I don’t understand the graphic. FC Sevilla can only spend 22 million for transfers, consultant fees and the entire salary budget? And do they get that? Somehow I can’t believe …
In principle, however, you can still “keep” the current players and salaries, but do not register new players and not extend contracts.
There has been massive misconduct over the years and in recent years it has been financed by all transfers through loans that are now falling on their feet.
Is the same situation as at Barca, where you could keep the squad from the players who had already kept a contract, but at short notice fresh money had to be brought in to make new transfers (and the sale of TV rights and the Nike deal and the “stretching” of salaries for more years). Barcelona will fall on the feet in the next few years and could break the neck in the long term. The example of Sevilla also shows that La Liga da rigoros acts and there is no “to big to fail”.
The Barca will fall on the feet of this sale is a myth among Germans. Back then, Barca was forced to sell his rights by La Liga, only Tebas wanted to agree to the Barca to the CVC Deal. This says that the clubs 8.2 % of their TV rights for 50 !!! Ced up to CVC years. Barca, like Real and Bilbao, did not agree to this, but had to sell part of his rights (due to the massive mismanagement of Bartomeu and the Corona crisis as well as the dilapidation of Camp Nou) in order to be able to conform with the LA LIGA rules and to be able to set a competitive squad. Only they did this at significantly better conditions than that of the CVC deal. As soon as the stadium has open again, the already high income from Barca continues and you will increase near the Real salary limits again. Because of her high income, Barca is actually too big to fail and Laporta has done a lot right. So that the club remain so attractive and thus the income is high, it is important that it is playing at the top. What many often forget is that Barca still belongs 100% of its members. If I am not mistaken, FC Bayern has its shares in the club, for example. 49% sold. If Barca would do that, all debts would probably be gone in one fell swoop, but you want the club to continue to belong 100% to the members.
It is true that the CVC deal would have been extremely disadvantageous in the long term and that Barça was able to achieve better conditions through his own short-term. But that does not change that in this way you still have a lever that has a one -off effect that has permanently reduced future income. All the deals have been reducing future income in recent years, you shouldn’t forget that.
The other deals are also worth mentioning, the new stadium has also played a role in Barca studios. Aramark as a gastro company bought 10% and even granted an advance, but in return gets the catering in the new Camp Nou and earns it – there are no official figures, but I can hardly imagine that it will then run on market conditions (in any case would be pretty strange if it works), some of the revenues from the area are gone. The Nike deal is also bad because it is staggered until 2038. You have got a lot of money by 2028, also thanks to the signature bonus, after that only 10 million in addition to the current conditions over 10 years, which will very likely not go together with inflation, so that Nike – adjusted in inflation – is less to be paid from 2030 than you do. Conversely, this means that for 8-10 years with the supplier you will be getting less and less (if the prices on the football market suddenly not start to stagnate), because it is simply eaten up by inflation.
Of course, the new Camp Nou will bring additional stadium revenues. First of all, however, you have to pay off a loan, over 25 years, with fixed tranches and new debt load of over 1 billion. Will also be worthwhile at the end, whereby you are very generously calculated (e.g. in the annual report in 2021 with the planning that you said with the barca museum with 30 million extra per year), VIP shares of 120 million go partly to Aramark and part of the lodges has also been sold at short notice for 10 years to get fresh money. So that means that the income from the new stadium will be smaller than planned.
I find the argument that Barça is “too big to fail” dangerous. Laliga has already insisted that Messi was the most attractive player in the league to see for people from abroad to see a game in 2021, Seville, as one of the biggest clubs in Spain, has now received the upper limit, which is not unlikely to let them descend in the medium term. If the league acts so rigorously there, why should Barça be spared in the future?
Bavaria sold 25%, however, they belong to Audi, Allianz and Adidas, who are strategically tied to Bayern and get 150 million from Bayern every year, you have almost chained to the companies, but the three also in a sense to Bayern because Bayern are the most expensive marketing tool.
I don’t know that Barca belongs to 100% 100% of the members whether the associated “mes que un club” would now harm 10 or 20%. At some point you could no longer stand it with the jerseys and did the deal with Qatar, which was of course criticized at the beginning, but in the long term it only harmed the Barca brand in the long term, the fans have not hiked. That children will become Barca fans in the future because they find so horny that the club belongs 100% to the members.
At Barcelona, I find the problem that a lot of wishful thinking is carried out on the board of the board and that one does not want to admit that the financial scope has become smaller. You still still drive the motto – Barca can afford every player that it wants without rejecting the club’s concept (this summer was not so blatant because you just have a strong squad, but still in summer 24), although this is no longer the case. Instead of accepting that, you play fire every year. At some point you will burn yourself and in the worst case you will flare up the complete club.
Thank you for your clarifications. Yes, it cannot be denied that it would have been better not to sell future income, but due to the catastrophic financial situation, it was essential to keep the club alive in this form. Nevertheless, Barca generates enormous sums of money every year, was I even the highest sales club last season? And that without Camp Nou. I would not sign that Barca is still acting as if you could afford every player, since it is not possible to hire every player because of the La league salary limit. In the end, Nico Williams Deal also failed because he could not be guaranteed the registration. Laporta wants to keep the squad at the absolute top level because he knows that titles also generate high additional income and the association generates even higher attention, which in turn results in higher income. Whether Barca burns his fingers will show the time but I think you drive a strategy correspondingly good to the circumstances. It is particularly important how the next president or laporta acts in his next term.