Euro Commission (finally) aims at Spanish clubs

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Oh I don't know - it's just Juan thing after another.

 

[IrelandSuperman]

Oh I don't know - it's just Juan thing after another.

We should really Jose these news down with a fair bit of skepticism.

P.S. The Txiki boys in Spain are sure to complain.

 

[Rana]

There's no doubt that Real have been state aided, I don't know enough about Barca's finances to comment on them but I can well imagine both of them have been let off tax bills.

That is symply not true. Or is true in the same way the state aided City(Etihad Campus and Stadium).
It was a land rezoning by Madrid city council.

You really are a bit biased or a complete idiot. The "re-zoning" allowed them to sell land they'd bought cheaply back to the council at a huge profit, at the stroke of a pen. It was dodgy as fuck.

Thanks, I appreciate it. :D
I'm a well informed citizen. The old 'Ciudad Deportiva' is located in one of the most healthy streets of the city and that means a lot of potential incomes.

It was a 'win-win' situation for both, city council and Real Madrid. Real Madrid sold the old training ground and the council got some money and land.
As much as I hate Real Madrid I can't see the state aid anywhere.

We gave up our old ground and pay a market lease on the Etihad. If we hadn't agreed to take on the stadium after the event for which it was designed for, it probably wouldn't have been built. We've not made any profit it on it at all.

So the operation is good for both parts.
What's wrong about making profit?

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

There's no doubt that Real have been state aided, I don't know enough about Barca's finances to comment on them but I can well imagine both of them have been let off tax bills.

That is symply not true. Or is true in the same way the state aided City(Etihad Campus and Stadium).
It was a land rezoning by Madrid city council.

You really are a bit biased or a complete idiot. The "re-zoning" allowed them to sell land they'd bought cheaply back to the council at a huge profit, at the stroke of a pen. It was dodgy as fuck.

We gave up our old ground and pay a market lease on the Etihad. If we hadn't agreed to take on the stadium after the event for which it was designed for, it probably wouldn't have been built. We've not made any profit it on it at all.

Typical Madridista mate - they´ve been indoctrinated by the "fachas" for decades

Ooops didn´t see above - well maybe not sorry . I´ve lived in Madrid and Spain many years and everyone here knows that deal was nothing short of fraudulent and corrupt but because RM is a political institution and a manifestation of Castillian power, they get away with it - simples - did you go to a "concertado" school coz it sure sounds like it - they would have drip fed you all that shit for sure

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

There's no doubt that Real have been state aided, I don't know enough about Barca's finances to comment on them but I can well imagine both of them have been let off tax bills.

That is symply not true. Or is true in the same way the state aided City(Etihad Campus and Stadium).
It was a land rezoning by Madrid city council.

City have not received any state aid. Money was provided from a variety of sources to build a stadium for the 2002 Commonwealth games. The money was provided on the understanding that an end user would be found after the games or the "stadium" would be a temporary structure for the games and then it would be demolished. City emerged as the end user as a result of negotiations which enabled City to make alterations to the stadium at the club's own expense and then pay an annual sum based on attendances. This has since been amended by negotiation and the terms mean that City will have repaid the total cost of the stadium long before the lease expires. The fact that it is a lease is significant - City have not been given an asset, but pay to use it. Most football stadia in Italy, many in Germany and many American football stadia are built by - or at least with the help of - local authorites, and leased out. This is categorically not state aid, though if it was found that the agreement involved sums which meant the club was leasing it at way below market value or the costs of construction a case could be argued. In fact City made the construction feasible, incurred part of the costs itself and are paying, in view of all the circumstances, an economic rent. This is very different from the alleged goings on around Madrid's "land deal" with their local authority. If your case is found to be right then you have nothing to worry about, but the circumstances are very different and no state aid was involved in the construction of the Etihad, and there is no question of the state favouring City over anyone else. The same appears to be the case with the Olympic stadium, though a deal has not yet been finalised.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

There's no doubt that Real have been state aided, I don't know enough about Barca's finances to comment on them but I can well imagine both of them have been let off tax bills.

That is symply not true. Or is true in the same way the state aided City(Etihad Campus and Stadium).
It was a land rezoning by Madrid city council.

You really are a bit biased or a complete idiot. The "re-zoning" allowed them to sell land they'd bought cheaply back to the council at a huge profit, at the stroke of a pen. It was dodgy as fuck.

We gave up our old ground and pay a market lease on the Etihad. If we hadn't agreed to take on the stadium after the event for which it was designed for, it probably wouldn't have been built. We've not made any profit it on it at all.

Dead right, PB. We do the decent thing, save the taxpayer a bloody fortune and we get called for it. We'll probably have Barroso y Co sniffing round to see if the EU can't shaft us when Blatter and Platini have failed with FFFFPPPPRRRRs!

