Barca elections 2015
- Thread starter Barcaman
- Start date
I would like to see Barca conduct itself in a way that does not involve constant, serious trouble with both the football authorities and the law. Whether or not the last two regimes have enriched themselves at the expense of the team, it is undeniable that they both failed to keep the team out of serious trouble.
I agree, some sort of unified alternative to either Laporta or Bartomeu would be great. But if I had to pick from Laporta or Bartomeu, I would stay with Bartomeu. I just can't stomach Laporta's accounting shenanigans and utterly reckless spending. And I am eternally grateful for the acquisitions of Neymar and Suarez.
F
forcabarca
Guest
DonAK
President of FC Barcelona
Laporta left Barca in a good condition. Bartomeu and Rosell altered the books to make it look like he didn't and sued him, but they lost as a judge ruled in Laporta's favour after recieving extensive information about our financials from Deloitte.
Are you eternally grateful for the club being indicted for the first time in its history as well? For how they messed up a working system in La Masia and sacked people who were appointed during Laporta's tenture and before him who were doing their jobs well just to appoint their cronies? Are you also grateful for their continued silence whenever the club is attacked in the media? I'm not.
You talk about Laporta's reckless spending when Neymar's transfer may cost us over 200m euros in the end if we're found guilty just because Rosell and co decided not to make a normal deal to hide the cost of his transfer, for what reason?
Last edited:
JamDav1982
Senior Member
They never altered the figures on the books at all.
They were arguing from different points of view whether the club was in debt or not. Depending on the way the accounts were approached.
They never should have taken it to court though
No mystery over the Neymar transfer...they tried to save money on the tax paid. Wrongly.
Sumlit
San Claudio Bravo
Reckless spending? Following public numbers from Transfermarkt, and assuming conservatively that Neymar's cost was €87M (which likely was more than that), Rosell/Bartomeu spent an average of €90M per season for their 6 seasons(09/10 to 14/15), whereas Laporta spent an average of €50M per season for his 6 (03/04 to 08/09.
And it's already proven in court "Laporta's accounting shenanigans" were falsehoods. Laporta left the team in the black, and without Qatar Foundation/Airways money to prop numbers.
FCBarca
Mike the Knife
A father's dream come true, reminds me of the Chris Rock sketch where he insists that a father's job is to ensure their daughters don't end up on the pole
JamDav1982
Senior Member
In the way football debt is calculated - which is basically liabilities owed to banks etc then Barca were close to 600m in debt and that needed to be addressed at time.
The financial situation needed improving but Rosell over stated it knowing he couldnt match the impact on the footballing side that Laporta did. He became far too focused on the idea of making a financial impact.
Sumlit
San Claudio Bravo
Liabilities are never counted on balance sheets and in profit/loss statements, only interests owed on those liabilities. That the court estimated Laporta left the team with a profit means Laporta made the team more money than it spent in his tenure. That's all.
I do agree with your second sentence.
JamDav1982
Senior Member
But in terms of how football debt has been used to describe the situations at almost all clubs it is the money they owe out at that time and not taking into account all the other things.
If Barca were not in debt then the Glazers never put Man Utd in anywhere near to 800-900m debt that was discussed at time and Real Madrid never spent there way to close to 600m debt either. Or Arsenal were not put into hundreds of millions of debt because of their new stadium.
If they were £11m in the black then how much in the black are they now? A lot more than that.
MessiDinho10
New member
Failed miserably in that aspect imo, those lawsuits and the outdated sponsor contracts will/have cost the club a lot financially, and those are just the most obvious points.
JamDav1982
Senior Member
The most out dated contract is the Nike one that was signed in 2008 and leaves Barca behind the rest. Laporta signed that.
All the top clubs will have 'out dated' sponsor contracts when it comes round to the time that they are to be renewed.
Sumlit
San Claudio Bravo
Debt does not influence final balance. If Barca was €11M in the black at the end of Laporta's tenure, Barca made more money than it spent, is that simple. Loan debt isn't income or expense, it's a liability.
I won't argue Barca didn't need to reduce their debt though, because they certainly did and have.
JamDav1982
Senior Member
Debt is maybe the wrong word to use then but the club had close to 600m euros in total liabilities which needed addressed.
Just as Man Utd needed to address theirs, Real needed to address theirs and Arsenal needed to address theirs.
How much are Barca in the black now? It will be much, much more than 11m if we use the same rules applied.
Home of Barca Fans
