FC Steaua Arhiva Forum
Arhiva forumului FC Steaua — conservata in regim doar-citire. Postarea a fost dezactivata. Inapoi la site

Transferuri internationale

«1343536373847»
Adrian13.05.2013 14:37

Pai ce, ma, doar in Anglia sa curga cu bani? Care e problema daca baga si altii bani?

 

Ia uite ca nu mai merge Falcao la Chelsea, merge la Monaco. Uite ca nu mai merge Lewandowski la Man Utd, uite ca nu mai merge Ibrahimovic la Liverpool, (zic si eu asa)etc.

 

Ca daca devine campionatul francez atractiv pentru investitori si vin aia si iau echipe si baga bani, s-a dus dracului fotbalul din Insula. Ca nu stiu cine mai merge acolo. Intre Franta si Anglia, toata lumea alege Franta. Mai ales daca lumea despre care vorbim e formata din fotbalisti cocalari.

Lorimer13.05.2013 14:56

Dar de ce zici numai de Anglia si nu si de Spania? Lasa ca nu Atletico l-a crescut pe Falcao.

Adrian13.05.2013 15:00

Si Spania, corect. Desi in Anglia sunt cei mai multi bani. In Spania doar cateva echipe au bani cu adevarat multi.

 

Care-i problema daca baga altii bani si in alte campionate, nu doarin Anglia si Spania?

 

Daca mai cumpara cativa seici si rusi din astea niste echipe din Franta si Germania, deja nu se mai uita nimeni la Premier League. Si-atunci sa vezi ce se duce dracului fotbalul britanic.

 

Ajung ca italienii. Ca si aia erau the shit odata. Not anymore!

Harald13.05.2013 16:04

deci merge si Jose la Monaco?

Alexandru H.13.05.2013 16:16

Aici ii dau dreptate lui Adrian. Se plang de asemenea transferuri doar echipe ce deja aruncau cu bani in fotbalisti si nu aveau niciun interes sa imparta tortul cu altii. Nu-mi plac arabii sau rusii cu lovele dar pana la urma sunt un factor de echilibru intr-o lume in care doar United, Madrid, Barca sau Bayern ar domina fotbalul.

 

PS. Si sigur ca in PL sunt cei mai mari plangaciosi.

Ronnie13.05.2013 18:07

Adrian, e o prostie ce zici ca nu se mai uita nimeni la fotbalul englez daca se vor face investitii in alte tari. Desigur ca marea parte de fotbalisti sunt niste coca fara principii, da' cand vorbesti de fotbalul englez spui istorie.

 

Fotbalul englez nu o sa ramana niciodata fara suporteri, acolo mereu vei vedea stadioane pline care implicit inseamna spectacol. Eu m-as uita la orice ora la un Everton-Newcastle (aleg doua echipe de mijloc) in dauna unui Lazio-Catania sau Hamburg-Stuttgart.

 

Sunt urate echipele astea care baga bani dintr-o data decat cele gen Real, Barca, Bayern.. Astea sunt echipe istorice care mereu au fost in prim plan si mereu au avut incasari ca sa-si permita.

 

@Harald

 

Eu zic ca se duce la Chelsea. A spus si el mereu ca ii este dor de Anglia pentru atmosfera.

 

Lorimer13.05.2013 18:12

Adrian, nu de Monaco ma leg...de el imi pare rau ca am impresia ca pana acum nici n-a jucat in CL.

 

Alexandru, hai ca nu e chiar asa. cine sunt primii care au furat tot ce au putut din America de Sud (casa marilor talente) si de peste tot din Europa ca sa poata si ei sa castige cupe europene? Cine? Englezii? Nu prea cred! Cred ca spaniolii si italienii.

Alexandru H.13.05.2013 18:18
Adrian, nu de Monaco ma leg...de el imi pare rau ca am impresia ca pana acum nici n-a jucat in CL.

 

Alexandru, hai ca nu e chiar asa. cine sunt primii care au furat tot ce au putut din America de Sud (casa marilor talente) si de peste tot din Europa ca sa poata si ei sa castige cupe europene? Cine? Englezii? Nu prea cred! Cred ca spaniolii si italienii.

 

Ar trebui sa fii mai informat. Idee de cumparat jucatori a aparut in campionatul englez. Ei au inventat prostia asta. Ah, dar hai sa nu dam in englezi ci in spanioli, ca asa iti sopteste piticul anti-Barca.

