I will let you figure out the reason why a country with 10m population and such a small debt(comparing with g20 countries) that makes the staggering 3% of the european economy is the bad guy.
I'm not attacking any countries. But you can't say with a straight face the policies of companies (like soccer clubs) aren't related to how the rest of the country does business. If the attitude of the country is hey, borrow now, once everything gets on the right track, we will pay it back, what do you think the soccer clubs would do?
I will let you figure out the reason why a country with 10m population and such a small debt(comparing with g20 countries) that makes the staggering 3% of the european economy is the bad guy.
lol are you seriously trying to defend Greece here? haha
No, Austria which is 4 places above Greece with a gdp of 200% is clearly a financial heaven. Why don't you drop it, you can't make any arguments.
On May 28 2013 05:02 ilj.psa wrote: So anyone knows what is the overall price Barca paid for Neymar? Lot of speculation from the media all over the world, i don't know who to trust. Brasil says 25M, SPORT says 53M and Sid Lowe is saying over 100M.
Marca claims that the deal was €54m in total, but that doesn't include Neymar's gigantic wages over the next 5 years, along with whatever other fees could be involved. A final cost of €100m doesn't sound too far off.
Anyway, enough arguing, I'm curious to see how well Neymar will play. I think he will thrive in La Liga, a league with not so great defense in the first place. Barca won't be any closer to CL though if they don't fix their back 4. They got exposed vs. Munich big time.
cut out the country political stuff. doesnt matter here. i was purely talking about the clubs and i think its wrong for the simple reason that if i could just go and have -500m on my bank account i could instantly build a great team too. there isnt that much "greatness" in that if you just buy the best from evrywhere with money you dont have.
On May 28 2013 05:29 Steveling wrote: @ the two guys above me
Why do you bring that here? Do you want me to post the amount of germany's and america's national banks debt and the reasons why you haven't flopped on your bellies yet? You won't like it.
This is the one thread we can be silly and poke each other in good fun, take your biased political views elsewhere.
Sry for back seat moderating.
A Greek talking about national debt? Pretty ironic don't you think?
My comment was not political at all, it talks to the overall point of how Barca and RM spend money they don't have, even after taking into account the fact that they hold the majority share of their TV rights (unlike EPL which is shared equally). This is acceptable in Spain due to the fact that the country is run the same way. In England, you have fans of United lament the fact that the Glazers pump the club with debt, but you won't hear such grumblings in Spain.
1. Real Madrid £2.18billion 2. Manchester United £2.09billion 3. Barcelona £1.72billion 4. Arsenal £880million 5. Bayern Munich £860million 6. Ac Milan £624million 7. Chelsea £595million 8. Juventus £458million 9. Manchester City £455million 10. Liverpool £430million
Now here is the debts those teams seem to have:
1. Real Madrid £600million 2. Manchester United £359.7million 3. Barcelona £369.5million 4. Arsenal £104million 5. Bayern Munich- NO DEBT they have been in profit ever since the 2011-12 season. 6. AC Milan £298.8million 7. Chelsea- NO DEBT they made a profit of 1.2million dated April 10th 2013 8. Juventus £48.65million 9. Manchester City- NO DEBT but have yet to release their profit margins 10. Liverpool £237million
Oh look, RM debt/EV ratio is 30%, Barca is 21%. Man United is the highest in England at 18%. Champions League winner Munich has 0 debt. Is it a mere coincidence that clubs are run the same as their countries?
I know it looks bad when the Portuguese guy is teaming up with the Greek guy on debt.
Now, using your ratio of liabilities/EV, here's what you get for the following companies: Siemens: 77.5/72.6 = 107% BMW: 101.5/45.52 = 223% BASF: 39.7/67.5 = 59%
Basically, companies finance themselves in great part through debt because it makes economical sense. For clubs such as Real Madrid and Barcelona, it would probably even make sense to hold more debt.
I don't see how Barça could have signed Neymar for 100M when they said they have only 50ish to sign players this year (before selling some guys). Makes little sense to me. I'm gonna wait and see what the final number is. I'm gonna guess 54 for now, Marca is good at that shit.
On May 28 2013 05:29 Steveling wrote: @ the two guys above me
Why do you bring that here? Do you want me to post the amount of germany's and america's national banks debt and the reasons why you haven't flopped on your bellies yet? You won't like it.
This is the one thread we can be silly and poke each other in good fun, take your biased political views elsewhere.
Sry for back seat moderating.
A Greek talking about national debt? Pretty ironic don't you think?
My comment was not political at all, it talks to the overall point of how Barca and RM spend money they don't have, even after taking into account the fact that they hold the majority share of their TV rights (unlike EPL which is shared equally). This is acceptable in Spain due to the fact that the country is run the same way. In England, you have fans of United lament the fact that the Glazers pump the club with debt, but you won't hear such grumblings in Spain.
1. Real Madrid £2.18billion 2. Manchester United £2.09billion 3. Barcelona £1.72billion 4. Arsenal £880million 5. Bayern Munich £860million 6. Ac Milan £624million 7. Chelsea £595million 8. Juventus £458million 9. Manchester City £455million 10. Liverpool £430million
Now here is the debts those teams seem to have:
1. Real Madrid £600million 2. Manchester United £359.7million 3. Barcelona £369.5million 4. Arsenal £104million 5. Bayern Munich- NO DEBT they have been in profit ever since the 2011-12 season. 6. AC Milan £298.8million 7. Chelsea- NO DEBT they made a profit of 1.2million dated April 10th 2013 8. Juventus £48.65million 9. Manchester City- NO DEBT but have yet to release their profit margins 10. Liverpool £237million
Oh look, RM debt/EV ratio is 30%, Barca is 21%. Man United is the highest in England at 18%. Champions League winner Munich has 0 debt. Is it a mere coincidence that clubs are run the same as their countries?
I know it looks bad when the Portuguese guy is teaming up with the Greek guy on debt.
Now, using your ratio of liabilities/EV, here's what you get for the following companies: Siemens: 77.5/72.6 = 107% BMW: 101.5/45.52 = 223% BASF: 39.7/67.5 = 59%
Basically, companies finance themselves in great part through debt because it makes economical sense. For clubs such as Real Madrid and Barcelona, it would probably even make sense to hold more debt.
What he refers to as debt can be properly referred to as debt, which is more specific than liabilities, a term that encompasses debt as well as non-debt liabilities. It is indeed strange that in football debt is often worried about so much, 0 debt financing would be a sign of improper management in just about any industry.
On May 28 2013 05:29 Steveling wrote: @ the two guys above me
Why do you bring that here? Do you want me to post the amount of germany's and america's national banks debt and the reasons why you haven't flopped on your bellies yet? You won't like it.
This is the one thread we can be silly and poke each other in good fun, take your biased political views elsewhere.
Sry for back seat moderating.
A Greek talking about national debt? Pretty ironic don't you think?
My comment was not political at all, it talks to the overall point of how Barca and RM spend money they don't have, even after taking into account the fact that they hold the majority share of their TV rights (unlike EPL which is shared equally). This is acceptable in Spain due to the fact that the country is run the same way. In England, you have fans of United lament the fact that the Glazers pump the club with debt, but you won't hear such grumblings in Spain.
1. Real Madrid £2.18billion 2. Manchester United £2.09billion 3. Barcelona £1.72billion 4. Arsenal £880million 5. Bayern Munich £860million 6. Ac Milan £624million 7. Chelsea £595million 8. Juventus £458million 9. Manchester City £455million 10. Liverpool £430million
Now here is the debts those teams seem to have:
1. Real Madrid £600million 2. Manchester United £359.7million 3. Barcelona £369.5million 4. Arsenal £104million 5. Bayern Munich- NO DEBT they have been in profit ever since the 2011-12 season. 6. AC Milan £298.8million 7. Chelsea- NO DEBT they made a profit of 1.2million dated April 10th 2013 8. Juventus £48.65million 9. Manchester City- NO DEBT but have yet to release their profit margins 10. Liverpool £237million
Oh look, RM debt/EV ratio is 30%, Barca is 21%. Man United is the highest in England at 18%. Champions League winner Munich has 0 debt. Is it a mere coincidence that clubs are run the same as their countries?
I know it looks bad when the Portuguese guy is teaming up with the Greek guy on debt.
Now, using your ratio of liabilities/EV, here's what you get for the following companies: Siemens: 77.5/72.6 = 107% BMW: 101.5/45.52 = 223% BASF: 39.7/67.5 = 59%
Basically, companies finance themselves in great part through debt because it makes economical sense. For clubs such as Real Madrid and Barcelona, it would probably even make sense to hold more debt.
If you read the article, it says the Spanish teams have really low Net assets. Assuming the company goes under, they don't even have enough to cover all the liabilities they hold.
The EV for Siemens is 105bn, so the debt % is more like 70%. Also, Siemens has 100bn in assets, so if it goes bankrupt, at least it can pay off all of the liabilities, unlike the Spanish soccer teams. Still seems quite high, I wonder if it's typical for Germany companies to retain such high debt rates due to the nature of the business. A company like Siemens has the invest heavily on R&D to develop new products, where you won't see revenue for 5-10 years. Also, I wonder if the high level of union involvement in Germany has anything to do with it. Still, a soccer club does not operate in the same manner. It doesn't make as much sense for a soccer team to take on so much debt when it doesn't have the same capital requirements as a multinational company.
