Mellor 3 Ward 4
Well-known member
Absolutely crazy. Madness.
Meanwhile grass roots football is crying out for cash.
Meanwhile grass roots football is crying out for cash.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
£85.3 Million for a football player...
- Thread starter easynow
- Start date
JamesAndTheGiantHead
Well-known member
I believe part of the deal is that RM now own a massive chunk, perhaps 50%, of Bale's global image rights.
He'll be given every chance to pay back the money very quickly.
Bwian
Kiss my (_!_)
- Jul 14, 2003
- 15,898
Kettering Town go out of business because of debts of £58,000 I believe it was. Something's not right in football anymore.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,877
Yes, however.
Real Madrid and Barcelona have lived in a massively protected bubble for a number of years. To say the Government / Local Councils have paid off their debts is stretching the truth, but they get huge tax breaks with give them (some say) an unfair edge since they are supporter owned. They are effectively regarded as non profit making organisations. Currently under investigation by the European Commission.
Where that sits in Financial Fair Play I have no idea.
banjo
GOSBTS
I can how much if you have kids would you pay to keep them safe ? But I agree a footballer worth that much, get the Feck out of here.
gordonchas
New member
- Jul 1, 2012
- 230
Madrid recouped nearly all of that transfer fee outlay with the sales of Ozil and Higuain. They are net spenders, of course, because they also signed high-profile young players like Isco and Illarramendi, but they make big profits.
Is Bale worth that money? By any sensible measure, no, of course not, but that applies to practically all transfer fees. When the Bosman ruling came in, wasn't that going to be the end of the transfer market?
But this transfer isn't just about the commercial appeal of Bale or even whether he helps deliver Madrid trophies, though obviously they hope he will. As I think is mentioned in the article linked above, the size of this fee is also about history and that awful word - brand.
This soap opera has been worth millions already to Madrid in terms of publicity. In global terms it cements their position as the world's foremost football club. Since European competition first started they have been the top club side and Santiago Bernabeu was a true football visionary, he was even instrumental in helping to set up the European Cup and he insisted that his club always tried to get hold of the best players that were available. Whilst Perez is just being true to that legacy there is a 21st century corporate twist on it, which most of us probably don't like, however there's now four super-rich clubs and they're competing for fans in the global market.
It's like Coca Cola's advertising budget. They don't need to spend 3 billion dollars a year on advertising, but they do it anyway.
In the meantime, whilst Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern are bringing in what they want, the fourth team in the elite set have made themselves look like total amateurs tonight. Maybe they've inadvertently done themselves a favour, because whilst you might think Madrid have overpaid at 85m for Bale, Man Utd were going to splash out £55m combined on Fellaini and Herrera.
Is Bale worth that money? By any sensible measure, no, of course not, but that applies to practically all transfer fees. When the Bosman ruling came in, wasn't that going to be the end of the transfer market?
But this transfer isn't just about the commercial appeal of Bale or even whether he helps deliver Madrid trophies, though obviously they hope he will. As I think is mentioned in the article linked above, the size of this fee is also about history and that awful word - brand.
This soap opera has been worth millions already to Madrid in terms of publicity. In global terms it cements their position as the world's foremost football club. Since European competition first started they have been the top club side and Santiago Bernabeu was a true football visionary, he was even instrumental in helping to set up the European Cup and he insisted that his club always tried to get hold of the best players that were available. Whilst Perez is just being true to that legacy there is a 21st century corporate twist on it, which most of us probably don't like, however there's now four super-rich clubs and they're competing for fans in the global market.
It's like Coca Cola's advertising budget. They don't need to spend 3 billion dollars a year on advertising, but they do it anyway.
In the meantime, whilst Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern are bringing in what they want, the fourth team in the elite set have made themselves look like total amateurs tonight. Maybe they've inadvertently done themselves a favour, because whilst you might think Madrid have overpaid at 85m for Bale, Man Utd were going to splash out £55m combined on Fellaini and Herrera.
Basil Fawlty
Don't Mention The War
Ridiculous amount of money, he has a lot of pressure on his shoulders straight from the off. I just have this feeling, Bale will be a big flop in La Liga.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,877
Which is odd since they are treated as a non profit making organisation by the authorities and are taxed (or not...) accordingly.
It could and has been argued that are effectively subsidised by the state.
With all their history, fan base and success they are undoubtedly the biggest club on the planet. But I think it's unwise to compare them financially like for like with other clubs in Europe or indeed the majority of other clubs in their domestic league.
On top of a lack of collective TV agreement, they appear to exist under different rules.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Like all money in football, it's not Real Madrid's cash. It's the fans who are paying for this, through inflated admission charges, merchandise prices or TV subscriptions. I'll grant that there's a case for saying that market forces are what makes this nonsense possible - but there's equally a case for arguing that a distorted monopoly market requires regulation to protect the public interest.
What is particularly offensive is how the spare cash that slops around in modern football ends up being spent by footballers on fripperies like stupidly priced houses, fast cars and other status nonsenses. All at a time when youth unemployment in Spain is running at 56 per cent (and rising).
