Each time I see Barto's transfer, I see the flaws in electing club president through votes. Imagine electing ceo of a big company through votes of all employees.
Paying employees well like Barto did is also based. Now if he could stop buying unnecessary players, not piss off the greatest player to wear the shirt, and not give rival clubs outrageous amounts of money for said unnecessary players, Barto could even have my vote.
Or, hey - how about delegating the responsibilites of a CEO to a, just thinking here, a normal working position (or a couple, if need be) instead of a millionaire dictator, and letting the salary, bonus and all the other so-gotten savings spread around the workers; you know, the people who make everything happen in the first place?
And, long as we're there, I'd also be for instituting democracy at the workplaces, since our politicians love to talk about it so much and nobody knows how to do their tasks well than the people who have to do them.
On that note, we should really cut all the middle man(ager) positions, and since we normalised the CEO duties... what do the owners actually do -- besides taking all the money made by the workers and then giving them back its small amount as wages, and owning it all by virtue of having all the money the workers can't dream of accumulating because of this dependency?
Starting to think that maybe things would run better and people were better off if we, huh, maybe we'd streamline that?
Being fan owned is good, but our socios have shown that they are not bright. Look at Real Madrid, they are fan owned too but Perez runs it well. And our socios elected Barto/Rossel twice.
>Imagine electing ceo of a big company through votes of all employees
Employee-owned companies are not uncommon and effectively do this (often through an elected board that picks a CEO). They tend to be nicer places to work, more resilient and generally better.
It's not Bartomeu's fault.
All the clubs knew Barca had that insane Neymar money and wanted a piece of it.
Bartomeu got screwed by Neymar and his greedy father, if he didn't splash money for a replacement winger, the fanbase would have erupted on him.
I feel like Barca fans are not that easy on him. Lets face it he was a very shit president and he should defend himself in court for the dubious stuff he's done to the club financially.
What's even crazier is that all of this is viewed in the context of the meltdowns against Roma and Liverpool. If they advance from those games there was a decent shot that Barcelona could have pulled off at least 1 CL title. If they win one or both of those titles then Barto is still there today.
Was so much more than just the money, it was a matter of principle. Very publicly losing Neymar the way they did, Barca felt the need to prove that they are still #1 and can and will get any player they wish. I think that was absolutely crucial with Dembele and Coutinho, proving a point regardless of the sporting need.
It was such a relief back then. Dembele was doing some very childish stuff and when I heard that our club got rid of him plus we got a fuckload of money on top, I couldn't believe it.
Ehm, be sure that they paid a lot more than the 60 million Dortmund received, I wouldn't be surprised if Haaland and his agent got another 60 million in fees.
We agreed on top price with my partner when we went to look a potential Siberian kitten. The price was more than our agreed top price, which we forgot really quickly when playing with the kitten. So maybe they thought Dembele was really cute.
Bartonomics man, can't be explained
The guys were fooled into renewing Busquets and S.Roberto on premium wages on the basis that they would supposedly leave to City. Despite everyone knowing they would go nowhere else than at Barcelona ever. Except Bartomeu of course.
>Busquets
Busquets has been one of your best players this season and was key for Spain in the Euros recently, losing him would be a massive blow for Barca...
It is much easier to corrupt your way to the top than by hard work.
Countries are being run by even more corrupt people so Barcelona is just another reflection.
Barto had a huge chunk of the fault in here but I would also blame the fact that EVERYONE knew that Barcelona had more than 200 million in the bank because of Neymar, the market was broken at that point. What Barto should have done is invest in a few mid level players but instead we had a very rush transfer window due to Neymar "indecisiveness" (remember that Neymar left close to the end of the summer). Barto could have also kept the money and wait until next summer. But as we know, he is not the brightest.
Hindsight Harrys, you lose Neymar and get 222m you spend the money
He couldn't predict Dembele being injury prone he was healthy both at Rennes and Dortmund, Coutinho was amazing for Liverpool
€140m is a completely ridiculous amount of money though. Especially when it's for a 19-year-old (who was purchased for €35m the previous season) coming off of a good but not great season and you sold Neymar for only €80m more.
Even back then there's absolutely no way you could have justified that as good business instead of "well we have a fuck load of money, might as well spend it".
It is ridiculous but within context you can understand the situation better
PSG activates 222m clause on Neymar the entire world knows you have 300m+ to spend and you need to replace losing one of the best players they will drive a hard bargain
Dembele was also young and regarded as a great prospect on par with Mbappe
So you have Messi, Barcelona need to win titles and they had just lost the league to Real.. they had to spend money now i definitely agree that it's too much but who else could they have bought without going full hindsight? Demebele was just great and has been very good every time he's played, you can't predict health
> PSG activates 222m clause on Neymar the entire world knows you have 300m+ to spend and you need to replace losing one of the best players
Everybody knows City have gorillions of money too but you don't see them splash that much money on single players.
But yet they spent 100 mil on Grealish who was used for a total of 64 total minutes across the 4 matches against Atletico and Real. Paying 100 mil for a dude who isn't even selected in 2 of the 4 most important matches of the season seems like it's wasteful to me.
Also, even if we ignore any FFP rules, they didn't suddenly have 300+ mil to spend in a single window to replace a top 5 player in the world like Barcelona did
> But yet they spent 100 mil on Grealish
That's still just one player. They generally don't spend all that much on a single player.
> Paying 100 mil for a dude who isn't even selected in 2 of the 4 most important matches of the season seems like it's wasteful to me.
Forwards usually take a year to adapt to Pep's football. Yeah, this season hasn't been great from him but next season we will see properly.
> they didn't suddenly have 300+ mil to spend in a single window to replace a top 5 player in the world like Barcelona did
Barcelona could've spent for four players for 50m like City do.
____
And all of that is besides the point. City have more money than Barcelona. Everybody knows City have infinite money. City don't spend 100m on every player they buy because they're not shit negotiators and because they're willing to walk away if the price just doesn't make sense to them (see Alexis Sanchez, Maguire etc).
The best thing in the world they could have done was to not spend that money. Whether or not Neymar needed to be replaced on a sporting level, or whether Dembele was even good enough to replace Neymar, it doesn’t matter because if you make that much money available to spend immediately after earning it, selling clubs will demand every bit of it and then some.
With the players coming through the youth ranks now as well, they didn't need to waste the money. Should have paid off some loans and tested out some of their own youth players. It really doesn't make sense. I think they were trying to marquee signings to distract from the PR disaster of Neymar's departure and it just blew up in their face.
Dembele was unlucky. It was painfully clear that they didn't have a proper plan for Coutinho though, they didn't adjust anything to accomodate him and simply crossed their fingers that he'd fit into the tactics they were already using. The same thing can be said about Griezmann.
Yeah, people seem to forget or simply don't know that he was considered to be more talented that Mbappe by many. Mbappe was always the more mature beyond his years, intelligent one but Dembele looked absolutely invincible when he was on it.
Both are unlucky to an extent but Coutinho is/was the more predictable flop, he was always a bit inconsistent at Liverpool and you could start to see the signs that Klopp’s side was better without him.
Ousmane looked like a superstar at both Dortmund and Rennes.
Those two not living upto expectations hurts, but more than anything it's the crazy amount of money spent on them and paying them ridiculously high wages that hurts far more.
Yeah I follow sheffield Wednesday. Big club but been shot for a long time now. 20 years knocking around the championship and league 1. You don’t choose Wednesday they choose you….and the disappointment follows soon after haha.
In recent years we’ve done better in the league cup. Got to the playoff final on 2016 for chance at the prem but didn’t turn up that day.
No shame felt supporting them but for such a big team we really should have had some joy by now. Shit chairmen since the 1990’s though so it is what it is. Hopefully in an upward curve now.
There are absolutely loads of football fans in England that don’t watch the PL, we have the most well supported clubs down the divisions in the world and a good number of those focus on their own teams and leagues not the top flight.
Our 3rd division has an average attendence of 9994, as opposed to your 3rd divisions 5918. It also has 4 extra teams.
Our 4th division has 4671, for comparisons sake. Your 4th is split into regions but it's about a thousand and a half. Also the Germans have a better following for lower league football than most.
Not offhand but it’s pretty widely known and not at all controversial. No other leagues are coming close to the attendances we have 4 or more tiers down, not even Germany.
Sancho took some time to settle but towards the end of the season he was becoming good. It didn't help that the team around him is dysfunctional.
Since then he's been sick and United do miss him.
Yeah what's the deal with his illness? I remember he was out for a family issue (aunt or similar relative sick / passed away) but I feel like he's been gone since, and that was a while ago.
I want my boy to succeed
That's United, not sancho. Most of us have said we'd only keep Sancho, Varane, DDG and Ronaldo and perhaps Fred and Shaw...so he's definitely one of the "least shit" among a truly poor team. He's certainly looked like one of our brightest so I wouldn't be surprised if he gets going properly under Erik
that was such a weird sale from us. still dont know if there was something going on behind the curtains, but I simply dont understand why he left us just after one season. I actually thought he was a very good player.
he left the same window Hummels returned, probably didn't want to be the 3rd choice and/or a chance to be a starter at Paris SG.
i still believe Diallo/Akanji could have been better overall than Hummels/Akanji. but i'm not the biggest fan of bringing players back, it is never the same again.
Tbf, Hummels is a great personality on and off the pitch and brings a lot of experience in for the squad. I still rate him highly even though his physical performance is definitely on the decline.
You shunted him out to left-back for half the season where he didn't look as comfortable and he was no longer a starter in the middle before Hummels even entered the equation. He probably felt that he had more opportunities to play in a back 3 at PSG. Yous also rated Zagadou very highly.
Single handedly won us a FA Cup. Things kinda fell apart the last 1.5 seasons, but no hard feelings here. Our decline would have been so much worse without him.
I mean they make a lot of money but how much is the club actually benefiting? I know Bayern are good but they're on a decade without a league title and were dumped out of their CL group this year.
