Julian Nagelsmann

[serghei]

It's not just "part of it", it's the major fucking reason in football why some clubs can buy everyone without ever having to sell someone, while others cant keep players.
This forum has this superweird habit of constantly barcasplaining small teams with like a 5th of Barcas annual budget budget into how their clubs should instead be run.

You're getting ahead of yourself. Calm down.

There are many complex reasons why players don't move from Barca to Real, and vice-versa. Those reasons are reduced to the fact that these clubs despise each other. Use your logic. Clubs who see each other as arch-rivals will never want to trade in terms of players. It's not just about money FFS. But the problem is there is no fierce rivalry between Bayern and anyone in that league lol. I read somewhere that the biggest derby in Germany is Schalke - Dortmund. How the fuck can you win 30 league titles and have no one who considers you their main rival?

The problem in your league is that the relation between Bayern and the 2nd best club is like the relation between Barca and Sevilla or Valencia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWJZcPSJyIs

 

[serghei]

Because Bayern approach them to run out their contracts or give their clubs a small fee as compensation.

Bubdesliga teams are too soft with Bayern. You need to be more ruthless and ambitious to end their reign.
If any club comes near being a threat Bayern will take what makes them strong away.
If you dont fix that mindset and let it happen every time how will you ever really compete.

No one really has any desire to end their reign. There is only 1 club out there with the global aspiration to be in Europe's elite. The other teams are more local, community-based. Which is fine in nearly every aspect, except one.

 

[mc_lovin]

How many players from LaLiga do Barcelona/Madrid get from the other clubs on free transfers though? I can't think of many.

Compare that with for example Goretzka where it was an open secret for more than a season that he would be signing for Bayern. That sort of thing clearly has some dishonest dealings attached to it while also starving Shalke of a transfer fee.

Just having two "super" teams in the league changes everything. If we tried Bayerns route Madrid would lurk around the corner and fuck us over. Gives smaller teams more power to negotiate.

Its obviously still less than ideal, but still much, much better compared to what happens in the german league. For all the dislike I have for Real I am still glad they compete with us.

 

[Yannik]

You're getting ahead of yourself. Calm down.

There are many complex reasons why players don't move from Barca to Real, and vice-versa. Those reasons are reduced to the fact that these clubs despise each other. Use your logic. Clubs who see each other as arch-rivals will never want to trade in terms of players. It's not just about money FFS. But the problem is there is no fierce rivalry between Bayern and anyone in that league lol. I read somewhere that the biggest derby in Germany is Schalke - Dortmund. How the fuck can you win 30 league titles and have no one who considers you their main rival?

The problem in your league is that the relation between Bayern and the 2nd best club is like the relation between Barca and Sevilla or Valencia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWJZcPSJyIs

So why does the lack of hostile relation between Liverpool and ManCity not trigger a series of consecutive transfers between each other? Is it maybe because either club is rich enough to fend off interests and renew contracts to never be at low leverage? This has little to do with rivalry. You are from Romania mate, you are not even personally affected by the actual reason Catalans and Castilleans historically ave a rivalry. And neither are most of the players currently employed at those clubs.

90% of people who nowadays support either of these clubs experience that "rivalry" as just an endless Twitter feud.
If Madrid wasnt still rich enough to matter or got relegated, said rivalry would just die.

 

[mc_lovin]

So why does the lack of hostile relation between Liverpool and ManCity not trigger a series of consecutive transfers between each other? Is it maybe because either club is rich enough to fend off interests and renew contracts to never be at low leverage? This has little to do with rivalry. You are from Romania mate, you are not even personally affected by the actual reason Catalans and Castilleans historically ave a rivalry. And neither are most of the players currently employed at those clubs.

90% of people who nowadays support either of these clubs experience that "rivalry" as just an endless Twitter feud.
If Madrid wasnt still rich enough to matter or got relegated, said rivalry would just die.

I somewhat agree, but that doesnt change the current reality.

 

[El Gato]

serghei unironically and super confidently talking about things he has next to no idea about never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Yannik]

I somewhat agree, but that doesnt change the current reality.

It doesnt. And I'm not arguing with the reality really. The fact the title race isnt competetive is not something I think is even worth debating. It cearly isnt.
It's just these next level logic reasons some people like to give, that I find myself constantly disagreeing with.

The sole reason why the BL title race is uncompetetive or why 17 German clubs struggle to hold onto stars is plain simply because outside of Bayern no club can financially compete with the ESL clubs.
That's all. Its not because of some "rivalry", "lack of ambitions" or "mindsets". You dont have to interpret more stuff into it than there really is.

 

[Rory]

Theres no such thing as selling to finance the club. Players that leave from these clubs were either free agents, entered last year of contract or had a release clause triggered. The clubs had little say on the matter.

Release clauses are usually quite attractive though aren't they. It's almost saying keep an eye on this one, if he's good you can have him for a decent price. I'm not going full tin foil hat but I think there's a bit of this that goes on.

 

[Yannik]

Release clauses are usually quite attractive though aren't they. It's almost saying keep an eye on this one, if he's good you can have him for a decent price. I'm not going full tin foil hat but I think there's a bit of this that goes on.

Release clauses are more like compromises, not something clubs initiate or deliberate pricetags. Clubs only agree to these if they fear that the player would otherwise not sign a contract with them. Or they try to keep his wage lower by including it. Best example is Haaland. Raiola insisted that Haalands contract must have a release clause and ideally also one thats affordable to top clubs. Had Dortmund not agreed to it, then they would have probably not been able to sign Haaland.

I dont think any club purpously includes release clauses to "advertize" a player. If for whatever reason they really wanted to tell other clubs that they are planning on selling someone, then they could just email them that.

