#265 Claro que sabes para qué entras aquí, para trolear, no te hagas el loco.
yo que pensaba que habia salido alguna info nueva, pero son los que luego van llorando en hilos de que les tienen mania.
#272 después de tu paso por este hilo no se ni como te dan ganas de seguir posteando. A mi me daría vergüenza
#273 por que, si solo hice mostrar el articulo original traducido nada mas o acaso estas en contra de que se diga la verdad? por que aqui se trajo algo que se parecia pero no el que se mostraba.
#275 no, es blanquear nada, traje el articulo original del medio ingles ese, el mismo que usaron los periodistas para hacer sus articulos.
solo mencione lo que ponia el propio articulo nada mas, si hay gente que va de lista sin leerse el articulo y dejan que otros perodistas piensen por ellos no es culpa mia.
Ahora molesta que traiga la fuente original
#276 Lo peor es que te creerás que trajiste el artículo original y todo xD
El real madrid se ha negado a decirle a The Telegraph porqué el 20% de sus resultados financieros están "unaccounted".
lícito? Si. Sospechoso? Un poco
Qué te den manitas tus colegas del discord as a service, no implica que tengas razón ni que hayas humillado a nadie por mucho que tengas a dos minions repitiendo lo mismo las páginas que llevamos de thread.
El daño reputacional está siendo tremendo.
Ya hasta mbappe que es madridista desde niño tienen que ir dejándole un camino de billetes para que vuelva a casa.
nada, les enseñas el articulo original y no se lo creen.
estos deben ser de los que no conocen quien es M.Rajoy
abres, CNTRL+A y copias todo el texto antes de que salte el bloqueador de fuentes.
despues me dices si es el original o no.
By
Sam Wallace,
CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER
12 July 2023 • 8:00am
Real Madrid have declined to explain why 20 per cent of its costs are unaccounted for in the club’s most recent financial results, posing questions about compliance with financial control regulations.
A Telegraph Sport investigation into the most successful club in European football has revealed that around €135 million in payments was directed into a sub-category of “other operating expenses” in the latest results, published in October, of which €122 million (£103 million) is unexplained.
The club has refused to respond to questions on the issue – including the specific allegation that the expenses are indeed, in whole or in part, repayments on a deal with a US financier for the sale of future marketing income. The first of these deals, signed with the private equity group Providence in the 2017-2018 financial year, gave the club cash in return for the sale of future income streams and since then the deal has been extended in terms of length and value.
The sums earned from the sale of an unspecified percentage of future sponsorship revenue, which the club said was renewed in 2019-2020, were booked in Real’s accounts as revenue rather than debt. The club has never explained in detail how that commitment is paid back to Providence or how much is paid every year.
There is no suggestion that the deal with Providence is illegal, although there are questions over whether it is compliant with Uefa financial controls.
There are major advantages in such a deal structure, even if money simply comes in from up-front cash payments to cover budget shortfalls and then goes out of the club in repayments to the same third party. It means that the up-front cash is not regarded as a loan under financial fair play considerations and contributes to establishing a higher headline revenue figure – critical in the calculation of salary caps.
However, there are serious questions as to whether clubs should be permitted to book the sale of future revenues as marketing income rather than debt. Especially in an era when others, such as nation-state owned clubs such as Manchester City, are coming under intense scrutiny as to the validity or otherwise of their commercial income.
The Spanish tax authorities regard this kind of payment to any entity for a share of future income as a financing deal which means it is treated, for tax purposes, as debt. The deal with Providence was originally described by Real as a “participation account” and then in its most recent results as an “unincorporated joint venture agreement”.
The Telegraph has analysed comparable European rivals of Real and none have such large undefined payments in their financial results in any similar additional expenses category.
Before the club’s financing deal was agreed with Providence, Real was obliged to borrow in the short-term to meet salary costs in the 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 seasons. They borrowed between €72 million (£61 million) and €82 million (£69 million) in each of the three years but since the deal with Providence those short-term loans have no longer been necessary.
