Who is Responsible for the Zlatan Ibrahimović Debacle?
By
Varughese Rajan
(Contributor) on July 16, 2010
367 reads
5 comments
0 likes
VILLARREAL, SPAIN - MAY 01: Zlatan Ibrahimovic of FC Barcelona sits on the bench during the La Liga match between Villarreal CF and FC Barcelona at El Madrigal stadium on May 1, 2010 in Villarreal, Spain. (Photo by Manuel Queimadelos Alonso/Getty Images) Manuel Queimadelos Alonso/Getty Images
The jury is still out on whether Zlatan Ibrahimovic was a success for Barcelona last season. Anywhere else in the world, 21 goals and 10 assists would be celebrated as a huge success.
But when you have a price tag of €70 million, the highest in club history, maybe those figures simply are not good enough.
Compared to other strikers, the stats are pretty good, but Ibra cannot in any way be called a success. Especially when Bojan Krkic—a kid previously discarded by Guardiola—manages to easily replace you at the most crucial juncture of the season.
Maybe the ridiculous price tag associated with Ibra is the same thing that's acting heavily against him, something I highlighted in an earlier post . You have to be in trouble when the club's newly appointed financial vice-president rightly questions the amount spent in acquiring the star.
Suddenly, the Barcelona-based media outlets such as Sport and El Mundo Deportivo are raising the same question. Kind of strange, ain't it? About a year ago, the same media outlets brought out crazy statistics to justify the amount the club paid for the Swede! At the time, I also clearly thought the same thing.
Then why the hell did Laporta enter into such a crazy deal, especially since it gave Inter one of the world's most successful strikers?
The answer lies in the question itself. The entire deal was done not to add an additional striker to Barca but to get rid of FC Barcelona's then present strike force—Samuel Eto'o.
If you remember just before the Ibra-Eto'o deal happened, Barca management were involved in a deal to sign David Villa. Barca were ready to fish out €40 million but Valencia were asking €10 million more and the deal broke off.
But in truth, the deal broke off because management couldn't find a possible exit route for Eto'o. I mean, if you can pay €46 million for Ibra, then why can't you add €4 million and buy Villa, who had a better chance to gel well with Iniesta and Xavi (they all play together for Spain's national team).
At that point, Inter entered the fray, and got a decent striker and €46 million in the end. With that money, they went and brought three players—Sneijder, Milito, and Lucio—all crucial to Inter's treble-achieving season.
In a nutshell, this has to be the most ridiculous deal ever done by Joan Laporta. But can we blame him alone for this? What part did Pep Guardiola play?
It was no secret that Eto'o was never part of Guardiola's plan. He remained in Barcelona, because the club couldn't find anyone willing to buy him. He then played the most important part in Barca's historic treble: No one will ever forget that early goal against Manchester United in Rome.
Still, Guardiola wanted him off the team and Inter presented the only escape route. Okay, Manchester City was interested in buying Eto'o but the chances of him leaving for a club with no chance of playing in the Champions League was slim. So the club definitely paid more for Guardiola's stubbornness than for Laporta's foolishness.
Rosell and company may argue that Laporta could have said "no." But was it possible to say no to the guy who oversaw the most brilliant season in the club's history?
Moreover, you never want to end up with a scenario in which one of the major players and the coach do not trust each other. Even though Eto'o wanted to stay, Guardiola had already made up his mind at the start of his tenure. Laporta had his hands tied and Inter Milan had the upper hand throughout deal negotiations.
It is no secret that following the Villa deal, club management is trying its best to find a suitor for Ibra. We bought him for €46 million in cash, so let's say that we take a Chygyrinskiy loss (i.e., 10 million), the price will still be €36 million.
I am not sure any club will match that at this moment. It makes more sense to keep him here. Oh, and I forgot—his salary is just below that of Messi's at Barca. Ibra may still turn out to be the player Guardiola hoped for when he was signed. But signing him saying that he offered more aerial threat was quite foolish—just watch the Man U vs Inter match to confirm that.
Are we reapeating the whole saga again with the Cesc Fabregas pursuit?
Fabregas should integrate easily into the team, but do we really need him? Especially amidst all the financial problems facing the club, as explained by both Rosell and Javier Faus.
It is becoming pretty clear that Rosell has been blowing up the financial problem for sometime. During his campaign, he has constantly stated that the club's debts are in excess of €400 million.
However, if we trust what Javier Faus has said, the real debt is €210 million (much smaller when compared to some other clubs), something which the Laporta administration has also stated previously.
I have to admit that Rosell's financial knowledge baffles me; I have no idea how he manage finances.
Last week, he said Barca had to raise €150 million in credit from banks to pay salaries. Now, his vice president says the club has €50 million for transfers.
If Barca has to take out a €150 million loan out to run the club normally, where did this money came from? The Chygrinskiy and Toure transfers would have yielded €40 million, that money should have been used, right?
Don't you think there is so much hidden behind all this? I don't have a clue. Wouldn't it be wiser to stop chasing Fabregas? Let's assume Barca manages to sign Fabregas for 40 million, the club would still need money to buy a holding midfielder and a left-sided attacking player.
They say Barca doesn't have the cash. Is Rosell attempting to do a Laporta here? At least Laporta had no choice last season!