 

[El Gato]

This just got linked in the wake of the appointment

https://theathletic.com/1919044/2020/07/13/honigstein-broken-bundesliga-bayern-munich/

If the Bundesliga is to hold on to its traditional club structures and increase competitiveness without clipping Bayern’s and Dortmund’s wings too much, there’s only one drastic option as long as TV revenue is static: the number of clubs in the Bundesliga has to be smaller.

Reducing the league to, say 14 teams, would pit more evenly-matched teams against each other in more meaningful games.

(...)

That’s if German broadcasters are prepared to pay out the same money without the four worst teams being a part of the league any longer.

(...)

Four fewer home matches would mean less income from gate receipts, to be sure. But those losses, up to ?3.5 million per game per team, are mostly offset by the increase in TV revenue. In addition, freeing up eight kick-off slots in the calendar could be used to move more rounds of the Champions League to a more lucrative weekend schedule, help Bundesliga teams grow their brands during off-season trips abroad, see the introduction of two-legged DFB Pokal fixtures or even that of a league cup that would generate additional income for Bundesliga 2 and third-division sides.

(...)

... increasing the concentration of wealth in the upper-middle really is the most logical way of countering the concentration of wealth at the top without allowing for billionaire takeovers or harming the chances of German clubs to be competitive in Europe, which is so vital for the league’s international standing.

If Bayern aren’t to win the next nine leagues in a row, the only chance is to strengthen the sides best-placed to thwart them.

 

[FCBarca]

Yes but unlike Nagelsmann, Xavi hasn't proved [strike]nothing[/strike] anything as coach yet.

Unlike Nagelsmann, Xavi didn't just learn from Pep but from the Catalan club where it all started


One coach has 6 titles in his first year of coaching, the other has 0 in 5 seasons

25M for a German Pep wannabee or free in a Catalan bred cantera player who knows Pep & our club much better

Easy answer

 

[serghei]

Release clauses are more like compromises, not something clubs initiate or deliberate pricetags. Clubs only agree to these if they fear that the player would otherwise not sign a contract with them. Or they try to keep his wage lower by including it. Best example is Haaland. Raiola insisted that Haalands contract must have a release clause and ideally also one thats affordable to top clubs. Had Dortmund not agreed to it, then they would have probably not been able to sign Haaland.

I dont think any club purpously includes release clauses to "advertize" a player. If for whatever reason they really wanted to tell other clubs that they are planning on selling someone, then they could just email them that.

So, Dortmund basically positions themselves as a club that is a stepping stone to bigger clubs, willing to be used by players, and agents alike, just for some short-term gain, and probably some profit. Don't you think this is very un-ambitious from a sporting perspective? Dortmund seems to be run like a company. They have few real objectives outside of staying highly profitable.

Don't understand how Atletico Madrid, who were under Sevilla level 15 years ago, is now a top 10 club, while Dortmund is just happy to be man-power provider for the big teams, especially Bayern. Surely they have enough money to start building their club. Look at how AMs revenue grew because they started to have higher demands from themselves as a club, rather than just being satisfied to be top 5-8 in Spain. Why is that not a model for Dortmund, to take the next step? Maybe because they are happy with where they are. Like Arsenal. Arsenal, Dortmund, they have the means to follow AM's footsteps, but they don't have the desire to do so. Both are very commercially-run clubs. Sell players, make a profit, play nice football, they don't demand from themselves to compete with the best clubs.

Don't you think AM became that by positioning themselves as the equals of Madrid and Barcelona?

 

[Messigician]

50+1 only benefits Bayern

 

[KingLeo10]

If the counter to pointing out Bayern's less than noble activities in the transfer market, especially with German talent, is that all big clubs do it - then you should have the same amount of disdain for them as the other big clubs, including Barca.

Can't prop up Bayern and the German league for its competitiveness and structure and also turn around and somehow defend that the league is absolutely dead when all the best players and managers in the country are tapped up by Bayern, and many times on a free. In a FAR worse fashion that Barca have managed in Spain (if at all)

 

[Yannik]

So, Dortmund basically positions themselves as a club that is a stepping stone to bigger clubs, willing to be used by players, and agents alike, just for some short-term gain, and probably some profit. Don't you think this is very un-ambitious from a sporting perspective? Dortmund seems to be run like a company. They have few real objectives outside of staying highly profitable.

What do you think works better for Dortmund: Getting a 40 goal a season striker that carries them to sportive objectives, while also making bank in the end of that whole thing. Or sticking with the likes of Paco Alcacer?
I dont see at all how the Haaland deal in any way disadvantages Dortmund. Should they buy worse players, just because they are less likely to leave?

Don't understand how Atletico Madrid, who were under Sevilla level 15 years ago, is now a top 10 club, while Dortmund is just happy to be man-power provider for the big teams, especially Bayern. Surely they have enough money to start building their club. Look at how AMs revenue grew because they started to have higher demands from themselves as a club, rather than just being satisfied to be top 5-8 in Spain. Why is that not a model for Dortmund, to take the next step? Maybe because they are happy with where they are. Like Arsenal. Arsenal, Dortmund, they have the means to follow AM's footsteps, but they don't have the desire to do so. Both are very commercially-run clubs. Sell players, make a profit, play nice football, they don't demand from themselves to compete with the best clubs.

Don't you think AM became that by positioning themselves as the equals of Madrid and Barcelona?

What has AM achieved in the past 10 years that Dortmund hasnt? They're not greatly apart from each other..
Also what does "provider for the big teams" mean? Can you name a single player that Dortmund sold voluntarily and not just because he ran his contract down or fled the country to force a move?