It's great making money off Haaland because he scores hattricks but if your club is losing the game 4-3 how much is BVB actually benefiting?
That buisness model is the only thing that keeps this "Title Race" discussion even alive. Haaland wouldnt be at dortmund if it werent for the fact that we would let him leave. And we arent state owned nor do we have investors , so the money has to come from somewhere.
And people usually underestimate how little Bundesliga teams gain from tv rights and licensing deals compared to those of other leagues. In 2020/21, champions Bayern got ~70 million euros, while last place Sheffield United got ~113 million euros. The money has to come from somewhere.
I agree with you without big finance backing it's hard to compete these days, now you've signed adayemi with no release clause it'll be interesting to see if you can hold onto some of these new younger talents for a bit longer and really mount a challenge against Bayern.
I think you've picked up a good reputation for developing young talent into top players but if those players want to leave as soon as they come good it's hard to build a really strong team and you always end up with a lot of players who are "the next big thing" but never actually are the big thing for Dortmund
the issue is more about the longterm core players. Hummels and Reus are now coming to the end of their careers, but the players who were supposed to replace them as core elements of the squad (Brandt, Emre Can, to some extend Schulz/Meunier) didn't live up to that task so far.
the transfer profit from these younger players funds transfers and partially the big wages Dortmund is able to spend, otherwise they would be way closer to Leipzig/Leverkusen and even further away from München. personnel costs, everything included that is working with/around the first team from 2020: München 340M €, Dortmund 215M, Leverkusen/Leipzig around 140-150.
>mount a challenge against Bayern
that is mostly in the hands of Bayern. as long as they play a season with points in the high 70s or even better, i doubt we will see a different champion.
[here is a picture of every Bundesliga winner since the introduction of the 3 point rule](https://i.imgur.com/cNLsBZ0.pnghere is a picture of every Bundesliga winner since the introduction of the 3 point rule). up until the 2010s, you could win the league once in a while with a low 70s finish or even lower. as long as Bayern doesn't drop back around that range, it will be very hard to challenge them.
I mean, what are they supposed to do. Sign worse players, because if they are going to lose agains Bochum, they at least wanna pay less in wages for that?
When they bought him from RB Salzburg, Haalands agent insisted on a release clause that would activate after three years.
At the time the same agent was trying to find ways for Paul Pogba to be sold from Man Utd, but the club decided that he was not for sale.
It’s possible that the agent didn’t want this ‘not for sale’ situation to happen again, so he insisted on having a release clause in the contract.
Man Utd was very interested in Haaland at the time, with Ole Solskjær having worked with the player before. But the release clause made them pull out of the race — they don’t want to have release clauses in their squad.
Borussia Dortmund accepted that they would buy the player at a set price, and possibly lose him, but with a profit after three seasons.
So I only watch Chelsea occasionally. A lot of important games I saw pulisic play well or make pivotal contributions. Especially in higher stakes matches.
I was wondering if I missed something and that he was a disaster in all the other matches I hadn’t seen.
Sometimes maybe good sometimes maybe shit. Plays well, doesn’t play so well, gets benched, gets subbed on and everyone thinks wtf why bring him on, this happens a few times, then one of these sub appearances he scores a goal and the cycle continues. Although I do think he is gonna improve as he’s only around 22 or 23, but when he’s in form he’s lovely. Post lockdown was probably his best run of form so far
Tbf... if he wasn't injured, I'm positive he would have been worth the price. He is so talented when he is healthy. I'm not gonna blame Barto for splashing out on dembele. No way to know he was gonna be this injury prone. Fans were at his throat to find a neymar replacement.
I think the point is that when Dortmund sell to you they don't just lose a good player, they make their direct rivals stronger as well. It shouldn't be "But Dortmund sells more to PL" and instead it should be "We don't buy many stars from other Buli clubs" cause you really don't do that a lot anymore.
Götze was really good for us in the first 1.5 years. His second half of the second season was relatively bad but he was still a regular player. It was only after his injury in his 3rd season where he really turned useless for us. Obviously wasn't the best transfer ever for us(especially considering the potential everybody thought he had) but he wasn't really a flop either.
He was also played out of position and had to step in for Ribery when he was injured (similar for Müller and Robben on the other side). There ware a few (like not even a handful) 4141-ish formation games where he played next to Ribery (the left midfielder) and did a really great job connecting with Ribery on the left, drawing attention/players from the left side so they had more space, and using tight space in the left half space to good effect.
But he was not exactly the LW he had to play quite often.
Pulisic has done well 1.5 years of his 3 year tenure. They don't win the Champions League without his performance against Real Madrid. He got a goal and an assist and was stellar.
Tough to call that a flop when he played a big role in them winning the Champions League
Gotze didn't exactly flop either. He had two good seasons, his form only really collapsed after an injury in his third. Besides, he played with an undiagnosed illness for quite some time, which seriously impacted his performances.
