Still early days geysir. Victory in every game from now til May will see them as European Cup winners and with that Automatic CL qualification next year. Easy.
Worth repeating,Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
Dortmund are at rock bottom of the Bundesliga.
Still early days geysir. Victory in every game from now til May will see them as European Cup winners and with that Automatic CL qualification next year. Easy.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
I suppose all those who deny that the Bundesliga and its rules and mechanisms to prevent full blooded free marketeering taking over are a good thing will point to Munich's dominance as evidence. But surely if there is a statistical answer to this, you surely couldn't get better than Dortmund being bottom.
It's like saying that competitive balance and uncertainty of outcome are irrelevant because a Chelsea v Man City billionaire-backed title race is thrilling so thetefore so what if there are no rules to keep things balanced? But, for me, even if in the near term Munich's dominance is almost certain, the idea of Dortmund being at the bottom is truly remarkable and a far greater endorsement of the German model over England's. Could anyone imagine an established top English club being in serious relegation trouble?
Last edited by Stuttgart88; 05/02/2015 at 9:29 PM.
I completely agree with that rationale.
Munich's dominance is an outlier within the league and surely there is concern within the DFB about it. They really are killing the league at present. Wouldn't mind seeing something nasty come out. Maybe Ruminnegge was siphoning money into something!)
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
What does it say on the bottom of Polish coke bottles?
"Open other end."
I'm not sure isolated occurrences are a great base for comparison. I don't think Dortmund's under-performance is evidence of anything really and it is only nineteen games after all. Things could change dramatically by the end of the season. Celtic are obviously the Bayern Munich of the SPL these past couple of years, but did Hibs and Hearts relegation's endorse the competitive nature of the league? It probably did, in a sense, but I think it's a bigger indication that there's something seriously wrong behind the scenes at the two Edinburgh clubs. Personally, unless it's a club I have a dislike for, I don't particularly like to see big clubs in danger of dropping the leagues. All internal things being equal, it stands to reason that the biggest clubs shouldn't really be in that position, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It's fantastic when a story like Southampton come along and mix it with the big guys, or even Atletico Madrid to a lesser extent, which I think is healthier than the big clubs plummeting to mix it with the small clubs. That's not to say I like the PL model, far from it, I just don't think any conclusions can be found from one club's (temporary?) demise.
Last edited by DeLorean; 06/02/2015 at 8:58 AM.
Depends on how you define "established" I guess. Were Forest an established club? Or Leeds? Or Blackburn Rovers? Portsmouth were FA Cup winners and perennial mid table finishers, look where they are now. Villa this season aren't looking great but should stay up.
Newcastle were relegated a few seasons ago, of course, although I admit that considering them an established top English club might be a slight stretch. It was a shock nevertheless.
Can FFP ever ensure balance? It might halt the nouveau riche upstarts in their tracks (although even they are shrewdly managing ways to maintain their power within the framework now), but the best it could ever really hope to achieve surely would be a return to the dominance of the old, traditional powers that have built up huge global brands upon which they can sustain themselves with their considerable support, both sponsorship-wise and around the world in terms of sheer numbers of people? Even with FFP rules in place, how might, say, Hull or Leicester or ever compete with the pulling power of Manchester United and the like? That's not to condemn FPP at its heart; I still have an aversion to how Chelsea and Manchester City have gone about things and would welcome anything to effectively challenge the means those clubs have utilised to rise to power in favour of what you might call a more community-rooted football.
Remember, FFP is not there to ensure balance, it's there to protect clubs clubs from the financial arms race for talent at all levels of the game. That's as crass an error as referring to the GFA in the eligibility debate. Don't you ever read my posts on the FFP thread?
But to answer Danny's post, I have long said that FFP is right, but nearly two decades too late. And yes, Tets, I guess by established I mean the recently established. Otherwise City could never be considered established!
I think part of my above post was misinterpreted. When I said "statistical" I meant that if you wanted mathematical evidence of balance, having one extreme outperformer and one extreme under performer from the recent two best clubs, you couldn't ask for a better example. Of course, simple numbers are, well, too simple and if one was to use statistical analysis properly both outcomes are too outlying to be meaningful, even if the simple average hints at a neat result. The standard deviations would be huge.
So yes, point taken that Dortmund's current plight isn't really evidence of anything, but, hey, I'm allowed to take swipes at the EPL's commercial philosophy where I can!
