax breaks and so on they squeeze out of the public purse/city. It ruins the fan culture around the club.
 

Higgins86

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
17,766
Reaction score
9,627
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I despise the way Real Madrid conduct business they take tapping up players to a whole new level. They put feeders out and let the media run wild with it, then they stay silent for a few weeks and allow the club they are buying from struggle to keep the rumours at bay, couple of key Real players will come out and say "how well that player would do at real, but I'm not in charge of transfers etc." Then once the player is unsettled and is shunned by his club they will come in and make the big offer, been watching them do it for years and the Spanish FA sit back and do nothing. Don't even get me started on the amount of quality players they have ruined and the special "favours" the Spanish government have done for Real over the years.


In short I hate Real Madird lol.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,101
Reaction score
12,358
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I despise the way Real Madrid conduct business they take tapping up players to a whole new level. They put feeders out and let the media run wild with it, then they stay silent for a few weeks and allow the club they are buying from struggle to keep the rumours at bay, couple of key Real players will come out and say "how well that player would do at real, but I'm not in charge of transfers etc." Then once the player is unsettled and is shunned by his club they will come in and make the big offer, been watching them do it for years and the Spanish FA sit back and do nothing. Don't even get me started on the amount of quality players they have ruined and the special "favours" the Spanish government have done for Real over the years.


In short I hate Real Madird lol.

I hate 'em too, but they are not the only ones who do that. Barca did it with Fabregas, Bayern did it twice this season, Man U did it with Ba and, before you accuse me of bias, City did it with Barry and Lescott. It's an established tactic and not exclusive to the evil meringues.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,101
Reaction score
12,358
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Yes that should be stopped. All teams should be able to be member owned. However banning it would go against EU regulations as well.. plus considering all German clubs are member owned.. then how would they react?
It's not the same system in Germany at all. Clubs must be 51% fan owned, and that applies to ALL clubs. There is no discrimination favouring 4 clubs over the rest.

And the thing about "subsidies" from local government.. everyone does it for **** sake, even the UK. Sure the UK tax man might not be a friend like the Spanish one is, but local government has given land, done rules to please a football club and so on all across the UK. Look at your own team... it got a tax payer funded stadium and massive subsidies to remake it from an athletics stadium to a football stadium. I would also wage that the lease price is considerably lower than the market price. If you are going to ban such things, then it has to be Europe wide.. and that could easily kill football off.
That's all the EU is looking at, that conditions are comparable and equitable across the board. Either everyone should be able to do something, or no one should.

I'm so over jealousy. We've certainly got nothing to be jealous of.

Like it or not, people want to see Man U, Liverpool (90k spectators at a friendly in Australia), Barca, Bayern and Real and somewhat Chealski now... they dont want to see Everton, Man City, Valencia, PSG, Napoli, Monaco and so on.
City has more season ticket holders, greater revenue, bigger match attendances and greater commercial sales than Liverpool, and has had for several years now, but your attempt to flame me is making me chuckle.

Napoli spending = near 200 million. Hardly a big club but its private owner has money! In no way does Napoli generate any where near the money to pay for that spending.
Not yet, perhaps, but isn't that what investment's supposed to be about? Napoli is the 3rd biggest club in Italy. It might not be in the FCB, MU, RM, BM league, but it's pretty big by any standards.


Yes I believe in having a level playing field
Just not very strongly.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,948
Reaction score
13,556
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It's not the same system in Germany at all. Clubs must be 51% fan owned, and that applies to ALL clubs. There is no discrimination favouring 4 clubs over the rest.

I agree.

That's all the EU is looking at, that conditions are comparable and equitable across the board. Either everyone should be able to do something, or no one should.

No that is not what the EU will or can do. At worst/best it will force opening up the fan ownership to all.. it will not ban fan ownership since it cant. If it does in Spain, then it will be EU wide.. and that aint gonna happen... not that the EU has the ability to do so any ways.