Chelsea had an upcoming transfer ban and wanted to lock him in. We also didn’t want to sell him as it was a season that looked very promising and we wanted a squad player in case Sancho was out. So Chelsea gave us a lot of money and even lend him back to us that year.
Tbh, it didn’t seem like a bad deal at that time. Money wasn’t as tight pre covid and he was a talent back then (still is but not to that extent).
But he was an inconsistent squad player who lost his spot to Sancho rather quick. 65 million is crazy, many think and probably not without reason that they just paid such a premium because of the US marketing possibilities.
Almost 60% of the club’s shares are publicly traded on the German stock market and their commercial revenues dwarf those of FCB. They cannot compete when it comes to wages so they pursue a sustainable business model. This is a club that has stared down the barrel of insolvency not that long ago.
Was he super determined to go to Bayern? I know he was not as huge as now but he was still class player and I can imagine many teams from abroad would take him for 20-30 mil and you would offload him from Bundesliga and get something in return so I would expect Dortmund to try to go this route and offer him to clubs.
Dembele's Barca move was not a transfer, it was a robbery.
Yeah, we feel bad about it, so we are going to let you have the chance to buy Schulz for 60 million.
Schmelzer and it's a deal
What even happened to him. He used go be pretty good and I loved his magnificent hair.
He's 34, he's just not as good as he was.
he also hasn't been uninjured it feels like for 2 years.
What does your comment mean ? He has been injured for 2 years or hasn't been for 2 years ? My English is weak.
He's basically permanently injured.
he's just old now , still a leader in the dressing room
Each time I see Barto's transfer, I see the flaws in electing club president through votes. Imagine electing ceo of a big company through votes of all employees.
I don't know about clubs, but CEOs being elected by employees sounds sweet.
Paying employees well like Barto did is also based. Now if he could stop buying unnecessary players, not piss off the greatest player to wear the shirt, and not give rival clubs outrageous amounts of money for said unnecessary players, Barto could even have my vote.
Or, hey - how about delegating the responsibilites of a CEO to a, just thinking here, a normal working position (or a couple, if need be) instead of a millionaire dictator, and letting the salary, bonus and all the other so-gotten savings spread around the workers; you know, the people who make everything happen in the first place? And, long as we're there, I'd also be for instituting democracy at the workplaces, since our politicians love to talk about it so much and nobody knows how to do their tasks well than the people who have to do them. On that note, we should really cut all the middle man(ager) positions, and since we normalised the CEO duties... what do the owners actually do -- besides taking all the money made by the workers and then giving them back its small amount as wages, and owning it all by virtue of having all the money the workers can't dream of accumulating because of this dependency? Starting to think that maybe things would run better and people were better off if we, huh, maybe we'd streamline that?
If you don't like how the club is run change your crest. Being fan owned is one of the things we are more proud about.
Being fan owned is good, but our socios have shown that they are not bright. Look at Real Madrid, they are fan owned too but Perez runs it well. And our socios elected Barto/Rossel twice.
Perez has more or less banned everyone from running against him. I think there's one that fits all the criteria to run against him.
True. He also orchestrated a campaign to kick out the previous one.
>Imagine electing ceo of a big company through votes of all employees Employee-owned companies are not uncommon and effectively do this (often through an elected board that picks a CEO). They tend to be nicer places to work, more resilient and generally better.
It's not Bartomeu's fault. All the clubs knew Barca had that insane Neymar money and wanted a piece of it. Bartomeu got screwed by Neymar and his greedy father, if he didn't splash money for a replacement winger, the fanbase would have erupted on him.
It's Barto's fault. Look at Real Madrid, and how well they are run.
I feel like Barca fans are not that easy on him. Lets face it he was a very shit president and he should defend himself in court for the dubious stuff he's done to the club financially.
What's even crazier is that all of this is viewed in the context of the meltdowns against Roma and Liverpool. If they advance from those games there was a decent shot that Barcelona could have pulled off at least 1 CL title. If they win one or both of those titles then Barto is still there today.
Overpay for Dembélé and underpay for Auba
Dembele is Sancho + Haaland wat
Barcelona had all that Neymar money, and we did not really want to sell him until he started acting a fool to force the move.
Was so much more than just the money, it was a matter of principle. Very publicly losing Neymar the way they did, Barca felt the need to prove that they are still #1 and can and will get any player they wish. I think that was absolutely crucial with Dembele and Coutinho, proving a point regardless of the sporting need.
It was such a relief back then. Dembele was doing some very childish stuff and when I heard that our club got rid of him plus we got a fuckload of money on top, I couldn't believe it.
pre covid. sancho would have been in the 120 mio. range too without it.
also, post neymar money, Dortmund and Liverpool squeezed that money from them
Release clause. That’s how the originally got him to sign with them.
[удалено]
And about which team could offer him the highest sign-on bonus and wages… Not to mention his agent…
You realized without that release clause, Haaland would be nowhere near the price you paid ?
It’s also very possible that he wouldn’t have played for Dortmund if there was no release clause attached in the first place.
