State of La Liga

[House of Flies]

Now, I bring to you an UEFA report which would help people understand what the hell is the going on.

The figures are contained in a new Uefa report into the state of football's finances, and shows the total debt of the Premier League clubs as being €3.8 billion (£3.4b), 56 per cent of the total across Europe.

Premier League clubs' assets are €4.3b (£3.8b), accounting for a 48 per cent share of the assets among all European clubs.

What is worrying for English clubs however is that the total value of the debt is so close to the value of the assets.

In Spain, which has the next highest debt of £858m, the assets are worth £2.5b, three times the value of the debts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-of-total-across-Europe-says-Uefa-report.html

Equitable sharing of TV revenues does not equal to financial prudency because EPL clubs overspend on wages which is highlighted by various Swissramble articles.

Here I present to you the wage bill of West Ham-- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/west-ham/7683270/West-Hams-wage-bill-in-full.html

This article highlights my points as shit like Kieron Dyer earns 83k pounds/week which is approx 5m Euros/yr. To put that in perspective, Jesus Navas earns 2.5m Euros/yr. Even Faubert earns more than Navas.

http://article.wn.com/view/2011/01/17/Sevilla_To_Announce_Jesus_Navas_Contract_Extension_On_Monday/

 

[Guardian]

it isnt like spanish clubs dont have owners, its just that owners do not risk their own money to keep the club afloat and infact, some drain their clubs due to their carelessness and shoddy deals. barcelona, real madrid and at. bilbao are owned by members that pay membership fees which enable them to keep their elected presidents accountable to their shoddy deals. and its no suprise that those 3 clubs are possibly the best run clubs in the world.

soooo blame the club 's demise on their owners/ presidents that have substantially used their club. bolton owes 83 m or so to its owner and that value alone could pay the debt of several la liga clubs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/19/la-liga-debt-passes-three-billion --> this will highlight the massive mismanagement as clubs are paying more in wages than they are getting in revenue. la liga clubs are horribly mismanaged and thats not barcelona/real's fault.

This article exactly explains why the TV rights have to be devided more equally.

 

[House of Flies]

Thats an interpretation of it. Its not rocket science for someone to balance his books but owners/presidents are failing in basics and there is no guarantee that equal division of La Liga revenue will actually stop owners/presidents from paying more in wages than getting income. And the mentioned clubs are big clubs. La Liga needs better management than balance in TV revenue.

Just to highlight my point again- If people cant balance their budget now, its no guarantee that more money will be able to provide them with an incentive to balance their books.

 

[Guardian]

One more thing Jatin

3 clubs are possibly the best run clubs in the world.

are you kidding me?

Spending 25M on Chygrinskiy, 80 on Ibrahimovich, and more than 50M on Caceres, Keirrison, Hleb and Henrique, and then selling them for 20-30% of their price and you say that successful business? Barca should thank Cruyff for his phenomenal work with La Masia and the totalitarian share from the TV rights.

 

[Guardian]

Thats an interpretation of it. Its not rocket science for someone to balance his books but owners/presidents are failing in basics and there is no guarantee that equal division of La Liga revenue will actually stop owners/presidents from paying more in wages than getting income. And the mentioned clubs are big clubs. La Liga needs better management than balance in TV revenue.

Just to highlight my point again- If people cant balance their budget now, its no guarantee that more money will be able to provide them with an incentive to balance their books.

Well, there's no need to have a brain to realise that having 10 bucks is much better than having 4.... You can plan your next 3 holidays, yehoooo!

 

[House of Flies]

Well, there's no need to have a brain to realise that having 10 bucks is much better than having 4.... You can plan your next 3 holidays, yehoooo!

No because if everyone else earns 10, then your holiday will cost you more. Your premise lies on variable costs being fixed which is highly naive. Want examples?

- Kieron Dyer commands twice the salary than Jesus Navas whilst Navas has multiple times the talent of the former.
- Inflated transfer fees between clubs. Look at Torres to Chelsea/ Henderson to Liverpool/ Carroll to Liverpool.
- Overpricing of youngsters. Canales went for 10m euros whilst Carroll went for 36.

What will all those 3 points cause? more foreigners will be bought instead of developing players because buying will become cheaper than developing, severely damaging the clubs and eventually, the national team. This has already happened in England.

