Board & Management (34 Viewers)
- Thread starter .zero
- Start date
I think the distinction they're trying to make is between:
Scenario A:
- I offer my underwear for 60 mill and you're willing to pay it because you think thats its value to you and is reflective of market prices for such item. And I am willing to pay 50 mill for yours because thats its value for me and its reflective of market prices for such item. We exchange underwears and you pay me 10 mill net difference in cash. Two weirdos who highly value underwear buy something from each other at a high price.
Scenario B:
- We are both in financial trouble and are wasteful spenders who constantly spend well above our means. No one is going to lend us any money because our income is so low and expenditure so high, we are on our way to bankrupcy. So you and I sit down for a beer to vent and forget the world. You and I have no need nor want nor use each other's underwear. We actually find the thought of it both hilarious and disgusting. In normal circumstances you couldn't pay me to even touch your underwear. But we need our income to look better this year to get accepted for that new loan. So we both agree to artificially inflate the price of our unwanted boxers and trade them with one another 50 mill each. Now we both can record an instant 50 mill revenue and spread the 50 mill spend over the next 5 years. Bam 40 mill profits this year! Now we can both get that sweet loan money.
One is a normal buying and selling activity, the other is 2 parties in cahoots artificially inflating the value of two transactions to make each other's books look better. I don't know if that's illegal but there's clearly a difference between both scenarios. High Valuation vs Artificially Inflated valuation
From the "Reasons"
If anything, with a distinctive aggravating factor with respect to any precedent: specifically with regard to FC Juventus, the pervasiveness at every level of the awareness of the artificiality of the modus operandi of the club itself is striking. From the then sports director Paratici to his immediate manager Cherubini. From board chairman Agnelli to the entire board itself, cited as aware by Agnelli himself. All the way down to the major shareholder and CEO Arrivabene and again through all the key executives, including those with financial and legal expertise. In some cases, with an all-round awareness of the artificiality of the operations conducted. In other cases, with a more superficial or perhaps even bona fide awareness - we are also referring to the team's coach -, but nevertheless capable of suggesting that everyone was directly or indirectly aware of a condition that was now out of control."
Scenario A:
- I offer my underwear for 60 mill and you're willing to pay it because you think thats its value to you and is reflective of market prices for such item. And I am willing to pay 50 mill for yours because thats its value for me and its reflective of market prices for such item. We exchange underwears and you pay me 10 mill net difference in cash. Two weirdos who highly value underwear buy something from each other at a high price.
Scenario B:
- We are both in financial trouble and are wasteful spenders who constantly spend well above our means. No one is going to lend us any money because our income is so low and expenditure so high, we are on our way to bankrupcy. So you and I sit down for a beer to vent and forget the world. You and I have no need nor want nor use each other's underwear. We actually find the thought of it both hilarious and disgusting. In normal circumstances you couldn't pay me to even touch your underwear. But we need our income to look better this year to get accepted for that new loan. So we both agree to artificially inflate the price of our unwanted boxers and trade them with one another 50 mill each. Now we both can record an instant 50 mill revenue and spread the 50 mill spend over the next 5 years. Bam 40 mill profits this year! Now we can both get that sweet loan money.
One is a normal buying and selling activity, the other is 2 parties in cahoots artificially inflating the value of two transactions to make each other's books look better. I don't know if that's illegal but there's clearly a difference between both scenarios. High Valuation vs Artificially Inflated valuation
From the "Reasons"
If anything, with a distinctive aggravating factor with respect to any precedent: specifically with regard to FC Juventus, the pervasiveness at every level of the awareness of the artificiality of the modus operandi of the club itself is striking. From the then sports director Paratici to his immediate manager Cherubini. From board chairman Agnelli to the entire board itself, cited as aware by Agnelli himself. All the way down to the major shareholder and CEO Arrivabene and again through all the key executives, including those with financial and legal expertise. In some cases, with an all-round awareness of the artificiality of the operations conducted. In other cases, with a more superficial or perhaps even bona fide awareness - we are also referring to the team's coach -, but nevertheless capable of suggesting that everyone was directly or indirectly aware of a condition that was now out of control."