 

[Rana]

There's no doubt that Real have been state aided, I don't know enough about Barca's finances to comment on them but I can well imagine both of them have been let off tax bills.

That is symply not true. Or is true in the same way the state aided City(Etihad Campus and Stadium).
It was a land rezoning by Madrid city council.

City have not received any state aid. Money was provided from a variety of sources to build a stadium for the 2002 Commonwealth games. The money was provided on the understanding that an end user would be found after the games or the "stadium" would be a temporary structure for the games and then it would be demolished. City emerged as the end user as a result of negotiations which enabled City to make alterations to the stadium at the club's own expense and then pay an annual sum based on attendances. This has since been amended by negotiation and the terms mean that City will have repaid the total cost of the stadium long before the lease expires. The fact that it is a lease is significant - City have not been given an asset, but pay to use it. Most football stadia in Italy, many in Germany and many American football stadia are built by - or at least with the help of - local authorites, and leased out. This is categorically not state aid, though if it was found that the agreement involved sums which meant the club was leasing it at way below market value or the costs of construction a case could be argued. In fact City made the construction feasible, incurred part of the costs itself and are paying, in view of all the circumstances, an economic rent. This is very different from the alleged goings on around Madrid's "land deal" with their local authority. If your case is found to be right then you have nothing to worry about, but the circumstances are very different and no state aid was involved in the construction of the Etihad, and there is no question of the state favouring City over anyone else. The same appears to be the case with the Olympic stadium, though a deal has not yet been finalised.

Neither Real Madrid.
I didn't say City received state aid.

 

[Frank the Yank]

Spanish clubs, especially the big two of Madrid and Barcelona, get away with anything over here.

The way Real Madrid financed their new training complex out at Vadebebas was well known to be 100% corrupt, and all with the 'help' of the local authorities, who either turned a blind eye or got some nice back-handers.

Most transfers are conducted in a highly illegal way. Look at what's happening now with Neymar's transfer.

TV rights are an absolute disgrace, with the big two getting the lion's share of the money.

Meanwhile, my local team, Unión Deportiva Salamanca, with 90 years of history, has disappeared due to debts of around 20 million euros.

Really Salamanca have totally disappeared?? Didnt know that. While I lived (studied) there in 1982 I went out their stadium every week and stand on the terraces. One week the first team, who happened to be in the top flight, the next week to see the reserves.

 

[without a dream]

That is symply not true. Or is true in the same way the state aided City(Etihad Campus and Stadium).
It was a land rezoning by Madrid city council.

City have not received any state aid. Money was provided from a variety of sources to build a stadium for the 2002 Commonwealth games. The money was provided on the understanding that an end user would be found after the games or the "stadium" would be a temporary structure for the games and then it would be demolished. City emerged as the end user as a result of negotiations which enabled City to make alterations to the stadium at the club's own expense and then pay an annual sum based on attendances. This has since been amended by negotiation and the terms mean that City will have repaid the total cost of the stadium long before the lease expires. The fact that it is a lease is significant - City have not been given an asset, but pay to use it. Most football stadia in Italy, many in Germany and many American football stadia are built by - or at least with the help of - local authorites, and leased out. This is categorically not state aid, though if it was found that the agreement involved sums which meant the club was leasing it at way below market value or the costs of construction a case could be argued. In fact City made the construction feasible, incurred part of the costs itself and are paying, in view of all the circumstances, an economic rent. This is very different from the alleged goings on around Madrid's "land deal" with their local authority. If your case is found to be right then you have nothing to worry about, but the circumstances are very different and no state aid was involved in the construction of the Etihad, and there is no question of the state favouring City over anyone else. The same appears to be the case with the Olympic stadium, though a deal has not yet been finalised.

Neither Real Madrid.
I didn't say City received state aid.

You compared a deal where City shelled out (and continue to do so) with one which removed Real Madrid's debt and paid for a new team.

 

[chedinho]

There's no doubt that Real have been state aided, I don't know enough about Barca's finances to comment on them but I can well imagine both of them have been let off tax bills.

That is symply not true. Or is true in the same way the state aided City(Etihad Campus and Stadium).
It was a land rezoning by Madrid city council.

You really are a bit biased or a complete idiot. The "re-zoning" allowed them to sell land they'd bought cheaply back to the council at a huge profit, at the stroke of a pen. It was dodgy as fuck.

We gave up our old ground and pay a market lease on the Etihad. If we hadn't agreed to take on the stadium after the event for which it was designed for, it probably wouldn't have been built. We've not made any profit it on it at all.

think the rags would of got it if we turned down the offer.the rags either got it offered or asked for it first but because the stadium is in the city of manchester and city had a ground already in the city of manchester and the rags didnt,it allowed us to have first dibs.

so,rana,believe what you want but city fans are laughing at your ignorance right now.