I was just responding to your last line that seemed to say, with some certainty, that you were only selling 49.9%, which without further information doesn't seem feasible without creating a big mess, or at least highlighting inconsistency with last year's FFP.
Official: FC Barcelona charged with Corruption over payments to former referees chief | UEFA open investigation
- Thread starter Kush
- Start date
I was just responding to your last line that seemed to say, with some certainty, that you were only selling 49.9%, which without further information doesn't seem feasible without creating a big mess, or at least highlighting inconsistency with last year's FFP.
Okay, so the only amendment I’ll make is that they are selling the original 49%. Everything else stands with regards to how the club is run. And I did explain how selling this now while it’s unprofitable doesn’t look like a bad deal short term, because it won’t negatively affect revenue, it is another example of poor long term strategic thinking.
That's not to bad mouth the socios system, I think there's a lot of qualities to it but evidently it's not really a hard curb to bad management or the general direction of the business of football. Likewise German laws on club ownership.
Comunicado oficial
https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/club/news/3626270/fc-barcelona-official-announcement
Barca still holds 51%, the german based company together with a dutch investor bought 29,5% shares from socios.com and Orpheus Media, who now only hold 9,75% each. So it's not an additional sale of the shares as some posted here, but just a redistribution of already sold, but not payed for shares.
https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/club/news/3626270/fc-barcelona-official-announcement
Barca still holds 51%, the german based company together with a dutch investor bought 29,5% shares from socios.com and Orpheus Media, who now only hold 9,75% each. So it's not an additional sale of the shares as some posted here, but just a redistribution of already sold, but not payed for shares.
Last edited:
I am out of the loop.
If Barca sold last year a 49.5% stake of Barca studios but the buyers didn't pay, why does it only affect this season and not the previous one?
Because they made the sale last summer to be able to comply with FFP and register their new players and such. How did they comply if they didn't get any income?
I found the following pic in a spanish forum.
https://i.ibb.co/vh1L1cC/image.png
If its true, the buying company (Bridgeburg) is a one year old company and its president is Joan Laporta.
Because they pulled other levers. So many levers.
Is Barca Vision and Barca Studio the same thing?
Uh oh...
Well super league anyway right?
115 FC chuckling at this
What a coincidence that this comes out a day after the Super League.
And after Tebas said yesterday, and in recent weeks, the great job that Barcelona have done in terms of ffp.
But I suppose that of City's 115 charges and PSG's cheating, they have nothing to say there.
They can't be taken seriously.
And after Tebas said yesterday, and in recent weeks, the great job that Barcelona have done in terms of ffp.
But I suppose that of City's 115 charges and PSG's cheating, they have nothing to say there.
They can't be taken seriously.
The timing 
Cant possibly have been a coincidence.
Hopefully someone sooner or later brings up the alleged doping in spanish football too that got covered up in the fuentes saga.
Mes que en douche-club .
Cant possibly have been a coincidence.
Hopefully someone sooner or later brings up the alleged doping in spanish football too that got covered up in the fuentes saga.
Mes que en douche-club .
Barcelona? Yep, I agree.
Yes that’s the takeaway from all this
City's charges are by the Premier League, not UEFA. UEFA wanted to punish City too but they managed to get out of it with the time barring.
And PSG followed a totally different route which was to not lie and let the UEFA FFP committee adjust contracts and fine them as the rules had been written. Barcelona went with the cheating and lying about it which happens to be illegal beyond Football.
Unfortunately never going to happen.
Why not they banned City?
Laporte in 2025: which levers?
For all the talk of how bad the Super League is, UEFA are an absolute joke anyway.
To me it seem equally likely that UEFA woldn't want to hurt their product by messing with Barca or trying to protect their product by flexing their muscles against Barca. I mean it would send quite the message to ban them based on FFP and then ask via the press "what are you going to do about it? create a break away league?".
Why is the first response from Barca fans about any perceived wrongdoing always “Well look at what this other club did”
They care more about shifting the blame away, than taking care that their club isn’t involved in any shady doings. The sense of entitlement is stunning. Whatever they can do to achieve success, is always right and justified, no matter what.Why is the first response from Barca fans about any perceived wrongdoing always “Well look at what this other club did”
Conveniently when news of the super league started re-emerging.
I mean Barca look guilty as feck, but UEFA aren't angels themselves.
UEFA have likely* already told Barca this privately. With the news yesterday and Barcelona immediately jumping back on the Super League train I'm not surprised that UEFA are leaking it outright.
*I'm pulling this opinion out of my arse just like the weekly tapeworms, which I assume everyone gets
*I'm pulling this opinion out of my arse just like the weekly tapeworms, which I assume everyone gets
Fixed that for you
And I see we're back to false hope news. Nothing's gonna happen to them ffs, we've been here before
Fixed that for you
And I see we're back to false hope news. Nothing's gonna happen to them ffs, we've been here before
You didn't fix a thing. Bribery or no bribery there is a fundamental difference between PSG handling of things and City's or Barcelona's, the former essentially told the UEFA to do one and use their own rules while the others tried to hide what they were doing and in the process committed fraud. That's why PSG are consistently in the list of rule breakers while the others have magically been clean during multiple seasons.
It was a goddamn joke -_-
Have City missed a CL campaign in the last 10 years?
City got it overturned on a technicality
Yes, but ultimately they weren't banned.
It was ban to say, "look we're doing something", it was never going to stick.
UEFA banned them and CAS overturned it so yes they were banned.
They were given a ban, it didn't stick, they didnt miss any CL seasons. They weren't banned because it didn't stick.
They were found guilty and banned mate. Whether they actually served it is a different matter.
They were given a ban. They weren't banned, because they never served any ban.
If you were handed a jail sentence and got off on a technicality, you wouldn't say you were jailed.
Agree to disagree I’m not arguing semantics all evening
https://onefootball.com/es/noticias...ira-case-anti-corruption-office-says-38982978
This resolution was obvious. The judge twisting the penal code again and again in order to create a far-fetched hypothesis, stretch the court case and manipulate those who want to be manipulated.
This resolution was obvious. The judge twisting the penal code again and again in order to create a far-fetched hypothesis, stretch the court case and manipulate those who want to be manipulated.