Barca elections 2015

[JamDav1982]

Jam rock explains it very well here (partly used this article from The Swiss Ramble I think: http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/truth-about-debt-at-barcelona-and-real.html). I suggest you read it.

The football debt you are talking about says almost nothing about the financial state of a company. The financial pressure on the club is measured by ratios such as liquidity, solvability and EBITDA. These numbers show the relation between the liabilities, debt, assets, revenue, profit, cashflow etcetera. The ''football debt'' you are talking about is mostly used by the media because it's the highest and most staggering number. Add the word debt and every reader will think the club's financial situation is miserable. Of course the number is mentioned by the club, but that is because the number is a reality and is stated in Barcelona's balance sheet (it could also be used as a political device, but that's another discussion). There are multiple ways to measure the debt of a club (ways that still don't tell you the whole story of a company), but this number is not the one that is used by UEFA, FIFA and the IFRS, and rightly so.

I don't know where the 11 million of Laporta's tenure comes from, and I have yet to find a quality article about it. Fact is that there was a lawsuit and that Laporta was cleared, a lawsuit which took a couple of years. I trust that it is investigated thoroughly, and that the judge's decision was the right decision.

Barcelona were not in a great place financially and steps needed to be taken in 2010 - Swiss Ramble clearly states that.

The Swiss Ramble article clearly says that and states NEITHER Laporta or Rosell were correct. One over stated it and the other under stated it.

In no way does it say Laporta was right and Rosell was wrong it says both used figures to suit themselves and debt was somewhere between 20m - 450m euros

Laporta not being liable for that 'debt' does not make his 11m in black claim correct. He too picked and chose figures and the accounts he put forward were not even audited.

Both were at it and not telling whole truth. At opposite ends of the scale.

 

[MessiDinho10]

The debt is getting thinner right? That's not because we spend less, but because our income is bigger (and could be even bigger if we think about it). You can't reduce the debt by not spending as much, because spending is what keeps you competitive in today's football. So, if spending less is not the solution, the only way we can clear some of the debt in time is producing more money. Simple really. It's how it is and we have to adapt. So, if say we cancel the Qatar Airways deal and we go sponsorless on our shirt, isn't that a roadblock in our attempt to reduce the dept? There is no place for romanticism today, it's all about pragmatism. You can't afford to be romantic. Some deals done by this board were a necessary evil. That's how I see it, and I'm not trying to defend anyone.

The gross debt is getting less because we pay off debts. A bigger income helps a lot, but is not the only factor behind paying off debts. The club can reduce the debt with or without a shirt sponsor, it just depends on what other sources the club is planning to get income from.
As I see it, the club can manage without a shirt sponsor if other sources of income are realized. For instance, having a shirt without a sponsor means the club can revalue the price of a shirt in stores. A shirt's price nowadays is so expensive partly because of the sponsor. No sponsor means the price can be lowered and the amount of money the club receives per shirt can be higher. A lower price, especially in relation to other topclubs, means more shirts will be sold (basic economics) and thus Barcelona will receive more money. This means having no shirt sponsor also has its pros, beside romanticism. Having no shirt sponsor also helps with a better image, which is very helpful in negotiations with the club's sponsors (will result in increase of income as well).

 

[JamDav1982]

The gross debt is getting less because we pay off debts. A bigger income helps a lot, but is not the only factor behind paying off debts. The club can reduce the debt with or without a shirt sponsor, it just depends on what other sources the club is planning to get income from.
As I see it, the club can manage without a shirt sponsor if other sources of income are realized. For instance, having a shirt without a sponsor means the club can revalue the price of a shirt in stores. A shirt's price nowadays is so expensive partly because of the sponsor. No sponsor means the price can be lowered and the amount of money the club receives per shirt can be higher. A lower price, especially in relation to other topclubs, means more shirts will be sold (basic economics) and thus Barcelona will receive more money. This means having no shirt sponsor also has its pros, beside romanticism. Having no shirt sponsor also helps with a better image, which is very helpful in negotiations with the club's sponsors (will result in increase of income as well).

Lowering the price of the shirt does not in any way guarantee that they will make more money.

If that was the case clubs/manufacturers would be doing it now and they are not.

Why do you think shirts are more expensive because of the sponsorship anyway?

Lowering the price does not mean more money through shirt sales at all. That is not basic economics. You could well end up with less money.

