JamDav1982
Senior Member
Not really, the stuff he says on Pep, Villa, Sponsorship, stadium, finances etc is almost all bollocks and one sided.
Josep Maria Bartomeu
- Thread starter Barcaman
- Start date
Not really, the stuff he says on Pep, Villa, Sponsorship, stadium, finances etc is almost all bollocks and one sided.
KingMessi
SiempreBlaugrana
He fails to mention that the board obliged Villa's wish to stay in Spain with his family. Lucas is just as his website describes him, a Cruyffista who only knows how to rant.
JamDav1982
Senior Member
Not only that. Barca were never offered 15m for Villa from Arsenal and they would have been stupid to sell him in January without a replacement.
He goes on to say as if they should have taken the 15m yet in other parts has a go at board for being money obssessed.
Absolute joke of an article.
KingMessi
SiempreBlaugrana
We were rumored to have received a 8M pound offer from Spurs, but never 15M pounds from Arsenal.
spark
New member
Care to specify what is incorrect about the finances? As for the article , once you sift through the opinions, the majority of the facts did happen as far as I can remember.
JamDav1982
Senior Member
He makes the point about the Qatar sponsorship ect being against the idea of the 'sanctity' of the pure football kit and association with Qatar.
Yet then goes on to have a go at the finances of the club when others have only pulled closer/ahead due to such deal on stadiums, strips with betting logos etc.
He also tries to make out that Laporta never left the club in big debt, which in football terms he did.
It is a grey area as the courts found him not guilty due to taking assets into account but thats not how football clubs debts are calculated.
In reality the club had huge liabilities to banks, tax etc and it needed addressing.
That my bro is not true. bartomeu and rosell basically lied about laporta leaving the club in debt, that was one of their main points when launching their campaign for rosell's presidency.
So much so that they tried suing laporta for that same comment that you made and guess who came out losing. to boot the judge ruled that when laporta left the club was in "surplus"
I'm not saying to believe this guy blindly like anyone else. but as someone else said, sift through the opinions and the facts speak for themselves bro.
KingMessi
SiempreBlaugrana
JamDav1982
Senior Member
The judge backed Laporta on the basis of assets being taken into account. I am not saying the judge was wrong or Rosell was right to take it to court as I dont think he was.
But the club had huge liabilities when Laporta left and the club debt when calculated in the way club debts always are was close to 600m and needed to be addressed.
So this idea that the club was left debt free is totally wrong in the way football debt is normally understood.
The article is full of rubbish there's no doubt about that. It's like fairy tale with a fight between good and evil. The financial analyses part was based on the emotions rather than business sense. However, the main fact is you don't want Rosell back to office, Barto is not a leader-he is more of a follower. Laporta has his own problems-especially with fiscal responsibility, Benedito is making me sick with his populist comments. I truly wish Guardiola ran for president, I don't believe he can replicate the success of Barca with any team he is going to manage. Maybe he should just come back and create another marvel -Barce club.
Judge did not rule out that Rosell was wrong and Laporta was right. The judge ruled that Rosell cannot collect damages for Laporta-s decisions. That's all
JamDav1982
Senior Member
I thought Rosell tried to claim that Laporta ran up debt and wanted him liable for it??
KingMessi
SiempreBlaugrana
Maybe there was, but so insignificant so we can't even remember his name.
Jordi Farre. A Catalan businessman.
Home of Barca Fans
