Fair enough, I think you raise a few valid concerns – especially about RedBird's reluctance to inject capital directly, and the decision to use Milan’s own books for the land purchase. But I think it’s important to separate short-term cash flow from long-term strategy here.
Yes, Milan spent 55M of its own money to buy the San Donato land if some of those reports are to be believed, which does reduce available liquidity for transfers or wages in the short term. But that doesn’t mean the money is "gone" or wasted. It’s been turned into a tangible asset – real estate – which increases the club’s overall value and lays the groundwork (literally) for long-term independence from San Siro and improved matchday revenues or improved structure for the youth teams who hopefully can be turned into even more valuable assets for the club too one day.
From a FFP perspective, that kind of infrastructure investment isn’t even counted against spending limits. So this has no negative effect on what the club is allowed to spend in terms of FFP compliance – it’s a business decision, not a regulatory issue.
The argument that RedBird should’ve used a separate vehicle to make the purchase is fair, but also a bit speculative. We don’t know the tax reasoning, the legal framework, or whether Milan will eventually move those assets under a stadium-holding entity later. And comparing this directly to Chelsea (which is a completely different ownership and structural context) only goes so far.
If the criticism is that RedBird prioritizes business structure and asset growth over immediate sporting success – that’s a fair debate. But saying the 55M land purchase is the reason we didn’t buy this or that player or hire a better coach feels like oversimplifying a complex situation. Let’s not forget: the money isn’t missing – it’s just tied up in a different kind of investment.
I don't think we can separate their short-term or long-term strategies here, regardless of how successful they are with the stadium (an area I have
consistently given them praise for) their sporting choices will weigh heavily on how a potential stadium or real estate is utilized. That is why Chelsea is relevant, they sold those hotels because they
had to; Todd Boehly didn't even realize that Chelsea was not going to be in the CL as a result of their poor season. When Eghbali took over control this last year, he had to sell those assets to cover up for the disaster of Boehly's reign as owner-slash-sporting director, where they were out of the CL for two years straight.
Redbird bought a very healthy club, probably the most financially healthy club in Italy--their choices have put that all at risk.
I don't have a problem with them buying San Donato. I don't have a problem with them building a stadium in San Siro. Kudos, great job.
I'm
assuming that they have taken the necessary steps to shield the club from whatever liabilities come with purchasing real estate through Milan directly--so as I wrote above, it is not speculation nor is it some alien context to bring up the Chelsea example, because unlike the NBA or NFL, sporting performance directly impacts revenues more so than any other major sport.
The Tare and Allegri quest is their fourth revolution in two years, it started with Pioli and 433, Fonseca and whatever, then Conceicao with Felix, Santi, and Walker. They are all over the place.
Their choices have led us to get 8th place and to lose a tremendous amount of revenue that
have impacted our sporting choices already. We just sold Reijnders, and from a position of weakness, although I doubt whether Redbird would have changed their selling strategy had we made the CL, hence my bringing up of Tonali.
Again, we got 8th, in order to make up for the losses to compensate for our lack-of-CL, we sold Tiji
just to maybe get even, and even then, it looks like we just put Tiji's sale on this year's books, when we do have the CL, so my question is: what are we going to sell next year? Pulisic?
FFP requires the owners to compensate for losses, and Redbird is not going to do that, that's why them putting the acquisition on our books unnecessarily worries me. We are now dealing with the problems with their short
and long term planning. They didn't budget for us not getting the CL, so they put 55m on our books, great, now we have less revenue next year, they want to maintain revenue growth, while losing money, and I'm supposed to trust them to make the right choices?
Yes, them putting 55m on the books instead of paying for a coach, more players, is relevant because it points to how they plan, how they budget--that isn't simplifying the situation, it's the reality that we are facing. Allegri was available last year, Conte was begging for the job, Tare was free last year, they did not pursue any of these people and now they have Allegri and Tare--they have messed up and that's why we are here.
…I believe he does the calcio mercato segment on La Domenica Sportiva. 
