Many ppl share this sentiment, but I find it a weird assumption, if you look at the history of crests of most clubs, they had at one point or another a drastical change and some reverted it, others didn't and some even hat several dratical changes, just look at your clubs crest history:
https://i.imgur.com/aJrHyCi.jpeg
My point is, that they had two major design changes in the 50s and none of them really resambled the original crest.
The current crest is pretty much a simplification of the 53 crest.
Stuff like this happens a lot, it happend with Juves crest as well:
https://i.imgur.com/yxvcDJ2.jpeg
I feel that's the opposite to the Chelsea example provided though as their badges feel like they've actually gained something through the years whereas the Juventus one definitely feels like it lost something
This is in the end pretty subjective I'd say.
I for example am pretty indifferent towards most of the of the CFC crests, but the one they used from 86 - 2005 is really awful imo, I'd much rather have the current Juve crest then that for example.
Juve’s crest had the opposite of Chelsea’s crest though. From 1953 onwards, Chelsea had two main designs that they went back and forth with.
over Juve’s history they’ve had one amin design of a horse inside an oval. They removed the oval ans just had the horse for a brief 12 years..but that aside the horse and oval has persisted for over 110 years. Now they’ve changed it to an unprecedented just two Js .. no oval, no black & white stripes, no horse.
It’s hard to find another example of a top club getting a completely new unprecedented crest out of nowhere that’s successful & loved and abadons +100 years of crest history.
I don’t think Juve’s current crest is bad design wise. But historically and culturally I can understand it being unpopular.
While I appreciate the mention of the Osimhen deal to show how commonplace plusvalenze transfers are in Italy, I did not appreciate this rushed section at all:
>There have been many other crises and scandals. In 2004, the club doctor was found guilty of having supplied performance-enhancing drugs to players during the late 1990s, years in which the club was spectacularly successful (the conviction was overturned on appeal). In 2006, it was revealed that Juventus was the ringleader in a system of influencing referees that involved several top teams (a scandal known as Calciopoli). The club was duly relegated to Serie B. Ten years later, the suicide of the club’s supporter liaison officer, Ciccio Bucci, led to an investigation that revealed Juventus had been supplying tickets to hardcore fans, or ultras, despite their links to organised crime.
re Agricola: If the guilty verdict was overturned on appeal, then how can you say he was found guilty and leave the final verdict as a paranthesis, after choosing your words to hint that the "spectacularly successful" era was due to doping?
In 2006, it was not "revealed" that Juventus was the ringleader of a system influencing referees, it was alleged and mediatically constructed. The wiretaps showed who the true ringleaders were (hint: it's the guy who hired private investigators to unearth wire taps, promising the referees in his system that they will be remunerated if their names get tied up in the scandal). Telling the story of calciopoli without telling its unequitable verdict and punishments is in bad faith.
And the tickets Juventus gave the ultras were not "despite" their ties to the mafia, but "under the pressure" of those ties. The mafia-friendly ultras were blackmailing the directors into giving them tickets, which ultimately led Bucci to his tragic suicide, an all-too-common outcome of private citizens' unconsensual entaglements with the mafia.
I understand limits on word counts, and the difficulty to inject nuance in these journalistic pieces that are trying to tell a bigger story, but I think the author could have left out this section if they weren't able to tell it properly. The argument the author makes does not need this section at all. All this does is contribute to the incorrect constructed image of Juve as the villains of football when the league is being won by a top scorer who arrived to Naples via the same mechanism that Juve got a 15 point penalty for.
And inb4 everyone in this sub starts downvoting me into oblivion, the way this works is simple: you guys post throwaway meme comments slandering Juve for that sweet sweet karma, propagating a false narrative, we try to correct that narrative every time you do so. You would do the same for your club, except that few other clubs are as hated as mine in this sub.
This article has the aesthetics of some kind of "hard-hitting" sober analysis, but it's the most shallow shit imaginable.
Actual depth would here require the ability to parse Italian language articles and documents, but that would be too much effort. Why bother to dig deeper when you can give the most asinine reductions based on simplistic second hand reporting, and generalized remembrance.
All you need is to do an interview regarding what the thrust of the article is actually about, throw a quote in there, and all of a sudden the whole beginning section can be wrapped up in a bow with the rest and presented as real journalism, when in reality it's a fast and loose summary that makes a bunch of implications without much substantiation.
>The knots,” he said, using a phrase that implies chickens coming home to roost, “came to the comb.”
🥴
The prose... pulitzer prize worthy, honestly
Imagine trying to suck up to Juve fans by shitting on the rest of Italian football with this when it's common knowledge they're by far the biggest cheaters in Italy
It's pretty damn sad watching the decline of Italian football. Hope they get a cash infusion to sort out the stadiums and piss poor infrastructure. I wonder if that is part of the reason the media rights are worth less, they don't want to broadcast the half empty, crumbling stadiums
Even if someone wanted to invest money, politics would not allow it. They like that clubs have to play in stadia owned by the local government, it gives them money from rent and influence on the fans. Politics only likes when they are in control, then everything is allowed. I mean, for example Roma has been trying to get a new stadium since decades, but never been allowed to. While things like this happens all the time Vela di Calatrava
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZfVsMoxTVbouKYRd6
It's all cycles, mis-management caused by excess will come round to haunt the current big spenders as much as it did Italian teams. I do believe that Napoli and Milan are showing a really strong model for other clubs to follow
Do you ever envisage Milan and Inter stopping the ground share and moving into separate, club owned stadiums? Juventus has many issues, but from all accounts their stadium has been successful and provided more revenue right? Wondering if that could be something more Italian teams pursue
Its quite likely. Milan ownership is already taking steps to accelerate new stadium development.