City has more season ticket holders

Bigger stadium. If Liverpool had a bigger stadium then it could easily sell 70k season tickets.

greater revenue,

Sugar daddy and his family does not count as revenue, but as an illegal subsidy :) Yes I am still pissed over the massive sponsorship deal City got form the family business and that UEFA have so far done nothing to deal with such crap. It is no better than Real Madrid getting special cheap loans in Spanish banks or tax breaks.

bigger match attendances

They are right next to each other in the rankings and City is ahead because.. drumroll... bigger stadium!

greater commercial sales than Liverpool, and has had for several years now

Yes.. those commercial sales doubled in a year... impressive... Question is .. does commercial sales include sponsorships?

Not yet, perhaps, but isn't that what investment's supposed to be about? Napoli is the 3rd biggest club in Italy. It might not be in the FCB, MU, RM, BM league, but it's pretty big by any standards.

Since when is Napoli the 3rd biggest club? The 3 big ones are Inter Milan, Ac Milan and Juventus, with Roma and Lazio following closely behind. At best Napoli is 6th. Yes they reached 2nd place last year, big deal. They were bankrupt 5 years ago basically. Yes the money has meant that Napoli has gone from the 3rd tier to the first tier and in the last 3 years have been competing for European places.. but that comes down to one thing.. massive amount of money invested by the rich owner.

And I have nothing against investment, if you have the income to back up the investment.. but they dont. Like it or not, yes Real bought Ronaldo for 80 million but they also have over half a billion in revenue a year. Napoli had 115 million dollars in revenue last season. Napoli, like Chealski for a long while, like PSG, Monaco and Man City are only afloat because of massive owner subsidies.. and that is no way to run a business, in the short or long term. I will wager that this year, Monaco wont have enough revenue to even pay for its player wages... just like City had 2 years ago, and Chealski a decade ago.

Just not very strongly.

You are wrong, very wrong. I do believe that the preferential treatment of Real and Barca when it comes to ownership should stop. All should have the possibility. However I am also against forcing companies into contracts with TV companies.. it should be voluntarily and in this case the other La Liga clubs are hardly a unified group (since Real and Barca are not the only ones who want to do their own TV rights.. Valencia and even Malaga want to be able to do their own rights). Would I like that there was a collective bargaining system in Spain.. sure, but not if it was forced.

But on a financial level, you betcha I am against preferential treatment of football clubs. I am against the massive under the table financing that Bayern Muchen has gotten the last 30 years, and the illegal crap that Real Madrid did with its stadium and such. I am not too proud of the preferential treatment Barca has gotten from banks after the fiasco years of Van Gaal and near bankruptcy. I am also against the billionaire owner that throws hundreds of millions at a second tier club to make it great in world football. Having a yearly deficit of 90+ million pounds is disgusting to say the least. But no worries the record of Man City with biggest yearly deficit will be broken by Monaco .. 8000 people per game and massive wages aint a good combo.. and they are not even playing in Europe lol..

Like it or not too much money in multiple countries, but especially the UK and Russia, have driven up wages and red numbers at clubs.. and it has to stop. At least Anzi in Russia is stopping now, by putting the whole team up for sale. Problem is, they pay their players crazy money, so no one can afford them! No one will pay Etoo 26 million dollars a year to play for them.

I fear for the game big time, with all these rich men and their toys.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,101
Reaction score
12,358
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Bigger stadium. If Liverpool had a bigger stadium then it could easily sell 70k season tickets.
City are doing just that, increasing capacity to 60,000. I don't believe Liverpool have been talking about a similar extension for some time, they just don't seem to be able to get around to it.


Sugar daddy and his family does not count as revenue, but as an illegal subsidy :)
Nonsense.
Yes I am still pissed over the massive sponsorship deal City got form the family business and that UEFA have so far done nothing to deal with such crap. It is no better than Real Madrid getting special cheap loans in Spanish banks or tax breaks.
You think that owners investing in their own businesses is the same as tax payer subsidies? Wow! That line of logic must be a stretch, even for you.

