So Real and Atleti were both sanctioned with registration bans for the next two transfer periods. Real announced to appeal to CAS but they seem unlikely to succeed.
@Dr.Phil how do you feel about Donovan coming back for the rest of the season? Pretty cool IMO, and I was never a huge LD fan
Who did real purchase this window? I would've thought with this looming they would've went manU level ridiculousness. With the aging players/injury prone players and coming off a CL winning season. This could be a real slump year
He says for now it's only for the remainder of the season. Maybe I'm still depressed from blowing a 3-1 lead yesterday (Fake Salt Lake tied us on the last play of the game on a howler!). The season is lost. We look dysfunctional when everyone is fit. Keane and Dos Santos are eat up the same position on the field. Gerrard has to be carried around. With out van Damme in the defense we concede to much. De Jong was sold to make room for next season. Zardes are best attacker this season is out. Let this season die
Just signed up for the free trial.... looking forward to this. Excited to catch the 2 matches plus the SPL Old Firm!
So after the Norway game of the German NT, in which Mario Götze was subbed off after 45 mins, Jens Lehmann criticised him for his poor performance in pretty stark but not unfair words. This has not really found a huge general media response until Watzke and Tuchel cried out about a media campaign against Götze 'that surpasses moral limits'. In my exprience people in charge don't cry out like this unless they have something to worry about. Especially since Lehmann is a rather controversial voice who is not seen as a universal Football authority. So now Watzke and Tuchel have the entire attention of the German football media and even increased the pressure and attention on their player. Great job.
That's a rather slanted perspective. I agree they likely should have left the issue alone, however at the same point in time they also want to be seen as publicly supporting their player - Gotze has taken a beating in the public eye well beyond the statements of Lehmann.
Their intentions are not what really matters though, because the effect it had in the press is undeniably negative. Keep in mind the initial debate was rather small and gained little attention because Lehmann is Lehmann and people generally don't take him very serious. How much more public support does a player need after having spend 25 million Euros on him a couple of months ago anyway? After all the Euro performance debate has completely disappeared from the public eye by now Now Tuchel and Watzke brought it all back so Kicker, Sport1, Spox & Co are all pointing the lights at Götze and start asking the question why he is not starting for Dortmund if Tuchel and Watzke believe so much in his abilities. In my opinion they created this problem and the type of reaction definitely also indicates a certain nervousness about the success of Mario's return.
Not entirely disagreeing with you - especially with regards to bringing this spotlight on him right before his first potential start of the season. With that said, it's not true that this is simply something that Lehmann was saying in isolation - it's been in the media all week from multiple sources (including Bild). That the impact is undeniably negative is also something that is an unknown. I think we would all agree that Watzke talks to much, but TT is an extremely cerebral coach who always thinks before he speaks with regards to players. If he made public comments on this, I have little doubt it was a very intentional and deliberate mechanism - potentially trying to add some pressure to Gotze, or simple re-affirm that the team and mgmt are 100% with him.
I read Kicker, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and several sport portals (admittedly not Bild since I try to avoid that rag) and in my opinion it had all the signs of a passing story. Lehmann's criticism was mentioned and commented on, but it was in no way comparable to the Scholl shitstorm about Gomez and Löw's tactics. Tuchel made a public comment after his CEO brought the issue back into the eye of the media so in my view it was not as deliberate and intentional as a regular statement Tuchel would make on his own. I also doubt the Lehmann debate increased the pressure on Götze to such a degree that Tuchel would have usually seen it necessary to take the step into the media. After all they spent a lot of money on him just recently which should prove the club's commitment to the player. They also will already have held extensive talks with Götze to boost his confidence on a personal level. In this environment I see Tuchel's comment as a reaction to the circumstances created (in part) by Watzke. Furthermore Tuchel has proven with his controversial comments on TV money that he is no stranger to using hyperboles when it suits his point. Is there really a campaign against Götze and was it in the player's best interest to claim such a thing? At the end of the day one thing is clear, only Mario Götze can shut up the doubters with good performance on the pitch. I understand your trust in the insight Tuchel and Watzke may possess into Götze's state of mind and whether or not the public support was really necessary at this point. However in my experience as a fan of a club that is traditionally well acquainted with controversy, I find that our new-found calm and composed approach has been key to our success over the last years. Arguments and campaigns against the press are best to be avoided. It doesn't help in the long run.
Could someone in Germany explain WTF this is???? I'm all confused :/ http://www.bavarianfootballworks.co...-munich-association-club-corporation-law-50-1
"ceasing to exist" is a clickbait headline, the article describes the situation enough to get the basiscs but without in-depth knowledge about the german "vereinsrecht" i.e. law that governs registered associations it is hard to discuss this. This is in my opinion a topic for law freaks where most people here won't be able to contribute anything meaningful (me included). You have to understand that clubs in Germany are not lets say franchises like in the US sport but clubs that were founded by ordinary people like you and me and that often started very small without any business orientation whatsoever. Some of thsese clubs just grew over time and got very big like Bayern München. Bayern München e.v. is so to speak the parent club in which initially all club sport activites were organised. typically this includes all sport branches that Bayern München supports and conducts on an amateur sport level like currently table tennis, chess, handball etc. These sport activites are without any business concern and any interested person can join the club in these activites. The football branch has been professionalized and been outsourced as an AG (Aktiengesellschaft - stock company) by the parent organisation which holds still the majority shares in the football branch. For a long time football has been the only outsourced and professionally organised sport branch of Bayern München e.v. About 2 years ago the parent club did the same with the basketball entity and sourced it out into a GmbH (german legal form). The argument now made is that since the football branch is so big and so succesfull the parent club cannot act as a registered organisation for the common goal since it is the majority holder of the football branch. The law professor imo basically hopes to leverage with the case example Bayern to start a reform of the governing law body for these registered associations. In the case this ruled in favor of this law nerd, Bayern München e.v. (parental club) may need to restructure. but I personally have some problems in following this argument as the other amateur level sport branches still exist and dont cease to exist and any kind of restructuring might not be in their favor. Also I don't see any consequences for 50+1 as the article claims as 50+1 rule already distinguishes that capital investors cannot hold the majority, but private invesotrs can hold the majority.
Maybe I'm over simplifying it, but isnt the lawsuit claiming that Bayern e.V. is supposed to be non profit, and that the business aspect was turned into Bayern A.G. which essentially runs the club, so the argument is that the e.V. is being run for profit by the A.G.?
to be precise we need to have the actual wording of the suit. The press coverage boils the argument down to "non profit parenty organisation being majority holder of a profit oriented company which renders the non profit orientation by the parent organisation meaningless as it receives major funding through the majority ownership"
nonsense, the legal form "e.V." (the afroementioned non profit organization) is actually quite common in german football, the DFL is using it, BVB, Leverkusen, Wolfsburg are using it, practically everyone uses it since it is if I recall correctly a licensing requirement for the Bundesliga to be such a non profit organization or to be respectively owned by such a parental organisation. As I said earlier I don't follow the legal argument since the common goal of sport education and promotion on the amateur level is indisputable for all those non-profit organisations and even it the outsourced football branch is profit oriented the goal remains to invest in sport and not to tge the biggest return for the shareholders
Wrong Borussia, or have you forgotten what happened the last time Bayern set a record for consecutive titles?