So Barca now have to free up 250m, after they have signed Messi, and I am assuming the 250m doesn’t include wages of the players they can’t yet register?
Wow, I am loving this just because they have been predatory, instigating vultures when it comes to Liverpool, not to mention all other teams. We lost Suarez, Coutinho, Mascherano, and they effectively hampered our attempts at resigning Gini, and all of these players were approached in an underhanded way, AND coerced into making it difficult for Liverpool in order to push through the transfer.
From my understanding, Messi is going to play for 2 more years at Barca, and the 5-year contract is spreading those wages. After 2 years he will move to the MLS and be a paid up ambassador for Barca.
So basicallty, we can go sign Mbappe on a 20 year contract, but aftre 5 he’s just our ambassafor.
Fuck FFP and La Liga letting Barca do what they want as usual.
I also hope that Griezman gives Barca the middle finger. A bit like Bale at Real, he should just sit and enjoy his income and life over taking huge pay cuts to help his club.
the other angle is that Messi is rewarded for being a one club player…a serious contender for the GOAT moniker, and he would have had plenty of chances to leave to any pick of any club in world football…why SHOULDNT he be rewarded for that kind of loyalty with a extended contract beyond his peak years?
dont get me wrong, i get your angle, but will you be just as outraged if Milner stays on the club payroll for a few extra years assisting the coaching team, or being an ambassador?
It’s not my angle. I was reading up on it from various sources and the consensus is that Messi has made his wage demands (unwilling to budge) and wants to playt for 2 years), and this was the compromise (spreading his wages over 5 years). I certainly don’t begrudge Messi or any ambassador roles, I think they have a part to play for clubs. We have the likes of Kenny and Rush (just to name two) doing loads at the club still, and they have a positive impact.
For Barca, has has been stated earlier in this thread, the loss of Messi to the club is more than the loss of his footballing talents, it’s the massive draw he brings in globally from a marketing perspective, which means there would be a massive loss financially if he were to leave - this is a win win for everyone, through what I see as a bending of the rules/taking advantage of a loophole. I assume there are no rules over who you pay to be an ambassador, hence my tongue in cheek comment re. Mbappe.
There is a famous case in baseball in the US where an ageing but still top player was given a big salary by the NY Mets and when the move didnt work out they then found themselves limited in how to rebuild without him given the financial commitments they’d already made to him. Between them they struck a deal that he’s be released and his salary paid out, but the 6 million left on his salary would be spread out over 25 years instead of the contracted 2 years. The player, Bobby Bonilla, agreed to this only if the money was increased in line with inflation, and so the total value of the payout increased from just under 6 million to 30 million.
The Mets to this day are still mocked for it, but it’s actually a reasonable strategy if you have money you can practically spend but doing so will incur penalties. What is to stop City signing Mbappe and saying there is no bonus structure, only a separate contract for post-career ambassadorship to be worth x amount based on the bonus milestones he hits as a player?
Almost $1.2M US this year… July 1st every year until 2035.
On a much different note, these kinds of work arounds really need to be hammered by the governing bodies in these leagues/Europe. This kind of “magic accounting” is why FFP has failed, and why a ESL becomes almost a certainty in the future. “Too Big to Fail” only results in the governing bodies failing
I listened to a great story on it the other day. Accounting for market increases, Bonilla’s team got the numbers almost exactly right in terms of what his 6 million from 2000 would be worth today if he invested it all with usual rates of return. So, it’s basically a win-win story…except for the fact that Mets invested the difference with Maddoff and lost it all
The Barca situation is intriguing. They need to register players by 31 Aug in order to play them before January. At this stage there are 4-5 players that can not play on the 15 of August (opening game). I really don’t know what they can do. I have also read that they can’t bite the bullet and release players (mutual agreement) as it might get rid of the wages, but won’t get rid of the player amortizations! which is also huge in monetary terms.
I had to laugh at the headline recently that Koeman rejected the chance to sign specific players. Have they actually signed anyone for a fee?
I am sure that if there is any type of sneaky stuff, RM will be shouting off the rooftops.
Barca have just been thrown a lifeline with a one time e250m handout from the league. LaLiga created a new holding company then immediately sold a portion of it to a private equity fund for nearly 3 billion, with 90% of the money being targeted for direct payment to the clubs. The money is being distributed commensurate with what the league thinks is the impact of the clubs, meaning Barca and Real are in line for over twice theyd get if the money was distributed equally among the La Liga top division clubs.
Essentially, the league has sold control of their own game to enable Barca a way out of the hole they have dug for themselves. So, when a title deciding game is moved to Abu Dhabi, just remember this happened because the league was not serious about making Barca play by the rules.
