11/21/24
July 14, 2002
Premiership players owned by bank.: The whole article: "Some of Britain's best known footballers are owned by Barclays Bank. They are so expensive the clubs can't afford them and so take out mortgages to pay their transfer fees. Leeds United and Bolton Wanderers are among the clubs reported to be taking part in the scheme." Given that pro sports is big business, are these arrangements so unusual? Are financing arrangements done differently in other sports? In other countries?
posted by worldcup2002 to soccer at 09:46 AM - 5 comments
It seems to be happening already, given that he has been told to sell 15 million worth of talent. They don't seem fussy who goes either.
posted by Fat Buddha at 03:29 PM on July 14, 2002
That's... bizarre. I'm certainly not aware of anything like that in American sports, but I'd assume that's because we don't have 'transfer fees' per se- all sports have true free agency (or something approximating it) so there aren't these huge, one-time payments that soccer teams require, just (usually) player-for-player trades or player-determined signings for contracts spread over many years.
posted by tieguy at 05:14 PM on July 14, 2002
What happens if they can't keep up the repayments? Does the bank foreclose on the mortgage and therefore become the owner of the player? Come on Barclays Bank FC!
posted by BigCalm at 05:52 AM on July 15, 2002
As Leeds are a plc shouldn't information on which players are 'mortgaged' be available? Or is that 'commercially sensitive' (embarassing)?
posted by no7 at 09:25 AM on July 15, 2002
And, of course, what happens when you default on your loan? Does the bank get to enter the transfer market? Will Barclays, rather than Venables (manager of Leeds), be making transfer decisions?