The article also explains how the graph above does not reflect the true situation, as accounting practices have no way to account for the market value of players.
On May 28 2013 05:29 Steveling wrote: @ the two guys above me
Why do you bring that here? Do you want me to post the amount of germany's and america's national banks debt and the reasons why you haven't flopped on your bellies yet? You won't like it.
This is the one thread we can be silly and poke each other in good fun, take your biased political views elsewhere.
Sry for back seat moderating.
A Greek talking about national debt? Pretty ironic don't you think?
My comment was not political at all, it talks to the overall point of how Barca and RM spend money they don't have, even after taking into account the fact that they hold the majority share of their TV rights (unlike EPL which is shared equally). This is acceptable in Spain due to the fact that the country is run the same way. In England, you have fans of United lament the fact that the Glazers pump the club with debt, but you won't hear such grumblings in Spain.
1. Real Madrid £2.18billion 2. Manchester United £2.09billion 3. Barcelona £1.72billion 4. Arsenal £880million 5. Bayern Munich £860million 6. Ac Milan £624million 7. Chelsea £595million 8. Juventus £458million 9. Manchester City £455million 10. Liverpool £430million
Now here is the debts those teams seem to have:
1. Real Madrid £600million 2. Manchester United £359.7million 3. Barcelona £369.5million 4. Arsenal £104million 5. Bayern Munich- NO DEBT they have been in profit ever since the 2011-12 season. 6. AC Milan £298.8million 7. Chelsea- NO DEBT they made a profit of 1.2million dated April 10th 2013 8. Juventus £48.65million 9. Manchester City- NO DEBT but have yet to release their profit margins 10. Liverpool £237million
Oh look, RM debt/EV ratio is 30%, Barca is 21%. Man United is the highest in England at 18%. Champions League winner Munich has 0 debt. Is it a mere coincidence that clubs are run the same as their countries?
I know it looks bad when the Portuguese guy is teaming up with the Greek guy on debt.
Now, using your ratio of liabilities/EV, here's what you get for the following companies: Siemens: 77.5/72.6 = 107% BMW: 101.5/45.52 = 223% BASF: 39.7/67.5 = 59%
Basically, companies finance themselves in great part through debt because it makes economical sense. For clubs such as Real Madrid and Barcelona, it would probably even make sense to hold more debt.
I was just going to quote that.
Still the fact is RM and Barca do have a ridiculous advantage in terms of what they are allowed to get away with. they arent in any trouble and theyve become a bit to big to fail.
The models are still flawed so they are still trying to fix it but it will take a while. They can pay whatever over the long term because their income streams are good enough but they still have to be somewhat austere.
On May 28 2013 07:23 Crushinator wrote: The article also explains how the graph above does not reflect the true situation, as accounting practices have no way to account for the market value of players.
True but player sale values also turn the club to shit so while some players count many others dont really create any effective value. They arent going to sell the whole roster now are they..
And the graph quoted above from a massive article is the most self serving extrapolation ive seen in a while.. That is not the whole story lol. way to cherry pick.
On May 28 2013 05:29 Steveling wrote: @ the two guys above me
Why do you bring that here? Do you want me to post the amount of germany's and america's national banks debt and the reasons why you haven't flopped on your bellies yet? You won't like it.
This is the one thread we can be silly and poke each other in good fun, take your biased political views elsewhere.
Sry for back seat moderating.
A Greek talking about national debt? Pretty ironic don't you think?
My comment was not political at all, it talks to the overall point of how Barca and RM spend money they don't have, even after taking into account the fact that they hold the majority share of their TV rights (unlike EPL which is shared equally). This is acceptable in Spain due to the fact that the country is run the same way. In England, you have fans of United lament the fact that the Glazers pump the club with debt, but you won't hear such grumblings in Spain.
1. Real Madrid £2.18billion 2. Manchester United £2.09billion 3. Barcelona £1.72billion 4. Arsenal £880million 5. Bayern Munich £860million 6. Ac Milan £624million 7. Chelsea £595million 8. Juventus £458million 9. Manchester City £455million 10. Liverpool £430million
Now here is the debts those teams seem to have:
1. Real Madrid £600million 2. Manchester United £359.7million 3. Barcelona £369.5million 4. Arsenal £104million 5. Bayern Munich- NO DEBT they have been in profit ever since the 2011-12 season. 6. AC Milan £298.8million 7. Chelsea- NO DEBT they made a profit of 1.2million dated April 10th 2013 8. Juventus £48.65million 9. Manchester City- NO DEBT but have yet to release their profit margins 10. Liverpool £237million
Oh look, RM debt/EV ratio is 30%, Barca is 21%. Man United is the highest in England at 18%. Champions League winner Munich has 0 debt. Is it a mere coincidence that clubs are run the same as their countries?
I know it looks bad when the Portuguese guy is teaming up with the Greek guy on debt.
Now, using your ratio of liabilities/EV, here's what you get for the following companies: Siemens: 77.5/72.6 = 107% BMW: 101.5/45.52 = 223% BASF: 39.7/67.5 = 59%
Basically, companies finance themselves in great part through debt because it makes economical sense. For clubs such as Real Madrid and Barcelona, it would probably even make sense to hold more debt.
If you read the article, it says the Spanish teams have really low Net assets. Assuming the company goes under, they don't even have enough to cover all the liabilities they hold.
Have your read the article entirely or just looked for the worst looking graph to make your point? And the debt top 10 list you posted is completely rubbish, great journalist work at sportsnewsireland.com lol.
On May 28 2013 05:29 Steveling wrote: @ the two guys above me
Why do you bring that here? Do you want me to post the amount of germany's and america's national banks debt and the reasons why you haven't flopped on your bellies yet? You won't like it.
This is the one thread we can be silly and poke each other in good fun, take your biased political views elsewhere.
Sry for back seat moderating.
A Greek talking about national debt? Pretty ironic don't you think?
My comment was not political at all, it talks to the overall point of how Barca and RM spend money they don't have, even after taking into account the fact that they hold the majority share of their TV rights (unlike EPL which is shared equally). This is acceptable in Spain due to the fact that the country is run the same way. In England, you have fans of United lament the fact that the Glazers pump the club with debt, but you won't hear such grumblings in Spain.
1. Real Madrid £2.18billion 2. Manchester United £2.09billion 3. Barcelona £1.72billion 4. Arsenal £880million 5. Bayern Munich £860million 6. Ac Milan £624million 7. Chelsea £595million 8. Juventus £458million 9. Manchester City £455million 10. Liverpool £430million
Now here is the debts those teams seem to have:
1. Real Madrid £600million 2. Manchester United £359.7million 3. Barcelona £369.5million 4. Arsenal £104million 5. Bayern Munich- NO DEBT they have been in profit ever since the 2011-12 season. 6. AC Milan £298.8million 7. Chelsea- NO DEBT they made a profit of 1.2million dated April 10th 2013 8. Juventus £48.65million 9. Manchester City- NO DEBT but have yet to release their profit margins 10. Liverpool £237million
Oh look, RM debt/EV ratio is 30%, Barca is 21%. Man United is the highest in England at 18%. Champions League winner Munich has 0 debt. Is it a mere coincidence that clubs are run the same as their countries?
I know it looks bad when the Portuguese guy is teaming up with the Greek guy on debt.
Now, using your ratio of liabilities/EV, here's what you get for the following companies: Siemens: 77.5/72.6 = 107% BMW: 101.5/45.52 = 223% BASF: 39.7/67.5 = 59%
Basically, companies finance themselves in great part through debt because it makes economical sense. For clubs such as Real Madrid and Barcelona, it would probably even make sense to hold more debt.
What he refers to as debt can be properly referred to as debt, which is more specific than liabilities, a term that encompasses debt as well as non-debt liabilities. It is indeed strange that in football debt is often worried about so much, 0 debt financing would be a sign of improper management in just about any industry.
I think debt is worried about because in football income can be very fickle and a club can very quickly fall into a negative spiral. Madrid and Barcelona have nothing to worry about, because they have a steady stream of commercial revenue and a bank of commercially viable players. United and Arsenal the same. But the teams below them are often balancing on a knife's edge and many clubs aren't run by the most intelligent people on earth.
On May 28 2013 17:07 Pandemona wrote:
News!
Former Chelsea boss Rafael Benitez named new coach of Napoli
Agent: Borussia Dortmund's Robert Lewandowski to sign for Bayern Munich
Brazil and Santos striker Neymar signs deal at Barcelona
Malaga's Isco would relish the chance to continue playing under Manuel Pellegrini
Companies with reliable income streams can take on more debt. Companies with more volatile income streams take on less.
Clubs like Real Madrid and Barcelona have TV deals and sponsorship deals that often last for 5-7 years. They have socios that pay fees every month, game attendance is guaranteed to be full almost in every game, and participation in the Champions League is practically guaranteed if one uses historical data to project into the future. If either of these clubs go into financial difficulties, it's safe to assume that a handful of billionaires would line-up to inject cash into the clubs.
Now if someone wants to talk about Valencia, that's a different story.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-e-VSe-NJzZc/T542mzGIoqI/AAAAAAAAFmc/OVPzfx1g9_E/s640/7+Debt+Net+Assets.jpg)
Not a big surprise tho. 
