Contract expiring in 6 months? Let's pay 40M to gain some useless plusvalenza on some youth bums
Buy on AliExpress.com
Nicolò Rovella (17 Viewers)
- Thread starter JuveJay
- Start date
Contract expiring in 6 months? Let's pay 40M to gain some useless plusvalenza on some youth bums
Buy on AliExpress.com
The club still paid nothing for him, just like the club won't receive any actual money for the parallel deal with Genoa, those transfer fees (18 for Rovella and 10+8 for Portanova and whatshisname) exist only on paper, on some Ballance sheets and wherever you account your cooking-the-books deals and transactions.
I guess most people understand that, but choose to ignore it since it doesn't actually fit with their agenda when criticising the board and labeling them amateurs, incompetent and dogshit awful. In this case it is easier to say that "the pathetic board paid 40 mil for a nobody with an expiring contract" than "the club traded/exchanged two players with absolutely no future at Juve for a promising teenager that could actually develop into a decent/good or even better player in the future", because if you say it like the second option it would mean that the board made a very good deal here and did well. Which they did, by the way, this deal alone was a very nice deal, both clubs killed a few birds with one stone and maintained the good relationship they have.
And that's not coming from someone who defends the current number 2 and 3 in the club, not at all, both Tici and Nedved made some terrible choices that harmed the club and their future at Juve should be at even greater risk than Pirlos for example, I don't mind if Agnelli releases both of them in the summer, yet that Rovella deal alone is a very good piece of business and that's a fact, it's not even debatable...
I guess most people understand that, but choose to ignore it since it doesn't actually fit with their agenda when criticising the board and labeling them amateurs, incompetent and dogshit awful. In this case it is easier to say that "the pathetic board paid 40 mil for a nobody with an expiring contract" than "the club traded/exchanged two players with absolutely no future at Juve for a promising teenager that could actually develop into a decent/good or even better player in the future", because if you say it like the second option it would mean that the board made a very good deal here and did well. Which they did, by the way, this deal alone was a very nice deal, both clubs killed a few birds with one stone and maintained the good relationship they have.
And that's not coming from someone who defends the current number 2 and 3 in the club, not at all, both Tici and Nedved made some terrible choices that harmed the club and their future at Juve should be at even greater risk than Pirlos for example, I don't mind if Agnelli releases both of them in the summer, yet that Rovella deal alone is a very good piece of business and that's a fact, it's not even debatable...
That ignores that Portanova and Petrelli have a value themselves. It could be that neither amount to anything but both are highly rated and Portanova is an under 21 international. We could have generate funds for them or used them in a different swap for a player not with a contract expiring, Locatelli for example.
Then we have the bonuses on top for Rovella plus the fact we don't have the flexibility to use him or loan him somewhere else this summer.
It is another in a list of recent examples where we have prioritised plusvalenza over cash flow, which is a dangerous business model. We are kicking issues down the road, plus will be taking a hit to our accounts of 20 to 40m for Rovella over the next 4 years (which could have been next to nothing). Putting more pressure to plusvalenza over that period.
I wouldn't worry about our relationship with Genoa, they have done pretty well out of it in recent years with cheap loans for Perin and Pjaca.
Then we have the bonuses on top for Rovella plus the fact we don't have the flexibility to use him or loan him somewhere else this summer.
It is another in a list of recent examples where we have prioritised plusvalenza over cash flow, which is a dangerous business model. We are kicking issues down the road, plus will be taking a hit to our accounts of 20 to 40m for Rovella over the next 4 years (which could have been next to nothing). Putting more pressure to plusvalenza over that period.
I wouldn't worry about our relationship with Genoa, they have done pretty well out of it in recent years with cheap loans for Perin and Pjaca.
Okay, got your point, I'll rephrase a little - all three of them could be highly rated and in 5 years time for example Portanova could explode massively and reach world class status, who knows? At this moment though, so far I would say that from all three of them Rovella has the biggest chance to ever play for Juventus and be a part of the first team, be it as a squad player or even important first team regular, again who knows? I guess that's pretty much what the board thinks too, so swapping two players that won't play for the club with one that might or have a bigger chance to play is fine by me, it makes sense.
