In regards to Messi, you have picked and chosen the information you wanted to absorb. On first count, the only journalist reporting the CFG shares was Duncan Castles. Projectriver literally attacked the idea and spoke of how it would open us up to another UEFA investigation. And regardless of whether it was viable, Lionel Messi was pushing for a friendly exit. That much we know for certain. A friendly exit would have involved a substantial transfer fee. The club briefed multiple journalists that they were not going to give up their first team players; indicating that the club was likely preparing a lucrative financial package (100m would be a guess) to Barcelona. That money clearly affects other deals.
You've totally missed my point; I literally argued the two could have nothing to do with eachother. Our inability to sell does not mean the Messi saga didn't affect our transfer planning.
There's no need to try to patronise people with nonsense like 'you should read up'.
Yep, you're right. I read it back and it does look patronising, which isn't a good look, but it wasn't meant to be and I'm sorry if I've offended.
Re the financing of the possible Messi deal, I didn't actually mention a shares issue, though I recall it being a said at some point, now that you mention it.
What I suppose I was trying to explain was that there were many illustrations in the Messi thread that explained how he was affordable by way of support from promotional joint ventures. Pretty much how united could pay Rooney £400k a week, whereby they paid within their wage structure at the time, £180kpw iirc, and the difference [between that and £400k] came from united and Rooney selling themselves together to sponsors.
It's a model used to finance exceptional incomes paid to celebrity sports people, and examples include Ronaldo at Juve, probably Neymar at PSG, certainly Messi at Barca and in other similar circumstances elsewhere and in other sports too.
The model requires that the income earner has such celebrity that they are a brand in their own right, so that when they are put together with the brand of their club, the combined brand recognition dramatically increases the advertising value to the sponsors and thereby increases the sponsorship income. The additional income is split at a given ratio between the player and the club, with the sponsors paying the parties directly.
If you'd like to see examples I think that Prestwich Blue set it out very clearly, but it was set out tirelessly elsewhere in the forum, in youtube vlogs and in journalist opinion pieces at the time.
Added to that it was made known that any possible bid for Messi would not affect the planned recruitment's, they would go ahead regardless of whether Messi was or was not recruited.
Hence bafflement that you hold that the Messi saga was detrimental to our transfer planning, but maybe I've missed the point you were making? I have been known to put my foot in it.