They are right next to each other in the rankings and City is ahead because.. drumroll... bigger stadium!
That's right, a bigger stadium and more fans to fill it. It's not rocket science.

Yes.. those commercial sales doubled in a year... impressive... Question is .. does commercial sales include sponsorships?
No.

Since when is Napoli the 3rd biggest club? The 3 big ones are Inter Milan, Ac Milan and Juventus, with Roma and Lazio following closely behind.
Calcio Serie A - attendance table, average and highest attendances

And I have nothing against investment,
Clearly you have.

if you have the income to back up the investment..
You invest to grow a business. If they already had the income to cover the spending they wouldn't need to invest. You know the difference between income and investment, right?

Having a yearly deficit of 90+ million pounds is disgusting to say the least.
I'm pretty impressed with that. The previous year saw a deficit of £197m, last year £92.5 and next year, having spent less on transfers and having shed a lot of dead weight on the playing staff, I think it's not over-optimistic to expect to see that deficit slashed to hardly anything. What excuse will you use when that happens?

Like it or not too much money in multiple countries, but especially the UK and Russia, have driven up wages and red numbers at clubs.. and it has to stop. At least Anzi in Russia is stopping now, by putting the whole team up for sale. Problem is, they pay their players crazy money, so no one can afford them! No one will pay Etoo 26 million dollars a year to play for them.

I fear for the game big time, with all these rich men and their toys.
I don't because I enjoyed following MCFC when they were in the 3rd tier of English football, and I would again if Sheikh Mansour buggered off tomorrow. I am enjoying our success right now but have no illusions that football can be a see-saw sort of affair. That's the problem that supporters of the likes of Real, Barca, Bayern, ManU and AC Milan can't handle. They believe that they have a God-given right to all the money and glory. Real (as in proper) football fans know differently. I guess that's why I get a little frisson of schadenfreude when I read about the possible threats to those gilded cages.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,948
Reaction score
13,556
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
City are doing just that, increasing capacity to 60,000. I don't believe Liverpool have been talking about a similar extension for some time, they just don't seem to be able to get around to it.

Good for City. And yes Liverpool have been wanting to expand Anfield for years, but then the economic crisis hit plus the ownership issues. They have been buying up with the help of the Liverpool council, the homes around Anfield for years. City are lucky that they have a modern stadium built by the taxpayer in an area with room to expand.. Liverpool aint that lucky.

Personally I would rather see a stadium sharing deal with Everton.. and then make a 90k seater for both teams.

Nonsense. You think that owners investing in their own businesses is the same as tax payer subsidies? Wow! That line of logic must be a stretch, even for you.

No I did not say that.. I said that the 400 million pound sponsorship deal with a company owned by the brother of the City owner, is highly suspect.. just as suspect as Real Madrid getting a great bank deal from a friendly banker. Because of the new rules, the Man City owners cant legally throw that amount of money into the club.. that is why the Chealski owner did it a few years ago (wiping all debts), so he could avoid this problem. It will be interesting to see what UEFA will do next season when City does not meet the financial fair play rules.. City, Monaco and PSG that is. If they are consistent (yea right!) then we could see big teams being banned from Europe.


I think they do, but hey!


So? Never said they did not have high attendance..Napoli have always been well supported, even when they were in the 3rd tier after going bankrupt. Rangers in Scotland has massive attendance but they are hardly the 2nd team in Scotland any more..

Does not mean that they are a big team, compared to title winning clubs like Juve, AC and Inter. The last title Napoli had was in 1990 before last year they won the Italian cup... first time since 1989.

You invest to grow a business. If they already had the income to cover the spending they wouldn't need to invest. You know the difference between income and investment, right?

