Barcelona: Charged with corruption .... again!
- Thread starter The Boy
- Start date
ouch. Not far away from junk bonds are they?
BBB- is one level above junk status.
And yet we still have Barca and even some of our supporters comparing Barca’s financial position and ours as somewhat analogous because of “debt”.
Nothing screams confidence like when a club has to release a tweet to confirm they’re a level just above junk bonds
Nothing screams confidence like when a club has to release a tweet to confirm they’re a level just above junk bonds
It's not in the slightest. There are only a handful of clubs in the world Griezmann would likely to be willing to join. Let's say those are Real, Atletico, United, Liverpool, Chelsea, City, Bayern, Juventus, PSG.
The way Griezmann functions is very niche, and to make best use of him you have to essentially rearrange your entire team. Then you factor in his wages, which are likely to be huge, and then you're left wondering just who will actually be willing to take him on?
PSG - Don't need him
City - Don't need him
Chelsea - Won't destroy their wage structure to sign him
Utd - Don't need him
Bayern - Not a major need and never paying those wages
Juve - Cannot afford him
Atleti - Can't afford him or he would already be there
Real - Not going to bail Barca out.
So, yeah, not going to happen unless Barca cover €500k+ or his €800k a week wages.
On tha brink uhf hwot?
Wrong, he's a highly versatile player. He can play 4 roles in a 4-2-3-1. I take it you've never watched him?
Griezmann would be willing to join almost any club if the alternative is training with Barca B for the rest of his contract. A French international isn't going to piss his career away, especially if he can earn the same elsewhere (in addition to getting called up for the NT), because Barca will be subsidizing a small portion of his wages.
£345k/w (or €405) is what he's on. For comparison, we offered Pogba the same salary just now.
He'd be a top earner anywhere, but if Barca subsidized only a small amount, the cost - benefit picture would work out for almost every club and Barca still gets rid of the majority of his wages.
The reason he's not at Atletico yet, is because Barca want to pay him the least amount of money to feck off. It's called negotiating. Griezmann will be less picky about his destionations at the end of the window.
I know some of you guys would love for Barca to fail and to do the most stupid things imaginable like not getting players on a free transfer or not selling Griezmann, probably because you're still salty about some final, but that's no excuse for being delusional.
This isn't some highly unique situation. We made RvP train with the reserves and we paid Sanchez millions to feck off.
You are wrong.
Brave words
Maybe after tax. Don't forget, Griezman has a recent racist controversy also. Don't think any club will touch him unless they get a great deal.
Don't forget he's also 30 so no sell on value for the buying club and potentially left with a declining forward on massive wages.
He is on double that, as wages in Spain are not reported as gross.
You're likely right. Regardless of the number, Barca would still slash £350k/w (or however much the new club is paying him) from their wage bill.
@izec ty
His outrageous contract is only 'till 2024. He'd have to take a pay cut after that date wherever he goes.
Why can’t we put 80m bid for Pedri…. Only fools will sell but that’s what gives me enough confidence that we will get him as it’s Barca
Griezmann is on 880€ a week according to this site.
https://fcbarcelonalatestnews.com/fc-barcelona-players-wages/
Hes 30 years old. Who on earth is going to pay him that salary and why would he take a pay cut? He wont. Even if he went on loan with no obligation to buy Barcelona would still have to pay 60% of his salary.
No a chance in a covid environment anyone does that deal.
Wait, it is BBB-?
Borderline Broke or Bust
Also his stats (all competitions) for the last 2 seasons have been:
2019-2020: P48 G15 A4
2020-2021: P51 G20 A13
It's not terrible, but I'm damn sure I wouldn't pay 800k a week for someone with that kind of returns. Especially considering he was in a team with Messi et all supporting him.
So you're saying no one would take Griezmann on a loan and pay him anything more than €352k/w ?
His exact salary isn't too relevant. The fact is, Barca gets too slash whatever his destination club pays him from their wage bill. And top clubs would be lining up for him for quite a bit more than what you're suggesting.