I would agree with you completely if those were the only two youngsters that could generate funds for us and should have been used in a different deals, but that's not exactly true. They are not the only two youngsters, for Locatelli for example we could use what the media reports - Frabotta and/or Faggioli, and for a third player we could use another two players from Under23 side or lower, which is basically the point of having a B side, to use youngsters as assets to sweeten a deal for a greater potential. Let's not kid ourselves, we are obviously not going to produce a wonderkid and a world-class player on our own any time soon, we simply don't do that, so exchanging few of them for someone highly regarded seems fine and logical to me, not every youngster we get that way would turn out to be a world-beater but few of them would, eventually, it might or might not be Rovella, but few would, I am sure of that.
Bonuses are fine by me, most of them are performance based, if he manages to fight and earn his spot that would mean he is good enough to command a spot in Juves starting 11, I look at the bonuses from a different angle, I hope Juve ends up paying all of the bonus feeds which would suggest that Rovella covers all the performance criteria that was required and requested, if he hits the ground running and turns into a beast those bonuses are peanuts, if he fails miserably then he simply won't cover the parameters the clubs agreed and Juve won't pay some or even most of that 20 mil...
That plusvalenza shit is on the thin line between legal and illegal, I don't like it much either but this is what the clubs do nowadays, I hear they are planning to remove the financial fair play for some time so if that is the way the modern football is going then plusvalenza deals are here to stay and be part of any top club mercato strategy...
I would agree with you completely if those were the only two youngsters that could generate funds for us and should have been used in a different deals, but that's not exactly true. They are not the only two youngsters, for Locatelli for example we could use what the media reports - Frabotta and/or Faggioli, and for a third player we could use another two players from Under23 side or lower, which is basically the point of having a B side, to use youngsters as assets to sweeten a deal for a greater potential. Let's not kid ourselves, we are obviously not going to produce a wonderkid and a world-class player on our own any time soon, we simply don't do that, so exchanging few of them for someone highly regarded seems fine and logical to me, not every youngster we get that way would turn out to be a world-beater but few of them would, eventually, it might or might not be Rovella, but few would, I am sure of that.
Bonuses are fine by me, most of them are performance based, if he manages to fight and earn his spot that would mean he is good enough to command a spot in Juves starting 11, I look at the bonuses from a different angle, I hope Juve ends up paying all of the bonus feeds which would suggest that Rovella covers all the performance criteria that was required and requested, if he hits the ground running and turns into a beast those bonuses are peanuts, if he fails miserably then he simply won't cover the parameters the clubs agreed and Juve won't pay some or even most of that 20 mil...
That plusvalenza shit is on the thin line between legal and illegal, I don't like it much either but this is what the clubs do nowadays, I hear they are planning to remove the financial fair play for some time so if that is the way the modern football is going then plusvalenza deals are here to stay and be part of any top club mercato strategy...
I think if we take a step back, we have paid the value of Portanova and Petrelli for Rovella whose contract was expiring and would have been available for free in a few months.
Regardless of using other players in the Locatelli deal. Both players have a value and could have been used in other deals if not that one. Personally, that does not seem like good business sense to me. Essentially we have paid a few million for a guy we could have got for free. I understand the attitude that if he meets the bonus targets then he must have done well and therefore have no issue. However, that 20m could be used on someone else (assuming it is 20m, the wording is a bit unclear).
It is this short term thinking I really don't like and it will catch up with us, if it hasn't already.
We can celebrate a plusvalenza on a couple of guys. But in truth we would likely have had a plusvalenza on them at some point soon anyway and we will take far more of a hit to our P&L by amortising a potential 40m for Rovella.
Regardless of using other players in the Locatelli deal. Both players have a value and could have been used in other deals if not that one. Personally, that does not seem like good business sense to me. Essentially we have paid a few million for a guy we could have got for free. I understand the attitude that if he meets the bonus targets then he must have done well and therefore have no issue. However, that 20m could be used on someone else (assuming it is 20m, the wording is a bit unclear).
It is this short term thinking I really don't like and it will catch up with us, if it hasn't already.
We can celebrate a plusvalenza on a couple of guys. But in truth we would likely have had a plusvalenza on them at some point soon anyway and we will take far more of a hit to our P&L by amortising a potential 40m for Rovella.
