[请审理]法尔考转会暗地:对于法尔考租赁和财务公正比赛规矩的考虑

英国时刻周日黑夜,以Saris Bello为首的哥伦比亚记者们曝出曼联与摩纳哥就法尔考的转会达到共同时,我的确不太信任。在我看来,这必定是来自于法尔考那个声明狼藉的葡萄牙“超级”经纪人门德斯,为了在转会期终究钳制长时刻寻求者皇马或许曼城向一些记者们放的风。可是不到48个小时我就被打脸了,法尔考披上了曼联历史悠久的赤色战袍,可是这个脸打得让我感受史无前例的爽。

That being said, Bello and the other Colombian journalists who first broke the story did appear to have gotten one detail incorrect.

Bello reported that Falcao would be purchased by Manchester United outright for 65 million euros, and signed to a four year deal.

It has now emerged that United will be loaning Falcao from Monaco for a year, with an option to purchase the prolific striker at the end of the loan term.

It is unclear exactly what the quantum of either the loan fee payable by the reds to Monaco is, or the purchase option exercise price, are.

It is also unclear as to whether the club will be compelled to purchase Falcao after one year, or whether the club can choose not to exercise the option.

话虽这么说,Bello和跟他一同曝光的哥伦比亚同行仍是在一个细节上搞错了。Bello报导称曼联花了6500万欧元一次性买下了法尔考,而且现已签署了一份四年的合同。但如今的精确说法是曼联将租赁法尔考一个赛季,并附加一个在租期完毕后对这位高产射手的采购权。详细的租赁细节,像是租赁是不是免费,将来采购的报价是多少,如今还没有切当的说法。别的就连曼联是不是需求强制性采购仍是能够自行挑选采购也不清楚。

(It is notable in passing that MUFC has reported the purchase prices of both Daley Blind and Marcos Rojo on the club website – one wonders whether it was the club’s decision to be so circumspect about the terms for the Falcao loan, or whether there was an agreement between MUFC and Monaco to keep the details under wraps.

(Also, if it was entirely the club’s decision to not disclose the loan fee, what would the rationale for that be?)

(顺带令人留意的是,曼联对于布林德和罗霍都报导了切当的报价,这就让人置疑可能是沙龙决议要慎重地对待法尔考的租赁条款,或许是曼联与摩纳哥商议好了不将转会细节公之于众。别的曼联决议不发布详细租赁费用的因素是啥呢?)

In commenting on the Falcao deal on Twitter, noted transfer purchase deposit expert Guillem Balague suggested that the deal had been structured as a loan “for FFP [ie Financial Fair Play] reasons”.

This tweet was picked up and through the process of “social media Chinese whispers” ended up being attributed, incorrectly, to Falcao’s agent.

在对于法尔考买卖的推特谈论中,咱们留意到转会专家Guillem Balague暗示道这次转会被结构成了一次为“应对公正比赛准则(以下简称为FFP)”的租赁。这条推特被选出并在“交际网络耳语”中被法尔考的经纪人归为流言。

While it’s impossible to be certain given that the terms of the deal have not been confirmed by Manchester United, I have been trying to work out whether there is any clear FFP benefit to either United or Monaco from structuring the deal as a “loan plus option” versus an outright sale.

Let’s use some reported figures (noting as a caveat that different papers are reporting different figures!

) and examine the financial effects for both clubs under each scenario.

尽管我无法断定曼联未官方承认的转会条款,可是我已在着手研讨曼联和摩纳哥是不是能够经过将转会结构成租赁,从FFP中显着获利。让咱们运用一些报导的数字(作为提示不相同的报纸报导了不相同的数字)来看看,在每种状况下对两家沙龙有何财务影响。

For the purposes of this example, let’s assume that as reported by some papers the loan fee payable to Monaco by Manchester is 6 million pounds (about 7.

5 million euros) and the purchase option price is about 43.

5 million pounds (about 55 million euros). Let’s also assume that had Falcao been purchased outright by the club, he would’ve been bought for 62.

5 million euros (ie the sum of the loan fee plus the option purchase prices; note that this is a little short of the 65 million euros price mentioned by Saris Bello initially) and he would’ve been put on a 4 year deal as reported initially by Bello.

在咱们的比如中,假定曼联交给摩纳哥的租赁费用是600万英镑(约750万欧元),买断报价是约4350万英镑(约5500万欧元)。咱们还假定要是法尔考被一次性买断的话,那么报价是6250万欧元(租赁费用和买断报价的和。能够留意到这一数字要比Saris Bello开始报导的6500万欧元小)而且将签定一份如Bello报导的四年合约。