Cos the best club was owned by Americans already? I'm guessing here, I don't know the timeline in the EPL.
No, ManUtd wasn't owned by Americans when Roman took over Chelsea.
German Football 20/21
- Thread starter do.ob
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
No, ManUtd wasn't owned by Americans when Roman took over Chelsea.
I thought my reasonable knowledge of the Danish language could help me here but nope, understand zilch.
Klopp is special but I'm not using Dortmund's situation then as a role model, because they're in a far better spot now than they were at the time in terms of finances. Even the season before Tuchel took over they only had half the revenue they generate now. So they're in a much better position to step up their game than they used to be.
I don't think Liverpool will fall behind that much necessarily once Klopp leaves as long as they get a competent coach in. There will be other great emerging coaches in the future, who knows maybe that could even be Rose for BVB? Not saying he will be, but just that Dortmund are now much more capable of turning great results under a great coach into a more sustainable top level than they were a decade ago. I'm not saying what Klopp does is reproducible, but it doesn't need to be. Tuchel came close, but Bayern had Guardiola who is also not a level of coach Bayern will likely have most of the time. Their points tally since hasn't really been out of reach entirely.
Those owners didn't buy those clubs to chase financial returns. They're basically toys or sports washing projects. But yeah obviously they were cheaper and had a lot of room to grow.
That being said takeovers in the PL are quite different than hypothetical takeovers in the Bundesliga, because new owners buy clubs from the previous owners. That means when the Glazers bought United for instance, the money paid went entirely to the shareholders. Someone correct if I'm wrong, but in the Bundesliga the clubs don't really have owners, as most clubs "own" themselves. So if a person were to buy a club, that money would be injected into the club basically, and not to an external owner who is then no longer affiliated with the club.
Not sure what would stop the owner from taking that money out again after buying a club though? Would that be illegal?
That Union stuff is pretty nasty if true. This is in stark contrast to the public image of the club as the Berlin equivalent to St. Pauli. Wonder when those stories start to hurt them.
The usual setup for allowing investements is that there is the actual club, consisting of club members (mostly fans obviously, but they do usually also have the typical sport club setup, often in different sports as well), and that club is owning a company that takes part in the Bundesliga. This company has to be owned/controlled mostly by the club to be allowed to be in the Bundesliga (that is the 50+1 rule).
So if 50+1 would be gone someone could buy the football company from the parent club - that club would then have the money, not the football team. As the clubs have to be by law non-profit organisations they would need to invest that money they get for selling their football team to something else, so likely invest it in their other sport offerings.
It would even be a possible scenario that a club is selling it's first team to an investor, keep the second team in the club and then rise with that team to the same league as their former first team is playing in (as they would then not any longer be affiliated).
I suppose clubs could condition the sale of shares on the new owner not paying out dividends, but for how long? And why would someone buy a club and keep pumping money into it if they aren't allowed to pocket dividends?
The only people who seem to do that are the owners who don't define profit entirely by financial values, e.g. City.
Not to mention that there are ways even around that. Hopp for example apparently used Hoffenheim for investment purposes via TPO (Firmino was such a case according to Football leaks), I've also read more recently that that he bought (or at least tried to do so) a Brazilian club together with the agency ROGON. Perhaps an attempt to get around the TPO ban.
So in that fashion Hoffenheim could be used to buy or further develop players that Hopp coincidentally happens to own the transfer rights of.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I didn't want to attack you personally. It was just an observation based on your previous posts.
The key concept you're missing out on is market capitalization and growth potential. If I have money to invest, I logically choose the option that promises the most attractive returns. And those depend on a) potential and b) risk. Compare it with a stock, it's essentially the same. You have 10.000€ at your disposal and you can either buy Google stocks 1.866€ each or TeamViewer stock for 32€. What will you choose?
Kaiserslautern in this case is a TeamViewer stock and Bayern is Google. One is already at the top. It will grow further but not at crazy pace. The other one could grow immensely but could also fall. Technically you could have a say as a shareholder but practically, your vote - even if you invest 10.000€ - is too insignificant to make a difference. So realistically, choosing TeamViewer is a bet that the people in charge will do a good job. And that's 50+1 for you: You can invest in a club as much as you like but you'll never (!) have a say in what is happening. But if you have enough money to get the majority, you can make your own decisions. In this moment, Kaiserslautern becomes your project and you no longer bet on the people in charge but on yourself.
That's what attracts investors - they want to have the last word what happens with the money they're handing over to the club. This minimizes the risk in their eyes while the potential is still there. And that's also why they will stay away from Bayern - Kaiserslautern can increase their value tenfold over 10 years or so, Bayern would do well to double it in the same period of time. And moreover, the fact that 25% of the share is already in the hands of companies makes it much harder to acquire a club of Bayern's size.
