Inter's Financial Situation

[Capo]

There is a bigger problem.

Serie A is one of the most indebted leagues in Europe. Inter is leading this for Serie A with $390M, Juve $260M and Roma $200M odd. This is flashing red fucking lights. The league needs to get a relatively good deal with tv rights, a fucking ridiculous strategy to boost revenue e.g changing timeslot to target Asian markets and I hate to say it but airtight rules for all clubs and they're able to service debts.

As for Inter........I've come to realisation we need to sell anyone of value, target mid-table and buy Italian talent until the books are in order. Going bankrupt should not be an option. It is fucking disgraceful winning a European Cup just over a decade ago to signing bums like Acerbi on Bosman deals because we can't afford anyone else.

 

[.h.]

and, see, an interesting thing of that - a lot of it comes down to Moratti. He made no effort to exploit our CL win. People were speculating we should get, at the time, +100m revenue in the following season through additional sponsorships, etc.

The year we won it, our revenue was like +25m on the last year, then the next year it actually went DOWN substantially - with only commercial going up +6m.

That failure to springbroad was really a disaster, tbh. Sneijder, Milito, Eto'o were all pretty marketable guys at the time, Sneijder esp considering many people in football considered him robbed of the ballon d'or. The funny thing is, if we'd taken steps to be more financially healthy just in the short term, we probably wouldnt have had to force out Sneijder and Eto'o the way we did, for example.

We really missed an opportunity in selling Maicon and Milito that summer, tbh, where we could have generated some decent revenue and offloaded costs.

 

[pazza moratti]

I think many of our fans would have revolted if Ausilio or Branca would have sold one or two of Milito/Etoo/Sneijder or Maicon… they would have taken a easy way out as people here say

 

[Capo]

and, see, an interesting thing of that - a lot of it comes down to Moratti. He made no effort to exploit our CL win. People were speculating we should get, at the time, +100m revenue in the following season through additional sponsorships, etc.

The year we won it, our revenue was like +25m on the last year, then the next year it actually went DOWN substantially - with only commercial going up +6m.

That failure to springbroad was really a disaster, tbh. Sneijder, Milito, Eto'o were all pretty marketable guys at the time, Sneijder esp considering many people in football considered him robbed of the ballon d'or. The funny thing is, if we'd taken steps to be more financially healthy just in the short term, we probably wouldnt have had to force out Sneijder and Eto'o the way we did, for example.

We really missed an opportunity in selling Maicon and Milito that summer, tbh, where we could have generated some decent revenue and offloaded costs.

Absolutely after winning the CL, Inter should have been on every fucking marketing campaign being distributed to all four corners of the world.

However, I disagree with selling members of 2010 team.

 

[brehme1989]

I fail to see the reasoning there.

Not selling players wasn't the issue.

The issue was that there was a financial crisis in Europe which hit Italy the hardest of all the countries, there was political turbulence and unfortunately for us, the Agnelli family came on top and pretty much dictated the football units and won everything, while Moratti was trying to cover his losses with his oil company.

Selling a player at the time wouldn't have helped. Have you seen our signings at the time?

Even after being fucked hard by the federation with a last minute rule change which blocked us from signing Hernanes (chronologically after Coutinho, a 2007 signing, arrived in 2010), we raised our payroll - which I guess it's fair, but that's on Moratti as he couldn't sustain it eventually - and we did not manage to reinforce the team.
We didn't pay our players that much, so crying that Moratti handed out contracts is revisionist nonsense.
For example, Zanetti was making 3m net, as was Cambiasso, Samuel, Stankovic, Thiago Motta and Cordoba. Top earners in football made 10-12m but the top ten didn't have more of 5 of those. The top 20 salaries were starting at 6m, which was slightly higher than where Sneijder was. Only Eto'o was in the top 5 and the next Inter players were featured in the 20-30 bracket. Zanetti and co were at the 80-100 bracket and only Maicon and Julio Cesar were part of the top 50. That's with the salary hikes of the CL win...

We made bad choices but after the 2011 season our transfers were just bad.
Milito was completely off in the following season, had some injuries as well. We got Pazzini who was decent for a while but never a player to replace Milito. Thankfully, Milito returned the following season and was even better than the Triplete season.

