unexpected item
Well-Known Member
The EU Commission investigation urged on by the Germans, no doubt. As in, "why should we help prop up the Spanish economy with bailouts, when they're giving the money straight to their football clubs?"
Prestwich_Blue said:Spain passed a law requiring all football clubs (bar Barcelona, Real Madrid and a couple of others) to become the equivalent of limited companies but this was deemed contrary to EU directives and is due to be dropped.Rana said:john@staustell said:He said Barcelona, Real Madrid, Osasuna and Athletic Bilbao are accused of contravening European Union rules because they are still owned by their members and had benefited from favourable tax treatment.
It's not true.
And I can't see anything wrong about clubes being owned by fans.
without a dream said:Rana said:BluessinceHydeRoad said: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.
unexpected item said:The EU Commission investigation urged on by the Germans, no doubt. As in, "why should we help prop up the Spanish economy with bailouts, when they're giving the money straight to their football clubs?"
Rana said:I didn't compare the deals, I said that there were no state aid in both situations, which is true.
And again...What's wrong with making profit?
The lands they had have a privileged location in the centre of Madrid. It's was pure gold. And as I said in previous posts, it was a win-win situation for both, club and council.
To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:Falastur said:Rana said:I didn't compare the deals, I said that there were no state aid in both situations, which is true.
And again...What's wrong with making profit?
The lands they had have a privileged location in the centre of Madrid. It's was pure gold. And as I said in previous posts, it was a win-win situation for both, club and council.
It was the Spanish Government that marked the area of the training ground as high-value property, allowing it to be sold for a premium, then virtually immediately declared that it was actually low-value property, allowing it to be sold back for (IIRC?) only a million Euros. Didn't Real make something like a 50x profit off the sale and re-purchase, or maybe more? In every way that is state aid.
can't remember exactly, but they were either leasing it from the council, bought it for a negligible sum, then sold it back a few years later for 50x as much, or sold it and bought it back for 50x less, I think the first one. if you can't see what is wrong with that......Rana said:Prestwich_Blue said:Spain passed a law requiring all football clubs (bar Barcelona, Real Madrid and a couple of others) to become the equivalent of limited companies but this was deemed contrary to EU directives and is due to be dropped.Rana said:It's not true.
And I can't see anything wrong about clubes being owned by fans.
I agree in this part with you, but they would be able to keep the club owned by the fans.
-- 17 Dec 2013, 18:49 --
without a dream said:Rana said: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.
I didn't compare the deals, I said that there were no state aid in both situations, which is true.
And again...What's wrong with making profit?
The lands they had have a privileged location in the centre of Madrid. It's was pure gold. And as I said in previous posts, it was a win-win situation for both, club and council.
unexpected item said:The EU Commission investigation urged on by the Germans, no doubt. As in, "why should we help prop up the Spanish economy with bailouts, when they're giving the money straight to their football clubs?"