What is particularly offensive is how the spare cash that slops around in modern football ends up being spent by footballers on fripperies like stupidly priced houses, fast cars and other status nonsenses. All at a time when youth unemployment in Spain is running at 56 per cent (and rising).
The Camel
Well-known member
I dunno, is it crazier that Bale is £80 million than Roberto Soldado is £25 mill or Victor Anechebe is £6m?
The idea any player is worth millions is outrageous to me.
We are the mugs who are funding it, paying ridiculous figures to go a football match, £100 a month on Sky tv and £60 bloody quid for a shirt which is made for 50p in a Chinese sweat shop.
It won't stop until we turn away in vast numbers.
And that's not going to happen. Is it?
The idea any player is worth millions is outrageous to me.
We are the mugs who are funding it, paying ridiculous figures to go a football match, £100 a month on Sky tv and £60 bloody quid for a shirt which is made for 50p in a Chinese sweat shop.
It won't stop until we turn away in vast numbers.
And that's not going to happen. Is it?
gordonchas
New member
- Jul 1, 2012
- 230
Sorry, but this is entirely a red herring. First you have to answer the question of how many football clubs actually make a consistent profit?
If no other club makes a profit then its impossible to say that one particular club is gaining an advantage by not paying a tax which is based on profit.
But, just to play the game, over the last few years they have made about 40m a year, however when that profit is used to buy (overpay for) players there is the sort of outcry we see here. Assuming they had no unused losses from previous years, compared with England they are "benefiting" from the 8m or so of Corporation Tax they don't have to pay, which may or may not be payable anyway depending on the financial position in future years, easily remedied by buying even more galacticos.
So much for fans clamouring for financial sustainability of clubs when they want to penalize the ones making money so that it doesn't disadvantage those making big losses!
Yet Real Madrid nevertheless contributes an enormous amount of tax, not just on player salaries, but their gate receipts for example are all taxed at 21% VAT, which is of course higher than the rate the English clubs are paying. Based on their match day revenue they pay around 2m more a year than an English team would have done with the same revenue.
There is a separate argument entirely about how competitive football now is in Europe, but Real Madrid's alleged state support is the biggest myth in football.
The headline grabbing money spent figures seem a little false.
Clearly Spurs have 'only' spent £25m of their money.
So the Bale transfer has inflated the overall market by £170m.
Clearly Spurs have 'only' spent £25m of their money.
So the Bale transfer has inflated the overall market by £170m.
I think everybody gets the concept, but it is about where the money comes from and what it says about our society that leaves a sour taste.
Every time this happens a little bit if the football love inside me dies.
Creaky
Well-known member
Transfer fees are not in my opinion a problem, (apart from the commissions paid to "agents"), as the money essentially stays in 'football'. There are very few, if any, club owners withdrawing huge amounts of cash.
So Real Madrid pay Spurs £83m for Bale, Spurs in turn spend this money with other clubs and so the money goes round and round.
The real outgoings from football, and what the fans are paying for, is the wages paid to the players.
So Real Madrid pay Spurs £83m for Bale, Spurs in turn spend this money with other clubs and so the money goes round and round.
The real outgoings from football, and what the fans are paying for, is the wages paid to the players.
gordonchas
New member
- Jul 1, 2012
- 230
One of the many misconceptions. No, it is a members club - exactly the model that practically all supporter groups expound as the way forward! Currently they have around 90,000 members, who pay their annual subscriptions and get to choose the President. Exactly the same as Barcelona.
What it proves beyond doubt (and Germany reinforces that) is that you can't rely on fan ownership to create an equitable league, any more than any other ownership model.
There was a bloke explaining how it was financed on Five Live last night, but he sounded like a SLICE to me.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Starvation is caused by wars and human greed ie see Zimbabwe & Ethiopia. The same could be said for tennis, film or pop stars. It's just the way of the world, not just football.
How can you make a comment like that? Ronaldo hasn't been valued at this moment in time. It's like saying CMS is worth more than Messi because we paid more for him!!!! If Ronaldo was 24 and for sale then you can compare he two.
I agree but if the principle is not that important to you and you can afford to pay then that's why people don't cancel their subscriptions. Much like the big transfers, if the principle is not that important to a club and they can afford the transfer fee and salary package, they pay it!!!!
Personally, I get fed up with those pious enough to bemoan a transfer fee that, from Madrid's point of view, can financially be justified. It is a free market and this is the result. Also, instead of looking at it as £86m for a human, consider Bale more as a product and/or brand. As for the salaries, again, it is the market forces. I haven't yet seen a thread bemoaning how much Madonna earnt last year (£26m) nor Bruce Springsteen (£21) or Roger Waters (£16m).
People bang on about how they hate the nanny state but would complain more if the state started dictating exactly how much your employers could pay you.
Do I think the money could be put to better use in society? Of course I do but it is the nature of our society and economic landscape we live in that allows this to happen.