Maracanã’s more expensive rent for Vasco has damaged relations between Rio’s celebrities | Gabriela Moreira’s blog

The conflict between Vasco and the consortium that manages Maracanã, formed by Flamengo and Fluminense, extrapolated last Sunday’s match and left scratches in the relationship between the leaders of the four big ones in Rio. The fissure became more apparent in the group of messages between the four vice presidents of the clubs, in which Vasco publicly announced his dissatisfaction with the conduct of the stadium rental.

– Great disappointment ensued. We have a collaborative environment and I think we’re creating a new way of managing football in Rio, but I see that’s not the case. Vasco was not at the negotiating table with this in mind, the group’s Vasco’s VP, Vitor Roma, said on the blog.

The space aims to think of collective solutions for clubs in the marketing and commercial areas. Held last year, on the occasion of organizing the championship in Carioca, it was used to discuss the unity of clubs around issues such as the sale of image rights and sponsorships.

In addition to Vitor, for Vasco, Flamengo’s vice president of marketing, Gustavo Oliveira, Fluminense’s marketing director, Ronaldo França, and Jorge Braga, Botafogo’s CEO, joined the group.

Vasco fans in Maracanã, against Cruzeiro – Photo: Daniel Ramalho / Vasco

The problem is more than the game against Cruzeiro, because Vasco wants to send a lot of games to the stadium. Even if it’s games like this, against the clubs with the most Serie B fans, or at the time São Januário is closed for jobs or repairs.

– I still hope to see it avoided. Vasco wants to play good Maracanã games, but wants to do it with Flamengo and Fluminense. We want three there. I think we are in a time of cooperation, but this situation brings a big dent to the previously established dialogue, Vitor Roma expressed.

The blog sought out other members of the group, confirming that they were aware of Vasco’s discontent. In their view, there is a “misunderstanding” and there is hope that Vasco’s dissatisfaction will be a “passing raid.”

What is the cause of the conflict?

The amount of rent raised by the consortium for Vasco’s game against Cruzeiro shocked Cruzmaltino’s leaders. This is because the amount set out in the concession proposal, sent by the Fla-Flu duo, is R $ 90 thousand. But the consortium charged R $ 250,000 for Vasco, unlike other games held at the stadium. Vasco tried to argue, but was told he had no response from the stadium. The club immediately called the Civil House, which mediated the stadium concession. The matter is being analyzed by the State Attorney’s Office, which will show itself soon.

There are three documents outlining the rules for the use of Maracanã in Fla and Flu. One is the Terms of Use Permission. Again, the Terms of Reference. In it, the clubs promised not to practice different rules for clubs wishing to rent the stadium. The third was the proposal sent by Flamengo and Fluminense to use the stadium. In this document, the duo agreed to charge R $ 90,000 for anyone who wanted to rent in Maracanã, as shown in the quote below.

The proposal submitted by Flamengo and Fluminense to obtain the Maracanã concession – Photo: Reproduction

In the match against Cruzeiro, the club paid R $ 250 thousand just for the rent. And another R $ 130,000 for the costs of consuming public services (water and electricity), in addition to the costs of security and other stadium structures.

Another point of frustration for Vasco was the fact that he did not take advantage of the revenue from the bars and cafeteria on the day of the game, where he put about 65,000 people in the stadium. And the consortium’s veto of a flag to be carried by Vasco with the words: Since 1898 the legitimate club of the people, Club de Regatas Vasco da Gama, Respect, Equality and Inclusion ”.

In a note released after the game, the consortium denies that it violated the rules for stadium use:

“Therefore, there is no difference or anti-isonomic treatment. MARACANÃ COMPLEX, when questioned by CRVG, quickly clarified that its areas are wrong, if CRVG intends to have the same cost of treatment permits, which cannot., because they pay, on a monthly basis, all costs and expenses for the maintenance and improvement of the infrastructure of the Maracanã Stadium and, therefore, are responsible for the ultimate outcome of the economic exploitation of the stadium.

FLAMENGO and FLUMINENSE are co-permissionaires due to the enforcement of the Maracanã Complex Use Permit (“TPU”), to the amount of BRL 90,000.00 (nine thousand reais), which is usually included in the boundaries of the games played. by these stadium teams, presenting only one thing for accounting purposes, ineffective the stadium rental price ”.

Leave a Comment