Euro Commission (finally) aims at Spanish clubs

[unexpected item]

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]

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.

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.

I agree in this part with you, but they would be able to keep the club owned by the fans.<br /><br />-- 17 Dec 2013, 18:49 --<br /><br />

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.

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.

 

[Ducado]

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?"

100% spot on!

 

[SevillistaCitizen]

They finally do this. I hope they find enough information about all the illegal activities they do and they´re punished. In Spain we´re absolutely sick of our League. It´s a sh++, in all senses: competitivity, TV rights, excitement, organisation,etc. We got so so much to learn of the Premier League model.

 

[Falastur]

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.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

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.

To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:

there has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);
the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
competition has been or may be distorted;
the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States.

I make you right

 

[aguero93:20]

It's not true.
And I can't see anything wrong about clubes being owned by fans.

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.

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 --

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.

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......

 

[MC ID]

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?"

Ha! I hadn't actually considered that.

So much is wrong with the Spainish league its ridiculous but I doubt any real wrath can be brought down on either of the big two. They are too important to the wider football audience and to that league (look at the scottish league) to have anyone make a real dent in their armour. No, I suspect, if anything that they will have to in future cover their tracks better while some smaller clubs get screwed over.

 

[MCFC-alan88]

Can you imagine how good the Spanish league would be if they just distributed the TV money equally?

 

[Matty]

I don't understand how the other clubs have allowed Barca and Real to have so much power. Why don't the rest of the Spanish clubs group together and simply say "we want a fairer system, and until we get it, we're playing our own competition, and you're not invited"?