Bundesliga

[legendz]

Currently ranked 3rd in Europe according to UEFA's league coefficient ranking. Is this league getting stonger?

[BonnieShels]

Yes. Yes it is.

[IsMiseSean]

Very much so.
I think it gets the best attendances of any other league in Europe.
Stadiums & the atmosphere is probably the best in Europe. All the clubs run at a profit, they have strict financial rules to abide by.

Would love to see some of the Irish lads move over there.
I'm going to try get over for a Dortmund game this season if I can.

[irishultra]

Its a league I'd love to see Irish players in. Could really imagine Shane Long with a team like Dortmund.

lways a good few German born US players playing so I tend to watch a fair few games and always watch highlights show.

[IsMiseSean]

Bundesliga kicked off this weekend.
There is now a 1-hour highlights programme showing on Monday nights on ITV4 at 10pm.

[BonnieShels]

So the inevitable has come to pass.

Bye bye Mario.

:(

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/pep-guardiola-strikes-first-as-he-beats-gunners-over-signing-mario-goetze-8584030.html

[Charlie Darwin]

Struggling to see the logic in this. He will be a great player, but he's at a club with a realistic chance of winning the Champions League so I don't see how joining the queue at a massive squad like Bayern will do anything except upset his development.

[BonnieShels]

Cashmoney Charlie. Cashmoney.

This was always potentially gonna happen that Dortmund would be victims of their own success. I was shocked tbh honest that he didn't go last year. Once Sahin and then Kagawa went I thought it would be a mass-exodus.

[Stuttgart88]

This could be worthy of the CL and Financial Fair Play threads too, but there is an interesting talk about German football and its regulation tomorrow (Monday) at Birkbeck College, London:

http://www.sportbusinesscentre.com/events/regulatory-german-football/

[Charlie Darwin]

Here's a slightly more critical look (http://espnfc.com/columns/story/_/id/1484029/uli-hesse-real-state-german-football-finances?cc=5739) at the financial state of German clubs (mainly outside the top tier). The original article is here (http://espnfc.com/columns/story/_/id/1476754/uli-hesse-germany-underperforming-21s?cc=5739).

I can hear geysir licking his lips from here.

[Stuttgart88]

It's funny, but one of the arguments in favour of licensing and FFP as it relates to England is that it'll attract responsible owners who'd otherwise be deterred from investing because of the losses they'd almost necessarily have to occur. In Germany, responsible owners are deterred by the 50+1 rule, as well as irresponsible owners.

What has happened at 1860? I know one of their board members but haven't met him since 2009 or 2010. They were getting fleeced by Bayern on their ground-sharing deal.

[osarusan]

From charlie's link:


In reality, the licensing procedure is about one single thing only, namely erasing any doubt that a club will be able to complete the following season without becoming insolvent. To this end, a club opens its books to the League and says: this is what we will have to spend - on wages, stadium rent, debt repayment and so on - and this is what we hope to earn - from TV money, ticketing, sponsorship deals and so on. Some clubs even add surety bonds to their documents in which somebody, ideally a bank, promises to come to the rescue if need be.

In Duisburg's case, the League had too many doubts about too many items on the club's balance sheet. It considered MSV's financial situation to be so shaky that the club would be a risk factor in the Second Bundesliga. Hence the stop sign.

On the face of it you could say these events prove that the German licensing process, widely regarded as the reason for our clubs' supposed stability, is working well and will be applied with the necessary rigour. However, that's not even half the story.

Sounds so similar to the FAI licensing system.

[Stuttgart88]

The Uli Hesse article is very interesting and definitely challenges the conventional wisdom surrounding German regulation and the likely consequences of FFP elsewhere.

A few points I'd make in response though:
* Is it that big a deal if Bayern go on to dominate for a while? Football has always had dynasties. There's some research into the popular acceptance of these dynasties and it's felt (but far from proven) that if the success is "legitimate", earned by assembling a great team and having a great coach more than simply spending shedloads on players, then it won't detract from the interest in the league. Bayern have spent money but they have spent it well too. United's dominance stemmed from a remarkable youth team.

* Leagues aren't just about who wins it: hardly any league in Europe would still be popular if this was the case. There are sub-plots within leagues such as local rivalry, CL qualification, relegation etc.