I'd say anything between 20-120m depending on the circumstances - form, injuries, his and general situation at City, how many alternatives are on the market, contract length, who's buying, etc. but if City went ahead and traded him with Verratti and both were valued at 200m, I'd say it's obvious that the price is inflated.
sorry man, i think you missed the point. de bruyne is unique, he's got no manufacturer, can't buy two or more of him, and as you say, his price would depend on many factors
the underwear has a manufacturer, you can buy many of it in stores, the price isn't that volatile, it can be replicated, the manufacturer usually assigns an msrp to every product, etc
the two goods are nothing alike. footballer's registration rights are much harder to assess than manufactured goods. there's no objective way to value them. 20-120 is a ridiculous margin, and it's completely arbitrary on both extremes. and most importantly, there's not even a short guideline for these valuations, neither of fifa, uefa and national associations have any similar regulation. yet juve is punished based on a rule nobody ever created, let alone accepted and implemented.
- - - Updated - - -
and more importantly, i also forgot my original point lol
you said that books were obviously not representative. books should mirror reality, which are the contracts between clubs. contracts say pjanic = 60m, barcelona pay the fee, arthur = 72m, juventus pay the fee. books represent these numbers, at least this is what can be found in the financial reports, and auditors approved all statements ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
the underwear has a manufacturer, you can buy many of it in stores, the price isn't that volatile, it can be replicated, the manufacturer usually assigns an msrp to every product, etc
the two goods are nothing alike. footballer's registration rights are much harder to assess than manufactured goods. there's no objective way to value them. 20-120 is a ridiculous margin, and it's completely arbitrary on both extremes. and most importantly, there's not even a short guideline for these valuations, neither of fifa, uefa and national associations have any similar regulation. yet juve is punished based on a rule nobody ever created, let alone accepted and implemented.
- - - Updated - - -
and more importantly, i also forgot my original point lol
you said that books were obviously not representative. books should mirror reality, which are the contracts between clubs. contracts say pjanic = 60m, barcelona pay the fee, arthur = 72m, juventus pay the fee. books represent these numbers, at least this is what can be found in the financial reports, and auditors approved all statements ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last edited:
to me the obvious part is that the values were inflated, I don't have much doubt about that looking at those players and those valuations. it looks like we made agreements with Barcelona, Atalanta, Genoa and other clubs to inflate the values of the assets we trade. so those distorted contracts did not mirror the reality.
I cannot prove any of it and cannot comment on how well FIGC proved it, but I don't live in denial that Tici&co didn't fuck up, they obviously put us in danger with the FFP compliance with these deals. FIGC conveniently choosing not to go after the other clubs and without any basis deducting -15 points is criminal, I'm mostly angry with them, but I'm also angry with Agnelli, Tici and the band, they did fuck up.
I cannot prove any of it and cannot comment on how well FIGC proved it, but I don't live in denial that Tici&co didn't fuck up, they obviously put us in danger with the FFP compliance with these deals. FIGC conveniently choosing not to go after the other clubs and without any basis deducting -15 points is criminal, I'm mostly angry with them, but I'm also angry with Agnelli, Tici and the band, they did fuck up.
guy did some maths: we're talking about ~80m of plusvalenza in 3 years, when the total revenue of the club was around 1700m and the owners raised the capital with 700m. but the prosecutors talk about unfair advantage and virtual money lol
https://m.tuttojuve.com/primo-piano...ra-non-conosce-e-che-assolvono-la-juve-631161
https://m.tuttojuve.com/primo-piano...ra-non-conosce-e-che-assolvono-la-juve-631161
can you throw some links to the paragraphs from the document? because when I read the google translated version I had an impression that they've placed a lot of resources to show that we broke some general accounting and business/sporting principles like acting in good faith, but in no place did they make the link on what was the sporting advantage Juventus gained and why the -15 point penalty.