 

[MessiDinho10]

Barcelona were not in a great place financially and steps needed to be taken in 2010 - Swiss Ramble clearly states that.

The Swiss Ramble article clearly says that and states NEITHER Laporta or Rosell were correct. One over stated it and the other under stated it.

In no way does it say Laporta was right and Rosell was wrong it says both used figures to suit themselves and debt was somewhere between 20m - 450m euros

Laporta not being liable for that 'debt' does not make his 11m in black claim correct. He too picked and chose figures and the accounts he put forward were not even audited.

Both were at it and not telling whole truth. At opposite ends of the scale.

Not anywhere in my post have I said Barcelona's financial state was nothing to worry about, just that it's mostly exaggerated, which in the article is also said by the writer by the misquote of Mark Twain.
Steps needed to be taken in 2010, but steps also needed to be taken in 2003. Don't forget Laporta has tripled our revenue during his tenure, and that is one of the most important numbers financially. In a way he made the already huge amount of total liabilities less of a big deal, because our debt coverage had increased a lot.

Truth is as you said, both weren't telling the whole truth and both have contributed to the current financial state of the club, good or bad. Who knows what will come up after the elections, provided Bartomeu is not reelected? Of course the new president will try to get all the bad news out as soon as possible, and two years later say that he and the other boardmembers have done a good job, but I seriously fear a lot of dirt will be uncovered after the elections. Anyway, that's something for the future to discuss about.

 

[jamrock]

No one says laporta didn't leave the club in debt, but you going aroubg constantly talking about debt according to how its measure in football terms for years now, which is total bs I might add, then after realizing you've been caught out, using the words liabilities, is crap. All you have to do was admit you were wrong and purposefully so.

Off course laporta left the club in debt, every one has debts, but debts of around 250m, with revenues of around 450m is totally different, from debts a word you constantly using upon till now, of 600m!!!!!.

600m debts but see are such geniuses they could pay it down, while struggling to increase revenue,to the point the can build a 600+m stadium. Lol dwl.

 

[MessiDinho10]

Lowering the price of the shirt does not in any way guarantee that they will make more money.

If that was the case clubs/manufacturers would be doing it now and they are not.

Why do you think shirts are more expensive because of the sponsorship anyway?

Lowering the price does not mean more money through shirt sales at all. That is not basic economics. You could well end up with less money.

There are several parties that receive money when a shirt is sold. The club, the manufacturer, the sponsor(s), the store, etcetera. If you take one of these parties away, lower the price but increase the share Barcelona receives, the club will make more money through shirt sales. Also, if you know a little bit about economics you know that a lower price results in more demand for a product (especially for luxury goods like a football shirt).

The reason they are not doing it right now is because it can't be done, as all the parties want their share of the price and with this price maximum profit is realized. That changes when one or more parties are taken away.
Basic economics is supply and demand. Following the basic rules of supply and demand combined with the price elasticity of supply it says a lot about how the total income will change when the price is revalued. Considering a football shirt is a luxury good, the elasticity of the product is higher than 1. This means the increase in demand is, in percentages, higher than the decrease in pricing, which ultimately results in a increase in income. That is economics 101.
The club would end up with less money if a football shirt was a necessary/primary good, as the price elasticity of supply would lie between 0 and 1. Although clothing is a primary good, a football shirt (fake ones excluded, only official kits) isn't because of its price in relation to other clothing. This makes it a luxury good, and therefore the product has an elasticity of more than 1.

 

[JamDav1982]

No one says laporta didn't leave the club in debt, but you going aroubg constantly talking about debt according to how its measure in football terms for years now, which is total bs I might add, then after realizing you've been caught out, using the words liabilities, is crap. All you have to do was admit you were wrong and purposefully so.

Off course laporta left the club in debt, every one has debts, but debts of around 250m, with revenues of around 450m is totally different, from debts a word you constantly using upon till now, of 600m!!!!!.

600m debts but see are such geniuses they could pay it down, while struggling to increase revenue,to the point the can build a 600+m stadium. Lol dwl.

Plenty of people have tried to say no debt was left by Laporta or vastly underplayed the situation.

Read back and you will see I said that the level of debt was exaggerated by Rosell as he came in wanting to make an economic impact.

 

[JamDav1982]

There are several parties that receive money when a shirt is sold. The club, the manufacturer, the sponsor(s), the store, etcetera. If you take one of these parties away, lower the price but increase the share Barcelona receives, the club will make more money through shirt sales. Also, if you know a little bit about economics you know that a lower price results in more demand for a product (especially for luxury goods like a football shirt).