Hehe, is this directed at me or generally? I understand it's there to ensure clubs balance their books and live within their means; it can't be there to ensure competitive balance, because it quite simply won't balance competition. However, I thought you were being critical of this idea of "so what if there are no rules [such as FFP] to keep things [competitively] balanced?", as if to say such rules are a good thing because they ensure greater balance in contrast to the the present dominance of the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City, so I was responding to that primarily and suggesting that if someone was hoping to see an evening out of competition as a result of FFP, they'll be disappointed. Maybe I misinterpreted?Remember, FFP is not there to ensure balance, it's there to protect clubs clubs from the financial arms race for talent at all levels of the game. That's as crass an error as referring to the GFA in the eligibility debate. Don't you ever read my posts on the FFP thread?
What I meant by "community-rooted football" is clubs existing and spending proportionately to what they make from their real support bases.
Yes Danny, it was directed at you!
To be honest I think that UEFA's omission of competitive balance as a reason to introduce FFP is there for legal reasons. If they said that evening out competition was a rationale then a good lawyer could take them to the EU and, citing competition law, argue that such an objective might not be a legitimate objective, and even if it was, there might be a less "intrusive" way of achieving it. FFP could be killed by legal action. But nobody can argue that financial sanity isn't a reasonable objective given how bad football's finances are, and it's hard to argue that FFP is a particularly intrusive way of achieving that goal.
By Germany's "rules and mechanisms" I was referring to the fan ownership model, the strict financial licensing, the culture of treating fans fairly, the acceptance that the league is there to play a key role in the performance of the national teams. Some of these are "soft" or "institutional" factors, rather than rules or mechanisms, as such. That type of stuff. I am critical of the EPL and its "disconnect" from the FA and the broader national game. It has repeatedly said that its goal is to be the best league in the world, end of story. It's all about attracting quality and, by definition, it's all about maximising revenue. In my opinion, a good analogy is the finance industry. Pre-crisis the City of London was encouraged to become me the biggest and the best financial services zone in the world. The regulators were also the City's cheerleaders, a recipe for disaster and a recipe for the regulator to be captured by the very parties it was there to oversee. It's the same in the EPL. The EPL's management is there to only achieve what's in the short term best interest of its member clubs.
My belief is that a financial services industry like the City is there first and foremost to finance UK industry and to effectively match savings with productive investment. Instead, in its quest for size and revenue, it has become a centre for speculation. Likewise, the top flight in football should be the pinnacle of a joined up national football system, not a disconnected body pursuing its own self interest, to the detriment of other parts of the national game.
I agree with your desire to see more "community rooted football", although I don't really have a problem with a club being able to earn more commercial revenue away from its "real" support base. That's just the way things are for the most part.
Fair point. I certainly wouldn't advocate some sort of all-out Marxian restrictions, but there is potential for abuse (of the purpose of FFP) where there is an uncontrolled allowance for the earning of commercial revenue away from the community support base. Isn't it widely suspected that Manchester City's sponsorship deals with Etihad, Aabar, Etisalat and the Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority (all companies owned or controlled by the UAE's government, or the Mansours, in other words) are a means by which Sheikh Mansour can inject huge sums of money into his club? This income is classified as football-related and is therefore considered kosher under FFP rules. How to solve that, I'm not sure. Are upper caps on sponsorship income to be imposed? Would that even be legal? Weren't UEFA to investigate such deals? They've been talking about it for years. What ever became of that?
I got an email from the FAI there saying that pre-sale tickets for this game will be available from Monday at 9am until Wednesday midnight. This should be the case for anybody that's attended an Ireland game at Lansdowne in the last six months. It will be interesting to see the quality of the tickets available.
there are rules against "related party transactions" although of course there are ways of bending any rule. My point was that if Man U can get more "proper" sponsorship income than, say, Everton or Arsenal, then fair play to them.
With it being on a Sunday, this Poland match is one that I could actually attend but looked at the sites it seems you have to buy tickets as part of the bigger England and Scotland package. Some other sites seem to be offering a ticket for the Poland game only at 80 Euro which is extortionate and I won't be paying.
Kind of bummed about it all but I won't pay daft money for a single game.
Just put a Polska top on and you can sneak in with the team. They rarely recognize each other.
They just haven't gone on general sale yet.
Last edited by DeLorean; 16/02/2015 at 12:29 PM.
email the FAI and they might give you a code to buy a poland ticket only. heard of others who did the same
Think that was just a pre-sale option given to supporters who attended a home international over the past year. That offer expired last Wednesday midnight, even if he did get a code.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks