Joan Laporta

[jamrock]

You are fucking clueless when it comes to running a business. If you ever do run one id expect you to be going broke in no time flat. These are not good financial decisions in any world.

Okay, business doing excellent right now, buy okay arm chair "smart" guy that has never been a business decision in his life.

Let's go sell all over best players instead.

 

[JamDav1982]

Singing away 25% of your finances for 25 years, 40 years,15 years, isn't about signing a bunch of has beens 30 year olds has far too many here tried to make it out to be, to make the reasoning behind the mean look crazy, ain't no body that stupid.

It's about weighing your options & understanding the cost of doing the best best option, and deciding from there which is best.

We were never gonna do the next best option, so had to do this.

Wether we go out now & sign X player for 80m isn't even the point of the deal, that's just one aspect, as I've said all long, it's about stabilizing the club in the short to medium term, so we can rebuild & reset long term.

Let's sign this deal, sign some players, remain competitive and make sure this never happens again.

That's how I rebuild a brand and business.

No they were never signing CVC for 25% over 40/50 years as such a bad deal. They made that distinction themselves.

This one is better and obviously not ideal but shorter and allows in part to be repaid early.

The 'signing older players' was if that is what they do when argument to do it is to be competitive now. Then it has to work and players being linked with not being the type folk want to see come in.

Said all along Barca will spend big money this summer and they will when others said wont and wont be able to afford certain players.

Now they have to get it right and compete for titles and go deeper in CL as that is argument for doing it.

 

[Respekt_III]

Okay, business doing excellent right now, buy okay arm chair "smart" guy that has never been a business decision in his life.

Let's go sell all over best players instead.

I could be a multi billionaire on the internet if I wanted soo yeah.
Secondly unless you run a company or business that generates at least tens of millions annually then your apparent experience means fuck all.

 

[jamrock]

No they were never signing CVC as such a bad deal.

This one is better and obviously not ideal but shorter and allows in part to be repaid early.

The 'signing older players' was if that is what they do when argument to do it is to be competitive now. Then it has to work.

Said all along Barca will spend big money this summer and they will when others said wont and wont be able to afford certain players.

And they are spending big money by signing a bad deal you were always against, expect when it suits your narrative.

What was never on the table or consider for mili second was selling our best young players.

We were broke before this, now we less broke, had no money before this, now not so much


But anyways not into the long back & forth, got things to do.

We signed away a large part of our TV rights to stabilize the club finances like I said we would & not to sign Apzi & a bunch of Chelsea rejects.

We move, stronger together.

 

[JamDav1982]

Okay, business doing excellent right now, buy okay arm chair "smart" guy that has never been a business decision in his life.

Let's go sell all over best players instead.

Didnt have to sell best players if didnt take agree to these deals but better that than the CVC deal for 40/50 years.

They could have continued on 1/3 salary cap and revisited the investment in a years time if required.

 

[jamrock]

I could be a multi billionaire on the internet if I wanted soo yeah.
Secondly unless you run a company or business that generates at least tens of millions annually then your apparent experience means fuck all.

Gimmi you IG, I'll DM you my W2.

Company made over 300m last year revenue's, 35m profit, approve a payroll if 1m per week.

Don't do that I'll embarrass you in real life. Lol

 

[JamDav1982]

And they are spending big money by signing a bad deal you were always against, expect when it suits your narrative.

What was never on the table or consider for mili second was selling our best young players.

We were broke before this, now we less broke, had no money before this, now not so much


But anyways not into the long back & forth, got things to do.

We signed away a large part of our TV rights to stabilize the club finances like I said we would & not to sign Apzi & a bunch of Chelsea rejects.

We move, stronger together.

Nope... I was against CVC for 25% and 40 years which you thought was a good financial decision. To point I would choose to sell best players now before going down that road.

Always said they will sign deals and be able to spend big.. whether I agreed with that deal or not is irrelevant to that point really.

They signed a better deal and no one claims they signed it only to sign Azpi but didnt want them signing it if the targets were many of the names mentioned.

 

[Respekt_III]

Gimmi you IG, I'll DM you my W2.

Company made over 300m last year revenue's, 35m profit, approve a payroll if 1m per week.

Don't do that I'll embarrass you in real life. Lol

Don't use ig, but not bad if true.
Seems odd that you'd take that view with those terms if you really did run a company that large.

 

[jamrock]

Didnt have to sell best players if didnt take agree to these deals but better that than the CVC deal for 40/50 years.

They could have continued on 1/3 salary cap and revisited the investment in a years time if required.

Ever better to say that, than ever say sell our best young players.