The reason they are not doing it right now is because it can't be done, as all the parties want their share of the price and with this price maximum profit is realized. That changes when one or more parties are taken away.
Basic economics is supply and demand. Following the basic rules of supply and demand combined with the price elasticity of supply it says a lot about how the total income will change when the price is revalued. Considering a football shirt is a luxury good, the elasticity of the product is higher than 1. This means the increase in demand is, in percentages, higher than the decrease in pricing, which ultimately results in a increase in income. That is economics 101.
The club would end up with less money if a football shirt was a necessary/primary good, as the price elasticity of supply would lie between 0 and 1. Although clothing is a primary good, a football shirt (fake ones excluded, only official kits) isn't because of its price in relation to other clothing. This makes it a luxury good, and therefore the product has an elasticity of more than 1.

It is not basic economics that if you lower the price of a product you make more money. Sell more yes.

Do you really think you know more about supply and demand than the manufacturers? None of whome seem to share your ideas and have shirts prices in a similar way.

How much do Barca/Qatar get through shirts sold?

As far as I was aware Nike get all the money from shirt sales.

 

[Barcaman]

3 weeks before elections Laporta doesn't even have a program. But it's understandable, promising popular things is all that matters anyway.

 

[Barcafan 2304]

Hope we hear something more tangible though. Don't get me wrong, I stick by my wish to see laporta back, just want to hear some concrete policies or plans rather than just populism and accusations.

 

[raki]

Hope we hear something more tangible though. Don't get me wrong, I stick by my wish to see laporta back, just want to hear some concrete policies or plans rather than just populism and accusations.

Agree. He´s full of BS and populism. The whole " They are Qatar and we are Unicef" is dramatic populism.

 

[Egert]

Can anyone tell me when will the voting be over and when can we know who is our next president?

 

[MessiDinho10]

It is not basic economics that if you lower the price of a product you make more money. Sell more yes.

Do you really think you know more about supply and demand than the manufacturers? None of whome seem to share your ideas and have shirts prices in a similar way.

How much do Barca/Qatar get through shirts sold?

As far as I was aware Nike get all the money from shirt sales.

Your first sentence sums up you don't understand one bit of what I just explained about economics.

When Flo Perez signed James Rodriguez he said he would earn more money by selling shirts with James name on the back than the amount he paid for James' transfer. This was what brought the discussion back to life and it turned out what Perez said couldn't be true. A club only gets around 15 euros (probably even less) of the total price for which a shirt is sold (around 80 euros), which is around 15-20%. The rest goes to sponsors (sponsors name is on the shirt, therefore they get money because of royalties), manufacturer (production costs + percent markup), retailers etc.
Of course I don't know as much as them about the market for football shirts, but that doesn't mean these basic economic theories I used are not true. You don't know if they share my ideas, because the manufacturers can't remove any of the parties involved. If one of those parties is removed (by having no shirt sponsor), the shirt can be lower priced and aside from the macro-economic reasons I mentioned, also methods and theories used in business economics support it.

 

[MessiDinho10]

Can anyone tell me when will the voting be over and when can we know who is our next president?

I believe the voting takes place on July 18th.

 

[JamDav1982]

Your first sentence sums up you don't understand one bit of what I just explained about economics.

When Flo Perez signed James Rodriguez he said he would earn more money by selling shirts with James name on the back than the amount he paid for James' transfer. This was what brought the discussion back to life and it turned out what Perez said couldn't be true. A club only gets around 15 euros (probably even less) of the total price for which a shirt is sold (around 80 euros), which is around 15-20%. The rest goes to sponsors (sponsors name is on the shirt, therefore they get money because of royalties), manufacturer (production costs + percent markup), retailers etc.
Of course I don't know as much as them about the market for football shirts, but that doesn't mean these basic economic theories I used are not true. You don't know if they share my ideas, because the manufacturers can't remove any of the parties involved. If one of those parties is removed (by having no shirt sponsor), the shirt can be lower priced and aside from the macro-economic reasons I mentioned, also methods and theories used in business economics support it.

There is evidence that none of what you say is practical.... Not one club is even entertaining the idea of getting rid of shirt sponsorship to sell strip at a lower price and make more money from sales

What percentage of shirt sale are you claiming Barca pay to Qatar?