Joan Laporta

[KingLeo10]

[MENTION=13941]Luftstalag14[/MENTION], this is not hate or a jab but we all remember the "RM are set until 2025" hysteria. And as it turns out, they ended up being mediocre just like us, even with ZZ at the helm.

Relax. Laporta is the better bet compared to a guy whose only only vocabulary consists of "Xavi" and "Hernandez".

 

[Joan]

People, in general, expect too much from campaigns. Be witty, sharp, mention some broad objectives, present interesting and competent people... don't think one can expect much more. Especially in football.

At the moment, Laporta's doing WAY better than Font at every front. And I don't think he's all that much about nostalgia. His team is different, has some pretty common contemporary ideas etc.

That Godfather reminiscence, Marlon Brando moment was cringe-worthy, though.

 

[khaled_a_d]

First off, I am taking this election seriously because I care about the club like you and other Barca fans do, and I think we are facing an unprecedented institutional crisis that this threatening our survival and I think the next president faces a very daunting task so he needs to have what it takes to take them on.

Double standard? I am focusing on Laporta because he is the favorite to win the election and widely expected to win by a landslide and likely to be the next president. Does anybody care about the likes of Ross Perot or Gill Stein etc. when people knew big fish like Clinton, Obama and Trump was much more likely to win? Many years ago when Font?s name just surfaced I liked some of his ideas but as everyone has pointed out, his campaign has gone completely erratic with his fixation on Xavi. At least I am not defending him or Freixa, whereas you, a fan of Laporta?s, come out to defend him from time to time and never criticized him at all. So I don?t see how I am hypocritical here at all to criticize Laporta.

I am not questioning your loyalty to the club, and I understand that you choosing Laporta because he is favourite
But you also take it too seriously in terms of campaign and its effect on the actual actions during presidency.

You are taking campaigns too literally mate, campaigns are about emotions and impressions not really about a detailed plan.
Never mind football world are too random to act like having that perfect plan that you worked years on, is really that great idea. It is good to have a plan but you need flexibility and being smart.

If you want to judge Laporta actions today, you should judge it on "how he is trying to win". Is he a winner or not?
So far, and we will only know for sure when results come, Laporta is taking other candidates to school.
You say his past doesn't mean he will succeed. Ok, fair enough.
But if you are his campaign manager, and your job is to make him win. You know it is time of crisis and people tend to prefer known options (as [MENTION=2]Barcaman[/MENTION] pointed out before, I remember politics is actually his field) would you take that weapon from him? or double down on it?

Successful campaigns need certain direction, or an enemy. Trump for example played on making US great again, playing on emotions of middle classes in states he needed to win, Obama played on change, same with Clinton I think.
Laporta knows what makes him better candidate than the others, it is his history, he also added the element of being a unifying figure (making peace with Rossell & Bartou and the media too).
He then uses his opponents mistakes against themselves too, which is the smart thing to do, while present a general outline and some of his team.

Does this mean he is going to be great president? Does it means he is even better for the club than the others? No one can tell, but it means he is most likely a winner, good percentage of winners are decent leaders tbf.
Personally I always say that I am more interested on who is his side kicks, and I think Alemany will be his make or break regarding his success provided he wins.

I don't think it is all that critical, or that the candidates we have are that bad.
Heck, if Bartou term was just 4 years, he would have made a decent president.

 

[jamrock]

[MENTION=13941]Luftstalag14[/MENTION] You seem fixated about whether Laporta can have success again. Of course nothing is certain, but it?s a way safer bet having him president again over Font or Freixa and that?s without Font more or less digging his own grave in this election.

By the way, I think you?re forgetting Laporta had two separate successes in his last presidency. 2005/06 with Rijkaard/Ronaldinho/Eto?o/Deco etc then 2008/09 with Pep/Xavi/Iniesta/Messi etc. No one would have thought in the 06/07 and 07/08 seasons (with a grand total of 0 trophies) that he could revolutionise and change the team like that, but he did. Both those teams are very different within 4 years of each other and up there with the best of all time. Obviously there?s no gap in the presidency like this time but you claiming he might not be suited to ?modern football? is just guesswork and seems more personal than anything. His CV speaks for itself.

He had 2.7 because most of the good that happen in the early days after he left was all his legacy.

Without the man, barca would have probably disappeared into mediocrity.

 

[Vilarrubi]

He had 2.7 because most of the good that happen in the early days after he left was all his legacy.

Without the man, barca would have probably disappeared into mediocrity.

Well yeah. 2011 (The best version of Barca imo) wouldn’t have happened without Laporta. Definitely deserves some of the credit for that even though he wasn’t president then.

 

[Raketa10]

He will win for sure.

 

[Luftstalag14]

[MENTION=13941]Luftstalag14[/MENTION] You seem fixated about whether Laporta can have success again. Of course nothing is certain, but it?s a way safer bet having him president again over Font or Freixa and that?s without Font more or less digging his own grave in this election.