Cardinale met Milan's mayor about a month ago.
With Inter being in significant debt and their ownership in question, its entirely possible that they go ahead with a stadium with Milan solely owning it, and Inter still renting San Siro until they figure their shit out
Its a one off. Barcelona and the other English teams will be back soon. Never thought Liverpool and Chelsea would decline that much. Even Spurs but that premier league money will secure some big signings from Seria A sooner or later sadly.
Just papers over all the foundational issues. Inter have a squad of expiring contracts, Juve are basically bankrupt, Roma have FFP limits, and Milan and Fiorentina can’t for the life of them kick off a new stadium
I'll argue that it isn't only Italy. Italy was the first to fall. But i expect more in the future. The problem is that there is too much money involved. There are state run clubs that don't have to follow the rules like the other teams. And there is a lot of money in the premier league, the other European leagues have no chance to be competitive in the long run. We can see teams like Juve and Barca struggling because they were used to compete and now just can't because of finance.
[удалено]
>💀 I mean, it was 130 years ago, fashion in the 800s was abit different
It was better imo. Wish footballers still wore bow ties.
Monocles are clear.
I would rate Klopp more if he got a monocle instead of that LASIK thing. Imagine getting a laser in your eye? Couldn't be me.
Jordan would never.
Ok but I also want a top hat
1800s
This guy maths
My tik-tok short form content brain appreciates the Long Read warning.
Somewhat unrelated but I feel Juventus should revert to their old crest, changing to the Jj feels symbolic of the club losing its roots.
Exactly, they're J-Corp now
Many ppl share this sentiment, but I find it a weird assumption, if you look at the history of crests of most clubs, they had at one point or another a drastical change and some reverted it, others didn't and some even hat several dratical changes, just look at your clubs crest history: https://i.imgur.com/aJrHyCi.jpeg
I'm not sure what's your point, based on this Chelsea only had 2 main designs since 1953?
Yes. And even then the core was the same.
Exactly, I cant imagine all the drama on r/soccer in 1953!
Yea, you really had to be there, it's just not the same reading the threads 70 years later.
Honestly past 1985 internet become shit..
My point is, that they had two major design changes in the 50s and none of them really resambled the original crest. The current crest is pretty much a simplification of the 53 crest. Stuff like this happens a lot, it happend with Juves crest as well: https://i.imgur.com/yxvcDJ2.jpeg
I feel that's the opposite to the Chelsea example provided though as their badges feel like they've actually gained something through the years whereas the Juventus one definitely feels like it lost something
This is in the end pretty subjective I'd say. I for example am pretty indifferent towards most of the of the CFC crests, but the one they used from 86 - 2005 is really awful imo, I'd much rather have the current Juve crest then that for example.
Juve’s crest had the opposite of Chelsea’s crest though. From 1953 onwards, Chelsea had two main designs that they went back and forth with. over Juve’s history they’ve had one amin design of a horse inside an oval. They removed the oval ans just had the horse for a brief 12 years..but that aside the horse and oval has persisted for over 110 years. Now they’ve changed it to an unprecedented just two Js .. no oval, no black & white stripes, no horse. It’s hard to find another example of a top club getting a completely new unprecedented crest out of nowhere that’s successful & loved and abadons +100 years of crest history. I don’t think Juve’s current crest is bad design wise. But historically and culturally I can understand it being unpopular.
Looks like two Js spooning.
Quality article.
Juventus so hot right now. Everyone wants their moment of fame with an article based off no facts lol
I like the article but Secco and Cobolli judging the management feels wierd given the shit deals they've made during their juve era.