Lorimer13.05.2013 18:28

Pai sunt foarte informat! Hai sa vedem cati brazileini si argentinieri de calitate au jucat in Anglia pana prin 90. Doar Ardiles imi vine in minte acum. Hai sa vedem cati din afara insulei de mare calitate au jucat in Anglia pana atunci. Pai Liverpool, cele 4 United, Nottingham, Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea, Ipswich, Everton sau City au castigat cupe europene doar cu britanici in teren. Spaniolii si italienii au furat tot ce era mai bun...vrei sa ti-i si spun?

Adrian13.05.2013 18:29

Momentan fotbalul din Anglia nu e cel mai spectaculos. E printre cele mai spectaculoase, dar nu e cel mai spectaculos. Lumea se uita insa mult la el pentru jucatori. Pentru ca are foarte multe vedete. Cand QPR, ultima clasata, da 16 milioane de euro pe Samba, inseamna ca ai ce vedea acolo.

 

Daca celelalte campionate ar baga banii din Anglia, ar creste automat si numarul de vedete si calitatea. Si atunci eu nu-i mai vad prea bine pe britanici.

 

Nu se vor mai duce chiar toti jucatorii la ei. Pentru ca daca Samba are de ales intre QPR si Lille, care se bate la titlu, va alege Lille.(e un exemplu aiurea) Momentan el nu alege Lille. Alege QPR pentru ca aia ii dau mai multi bani. Dar la aceiasi bani, fiti siguri ca omul se va duce la performanta.

 

Niciodata nu o sa ramana fotbalul englez fara suporteri. Doar ca o sa aiba mai putini.

 

Ronny

 

Ce era Man Utd pana sa vina banii?

Ronnie13.05.2013 18:36

Ai dreptate dar pana la un anumit punct. Nu da exemplu pe QPR, ei sunt o exceptie aka deceptie pentru fotbalul englez in acest an. Nu in fiecare zi echipa de pe ultimul loc din PL plateste banii astia. E foarte ciudat cum de au picat avand in vedere cat au transferat si ca au avut pe banca un manager foarte bun, Redknapp, omul care a dus Spus in UCL si a inventat jucatori ca Bale, Lennon.

 

Zi-mi tu o echipa care s-a mentinut in top fara mari investitii. Si cand ma refer in top vorbesc an de an in primavara UCL si un campionat la 2-3 sezoane.

Ronnie13.05.2013 18:42

PS: Liverpool have reportedly practically agreed deals with Ajax to sign Danish international Christian Eriksen and Belgian defender Toby Alderweireld for £25m.

 

Daca se face atunci fac si astia in sfarsit o afacere buna dupa atatea rateuri.

Adrian13.05.2013 19:01

Nu e foarte sigur ca e facut transferul celor 2 la Liverpool. 25 de milioane de lire e cam putin pentru amandoi. 20 de milioane de lire costa Eriksen singur.

Lorimer13.05.2013 19:04
Ronny

 

Ce era Man Utd pana sa vina banii?

 

Stai putin ca a existat un mare United si pana sa vina Ferguson. Busby a creat doua echipe mari plus perioada lui Jack Rowley.

Ronnie13.05.2013 19:06

E cam mult 20m de lire avand in vedere ca Sneijder a fost transferat de la Ajax la Real pentru 30 (20m lire, ceva mai putin de 30 de euro dar tot pe acolo), iar Sneijder atunci eu zic ca era mai mult decat e Eriksen acum.

 

Am cautat acum pe net si pe wikipedia sa vad o comparatie si zice ca VDV a fost cumparat cu doar 5.5m de euro de Hamburg prima oara. Foarte putin.

Adrian13.05.2013 19:35
"Dortmund este un club la care mi-as dori sa joc. Joaca un fotbal foarte frumos, ofensiv. Recunosc ca pana acum, Bundesliga a fost campionat care nu m-a atras deloc, nu m-am gandit niciodata sa joc acolo. Dar lucurile s-au schimbat, competitia este acum foarte puternica si faptul ca finala Ligii e jucata de doua formatii nemtesti, nu este o intamplare.", a declarat Eriksen pentru De Telegraaf.