Regarding the ESL thing: I guarantee you that with every year going by, the idea of an ESL will grow more and more on German fans. Just read forums of more insignificant clubs at that point in time, many people didn't even care and hoped it would make the league more exciting again. The reason why English fans were the driving force behind the reistance was that they already have a competitive league. But if the EPL faded away into irrelevancy, they would eventually change their minds.
In the end, every football league has to remain exciting. That's the nature of football that keeps you hooked. The current situation can't be good for the league as a whole. Not even for Bayern.
If Union Berlin are denying having foreign quotas in place, do they have a plausible explanation for the drastic reduction in players with immigrant backgrounds? It definitely sounds like an investigation is required here.
Yes, they're in a better spot right now but Bayern are, too. This isn't the club Klopp stole the Bundesliga title from anymore, they've improved immensely. And Klopp himself deserves credit for that. In general, Dortmund is fighting an uphill battle season after season. It might be the case that in the past 9 years, the stars simply didn't align and that this might change once or twice in the upcoming decade but even then - if Bayern will win 8 out of 10 Bundesliga seasons it's not necessarily great outcome, is it?
And I think you underestimate the impact of Klopp's influence on the spot. We've witnessed at Dortmund that he lifted average players on a level they had no right to be on and also saw them dropping several levels after he left - Großkreutz, Schmelzer and Bender come to mind. And he's also instrumental in keeping players like Salah, Mane and van Dijk around. They could've earned more elsewhere but Klopp promised them titles. As a team in Liverpool's position - rich, but not super-rich - it'll always be about fending off the interest of the absolute top dogs and I'm sure we would've seen more player departures if Klopp wasn't there.
And to be clear, what Nagelsmann accomplished with Hoffenheim and Leipzig is very impressive. If he has the Bayern squad punching on a similar level relative to its quality, it will be one sided Bundesliga campaigns in the future. That's what I mean: Dortmund is doing a great job signing and developing the likes of Haaland, Sancho, etc. and getting coaches like Rose but Bayern always gets the better of them in every position, even during the end of Dortmund's transitioning cycles when their talents are at the best they get for them before leaving. I reckon it'll take them another two or three cycles until they are able to keep hold of the talents they developed. And they first need to find another generation of this quality. So yeah, I'm not really optimistic.
Their answer was that a high turnover in those youth teams is nothing unusual, that their only criteria are performance in school on the pitch and social behavior and that their u19 team had the best season ever the following year with several players getting professional contracts.
It's also worth pointing out that this wouldn't be a foreign quota, where perhaps some might generously argue that it's just about maintaining a mostly German speaking group for team spirit or whatever.
The complaints are about the treatment of German born kids who have Arab or Turkish ancestors.
Last edited:
I don't think the Glazers have harmed United financially either. They take the dividends out but the club can still go toe to toe with on the transfer market with every competitor out there. The issue is that they appointed the wrong people in the wrong positions so that they lacked football knowledge on the managerial level for far too long. The club would've been much better of with someone like Begiristain.
Regarding the dividends: I'm not a lawyer so figuring this out is difficult. But maybe you could structure the regulation in a way that prevents owners from taking dividends out of the club under certain circumstances, similarly to FFP was intended to prevent clubs from spending more than they earn.
See, I'm not saying that this is ideal or anything. I'd prefer a European wide salary cap in combination with players keeping their image rights to it but I fear this will never be possible. And if we don't provide more routes for small clubs to get back to the top, the sport is dead in the long run. This is a natural monopole and without proper regulation, the rich will only get richer and richer. The only hope would be that the demographic change leads to a higher number of world class so that there will be elite footballers at clubs outside the very best again.
Uh oh... this explanation of the facts could open a bottomless pit of discussion about prejudices etc...
Yeah I'm aware of that setup, the club owning the outsourced first team "company", but hadn't thought about the implications of that in terms of owners buying just the team. In that case it'd be similar to the PL where the money used to purchase doesn't actually end up benefitting the team it buys. It would be ironic if that large sum of money would end up propelling a second team to the top and rival the bought team.
What about teams that haven't implemented that structure and still run just under the usual club structure, like Schalke for instance? If they were to be bought that money would end up entirely in the club's pockets I'd imagine.
I guess it's not too different than a private company going public in an IPO for instance. Even though such a company might be fully owned by its founders and early investors, the money raised in an IPO generally goes into the company issuing the shares rather than to the founders. So the founders somewhat give up shares in exchange for raising funds for the company.
I'm not underestimating Klopp's impact, I'm just saying he's not the only manager capable of creating a team greater than the sum of its parts, and hanging on to and attracting players because of it. There's not many but new ones will emerge, and Dortmund is closer to being able to attract those than they were before. I'm not saying the time is now, but two or three cycles sounds about right. With a bit of luck those cycles can be successful too though. Bayern will be ahead for a long time, but one successful season could lead to another, and with each successful season they'd get closer to becoming a long term rival.