By the way, I think you?re forgetting Laporta had two separate successes in his last presidency. 2005/06 with Rijkaard/Ronaldinho/Eto?o/Deco etc then 2008/09 with Pep/Xavi/Iniesta/Messi etc. No one would have thought in the 06/07 and 07/08 seasons (with a grand total of 0 trophies) that he could revolutionise and change the team like that, but he did. Both those teams are very different within 4 years of each other and up there with the best of all time. Obviously there?s no gap in the presidency like this time but you claiming he might not be suited to ?modern football? is just guesswork and seems more personal than anything. His CV speaks for itself.

For the record, I am not supporting Font or Freixa here and I am by no means saying they are better candidates than Laporta. I am just expressing my doubts and concerns about who increasingly would become the next president of this club.

 

[Vilarrubi]

For the record, I am not supporting Font or Freixa here and I am by no means saying they are better candidates than Laporta. I am just expressing my doubts and concerns about who increasingly would become the next president of this club.

Fair enough.

You just seem WAY more vocal criticising Laporta and trying to find faults when Font has clearly had the worst election run.

 

[Luftstalag14]

Fair enough.

You just seem WAY more vocal criticising Laporta and trying to find faults when Font has clearly had the worst election run.

Because I am not taking Font seriously whereas I am taking Laporta very seriously as the fate of this club will be in his hands for the foreseeable future. That's why I read up on almost all the materials his campaign has churned out so far.

 

[Vilarrubi]

Because I am not taking Font seriously whereas I am taking Laporta very seriously as the fate of this club will be in his hands for the foreseeable future. That's why I read up on almost all the materials his campaign has churned out so far.

That’s fine. Would be good to see some balance though. It’s all negative about Laporta. You went on about how he wouldn’t do the debate with the other candidates but in the end he did do it? Is that not what you wanted?

 

[Luftstalag14]

That’s fine. Would be good to see some balance though. It’s all negative about Laporta. You went on about how he wouldn’t do the debate with the other candidates but in the end he did do it? Is that not what you wanted?

He did today, yes, and I actually watched for like 20 minutes or so via the club app and it was hard to watch, all three of them, especially Laporta and Font.

 

[Birdy]

By the way, I think you?re forgetting Laporta had two separate successes in his last presidency. 2005/06 with Rijkaard/Ronaldinho/Eto?o/Deco etc then 2008/09 with Pep/Xavi/Iniesta/Messi etc. No one would have thought in the 06/07 and 07/08 seasons (with a grand total of 0 trophies) that he could revolutionise and change the team like that, but he did. Both those teams are very different within 4 years of each other and up there with the best of all time. Obviously there?s no gap in the presidency like this time but you claiming he might not be suited to ?modern football? is just guesswork and seems more personal than anything. His CV speaks for itself.

Problem is that you don't demarcate what part of that was down to his planning and judgment, and what part of that was down to pure luck. And this results in him taking too much credit and credit for things he should not take credit for.
I and other people have made that point repeatedly, but it goes ignored by people who are fixated to Laporta's successful spell.

 

[Vilarrubi]

Problem is that you don't demarcate what part of that was down to his planning and judgment, and what part of that was down to pure luck. And this results in him taking too much credit and credit for things he should not take credit for.
I and other people have made that point repeatedly, but it goes ignored by people who are fixated to Laporta's successful spell.

Not sure how much can be down to luck. What was lucky about our success?

Of course it wasn’t all down to him, but it happened under his presidency. For example Pep’s philosophy/big decisions with the team was definitely more of an influence but Laporta hired him, so as a president he deserves full credit for that.

 

[Messigician]

Laporta: ?Victor, you go talking about these people, Xavi, Xavi, Cruyff, Xavi, Xavi, Benaiges, Xavi, Xavi, Cruyff, Xavi, Xavi, it is because you either don't know the world of football or you don't know those people? #ElectionsFCB

 

[Birdy]

Not sure how much can be down to luck. What was lucky about our success?

Of course it wasn’t all down to him, but it happened under his presidency. For example Pep’s philosophy/big decisions with the team was definitely more of an influence but Laporta hired him, so as a president he deserves full credit for that.

Pep's case is a good example for my point.
People give Laporta credit for the great team that Pep built. The question should be 'what part of that was down to Laporta?'

Here is an answer:
Neither Laporta nor anyone had any glimpse that Pep was a WC genius coach that would define the next 20 years of football. (People who say Laporta knew that, sorry I cannot take seriously, they are whimsical)
What Laporta knew and wanted, he wanted to put some faith in a young hard-working coach who wanted to go back to the Cryuffian ID roots of the club, trust La Masia, and re-establish some football principles that have fallen into oblivion.
Given that, we can demarcate what part of credit should go to Laporta:
Laporta should get credit for putting his trust to a young aspiring coach that wanted to go back to the roots and use Masia.
Laporta should NOT get credit for building the best Barca team ever, because that eventual reality was pure serendipity and had nothing to do with his judgment on the issue.