is financial stability and suger daddies is the only way that a club reach success?

ive been thinking about it recently , ive seen various teams made a turnover by injecting money into their club and on the other hand ive seen clubs that invested on youngsters but had lack of something , the final touch or luck or whatever is missing i don't know . but is that the only way to gain lets say "world class status" and be competitive and get trophies and etc

No. Some of the best teams in the world including Barca, Bayern, and Juventus have bred their own talent through their youth ranks, or bought them before they were developed for relatively cheap and developed them fully.

Barcelona: Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Busquets, Guardiola, Valdes, and Puyol all came through their youth. Pique was developed at Barca.

Bayern Munich: Schweinsteiger, Alaba, Lahm, Badstuber, Kroos, and Muller all came through the youth ranks. Ribery, Van Bommel, Lucio, and Boateng were developed at Bayern. Also not sure about Klose.

Juventus: Marchisio, Chiellini, Del Piero, Marrone, Giovinco, De Ceglie, and Conte came through the youth ranks. Buffonand Bonucci were developed here. Pirlo, Pogba and Barzagli together were bought for 300,000 euros. Pasquato and especially Immobile are bright prospects that are out on co-ownership but came through our ranks.

juve 50m for buffon ronaldinho,henry barcelona, bayern munich may be but ...

Yea forgot that about Buffon. Hes been with us so long i just forgot. But were still not what i would consider a buying club. We develop talent first and foremost, whether it be all the way through our youth ranks or buying them young and undeveloped and developing them ourself. We also developed Camoranesi, Legrottaglie, Zambrotta, Montero, and Trezeguet.

In the recent past, theres also Milan. Maldini, Borriello, Matri and Ambrosini came through the youth ranks and Pirlo, Gattuso, Kaka, Pato, Nesta, and Abbiati were all developed at Milan.

Well, Borussia Dortmund are financially stable again and show that one can play successful and attractive football with little spent money.

Interestingly, Dortmund are also proof that one can be successful by spending beyond one's means as they managed to win the CL in 1997 by spending ridiculous amounts of money (for BL proportions, that is) which almost let them go bankrupt in the following years when they even had to sell their stadium.

From 2005 on, when he became CEO of Borussia Dortmund, Hans-Joachim Watzke turned the steering wheel around and very closely managed to avoid the BVB going into legislation. From 2006 on, the club had to go through extreme austerity measures (the maximum amount of money for buying new players was 5 mio Euro per fiscal year until this season, although Dortmund usually stayed even below that margin due to clever transfer sales), but they consolidated and even could buy their stadium back. Nonetheless, Dortmund managed 2 BL wins and one German Cup within the last two years, and this season they look pretty good in the CL, too.

So you can obviously reach success with a mini budget and without sugar daddy, too.

Financial stability is important.

Look at Arsenal, Roma, Liverpool,Atletico Madrid, Meelan,Inter etc...they all can no longer compete for the big trophies because lack of funds and have to sell their best players every season or has to play with scrubs.

Stadium ownership is essential.

Adit wrote:Financial stability is important.

Look at Arsenal, Roma, Liverpool,Atletico Madrid, Meelan,Inter etc...they all can no longer compete for the big trophies because lack of funds and have to sell their best players every season or has to play with scrubs.

The interesting point with the above is that teams like Arsenal and Liverpool get tons more money from TV deals and tickets than, say, Bayern or Dortmund and still Bayern and Dortmund are more financially stable even without a sugar daddy. Atletico is of course hampered by the skewed La Liga TV deal, while AC Milan got into problems as their sugar daddy Berlusconi doesn't want to pay ridiculous sums anymore to finance expensive players, same goes for Inter and their sugar daddy Moratti.

As a matter of fact, both teams in Milan show the dangers of having a sugar daddy - if he doesn't feel like pumping money into them anymore, they fast fall down the ladder as they severely neglected building up young players from their own academies. So they need to sell expensive players with expensive wages and then they are left with virtually nothing.

A team like Dortmund who were forced to invest in youth from their own experience (in the time around 2000 they also bought to many expensive players with too expensive wages which almost killed the club), completely turned around and now invests in youth (they created Mario Götze, Nuri Sahin, and funnily Marco Reus, too, even though they had to buy him back XD) and great scouting (350 000 Euros to buy Kagawa, 4.5 mio for Lewandowski, 1.2 mio for Sven Bender, 2.5 mio for Piszczek, 4 mio for Hummels, 3.7 mio for Kuba, etc). So it is very well possible to create the world stars other teams pay nicely for oneself. Moreover, the young guns that Dortmund always fields are comparatively inexpensive in wages, and Dortmund continues with their line not to offer ridiculous amounts of money even if it means losing a good player as they are confident they can simply replace him with the next jewel.