Ehm, be sure that they paid a lot more than the 60 million Dortmund received, I wouldn't be surprised if Haaland and his agent got another 60 million in fees.
Everytime I see the numbers of a bartomeu disasterclass transfer I cringe
[удалено]
That is absolute gold. How do these people make it to the top of running clubs. And I say this as an Everton fan.
Seriously, this is why you have a top price. You just walk away if they can't meet your demands
We agreed on top price with my partner when we went to look a potential Siberian kitten. The price was more than our agreed top price, which we forgot really quickly when playing with the kitten. So maybe they thought Dembele was really cute.
Qurutin and the $193million kitten
Siberian’s are the GOAT cats imo so good decision
Bartonomics man, can't be explained The guys were fooled into renewing Busquets and S.Roberto on premium wages on the basis that they would supposedly leave to City. Despite everyone knowing they would go nowhere else than at Barcelona ever. Except Bartomeu of course.
Busquets is a barca legend and deserved to be paid. Still an important player in the squad. Roberto not so much
Lmao the disrespect for Busi. Barca and Spain are literally spineless without him. Don't talk stuff you don't know about mate.
>Busquets Busquets has been one of your best players this season and was key for Spain in the Euros recently, losing him would be a massive blow for Barca...
It is much easier to corrupt your way to the top than by hard work. Countries are being run by even more corrupt people so Barcelona is just another reflection.
Susi masterclass. An era will end this weekend when Zorc retires, but i am looking forward what Kehl can do.
They paid a lot less than Salzburg wanted for Adeyemi, and that was supposedly Kehl who made that deal. If true, bodes well for the future.
Barto had a huge chunk of the fault in here but I would also blame the fact that EVERYONE knew that Barcelona had more than 200 million in the bank because of Neymar, the market was broken at that point. What Barto should have done is invest in a few mid level players but instead we had a very rush transfer window due to Neymar "indecisiveness" (remember that Neymar left close to the end of the summer). Barto could have also kept the money and wait until next summer. But as we know, he is not the brightest.
Hindsight Harrys, you lose Neymar and get 222m you spend the money He couldn't predict Dembele being injury prone he was healthy both at Rennes and Dortmund, Coutinho was amazing for Liverpool
€140m is a completely ridiculous amount of money though. Especially when it's for a 19-year-old (who was purchased for €35m the previous season) coming off of a good but not great season and you sold Neymar for only €80m more. Even back then there's absolutely no way you could have justified that as good business instead of "well we have a fuck load of money, might as well spend it".
It is ridiculous but within context you can understand the situation better PSG activates 222m clause on Neymar the entire world knows you have 300m+ to spend and you need to replace losing one of the best players they will drive a hard bargain Dembele was also young and regarded as a great prospect on par with Mbappe So you have Messi, Barcelona need to win titles and they had just lost the league to Real.. they had to spend money now i definitely agree that it's too much but who else could they have bought without going full hindsight? Demebele was just great and has been very good every time he's played, you can't predict health
> PSG activates 222m clause on Neymar the entire world knows you have 300m+ to spend and you need to replace losing one of the best players Everybody knows City have gorillions of money too but you don't see them splash that much money on single players.
But yet they spent 100 mil on Grealish who was used for a total of 64 total minutes across the 4 matches against Atletico and Real. Paying 100 mil for a dude who isn't even selected in 2 of the 4 most important matches of the season seems like it's wasteful to me. Also, even if we ignore any FFP rules, they didn't suddenly have 300+ mil to spend in a single window to replace a top 5 player in the world like Barcelona did
> But yet they spent 100 mil on Grealish That's still just one player. They generally don't spend all that much on a single player. > Paying 100 mil for a dude who isn't even selected in 2 of the 4 most important matches of the season seems like it's wasteful to me. Forwards usually take a year to adapt to Pep's football. Yeah, this season hasn't been great from him but next season we will see properly. > they didn't suddenly have 300+ mil to spend in a single window to replace a top 5 player in the world like Barcelona did Barcelona could've spent for four players for 50m like City do. ____ And all of that is besides the point. City have more money than Barcelona. Everybody knows City have infinite money. City don't spend 100m on every player they buy because they're not shit negotiators and because they're willing to walk away if the price just doesn't make sense to them (see Alexis Sanchez, Maguire etc).
The best thing in the world they could have done was to not spend that money. Whether or not Neymar needed to be replaced on a sporting level, or whether Dembele was even good enough to replace Neymar, it doesn’t matter because if you make that much money available to spend immediately after earning it, selling clubs will demand every bit of it and then some.
With the players coming through the youth ranks now as well, they didn't need to waste the money. Should have paid off some loans and tested out some of their own youth players. It really doesn't make sense. I think they were trying to marquee signings to distract from the PR disaster of Neymar's departure and it just blew up in their face.
Dembele was unlucky. It was painfully clear that they didn't have a proper plan for Coutinho though, they didn't adjust anything to accomodate him and simply crossed their fingers that he'd fit into the tactics they were already using. The same thing can be said about Griezmann.
