Griezmann's deal is structured the way it is so that Barcelona can claim that they didn't lose money on him, on paper. So the old deal has quite a bit of bearing on the new deal and is not a sunk cost fallacy at all. There were still 72m of his fee to amortise, having him on 'loan' for a year allows that to drop to 48m; they could have taken a loss otherwise. But it allows Atletico to have an out if things go really poorly. That's unlikely, but it can happen.
Barcelona: Charged with corruption .... again!
- Thread starter The Boy
- Start date
My OP is completely taken out of context, since right after the deal was done it wasn't known that Griezmann took a 40% pay cut, it was reported that he would be on roughly the same salary (see numbers in OP). And on that salary, yes Atletico would have been morons.
Still a great move from Laporta to offload his contract when no other team would take on griezmann. The fact that we can have a normal transfer window by next summer is massive considering the shambles of the clubs economics
You're going to great lengths to defend Barca here, and I'm not sure why. In real terms, it's still an awful deal. I wouldn't pat myself on the back for buying a car at 200% it's market value, and then selling it for 5% above it's market value, especially when I still have to pay a huge percent of it's running costs.
At the time of writing my OP it wasn't known that he'd taken a 40% pay cut!
If you sell something at 200% market value. You sold something at 200% market value. Which means it's a good deal.
The fact that you're taken a loss on it, because you bought it for 400% market value 2 years ago just means you were a moron then, but selling it for 200% market value here and now is still a good deal.
Let me ask you this: You are drunk and bought a turd for 100 euros. 2 years later the turd is worth 2 euros. Someone offers you 30 euros. Do you take it? Is it a good deal? Maybe you'd say no because you're "making a 70 euro loss"?
At the original salary Atletico would have been morons to buy him for any fee and Barca would have been brilliant for managing to sell him. I stand by my post,
now stop bothering me by quoting my 2 months old post and taking it out of context.
I think you make a fair point. The deal to get Griezmann was horrible. The deal to offload him was actually quite good.
The agreement could only go ahead as it was done.
Atletico could not buy him because then they did not comply with the financial fair play, we just have to remember that we had to wait until the last minute for Saul to leave.
Barcelona was also not interested in a sale because no one was going to give him the 72 million that remain to be amortized. And if they did not get that money then for the following year they are further reduced financial fair play.
The only way to do the operation was as it was done.
Atletico Madrid are obliged to buy Griezzman for 40M if he plays 50% of the matches in which he is available.
I do not know how to delete this post and above I spent one of the 5 a day I have...
It’s a good deal in the end for a club in difficulties, but the story from start to finish is ridiculous.
This would be like Man United buying Salah from Liverpool in a mega deal on massive wages, while letting Cavani go to Liverpool to make room for those wages.
Liverpool win the league with Cavani starring and United realize they can’t afford to pay Salah, so they loan him back to Liverpool to get his wages off their books with only the possibility of a reasonable transfer fee at a point in the future.
It’s baffling and Bartomeu should be prosecuted for just how badly he ran the club. Gross negligence and has made everyone look like idiots as a result.
This would be like Man United buying Salah from Liverpool in a mega deal on massive wages, while letting Cavani go to Liverpool to make room for those wages.
Liverpool win the league with Cavani starring and United realize they can’t afford to pay Salah, so they loan him back to Liverpool to get his wages off their books with only the possibility of a reasonable transfer fee at a point in the future.
It’s baffling and Bartomeu should be prosecuted for just how badly he ran the club. Gross negligence and has made everyone look like idiots as a result.
I know, which is why I didn't reference it!
You were still discussing it, hence why I was 'discussing' it on a 'discussion forum.'
Except it isn't 200% above market value. It represents good value. It goes to a club that has already proven they can get the best out of him, in a position they're desperate to strengthen.
Yes, the deal is okay for Atletico, because Griezmann took a 40% pay cut. We've only known that for 2-3 days. On his original salary it would have be a bad deal, even on a free. Barca even managed to get a fee for Griezmann in addition to getting rid of that salary. It's a win-win. It's a big contrast to us paying Sanchez to feck off.
A lot of people are in here are assuming the first Griezmann deal was done by the same people. I don't exactly know who was involved, but the most important man, the president of the club, was a different person for the second deal. There's nothing wrong with Laporta patting himself on the back on this deal, or calling the negotiators brilliant before Griezman's pay cut was public knowledge.
I don't know anything about that artificial increase of the shirt contract.