No BS about me, I keep it real.

That's a better idea than to say sell our best players

Those words should never be spoken.

 

[JamDav1982]

Ever better to say that, than ever say sell our best young players.

No BS about me, I keep it real.

That's a better idea than to say sell our best players

Those words should never be spoken.

Nah it wouldnt be better to sign away 40 years of a CVC deal you claim all top business folk would sign. Thats how bad it was as said.

Only backed it when thought club were going down that route anyway.

The real alternative was to remain under 1/3 rule for another year anyway as always argued but your fav that club explained was so damaging was atrocious idea and thankfully the headlines were false.

 

[jamrock]

Nah it wouldnt be better to sign away 40 years of a CVC deal you claim all top business folk would sign. Thats how bad it was as said.

Only backed it when thought club were going down that route anyway.

The real alternative was to remain under 1/3 rule for another year anyway as always argued but your fav that club explained was so damaging was atrocious idea and thankfully the headlines were false.

Ofc I backed if if the club said they have to sell 25% to stabilize, as I said multiple times as the facts change ones opinion has to change.

If the club says we need to sell 25% after looking at everything for 12 months, which is what the finance guy said in a interview I think last week.

Simply means they lookd at everything said fuck, of a list of bad options there is the best one let's move forward.

So I don't even know what criticism you are trying to get at there.

 

[JamDav1982]

Ofc I backed if if the club said they have to sell 25% to stabilize, as I said multiple times as the facts change ones opinion has to change.

If the club says we need to sell 25% after looking at everything for 12 months, which is what the finance guy said in a interview I think last week.

Simply means they lookd at everything said fuck, of a list of bad options there is the best one let's move forward.

So I don't even know what criticism you are trying to get at there.

No you backed the deal for CVC for 25% over 40 years as you thought it was the right decision as you thought it was club were going.

The 'finance guy' will in that interview is most likely the one I quoted when the club made clear how bad the 25% deal with CVC was.

Those terms were atrocious and as club have said put them in worse position.

You are the one trying to act smug when called a hell of lot of situations wrong these past few weeks.

 

[jamrock]

Nope... I was against CVC for 25% and 40 years which you thought was a good financial decision. To point I would choose to sell best players now before going down that road.

Always said they will sign deals and be able to spend big.. whether I agreed with that deal or not is irrelevant to that point really.

They signed a better deal and no one claims they signed it only to sign Azpi but didnt want them signing it if the targets were many of the names mentioned.

You were against sell rights & thought selling players was a better option its their in black & white.

I said whatever the case they have to sell rights & given the alternatives I am for it.

Club didn't have plenty of money to sign anymore before this, can't have it both ways.

But okay, everything is signed & settle now. (like I said it would) we move on to getting a team together.

 

[Respekt_III]

Ever better to say that, than ever say sell our best young players.

No BS about me, I keep it real.

That's a better idea than to say sell our best players

Those words should never be spoken.

Why not? I genuinely don't understand your stance on this.
In business terms your going to be leasing an asset which generates you let's say 50m a year for a term of 50 years for
an upfront fee of 50m? And loan of 100m that needs to be paid back. Rather than selling a let's say a truck that you can potentially find a similar or even better replacement costing less on the market? Even if they don't perform as well, those trucks will still get a job done till you can recover and purchase newer trucks again.

Like even if we sign the deal I don't think we'll be competitive so why handicap the club longer term when the short term benefit doesn't lead to mcuh of an improvement? Obviously this isnt a great analogy because of how football Clubs are but still.

 

[JamDav1982]

You were against sell rights & thought selling players was a better option its their in black & white.

I said whatever the case they have to sell rights & given the alternatives I am for it.

Club didn't have plenty of money to sign anymore before this, can't have it both ways.

But okay, everything is signed & settle now. (like I said it would) we move on to getting a team together.

I was against the 40yrs/25% CVC deal and said it was so bad that selling players for 300m odd and rebuilding would be better alernative... point being that is how bad a deal that is.

Was never against selling right if it allowed to get in the correct players.. said that plenty with Haaland and said after Romeu interveiw last week that if they have a shorter deal and can buy back rghts then becomes a different debate. Go back and check if you like.

Whenever I said club would have 'plenty of money' this summer it was always based on the deals it was inevitable they would sign... even if it was a deal like CVC for 40yrs/25% years I didnt like.

Can agree to disagree and as I said earlier in thread I thought club put case across well today and Romeu in particular spoke well.

There is always the option to rebuild more slowly for less long term hits.. but now they have to compete immediately. That is one of main reasons they argued today that these deals needed to be signed.