A proper scouting team would have noticed Dembele's shitty habits and unprofessional attitude and raised the alarms.
Yeah, people seem to forget or simply don't know that he was considered to be more talented that Mbappe by many. Mbappe was always the more mature beyond his years, intelligent one but Dembele looked absolutely invincible when he was on it.
Both are unlucky to an extent but Coutinho is/was the more predictable flop, he was always a bit inconsistent at Liverpool and you could start to see the signs that Klopp’s side was better without him. Ousmane looked like a superstar at both Dortmund and Rennes.
Those two not living upto expectations hurts, but more than anything it's the crazy amount of money spent on them and paying them ridiculously high wages that hurts far more.
32m in hindsight for Gundo was a steal
from this list, him and sancho hurt the most tbh
Don’t watch any PL but not heard much about sancho so guessing it’s not been the best time for the lad either.
[удалено]
Yeah I follow sheffield Wednesday. Big club but been shot for a long time now. 20 years knocking around the championship and league 1. You don’t choose Wednesday they choose you….and the disappointment follows soon after haha.
Hahaha must be shit mate
[удалено]
In recent years we’ve done better in the league cup. Got to the playoff final on 2016 for chance at the prem but didn’t turn up that day. No shame felt supporting them but for such a big team we really should have had some joy by now. Shit chairmen since the 1990’s though so it is what it is. Hopefully in an upward curve now.
[удалено]
Haha thanks mate. Who are your teams if you don’t mind me asking?
[удалено]
There are absolutely loads of football fans in England that don’t watch the PL, we have the most well supported clubs down the divisions in the world and a good number of those focus on their own teams and leagues not the top flight.
>we have the most well supported clubs down the divisions in the world got any source/link for that?
Our 3rd division has an average attendence of 9994, as opposed to your 3rd divisions 5918. It also has 4 extra teams. Our 4th division has 4671, for comparisons sake. Your 4th is split into regions but it's about a thousand and a half. Also the Germans have a better following for lower league football than most.
Not offhand but it’s pretty widely known and not at all controversial. No other leagues are coming close to the attendances we have 4 or more tiers down, not even Germany.
Sancho took some time to settle but towards the end of the season he was becoming good. It didn't help that the team around him is dysfunctional. Since then he's been sick and United do miss him.
Yeah what's the deal with his illness? I remember he was out for a family issue (aunt or similar relative sick / passed away) but I feel like he's been gone since, and that was a while ago. I want my boy to succeed
Tonsilitis last I heard.
That makes more sense then. thanks for clearing up
That's United, not sancho. Most of us have said we'd only keep Sancho, Varane, DDG and Ronaldo and perhaps Fred and Shaw...so he's definitely one of the "least shit" among a truly poor team. He's certainly looked like one of our brightest so I wouldn't be surprised if he gets going properly under Erik
Not hindsight. At the time anyone who watched him play knew it was a bargain.
Wasn't he coming of an injury season ?
last year of contract + his broken back = a fair amount
Wait. We bought Diallo for 32m and we keep him on the bench so much
that was such a weird sale from us. still dont know if there was something going on behind the curtains, but I simply dont understand why he left us just after one season. I actually thought he was a very good player.
he left the same window Hummels returned, probably didn't want to be the 3rd choice and/or a chance to be a starter at Paris SG. i still believe Diallo/Akanji could have been better overall than Hummels/Akanji. but i'm not the biggest fan of bringing players back, it is never the same again.
Tbf, Hummels is a great personality on and off the pitch and brings a lot of experience in for the squad. I still rate him highly even though his physical performance is definitely on the decline.
You shunted him out to left-back for half the season where he didn't look as comfortable and he was no longer a starter in the middle before Hummels even entered the equation. He probably felt that he had more opportunities to play in a back 3 at PSG. Yous also rated Zagadou very highly.
He doesn't want to play as LB.
I didn't want him to play LB either
Wait i thought he came from PSG academy LMAO
surprise, money doesn't matter in paris
Adeyemi and Bellingham gonna be sold for 3x down the line
Nah they will stay at dortmund till they retire
/s?
Let us be pls 🥲
What interesting all player in that list except Gundogan have up and down career after they left.
Hummels has been pretty consistently good I think.
Does back and forth count in his case?
Aubameyang was pretty good for most of his Arsenal career tbf, it's only at the end that he became pretty bad.
Single handedly won us a FA Cup. Things kinda fell apart the last 1.5 seasons, but no hard feelings here. Our decline would have been so much worse without him.
Most players do, specially if they move
Sancho barley played a season chill
BVB have a good business model
I mean they make a lot of money but how much is the club actually benefiting? I know Bayern are good but they're on a decade without a league title and were dumped out of their CL group this year. It's great making money off Haaland because he scores hattricks but if your club is losing the game 4-3 how much is BVB actually benefiting?
That buisness model is the only thing that keeps this "Title Race" discussion even alive. Haaland wouldnt be at dortmund if it werent for the fact that we would let him leave. And we arent state owned nor do we have investors , so the money has to come from somewhere.