No you invest a lot of money in the hope of getting the income at a later date. I have no problem with that, but the amount of money being invested by the clubs in question will most likely never materialize in an income that can justify the investment. Look at Chealski. The investment there has been billions, and they are still no where near the revenue of the big clubs, and they are still miles ahead of the new rich clubs of PSG, Monaco and Man City. The only reason they are generating any sort of profit now, is that they dont have the billion plus debt to the owner to contend with any more. In any normal business, investing so much money and having 100 million a year deficits for several years.. is only sustainable if you have a nice sugar daddy willing to cough up the cash to cover the massive deficits.... which is my point. And with the new financial fair play rules, this has become impossible, since all clubs must break even over 3 years and can not receive owner subsidies to balance the books.

I'm pretty impressed with that. The previous year saw a deficit of £197m, last year £92.5 and next year, having spent less on transfers and having shed a lot of dead weight on the playing staff, I think it's not over-optimistic to expect to see that deficit slashed to hardly anything. What excuse will you use when that happens?

If City manage to do that, then great. However as I have stated, the financial fair play rules have been in place for a few seasons and City will have to generate 300 million in profit this year to break even.. how realistic is that?

I don't because I enjoyed following MCFC when they were in the 3rd tier of English football, and I would again if Sheikh Mansour buggered off tomorrow. I am enjoying our success right now but have no illusions that football can be a see-saw sort of affair.

Good for you. A true fan.

That's the problem that supporters of the likes of Real, Barca, Bayern, ManU and AC Milan can't handle. They believe that they have a God-given right to all the money and glory. Real (as in proper) football fans know differently. I guess that's why I get a little frisson of schadenfreude when I read about the possible threats to those gilded cages.

That is horse****.. the core fans are no different than you. They live and breath the club, in thick and thin. Look at Real Madrid, not winning a title for years, loosing badly to Barca over and over again, and not getting very far in the CL. Did the clubs supporters desert the team? of course not. The stadium was still full and people still bought the t-shirts.

Your comment sounds more like jealousy than anything else.... yes Man U, Real and Barca have millions of fans world wide, some only because it is cool, but they are also successful compared to City. When City have won the amount of titles like Man U, Real and Barca, then City also will have the same type of fan you so hate.

But in closing... Charity Shield this weekend... the season is starting ... WEEEEE...
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,101
Reaction score
12,358
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
If City manage to do that, then great. However as I have stated, the financial fair play rules have been in place for a few seasons and City will have to generate 300 million in profit this year to break even.. how realistic is that?
How are you calculating that 300m?

That is horse****.. the core fans are no different than you. They live and breath the club, in thick and thin.
There's the difference right there. Those clubs do not have 'thick and thin', they have thick and thicker.
Look at Real Madrid, not winning a title for years, loosing badly to Barca over and over again, and not getting very far in the CL. Did the clubs supporters desert the team? of course not.
When were they last relegated? Or have a struggle against relegation? Or fail to qualify for European competition? Or not appear in at least one competition final? Really Pete, they don't have the slightest clue about 'thin' times.

Your comment sounds more like jealousy than anything else.... yes Man U, Real and Barca have millions of fans world wide, some only because it is cool, but they are also successful compared to City. When City have won the amount of titles like Man U, Real and Barca, then City also will have the same type of fan you so hate.
I do so hope not. I think our colourful history will vaccinate our fans against that nasty affliction.

But in closing... Charity Shield this weekend... the season is starting ... WEEEEE...
I can't wait!
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
38,896
Reaction score
28,011
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I despise the way Real Madrid conduct business they take tapping up players to a whole new level. They put feeders out and let the media run wild with it, then they stay silent for a few weeks and allow the club they are buying from struggle to keep the rumours at bay, couple of key Real players will come out and say "how well that player would do at real, but I'm not in charge of transfers etc." Then once the player is unsettled and is shunned by his club they will come in and make the big offer, been watching them do it for years and the Spanish FA sit back and do nothing. Don't even get me started on the amount of quality players they have ruined and the special "favours" the Spanish government have done for Real over the years.


In short I hate Real Madird lol.