* I think Hesse is right to highlight that all's not necessarily rosy in Germany. I attended some of the DCMS hearings into football governance in 2010 or 2011 and a guy from Germany gave evidence. Stefan Szymanski,, the writer and economist, gave evidence the other way, arguing that many German football clubs were still loss making and badly run. We all know that Dortmund nearly went bust.

* However, I'd contend that Germany is still better in the sense that there isn't the same scale of a systemic crisis than there is in England. Despite ever increasing revenues, the EPL has still never made a collective profit and most clubs are loss making. Wages are over 70% of revenues (higher in the Championship) compared to less than 40% in Germany.

* Football clubs are like banks in that (unlike supermarkets for example) they co-depend on each other - there are systemic interlinkages. Therefore, if some clubs at the top of the pile are out of control, pressure is placed on everyone to keep up. Ireland had its unique circumstances in its banking blow-up, but it's still true that Anglo's behaviour caused other banks to take more risks, causing the system to collapse. This happened globally in banking.

* If you listen to what Greg Clarke of the Football League says about debt, you'd certainly believe that there is a genuine systemic crisis in English football, and failure to rein in the likes of Chelsea has had effects lower down the pyramid. I'd argue that despite the evidence of some ill health in Germany it's probably fair to say that their system as a whole is healthier. UEFA wants to make the whole European football system more healthy.

* Nothing to do with FFP, but I think it's fair to say that Germany is more "joined up" than England. This is more of a governance issue. The Bundesliga and the FA equivalent are closer (not perfectly by any means) aligned than the EPL and the FA. The EPL is a global TV product first and foremost; being the pinnacle of a joined-up domestic game is a distant consideration.

* Is it a bad thing if Red Bull can't buy Leipzig? There are arguments either way.

* The Duisberg situation suggests that the BL is becoming close to a franchise league like England's. At the same time, I think it's right that those clubs who can be self-sufficient in the mega money age deserve to be at the top.

* Just like in banking, FFP won't stop individual clubs going bust. But sound regulation ought to prevent the whole system going bust.

Anyway, I'm meeting the guy who runs www.financialfairplay.co.uk next week and will ask his views. He's a friend of a friend.

I'll send him the Hesse article and see what he thinks.

[Stuttgart88]

I suppose a simpler way of saying what I mean is that speed limits on motorways don't stop all accidents, but they sure make motorways safer for everyone and without really stopping people making their journeys at a reasonable speed.

Another general point is that while many always object to regulation in all areas of life and business (right wingers in particular) you can never tell really if regulation is working, although it's usually obvious in hindsight when regulation should have been better.

[geysir]

Reading that Hesse article about Duisburg, German supporter owned clubs are not immune to financial failure, but imo that does not detract from the model. The board of a German club can make mistakes, can elect poor administrators etc.
Regardless, the German model stands out with it's 51% supporter protection. Much of the protection for clubs as primarily a sporting club entity, lies in the strength of its constitution and the constitution of the (collective) administration body who regulate the clubs. It has withstood a pernicious take over attempts by Red Bull, but the corporate interests deviously look for other ways to penetrate.
The other day, I was having a (yet another) look at Fritz Laing's M, a German film from the 1930's, about the hunt for a child killer in Berlin. A big part of the film dealt with the underworld, fed up with the intolerable heat from the police (bad for business), and who got actively involved with finding the killer. The underworld was organised from top to bottom, even the the lowest creatures on the street, the street beggars, were already organised into a union, with union cards, union reps, begging territory patches, union regulations and had their man on the underworld committee board. The whole underworld was whipped into effective methodical action to find the killer. German social structure is culturally embedded and not an easy one to topple.
Regulation after the horse has bolted is a different scenario, like with the EPL.
One thing that's different with say EPL clubs than corporations, is that the massive income are being swallowed up by transfer fees and higher profile players' contracts, not by the shareholders. Money has flooded into the game from the viewing public but has mainly gone into players' pockets. Possibly the introduction of a salary cap, eg if the minimum contract is 250k p/a then the maximum is 2.5m p/a, as one type of control.

I see the Dutch Eredvise equally distribute their tv money, about 4m p/a to each of the 18 clubs.

[Charlie Darwin]

That Fritz Laing analogy is Early-esque.

[Stuttgart88]

even the the lowest creatures on the street, the street beggars, were already organised into a union, In England they're involved in football.

