Marc.privat

Hallöchen :)

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@maikhightower @Gedexx89 @MIKFCB5178 „Skandal“? Die Satzung erlaubt genau das. 2021 scheiterte der Antrag, die e.V.-Quote bei 75% festzuschreiben. 2023 wurde die neue Satzung mit 92% beschlossen: Zustimmung ist erst nötig, wenn der e.V. unter 70% fällt. Bei 70% eben nicht.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@unknown_h76 @Vovk1995dima Sponsorship expiry dates have nothing to do with Bayern AG equity, the AG isn’t a “holding company”, and comparing a €5bn valuation with Madrid’s annual profit is basic apples vs oranges.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@unknown_h76 @Vovk1995dima Having a buyback option ≠ being able to afford it 😂 Barça still has €469m club debt + €1.45bn Espai Barça financing. Their own documents describe the TV deal as 25 years, potentially 20–30. “They can just buy it back next year” is doing a LOT of work here.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@1899RM @MIKFCB5178 Der Unterschied ist Kontrolle, nicht ob irgendwo ein Konzern beteiligt ist. Selbst wenn der Viessmann-Deal so kommt, behält der Bayern e.V. 70% und die klare Mehrheit. Leverkusen/Wolfsburg sind 50+1-Ausnahmen, RB wird von Red Bull dominiert. Minderheitsanteil ≠ Konzernkontrolle.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@Gedexx89 @MIKFCB5178 Was hat das mit Leipzig zu tun? 😂 Bayern e.V. hielte selbst nach Viessmann 70% der AG und hat >400.000 Mitglieder. Bei RB hält Red Bull 99% des Kapitals, der e.V. nur 1% und hat nur gut 20 stimmberechtigte Mitglieder. Kritik am Deal: fair. Leipzig-Vergleich: Quatsch.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@Princejunior500 @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen Which part makes “no sense”? Bayern selling a minority equity stake at a high valuation, or Barça selling 25% of its LaLiga TV rights for 25 years? Point out the factual error instead of just saying “no sense.”

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@Wooda_Magoo @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen Incredible financial analysis. If I’m wrong, point out the number or contract term that’s wrong. “Are you dumb?” doesn’t change the difference between selling equity and assigning 25% of LaLiga TV rights for 25 years.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@unknown_h76 @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen You keep confusing revenue with profit. Bayern’s shareholders do NOT receive 30% of every euro the club earns. They own 30% of the AG and participate in distributable profits/value. Barça, meanwhile, contracted away 25% of its LaLiga TV rights for 25 years.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@Trismegistus137 @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen You’re right that assets and parent-club equity aren’t the same. But Barça also sold equity: 49% of Bridgeburg/Barça Vision. And separately it assigned 25% of its LaLiga TV rights for 25 years. So “Barça sold assets, Bayern sold equity” is way too simplistic.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@lukaaa1019 @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen Barça’s own documents say it sold 49% of Bridgeburg/Barça Vision: its Web3, NFT, metaverse and digital-content business. That’s a little more than a “TikTok account”. And calling a €200m transaction “money laundering” without evidence isn’t an argument.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@rmgpresha7 @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen No, they don’t “take 30% of all revenue.” That’s not how equity works. They would own 30% of the AG and participate in distributable profits/value, they don’t skim 30 cents from every euro Bayern earns. Barça literally assigned 25% of its LaLiga TV rights for 25 years.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@xeno_seventeen @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen Barça being #2 in revenue doesn’t make the levers free. You gave up 25% of LaLiga TV rights for 25 years. The reported Bayern deal is 5% equity for €250m, a €5bn implied valuation, while the e.V. keeps 70% and control. Temporary ≠ free.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@Gavismo47 @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen That $7.5B isn't Barça equity 😭 Forbes explicitly calls it ENTERPRISE VALUE: equity + net debt, including stadium debt.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@Gavismo47 @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen Viessmann isn’t just buying 5%, it’s already supplying Bayern’s energy transition: 19 heat pumps, 1,050 PV panels and more systems to come, cutting energy costs long term. Barça financed Espai with €1.45B debt at 5.53%. Different model.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@Gavismo47 @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen Because selling 5% to a strategic partner at ~€5B valuation can fund infrastructure AND deepen a sponsorship relationship while members still control 70%.Barça choosing 100% member ownership is fine,but selling 25% of TV rights for 25 years isn't automatically the smarter deal.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@Diazxb05 @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen That's exactly why Bayern's structure is stronger long term: €250M for 5%, while keeping 100% of future TV revenue. Our strategic investors are also long-term sponsors generating commercial income. Barça took cash upfront by giving away 25% of LaLiga TV income for 25 years.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@Gavismo47 @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen €250M for 5% = a €5B valuation 😭 Forbes values Bayern at $5.7B. That's not “the gutter”. And the €978.3M revenue is official. Selling minority equity to fund long-term infrastructure instead of adding debt isn't distress, it's capital allocation.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@Gavismo47 @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen And now we're onto Olise rumours? 😭 He has a long-term contract, no release clause and hasn't publicly asked to leave. Bayern paying an elite player isn't a financial crisis. You're desperately changing the subject because your “5% every year for salaries” claim was made up.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@Gavismo47 @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen “Cheap” 😭 5.53% on €1.45B is roughly €80M in annual interest before principal. And AGAIN: Bayern isn’t selling 5% every year or doing it to pay salaries. You’ve repeated the same made-up premise three times now because the actual comparison doesn’t help you.

[Marc.privat @MxrcPrivat]

@Gavismo47 @toriCULER @FCBayernFocus @tzmuenchen If Bayern ever built a €1.5B stadium, we'd obviously use financing too. Difference? We could fund a larger share ourselves, borrow far less and likely get better terms from a debt-free, profitable position. Less debt = far less interest paid.