What will Oaktree do with Inter? The start is encouraging: agreement in principle with Lautaro, for Barella it was already signed by Riyadh. Then there are the debts: if Pantalone pays, as always said, the clubs will not go bankrupt

We should start with a summary of the previous episodes. While everyone was talking about renegotiating Zhang’s debt with Oaktree, we were saying the exact opposite (the evidence is HERE, HERE and HERE) because if it is true that reality in football far exceeds fantasy, when it comes to finance and money everything becomes very normal. How can a fund that sees a company like Inter lose almost 500 million in three years, without getting back a penny of the 385 that the Chinese owners should have had to repay the bond, leave the lead again only thanks to a interest rate renegotiation? At this point it’s better to take the lead, then we’ll see.

What will Oaktree do? It’s a nebulous point but the start is encouraging. Lautaro found an agreement with a substantial salary increase that will take him to 9 million (plus bonuses, let’s make it about 10 in total and we’re not wrong), while Barella already had it after Riyadh – in the Super Cup won with Inter – and perfected in Madrid. The signatures are not there, but if the agreements are verbalized both will remain. Maybe: because if an offer of 150 million arrives for Lautaro or Barella, what would Inter do? All the players of all the teams with debts are transferable and Inter have a lot of them. Well, if Oaktree also pays the rest of the debts that the Nerazzurri have – and they are the legacy, paradoxically, of both Moratti, Thohir and Zhang himself – we will be faced with a powerhouse. Economic, above all, but also football. The road towards a normalization of costs is perhaps not so close, Inter will have to sell every year to avoid going minus every time. But the stadium brings in 10 million for each knockout match. Last year the turnover was around 90, just from ticketing. What does it mean? That the big names in Europe are not far away. We should focus on merchandising, on perhaps owning San Siro – which is practically impossible – or in any case profitable. The reality is also different: profitability must be net of expenses. Is building a crazy sports center and having to maintain it a cost or a value? Difficult question, but on the other hand if we believe in the infinite growth of football clubs we are probably facing a bottleneck. Or Andrea Agnelli, alternatively.

And here we end up in the last part of the editorial. If Pantalone pays the debts (and HERE we explored the topic) it is right that no team fails, not even Inter. Exor did it with Juventus, Elliott did it with Milan. Maybe the Friedkins will do it with Roma (for now they have invested 500 and we are still far away). Our football has lived far beyond its means, moving away from debts year after year. Problems from session to session. Only to then find themselves in debt. But the managers have had fabulous salaries for years, living on the reflected light and now they can easily afford to live on an income. In fact, if you give two or three million to the twentieth of the squad that comes from Belgium (Holland, Spain, South America, Comoros Islands) instead of using the nursery to plug the holes – and create value – someone will then have to pay for it.

That’s right, Pants. Oaktree, if you prefer. Financial Fair Play as conceived makes no sense, but UEFA only thinks about maintaining power in some way. On the other hand, they too have golden salaries (and you have never seen the benefits).