FFP goes further than player wage caps. They encourage clubs to invest for the long term rather than spend for the short term. They restrict certain expenditures in much the same way a salary cap would, so in my opinion FFP is probably a better model.

Further regulation I'd like to see in principle - although the horse has already bolted out of the stable, breaking a bottle and setting a genie free in the process:

- Mandatory governance change: The national association should have control over all aspects of the professional and amateur game. Transparency, strong checks and balance mechanisms etc to be made mandatory too. National leagues and associations should be subjected to UEFA licensing too.
- Mandatory ownership restrictions. Exceptions will need to be allowed but maybe subject to even stricter financial rules than member-owned clubs to prevent opportunism.
- More equal distributions.
- Contingent contracts across Europe - players to take a mandatory cut (increase) in pay if centralised distributions fall (rise), calculated by way of an adjustment factor. Base Case Wage (e.g., assuming club meets expected league position) * (actual distributions / base case distributions)
- UEFA itself to become more transparent and accountable
- Not allowing private owners to own more than one club globally.
- Mandatory company structure. Introduce concept of unlimited liability. My dad is a trustee of his tennis club. If the club goes bust my dad is personally on the hook. Law forms and accounting firms are structured like this. It restrains the risk taking urge. In football private parties gain in good times, public parties lose in bad. Just like banking again.

[geysir]

In England they're involved in football.

FFP goes further than player wage caps. They encourage clubs to invest for the long term rather than spend for the short term. They restrict certain expenditures in much the same way a salary cap would, so in my opinion FFP is probably a better model.

Further regulation I'd like to see in principle - although the horse has already bolted out of the stable, breaking a bottle and setting a genie free in the process:

- Mandatory governance change: The national association should have control over all aspects of the professional and amateur game. Transparency, strong checks and balance mechanisms etc to be made mandatory too. National leagues and associations should be subjected to UEFA licensing too.
- Mandatory ownership restrictions. Exceptions will need to be allowed but maybe subject to even stricter financial rules than member-owned clubs to prevent opportunism.
- More equal distributions.
- Contingent contracts across Europe - players to take a mandatory cut (increase) in pay if centralised distributions fall (rise), calculated by way of an adjustment factor. Base Case Wage (e.g., assuming club meets expected league position) * (actual distributions / base case distributions)
- UEFA itself to become more transparent and accountable
- Not allowing private owners to own more than one club globally.
- Mandatory company structure. Introduce concept of unlimited liability. My dad is a trustee of his tennis club. If the club goes bust my dad is personally on the hook. Law forms and accounting firms are structured like this. It restrains the risk taking urge. In football private parties gain in good times, public parties lose in bad. Just like banking again.
I wasn't suggesting a salary cap as a replacement for FPP. You're indulging in flippancy Stutts.
Considering the main club expenditures are players' contracts, it's a practical suggestion to hit that one directly and have salary caps as a part of FPP. Already we can see the FFP regulations are not going to affect the various ways how millions can be funnelled into certain clubs without breaching FFP. I would go so far as to say, that without a salary cap there is no serious intent for Fair Play in the league. FFP will protect both the status quo clubs and the nouveau riche clubs. The regulatory authority will always be 10 steps behind a club like Man City or PSG.
Breaching the inequalities is nigh impossible on the field of play, when Bayern with an extra 200m of income, can scoop up Dortmund's best player, by offering a gilded contract.

[geysir]

That Fritz Laing analogy is Early-esque.
I take that as a backhander, that my post was a useless piece of turd, that you could only find it in your heart to offer the lowest form of derision.

I retort that your reply was lazy, insulting and typically uncultured.:)

[Charlie Darwin]

No, I thought you had a good point, I just thought the analogy was funny :)

[geysir]

No, I thought you had a good point, I just thought the analogy was funny :)
Well that elevates it from what I had intended, germane and informative, to something miraculous. Not just anybody can present an analogy from a dark, ultra Germanic, Fritz Laing film, for someone to derive a degree of mirth from.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Interesting content/links in this thread.
Will bring to the attention of my various Germanic associates in due course.

Bizarre analogies aside...