 

 

Alte vremuri, alti bani, alti jucatori. Eriksen are 21 de ani. Daca nici la varsta asta nu costa mult, atunci cand?

Harald13.05.2013 21:28

@Harald

 

Eu zic ca se duce la Chelsea. A spus si el mereu ca ii este dor de Anglia pentru atmosfera.

 

 

 

am intrebat pentru ca pe linkul dat de Adrian scrie:

 

Chelsea had been confident of completing a move for Falcao after the 27-year-old was identified by incoming manager Jose Mourinho as his top priority for the summer transfer window.

Alexandru H.14.05.2013 09:23
You have probably all already seen that Falcao is destined for Monaco. There were a lot of rumors about a potential move to Manchester United, Chelsea, Real Madrid and others - so why does he end up moving to Monaco?

The answer is because of the complicated third-party ownership involved with Falcao. There was a very similar situation with Hulk when he moved to Zenit.

To explain this, we need to take a step back and first see how third party ownership works. Those in England would have previously seen this topic as it reached prominence when Carlos Tevez and Javier Mascherano signed for West Ham United. Here were two stars from Argentina signing for a club in London who were struggling to stay in the top flight. The controversy lead to West Ham paying compensation of £18M to Sheffield United, and lead the FA to ban third party ownership.

But third party ownership is still alive and well on the continent. It is most often applied with South American stars making the jump across the Atlantic to Europe. The way it works is that investment groups will purchase the registration rights of an upcoming player. This is sometimes done while the player is at a club, and sometimes as part of a transfer.

For eg. one scenario would be that a 16 year old star in South America would be approached by an agent and asked if he wants backing with marketing and making it big in Europe. These deals usually involve paying the player a better salary, hooking him up with a better agent, better management, sponsorship deals etc. If and when the player agrees, the third party owners will then go to the club he is registered to and negotiate to buy his registration rights - either all of or part of.

The player is then in the hands of the management and third party ownership group, who manage every aspect of his career from that point on. That usually involves paying him a larger salary on top of his club salary, placing him in clubs where he will get more exposure, etc.

The other way third-party ownership happens is that the investment group finances a transfer for a player. For eg. Porto want to sign a player from Brasil but don't have the funds, they would approach an investment group and have them stake 50-60% of the deal in return for the players registration rights.

The investment group make all of this upfront investment with the hope that at some point in the future the player proves himself, becomes a star, and can then exit at a very large valuation.

Some examples: Tevez and Mascherano were placed into West Ham by their investment group as a way of getting them more exposure. It worked out well in both cases as Liverpool purchased Mascherano (buying out the investment group and giving them a good return) and City eventually ended up buying out Tevez - albeit via Manchester United (who never owned the entirety of his transfer rights).

Back to Falcao. He was purchased by a third-party ownership group as part of his transfer to Porto. They bought 55% (likely more) of his transfer rights, supplemented his salary while he was paying at Porto and then moved him to Atletico for the purpose of getting him more exposure (likely with an eye on moving him eventually to Real Madrid). During the time Falcao was there, the investors were supplementing his wages again (infact paying most of them) and working on negotiating his big move which would see them cash out.

Porto's financials show the following for the Falcao transfer:

sale of 60% of the economic rights of the player Bolatti to the entity Natland Financieringsmaatschappij B.V., on July 2009, by the amount of, approximately, 1,500,000 Euro, (transaction perform under the acquisition process of 40% of the registration of Falcao)

There is another section where it is disclosed that they sold another 5% option in Falcao, and another section where it is disclosed that there is an option for a third party to purchase a further 10%.

The same filing shows that Porto only owned 45% of Hulk.

What is more interesting is who is involved in the Falcao ownership. The group is called Doyen Sports and it was founded by Jorge Mendes (most famous as Ronaldo's agent, but an infamous player agent who is involved in a lot of third-party deals) and Peter Kenyon (former Chelsea chairman).

On their website they have a page for Falcao and you can also see the other players listed. Falcao, like Hulk, ended up in a situation where there was so much invested in him that it would take a lot of money for the investors to see a return (known as being highly leveraged). They were paying his salary for a few seasons, had floated Atleti some money to keep them alive (they got some shirt sponsorship in return) and had made the initial investment when he first transferred.