It would be interesting to know about that economic agreement.
What I know is that Barcelona receives 105M + 45M
And if what you said was true it would not change anything. If Barcelona's income is 715 or 650 million does not make it a Milan 2.0, the club would remain top 3 in the world far away from Milan.
Laporta presented 1350M+ of gross debt, the net debt according to the information is almost 600M.
Barcelona is not losing 400-500M per season, was the 20/21 season only.
Then we can debate the numbers because they are very inflated, Laporta intends to put all the payments he can in that season so that he and his board of directors have to guarantee much less money, also when he presents benefits this season and a great reduction of debt he will be as a savior of the club.
He already did it in 2003 and we will see if he can do it now because Bartomeu already said that in that case he would denounce him and lose as happened in 2003 against Gaspart.
Beautifully said
I like the idea that Bartomeu went on a drunken shopping spree after losing his girlfriend (Neymar) to a nouveau rich Frenchy (PSG) and bought a lot of overpriced and useless shite he didn't even have room for in his apartment and bought it on money he didn't have and at the end wakes up super hung over in a jail cell.
Ok dude.
Griezmann's salary at Barcelona was the same as his last salary at Atletico. So what you are saying is that it was a bad deal for Atletico to pay Griezmann his wages back in the day?
You are allowed to think that if you think the player is really bad, of course. But I think Atletico liked his performances. I think they would have liked to keep paying those wages to Griezmann without him leaving, probably.
arent you losing a minimum of 30% of your total revenue due to losing messi?
Re bolded, show me. You're saying he went to Barca and didn't get a pay raise? I find that hard to believe. Everything else you say in your post is based on that premise.
A quick google gives me 210k/w in 2018 and the ~800k/w for Barca number that was going around earlier in this thread. Show me if you have a better source.
Don't put words in my mouth, I've always said I rated him. I even defended him when some people overemphasized the slump he was in before Koeman got there, or some thinking his numbers were bad because he should have more goals playing with Messi (I argued Griezmann tracking back for Messi deflated his numbers).
Ok dude.
Yes but getting Griezmann and his wages off the books is massive considering he was on 800,000 a week.
No it wasn’t, Griezmann took a small paycut to join Barca
You want him for 800,000 a week?
Bit harsh on Greasy Man?
Not considering he was on ~800k/w, effectively making him worthless if he was adamant on staying on that salary.
Don't you get tired of all your bullshit?
All the fecking claims about 30% of Barcelona's total revenue, 206 mill euros a year, and now you're back on track and are suddenly going to have a normal transfer window because your wages are only 70% of your revenue, while the club is still in debt by 1.35 billion euros.
I mean
Don't you get tired of all your bullshit?
All the fecking claims about 30% of Barcelona's total revenue, 206 mill euros a year, and now you're back on track and are suddenly going to have a normal transfer window because your wages are only 70% of your revenue, while the club is still in debt by 1.35 billion euros.
I mean
See how lazy and utterly stupid it is to post a single smiley under every post you don't agree with?what's up with the laughing emojis?
Sport had access to Griezzman's contract and published it on Monday.
In the 19/20 season he earned 25.5 million gross
The following year and last 21
In the 19/20 season he earned 25.5 million gross
The following year and last 21
When you read something you don't like, but are too lazy to articulate your thoughts, some people think posting a green smiley is an acceptable way to communicate.
Sport had access to Griezzman's contract and published it on Monday.
In the 19/20 season he earned 25.5 million gross
The following year and last 21
I don't speak Spanish and that graph makes no sense to me. Under "total" for example. 20/21 says 29,5 while 21/22 says 37,5, but all the numbers in the rows above are the exact same?
Don't you get tired of all your bullshit?
All the fecking claims about 30% of Barcelona's total revenue, 206 mill euros a year, and now you're back on track and are suddenly going to have a normal transfer window because your wages are only 70% of your revenue, while the club is still in debt by 1.35 billion euros.
I mean
Do you have reading comprehension issues by chance? The 30% was from The Athletic, so actually read the article before running your mouth and as far as a Norma transfer window is concerned read this instead of having your head under a rock:
Laporta: "I want to thank the staff who have ensured Barcelona have a competitive team, who have worked on the departures... we are at 80 percent [wage-to-revenue] and before we were at 110 percent, and we will be at 70 percent. In the next transfer window we will be able to act more normally."
When you read something you don't like, but are too lazy to articulate your thoughts, some people think posting a green smiley is an acceptable way to communicate.