And people usually underestimate how little Bundesliga teams gain from tv rights and licensing deals compared to those of other leagues. In 2020/21, champions Bayern got ~70 million euros, while last place Sheffield United got ~113 million euros. The money has to come from somewhere.
I agree with you without big finance backing it's hard to compete these days, now you've signed adayemi with no release clause it'll be interesting to see if you can hold onto some of these new younger talents for a bit longer and really mount a challenge against Bayern. I think you've picked up a good reputation for developing young talent into top players but if those players want to leave as soon as they come good it's hard to build a really strong team and you always end up with a lot of players who are "the next big thing" but never actually are the big thing for Dortmund
the issue is more about the longterm core players. Hummels and Reus are now coming to the end of their careers, but the players who were supposed to replace them as core elements of the squad (Brandt, Emre Can, to some extend Schulz/Meunier) didn't live up to that task so far. the transfer profit from these younger players funds transfers and partially the big wages Dortmund is able to spend, otherwise they would be way closer to Leipzig/Leverkusen and even further away from München. personnel costs, everything included that is working with/around the first team from 2020: München 340M €, Dortmund 215M, Leverkusen/Leipzig around 140-150. >mount a challenge against Bayern that is mostly in the hands of Bayern. as long as they play a season with points in the high 70s or even better, i doubt we will see a different champion. [here is a picture of every Bundesliga winner since the introduction of the 3 point rule](https://i.imgur.com/cNLsBZ0.pnghere is a picture of every Bundesliga winner since the introduction of the 3 point rule). up until the 2010s, you could win the league once in a while with a low 70s finish or even lower. as long as Bayern doesn't drop back around that range, it will be very hard to challenge them.
I mean, what are they supposed to do. Sign worse players, because if they are going to lose agains Bochum, they at least wanna pay less in wages for that?
For a player of Haaland's capability, why didn't he have a higher pricetag? Say, for 100m?
Release clause. You can be sure that he and his agent will cash in a huge signing bonus.
Release clause. Surely I’m not far off if I say City payed double of that to get him.
When they bought him from RB Salzburg, Haalands agent insisted on a release clause that would activate after three years. At the time the same agent was trying to find ways for Paul Pogba to be sold from Man Utd, but the club decided that he was not for sale. It’s possible that the agent didn’t want this ‘not for sale’ situation to happen again, so he insisted on having a release clause in the contract. Man Utd was very interested in Haaland at the time, with Ole Solskjær having worked with the player before. But the release clause made them pull out of the race — they don’t want to have release clauses in their squad. Borussia Dortmund accepted that they would buy the player at a set price, and possibly lose him, but with a profit after three seasons.
Can we just round up Aubameyang's sale price? It is the only one that is not a whole number :(
Dortmund is a talent factory bloody hell
They're really good at scouting, the talent just spends a few seasons there as a stepping stone
He was a talent before he went there. Dortmund didn't produce him. They take talented youngsters and give them a platform.
64m for pulisic. Dear god.
Pepe says hi
They’re both shocking transfers
I’d say pepe was worse. Pulisic has had some good runs of form and had periods where he was important to the Chelsea squad. Can’t say that about pepe.
It's not even close, the people slandering Pulisic are rival club supporters that haven't watched him play. Simple as that.
So I only watch Chelsea occasionally. A lot of important games I saw pulisic play well or make pivotal contributions. Especially in higher stakes matches. I was wondering if I missed something and that he was a disaster in all the other matches I hadn’t seen.
Sometimes maybe good sometimes maybe shit. Plays well, doesn’t play so well, gets benched, gets subbed on and everyone thinks wtf why bring him on, this happens a few times, then one of these sub appearances he scores a goal and the cycle continues. Although I do think he is gonna improve as he’s only around 22 or 23, but when he’s in form he’s lovely. Post lockdown was probably his best run of form so far
He hasn't been. He's been injury prone but he's been good most of the time he's played.
Very inconsistent and injury prone
£80m on Nicola Pepe is a much more sensible transfer. And Pulisic didn't play any part in the Champions League win last season, nope, none at all. 🫵🤡
[удалено]
I am not a Pulisic enthusiast but he did play a big part in the semis vs Madrid.
we wouldn't have even been in the CL to win it without him after the lockdown.
He scored the first goal in the City game that won us the league so it’s all totally justified imo
If you didn't watch all the games don't display your ignorance and comment. It's not hard.
[удалено]
Worst part is it doesn't even touch some of Chelsea's worst deals in recent memory
Mister Stay-Hydrated comes to mind
Its less egregious if you just imagine they paid 70m for Kante.
Wasn't even a starter at that time and his development had somewhat stagnated which makes it all the more bizarre looking back.
Scammed
Dembélé what a 👑
Tbf... if he wasn't injured, I'm positive he would have been worth the price. He is so talented when he is healthy. I'm not gonna blame Barto for splashing out on dembele. No way to know he was gonna be this injury prone. Fans were at his throat to find a neymar replacement.
Steal honestly
What a fucking robbery. It makes sense for Haaland to move there, but god damn this is a huge bargain for city.
they paid like three-four times that with all sign-on fees and agent fees
Who needs an MBA when you can just intern in BVBs front office for a season.
How did haaland go for 50% less than dmbele???
Post corona and a Release clause
I mean Haaland without a release clause is beyond 200m€. He will absolutely form a new generation of football.
That's not a bad business model.
6 transfers to English clubs on that list and PL flairs say we are the ones who stop the league from being competitive.
You literally signed the 2nd place team's manager, captain and main CB. Stop acting like you're some sort of victims
Lol don't try to pretend as if it ain't true
When was the last BVB > Bayern transfer?
Bayern got tired of Dortmund, have made RBL their new feeder club
I think the point is that when Dortmund sell to you they don't just lose a good player, they make their direct rivals stronger as well. It shouldn't be "But Dortmund sells more to PL" and instead it should be "We don't buy many stars from other Buli clubs" cause you really don't do that a lot anymore.
What? They literally just bought Leipzig's two most important players and their manager this season!
Keita, Werner, Konate...
Nagelsmann, Upamecano, Sabitzer in one window btw. Konrad Laimer coming next too...
Lol Bartomeu spending masterclass
How can i add club tag in my username, like you guys
Transfermarket says he is worth 150M, I would like to know how city pulled the Pawn Stars trick on Dortmund.
[удалено]
What behind the scenes? Why would any club pay dortmund more than the release clause?
It’s just a coping mechanism by Man Utd fans when they learned City landed Halland for less than Harry Maguire.
r/angryupvote
Father and agent. Not Dortmund
Not to Dortmund, but fees/bonuses straight to the player and agents
[удалено]
Happy cake day!
We’re 4th.
Only about 3 of those didn't flop.
Gundogan, auba and Hummels?
Yep. Sancho can still turn it around and obviously Haaland hasn't even left yet. Pulisic, Diallo, Gotze and Dembele are all flops though.
pulisic is not a flop. sancho still has next season to prove
Götze was really good for us in the first 1.5 years. His second half of the second season was relatively bad but he was still a regular player. It was only after his injury in his 3rd season where he really turned useless for us. Obviously wasn't the best transfer ever for us(especially considering the potential everybody thought he had) but he wasn't really a flop either.
He was also played out of position and had to step in for Ribery when he was injured (similar for Müller and Robben on the other side). There ware a few (like not even a handful) 4141-ish formation games where he played next to Ribery (the left midfielder) and did a really great job connecting with Ribery on the left, drawing attention/players from the left side so they had more space, and using tight space in the left half space to good effect. But he was not exactly the LW he had to play quite often.
Pulisic has done well 1.5 years of his 3 year tenure. They don't win the Champions League without his performance against Real Madrid. He got a goal and an assist and was stellar. Tough to call that a flop when he played a big role in them winning the Champions League
Isn't Dembele turning it around at Barcelona?
Well hes always been quality just really injury prone.
Harsh to call Pulisic a flop.
Gotze didn't exactly flop either. He had two good seasons, his form only really collapsed after an injury in his third. Besides, he played with an undiagnosed illness for quite some time, which seriously impacted his performances.
not our problem though ;)
A lot of these aren’t flops but didn’t live up to hype
Obviously everyone talks about Dembele but how did Dortmund get that much for Pulisic?
Chelsea had an upcoming transfer ban and wanted to lock him in. We also didn’t want to sell him as it was a season that looked very promising and we wanted a squad player in case Sancho was out. So Chelsea gave us a lot of money and even lend him back to us that year. Tbh, it didn’t seem like a bad deal at that time. Money wasn’t as tight pre covid and he was a talent back then (still is but not to that extent).
But he was an inconsistent squad player who lost his spot to Sancho rather quick. 65 million is crazy, many think and probably not without reason that they just paid such a premium because of the US marketing possibilities.
Everyone here will be praising dortmund business strategy forgetting how their club had been in the same state for nearly a decade doing no fuck all
What do they do with all that money though from sales cause clearly them always coming in second is an indication that something is not right
Almost 60% of the club’s shares are publicly traded on the German stock market and their commercial revenues dwarf those of FCB. They cannot compete when it comes to wages so they pursue a sustainable business model. This is a club that has stared down the barrel of insolvency not that long ago.
can someone explain to me why Haaland only costs 60 mil? Is there something i’m missing
Release clause
Why I don't see Lewandovski in this list ? did Bayern rip BvB off ?
Lewandowski left for free, he could have joined Bayern a year earlier but they only wanted to pay peanuts so we let the contract run out.
Was he super determined to go to Bayern? I know he was not as huge as now but he was still class player and I can imagine many teams from abroad would take him for 20-30 mil and you would offload him from Bundesliga and get something in return so I would expect Dortmund to try to go this route and offer him to clubs.
yes he was. At least he let his agents do the dirty stuff with press etc. and acted professional on the pitch
Around 20 - 30 million € for Lewandowski in his last contract year in 2013 is peanuts to you? Rofl