2. Bundesliga Thread 2011/2012 [R]

Discussion in 'Germany' started by footyfan1, Jul 20, 2010.

?

Who Will Win Promotion From The 2nd Bundesliga This Season?

  1. Eintracht Frankfurt

    1 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. VfL Bochum

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. St. Pauli

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. TSV 1860 München

    1 vote(s)
    50.0%
  5. SpVgg Greuther Fürth

    2 vote(s)
    100.0%
  6. Fortuna Düsseldorf

    2 vote(s)
    100.0%
  7. Alemannia Aachen

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Karlsruher SC (KSC)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. FC Energie Cottbus

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. Eintracht Braunschweig

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. 1.FC Union Berlin

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  12. MSV Duisburg

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  13. Dynamo Dresden

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  14. FC Ingolstadt 04

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  15. Erzgebirge Aue

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  16. SC Paderborn 07

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Alex_K

    Alex_K Member+

    Mar 23, 2002
    Braunschweig, Germany
    Club:
    Eintracht Braunschweig
    Nat'l Team:
    Bhutan
    The DFL and club officials have talked for quite some time about banning terraces and raising prices. While adding - "we would hate this, of course, but we could be forced to do this soon", of course... but still. Beckenbauer has actually plainly stated he thinks they should be banned.

    Examples:
    http://www.fussball.de/dfb-praeside...et-wegfall-von-stehplaetzen/id_55460284/index
    http://www.neuepresse.de/Sport/Anstoss/96-Chef-Kind-will-Stehplaetze-abschaffen

    Not all of course - at least Rauball is on record of being against it.

    Both articles predate the Düsseldorf game.
     
  2. Borussia

    Borussia Member+

    Jun 5, 2006
    Fürth near Nuremberg
    Club:
    Borussia Mönchengladbach
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Don't forget that this was a crucial match for BOTH teams/clubs, where a last-minute Hertha goal would have been decisive. So it's simply impossible to allow the Düsseldorf fans storming the pitch for whatever reason and being so close to the Hertha players during the whole injury-time (just imagine how they might have reacted if Berlin scored the late winner). That's the difference to former cases (you mentioned), so I can understand the protest from Hertha ... even though it looks as if they want to take profit of the host's stupidity.

    Nevertheless I think it's ok that the game won't be repeated. Fortuna Düsseldorf has to be punished severely (stadium ban for at least 3 games + huge fine) ... the same for some Berlin players and also the club due to the behaviour of a part of their 'fans' after the 1:2 (let's not forget what happened on the last matchday Berlin vs Nuremberg 2 years ago).
     
  3. Alex_K

    Alex_K Member+

    Mar 23, 2002
    Braunschweig, Germany
    Club:
    Eintracht Braunschweig
    Nat'l Team:
    Bhutan
    Not in all cases. One of the examples that is bought up is a pitch invasion of Nürnberg fans, before the game was over, in 1997 (a game which saw their opponent relegated and Nürnberg promoted).

    And yes, it is of some concern what would happen if the opponent scores last minute (personally, I'd still say violence isn't that likely - we are talking about average fans). But either way - if you don't open the gates when people want to get on the field you might have a much more dangerous situation on your hands. You have a few hundred to thousand people in euphoria trying to get on the field - you also have to make sure noone is crushed (which can easily happen if you try to keep the doors closed while people push), is injured when dozens of people climb a fence, or have the sitiation get out of control if someone uses force.
     
  4. Kampfschwein

    Kampfschwein Member

    Jan 3, 2011
    Club:
    Hertha BSC Berlin
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Well, one wishes such threats would have those troublesome elements see sense.

    And yes, if it gets worse, terraces may go the way of the dodo.

    After all, the state has to fork out a lot of money to secure stadiums. And seating would reduce the expense. It's indeed quite possible that the Länder will lose patience...

    None of this would be up for debate if fans would behave reasonably enough.
     
  5. Lupin III

    Lupin III Member+

    Mar 17, 2011
    Denmark
    Club:
    Brøndby IF
    Nat'l Team:
    Denmark
    If we for a moment forgets our biassed glasses or our extended knowledge about football, seen from security and Business glasses it only makes sense to kill the terraces (standing) and alienate the ultras. it has nothing with conspiracy, just sheer logic...... unfortunately...... and the irony is in england they have started to discuss bringing standing back on stadium.
     
  6. Kampfschwein

    Kampfschwein Member

    Jan 3, 2011
    Club:
    Hertha BSC Berlin
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Well, abolishing the 50+1 rule would also result in more cash in the Bundesliga. But other than Kind, none of the club presidents support such a move.

    Introducing championship play-offs would also mean more revenue. But other than Bayer's Holzhäuser, there's no support for the idea.