Inflated transfer fees and wages would nullify the increase in their revenues. To put it in your perspective-- you would be making 10 bucks but your money will only get you one holiday instead of 3 because there is more money in the system.

 

[House of Flies]

One more thing Jatin



are you kidding me?

Spending 25M on Chygrinskiy, 80 on Ibrahimovich, and more than 50M on Caceres, Keirrison, Hleb and Henrique, and then selling them for 20-30% of their price and you say that successful business? Barca should thank Cruyff for his phenomenal work with La Masia and the totalitarian share from the TV rights.

Have you seen the increase in the commercial revenues of Barcelona in the past 8 years? ITS SUBSTANTIAL allowing the club the club to make such mistakes. We used to waste the SAME amount of money on Overmars/Petit/Christanval/Saviola but it didnt matter before because we had shit commercial revenue stream. That all changed under Laporta and now, we are being accused of financial doping.

 

[Guardian]

Have you seen the increase in the commercial revenues of Barcelona in the past 8 years? ITS SUBSTANTIAL allowing the club the club to make such mistakes. We used to waste the SAME amount of money on Overmars/Petit/Christanval/Saviola but it didnt matter before because we had shit commercial revenue stream. That all changed under Laporta and now, we are being accused of financial doping.

What a load of crap. This is why Sandro wants to go on trial with Laporta, who seems has done the same shit that you are accusing the other presidents had done.
Barca nd Real have made dumbest transfers in the history of football, that every club instead of them will go bankrupt, but things are different with their mammoth piece of the pie. They can effort to buy even one-legged homosexual camel for 66M euro, represent it to the team, and still that wouldn't damage their finances.
Sevilla were one of best managed clubs, made few bad transfers and "hop" - now they are in deep shit. La Coruna were one of the best managed clubs too, but with the lack of big TV revenues they had to survive by selling players and buying cheaper ones - which is risky. Same goes to the rest teams (Betis, Real Soc.) One mistake and they are gone. While Madrid and Barca can shit all over the market, but that wouldn't bother them. Maybe if there is a fair share, next time they'll think twice before signing Jesus Chygrinskiy and Lady Gago for ridiculous amount of money. Funny how there is strike in Italy too.

 

[Guardian]

No because if everyone else earns 10, then your holiday will cost you more. Your premise lies on variable costs being fixed which is highly naive. Want examples?

- Kieron Dyer commands twice the salary than Jesus Navas whilst Navas has multiple times the talent of the former.
- Inflated transfer fees between clubs. Look at Torres to Chelsea/ Henderson to Liverpool/ Carroll to Liverpool.
- Overpricing of youngsters. Canales went for 10m euros whilst Carroll went for 36.

What will all those 3 points cause? more foreigners will be bought instead of developing players because buying will become cheaper than developing, severely damaging the clubs and eventually, the national team. This has already happened in England.

Inflated transfer fees and wages would nullify the increase in their revenues. To put it in your perspective-- you would be making 10 bucks but your money will only get you one holiday instead of 3 because there is more money in the system.

well, the standards in England are higher, first of all, and second, the small clubs in England are richer and they can keep their players unless they got the big money they want to. IThe stats you present are old, West Ham now are in the championship and dyer is not a part of their team anymore. He was one of most promising players around but series of injuries ruined his carrier. Obviously smaller teams in England can effort bigger salaries because the better share of TV revenues, simple.

 

[House of Flies]

What a load of crap. This is why Sandro wants to go on trial with Laporta, who seems has done the same shit that you are accusing the other presidents had done.
Barca nd Real have made dumbest transfers in the history of football, that every club instead of them will go bankrupt, but things are different with their mammoth piece of the pie. They can effort to buy even one-legged homosexual camel for 66M euro, represent it to the team, and still that wouldn't damage their finances.
Sevilla were one of best managed clubs, made few bad transfers and "hop" - now they are in deep shit. La Coruna were one of the best managed clubs too, but with the lack of big TV revenues they had to survive by selling players and buying cheaper ones - which is risky. Same goes to the rest teams (Betis, Real Soc.) One mistake and they are gone. While Madrid and Barca can shit all over the market, but that wouldn't bother them. Maybe if there is a fair share, next time they'll think twice before signing Jesus Chygrinskiy and Lady Gago for ridiculous amount of money. Funny how there is strike in Italy too.

I am not going to argue with you when you are talking absolute shit.