After the CL we paid a lot of money to retain McDonald Mariga and Jonathan Biabiany.


In January 2011 we got Yuto Nagatomo. An average player who spent a long time here. As much as you can like the guy, he wasn't Inter material.
Pazzini was a good signing at the time.
But we sold Thiago Motta. Replacement? Houssein Kharja.


After having to sell Eto'o due to his very high salary and then we tried to do the same with Sneijder, what did we do?
Get an old Forlan, not a great option at the time, at a very high salary but low cost. To replace Eto'o who had a phenomenal season.

We got Ricky Alvarez hoping he'd become our Kaka. It turned out like that, linguistically...
We also got Jonathan to replace another high salary in Maicon. Another poor choice.
And we resorted to tactics of signing players on loan + option with Andrea Poli, Mauro Zarate, then Angelo Palombo etc. We were rapidly declining in level.

Selling Milito for 20m and Maicon for 35m in 2010 wouldn't have given us a lot. Maybe we could have landed Aguero (35-40m asking price) or Alexis Sanchez (30m asking price) only to sell them a couple of years later, but realistically we were in a downtrend and there was not much to stop it other than structural reform in Italian football. Somethng that didn't suit its rulers as it enabled them to go on an unprecedented winning streak.

If you consider that selling Eto'o freed up around 15m in amortization costs, 20m in salary and we got 27m cash for him and all we could do is lock Forlan for a 5m fee and 10m extra cost, you can imagine that selling Milito or Maicon wouldn't have had an optimal effect. We even got 20m from Mourinho's contract. That also wasn't properly reinvested.

And not even necessary to skip the entire 2010-11 season. We can talk about the winter window. We sold Thiago Motta and couldn't replace him with the funds. We did the right thing by not dismantling the squad. But we could have operated more prudently, but it was a hard knock on Moratti to see that he suddenly became very weak financially and he couldn't anticipate that this would become semi-permanent.

 

[Il Drago]

We signed Kharja the previous season. When we sold Motta, we replaced him with Palombo on loan and an injured Guarin

 

[brehme1989]

Ah yes, Motta left in the 2011-12 season, you're right.

But still, there's not much evidence to suggest that we could have adequately replaced those guys and fix our finances. The problem wasn't expenditure, it was lack of revenues.


Social media at its infancy wouldn't have given us any special boost. It was all about Messi vs Cristiano and Mourinho vs Guardiola at the time. The problem we had was Juventus sucking balls and Milan's collapse, not with our standard. People tuned off from Italian football at the time of our peak and there wasn't much we could do to turn it around.

The video game generation then followed three things:
- Champions League (we weren't relevant, or were mostly out of it)
- Premier League big 4-6
- El Clasico

Nothing else mattered for new gen fans. And old gen didn't really do anything, or could do anything, to turn this around. They opened up new markets to overcome the slow death of interest of the European continent and those new fans only learned to appreciate these couple of things and everything is now extrapolated based on that.

 

[.h.]

Yes, there are broader financial issues, but the loss of value in players like Maicon, Milito, Sneijder, etc was disgustingly bad tbh. We had a lot of value that could have given us reduced salaries, capital gains, etc, and they quickly turned into golden handshakes

I'm not saying it would have solved everything, Like I said the big issue was Moratti failing to do a fucking thing after the treble too...

 

[forzainter257]

I must have missed it, we have a new sponsor?

 

[CafeCordoba]

It's our training kit sponsor.

 

[DARi0]

There is a bigger problem.

Serie A is one of the most indebted leagues in Europe. Inter is leading this for Serie A with $390M, Juve $260M and Roma $200M odd. This is flashing red fucking lights. The league needs to get a relatively good deal with tv rights, a fucking ridiculous strategy to boost revenue e.g changing timeslot to target Asian markets and I hate to say it but airtight rules for all clubs and they're able to service debts.

Yepp!
DEBTS IN SERIE A: ALARMS FOR INTER, CONCERNS FOR JUVENTUS AND ROMA

Three Serie A clubs hold around 90% of the league’s total €1.068 billion in debts, with Inter in particular standing out, reports detail.