I don't speak Spanish and that graph makes no sense to me. Under "total" for example. 20/21 says 29,5 while 21/22 says 37,5, but all the numbers in the rows above are the exact same?
The eight million difference between the 20/21 and 21/22 are 1 million in the fixed salary (fijo in Spanish) and a variable that exists in the last 3 seasons (loyalty bonus) and in this case it is 7 million
"total" is the most he would have earned if all the variables were achieved.
Below "total" and in blue is what he earned and below in gray the amount he did not get
Generally all I’m seeing in this thread is a bunch of Barca fan boys trying to perform some mental gymnastics trying to show that Barcelona are somehow fixed and their 1.35 billion in debt will just magically disappear.
Putting it bluntly, If you lose 30% of your revenue and the players wages you’ve shipped off only make up 25% of that stream, you’ve still lost 5% overall. But alas I call the 30% bullshit and Barca will barely see a drop in lost revenue or at most 10% because they’ve been fed some bullshit narrative by morons to justify messi’s obscene salary demands. He may have helped your club grow 30% in revenue on forecast, but the money that’s there now is not going disappear over night unless some stupid feck in your business team tied deals to Messi…
But if we are running this bullshit idea that Barca lose 30%, most of you are simply talking about player wages to revenue. We’re not even talking about overheads and general club cost all of which potentially go up and are not close to being affected by 4 players leaving…
Putting it bluntly, If you lose 30% of your revenue and the players wages you’ve shipped off only make up 25% of that stream, you’ve still lost 5% overall. But alas I call the 30% bullshit and Barca will barely see a drop in lost revenue or at most 10% because they’ve been fed some bullshit narrative by morons to justify messi’s obscene salary demands. He may have helped your club grow 30% in revenue on forecast, but the money that’s there now is not going disappear over night unless some stupid feck in your business team tied deals to Messi…
But if we are running this bullshit idea that Barca lose 30%, most of you are simply talking about player wages to revenue. We’re not even talking about overheads and general club cost all of which potentially go up and are not close to being affected by 4 players leaving…
So nothing refutes what i've said, then
It was widely reported.
Sport said:
This is similar to what Sport said just six days ago:
Sport said:
Griezmann was renewing his contract at Atletico and getting a pay raise every year:
Marca said:
I think he had the highest salary (similar to the one he had at Barcelona) only for the last year, after the infamous "Decisión."
You should post the relevant excerpt from the article here since not everyone has a membership to The Athletic.
I can see from googling their website that Dermot Corrigan has written two of those articles. I can also see that Dermot Corrigan quoted the "report" by Marc Ciria in a tweet thread about his article:
I looked into that Marc Ciria thing earlier (I think I posted about in on this thread). I don't think the report is actually accessible, but you can read the articles and watch a video of him talking about how he came up with the numbers. It's really faulty and dubious analysis and is massively overstating Messi's impact to the bottom line. He also admits that he doesn't have access to most of the actual numbers required to make this analysis, yet somehow came up with a final number that has significant digits up to the thousand euros. It's basically just made up out of whole cloth and the analysis came out a few days after Messi's contract leaked, it's almost certainly paid propaganda.
Last edited:
The only numbers that count are the blue, bolded ones.I don't speak Spanish and that graph makes no sense to me. Under "total" for example. 20/21 says 29,5 while 21/22 says 37,5, but all the numbers in the rows above are the exact same?
The Ciria thing is feck all substance and a lot of claims that makes very little sense. When you end up claiming that if Barcelona lose Messi they’ll sell fewer shirts than a mid level club in England, it might be a good time to stop and reconsider the arguments you’re trying to make.
Not sure why some take it seriously.
Odds are that the loss of Messi will barely have any visible financial impact on the club. A similar season as last year and good luck spotting the effect.
I highly doubt that. Messi was the last string tying this team to the "great Barcelona". Even after Xavi and Iniesta left, you still had Messi reminding you of the days when it was without a doubt the best team in the world, he was a beacon. It will have a financial impact, for Barcelona and for La Liga since it's a huge blow for them with Ronaldo being gone as well. You need stars to promote your team and league, to put on the posters and for the moment, there isn't any in la liga. Rakuten not renewing the deal (allegedly because of Covid but it's total BS since Rakuten significantly increased their financial results in 2020 and 2021) is probably the 1st exemple, lets see what Barcelona gets from the new sponsor.