Irregular Deals?

It has been said that Real Madrid benefited from an irregular land deal. What exactly are the facts concerning the training ground deal? Is Madrid the only club to have benefited from from such a deal? Are such deals unusual? What other clubs have had such deals? Do such deals breach any rules of the national FA, UEFA, or FIFA?

Not looking for Madrid bashing; we can have other threads for that just trying to understand what happened and put it in context.

From what I remember, Real sold their training ground for EUR 250+ kinda money to the government, to clear the debts the club was under.

However, most people look at this as just a shrewd way for the government to keep funding the club! Real were under crippling debts, and the deal not only cleared all that but gave them spare money to rebuild a team... on top of this deal, Real got some cheap land from the government to make a new training ground! The Government justified the huge price they paid to Real by saying that that training ground was an ideal location for a new olympic stadium or something like that, but most people didn't buy that - people allege that the state was just funding the club. It sounds fishy. If I got any facts wrong, please correct me.

I'm not too clued up on the situation, but I think they were bankrolled by the council/government, who 'bought' their training ground when they were £200m+ in debt (at the time when they were spending big on Zidane, Figo etc).

council paid top dollar for some prime-ish land north of the CBD, having classified it for office use and allowing by far the tallest buildings in madrid to be built on there thus further enhancing the land value. tbh it was a joke, and quite simply govt funding for the club. added to the fact the club have a huge IBI bill unpaid (like rates in the uk) which everybody knows will basically never be paid.

Is there any suggestion that anything illegal happened, or is the suggestion that this was just a smart if dodgy way of saving Madrid from consequences of huge debt? Is Madrid the only club to have been saved from crippling debt in this manner? Have any other clubs benefited fromsuch practices?

I think Atletico were thinking of doing the same in order to move to La Peineta.

I think it is legit, but very dodgy and unfair. I am not in favour of the state helping out one particular club, that just makes the competition very unfair. If the state wants to contribute to the sport, it should be done fairly to all the clubs.

EMP wrote:Is there any suggestion that anything illegal happened, or is the suggestion that this was just a smart if dodgy way of saving Madrid from consequences of huge debt? Is Madrid the only club to have been saved from crippling debt in this manner? Have any other clubs benefited fromsuch practices?

The-Frank-Tavern wrote:council paid top dollar for some prime-ish land north of the CBD, having classified it for office use and allowing by far the tallest buildings in madrid to be built on there thus further enhancing the land value. tbh it was a joke, and quite simply govt funding for the club. added to the fact the club have a huge IBI bill unpaid (like rates in the uk) which everybody knows will basically never be paid.

That is basically the truth.

Madrid wanted to sell off their old training grounds, but just before it was done, the Madrid city council re-zoned the land on which the grounds were built, thus suddenly doubling or even tripling the land value. So they got a ridiculous sum for it, which completely wiped clean their debts, and allowed them to continue buying players, build the new training complexes, etc.

The EU was called in to investigate, and they ruled that there is nothing wrong with the city buying land back from the club. Technically, you can't disagree with that because it could just be seen as one organisation purchasing a land asset from another. But the EU only investigated the transfer of the money...they didn't look at the 100% unethical behind-the-scenes maneouvreing that allowed the land's value to be hugely inflated in the first place.

Frank is also right about their debt. A director recently came out and said the Madrid debt is around 450 million euros. Yet they continue to spend unsustainable amounts on players and all kinds of expenses (a f@cking aeroplane? ), safe in the knowledge that nothing will ever happen.

kas wrote:

The-Frank-Tavern wrote:council paid top dollar for some prime-ish land north of the CBD, having classified it for office use and allowing by far the tallest buildings in madrid to be built on there thus further enhancing the land value. tbh it was a joke, and quite simply govt funding for the club. added to the fact the club have a huge IBI bill unpaid (like rates in the uk) which everybody knows will basically never be paid.

That is basically the truth.

Madrid wanted to sell off their old training grounds, but just before it was done, the Madrid city council re-zoned the land on which the grounds were built, thus suddenly doubling or even tripling the land value. So they got a ridiculous sum for it, which completely wiped clean their debts, and allowed them to continue buying players, build the new training complexes, etc.