Debts are continuing to grow in European football in recent years, highlighted by UEFA’s annual report, which highlights how the total bank debt of European football has grown by €1.25 billion, a 22% increase on the previous year. Compared to the last set of accounts before the COVID pandemic, the debt has increased by 51%.

Europe’s top five leagues alone are burdened with over €7.5 billion in bank debt as well as €2.5 billion to internal lenders, seeing a total of over €10 billion in liabilities.

Corriere dello Sport analysed the situation, showing how the Spanish La Liga is in a tough spot, where bank debts exceed €2.5 billion, an increase of 54% on the previous year. Behind them are the Premier League, who hold around €1.9 billion in debts.

The healthiest clubs can be found in Germany and the Netherlands, where their clubs have virtually no debts at all.

Serie A holds around €1.068 billion in debts, with three clubs in particular accounting for around 90% of this – Inter (€390m), Roma (€271m) and Juventus (€223m). The Bianconeri have reduced their debts by €250m, thanks to the €400m capital increase that came in December 2021. Milan have minimal debts, around €71m, and Napoli have none at all.

Stevey might start gathering funds through a global crowdfunding platform at this rate

 

[Adriano@10]

Yepp!
DEBTS IN SERIE A: ALARMS FOR INTER, CONCERNS FOR JUVENTUS AND ROMA

Stevey might start gathering funds through a global crowdfunding platform at this rate

And this is why we need a new fucken owner who can do a massive capital increase in order to wipe out our debt. We re not gonna bring this to sustainable levels otherwise, there is no way we increase our revs enough in a timely manner.

 

[.h.]

Well, the issue is wiping out the debt is only one part, we also need to be operating profitable or neutral. If we keep losing 100m a year, wiping out debt is only a point in Time temporary solution



That's why for me I keep talking about trying to get to operation neutral as the first priority, because then a one off capital injection isn't as big a problem for a new owner as 100m a year.

 

[Adriano@10]

Well, the issue is wiping out the debt is only one part, we also need to be operating profitable or neutral. If we keep losing 100m a year, wiping out debt is only a point in Time temporary solution



That's why for me I keep talking about trying to get to operation neutral as the first priority, because then a one off capital injection isn't as big a problem for a new owner as 100m a year.

I agree but getting rid of the debt would also come with a cost reduction of about 40mio (not sure on our average intrest rate)...
Plus we would not have to reduce the quality of the squad to do that 30/40 mio spending cut.
Basically i just dont see us cutting costs by 100 mio without going back to the banter area and missing out on CL for a couple of years again, if all the savings have to come from the squad. Now if we miss out on CL our rev will be down again and we re stuck in that fucken vicous circle again.

Of course your right we need to cut costs for me the easiest way and the way with the least sacrifice is if a new owner comes in and just takes out the debt first.
Like how would suning manage to get rid of the debt ATM? Even if they d sell all our "stars" probably would not be enough and it would still be questioable if we make a profit in the seasons following the sales....

 

[.h.]

Oh 100%, there's an impact on that too.

I don't think we need to fully cut 100m in costs, but maybe 50m in costs including amortisation (so contract extensions and losing players we don't care about), then 50m in revenue increase would do the job

And yeah it's hard to see how suning neutralises the debt atm imho

 

[DARi0]

The reasons why Roma have been receiving their contractually obligated sponsorship payments from DigitalBits whilst Inter have not relates primarily to the fact that the Nerazzurri’s deal with the company is worth more and structured differently

This according to Italian football finance news outlet Calcio e Finanza, who explain that because it has been easier for the cryptocurrency to keep up with payments to the Giallorossi, they have done so.

Both Inter and Roma have an agreement with DigitalBits for the cryptocurrency company to be their respective main shirt sponsors.

In the case of the Nerazzurri, however, the deal is worth €80 million until the end of the 2023-24 campaign, whilst the Giallorossi’s is worth only €35 million.

Moreover, the different payment structures of the two deals is also an important factor.

As Calcio e Finanza detail, Roma’s deal with DigitalBits is heavily weighted to the final season of the contract, as the initial payments are worth €6 million per season before the a2023-24 campaign is worth significantly more.

