[请审阅]法尔考转会幕后:关于法尔考租借和财政公平竞赛规则的思考

英国时间周日晚上,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成一致时,我确实不太相信。在我看来,这一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,为了在转会期最后胁迫长期追求者皇马或者曼城向一些记者们放的风。但是不到48个小时我就被打脸了,法尔考披上了曼联历史悠久的红色战袍,但是这个脸打得让我感觉前所未有的爽。

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和跟他一起曝光的哥伦比亚同行还是在一个细节上搞错了。Bello报道称曼联花了6500万欧元一次性买下了法尔考,并且已经签署了一份四年的合同。但现在的准确说法是曼联将租借法尔考一个赛季,并附加一个在租期结束后对这位高产射手的购买权。具体的租借细节,像是租借是否免费,未来购买的价格是多少,现在还没有确切的说法。另外就连曼联是否需要强制性购买还是可以自行选择购买也不清楚。

(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?)

(顺带令人注意的是,曼联对于布林德和罗霍都报道了确切的价格,这就让人怀疑可能是俱乐部决定要谨慎地对待法尔考的租借条款,或者是曼联与摩纳哥商量好了不将转会细节公之于众。另外曼联决定不公布具体租借费用的原因是什么呢?)

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.

在关于法尔考交易的推特评论中,我们注意到转会专家Guillem Balague暗示道这次转会被构造成了一次为“应对公平竞赛原则(以下简称为FFP)”的租借。这条推特被选出并在“社交网络耳语”中被法尔考的经纪人归为谣言。

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.

虽然我没法确定曼联未官方确认的转会条款,但是我已在着手研究曼联和摩纳哥是否可以通过将转会构造成租借,从FFP中明显获利。让我们使用一些报道的数字(作为提醒不同的报纸报道了不同的数字)来看看,在每种情况下对两家俱乐部有何财政影响。

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.

在我们的例子中,假设曼联付给摩纳哥的租借费用是600万英镑(约750万欧元),买断价格是约4350万英镑(约5500万欧元)。我们还假设要是法尔考被一次性买断的话,那么价格是6250万欧元(租借费用和买断价格的和。可以注意到这一数字要比Saris Bello最初报道的6500万欧元小)并且将签订一份如Bello报道的四年合约。