Please remind me to never ask you for financial advise.
I am pretty sure you have more clue than you’re letting on here, but please leave the technical analysis of stocks to others.
Of course that would only happen if the 50+1 rule would be gone without new rules to prevent such a scenario, but yes it would be ironic.
No, a club simply cannot be bought. Under German law a club has no owners, it has members and is a legal entity on its own (therefore a club can own companies). The only way to have investors (and not just sponsors) is to sell them a kind of company structure. It would not even need to be the football team itself. For example Schalke's Bundesliga team is part of the club and not a company, but their stadium is property of the "FC Schalke 04-Stadion Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Immobilienverwaltungs-KG" which is a company owned by the club. So under the current setup they could sell their stadium business, but not their Bundesliga team.
I have to admit I did not think of this scenario, but you are right something like this can be done to get the money into the team. If I remember correctly this is how Bayern got Adidas and Audi to invest in the team (not the club). But obviously this always leaves a part of the team owned by the club, therefore I did not think about it. In that scenario it would surely be possible to get the money out of the team again.
Please remind me to never ask you for financial advise.
I am pretty sure you have more clue than you’re letting on here, but please leave the technical analysis of stocks to others.
This was obviously simplified to get the argument across. Not sure why you chose to pick that out. I'm not consulting him on his financial investments but trying to explain why investors might prefer to fund a club like Lautern over a club like Bayern due to the growth potential. The question how many shares a company emissioned or the that a company's value isn't reflected by the price of a single share wasn't relevant to explain the point I was making.
You mixed up market cap and stock price. Stock price is no indicator for anything, market cap is. Therefore you totally failed at making a point.
I'm sure that if you look closer there is a perfectly logical explanation other the Muslim kids coincidentally being the worst players at the club.
Like Union Berlin has seen some steady growth these past few years, maybe their youth team became more attractive as a byproduct or maybe they had more money to invest in their academy. The same change in leadership that saw the complexion of the teams change might also have brought on better coaching.
It would be interesting to see what someone who follows youth football in Berlin closely has to say.
Thank you.
No, it's not about market capitalization but growth potential which are two different things.
But yes, market capitalization would've been a better metric to give than stock price. It still hasn't to do anything with the point I was trying to bring across which is that Kaiserslautern would be a more attractive option for an investor who seeks profit since it promises higher returns relative to the size of his investment.
You said a stock price of €50 offers more growth potential than a stock price of €1,000. That is fundamentally wrong.
Anyways, this isn’t Yahoo Finance so I‘m gonna leave it at that.
Mate, that's your interpretation. Why do you think I put the budget in there?
I used stocks as an equivalent to highlight that investors look for growth potential, not revenue or something like that, since they're affordable to anyone and thus relatable. TeamViewer and Google were the first that came to my mind as examples of an established stock and one with growth potential. I didn't even have the prices in there and included them to highlight that Bayern would be a much higher investement and Kaiserslautern is affordable for more investors without having to reserve large proportion of their budget for one investment. Yes, technically market capitalization would've been the better metric but then again it would've rendered the equivalent (relatability and stuff) pointless, wouldn't it? In the context of the equivalent, it was irrelevant how many stocks of each company there are.
I'm not pretending I'm an expert on the topic but you were depicting me as an idiot because you wanted to nitpick.
Today's game between Schalke and Hertha is shaping up to be a very weird one.
Schalke is currently dealing with a covid outbreak. 3 players have tested positive and 4 additional players have to quarantine and won't be available.
Hertha's tough schedule of playing a game every 3 days right after being quarantined for 2 weeks has predictably led to five injuries and the 3 players who tested positive during last month's outbreak aren't at full strength yet.
Difficult to predict how this is going to affect the rest of the season. Köln might be the biggest benificiary as their last two games are against Hertha and Schalke.
Schalke is currently dealing with a covid outbreak. 3 players have tested positive and 4 additional players have to quarantine and won't be available.
Hertha's tough schedule of playing a game every 3 days right after being quarantined for 2 weeks has predictably led to five injuries and the 3 players who tested positive during last month's outbreak aren't at full strength yet.
Difficult to predict how this is going to affect the rest of the season. Köln might be the biggest benificiary as their last two games are against Hertha and Schalke.
A nice little visualization.
I mean it's Schalke.. Hertha re going to win easily, then - even if they lose against Cologne -they are going to get a result against Hoffenheim as well and stay up relatively comfortably.
Though I love how no one, not even Schalke, seems to complain about them missing seven players due to Covid, because they are so bad there is no point in bothering.
I mean it's Schalke.. Hertha re going to win easily, then - even if they lose against Cologne -they are going to get a result against Hoffenheim as well and stay up relatively comfortably.
Though I love how no one, not even Schalke, seems to complain about them missing seven players due to Covid, because they are so bad there is no point in bothering.
