@FCBarcelona
”
You can also put it this way:
- selling 25% of the club and paying dividends to those companies: "minor shares", "didn't lose any control"
- selling 5% of the revenues for a limited amount of time: "joke of a club", "you are fecked"
now you tell me who is bayern and who is barça.”
The shareholders of Bayern get dividends each year. A couple of years ago, the dividend was $15m meaning the 25% shareholders got $3.75m.
Barca have just sold off what… hundreds of millions, a billion? of future income.
25% of the
DIVIDEND INCOME (those three shareholders aren’t going to sell the company) and 5% of
REVENUES are totally different things. Totally.
I get fans defend their clubs but you can’t just say ”25 is a bigger number than 5 so you’re all stupid.“
EDIT. For clarity (hopefully)….
- 25% of divs = good
- 5% of years of income = bad
hahahaha so... you really think it is better to sell 25% of OWNERSHIP rather than 5% of revenues for X amount of time??? hahahahaha.
Barça can do the same and sell 25% of itself at a valuation of 5bn. enough to pay all the debts and a big chunck of the "new" stadium (it is a big big renovation of multiple sports stadium plus the area itself).
Ah, gotcha.
Nah, just couldn’t be arsed to press reply and remove all the other nonsense (he’d done a lengthy post replying to numerous points) so just quoted/tagged him.
Still find it hard to believe Barca fans think this is anything other than a major gamble (could come off but still a huge risk).
Seems like boom or bust to me. Hopefully the latter.
you again...
if you think that reducing revenues 5% (probably less in the future) is going to "bust" barça you are mental. it is beyond ridiculous.
and we have a debt that we need to pay (we are not the whitewashing machine of dictatorships/war criminals), so either we sell some of the revenues or we take loans that will need to be paid from revenues too.
With the Super League money or the Super League lawsuit money. They truly, truly believe they will get one or the other. They have said as much plain as day, but it’s like no one is paying attention.
They are getting their ducks in a row to sue to start the “lever” (Super League) that allows themselves and Madrid to break away from the shackles of La Liga for good, OR to get the compensation they believe they are owed to cover their debt.
That is why they are acting so smug. That is why, much to the confusion of everyone, Madrid and Barca have been acting like members of the same street gang and not bitter rivals.
La Liga and Serie A were the only leagues that truly almost went under. La Liga is the only league where two teams are allowed to determine the payout of everyone else on things like tv deals. Those two historic teams faced the very real prospect, well before Covid, of eventually not having other league teams to play. So they use their muscle and leverage in the football world, including sponsors, two convince teams that if they don’t get on the train they’ll be left behind. They want a league that will start out billed as a replacement for the champions league. But the way it is set up is more like NFL Europe; which the members becoming solidified franchises … until it is the only primary league.
The fans stood up and put some steel back in the backbone of some teams, and caused others to rethink the greed. The only teams that never technically backed out? The originators, Barca and Real along with Juventus are the only people still insisting the league is going forward.
It’s not “Barcelona hate”. I used to have an Iniesta Jersey. They weren’t my favorite team, but they had my respect. But now they have declared themselves the literal enemy of the other major teams in European football. There is no just getting around that.
wow! the story you made up is decent for the oscars!
not in the 90s but today... wow! you have some imagination there!!!
first you acomodate your version to what the friend of the criminal wars that used to own your club would love to say.
i dont care about whats going on with the superleague, but contracts are to be honored, if you signed something that says that you need to pay X if you leave, you have to do that, period. if there is no clause that says such thing, then it is fine. not that difficult.
it is funny how barça is the only one who has to honor the contracts (and barça does, or it would have relegated), but buying your story, it seems that the good guy is the one who wants to braech a contract, the rest are "mugs".
the enemies of football are whitewashing machines of criminal wars (and their friends), dictatorships, etc., not fully fan owned clubs.
I'd agree with this if the financials weren't without risk, short term "success" being leveraged against future guaranteed revenues is typically a cause for disaster.
Unless Barcelona can guarantee to be a powerhouse competitively there's not much credibility in their approach. They have a manager who is still unproven in the task at hand. Further consider that they are behind the likes of Madrid domestically, European competition not close to the likes of Liverpool, City and perhaps even Chelsea it's a hard task at hand.
do you think united could survive with 5% less of revenues?
if you think so, why do you think that barça would not?
in fact, this is less risky than a loan itself, because if our revenue decrease the amount we dont receive (or we pay, or we lose, whatever you wanna call it) also decreases, so it is derisking the sitaution.
Another thing he missed (and you did as well) is that Bayern didn't sell part of the club (which would be legally impossible), but they sold 25% of the professional football team (meaning other sports at the club aren't effected).
Owning 75% of the team means the club has full control over it and can decide how much dividends will be paid.
And legally the club is a non-profit organisation, so they essentially take the dividends to subsidize their other activities, but that also naturally limits how much dividends they take.
well, barcelona has sold 25% of tv rights of la liga of the men's team. it hasnt sold european rights, or women's rights, or any rights of any of the club teams of other sports, also subsidized by the men's football team. and by the way, barça's sections are way more successful than bayern, they are way more worthy (peanuts compared to football anyway)
owning 100% of the club means that the club has full control over everything and can decide to sell 25% so they still own 75% which means the club has full control over it.
There might be a reason why you are still classed as "newbie" after six years on this forum.
Rule one: Criticise the post and not the poster.
i basically didnt post for the 1st 5 years probably, so it explains ~83% of the matter.
for being such a experienced poster you just broke rule one.
can you please affirm again that bayern didnt lose ANY control of the club when they sold 25% to pay for the stadium?
and this was the original message, weird take saying that i was criticising the poster and not the post:
25% of the voting rights are not property of bayern. bayern only owns 75% of bayern.
when you give dividends, bayern only receives 75%.
i might be mistaken because you are super smart but 100>75.