In the most recent Deloitte Money League, the industry-standard index that ranks clubs by their revenue, Real were second in Europe only to Manchester City. Real reported a total revenue of €713.8 million (£607 million) for that financial year in question.
The salary budgets for Liga clubs are calculated as a percentage of revenue, and Uefa is moving towards a similar financial model whereby spending is set as a percentage of revenue.
In a separate development, Madrid’s short-term finances were significantly bolstered last summer by €360 million (£306 million) from the sale of 30 per cent of revenue over 20 years from their remodelled Bernabeu stadium. That was a deal with the US investor Sixth Street that has been drawn down by the club in two tranches. The first payment of €316 million (£269 million) for the 2021-2022 season meant the club avoided a loss of around €300 million (£255 million). A further €44 million (£37 million) will be booked as profit for the 2022-2023 season.
Real have declined to answer specific questions about the nature of all but €13.6 million (£11.5 million) of the €135 million (£114 million) in payments made via its “other operating expenses” sub-category in the club’s financial results for the year ending June 30, 2022. That €13.6 million (£11.5 million) is the means-tested payment to Spain’s Liga that all its 20 members must make for central costs. Rather than be deducted at source from central broadcast income it is made to the clubs and then paid back, an arrangement that maximises the clubs’ top-line revenue figures even if the cash does not stay in those respective businesses for long.
The Spanish Liga administration did not respond to the same set of questions about Real’s finances that were posed to the club. Uefa, the European governing body that regulates financial cost controls, declined to comment on the issue.
Although Real signed the English talent Jude Bellingham this summer, one of Europe’s most sought-after players, in a deal with Borussia Dortmund worth up to €134 million, the club has been a fading power in the transfer market in recent years. The club’s president Florentino Perez has been a longstanding critic of the power of nation state-owned clubs and remains the driving force behind the European Super League rebellion.
Jude Bellingham signing for Real Madrid - Real Madrid face questions over unexplained costs of €122 million
Real Madrid were able to beat off their rivals to the signature of Jude Bellingham CREDIT: Getty Images/Helios de la Rubia
While Real have registered an interest this summer in a number of leading strikers to replace Karim Benzema, so far their only signing in that regard has been their former academy boy Joselu – once of Stoke City – who has come on loan from relegated Espanyol. They have been interested in Harry Kane. Most recently there have been reports of interest renewed once more in Kylian Mbappe, a long-term Real target who currently is out of contract in France next summer and in a stand-off with his current club.
While Real have reassured its members that it is in a strong financial position, in recent years it has only stayed marginally in profit. It has done that in part through player sales, its financing deal with Providence, and more recently that €360 million (£306 million) sale of future rights, known colloquially in Spain as a “palanca”, or financial “lever”. The €800 million (£681 million) financing deal for the newly renovated Bernabeu is an additional cost, with payments spread over 25 years up to 2049.
The question of Real’s rapidly growing “other operating expenses” sub-category, itself located in the accounts within the headline “other operating expenses” category, remains unexplained by the club. There is no detail forthcoming despite a rise in payments in that sub-category of 800 per cent over five years. This has come against the backdrop of revenue growth for the club of just six per cent over the same period, as well as encompassing two years of Covid-19 when revenue fell sharply.
Of Real’s total €672 million revenue in 2017, €17 million (£14 million) — three per cent — was budgeted for the “other operating expenses” sub-category. It jumped to €46 million (£39 million) the following year and has risen every year bar one since then. Even as Real’s revenue has suffered through the Covid-19 era so the payments in the “other operating expenses” sub-category have risen. In 2021 payments through that sub-category were 12 per cent of total revenue, €77 million (£65 million), and then climbed again to €135 million (£114 million), or 20 per cent of total revenue, in the most recent financial results.
The issue of transparency was raised by Real itself this year when it said in a statement in March that it had “deep concern” about Barcelona’s conduct in the affair over payments to companies registered to the former referee official Jose Maria Enriquez Negreira. Barcelona sold €700 million (£595 million) of future revenue streams last summer, including a total of 25 per cent of Liga television revenues for the next 25 years to Sixth Street. It is understood the US investor paid a €500 million (£425 million) up-front fee.