[Stuttgart88]

I wasn't suggesting a salary cap as a replacement for FPP. You're indulging in flippancy Stutts.
Considering the main club expenditures are players' contracts, it's a practical suggestion to hit that one directly and have salary caps as a part of FPP. Already we can see the FFP regulations are not going to affect the various ways how millions can be funnelled into certain clubs without breaching FFP. I would go so far as to say, that without a salary cap there is no serious intent for Fair Play in the league. FFP will protect both the status quo clubs and the nouveau riche clubs. The regulatory authority will always be 10 steps behind a club like Man City or PSG.
Breaching the inequalities is nigh impossible on the field of play, when Bayern with an extra 200m of income, can scoop up Dortmund's best player, by offering a gilded contract.
tbh I wasn't tryinmg to engage in flippancy, I simply thought you were advocating salary caps by themselves.

Salary caps are already "in" FFP to a certain degree. Although the breakeven requirement is the cornerstone, the licensor has the right to intervene if a club breaches a 70% (I think) wage-to-turnover ratio. "Intervene" doesn't mean anything prescribed, but the club must satisfy the licensor that despite breaching the percentage it's still confident it is not heading towards a deterioration that would lead to not breaking even. It's more of an early warning sign prompting remedial action agreed between club and licensor rather than the actual hard test.

wrt sidestepping the rules, I'm not sure I understand how a wage cap linked to turnover can be better than FFP if the turnover number is the same in each calculation.

By "no serious test of FFP in the league" do you mean the EPL and its own version of FFP? The EPL's FFP rule allows clubs to lose £105mm over 3 seasons, so £35mm per season on average. There's also a hard cap on wages and wage inflation year-on-year based on a grid of some sorts, depending on the existing wage bill. I think it's a % of TV money received (60%?) which means that non-TV income can also be spent over and above this.

Have you heard what PSG has done to try and comply with FFP? They have moved a huge chunk of Qatari sponsorship income (the amount itself possibly in breach of the arm's length tests) into a prior year's accounts - recording income in 2011 for a shirt deal only signed in 2013!

From www.financialfairplay.co.uk :

In January 2013, PSG announced that it had signed a huge deal with the Qatar Tourist Authority (QTA). The precise amount of the deal was a little vague but it appears the revenue may be around €200m a year. When the deal was announced the club advised that it would be backdated – at the time many believed this meant to the beginning of the 2012/13 season. However Le Parisien reported that the deal would actually be backdated to the previous season. Now that we see figures, it is apparent that this is exactly what the club has done – a deal agreed in January 2013 for promoting the Qatar Tourist Authority has been backdated to the year before the deal actually existed!

It is interesting to note that for all that money, the QTA don’t even get their names on the club shirts (that honour goes to Emirates airline). All QTA receive for their money is the rather nebulous benefit of association with the club (plus promotion within the ground). Even if the stories about renaming the 'Parc de princes' as 'Parc de Qatar' ultimately turn out to true, it’s hardly a decent return for the €325m that they have already paid to the club.

Fortunately, this outrageous deal will be assessed by UEFA’s CFCB panel. It is very likely that QTA would be considered to be ‘related’ to the PSG owners (both have the same beneficial owners - the Qatari government). Under UEFA FFP rules, all ‘related party transactions’ will have to be assessed by the CFCB and a ‘fair value’ assigned to the deal. Determining a ‘fair-value’ won’t be easy but the panel will look at precedents such as the Azerbaijan Tourist Board’s €20m a year shirt sponsorship of Atletico Madrid. The CFCB panel are actually independent from UEFA and, as we saw with their decision to ban Malaga from the UEFA competition for having ‘overdue payables’, they are prepared to take tough decisions. The writing appears to be on the wall for PSG - in January UEFA General Secretary Infantino warned PSG that they could not ‘cheat’ the rules.


For me, all the indications point to PSG being banned from UEFA competitions from 2014/15 as a result of failing the FFP Break Even test. However, the position is actually potentially more serious (and interesting) for PSG.

Anyway, this should maybe be moved to the FFP thread? It's all related I know, but...

[Stuttgart88]

btw, I though Earley's piece on Blatter comparing him and his stewardship of FIFA to the oligarch class and the 1% was on the money.

[geysir]

tbh I wasn't tryinmg to engage in flippancy, I simply thought you were advocating salary caps by themselves.