Epoto wrote: juve 50m for buffon ronaldinho,henry barcelona, bayern munich may be but ...

So what are you suggesting? Cany you win things without spending any money at all?

Of course not.

The Franchise wrote:

Epoto wrote: juve 50m for buffon ronaldinho,henry barcelona, bayern munich may be but ...

So what are you suggesting? Cany you win things without spending any money at all?

Of course not.

But they can balance spending and earning. Look at Dortmund's transfer balance:

2005/06: +2.525.000 €
2006/07: +5.250.000 €
2007/08: -5.420.000 €
2008/09: -1.450.000 €
2009/10: -4.550.000 €
2010/11: -2.100.000 €
2011/12: +640.000 €
2012/13: -350.000 €
--------------------------------
-5 455 000 mio Euros net transfer spend between 2005/06 and 2012/12

Sure, but they one just one title no? Its very impressive indeed but you can guess where im going hopefully.

Overall, im not understand the obsession with how much a team spends to win. Every club can do what it wants and go about it whichever way they please.

Its fun every now and then to make some jokes about the amounts a certain teams spends but in the end, does it really matter?

The Franchise wrote:

Epoto wrote: juve 50m for buffon ronaldinho,henry barcelona, bayern munich may be but ...

So what are you suggesting? Cany you win things without spending any money at all?

Of course not.

of coarse not , money is needed to make any transfer but not necessarily 50m

The Franchise wrote:Sure, but they one just one title no? Its very impressive indeed but you can guess where im going hopefully.

Overall, im not understand the obsession with how much a team spends to win. Every club can do what it wants and go about it whichever way they please.

Its fun every now and then to make some jokes about the amounts a certain teams spends but in the end, does it really matter?

im not talking about right or wrong but the problem is for example club A invests on a youngsters and suffer till the player b get experience and once they start to get the pay of , club c offers tons of money as for wages and get him .

The Franchise wrote:Sure, but they one just one title no? Its very impressive indeed but you can guess where im going hopefully.

They won the BL in 2010/11 and the Double (BL+Cup) in 2011/12. That would make 2 titles plus the DFB-Pokal, which is rather prestigious in Germany.

And sure, if teams have more money they can more easily buy good players, but an assortment of good players does not necessarily equal a good team.

By the way, one of the BLs biggest spenders is the "factory club" VfL Wolfsburg which are funded by VW. Their net transfer balance for the same time as Borussia Doartmund, 2005/06 - 2012/13 is the following:

2005/06: +3.325.000 €
2006/07: -9.080.000 €
2007/08: -16.300.000 €
2008/09: -30.070.000 €
2009/10: -21.900.000 €
2010/11: +4.000.000 €
2011/12: -35.975.000 €
2012/13: +1.100.000 €
------------------------
-104 900 000 Euros between 2005/06 and 2012/13

So by investing almost 105 mio Euros for transfers, their yield was only 1 BL title (in 2008/09) and currently the 15th place in the BL.

I haven't mentioned Bayern there as they are not funded by one company or sugar daddy - they manage to do their transfers and fund their wages only via the revenue they earn themselves. Additionally, no matter how much they did spend - the club made a profit after taxes for many years now.

The Franchise wrote:Its fun every now and then to make some jokes about the amounts a certain teams spends but in the end, does it really matter?

It matters in so far as a club that can't finance their wages etc anymore, will go into legislation. Just see what happened to Glasgow Rangers. Formerly a big tradition club that is no more due to financial problems.

RWO, I don not know where you have acquired the idea that Milan and Inter are owned by Sugar daddies. AC Milan is owned by Finn invest and the Berlusconi family as Berlusconi is merely the President and not the sole owner of the club.

Internazionale is owned by Sara s.p.a with Morrati as it's chairmen as well as investments from Pirelli and an offshore Sardinian oil tycoon.

More apt example of a Sugar Daddy would be roman abramovic of Chelsea who solely owns the club.

Best players had to be sold since Italian clubs do not own their own stadia which heavily influences club finances. Among their youth definitely is not ignored as Inter just won what is the champions league of youth players last season along with integrating several youth players in their club. Same case with Milan as the club has several youth players being played throughout the season.

Germany is fortunate enough not to have the incredible slump in economy not effect their clubs unlike in Espãna and Italia where spending has been curbed due to the economy especially with the latter. This has to be taken into account.

While Dortmund's running of the club has been extraordinary they still haven't exactly proven that their method is what it takes to be the optimized way to win. Bundesliga generally has been based on Bayern's form and capability and as much credit Klopp and his players deserve, they did indeed bank on Bayern being in a footballing slump as now their test will be how far they can actually succeed within the Champions League after flopping for 2 years straight.

In conclusion I have nothing but admiration for Dortmunds way of business yet they still have a long way to go in proving themselves.

