|
|
On December 03 2021 15:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2021 09:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Three of Spain’s top soccer clubs are leading an 11th-hour attempt to scupper CVC Capital Partners’s roughly 2 billion-euro ($2.3 billion) deal to inject much-needed funds into the country’s top leagues, according to people familiar with the matter.
Real Madrid CF, FC Barcelona and Athletic Bilbao have presented an alternative funding proposal for a similar amount that would leave LaLiga out of the equation, according to a letter sent to all first and second division clubs that was seen by Bloomberg and signed by the presidents of the three big clubs.
According to the alternative plan, a special purpose vehicle would raise 2 billion euros in debt. The proceeds would be distributed to clubs in the same proportion discussed in the CVC deal, and clubs would repay 115 million euros each year for 25 years with media revenue, without compromising the ownership of the rights, according to the letter. Under the CVC proposal, the private equity firm would own a 10% stake in a newly created entity that would hold LaLiga businesses and the media rights of clubs for 50 years.
The cost difference between the two proposals is huge for clubs, with 900 million euros under the new plan from the three clubs, compared with 13.1 billion euros for the CVC plan, according to the letter. The latest alternative assumes a 3% rate of interest, compared with its estimate of 9.9% for the CVC proposal.
That the proposed funding is through debt would make it impossible for many clubs, including Barcelona, to meet their financial obligations, LaLiga said in a statement.
The clubs have been working with banks including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and HSBC Holdings Plc on financing the plan. The expectation is that the interest on the debt will be between 2.5% and 3%, depending on the rating of the deal, according to the letter.
Crucial Vote
The developments come before a crucial vote next week by club presidents on whether to back CVC’s offer to buy a 10% stake in a new company housing all of the Spanish soccer league’s businesses. LaLiga needs 22 of 42 first and second division clubs for the signing to happen.
Real Madrid and Barcelona have already voiced opposition to the deal, saying it risks seeing the league lose control of its media rights for the next 50 years. Their rival proposal carries a shorter time frame of 25 years, one of the people said.
Spain’s El Confidencial earlier reported news of the counterproposal.
Representatives for Bank of America, Athletic and JPMorgan declined to comment, while a spokesperson for Real Madrid didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. A Barcelona club spokeswoman confirmed that there is a proposal from her club, Real Madrid and Athletic Bilbao with a maximum interest of 3% to be paid in 25 years.
Stadium closures and rebates to broadcasters during the pandemic combined to drag LaLiga revenue down 8% to 3.1 billion euros in the 2019-2020 season, according to Deloitte’s latest annual review of the sport, with lockdowns having extended into the more recent campaign. That’s had a big impact on clubs like Barcelona and Real Madrid, known for spending sky-high sums to attract and keep the world’s best players.
While CVC has successfully invested in sports, including motor-bike racing, volleyball and rugby, it has struggled with previous soccer deals. The firm tried, and failed, to invest in Germany’s Bundesliga and Italy’s Serie A.
JPMorgan earlier this year was involved in financing a proposal by Europe’s top clubs for a breakaway Super League. Those efforts quickly crumbled in the face of fierce opposition from fans and politicians. Source LaLiga's counter is pathetic and just shows how idiotic that rule is. I personally have no clue what deal is better. But one being debt to be repaid over 10 years, and the other being "leasing out media rights for 50 years", and the former disqualifying clubs from LaLiga for breaking their financial fair play rules just means the latter are shit and need reforming, not that the former deal is inherently bad because it's debt. Or put another way, CVC is a for-profit hedge fund, and obviously expects to make money off this deal. Why is signing over this potential future money from the rights that CVC is leasing inherently better (according to LaLiga's financial health rules) than signing over potential future money in the form of debt repayment and interest?
I can understand why lower Div 1 clubs want this deal, they get profit now, so if less profit in the future the would have advantage because they could invest it. Talking about financial fair play and then selling future income giving some teams big advantage is insane.
|
Heh, hadn't really given much thought about it, but the direct translation of Aurora in Finnish is roughly Fox's' fire. Still, seeing it spelled out in English didn't really click since it's always been traslated to northern lights or aurora.
The way they've presented it there, I do like the Aurora theme the most.
|
wow westham a serious top4 contender this season
|
I wonder if Mount could hear the West Ham fans in the second half
|
Norway28255 Posts
Whoa! First time Chelsea concedes more than 1 goal the entire season.
One somewhat absurd statistic: So far, only 4 out of 20 teams in the PL have a positive goal ratio. Aside from Chelsea Liverpool and City with massive positive goal ratios and Norwich and Newcastle with big negative ones, the rest of the bunch are fairly evenly distributed.
|
Any Germans who are familiar with Greuther Furth? They are on 1 point in the Bundesliga with a draw and 13 losses after 14 games. The draw was with the team second from bottom.
How can a team be so bad compared to everyone else?
|
Damn... makes me wonder if the Bundesliga will fine him.
|
|
The referee's wikipedia page currently lists him as "a Mafia referee"
|
Still he made the correct decisions on both penalties in my opinion. The handball by hummels is as clear as they get and the foul on reuss is a 50-50 decision (I tend towards not awarding the penalty being correct). Therefore, VAR overturning the not given handball and not the other call is perfectly fine. How Dortmunds officials and players acted after the game is pretty poor. The argument not to give this ref any more games makes sense in a vacuum but it does not change the fact that there is nothing wrong with his decisions in this game.
|
If he's lucky he gets a fine. He accused the referee of matchfixing. If he's not lucky, he's not playing Bundesliga for a few months.
On December 05 2021 18:26 justanothertownie wrote: Still he made the correct decisions on both penalties in my opinion. The handball by hummels is as clear as they get and the foul on reuss is a 50-50 decision (I tend towards not awarding the penalty being correct). Therefore, VAR overturning the not given handball and not the other call is perfectly fine. How Dortmunds officials and players acted after the game is pretty poor. The argument not to give this ref any more games makes sense in a vacuum but it does not change the fact that there is nothing wrong with his decisions in this game. Regarding the Reus situation, I've seen TV analysis saying that Haaland was slightly offside and so Dortmund couldn't have been given a penalty anyway.
|
i think hummels penalty was harsh. he got mullers elbow to his face and lost vision of the ball
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51319 Posts
Yeah the criminal proceedings for him will be interesting, what he said was a bit extreme but so is criminal proceedings i guess, crazy events!
|
He hasnt accused the referee of matchfixing.. he only said what do you expect of a former matchfixer (the referee)?
|
On December 05 2021 23:42 sharkie wrote: He hasnt accused the referee of matchfixing.. he only said what do you expect of a former matchfixer (the referee)? By saying "What do you expect?" after "This guy was found guilty of matchfixing in the past" he's not at all subtly implying that the referee consciously influenced the outcome of the match yesterday.
Yes, it's an accusation. It was a stupid thing to say.
|
On December 05 2021 23:53 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2021 23:42 sharkie wrote: He hasnt accused the referee of matchfixing.. he only said what do you expect of a former matchfixer (the referee)? By saying "What do you expect?" after "This guy was found guilty of matchfixing in the past" he's not at all subtly implying that the referee consciously influenced the outcome of the match yesterday. Yes, it's an accusation. It was a stupid thing to say. Stupid and unacceptable tbh.
|
Czech Republic12115 Posts
Wait, how can a referee who has been caught matchfixing be in charge of ANY professional competition? WTF?
Also Schick scoring 4 goals
|
On December 06 2021 02:09 deacon.frost wrote:Wait, how can a referee who has been caught matchfixing be in charge of ANY professional competition? WTF? Also Schick scoring 4 goals I believe because he was "only" found guilty of accepting money instead of actively participating in the matchfixing (he also was a line assistant and not the head referee of the game), he was fined, served a 6 month ban and is considered rehabilitated. Questionable practice at best but apparently acceptable enough to be a FIFA ordained referee in major international competitions.
For reference the head referee, one Robert Hoyzer, was banned for life from refereeing. The whole thing happened around 2005-ish I believe.
|
On December 06 2021 02:25 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2021 02:09 deacon.frost wrote:Wait, how can a referee who has been caught matchfixing be in charge of ANY professional competition? WTF? Also Schick scoring 4 goals I believe because he was "only" found guilty of accepting money instead of actively participating in the matchfixing (he also was a line assistant and not the head referee of the game), he was fined, served a 6 month ban and is considered rehabilitated. Questionable practice at best but apparently acceptable enough to be a FIFA ordained referee in major international competitions. For reference the head referee, one Robert Hoyzer, was banned for life from refereeing. The whole thing happened around 2005-ish I believe. And referees are not easy to find. The amount of abuse they must endure pushes a lot of referees out of the game long before they would be considered experienced enough for a professional match. Sometimes you have to give a second chance because you're desperate.
|
On December 05 2021 23:53 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2021 23:42 sharkie wrote: He hasnt accused the referee of matchfixing.. he only said what do you expect of a former matchfixer (the referee)? By saying "What do you expect?" after "This guy was found guilty of matchfixing in the past" he's not at all subtly implying that the referee consciously influenced the outcome of the match yesterday. Yes, it's an accusation. It was a stupid thing to say. No it wasn't accusation. "What do you expect" part is referring to the refereeing of the game.
|
|
|
|