Instead, I am going to give you numbers so you can actually know whats going on--

This is the current split of the La Liga revenue (2010)-- http://monchismen.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/la-liga/

las tablas

1. RM
€140 million

1. Barça
€140 million

3. Atlético
€42 million

4. Valencia
€42 million

5. Villarreal
€25 million

6. Sevilla
€24 million

7. Getafe
€18 million

8. At.Bilbao
€17 million

9. Zaragoza
€14 million

10. Depor
€14 million

11. Español
€13.7 million

12. Mallorca
€13.7 million

13. Osasuna
€13 million

14. Racing
€12.8 million

15. Almería
€12.5 million

16.Hércules
€12.5 million

17. Sporting
€12 million

18. Málaga
€12 million

19.Sociedad
€12 million

20. Levante
€12 million

Do a calculation and find the TV revenue that would be shared equally, Sevilla' share goes up by a meagre 6m euros. But thats if, all the revenue is pooled together and shared equally which doesnt happen in EPL. EPL- which shares 50% of domestic rights and 100% of overseas rights equally, 25% is performance based-- higher your standing, the more money you would make, and 25% facility fees-- higher amount of games shown on TV, more money you would make there Man Utd will always make more than Norwich by 6 or so million pounds).

Yes, Barcelona and Real have budgets that are ridiculous to the likes of Sevilla, and other teams that you have mentioned but when you look at TV revenue to operating budgets ratios, you would see a parity---> Barcelona- 0.33, Real Madrid- 0.32, Valencia- 0.32, At. Mad- 0.38, Villarreal- 0.38, Bilbao- 0.32, Sevilla- 0.27. So what does that tell you?

 

[House of Flies]

well, the standards in England are higher, first of all, and second, the small clubs in England are richer and they can keep their players unless they got the big money they want to. IThe stats you present are old, West Ham now are in the championship and dyer is not a part of their team anymore. He was one of most promising players around but series of injuries ruined his carrier. Obviously smaller teams in England can effort bigger salaries because the better share of TV revenues, simple.

exactly, it HAS caused an inflation in salaries. those salaries mentioned were in the same time period so the point of reference is the same. I am not arguing with you anymore because you are failing to grasp economics of football. Smaller clubs in England are not richer because you are not seeing the debt that they are having (so please inform yourself and go to swissramble.blogspot.com). If they were richer, their debt to asset ratios as defined by UEFA would not be lower than what it is for La Liga.

I have presented all the data and connected each node. I am not going to argue with stupidity anymore.

 

[Guardian]

I am not going to argue with you when you are talking absolute shit.

Instead, I am going to give you numbers so you can actually know whats going on--

This is the current split of the La Liga revenue (2010)-- http://monchismen.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/la-liga/

las tablas

1. RM
€140 million

1. Barça
€140 million

3. Atlético
€42 million

4. Valencia
€42 million

5. Villarreal
€25 million

6. Sevilla
€24 million

7. Getafe
€18 million

8. At.Bilbao
€17 million

9. Zaragoza
€14 million

10. Depor
€14 million

11. Español
€13.7 million

12. Mallorca
€13.7 million

13. Osasuna
€13 million

14. Racing
€12.8 million

15. Almería
€12.5 million

16.Hércules
€12.5 million

17. Sporting
€12 million

18. Málaga
€12 million

19.Sociedad
€12 million

20. Levante
€12 million

Do a calculation and find the TV revenue that would be shared equally, Sevilla' share goes up by a meagre 6m euros. But thats if, all the revenue is pooled together and shared equally which doesnt happen in EPL. EPL- which shares 50% of domestic rights and 100% of overseas rights equally, 25% is performance based-- higher your standing, the more money you would make, and 25% facility fees-- higher amount of games shown on TV, more money you would make there Man Utd will always make more than Norwich by 6 or so million pounds).

Yes, Barcelona and Real have budgets that are ridiculous to the likes of Sevilla, and other teams that you have mentioned but when you look at TV revenue to operating budgets ratios, you would see a parity---> Barcelona- 0.33, Real Madrid- 0.32, Valencia- 0.32, At. Mad- 0.38, Villarreal- 0.38, Bilbao- 0.32, Sevilla- 0.27. So what does that tell you?

again what a load of crap!! BHAHAHA Dude go back to your economic classes. You're talking like a manipulative politician who is trying to fool the dumb proletariat from the villages. HAHAHAH

Sevilla may increase by only 6 or 7 M (which is good for them), but the OTHER, once AGAIN THE OTHER 13 clubs will almost DOUBLE their money from TV revenues. But this is not important, the important thing is that Real Madrid and Barcelona wouldn't be allowed to make such a dumb transfers and the difference between them and the rest wouldn't be that big. Smaller clubs will inhale and the life will be easier for them, they may sign few international players from abroad and that will attract even more interest to the league.

