Joan Laporta

[Messigician]

.@Marsallorente: "Josep Maria Bartomeu was honest, hard-working and a president full of integrity. He tried to keep Bar?a away from economic interests that would hurt the institution."

Facts tbh

 

[behindbrowneyes]

OK our wage bill for 20/21 was 617m, how did we spend the other 519m, since our total expenses for the past season was 1.13b (1136m) euros, the historical high in the history of this club? Where did we spend the money?

How the heck can we justify spending 19% more than 19/20 in the middle of a pandemic when our revenues took a huge hit? Bartomeu was responsible but Laporta needs to explain it.

According to that article, looks like they did a deterioration of the intangible sports assets of 138 million euros. That is, the value of the sports squad on balance has been cut by almost 25% to bring the valuation of footballers like Pjanic, among others, to the market. That's one of the reasons the loss was significantly higher. The article is not clear about it which players are "fully amortisized" by this move now, but I guess it will be players like Pjanic (stated in the article) and Coutinho. Players, whose book value is clearly over their market value unlike, for example, FDJ.

What is also clear is that this makes the numbers even worse than they really were, but it is an understandable move by the new board to clear the books from fake values like the one from Pjanic. And most importantly for the new board, by doing this in the season 20-21 it is a loss that accounts still to Bartomeu's board. Totally understandable to do this and a classic move when management gets changed.
https://www.2playbook.com/clubes/ba...ajuste-200-millones-en-salarios_4761_102.html

 

[Messi983]

According to that article, looks like they did a deterioration of the intangible sports assets of 138 million euros. That is, the value of the sports squad on balance has been cut by almost 25% to bring the valuation of footballers like Pjanic, among others, to the market. That's one of the reasons the loss was significantly higher. The article is not clear about it which players are "fully amortisized" by this move now, but I guess it will be players like Pjanic (stated in the article) and Coutinho. Players, whose book value is clearly over their market value unlike, for example, FDJ.

What is also clear is that this makes the numbers even worse than they really were, but it is an understandable move by the new board to clear the books from fake values like the one from Pjanic. And most importantly for the new board, by doing this in the season 20-21 it is a loss that accounts still to Bartomeu's board. Totally understandable to do this and a classic move when management gets changed.
https://www.2playbook.com/clubes/ba...ajuste-200-millones-en-salarios_4761_102.html

So they did fully amortise 45m for Pjanić and around 60m for Coutinho (with other players still adding up further 30m) and both players are now worth 0 on the books? Why do this though? It had direct impact on lower salary limit and chances to keep Messi. And it doesn't help us at all. It's not like we will sell them so Laporta could then claim he made a profit on them on the books this season. Why not just loan Pjanić to Juve for two years and then take that 15m loss in 2023 (when our situation should be better). Or just loan him until his contract expires as long as we don't need to pay his wages. And why not loan Cou and then maybe we can sell him for 15-20m next year (maybe more if he could do well on loan) and cover that small loss.

If they wanted to match their unamortised value with players's market value (Pjanic's MV is 20m and Coutinho's 30m) - which would be more understandable - they would depreciate them for "just" 55m (instead of 105m). And if we add Griezmann (unamortised value around 72m, MV 60m) we'd get to 67m which is still not even a half of that 138m figure I don't know where they get from.

Also, Pjanić's value in swap with Arthur wasn't that "fake". According to TM his MV in March 2020 was 65m and then dropped to 52m in April. We've "paid" 60m for him in September. Most players are overpaid on the market for at least 10-15% anyway.

 

[Prodi]

So they did fully amortise 45m for Pjanić and around 60m for Coutinho (with other players still adding up further 30m) and both players are now worth 0 on the books? Why do this though? It had direct impact on lower salary limit and chances to keep Messi. And it doesn't help us at all. It's not like we will sell them so Laporta could then claim he made a profit on them on the books this season. Why not just loan Pjanić to Juve for two years and then take that 15m loss in 2023 (when our situation should be better). Or just loan him until his contract expires as long as we don't need to pay his wages. And why not loan Cou and then maybe we can sell him for 15-20m next year (maybe more if he could do well on loan) and cover that small loss.

If they wanted to match their unamortised value with players's market value (Pjanic's MV is 20m and Coutinho's 30m) - which would be more understandable - they would depreciate them for "just" 55m (instead of 105m). And if we add Griezmann (unamortised value around 72m, MV 60m) we'd get to 67m which is still not even a half of that 138m figure I don't know where they get from.

Also, Pjanić's value in swap with Arthur wasn't that "fake". According to TM his MV in March 2020 was 65m and then dropped to 52m in April. We've "paid" 60m for him in September. Most players are overpaid on the market for at least 10-15% anyway.