Yeah... well... Schalke take the lead
Yeah... well... Schalke take the lead
They did the same against Hoffenheim. It's just a cry for attention. Losing 0:4 doesn't raise any eyebrows anymore, so they now have to take the lead before they start shipping the goals.
It will become truly hilarious if Frankfurt messes up against them on the weekend, the Schalke team performing in the one game their supporters would want them to lose as a final feck you.
https://www.weser-kurier.de/werder/...und-eines-punktabzugs-doc7fr89w77tza19pdymn1o
Apparently Werder is going to issue a bond aimed at private investors (= primarily fans I guess) in the hopes of raising €20m (up to €30m) to cover their financial hole - after already raising €10m via institutional investors and "friends of the club" and getting a state-vouched loan of €20m. The brochure of that bond apparently makes for a grim reading, four points from their recovery plan are:
1) stay in the first division - not the most encouraging requirement, given they are two points from direct relegation
2) €9.4m net profit from transfers - given they reportedly have an obligation to buy Selke for €12m if they stay in the first division that's a pretty tough ask in a Corona market and since their squad is barely cutting it as it is I don't see how they would be able to compete if it were to be further depleted
3) get 10% of season ticket holders to forego their right to a refund for this season's tickets - probably the easiest to accomplish on this list
4) raise €20m with this bond - who in their right mind would invest? Some fans I guess, but not to the tune of €20m.. As far as I know Bremen's senate has no special love for the club, so I wouldn't bet on a bailout either.
Together with €26m transfer debt they would then land at €76m debt. How they incurred so many debt from transfers I don't know. On the surface their dealings have been looking quite modest since they stopped being a top four contender.
The article also mentions that Werder have until September 15th to get their finances in order, otherwise DFL's licensing will deduct them six points. And they also seem to have tried to pass Transfermarkt's fantasy market values as some form of equity.
This sounds almost as bad as Schalke during the last summer.
Apparently Werder is going to issue a bond aimed at private investors (= primarily fans I guess) in the hopes of raising €20m (up to €30m) to cover their financial hole - after already raising €10m via institutional investors and "friends of the club" and getting a state-vouched loan of €20m. The brochure of that bond apparently makes for a grim reading, four points from their recovery plan are:
1) stay in the first division - not the most encouraging requirement, given they are two points from direct relegation
2) €9.4m net profit from transfers - given they reportedly have an obligation to buy Selke for €12m if they stay in the first division that's a pretty tough ask in a Corona market and since their squad is barely cutting it as it is I don't see how they would be able to compete if it were to be further depleted
3) get 10% of season ticket holders to forego their right to a refund for this season's tickets - probably the easiest to accomplish on this list
4) raise €20m with this bond - who in their right mind would invest? Some fans I guess, but not to the tune of €20m.. As far as I know Bremen's senate has no special love for the club, so I wouldn't bet on a bailout either.
Together with €26m transfer debt they would then land at €76m debt. How they incurred so many debt from transfers I don't know. On the surface their dealings have been looking quite modest since they stopped being a top four contender.
The article also mentions that Werder have until September 15th to get their finances in order, otherwise DFL's licensing will deduct them six points. And they also seem to have tried to pass Transfermarkt's fantasy market values as some form of equity.
This sounds almost as bad as Schalke during the last summer.
Haaland starting!
On the other side Nagelsmann has made the gutsy move of cutting perhaps the greatest LB to ever play for Leipzig from the matchday squad for "sporting reasons".
On the other side Nagelsmann has made the gutsy move of cutting perhaps the greatest LB to ever play for Leipzig from the matchday squad for "sporting reasons".
still can't believe they couldn't find a more dignified time for this .. Thursday evening, what is this, the Europa League of Cups?
anyway, must win for Nagelsmann.
anyway, must win for Nagelsmann.
Pleased to see that Nagelsmann is rehearsing a move away from his 3 man backline in preparation for the Bayern job. No business playing 3 man defenses with a big team, waste of a midfielder or attacker.
What's undignified about it? People touring with their Bollerwagen, progressing the day on Pils and Korn, getting home just in time for the Ausgangssperre and the cup Final.
It's going to be a said affair either way, no fans in the stadium no fans on the street, no celebrations.
and then the weather
The perfect background for Leipzig to win their first title
Something's been fishy with Bremen's finances for over a decade. I never understood just whereto all the money was seeping away. Surely Carlos Alberto can't shoulder all the blame.
Look at this bad boy. Might as well go all American and call it the World Pokal. On a side note: has DFB used this unique opportunity to give Helene Fischer another shot?
That jacket and that turtleneck, feck me it's going to be a neverending nightmare watching Bayern games going forward
Today the German, tomorrow the World Pokal!!
All Leipzig since the goal.
what the hell is Can's fecking problem, what is this horrible behaviour