Friction between Vasco and Fla-Flu generates debate about the future of Maracanã – 06/13/2022

Vasco complained and protested for the higher rent charge for the use of Maracanã made by the administration in the game against Cruzeiro. The duo Flamengo and Fluminense, which manages the stadium, countered that it could not give equal conditions to the club as it is responsible for the maintenance costs. At the end of the line, there is a discussion of power over the use of Maracanã in the future.

To explain the context, since 2019, Flamengo has a provisional concession from Maracanã, with Fluminense as an actor. There is a definitive bidding process carried out by the state government in progress that still seems far from completion.

In this scenario, the administration of Maracanã – that is, Flamengo and Fluminense – established that Vasco would have to pay R$ 250 thousand for the stadium rent, would still have to pay R$ 130 thousand in stadium costs and would not be able to keep bars. It even banned a banner about Respect and Club Inclusion. In their games, the duo Fla-Flu pays R$ 90 thousand in rent and is entitled to revenues.

Vasco’s board of directors sent successive letters to the stadium management questioning the decision. It claims that, due to the conditions agreed in the concession, the managers were obliged to give equal conditions to other clubs in the use of the stadium.

The second article of the concession, paragraph 10, is quoted: “The licensee must allow the use in equal conditions by the other professional football clubs.”

When questioned, the Maracanã administration denies that there is an obligation to give an equal rent to a third party in relation to the Fla-Flu duo. In a note, the management of the stadium states that the two clubs “have the legal and contractual right to use the stadium for any amount or even for free. On the other hand, third parties who wish to use the stadium, whether clubs or sports administration entities, must pay, in return for the aforementioned use, an amount that is sufficient to support the enormous cost of Maracanã”.

When the Maracanã was granted to the Fla-Flu duo, in 2019, there was a promise, yes, that other clubs would have equal conditions of use of the stadium. And there was a forecast of a rent fixed at R$ 90 thousand. The club cruzmaltino presented the clauses that provide for these conditions, while the duo Fla-Flu did not show that this was withdrawn from the concession. Unless new information, Vasco is right in this specific friction. And the ban on his banner reading “Respect, Inclusion and Equality” makes no sense.

That said, the current friction has as a backdrop a larger discussion that is about the definitive competition of the stadium, whose rules have already been defined by the state government. According to the proposed bidding, there would be 70 matches at Maracanã, which would only be possible with three clubs. That is, the conditions imposed induce the three to manage the stadium – Vasco has already shown interest in entering the dispute.

The problem is that 70 games at Maracanã make it impossible to maintain a reasonable lawn at the stadium. In practice, there will be a precarious football played on the field.

And, yes, all clubs have equal rights over the Maracanã – the Vasco fans’ party at the stadium on Sunday was very beautiful – but they also have equal duties. Maracanã has been left to its own devices since 2016 after the Olympics when Odebrechet stopped investing in the stadium. It was Flamengo who put money to recover it. It was the red-black club that also now, together with Fluminense, reformed the lawn.

It is the company founded by the duo Fla-Flu that negotiates boxes and sponsorships to make the stadium viable. In addition to the games, Maracanã has considerable maintenance expenses that will be even greater considering necessary renovations to its roof and other modernizations – only the Fla-Flu duo did something.

The reality is that so far Vasco has not invested a penny in Maracanã, either in terms of effort or money. The club’s board talks with 777 Partners about entering the competition and is not ruled out even participating with Flamengo and Fluminense – the current friction has not caused a rupture. But so far the club has talked more than done anything concrete for the stadium. If it were up to Vasco, Maracanã would be in ruins in those six years.

The solution for Maracanã is quite complex. The pitch does not support the games of the three clubs in the stadium in the number they want – Vasco wants 15 to 25 matches, Flamengo and Fluminense all their home games (from 30 to 35 each). Only Vasco residents have an alternative stadium for smaller audience matches. And, at the same time, opening the Maracanã to audiences of less than 30,000 people is deficient, as happened in some recent tricolor games.

The friction between Vasco and the duo Fla-Flu, therefore, is another chapter in a debate about the future of the stadium. The state government’s current rules for competition do not solve the problem, let alone the belligerent attitude of the clubs. The only possible way is to sit everyone at the table and the sides sought concessions for a common solution. Or there will be an official note left and there will be no lawn at Maracanã.

Source link

About Admin

Check Also

Jorge Jesus will not renew with Fenerbahçe and aims to return to Flamengo – Flamengo – Flamengo news and game

Jorge Jesus also wants to coach the Brazilian national team Flamengo has a Portuguese in …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *