Bundesliga
- Thread starter xavisionary
- Start date
Fati_Future_BallonDor
Well-known member
Luftstalag14
Culé de Celestial Empire
Feel bad for Gikiewicz, Augsburg's goalkeeper. Don't be fooled by the scoreline, he had an amazing game nevertheless, stopping so many shots, especially those from Lewandowski.
In the end it wasn't that bad I guess, Polish helping the Polish.
In the end it wasn't that bad I guess, Polish helping the Polish.
Fati_Future_BallonDor
Well-known member
I think if lewa retires it will be a lot harder for bayern. Lets hope we will see another winner next season
Luftstalag14
Culé de Celestial Empire
I think if lewa retires it will be a lot harder for bayern. Lets hope we will see another winner next season
Nah, they will get Haaland or some other talent from Dortmund or elsewhere, Bayern's money and resources dwarf that of any other Buli teams and it is not even close.
Rassvet
Well-known member
Weston Mckennie left
JerseyAddict
Well-known member
I think they are broke or pennyless or smth like that.
Fati_Future_BallonDor
Well-known member
Erling Haaland has won Bundesliga player of the season award
LOL
LOL
khaled_a_d
Senior Member
Won't mind adding Zorc to our brain trust tbh
DennyCrane
Senior Member
Summer's here, time for the silly season and 50+1 debates.
The non-german users here should, while reading this, keep in mind that german administrative law has so many delicate distinctions that it borders on autism.
Now, the Federal Cartel Office examined the rule for three (!) years and made an assessment at the end of May.
In general, 50+1 is in compliance with the law and also, it isn't.
The public reception goes like this [from Augsburger Allgemeine, as a stand in for the media landscape]:
In the opinion of the Cartel Office, the exception rules for three clubs are problematic: the 50 + 1 clause does not apply to Bayer Leverkusen, VfL Wolfsburg and TSG Hoffenheim. Here Bayer AG, Volkswagen AG and Dietmar Hopp have the sole majority of the voting shares and determine the direction of the association. This is made possible by an exception rule that an investor or a company receives "if he has continuously and significantly promoted the football sport of the parent club for more than 20 years".
50 + 1 is "undoubtedly a restriction of competition", but still compatible with applicable law. Prerequisite: This rule applies to everyone - without exception. In concrete terms: As long as there is a special rule for the trio, the rule is shaky. The DFL has asked the Cartel Office to extend the deadline and now wants to work out a solution with the clubs. The trio expressed their concerns that the Cartel Office could catapult them out of the game and made it clear: "Such consequences are understandably unacceptable for us."
Rettig (DFL) is surprised by the letter from the three clubs: “I don't think it's a successful letter and this threatening gesture certainly doesn't help to calm things down. I do not see any threat to the existence of the three clubs.”
So far, so good.
However, that's not what the Cartel Office actually stated. It stated in fact, that the rule is a restriction of competition, that can be justified on the basis of the principle of equality - which means that what is equal must be treated equally, and that which is not equal shall not be treated equally. It also stated, that there can be exceptions from the rule based on that principle - but not the exceptions that actually exist.
So, basically, both proponents and opponents of the 50+1 rule can and will see their respective views confirmed by the verdict three years in the making. The proponents will claim that the FDC confirmed that 50+1 is in compliance with law, the opponents will claim that it is only partially in compliance and therefore it should be abolished completely to avoid certain internal contradictions.
3 years down the road and nothing is solved.
The non-german users here should, while reading this, keep in mind that german administrative law has so many delicate distinctions that it borders on autism.
Now, the Federal Cartel Office examined the rule for three (!) years and made an assessment at the end of May.
In general, 50+1 is in compliance with the law and also, it isn't.
The public reception goes like this [from Augsburger Allgemeine, as a stand in for the media landscape]:
In the opinion of the Cartel Office, the exception rules for three clubs are problematic: the 50 + 1 clause does not apply to Bayer Leverkusen, VfL Wolfsburg and TSG Hoffenheim. Here Bayer AG, Volkswagen AG and Dietmar Hopp have the sole majority of the voting shares and determine the direction of the association. This is made possible by an exception rule that an investor or a company receives "if he has continuously and significantly promoted the football sport of the parent club for more than 20 years".
50 + 1 is "undoubtedly a restriction of competition", but still compatible with applicable law. Prerequisite: This rule applies to everyone - without exception. In concrete terms: As long as there is a special rule for the trio, the rule is shaky. The DFL has asked the Cartel Office to extend the deadline and now wants to work out a solution with the clubs. The trio expressed their concerns that the Cartel Office could catapult them out of the game and made it clear: "Such consequences are understandably unacceptable for us."
Rettig (DFL) is surprised by the letter from the three clubs: “I don't think it's a successful letter and this threatening gesture certainly doesn't help to calm things down. I do not see any threat to the existence of the three clubs.”
So far, so good.
However, that's not what the Cartel Office actually stated. It stated in fact, that the rule is a restriction of competition, that can be justified on the basis of the principle of equality - which means that what is equal must be treated equally, and that which is not equal shall not be treated equally. It also stated, that there can be exceptions from the rule based on that principle - but not the exceptions that actually exist.
So, basically, both proponents and opponents of the 50+1 rule can and will see their respective views confirmed by the verdict three years in the making. The proponents will claim that the FDC confirmed that 50+1 is in compliance with law, the opponents will claim that it is only partially in compliance and therefore it should be abolished completely to avoid certain internal contradictions.
3 years down the road and nothing is solved.
Luftstalag14
Culé de Celestial Empire
The whole thing over 50+1 sounds like an example of the German tussle or balance act between socialism which emphasizes on equality and free market capitalism which seeks a clean slate free of the hand of the state to boost business.
What I can’t imagine is if somehow the exception made to the trio is taken away, what will happen to those three clubs. Also, where does RB Leipzig fit in in this discussion.
What I can’t imagine is if somehow the exception made to the trio is taken away, what will happen to those three clubs. Also, where does RB Leipzig fit in in this discussion.
khaled_a_d
Senior Member
Leipzig isn't owned fully by a company, but my understanding that they basically have the members working for them with rules making it impossible to add new members.
That basically makes them 100% sure they will own the full club after the 20 years + already being a de facto full owner at the moment.
DennyCrane
Senior Member
Leipzig is a different model. Of the shares of RasenBallsport Leipzig GmbH, 99 % belong to Red Bull and 1 % to the RasenBallsport Leipzig e. V. (the actual club and the members). Yet, on voting rights, at least 51 % belong to RasenBallsport Leipzig e. V.. The club itself has about 20 (!) full members with voting rights (the inner circle, other members don't have voting rights), membership is closed and has to be validated via a honorary council. Guess who that consists of
It's absurd alright, although legal and in complete compliance with 50+1, crazy as that is.
Last edited:
Home of Barca Fans