Because we don't care about Messi or short term with a debt of 1300M. With Messi we have won a Copa del Rey in three years, there's no diffference having Messi or not in this team. The benefits that we achieved with Messi in the Museum and public in the stadium with a pandemic do not count. Sponsors like Rakuten even with Messi have lowered the amount of money for us.
So we amortised these player now (like Laporta did in 2003) to get rid of them as soon as possible and starting to build a team at long term.
It is a start from scratch with the accounts at expense 0 of transfers and amortizations of the previous board.

Also now next year you can sell these players (they will have already played and may have more market) for smaller numbers. And all they pay us will be benefits helping us to have a budget with a positive balance.

So all i see are measures at mid-long term.

 

[khaled_a_d]

So they did fully amortise 45m for Pjanić and around 60m for Coutinho (with other players still adding up further 30m) and both players are now worth 0 on the books? Why do this though? It had direct impact on lower salary limit and chances to keep Messi. And it doesn't help us at all.

I don't think this is correct.
We were over the salary limit regardless of any of our moves, while we were always going to either renew Messi before June or use the 25% exception to re-sign him.
With the later, the loss of Pjanic and Coutinho is in 20-21 year, which is on past board. Now you sell them or even loan them and whatever you get/save is counted as money you can spend.
In addition, this help us in the future in 2 things:
1-It doesn't cripple the club on the long/medium run anymore. No more we need to keep players for their "fake" value.
2-It decreases chances of losing financially in the next 2 fiscal years. That is key for the new board and the club. This will allow us to get back into our normal salary cap, and buys the board time since they guarantee an amount of money if they lose.

 

[Luftstalag14]

According to that article, looks like they did a deterioration of the intangible sports assets of 138 million euros. That is, the value of the sports squad on balance has been cut by almost 25% to bring the valuation of footballers like Pjanic, among others, to the market. That's one of the reasons the loss was significantly higher. The article is not clear about it which players are "fully amortisized" by this move now, but I guess it will be players like Pjanic (stated in the article) and Coutinho. Players, whose book value is clearly over their market value unlike, for example, FDJ.

What is also clear is that this makes the numbers even worse than they really were, but it is an understandable move by the new board to clear the books from fake values like the one from Pjanic. And most importantly for the new board, by doing this in the season 20-21 it is a loss that accounts still to Bartomeu's board. Totally understandable to do this and a classic move when management gets changed.
https://www.2playbook.com/clubes/ba...ajuste-200-millones-en-salarios_4761_102.html

I still don’t get it, why would asset deterioration count toward expenses? They are not money actually spent. If anything they should be in the assets column, not expenses. Right?

 

[Andresito]

.@Marsallorente: "Josep Maria Bartomeu was honest, hard-working and a president full of integrity. He tried to keep Bar?a away from economic interests that would hurt the institution."

Facts tbh

Titella

 

[behindbrowneyes]

I still don’t get it, why would asset deterioration count toward expenses? They are not money actually spent. If anything they should be in the assets column, not expenses. Right?

It is an unplanned depreciation, therefore it is counted as expenses as it reduces the profit, or in the club's case, increases the loss.

 

[Luftstalag14]

It is an unplanned depreciation, therefore it is counted as expenses as it reduces the profit, or in the club's case, increases the loss.

Hmmm, even if that was the case, it would just be a small portion of the 519m. The club needs to explain where the bulk of the money went.

 

[behindbrowneyes]

Hmmm, even if that was the case, it would just be a small portion of the 519m. The club needs to explain where the bulk of the money went.

Hmm, wasn't there lots of short-term-debt to be paid within 12 months or so?

 

[Luftstalag14]

Hmm, wasn't there lots of short-term-debt to be paid within 12 months or so?

Is debt repayment typically included and recorded in the income statement as expenses? I didn't think so, otherwise the 525m or so loan we got from Goldman Sachs would be considered revenues, wouldn't it?

From what I was able to look up online, debt repayment is not considered expenses, except for interest payments.

 

[Messigician]

Carried by Rosell,Barto, Txiki, Cruyff and various others.


Let's hope Papa Perez doesn't cuck him too much

 

[Messi983]

Because we don't care about Messi or short term with a debt of 1300M. With Messi we have won a Copa del Rey in three years, there's no diffference having Messi or not in this team. The benefits that we achieved with Messi in the Museum and public in the stadium with a pandemic do not count. Sponsors like Rakuten even with Messi have lowered the amount of money for us.
So we amortised these player now (like Laporta did in 2003) to get rid of them as soon as possible and starting to build a team at long term.
It is a start from scratch with the accounts at expense 0 of transfers and amortizations of the previous board.

Also now next year you can sell these players (they will have already played and may have more market) for smaller numbers. And all they pay us will be benefits helping us to have a budget with a positive balance.