The fact that the ratio is almost the same only proves how imprtant for the smaller clubs will be a fair share. But why I should try to explain to you. Logic, logic, that what you're missing. Couldn't buy that in the shops. Sorry.

 

[Guardian]

exactly, it HAS caused an inflation in salaries. those salaries mentioned were in the same time period so the point of reference is the same. I am not arguing with you anymore because you are failing to grasp economics of football. Smaller clubs in England are not richer because you are not seeing the debt that they are having (so please inform yourself and go to swissramble.blogspot.com). If they were richer, their debt to asset ratios as defined by UEFA would not be lower than what it is for La Liga.

I have presented all the data and connected each node. I am not going to argue with stupidity anymore.

What a pretentious fool, Im failing to grasp economics of footbal blah, blah, hahahah, the same old bitch fighter who tries to win his cheap battles posting stats from blogs, hahah. Oh, I'm sorry Mr Economic genius, I wonder what you are doing in a football forum and how on Earth you're not leading the Ministry of Economy ? LOL

Yes, I wish we had the salaries that in England has got. Never thought that Bulgaria is in better financial condition, because the salaries are less )) LOL, man you're GENIUS!!!

 

[House of Flies]

again what a load of crap!! BHAHAHA Dude go back to your economic classes. You're talking like a manipulative politician who is trying to fool the dumb proletariat from the villages. HAHAHAH

Sevilla may increase by only 6 or 7 M (which is good for them), but the OTHER, once AGAIN THE OTHER 13 clubs will almost DOUBLE their money from TV revenues. But this is not important, the important thing is that Real Madrid and Barcelona wouldn't be allowed to make such a dumb transfers and the difference between them and the rest wouldn't be that big. Smaller clubs will inhale and the life will be easier for them, they may sign few international players from abroad and that will attract even more interest to the league.

The fact that the ratio is almost the same only proves how imprtant for the smaller clubs will be a fair share. But why I should try to explain to you. Logic, logic, that what you're missing. Couldn't buy that in the shops. Sorry.

You do realise that even EPL clubs dont do that. Wolves earned 30m and Man Utd got 51m so equitable balance would never occur. Also, the current TV deal is based on the basis of popularity hence At. Madrid and Valencia got the next 2 shares. Furthermore, if everyone doubled their TV revenues, then wages would subsequently increase because of inflation. You are continually assuming that wages and other variable costs will be fixed hence your argument regarding inhaling easier is ridiculous because Everton, a top half club, is unable to sign anyone even with a fairer TV deal because they dont have an underwriter.

Ratio indicates that TV revenues are not disproportionate to their operating budget for all clubs. If TV revenues were less than 20% of a given team, then one could argue for a fairer distribution of TV revenue because the club had done everything to maximize other streams. Because if you were to read Swissramble, you would get enlightened how damaging can TV revenues to operating budget ratios could be damaging to clubs. Equal sharing would severely damage Barcelona and Real Madrid on a global circuit, significantly cutting their competitiveness in CL. Furthermore, loss of TV revenues would lead to increase in ticket prices in order to improve the matchday stream. Would that be fair on Barcelona and Madrid fans?

 

[House of Flies]

What a pretentious fool, Im failing to grasp economics of footbal blah, blah, hahahah, the same old bitch fighter who tries to win his cheap battles posting stats from blogs, hahah. Oh, I'm sorry Mr Economic genius, I wonder what you are doing in a football forum and how on Earth you're not leading the Ministry of Economy ? LOL

Yes, I wish we had the salaries that in England has got. Never thought that Bulgaria is in better financial condition, because the salaries are less )) LOL, man you're GENIUS!!!

Are you genuinely being stupid or are stupid? You previously talked about the higher standard of life in England when compared to Spain and now you are bringing the opposite.

There is something called purchasing power parity index to compare the purchasing power of money in two given countries. Here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity

I am done though, you are being absolutely stupid and derailing the subject at hand.