The Suning Commerce Group

[Glass box]

Out immediately you clueless cunts, get the fuck out of this club.

 

[Linege]

This is for those who thought Inter would have an equal treatment with others. They wanted to turn you into the Sampdoria or Verona of this league. The punching bag of the top.

we are the punching bag for top dogs in CL too

https://twitter.com/derWinterbach/status/1385553984480493569

Just came to say SUNING OUT

we didnt bring the same value to the table, what do you expected? we are barely top20 club in europe.

but overall i will agree with brehme, suning got bigger problems in china, then some inter

 

[Kev9Inter]

How the fuck would someone like Spurs get more money than Inter and Milan. Everyone should have been paid the same.

Pure desperation from both clubs

 

[ADRossi]

https://twitter.com/derWinterbach/status/1385553984480493569

Just came to say SUNING OUT

Incomprehensible.

 

[Ethor]

Incomprehensible.

The only thing that makes sense, at this point, is that Suning was trying to make the Club more attractive financially so they could sell it and to hell with future ramifications if the super duper league came to fruition.

 

[TheNetworkZ]

You have to treat this the same way a Honkler would. Just laugh and move on lmao what a disgrace.

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk

 

[Candreva Crosses]

Why are people surprised? We're not on the same level as them when its about TV and number of supporters.

 

[Puma]

I am posting this article because I can not help but feel how precariously balanced things are with our ownership and the Chinese Government.

Jack Ma Taunted China. Then Came His Fall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/28/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Ant Group, China’s biggest fintech conglomerate, was preparing last November for its initial public offering. Analysts projected it would raise $34 billion, the largest sale of shares in history. The company, founded by Jack Ma, had become synonymous with financial innovations, which are often risky.

In the run-up to the I.P.O., Chinese regulators trying to assess financial risks on Ant’s books had been brushed off by Mr. Ma. In an audacious speech, he criticized regulators as too cautious and pilloried state-owned banks for their “pawnshop” mentality of providing loans only to borrowers who could post collateral.

Even oblique attacks on China’s government rarely go unpunished. This was a direct provocation. Yet such was Mr. Ma’s aura, and his apparent imperviousness to government strictures, that domestic and foreign investors were unconcerned. They salivated at the prospect of buying shares of Ant — it was, after all, a politically powerful behemoth and indispensable to the economy. Its Alipay platform, which pioneered remarkably cheap and efficient payment technologies, has revolutionized China’s financial system. Other arms of the conglomerate provide consumer credit and small-business loans online within minutes.

Then it all fell apart. Two days before Ant’s shares were to begin trading on the Hong Kong and Shanghai exchanges, the government blocked the I.P.O. Regulators cited the company’s opaque accounting practices, which, they said, could be hiding huge amounts of risky loans. Given Ant’s sheer size, they noted, any problems could roil financial markets and hurt investors.

Thanks to his misstep in openly criticizing the government, regulators have Mr. Ma right where they want him, and intend to make him relinquish control of his empire.

But the government isn’t done. This month, regulators forced Ant to produce a “rectification plan” to restructure the company by separating out its different entities, which include insurance and wealth management services. It had to commit to increasing transparency and improving its accounting and consumer protection practices, in addition to limiting its expansion into new lines of business. It seemed that, in bringing the hammer down on the company, the government aimed to limit its growing economic and political power.

But in so doing, the government spooked investors. Suddenly, President Xi Jinping’s pledges to encourage private enterprise and innovation looked like mere lip service.

The Ant episode seemed to signal an end to China’s era of innovation in fintech. But more broadly, it appeared to mark the cancellation of its experiment in financial-market liberalization and the return to government intervention and a hostile environment for investors. Yet however heavy-handed Beijing’s moves may be, they suggest that it aims to control financial risks, even if the process for doing so looks chaotic.

The episode does send a strong signal about the limits of Beijing’s tolerance of free enterprise. Firms can innovate and grow big but will meet swift retribution if they challenge government policies.

For fintech firms in China, Ant’s forced restructuring will serve as a template. Competitors like Tencent have been put on notice: Be transparent, comply with regulations, protect consumer data — or else. (China’s government knows only too well how extensive data gathering confers power.) While the government tolerates private enterprise and encourages innovation, entrepreneurs should think twice before voicing overt defiance of the government.

Liberalizing China’s financial system is well and good, but the simultaneous desire to exert government control will hardly encourage innovation or efficiency. Even Beijing, despite its remarkable economic record, will find it difficult to have it all.

 

[.h.]

because letting something like Wirecard play out is a better outcome right

 

[Pimpin]

because letting something like Wirecard play out is a better outcome right

Wirecard is literally nothing like Ant financial.

 

[Bluenine]

From this:

And this:

To now I M this:

Someone in the media department needs to be sacked.

 

[Nyall]

I don't see why we can't have all 3

 

[TheNetworkZ]

I don't see why we can't have all 3

I think we will. The new Inno isn't bad either, people just don't like change at first.

 

[Sevag]

I think if not for the cringy "I M" parts, it's a pretty good song

 

[brakbrak]

Say all you want about Suning but they were the one providing money and hired Marotta. I may not like Marotta personally because I believe had he not caused all that rift, we would have been able to achieve more. But that's hypothetical and right now the fact is we have won our first Scudetto and I'm grateful with Suning and our management and that includes Conte too.

But fuck you for changing into this abysmal logo, still can't get over the fact how shiny our new logo is.

 

[CafeCordoba]

Yeah, we are on a path they set when they arrived. We have a Scudetto now after two years of the new project started (Marotta+Conte). Hopefully they can provide the required financial assistance SOMEHOW still after everything. Government restrictions have hampered the project but I rather have them on board than some American fund. I've said something else before but this is my feeling now. Suning's target is to make Inter self-financing and we are pretty far from that atm. If some fund comes in, I fear it might be something else than what Elliot has been doing with Milan.

 

[andrei]

We can say whatever want about Suning, but they provided. In a span of 5 years (since 2016). If they wouldn't have fucked the first year with the J.Mario or Gabigol, possibly we would have been here an year earlier. Still a very good job. The number on reason is Marotta. Not only for what he did here (kudos for the man) But because leaving Juventus, he let them go on downward spiral. The downfall of Juventus started when Marotta left. We basically hit two birds with one bullet.

Suning want to make Inter self-sustainable. I know we are pretty far from it. But how long? Can anyone provide a hint?
Let's suppose from next year we won't play with empty stadium, we will win scudetto again and in CL we will go to quarter-finals. Not impossible, by any mean. How much money we will generate.
Let's suppose the new sponsor will give us somehing like 25-30m per season (basically double what we make now).
How much dead-wood from salaries we can shred-off? Kolarov and Young come off the books. Both with 3m net salary. Let's hope Vecino (2.5m), Nainggolan (4.5m) and Vidal (6.5) could also be offloaded.
All these measure would bring us on the path to sustainability. Or at least a max. loss of 10-20m on a financial year?

 

[Shark]

 

[wera]

Actually, andrei, if Suning weren't buttfucked by those early transfers and actually bought some good players, we'd be contenders in their second year for sure

Gotta admit that when Marotta came to our club, shitty transfers were kept to a minimum.

 

[PHM1605]

The ball is on Zhang's court now. This is NOT the time to save cost a.k.a. Inter post-treble. Open your pocket for Marotta to build an era, skyrocketing the revenue in a few seasons.