Falcao ends up moving to Atletico in a 40M move - despite Atleti the previous season stating that they had to clear players out because of their 220M euro tax bill with the Spanish government. What this ended up being is a 20 + 20M deal. 20M never gets paid because its just the third-party owners paying themselves, and of the other 20M only 18M is owed by Atleti, who take an option of paying in two 9M installments (they were late on the first one, they only paid 2.5M and defaulted to the point of Porto threatening to sue and taking the issue up with FIFA). End situation is that around 60% of the rights are with the Doylen group. It also appears that while Falcao was at Atletico that Doylen took an option for a larger stake in him since Atleti were late on their payments. Something weird happen which involved Doylen taking a sponsorship. Either way, they had the majority stake and Atletico had no say or control of the player. For all purposes it was nothing more than a loan with Atletico having a small stake in his registration rights.

The president of Atletico Madrid continuously insisted that they own all the rights to Falcao, but this simply isn't true.

Falcao is on a wage of 10M euro per year, and the return the investors wanted is 60M euro in transfer fee. This narrows down the list of potential clubs that can buy you out to very few. Atletico had no say in where Falcao goes, they had an option in the winter transfer window, but that expired. The owners needed their return and they were going to get it one way or the other.

The list can be narrowed down to PSG, Monaco, Real Madrid, Chelsea and City. City aren't making large investments any longer, PSG have their fix of strikers. Of the remaining three, it is apparent that Real Madrid didn't want to pay up the 60M + 50M in contracts for Falcao (for whatever reason). Apparently Chelsea matched the 60M clause but to pay Falcao the 10M per season in wages would involve a total gross salary of 300k+ per week, which just isn't manageable.

Chelsea also have the issue of not being allowed to directly purchase a player from a third-party owner (apparently this is what turned ManU off a move) so it would have required a two-step sale with Falcao going to one club outright and then to Chelsea. Apparently with the David Luiz transfer on the same day he moved to Chelsea Benfica bought out the entirety of his rights from third-party owners (so you can summize that Chelsea gave them the money to buy out that deal so that they could purchase 100% of Luiz directly from Benfica, thus avoiding the third-party rule in England).

With all of these factors you end up with only one target: Monaco. They have the 60M to pay out the investors, they have the funds to pay his wages of 10M per year and better yet they have no income tax so they don't have to supplement the gross.

So in the end Falcao is moved around Europe by his investors with the only goal of making a return for them. He has little to no say in his final destination because of a deal he agreed to years ago while he was still in South America.

 

De aici.

Lorimer26.05.2013 12:16

Umbla vorba ca perla Neymar s-ar fi inteles cu Barcelona. Eu unul as vrea ca Neymar sa fie un jucator urias si asta nu pentru Barcelona, ci pentru Brazilia. Oamenii aia mananca fotbal pe paine si ar fi pacat sa nu castige Cupa Mondiala atunci cand tara lor o organizeaza. In general tineam cu Argentina dintre cele doua, dar acum parca as vrea sa castige brazilienii. Si pentru a contracara forta nemtilor si argentinienilor, au nevoie de jucatori de calibru. De asta sper ca si Oscar sa explodeze la anu'. Iau un simplu ex. Kaka, talentul lor de care s-a bucurat numai fotbalul italian...

 

pentru Barcelona nu ma bucur. Ei doar cauta ceea ce au cautat mereu...un sud-american de geniu care sa le faca meciurile. Treaba e ca Neymar are mostenire grea si el o necunoscuta pentru toti. De la Robinho se asteptau toti sa fie noul Pele si desi n-a jucat deloc rau la Real Madrid, per total nu s-a ridicat la nivelul asteptarilor. De la Neymar insa toti se asteapta la ceva Maradona+Messi+cine mai vreti si dupa cum l-am vazut numai in fund in amicalul cu Anglia ma tem ca intr-un campionat precum cel englez sau italian ar fi un esec total. Cu bulevardele din Spania ar fi o sansa, dar repet...ma tem ca va fi o teapa uriasa.

Alexandru H.26.05.2013 12:36

Sunt sigur ca esti disperat ca Neymar se va dovedi un esec pentru Barcelona, la dragostea ta pentru catalani...

 

Apropo, ce zici de faptul ca Bayern tocmai a depasit-o pe Liverpool pe scena europeana? Mai are nevoie Barcelona de un CL si va face la fel...