The EU was called in to investigate, and they ruled that there is nothing wrong with the city buying land back from the club. Technically, you can't disagree with that because it could just be seen as one organisation purchasing a land asset from another. But the EU only investigated the transfer of the money...they didn't look at the 100% unethical behind-the-scenes maneouvreing that allowed the land's value to be hugely inflated in the first place.

Frank is also right about their debt. A director recently came out and said the Madrid debt is around 450 million euros. Yet they continue to spend unsustainable amounts on players and all kinds of expenses (a f@cking aeroplane? ), safe in the knowledge that nothing will ever happen.

Is that the current debt? Don't clubs have to balance their books? I thought some got relegated or worse for debts - Lyngby in Denmark and Fiorentina for another. Why weren't they helped out?

It may just be the philosophy of those local governments. I guess it's more prevalent in Spain for club-government business transaction, since Barça will also be demolishing the Mini Estadi and sell off the ground to the Les Corts community. No word yet on whether there'll be a rezoning

As for managing the debt, I don't think there is a law in Spain like there is in the Football League in England. Italy have also cracked down, so there's really no reason for the LFP not to control club debts. It would put a lot of big clubs in trouble, namely Atletico and Real Madrid. Barça does have a (relatively) small debt too, around 60 million euros, but that has been reduced by Laporta's board from 190 million euros in 2003. And from what I understand, clubs like to maintain a manageable level of debt for taxation purposes. But I don't understand that fully because tax is usually charged on yearly profit, not overall capital reserves.

Any reason why Lyngby wasn't saved?If I remember rightly tey were a big club in Denmark around the time the financial problems manifested themselves.

EMP wrote:Any reason why Lyngby wasn't saved?If I remember rightly tey were a big club in Denmark around the time the financial problems manifested themselves.

they had traditions but they werent a big club i would say but very famous becuse they were the breeding ground of the best danish talents. also in denmark everything is done by the rules and they would never stray from them even if it was brondby.

What about the foundation of FCK? Wasn't the owner of FCK the owner of Lyngby, who just took Lyngby's talent with him? If I remember rightly, many Lyngby supporters never forgave it. Why did Danish FA not step in over that?

EMP wrote:What about the foundation of FCK? Wasn't the owner of FCK the owner of Lyngby, who just took Lyngby's talent with him? If I remember rightly, many Lyngby supporters never forgave it. Why did Danish FA not step in over that?

flemming østergaard who is the chairman of FCK came from lyngby i think but it was before they were relegated back in 97 i think. cant say too much becaus i didnt follow all that much back then.

supermadrid wrote:

EMP wrote:What about the foundation of FCK? Wasn't the owner of FCK the owner of Lyngby, who just took Lyngby's talent with him? If I remember rightly, many Lyngby supporters never forgave it. Why did Danish FA not step in over that?

flemming østergaard who is the chairman of FCK came from lyngby i think but it was before they were relegated back in 97 i think. cant say too much becaus i didnt follow all that much back then.

You are quite right. It wqas a long time earlier - about twenty years before. The point is it robbed Lyngby of talent in pretty dodgy circumstances, so why was FCK allowed to get away with it if Danish football is such a stickler for rules? I know it is a long time later, but did it hasve any effect on Lyngby? Did tey experience lean years? Were they robbed of investment due to the foundation of FCK? Should FCK have been punished for it and should Lyngby have had some assistance because of it? By the way who is the current coach of Lyngby?

EMP wrote:

supermadrid wrote:

EMP wrote:What about the foundation of FCK? Wasn't the owner of FCK the owner of Lyngby, who just took Lyngby's talent with him? If I remember rightly, many Lyngby supporters never forgave it. Why did Danish FA not step in over that?

flemming østergaard who is the chairman of FCK came from lyngby i think but it was before they were relegated back in 97 i think. cant say too much becaus i didnt follow all that much back then.