More from The Telegraph
Help Centre
About us
Telegraph Extra
Reader Prints
Branded Content
Syndication and Commissioning
Guidelines
Privacy
Terms and Conditions
Advertising Terms
Fantasy Sport
UK Voucher Codes
Betting Offers
Modern Slavery
Tax Strategy
Broadband and Mobile Deals
Wine Cellar
The Chelsea Magazine Company
Manage Cookies
© Telegraph Media Group Limited 2023
25 segundos e tardado en publicar el articulo original.
Dios santo, qué pesados. Entiendo que sea vuestro sueño que el RM caiga tan bajo como vuestro club pero os va a tocar esperar un poco más.
Otro repaso de rated con PRUEBAS.
El resto viene a poner 4 líneas de literalmente basura para no decir nada xddd. Y lo mejor que son los mismos que salen escaldados siempre en cada tema. Los mismos.
Eso le parece sospechoso al memeik, pero todo lo de Negreira no jajajajaja
Grandeeees, grandeeeees, grandeeeeees.
#280 vamos que tenía razón, los artículos que posteaste en páginas anteriores no son ESE artículo el cual si es el que confirma que el madrid ha omitido explicar donde esta ese 20%, ni nombra 11 veces al barcelona como comentaste tb páginas anteriores.
Gracias por darme de nuevo la razón y autoretratarte.
la hostia pero que lo que publique era la traduccion y este es el primero esta despues el que habla del barsa y tu decias que no.
By
Sam Wallace,
CHIEF FOOTBALL WRITER
15 July 2023 • 5:04pm
An aerial view of the Nou Camp stadium as the restoration work continues in Barcelona on July 13, 2023
Barcelona's Nou Camp stadium is undergoing remodelling but the club's finances are in the spotlight again CREDIT: Anadolu Agency/Ahmet Abbasi
Real Madrid and Barcelona have been told by Uefa that the cash generated by the sale of future revenue streams – including broadcast deals and other media assets – will not be considered as legitimate profit in their financial fair play (FFP) consideration.
The decision puts huge pressure on Barcelona to comply with FFP in the next cycle, and goes some way to explaining why Real’s activity in the transfer market has been so limited – aside from Jude Bellingham’s arrival.
Uefa has treated Barcelona’s sale of a range of future income streams for around €700 million last summer, as debt. The same was the case with Real’s €360 million sale of future income from the remodelled Bernabeu to the US investor Sixth Street last summer.
In both club’s financial results published for the benefit of their members, who are the clubs’ ultimate owners, those up-front cash payments in return for a stake of future earnings have been presented as profit.
Uefa announced on Friday it was fining Barcelona €500,000 for its latest FFP submission, signalling another crisis for the club. Barcelona had tried to submit a portion of its sale of 25 years of future income to US investor Sixth Street – understood to be €266 million – as legitimate revenue for its FFP consideration for the most recent financial year. That was rejected by Uefa and the club was heavily fined for erroneous accounting practices in relation to FFP.
In a statement, Uefa’s Club Financial Control Board, which administers FFP, said that Barcelona were given the fine for “wrongly reporting” what it described as “profits on disposal of intangible assets (other than player transfers)”. Uefa said that those profits were not “a relevant income under the regulations.”
This was a reference to the sale of future income streams known colloquially in Spain as “palancas”, or financial levers. These financial arrangements were, contrary to Uefa’s position, permitted by Spain’s Liga executive in the 2021-2022 season.
The new facade at Real Madrid's under-construction Bernabeu stadium
The new facade at Real Madrid's under-construction Bernabeu stadium CREDIT: AFP/THOMAS COEX
Barcelona passed Uefa’s FFP because the current rules calculate aggregate losses over a total of four years but it is now facing huge obstacles to doing so next year. It is understood that Barcelona had hoped to book a further €400 million of cash from the sale of future income streams in the next financial year. It is now clear that Uefa will not recognise that revenue as FFP compliant. Barcelona declined to comment when contacted by Telegraph Sport.