@Arqui

Well, I consider Swiss Ramble a rather trustworthy source for the economical side of football and the author certainly doesn't take "Their traditional modus operandi has been to operate with substantial losses, which are then covered by the owners" for AC Milan and "In fact, in the 16 years since Moratti took over, the club has accumulated losses of around €1.3 billion with the president personally putting in over €750 million" out of thin air.

Source: http://swissramble.blogspot.de/search/label/Inter
http://swissramble.blogspot.de/search/label/AC%20Milan

Edit: BTW, the most current article at the Swiss Ramble is in fact about Dortmund: http://swissramble.blogspot.de/

I'm not debating on the successes of their modus operandi but the fact that Inter and Milan cannot be called Sugar Daddy clubs considering they aren't owned by a sole club.
Morrati for all his power also recovers losses with the assistance of
Gianmarco Morrati along with Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. Therefore he cannot be considered a sugar daddy

Sugar daddies are classified as a sole owner free to spend on a club with his onn money (Chelsea, Man city owners) while Italian clubs are owned by generations of families along with their funds assisted by investment deals.

Well, it is still a single person who puts lots of his money into the team - more money than other clubs get as a whole.

BTW, this figure on transfer spend from the Swiss Ramble is pretty intriguing:

(click to enlarge)

RWO, if it was their own funds and from their own personal assets then you would be correct but both Berlusconi and Morrati are funded by their investment companies along with our dealerships which does not only involve funding from their own pockets. Therefore not sugar daddies.

The table you brought is interesting as unsurprisingly as top 3 clubs are considered sugar daddy clubs bar maybe PSG since they are funded by multiple Arab investments.

Well, I guess the problem is that it is highly unlikely one can unravel the exact composition of Berlusconi's or Moratti's finances anyway. Especially in Berlusconi's case there seem to be a lot of dealings that are possibly rather dubious (hence the fact he got drawn into a lawsuit about taxes and other financial stuff), so one is left to wonder what is actually their personal wealth and what is put into companies etc.

As for Dortmund having to prove themselves - IMO winning the BL twice in consecutive years is already quite a convincing proof, especially going against Bayern and their considerable financial clout. Also topping the CL group containing financial heavyweights Real Madrid and Manchester City is by no means a little feat either.

Epoto wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Sure, but they one just one title no? Its very impressive indeed but you can guess where im going hopefully.

Overall, im not understand the obsession with how much a team spends to win. Every club can do what it wants and go about it whichever way they please.

Its fun every now and then to make some jokes about the amounts a certain teams spends but in the end, does it really matter?

im not talking about right or wrong but the problem is for example club A invests on a youngsters and suffer till the player b get experience and once they start to get the pay of , club c offers tons of money as for wages and get him .

But if club A were a good club, that player wouldnt leave.

There are countless examples of young players, or even experienced players who stay at clubs despite the struggle, even if the big money comes in.

If we talk about some practical examples, Xavi, Totti, Del Piero and Zanetti have stayed through the bad times despite getting huge offers elsewhere.

Its up to the clubs to present some hope for the players, a reason for them to stay. Money is important, but there are other ways to keep players bar throwing cash at them.

The Franchise wrote:But if club A were a good club, that player wouldnt leave.

Unless the club is in dire straits and has to sell the player to stay financially afloat.

More often than not, that doesnt happen. If your club isnt at a high level, you slash wages.

For example, Juve got relegated to Serie B they had money problems I would imagine, all those high wages without the usual income that comes from playing in Serie A.

And still Del Piero went nowhere.

The Franchise wrote:

Epoto wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Sure, but they one just one title no? Its very impressive indeed but you can guess where im going hopefully.

Overall, im not understand the obsession with how much a team spends to win. Every club can do what it wants and go about it whichever way they please.

Its fun every now and then to make some jokes about the amounts a certain teams spends but in the end, does it really matter?

im not talking about right or wrong but the problem is for example club A invests on a youngsters and suffer till the player b get experience and once they start to get the pay of , club c offers tons of money as for wages and get him .

But if club A were a good club, that player wouldnt leave.

There are countless examples of young players, or even experienced players who stay at clubs despite the struggle, even if the big money comes in.

If we talk about some practical examples, Xavi, Totti, Del Piero and Zanetti have stayed through the bad times despite getting huge offers elsewhere.

Its up to the clubs to present some hope for the players, a reason for them to stay. Money is important, but there are other ways to keep players bar throwing cash at them.

Those examples are from last generation , i hope you understand that im not pointing at any club . That example that i gave you is a good situation but ive seen clubs who go negotiating with players himself and get that player to stay till end of his contract refuse to sign another and go by basically 0 , in that case the club have to sell him and then someone like you call them good club ! that is stealing in my book

im really interested to see what B.Dortmund will do ,given to the fact it took them 5 years to get where they are .