That Ronaldo breaks little boys wrists!

BBC News - Ronaldo free-kick breaks boy's wrist at AFC Bournemouth
 

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,362
Reaction score
1,342
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Never said Barca plays fair. But like it or not, the model Barca uses for ownership is the better one. It is the same one that the German clubs uses and that is mandatory (51% must be fan owned) by law.

Does Barca have sweetheart deals from banks and local government? You betcha, but so do all big clubs.... even the German ones. The amount of teams in stadiums that were originally built by tax payer money is quite large.. in the UK and elsewhere. Built on land given cheaply or free, and regulations being bent to favour the club.

Sorry but Barca is hardly the worst offender out there.

Don't care who owns a club. That's a small point in a bigger picture. German rules are totally different then Spanish rules. No fans vote on Chairman or anything of that sort with some of the biggest German clubs. BV Borussia Dortmund 1909 e.V. and FC Bayern München e.V. created Borussia Dortmund KGaA and FC Bayern München AG. So the amount of "fans", who are members of the club is not important to amount of shares, the club has. Case in point, you can't go and buy a share in Bayern Munich. Bayern Munich searches for companies to "invest".

Bayer Leverkusen, Wolfsburg and FC Carl Zeiss Jena qualify as work teams and are owned by their parent company.

I wasn't mentioning Government and Bank contracts, even though Bara and Real haven't paid taxes in a while. 48 million euros in backed taxes. Rangers FC were shut down over 93 million pounds in backed taxes. ;) But what I am talking about is Barca getting a 140 million tv deal every year while all the other big teams around Europe share tv deals with the rest of the league.
 

austrianecon

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
7,362
Reaction score
1,342
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Do you blame them? Look at what happened to Wimbeldon.. and what is happening to Coventry at the moment. In no way do I want an American situation where the owners of professional teams move the club from city to city depending on what perks, tax breaks and so on they squeeze out of the public purse/city. It ruins the fan culture around the club.

And that's horse****. Wimbledon moved because no place could be found to build a stadium based on the Taylor Report. Sharing a stadium with Crystal Palace for 12 years isn't ideal for a top league team so FA gave them permission to move. Coventry's problems comes from British HQed SISU and a deal that wasn't "fair" for all parties.

American owners don't move clubs. Derby, Man U, Arsenal, Fulham, Liverpool, and Sunderland still in their respected cities. Hell there are only very few circumstances in the US of it happening as well and most of them in the previous 30 years or more. Here are recent cases..where they actually left the metro area.

NFL:
When the Cleveland Brown moved to Baltimore to become the Ravens, a deal was made to expand the NFL. The "Browns" became the Ravens and new team would become the Browns. It worked out for everybody.

MLB:
When the Montreal Expos were bringing in fans of less then 10,000 (minor league teams bring that in on a regular basis), MLB for the sake of baseball was planning to close down the club with the Minnesota Twins. But that didn't happen, rather MLB bought the Expos from Jeffrey Loria and relocated them at a later date to Washington and they became the Nationals. While John Henry (owner of Liverpool) bought the Red Soxs. Jeffrey Loria bought the Marlins from John Henry. The main issue with the Expos was they were stuck in 1.1 billion euro (so you understand the cost) stadium built for the 1976 Olympics.


NBA:
I'll first start of by saying Basketball has always had financial problems in small markets but putting teams in Canada was just dumb.

At the end of the day teams in the US move because they are losing money.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
37,948
Reaction score
13,556
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
How are you calculating that 300m?

Your numbers.. 197 plus 99. Remember break even over 3 years.

There's the difference right there. Those clubs do not have 'thick and thin', they have thick and thicker. When were they last relegated? Or have a struggle against relegation? Or fail to qualify for European competition? Or not appear in at least one competition final? Really Pete, they don't have the slightest clue about 'thin' times.

LOL so that is you measure? That these clubs attract the best players and hence are always in the top of things and not struggling with relegation?
 
Top Bottom