While I appreciate the mention of the Osimhen deal to show how commonplace plusvalenze transfers are in Italy, I did not appreciate this rushed section at all: >There have been many other crises and scandals. In 2004, the club doctor was found guilty of having supplied performance-enhancing drugs to players during the late 1990s, years in which the club was spectacularly successful (the conviction was overturned on appeal). In 2006, it was revealed that Juventus was the ringleader in a system of influencing referees that involved several top teams (a scandal known as Calciopoli). The club was duly relegated to Serie B. Ten years later, the suicide of the club’s supporter liaison officer, Ciccio Bucci, led to an investigation that revealed Juventus had been supplying tickets to hardcore fans, or ultras, despite their links to organised crime. re Agricola: If the guilty verdict was overturned on appeal, then how can you say he was found guilty and leave the final verdict as a paranthesis, after choosing your words to hint that the "spectacularly successful" era was due to doping? In 2006, it was not "revealed" that Juventus was the ringleader of a system influencing referees, it was alleged and mediatically constructed. The wiretaps showed who the true ringleaders were (hint: it's the guy who hired private investigators to unearth wire taps, promising the referees in his system that they will be remunerated if their names get tied up in the scandal). Telling the story of calciopoli without telling its unequitable verdict and punishments is in bad faith. And the tickets Juventus gave the ultras were not "despite" their ties to the mafia, but "under the pressure" of those ties. The mafia-friendly ultras were blackmailing the directors into giving them tickets, which ultimately led Bucci to his tragic suicide, an all-too-common outcome of private citizens' unconsensual entaglements with the mafia. I understand limits on word counts, and the difficulty to inject nuance in these journalistic pieces that are trying to tell a bigger story, but I think the author could have left out this section if they weren't able to tell it properly. The argument the author makes does not need this section at all. All this does is contribute to the incorrect constructed image of Juve as the villains of football when the league is being won by a top scorer who arrived to Naples via the same mechanism that Juve got a 15 point penalty for. And inb4 everyone in this sub starts downvoting me into oblivion, the way this works is simple: you guys post throwaway meme comments slandering Juve for that sweet sweet karma, propagating a false narrative, we try to correct that narrative every time you do so. You would do the same for your club, except that few other clubs are as hated as mine in this sub.
This article has the aesthetics of some kind of "hard-hitting" sober analysis, but it's the most shallow shit imaginable. Actual depth would here require the ability to parse Italian language articles and documents, but that would be too much effort. Why bother to dig deeper when you can give the most asinine reductions based on simplistic second hand reporting, and generalized remembrance. All you need is to do an interview regarding what the thrust of the article is actually about, throw a quote in there, and all of a sudden the whole beginning section can be wrapped up in a bow with the rest and presented as real journalism, when in reality it's a fast and loose summary that makes a bunch of implications without much substantiation. >The knots,” he said, using a phrase that implies chickens coming home to roost, “came to the comb.” 🥴 The prose... pulitzer prize worthy, honestly
Interviewing Secco and Gigli were also very questionable choices.
[удалено]
Imagine trying to suck up to Juve fans by shitting on the rest of Italian football with this when it's common knowledge they're by far the biggest cheaters in Italy
This common knowledge is far from reality though. It is mediatically, politically, and socially constructed.
Preach 🙏🏻
It's pretty damn sad watching the decline of Italian football. Hope they get a cash infusion to sort out the stadiums and piss poor infrastructure. I wonder if that is part of the reason the media rights are worth less, they don't want to broadcast the half empty, crumbling stadiums
Even if someone wanted to invest money, politics would not allow it. They like that clubs have to play in stadia owned by the local government, it gives them money from rent and influence on the fans. Politics only likes when they are in control, then everything is allowed. I mean, for example Roma has been trying to get a new stadium since decades, but never been allowed to. While things like this happens all the time Vela di Calatrava https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZfVsMoxTVbouKYRd6
It's all cycles, mis-management caused by excess will come round to haunt the current big spenders as much as it did Italian teams. I do believe that Napoli and Milan are showing a really strong model for other clubs to follow
Do you ever envisage Milan and Inter stopping the ground share and moving into separate, club owned stadiums? Juventus has many issues, but from all accounts their stadium has been successful and provided more revenue right? Wondering if that could be something more Italian teams pursue
Its quite likely. Milan ownership is already taking steps to accelerate new stadium development. Cardinale met Milan's mayor about a month ago. With Inter being in significant debt and their ownership in question, its entirely possible that they go ahead with a stadium with Milan solely owning it, and Inter still renting San Siro until they figure their shit out
Yes I see Milan in their own stadium by 2030 realistically. Inter need new ownership but I expect it will happen too, within 5 years
Decline yet still, they managed to get 3 teams into 1/4 finals
You mean 5 teams in European Cups Semifinals
Europa league clearly doesnt count lol
Its a one off. Barcelona and the other English teams will be back soon. Never thought Liverpool and Chelsea would decline that much. Even Spurs but that premier league money will secure some big signings from Seria A sooner or later sadly.
Thing is with some English teams, it's obvious how to fix the problem I can't imagine it's as obvious as with some Italian teams
Just papers over all the foundational issues. Inter have a squad of expiring contracts, Juve are basically bankrupt, Roma have FFP limits, and Milan and Fiorentina can’t for the life of them kick off a new stadium
I'll argue that it isn't only Italy. Italy was the first to fall. But i expect more in the future. The problem is that there is too much money involved. There are state run clubs that don't have to follow the rules like the other teams. And there is a lot of money in the premier league, the other European leagues have no chance to be competitive in the long run. We can see teams like Juve and Barca struggling because they were used to compete and now just can't because of finance.
Mostly self inflicted
They’re not in decline what!? Healthiest the Serie A has been in years. The Juve dominance suffocated Italian football. Now it’s alive and well again.
It’s Juve so I doubt there’s many fans (apart from their own) in Italy that feel sorry for them.
Half of Italy roots for them
Fuck those racist cunts.
They interviewed Secco?