The thing is, he wants to go to Atletico, Barca wants to pay the least amount. It's a negotiation.
He was the one supporting Messi. He would play up top, while Messi was on the wing and then track his man back for him. Also he had a bit of a dip after his move to Barca and has been getting back in form this past year. There's a reason he starts for a stacked NT.
So you're saying no one would take Griezmann on a loan and pay him anything more than €352k/w ?
Chelsea don't have a single player on a wage that high. City have 1 possibly 2. Also you keep repeating that €352k/w despite the fact its net not gross. You understand the difference right?
If you have Messi there to provide assists for you and you still aren't pulling up trees, then its not a great sign. As for him 'getting back to form' he's had 2 seasons and not been particularly impressive in either. He's 30 years old. Anyone expecting him to suddenly go back to being super Griezmann at this stage is certainly an optimist.
Where do you even play the guy? For France, he started 4 games in the euros in 3 different positions. A 33 year old Benzema was preferred over him up front in all of them. For Barca last year he was played in 4-5 different positions. If you want someone versatile then sure he could be really useful, but who the hell pays around €800k/w for useful?
No, €352k/w is the maximum 40% of the €880k/w that Dino said a club would pay as a his salary on loan. You understand something written under a quote implies it's a response, right?
There's 9 other players on the team you know. Bar a good De Jong and Ter Stegen, the others are either young and not that good (Dest, Dembele, fecking Braithwait) or past it to differing degrees (Busquets, Alba, Pique). And keep in mind Barca played a lot of games. It's not just 11 players.
You clearly haven't watched him or you wouldn't pull up his stats and say "he plays with Messi" as to why you don't rate him.
He's gotten back to being very good, over the course of this past season, which you could have known had you watched him play at all.
James is "useful". Griezmann is class and versatile. And if you've read the last few pages, you know we've discussing a club only paying a portion of his salary, similarly to how we paid Sanchez to feck off.
BBB- and they sell it as a postive news?
really?
really?
It means Barca-Barca-Barca, it's the best rating they could have possibly hoped forBBB- and they sell it as a postive news?
really?
I thought it was Barca Best Business
Good. Hope Barca goes bust. Madrid, you're next. Let's have some actual competition that's fair and on a level playing field.
I thought it was Busted Barca Bankrupted.
Says the Bayern fan unironically
The rating you get when you need investment grade due to your investors (and probably the bond’s investment criteria…) and the rating agency is actually more bearish, but still awards you the lowest possible investment grade as a „we‘re being nice for now but we will reassess and you better get your shit in order“.BBB- and they sell it as a postive news?
really?
He was not talking about arsenal.
BBB- is the lowest investment grade rating you can get and is actually pretty decent. It will increase confidence of their creditors and keep their funding costs a lot lower than if they were deemed high yield. Also losing IG status could have lead to further penalties on existing debt based on covenants.
Looking at United's financials, I doubt United would be assigned anything more than BBB- if reviewed by credit agencies.
Looking at United's financials, I doubt United would be assigned anything more than BBB- if reviewed by credit agencies.
He is apparently ready to open discussions on a salary reduction to stay in Barcelona. Knowing the snakes at that club, they will find a way to reduce his salary and find a way to dump him for some revenue afterwards. He'd still have to agree to it, but it would open up the possibilities a bit more for a transfer that makes sense for both clubs involved.
that’s rich coming from a Bayern fan who constantly pillage bundesliga
This has always been a rubbish take.
And that is while they are in the Champions league?
So, any club who wants to loan him, will have to pay a (minimum of) €528,000? For a 30 year old.
Genuine question, if they had decided to sell Messi last year for 100 million, would they would pretty much still be the same boat now or would things look a bit more healthy?
Selling Messi last year would mean any money gained would be lost in Messi related sponsorships apparentaly? So either way they would still be screwed?
Selling Messi last year would mean any money gained would be lost in Messi related sponsorships apparentaly? So either way they would still be screwed?
about £250k/week and a £10m loan fee.. still very expensive.. but if someone needs a short terms striker and cant find anyone else..