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

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

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

You are not alone there! I really hope they will go far in the CL. Although first I'd hope they won't draw either Bayern or Schalke along the way (until the final, that is ). Schalke already defeated Dortmund in their own stadium in the BL (the Ruhrderby is probably the biggest prestige duel in Germany - it is in fact bigger than Dortmund-Bayern, even though people outside of Germany probably think otherwise), and the Dortmund-Bayern game would actually get boring as the DFB-Cup quarter final has Bayern-Dortmund lined up for February 27th, too.

Epoto wrote:

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

So which players from this generation has this happened to? Only those who dont give the players some hope. And funny enough, the biggest culprit of this is Arsenal...who have excellent financially stability.

"Sugars daddies" are the easiest way to create success for a club. This is litterally buying results without any hope of earning back the money invested. Chelsea and Manchester City were nothing before a rich owner came.

The healty model of patience, intelligent investment, and good sporting choice is taking much much more time. For exemple, Lyon was bought by current president Jean Michel Aulas, when it was in the second division. Intelligent choices and small investments made us climb back into the first league. 10 years later we were contending for the title and soon after we started an unprecedented 7 years domination of our league.

But then we plateau-ed because we could not continue to grow. We are stuck around a budget of 150 millions. Money has been lost on bad player choices (Makou, Keita, Ederson, Gourcuff) and we could not continue to developp our revenue.

That's why we are in the process of building a brand new 60 000 capacity stadium to replace our old city owned stadium. But in France, this process is very long and painful, with people starting hundreds of legal lawsuits to try to halt it. It will be finished by the Euro 2016 and we have to wait until that stadium to hope to continue growing.

juventus101 wrote: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.

Chiellini and Del Piero were not youth products of Juventus. Both were bought young, but not products of the Juventus academy.

Neithet is Messi technically a Barca youth product, but those 3 were bought so young that they basically are youth.products of Juve and Barca. They were little kids when they were bought.

No, Messi is a product of Barcelona. Chiellini was 20 and Del Piero was 18.

the saddest part of this story is the clubs who actually used to make players are getting weak and weaker , some of them such as metz couldn't even survive lower leagues . I do understand that clubs are reflecting fans and what they want . i personally call this a consumer based football and once consuming gets higher than productivity the only result will be loss for football , even though most individuals know clubs by their advertisement or the size

Can you actually call that consumer-based football, when for example in England the (normal) consumers (=fans) are actually priced out of attending the matches in the stadiums? IMO it is more company/profit-based than consumer/fan oriented.

I liked the comment of Zorc (or Watzke, can't exactly remember who of the two it was) when he was asked a while ago if he could keep Mario Götze if he'd be offered 40 mio Euros for him. The guy simply said "We don't want to open a bank, we want to play good football", meaning even such an offer wouldn't tempt him to sell.

rwo power wrote:Can you actually call that consumer-based football, when for example in England the (normal) consumers (=fans) are actually priced out of attending the matches in the stadiums? IMO it is more company/profit-based than consumer/fan oriented.

I liked the comment of Zorc (or Watzke, can't exactly remember who of the two it was) when he was asked a while ago if he could keep Mario Götze if he'd be offered 40 mio Euros for him. The guy simply said "We don't want to open a bank, we want to play good football", meaning even such an offer wouldn't tempt him to sell.

its not even that , Manchester city for example reported of 121m loss in 1 year only
however some clubs make benefit like udinese , and i think Arsenal even though numerically i don't have enough info to make comment about Arsenal

Epoto wrote:its not even that , Manchester city for example reported of 121m loss in 1 year only

Well, many English clubs report rather unsustainable losses. IIRC, the wages/revenue turnover of ManCity was so bad that they would always heap up debts unless they manage to lower the wage bills.

In the Bundesliga, clubs only get a license if they keep their finances in order (the DFL doesn't want any repeats of the almost-implosion of Borussia Dortmund in 2004/05). I wonder if the Premier League will consider stricter measures about this, too.

BTW, Bayern München only recently agreed to play a charity match against Alemannia Aachen to help them earn substantial money to stay afloat. Bayern don't ask for any money and all the earnings go to the Alemannia. As much as many people revile Bayern, they often help fellow German clubs that are in financial crisis with charity matches or even money loans.

It is possible, but long term it may not work. For example for one period, you could suddenly have a lot of youth who are succeeding. The team is successful and wins a trophy or two.

However the following year, the team fails to win anything. Now due to that the players could get tempted to leave and end up leaving and going to a bigger club with money.

So I think money prevails over youth, however it isn't the only way you can be successful.

if you are asking wether there is a chance for a team that spends little to no money to reach success unequal to their standard capabilities
then yes, there are many factors that take place such as the coach, youth quality as well as good scouting.

there are teams that spend little money and others that spend a lot,
but both sides compete among them therefore the porbable winners will be the ones with the upperhand in quality, the ones that spend a lot...

more often than not money overcomes and its logical
but you do not define 'success'.
if success means winning the CL and dependently the domestic league then i would say only teams that spend money win it
if it means a decent domestic and european journey then teams that spend little money would do it as well