The new FFP rules will see clubs assessed annually over a calendar year. The new format, known as “squad costs”, will restrict expenditure on transfers, wages, agents’ fees and all other attendant costs to a percentage of revenue. That will begin at 90 per cent this year falling by ten per cent twice over the following two years to 70 per cent. Clubs will be permitted to lose €60 million over a three-year period providing certain assurances are made.
In October, Real reported an operating profit of €23 million to their members in the club’s results covering the financial year 2021-2022. But Uefa saw it differently. The removal by Uefa of the profit consideration of €316 million that Real drew down from that €360 million sale of future rights to Sixth Street meant that, in FFP terms, the club made significant operating losses of €293 million. The club only passed FFP because of its aggregate profit and losses over the four-year period.
The club’s 2022-2023 budget had projected an operating profit of €7 million with the inclusion of the remaining part of the Sixth Street deal, €44 million. That sum will not be set aside by Uefa, turning the projection into a €37million operating loss.
Real’s separate sale of future rights to the US private equity group, Providence, may also now have an impact on future Uefa FFP compliancy. The Providence deal, that saw unspecified up-front cash payments in return for a cut of future commercial incomes, began in 2017 and has since been extended.
This week Telegraph Sport revealed costs in Real’s most recent financial results, included in its “other operating expenses” sub-category, of €135 million. There was no explanation forthcoming as to the destination of €122 million of that total. It represented 20 per cent of the club’s total spending.
Real declined to explain where that cash was being paid and whether part or all of the €122 million was being used to service the annual payments on the Providence deal.
The deal with Providence was originally described by Real as a “participation account” and then in its most recent results as an “unincorporated joint venture agreement”. Payments in that “other operating expenses” sub-category of Real’s annual financial results have risen 800 per cent over five years since 2017, against revenue growth of just six per cent.
Last summer Barcelona sold 25 per cent of Liga television revenues for the next 25 years to Sixth Street. The US investor paid around €500 million, it is understood. A further €200 million was projected to come from the sale of 49.5 per cent of the subsidiary Barca Studios, to two separate investors.
Help Centre
About us
Telegraph Extra
Reader Prints
Branded Content
Syndication and Commissioning
Guidelines
Privacy
Terms and Conditions
Advertising Terms
Fantasy Sport
UK Voucher Codes
Betting Offers
Modern Slavery
Tax Strategy
Broadband and Mobile Deals
Wine Cellar
The Chelsea Magazine Company
Manage Cookies
© Telegraph Media Group Limited 2023
en este texto, que es el que os dije que mencionaban mas al madrid, cntrl f y pones barcelona, listo.
aqui, tienes, correcto, menti, eran 12 no 11
#288 puedo pegarlo tantas veces como quiera, pero no veríais vuestra cagada ni aunque os la pusieran enfrente 500 veces.
#291 si otra cosa es que el periodista no lo sabe, pero tranquilo, que UEFA y hacienda lo saben.
con esto mi ultimo post aqui que uno se cansa de repetir las mismas pruebas y la discusion sigue igual.
vaaaale, si teneis razon, a ver si asi os vais dormir tranquilos.
#295 si sois vosotros los que vais dando sentencias afirmativas, pero oye, al menos reconoces que hablas sin saber.
te lo explico, en el primer articulo compara la cuenta de ingresos con una de gastos y por que no se reflejan en la de ingresos, coño es de primero de contabilidad.
el segundo articulo dicen que aun teniendo esas perdidas el madrid pasa el control financiero por que es a 4 años
#296 vamos que no sabes de que son esos millones pero cada vez que alguien pregunta por ellos pegas el mismo ladrillo como si finiquitaras algo.
#285 te has dado cuenta ya que son dos artículos diferentes no ?
Y del que se debería de hablar en este post no es donde se menta al barcelona no ?
Va que no es tan dificil, ánimo
#298 no, despues de eso otro trajo el articulo segundo del que estuvimos debatiendo.
Si ese primer articulo que dice claramente que el madrid no quiso informar al periodista y que los medios dijeron que no habia informado , son cosas diferentes, si ni siquiera tu lo entiendes deberias volver a reparar tu comprension lectora.