So all i see are measures at mid-long term.

But that 1300m debt was also increased for at least 100m if not more with what Laporta did here, right? I get why he wanted a clean slate and a fresh start but at the same time don't understand how fully amortising Pjanic and Coutinho now will benefit us. It's not like we can actually sell them so they could put a loss on them on previous board and profit in a new fiscal year selling them. In the end we could be in a situation where Coutinho would stay and get #10 while the club has basically written him off and don't think he's worth anything.

Although it's hard I was already prepared for Messi leaving since last summer. I'm at peace with this now and fully supporting a rebuild and optimistic about youngsters who could build a core of a new team so from a sporting perspective we don't need to discuss if/what we could win with/without Messi. It would be a pointless debate anyway since down the road we'll only find out what will happen but we'll never know what would happen in alternate universe if he'd stay for 2-3 more years and I don't like to play What if games.

And I understand why we couldn't register him. But at the same time, if we could keep him on reduced wages (which he agreed to) he would still bring more money to the club than what we'd pay him.

Don't understand why the Camp Nou revenues (tickets, museum etc.) wouldn't count. I'm sure when stadiums will be open for a bigger (hopefully full) capacity sometime this season there would be more people there just for Messi so those revenues would consequently increase. Needless to say we'd sell more shirts with his name as well.

It's understandable why Rakuten wanted to lower their sponsorship deal. Most companies have suffered losses over the last 18 months as well. But without Messi it's very likely they will be willing to pay even less from next year if they will even renew a contract. And so will other sponsors we'll have to (re)negotiate (new) deals within next 2-3 years. At least I don't think it should affect our Nike deal directly too much as Messi is Adidas sportsman or else we could suffer loss there as well. I know we're still under a longterm contract with Nike but wouldn't surprise me if they'd want to renegotiate that (paying us less) if Messi as one of the global superstars would be theirs and leave us.

I don't think this is correct.

It is an unplanned depreciation, therefore it is counted as expenses as it reduces the profit, or in the club's case, increases the loss.

So "intentionally" increasing the loss didn't impact our salary cap limit or what I'm missing here? I'm not saying it would be enough to keep Messi but I don't think it helped us either. Anyway, now it is what it is (smart saying from a very smart man btw ). I don't agree with some Laporta moves here but let's hope he and his people know what they're doing.

2-It decreases chances of losing financially in the next 2 fiscal years. .

Does this have anything to do with UEFA FFP where clubs shouldn't have a loss in 3 consecutive fiscal years? I think they've soften rules somewhat during pandemic and personally I don't really give a sh** about what UEFA thinks anyway as long as they'll allow a certain club basically writing their own rules.

 

[malvolio]

Don't understand why the Camp Nou revenues (tickets, museum etc.) wouldn't count. I'm sure when stadiums will be open for a bigger (hopefully full) capacity sometime this season there would be more people there just for Messi so those revenues would consequently increase. Needless to say we'd sell more shirts with his name as well.

covid wave 4 with delta mutation is in full flow or just starting in some countries. tourism(which was a big chunk of our match day revenue) took a big hit and don't think it will recover until next spring/summer. not enough people getting vaccinated etc.

It's understandable why Rakuten wanted to lower their sponsorship deal. Most companies have suffered losses over the last 18 months as well. But without Messi it's very likely they will be willing to pay even less from next year if they will even renew a contract. And so will other sponsors we'll have to (re)negotiate (new) deals within next 2-3 years. At least I don't think it should affect our Nike deal directly too much as Messi is Adidas sportsman or else we could suffer loss there as well. I know we're still under a longterm contract with Nike but wouldn't surprise me if they'd want to renegotiate that (paying us less) if Messi as one of the global superstars would be theirs and leave us.

why would rakuten suffer losses in a pandemic? online shopping and video streaming was at an all time high at the peak of the pandemic. i feel that they did that just to save some money because they could. or felt that us losing messi will substantially affect their projected turnover from the sponsorship deal.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/223327/consolidated-sales-of-the-rakuten-group-since-2007/

https://rakuten.today/blog/q2-fy2021-financial-results-mikitani-interview.html

 

[khaled_a_d]

Does this have anything to do with UEFA FFP where clubs shouldn't have a loss in 3 consecutive fiscal years? I think they've soften rules somewhat during pandemic and personally I don't really give a sh** about what UEFA thinks anyway as long as they'll allow a certain club basically writing their own rules.

UEFA already heading toward tax money replacing FFP, so no one cares about FFP atm.
Spanish salary cap is the one that matters atm, and as I said we were encountering losses and were going to be over the cap regardless of any Laporta's move.
He just decided to put all the loss on last year and make a cleaner start, giving himself a leeway moving forward.