Monday, January 25, 2010

Minguella: "Laporta didn't keep his promises"

Possible presidential candiate Josep Maria Minguella gave an interview to Catalan sports paper El 9 Esportiu. This is the second part of the interview.

What is clear is that it won't be a campaign based on transfers.
When there has been a change of president - whether in the case of Núñez, Gaspart, Florentino... – it was always because the sports part of the club didn't function and because there was a general feeling of discomfort. Here it's completely different. Everyone is happy with the successes.

It's not a matter of signing a new sports director, a coach or a centre forward. Everyone will want that Guardiola continues. And that's good. First because the team does well, but it will also allow to put more emphasis on the social aspect. On the transparency of the board, the participation of the club members, on the management of the club. In short, on what I'm already defending for many years.

Explain yourself...
Barça and Real Madrid are great clubs that are owned by the club members and it is not normal that the latter don't know what happens. Here there has been criticism when Madrid did the reclassification without hearing the members and now they are doing the same. They have sold land, approved the reclassification of the Miniestadi and the member hasn't been informed at all. In what other fields can such important movements of money happen without even consulting the owners of the club?

The future of Barça has to be a board and some executives who take care of the day to day business, but at the same time creating zones of influence, control and participation where the members can give their approval. You should create a senate or a parliament, name it how you want, who receive direct information from the board. The main policy areas, like the club's assets administration, should be subject to the will of the member.

In summary, more transparency?
That's the key. I cannot understand that a president of a club like Barça doesn't explain the things he does. The last example is the friendly in Kuwait. Economically, it has been an excellent deal. Receiving two million euros for a holiday game with a team that almost entirely consists of youth players is a great operation. But, very soon there are reports claiming we received only one million eight hundred, others say one million seven hundred...

Wouldn't it be better if the club would say: "We have received this amount". And in case there was a commission fee: "That amount for us plus a commission of that much". Then the matter is clear at once. Now they don't say anything and afterwards all kinds of doubts arise. People say: "Didn't Laporta, his brother and Yuste go to Kuwait a month and a half ago? And now it turns out that..." You should keep thing simple.

Why can't they openly explain what the club has received? Everything should be explained. I'm not talking about making the contracts of the players public, but about those other things. Why do we have to be informed indirectly about what the general director earns? If we know what the prime minister and the ministers earn, why can't the members of Barça know what the executives earn? It's something I have never understood. I'm not talking about making the salary of a secretary public, but about important things that would make the relations with the members more fluid.

How do you look back at the presidency of Joan Laporta?
Laporta is white and black. He has done excellent things, like signing first Rijkaard and then Guardiola. You just have to take a look at the results. Despite the last period of Rijkaard, the titles cannot be questioned. Some will say he has been influenced, but it's always the president who makes the final decision. But having done all that, he has also undertaken personal actions that are incomprehensible.

When things go wrong, if the results aren't there, no president in the world can withstand the pressure. He, however, has been fortunate – although it has to be said that that's also his merit - that the sporting results have been excellent. But instead of enjoying the good times, he has gotten involved in a series of unnecessary incidents.

And he didn't assess the risk, nor the consequences of all this. All those things have caused people to say: "I support Guardiola, but I don't support Laporta". He wasted a unique opportunity to present himself as a unique winner in the history of the club. He has a great sporting legacy, but on a personal level he has done things that the club member has not accepted. People will more remember the teams of Rijkaard and Guardiola than the mandate of Laporta.

Has he disappointed you?
When we meet, which is not often, our relationship is very affectionate, but I do feel disappointed because I believed in him. When he arrived, he put an end to twenty years of dealing with thing in a certain way and he had very clear ideas. He wanted to open the club, in every sense, democratizing it, bringing it closer to the members, making it transparent.

It was totally groundbreaking. Until that point that in the middle of the campaign when I was asked who I wanted to win if I wouldn't win myself, I said Laporta. Then later, when he came to power, he hasn't done anything of what he had promised. The club has won titles but everything that he had promised regarding the revolution of the club is still a pending issue.

this was the second and last part of this interview. you can read the first part here.

Read more:
Minguella and Medina behind Rexach candidacy
Will former super-agent run for president?
Minguella hoping for non-Laporta linked candidate

interview: àngel ponz