Hauge was loan with option and conditional obligation ( the team not get relegated ). Regular obligation is almost the same as a regular purchase. And if you sign a 35 mil player, only 1/5th or 7 mil ( 35 / 5 =7) comes on the year's books not the whole amount!! You amortize over the length of the contract. So basically there is almost zero difference between regular purchase and obligation. Obligation affects the budget the same way as a purchase. Even UEFA counts it like that for FFP!
Or in other words, do you think if Maldini wanted to sign a 35 mil winger with loan plus obligation on top of the other transfers, would the owners have allowed it because it was loan plus obligation and not straight purchase? Or is only Napoli allowed to count loan plus obligation in the way you described? Maybe Maldini can even then combine 3 mercatos in one by doing 2 year loans plus obligation!!
How can you count transfer fees without looking at salaries? If the management can sign players with 20 mil gross salaries like Lukaku, then they can do more free deals without spending as much on transfers. For example they could signed Ziyech on loan and given him 6 mil net salary. They could have also kept Kessie with 6 mil salary as well. Are you saying that high salaries don't hurt your books and only transfer spending does??
And Milan's books were in much better shape than Roma, Inter and Juve. Milan only made 60 mil in losses which is quite good. Roma made over 200 mil! And then Milan increased their shirt sponsorship recently by around 50 mil. So not all Serie is in bad financial shape!
If Leao doesn't renew they should sell him. But if they just sell their best players for the sake of selling, how is that going to help top 4 chances. And then how will that increase the club's revenues? Fucking Gerry wants to get Milan's revenue to 500 mil. How the fuck is he going to do that by running the club like Napoli?
Abramovich bought Chelsea for 300-400 mil. He then paid around 1 bil in club losses over the years to make Chelsea a big club. Then the club got sold for a few billion! They didn't let him keep the proceeds because of sanctions but he would have come out in profit if they had. That's how you grow big clubs, not this bullshit 35 mil net mercato spending.
I agree with a lot of your sentiment, but I just wanna point out:
(1) Even if you amortize a purchase on your books and if FFP looks at it over the life of that player's contract, you still, generally, have to pay that money up front. So you aren't paying like 5m a year for a 25m transfer, but you're actually paying 25m to the other club, but for FFP and accounting purposes the cost is spread out over the use of that asset, in this case, a player.
If Maldini could pay for a deal over a couple years, I think he would do that more often. Clubs usually want the money up front, particularly in the ranges we are dealing with, as there is more flexibility in payment structures with the mega transfers, rather than the ones we are doing.
You know this, but I think it might one of the reasons why our owners are being so cheap--and it's actually annoying.
(2) Abramovich made money, but a big part of the growth of his product was the massive increase in the value of the land that Chelsea own (but don't fully control, lol) for the stadium, etc. but even more importantly the other bit is the massive growth of the EPL, which he helped by bringing attention to the EPL with flashy transfers and all that, but it was also because the EPL worked together
to grow their brand, while Serie A clubs actively seek to destroy each other.
He also sunk money into the club to provide him the goodwill of the English public as an insurance plan for what eventually happened with Russia. It wasn't to make money, it was to protect other money and assets of his. So I don't think he saw the money he put into Chelsea as the key towards growing the club as much as it was him putting money into something that would shield him if he ever needed. Chelsea lost a lot of money, but that's like Nintendo or Sony selling their game systems at a loss so that they can make money on selling you games. Chelsea was something that lost him money, so he could protect his other money.
I just don't think Abramovich is the best parallel for what is happening with us. Manchester United and Liverpool might be the better examples, using American owners and their goals, profit incentives, etc. Why we aren't spending more money, when we should be, I have no idea.
I think it has to be related to the ~95m in expenses that keep impacting our balances, whatever the hell those expenses are.