    It's not like club officials are sacrificing the soul of German football on the altar of commercialism.
     
  7. Alex_K

    Alex_K Member+

    Mar 23, 2002
    Braunschweig, Germany
    Club:
    Eintracht Braunschweig
    Nat'l Team:
    Bhutan
    Hoeneß actually supported abolishing the 50+1 rule as well (we don't have to mention LEV, WOB, Hoffenheim, I guess). The rule is more or less dead anyway. Hannover will be taken over soon, Red Bull might make it into the Bundesliga, and really, than it's just a matter of time until the next club follows.

    Pricing out people just doesn't sound too much like the ultra-fan friendly league the Bundesliga supposedly is. I mean, they don't want to get rid of terraces because they are dangerous, or anything.

    The DFL is also dead set against allowing the controlled use of flares outside of the fan blocks. Which would make the whole thing much less dangerous. Let's face it - they won't be able to stop them. So, it's pretty clear where this will be heading sooner or later (no matter what the reason is in the end).
     
    footyfan1 repped this.
  8. 96Squig

    96Squig Member

    Feb 4, 2004
    Hanover
    Club:
    Hannover 96
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    Alex summed up my position on it nicely, thank you ;-)
     
  9. LoewenBoy

    LoewenBoy Member+

    Aug 25, 2004
    Giesing, Muenchen
    Club:
    TSV 1860 München
    Nat'l Team:
    Sint Maarten
    Okay, you lost me. Exactly how is the 50+1 rule dead or effectively dead? 1860 ran into this last year and the DFL was pretty darn clear on where money must come from and what constitutes legitimate "investement" into a club.

    Neverkusen and WOB are exceptions to the rule and have been. Hoffy skirts the very edge of the rule and 1860's model is a poor-man's version of what Hoffy is doing. RB's entrance into Leipzig is another example of skirting the rule but still staying within the DFL definition, right?
     
    footyfan1 repped this.
  10. footyfan1

    footyfan1 BigSoccer Supporter

    Oct 20, 2003
    San Antonio, Texas
    Club:
    Borussia Dortmund
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Agree with this.

    Leverkusen and Wolfsburg were "grandfathered" because they were already "owned" prior to 1999, correct??
     
  11. Alex_K

    Alex_K Member+

    Mar 23, 2002
    Braunschweig, Germany
    Club:
    Eintracht Braunschweig
    Nat'l Team:
    Bhutan
    For once, the 50+1 rule has been changed. Originally, Leverkusen and Wolfsburg were grandfathered in. Kind used exactly this to force a change (since he threatened to sue on the grounds that this was unfair to other clubs, giving those two special treatement). The current rule is that any club can become privately owned by a sponsor as long as the sponsor has been connected to the club for 20 years.

    Kind has been a sponsor at Hannover for over 15 years now. He will take over the club as soon as he can (that's why he fought the rule in the first place), which will add another privately owned club to the Bundesliga.

    And Red Bull has finally stretched the rule to it's absurdity - they fullfil it to the letter, but: RB Leipzig is a "club" that ONLY allows members to join that were handpicked by the Red Bull leadership (German club laws allows for this - clubs don't have to allow everyone to join). So, it's an "independent" club, who's entire membership strangely consists of high ranking RB employees and friends of the main sponsor.

    The DFB already granted them the 3. Liga license (the 50+1 rule is in effect there) without any conditions.

    Really, at this point they might as well scrap it - there are enough loopholes that anyone who wants it can get past it. It's still harder for big clubs with an already existing membership, but even then - clever guys will sure figure something out there (and, with all due respect, the 1860 people aren't really the ones I would expect to come up with a clever scheme to fool the DFL in the first place).
     
  12. Alex_K

    Alex_K Member+

    Mar 23, 2002
    Braunschweig, Germany
    Club:
    Eintracht Braunschweig
    Nat'l Team:
    Bhutan
    See my previous post - originally it was the case, but not anymore.
     
  13. LoewenBoy

    LoewenBoy Member+

    Aug 25, 2004
    Giesing, Muenchen
    Club:
    TSV 1860 München
    Nat'l Team:
    Sint Maarten
    Oh I don't know...we have gotten past the DFL before. Sure, we got caught...but only after we were stupid enough to talk about it in the press.;)
     
  14. IASocFan

    IASocFan Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 13, 2000
    IOWA
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't follow the 2. Bundesliga, but if someone wants to start a thread, they can pm me and I will stick it.
     
  15. Alex_K

    Alex_K Member+

    Mar 23, 2002
    Braunschweig, Germany
    Club:
    Eintracht Braunschweig
    Nat'l Team:
    Bhutan
    The main forum is kinda dead these days anyway.
     

Share This Page