Salary caps are already "in" FFP to a certain degree. Although the breakeven requirement is the cornerstone, the licensor has the right to intervene if a club breaches a 70% (I think) wage-to-turnover ratio. "Intervene" doesn't mean anything prescribed, but the club must satisfy the licensor that despite breaching the percentage it's still confident it is not heading towards a deterioration that would lead to not breaking even. It's more of an early warning sign prompting remedial action agreed between club and licensor rather than the actual hard test.

wrt sidestepping the rules, I'm not sure I understand how a wage cap linked to turnover can be better than FFP if the turnover number is the same in each calculation.

By "no serious test of FFP in the league" do you mean the EPL and its own version of FFP? The EPL's FFP rule allows clubs to lose £105mm over 3 seasons, so £35mm per season on average. There's also a hard cap on wages and wage inflation year-on-year based on a grid of some sorts, depending on the existing wage bill. I think it's a % of TV money received (60%?) which means that non-TV income can also be spent over and above this.

Have you heard what PSG has done to try and comply with FFP? They have moved a huge chunk of Qatari sponsorship income (the amount itself possibly in breach of the arm's length tests) into a prior year's accounts - recording income in 2011 for a shirt deal only signed in 2013!

From www.financialfairplay.co.uk (http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk) :

In January 2013, PSG announced that it had signed a huge deal with the Qatar Tourist Authority (QTA). The precise amount of the deal was a little vague but it appears the revenue may be around €200m a year. When the deal was announced the club advised that it would be backdated – at the time many believed this meant to the beginning of the 2012/13 season. However Le Parisien reported that the deal would actually be backdated to the previous season. Now that we see figures, it is apparent that this is exactly what the club has done – a deal agreed in January 2013 for promoting the Qatar Tourist Authority has been backdated to the year before the deal actually existed!

It is interesting to note that for all that money, the QTA don’t even get their names on the club shirts (that honour goes to Emirates airline). All QTA receive for their money is the rather nebulous benefit of association with the club (plus promotion within the ground). Even if the stories about renaming the 'Parc de princes' as 'Parc de Qatar' ultimately turn out to true, it’s hardly a decent return for the €325m that they have already paid to the club.

Fortunately, this outrageous deal will be assessed by UEFA’s CFCB panel. It is very likely that QTA would be considered to be ‘related’ to the PSG owners (both have the same beneficial owners - the Qatari government). Under UEFA FFP rules, all ‘related party transactions’ will have to be assessed by the CFCB and a ‘fair value’ assigned to the deal. Determining a ‘fair-value’ won’t be easy but the panel will look at precedents such as the Azerbaijan Tourist Board’s €20m a year shirt sponsorship of Atletico Madrid. The CFCB panel are actually independent from UEFA and, as we saw with their decision to ban Malaga from the UEFA competition for having ‘overdue payables’, they are prepared to take tough decisions. The writing appears to be on the wall for PSG - in January UEFA General Secretary Infantino warned PSG that they could not ‘cheat’ the rules.


For me, all the indications point to PSG being banned from UEFA competitions from 2014/15 as a result of failing the FFP Break Even test. However, the position is actually potentially more serious (and interesting) for PSG.

Anyway, this should maybe be moved to the FFP thread? It's all related I know, but...
I don't think that salary capping would have any better effect than FFP, preventing club owners' side stepping the FFP rules/guidelines. I said it should be a part of FFP. Is it such a radical idea to regulate players' contracts as well as the clubs? I'd say FFP as it stands now, won't effect a levelling out of the playing field.
If Van Persie wants to go to a top club like Man U from Arsenal in order to win trophies, fair enough, Arsenal get compensated with the transfer fee and VP gets a % of that, but we also have the murkiness of Man U's financial muscle entitling them to offer twice the contract to lure the player away from Arsenal. There is a need for some imposed rationality on the limit of what a player can earn.
The core idea of FFP is that a club's spending should be related to football (related) income.
The top clubs with financial acumen/backing will still get the best players.
The argument for salary capping is mainly 2 fold, I'd argue that clubs with the financial muscle will not always be able to get all the best players by offering 'silly money' contracts and that clubs outside the top 1, top 2 or top 3, in their league will have a better chance to compete.
On PSG.
When a club like PSG can effect a legal accounting trick to back date a sponsorship deal, is there is anything FFP can do? I think there is nothing the regulators can do because they haven't a leg to stand on. It would not survive a legal challenge. In that regard, there are some waffly sentiments from the FFP regulators. I bet you they will not have any clout to effect any significant sanction against PSG for that sleight of hand.
On it's own, FFP as it stands, will not have that much effect on levelling the playing field. I think in that interview with Samuel, Platini was quite frank with the size of the task, the obstacles, recognising that this FFP is just a start in an environment where pernicious self interest groups have taken root and had a free hand, and where the top clubs have also made the laws. There's no debate whether FFP regulation is needed or not, it is desperately needed.
Earlier I wrote that the horse has already bolted in the EPL. I just meant in regard to the ways the EPL clubs are constituted as compared to the Bundesliga and the way EPL clubs are owned, bought and sold.

[Stuttgart88]

I know, and much of that I have already agreed with! In another post I argued that players' contracts need to be addressed and made proportional to certain central distributions. I agree with regard to ownership and the horse having bolted in England. I added a genie being set loose too :)

Also, bear in mind "levelling the playing field" is categorically NOT a reason for FFP. UEFA would subject itself to much more legal scrutiny if this was an explicit goal (I posted the rationale for this on the FFP thread in response to an Irish lawyer's article in the Sindo). Systemic financial stability and sustainable investment are the main goals - legitimate goals and FFP are probably proportional means of achieving them. These will be the ECJ's criteria in assessing FFP's validity in light of the Striani challenge. Achieving a level playing field might not be seen as a legitimate objective by the ECJ, so UEFA would leave itself open here.

I hear you when you say it's not what you're arguing, but either way I don't think a hard salary cap would a better impact, even if implemented within the broader FFP. United only spend 40-something % of turnover on wages. They can afford more Van Persies even if a hard salary cap was imposed. Only more equitable (almost communist) redistribution would level the competitive playing field. But football isn't (yet fully) like closed franchise leagues like the NFL. It's just wrong that Wigan could earn as much as United!

I think yer man Ed Thompson made a good point in his website. Yes, United have more money than most but they also have had the best manager. This is a phenomenal combination. It'll be interesting to see whether Moyes can achieve the same with similar resources. I'd argue that even taking into account Arsenal's model that they have underachieved. I think Wenger's approach to the game has flaws and with the same budget should be doing better.

It remains to be seen whether the likes of PSG get away with it. Neither of us knows.

[culloty82]

What's the situation in terms of TV coverage now that ESPN will be replaced by BT - will it still be included at no extra cost by UPC?

[BonnieShels]

What's the situation in terms of TV coverage now that ESPN will be replaced by BT - will it still be included at no extra cost by UPC?

It seems Setanta are getting into bed with BT over this side of the Irish sea so to get BT Sports you'll have to subscribe to Setanta. BT Sports are taking a lot of the rights that ESPN (UK-IRL) had so you'll have to subscribe.

EDIT: FAQ here- http://www.setanta.com/ie/gamechanger/

[culloty82]

Yeah, I'd a look at that, but that just seems to be the prices for people who pay for subscriptions already. Looks like they've only done deals with Sky so far.

[BonnieShels]

That's right. The head of Setanta was on the Last Word a couple of weeks ago after the BT Sport launch and he said they were still talking to UPC.

I'd say the discussions are slightly complicated by the fact that ESPN and Setanta Ireland are free on UPC at present.

[DannyInvincible]

Interesting SB Nation article looking at the plight of east German football since the fall of the Berlin Wall: http://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2015/1/14/7500699/east-germany-football

[geysir]

The plight must be spreading to the West side, when you consider Dortmund 2015 - the hangover kicks in.

[BonnieShels]

Here's hoping the trip to La Manga has them ready for the Leverkusen game on the 31st.

[geysir]

"Dortmund lose again" (http://www.dw.de/dortmund-lose-again-in-the-bundesliga/a-18021281) must be the most used headline in the German sports pages, this time at home to a team with 10 men for the last 30 minutes and now they find themselves rooted to bottom spot in the league table.

[BonnieShels]

Be grand. All part of the plan to hoodwink you naysayers.

[DeLorean]

Are they playing to the gallery a bit with these acts of unity with the supporters? Maybe I'm just a cynical aul fecker.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/p480x480/10635950_10153030279382999_8750067856311978137_n.j pg?oh=aaf3377aed6a3bfd00fcf6763709f6bf&oe=555D8A21&__gda__=1432522462_f8ab3599afae2e81229245c372a9172 1

[Acornvilla]

I'd like to think they actually care..

[DannyInvincible]

Bundesliga supporters are actually taken seriously and not viewed as passive and disenfranchised consumers, like how they are treated in the UK where supporter culture is slowly being killed off. For one of Europe's major leagues, tickets are much cheaper there than in, say, England and they can even drink/stand at games. Just because there is little to no interaction between players and supporters in England doesn't mean displays of connection elsewhere are to be suspected as being false. Italy is the same; the ultras there have a big say in what happens at their clubs. Players understand supporter culture and appreciate it. Francesco Totti often finds himself engaging face-to-face with the leaders of Roma's ultras. Gianluca Buffon is another player who I've always noticed engaging meaningfully with the supporters who make doing what he does possible. Indeed, he thought the Irish support at the Euros was inspiring. So, yes, outside of England, some people still believe in football's soul, thankfully. A football club need not be small or parochial in order to embrace and nurture the idea of community.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DYvvvjk0rcU/TEtzx8K2CUI/AAAAAAAAA5s/dZufBZn_gHM/s400/RomaTottiCurva1.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfO8YX4CIAA0kl4.jpg

http://rivaltalk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/totti.jpg

[TheBoss]

Not sure if I shared this before but you would not see this kind of reception in the Premier League for a player that made 3 mistakes in a game that cost 3 goals and look at how the fans reacted to him at the end of the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF_EMVroX5w


Also, Braunschweig got relegated last season and look at how the fans reacted to it, quite incredible really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5asWERr8-8

[geysir]

The Bundesliga is a very good example of being able to maintain football at the top level, as a sport that a minimum wage earner can still afford to support and attend.
However, I wouldn't get too excited by some noisy german fans, on the other hand I was stunned by the rousing whole hearted reception given by the obviously gutted Lech Poznan fans, towards the tiny club that beat them after their team suffered a shock exit from the EL and once that was done, resumed giving their team a right verbal bollócking.
That's what I would call real supporters of their club.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wN_axjgQAc

[geysir]

Now the real reasons are emerging (Zeit online (http://www.zeit.de/sport/2015-01/klopp-bvb-eilenberger-interview)) why Dortmund are floundering, apparently Klopp has turned Dortmund into a cult, dependant upon their leader Klopp and when he's ailing, the whole cult ails.

Google translate sorta says.
'Klopp moans about the loss of the many injured players, but BD are not hit harder with injuries than Dortmund, Schalke or Bayern. Or take the alleged World Cup hangover which Klopp likes to cite as another cause, no European team has suffered as little as Dortmund at the World Cup. If you listen to Klopp, the bad first round in the bundesliga was a kind of a biblical stroke of fate, ultimately inexplicable and mysterious. Clearly, if the coach is not to blame, then there is nothing left but to jump into the the realm of the irrational. This is romance - the bad kind.'

[BonnieShels]

Sometimes things just go to sh!t and he probably should have left after the end of last season as let's be honest, FC Hollywood arent going to be touched for a long while given the pillaging they have been doing.

But at the same time, the club do owe him some modicum of loyalty even despite the horror-show.

Too good to go down? Yes. Will they go down? No.

[BonnieShels]

Step one: Keep one of your best players.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/feb/10/marco-reus-new-contract-borussia-dortmund

[DeLorean]

Two wins in a row after beating Mainz 4-2 tonight. Up to 14th for now.

[BonnieShels]

Easy!

[geysir]

My son's 7 a side team could beat Mainz.

[BonnieShels]

So, Easy?

[DeLorean]

My son's 7 a side team could beat Mainz.

Lay of Mainz, I'll always have a little soft spot for them after bonding with the locals the time of the Georgia game. One in particular told me that they treat all their opponents with the utmost respect. The way we look at it, he said, without them we wouldn't be able to support Mainz, as we wouldn't have a game. He did have one exception, Eintracht Frankfurt... "Frankfurt are different you see, they are not even human."

[geysir]

I lived in Mainz for 18 months, I have earned the right to say what I want :) it's a soulless concrete kip of a place.
The positive bit is that it's relatively close to Mannheim, where there are some happy germans.

[DeLorean]

Okay, you win this round.