You are quite right. It wqas a long time earlier - about twenty years before. The point is it robbed Lyngby of talent in pretty dodgy circumstances, so why was FCK allowed to get away with it if Danish football is such a stickler for rules? I know it is a long time later, but did it hasve any effect on Lyngby? Did tey experience lean years? Were they robbed of investment due to the foundation of FCK? Should FCK have been punished for it and should Lyngby have had some assistance because of it? By the way who is the current coach of Lyngby?

i cant recall what you are saying. i dont remember hearing that FCK took lyngbys talents. i can ask some friends on it who follow danish football and then i can give a good answer. i know that after they went under adminstration lyngby lost their good players at once because they werent getting paid and so they played with amatuers i think.

My timing was a bit off. Ostergaard joined FCK in February 1997. It was suggested that he took Lyngby's financial clout with him - invested in FCK, attracting some players as Lyngby lost the ability to keep pace. FCK therefore knew that Lyngby was vulberable for a bit of old fashioned pillaging! Less than five years later Lyngby went bankrupt. Coincidence?

EMP wrote:My timing was a bit off. Ostergaard joined FCK in February 1997. It was suggested that he took Lyngby's financial clout with him - invested in FCK, attracting some players as Lyngby lost the ability to keep pace. FCK therefore knew that Lyngby was vulberable for a bit of old fashioned pillaging! Less than five years later Lyngby went bankrupt. Coincidence?

whish i could say. but there has been people who have been after østergaard who is regarded very highly in denmark as an excellent businessman. FCK makes more money then alot of clubs in europe and alot of it is down to him.

Shocking, Atleti and Barsa fans quick to point the finger...

supermadrid wrote:

EMP wrote:My timing was a bit off. Ostergaard joined FCK in February 1997. It was suggested that he took Lyngby's financial clout with him - invested in FCK, attracting some players as Lyngby lost the ability to keep pace. FCK therefore knew that Lyngby was vulberable for a bit of old fashioned pillaging! Less than five years later Lyngby went bankrupt. Coincidence?

whish i could say. but there has been people who have been after østergaard who is regarded very highly in denmark as an excellent businessman. FCK makes more money then alot of clubs in europe and alot of it is down to him.

No question that Ostergaard know what he is doiing in business. Issue is the ethics of it. Was Lyngby sold out by him? Did he take Lyngby's financial clout with him, thereby all but destroy them. Really should be waiting period before investors can take their money to another club as it destroys possibility of financial security. Look at what happened to Lyngby. Doubt their supporters will ever forgive Ostergaard.

Jaime wrote:Shocking, Atleti and Barsa fans quick to point the finger...

Not quite...we know the facts and posted it, don't think it's a coincidence that no Madrid fans have commented on it, or bothered to correct us...if we were wrong, that is

kas wrote:

Jaime wrote:Shocking, Atleti and Barsa fans quick to point the finger...

Not quite...we know the facts and posted it, don't think it's a coincidence that no Madrid fans have commented on it, or bothered to correct us...if we were wrong, that is

I can't be bothered to correct you, too busy celebrating MIGHTY GETAFE's victory over some team from Cataluña that also sells land to local governments.

I suspect that's because there is no correction to be made! But anyway, glad to see you recognise that Catalonia is not Spain

kas wrote:

Jaime wrote:Shocking, Atleti and Barsa fans quick to point the finger...

Not quite...we know the facts and posted it, don't think it's a coincidence that no Madrid fans have commented on it, or bothered to correct us...if we were wrong, that is

i would try to answer but to be honest i dont really understand any of that stuff you are guys are talking about. i have heard the basics of what happened but have never really understood it.

Jaime wrote:Shocking, Atleti and Barsa fans quick to point the finger...

I did ask for the facts. It wasn't for Madrid bashing; it was to put it all into context. For example, why wasn't Lyngby helped? I'm genuinely interested. If you don't want to answer in this thread could you pm me. I also asked if other clubs had benefitted similarly.

Surely if EPL was applying the debt-rules then Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea were definitely going to get into trouble or am i wrong?

I don't think the Premiership has any such rules. Those were implemented through the Football League, and by the Italian league. Spain doesn't have any rules either, otherwise almost every club would be in trouble.