Adrian26.05.2013 12:58

Irelevant. Neymar e expirat de mult. Gotze, Reus, Muller - astia sunt acum topul.

 

Si o sa vedeti ca in Brazilia primele 3 vor fi tot Germania, Spania si Olanda. Ramane doar de vazut in ce ordine :)

Lorimer26.05.2013 13:07

Au acelasi nr. de trofee CCE-CL. Liverpool per total are 8 cupe europene castigate, Bayern are 7...deci, la ce i-a depasit? La finale pierdute?

 

My friend, pana al urma astea nu conteaza. Bayern a avut mereu bani si mereu la nemti a fost Bayern si restul...asta inseamna ca Bayern a avut nenumarate sanse sa joace in cea mai prestigioasa competitie inter-cluburi, sansa pe care altii intr-un campionat echilibrat nu o aveau an de an. Plus ca englezii au fost pedepsiti intre 85-95... A fost o competitie serioasa cu Gladbach in anii 70 si ceva cu Hamburg tot cam pe-atunci, dar in rest, mereu acolo Bayern daca pierdea un an titlul, le lua celorlalti jucatorii de baza ca sa poata sa triumfe...asta a facut mereu, asta face si acum.

 

PS In fata echipelor engleze are palmares clar negativ si asta in conditiile in care ei erau mereu nr.1 in Germania si nu jucau mereu cu nr.1 din Anglia. Deci, sunteti inca mititei.

Ronnie26.05.2013 15:46

Neymar a semnat pe 5 ani cu Barca. OFICIAL

 

asdasd.jpg

Ronnie26.05.2013 16:00
Irelevant. Neymar e expirat de mult. Gotze, Reus, Muller - astia sunt acum topul.

 

In momentul de fata exista Messi, Ronaldo si restul.

Alexandru H.26.05.2013 16:16
Au acelasi nr. de trofee CCE-CL. Liverpool per total are 8 cupe europene castigate, Bayern are 7...deci, la ce i-a depasit? La finale pierdute?

 

My friend, pana al urma astea nu conteaza. Bayern a avut mereu bani si mereu la nemti a fost Bayern si restul...asta inseamna ca Bayern a avut nenumarate sanse sa joace in cea mai prestigioasa competitie inter-cluburi, sansa pe care altii intr-un campionat echilibrat nu o aveau an de an. Plus ca englezii au fost pedepsiti intre 85-95... A fost o competitie serioasa cu Gladbach in anii 70 si ceva cu Hamburg tot cam pe-atunci, dar in rest, mereu acolo Bayern daca pierdea un an titlul, le lua celorlalti jucatorii de baza ca sa poata sa triumfe...asta a facut mereu, asta face si acum.

 

PS In fata echipelor engleze are palmares clar negativ si asta in conditiile in care ei erau mereu nr.1 in Germania si nu jucau mereu cu nr.1 din Anglia. Deci, sunteti inca mititei.

 

Cred ca esti negru de suparare daca ai capacitatea sa inventezi astfel de scuze. Auzi, Bayern nu e mai tare decat Liverpool pentru ca a avut sanse mai multe sa joace in CL. Hai sa-ti explic o chestie: Bayern a promovat in Bundesliga in 1965, deci a avut posibilitatea sa joace in CL din 1966. Liverpool, United, Real si restul puteau sa faca asta inca de la infiintarea CL, 10 ani mai devreme. In termeni absoluti, Liverpool a avut sansa sa joace mai mult in CL.

 

Acum nu stiu cum sa-ti spun, dar in ultimii 20 de ani campionatul englez e mai putin echilibrat decat Bundesliga, United castigand mai multe trofee PL decat Bayern. Asta ce inseamna? Pai luandu-ma dupa argumentele tale, ca cele trei CL luate de echipele germane in aceasta perioada valoreaza mai mult decat cele trei CL luate de echipele englezesti. De-asemenea, United a tot cumparat jucatori de la concurenta: Rooney, RvP, Rio Ferdinand, Cantona, Keane, Berbatov etc. In fapt, cred ca tu voiai sa o ataci pe United dar ai incurcat echipele in timpul tastarii..

 

Da, stiu, acum vei mai gasi vreo 3 argumente fara logica prin care sa-mi arati ca Bayern sucks.

«1343536373847»