The following is a translation of Johan Cruyff’s weekly article in El Periodico. The original can be found here.
It’s been a week since the General Assembly of Members met and published their accounting reports and I’m still wondering how they came up with those numbers. They came to the conclusion that the club lost 48.7 million euros. I, just like all of the other members, was both astounded and worried. Did Laporta really do so poorly over his seven year term? After giving it some thought I have a hard time believing and understanding these negative numbers.
Personally, I see the club – or any club for that matter – from three angles: the economic, the sporting and the social. For many years the club has been building on the collective and their philosophy. They have a foundation that deals with the social aspect and a school, which I am equally proud of, contributing to the economic and sporting angle. Looking at it from the three angles and from FC Barcelona’s reality, I come to a conclusion which differs greatly from that of the last Assembly. From my point of view, the club is in a healthy state. Since I have explained the core of my reasoning, I only have but to expand on my opinion.
Economic burden
Let’s go back seven years to when Laporta became president. He inherited the position with a 60 million euro debt and a budget in the first year of 150 million. The three angles are easy to track. You start with a debt that is 40% of your budget. What was the social situation of the club seven years ago? Globally, not good at all. And how about athletically? About the same if not worse, as the team had to be rebuilt from the ground up.
Starting from here, economically burdened, title starved and socially unknown, they came up with a plan to change these things. If you look back on those seven years and take all of the successes and failures, I don’t see where the 50 million euro debt comes from.
Barca’s image is much better today than it was seven years ago. With the agreement with Unicef and the work of the Foundation all over the world, the jump in popularity is exceptional. In terms of the sport itself, you took a risk that worked out well. First with Txiki and Rijkaard and then with Guardiola. The new philosophy counted on the youth system and needed some time to grow roots and take off from there.
Now, seven years later, with a ton of trophies in the clubhouse (from football, basketball and the other sports), Laporta’s term is over and the new directors publish some surprising numbers. Laporta started with a 40% deficit:budget ratio and left the club at a 12% ratio. The conclusion is simple. Even though Rosell took over a club in debt, it’s much better off than it was seven years ago.
Some questions
How much is Barca negotiating to receive from the television rights? 150 million euros, exactly what the budget was seven years ago. That’s a huge jump in such a short amount of time. Why? Because of the improvement in the social, economic, and athletic aspects of the club.
What is FC Barcelona worth today? Even though it can’t be calculated, the value of the home grown players is enormous. Here, Barca is a slave, to put it a certain way, of their own successful philosophy. There are so many great players formed in La Masia and the only players that figure into the accounting are the ones signed from abroad.
An invaluable youth system
Do you know what would happen if you could put the value of the home grown players on the balance sheet?
Simply put, Messi alone could nullify that supposed 50 million euro deficit. Then you’d have to add Iniesta, Busquets, Pedro, Pique and Bojan.
I’m leaving Valdes, Xavi and Puyol off the list because they were part of the first team before Laporta took over. What is the market value of these players?
It’s been a week since the General Assembly of Members met and published their accounting reports and I’m still wondering how they came up with those numbers. They came to the conclusion that the club lost 48.7 million euros. I, just like all of the other members, was both astounded and worried. Did Laporta really do so poorly over his seven year term? After giving it some thought I have a hard time believing and understanding these negative numbers.
Personally, I see the club – or any club for that matter – from three angles: the economic, the sporting and the social. For many years the club has been building on the collective and their philosophy. They have a foundation that deals with the social aspect and a school, which I am equally proud of, contributing to the economic and sporting angle. Looking at it from the three angles and from FC Barcelona’s reality, I come to a conclusion which differs greatly from that of the last Assembly. From my point of view, the club is in a healthy state. Since I have explained the core of my reasoning, I only have but to expand on my opinion.
Economic burden
Let’s go back seven years to when Laporta became president. He inherited the position with a 60 million euro debt and a budget in the first year of 150 million. The three angles are easy to track. You start with a debt that is 40% of your budget. What was the social situation of the club seven years ago? Globally, not good at all. And how about athletically? About the same if not worse, as the team had to be rebuilt from the ground up.
Starting from here, economically burdened, title starved and socially unknown, they came up with a plan to change these things. If you look back on those seven years and take all of the successes and failures, I don’t see where the 50 million euro debt comes from.
Barca’s image is much better today than it was seven years ago. With the agreement with Unicef and the work of the Foundation all over the world, the jump in popularity is exceptional. In terms of the sport itself, you took a risk that worked out well. First with Txiki and Rijkaard and then with Guardiola. The new philosophy counted on the youth system and needed some time to grow roots and take off from there.
Now, seven years later, with a ton of trophies in the clubhouse (from football, basketball and the other sports), Laporta’s term is over and the new directors publish some surprising numbers. Laporta started with a 40% deficit:budget ratio and left the club at a 12% ratio. The conclusion is simple. Even though Rosell took over a club in debt, it’s much better off than it was seven years ago.
Some questions
How much is Barca negotiating to receive from the television rights? 150 million euros, exactly what the budget was seven years ago. That’s a huge jump in such a short amount of time. Why? Because of the improvement in the social, economic, and athletic aspects of the club.
What is FC Barcelona worth today? Even though it can’t be calculated, the value of the home grown players is enormous. Here, Barca is a slave, to put it a certain way, of their own successful philosophy. There are so many great players formed in La Masia and the only players that figure into the accounting are the ones signed from abroad.
An invaluable youth system
Do you know what would happen if you could put the value of the home grown players on the balance sheet?
Simply put, Messi alone could nullify that supposed 50 million euro deficit. Then you’d have to add Iniesta, Busquets, Pedro, Pique and Bojan.
I’m leaving Valdes, Xavi and Puyol off the list because they were part of the first team before Laporta took over. What is the market value of these players?
0 yorum:
Post a Comment