The cryptocurrency company has managed to keep up with payments to the Giallorossi at the agreed-upon amounts, whereas with Inter, they have agreed a deal that means that they owe the Nerazzurri €23 million, €27 million, and then €30 million in each season of the deal respectively.

This has already proved to be too much for DigitalBits to afford given the major financial crisis within their industry.

The digitalfuckers have been paying Roma but not Inter!

 

[Ares]

I don't understand, it's a lot of time that people discuss about reducing losses and increase revenue, but nobody points out that there are clubs like Bayern that plays in a shitty league like Bundesliga and is constantly there with the biggest and richest clubs in Europe.
Probably we should change our approach, stop buying players from mid table clubs for silly amount of money and start growing our young team guys, like Dimarco, Zaniolo etc.
Try to think how much money people like Kondogbia, Gabigol, Correa, Gagliardini or Bellanova costed the club, would not be better to give a chance to young talents like Carboni, Satriano and Casadei?
This is just my opinion, but seems the most logical alternative in spending big amounts of money every single time we need a player.

 

[Il Drago]

I don't understand, it's a lot of time that people discuss about reducing losses and increase revenue, but nobody points out that there are clubs like Bayern that plays in a shitty league like Bundesliga and is constantly there with the biggest and richest clubs in Europe.
Probably we should change our approach, stop buying players from mid table clubs for silly amount of money and start growing our young team guys, like Dimarco, Zaniolo etc.
Try to think how much money people like Kondogbia, Gabigol, Correa, Gagliardini or Bellanova costed the club, would not be better to give a chance to young talents like Carboni, Satriano and Casadei?
This is just my opinion, but seems the most logical alternative in spending big amounts of money every single time we need a player.

Bayern have insane commercial revenue. That's how they manage to stay competitive at the top level. Even during covid they were still profitable. Few days ago they extended their deal with Allianz for the naming rights of Fußball Arena München (official name of the stadium) which will earn them 15m/season for the next 10 years. This is a good article that explains the commercial aspect at Bayern.

How Bayern Munich’s Sponsorship Strategy Has Made Them A Commercial Success

Bayern Munich had the highest commercial revenue of any soccer club in the world in 2021. Their long-term commercial philosophy, including having the same shirt sponsor for 20 years, might not make headlines, but it is certainly successful.

www.forbes.com

Obviously they're also a well run club and they are way above competition in Germany but the commercial aspect is key to be CL contenders every season.

 

[Darth_Ausilio]

I don't understand, it's a lot of time that people discuss about reducing losses and increase revenue, but nobody points out that there are clubs like Bayern that plays in a shitty league like Bundesliga and is constantly there with the biggest and richest clubs in Europe.
Probably we should change our approach, stop buying players from mid table clubs for silly amount of money and start growing our young team guys, like Dimarco, Zaniolo etc.
Try to think how much money people like Kondogbia, Gabigol, Correa, Gagliardini or Bellanova costed the club, would not be better to give a chance to young talents like Carboni, Satriano and Casadei?
This is just my opinion, but seems the most logical alternative in spending big amounts of money every single time we need a player.

We all make mistakes. The important thing is to learn from our mistakes. Personally, my struggle session with Lord Zhang helped me to see that we should not waste money on the likes of Kondogbia, Gabigol, or Joao Mario. No, instead we will focus on free signings of experienced players on expiring contracts.

Regarding Casadei, we are patiently biding our time until we can re-sign him, either on loan with option, or on a free. Only in case absolutely necessary will we sacrifice one of our next promising young players in a part exchange.

 

[DARi0]

La Gazzetta dello Sport: beating Porto and reaching the quarter-finals of the Champions League would bring Inter around €20m total, between UEFA income, sponsor bonuses and TV rights.

This is money that wasn’t budgeted by the Nerazzurri’s management at the beginning of the season, with the club expecting a third place finish in the group after the draw.

Knocking out Porto would allow Inter to avoid selling a second top player in the summer – one will be sold regardless – and could give them enough resources to pick up a player or two with a high salary, like soon-to-be free agent Marcus Thuram.