BVB (Bottlespielverein Borussia Dortmund) watch | You love to see it

Zehner said:

On point. Which is why I'm all for abandoning 50+1. But you're right, I'm definitely in the minority. Many fans in Germany absolutrly despise the EPL because of Chelsea and City. Some even think so about United because the only thing they kbow is that they are owned by an investor, too.

Click to expand...

I am also for abandoning the 50+1. The main difference between EPL and Buli is the money and if we didnt have Roman or Sheikh how much different will it be from the Buli?
Chelsea Man city wont happen without external investments. That is like 10 EPL titles in the last 15yrs

With the 50+1, the others have to hope Bayern fail spectacularly, lose their investments, all their signings flop, while all the rival signing work perfectly. You must never have a Schurrle type transfer while Bayern continues to have Gotze, Tolliso flop deals until they become broke

Regulus Arcturus Black said:

Heinze wanted Liverpool, United said go feck yourself.

Owen wanted to go back to Liverpool, Madrid said go to the highest bidder Newcastle or spend 2 seasons in the reserves. Madrid did similar when ADM desperately wanted to go to PSG but United were offering more.

Robinho another example... I could go on?

There's plenty clubs can do, that's exactly why Salah or Pogba won't end up at City.

If the player is fine sitting in the reserves for a season or two, yeah sure, there's nothing you can do, but no top player is that desperate for just one club. Once Lewa starting stalling on a deal, he should have been offered to foreign clubs at a cut price. Lewa isn't turning down Madrid, Barca, Juve, United at that point. Allowing him to do what he did was a mistake of epic proportions.

Click to expand...

At the end you only have a handful clubs, which aren't feeder clubs according to your definition.
These are Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Manchester United. Then add the sugar daddy or oil state financed clubs like Manchester City, Chelsea and Paris St Germain. All other clubs will have to sell when one or more of these 7 clubs is after one of their players. Be it Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspurs or Leicester City.
And even the biggest clubs can't keep their players sometimes, like Bayern Munich who will have to let Alaba go on free to Real Madrid. Is Bayern therefore now also a feeder club?
Selling players to Bayern isn't killing the competitiveness of the Bundesliga. Lewandowski in 2014 was the last big transfer of Bayern within the Bundeslig.

The reason is rather the TV money rich EPL clubs which are raiding the Bundesliga for years. Bigger fish eats smaller fish.
Just today I read that Barcelona has most likely over 1 billion Euro of debt. They wouldn't get a license in the Bundesliga, they most likely would get demoted to the amateur league with this amount of debt. Real is also heavily indebted but can pay Alaba 12 Million Euro net. I don't know if the Spanish clubs are still having the advantage to that gross salaries equal net wages.
At the end the old saying money doesn't score goals is bullshit. If invested well it definitely does.

On a side note. There is probably a difference between British and German supporters. If a star is sold, many German fans still prefer he will sold within the Bundesliga than to a foreign league. They rather the talent still playing in the Bundesliga.
I think also most German fans will support German teams in the Bundesliga and Euro League. Which isn't the case with many British supporters.

Regulus Arcturus Black said:

11th richest club in Europe, stop making them out to be a poor club.
And if they’d continued their success rather than fecking up and making Bayern stronger, they’d be even richer.
Also... City are miles richer than United.

Click to expand...

I don't even want to be rude, but you just lack a basic understanding of the whole situation.

Anyway, everything relevant has been said on the last 3 pages or so. People can make of it what they want.

UNITED ACADEMY said:

Where did I say they should overcome the difference in spending power? In fact I told you already not to use financial shit as excuse. Don't waste time if you can't be bothered reading and start making things up.

@Hansi Fick just hit you with fact. Ouch

Click to expand...

Wow, now that convinced me. Dortmund should just tell the clubs they buy players from and the players who want to leave because they can earn more elsewhere that they shouldn't pay so much inportance to the 'financial shit'. You just revolutionized the system, you're a genius! Why are you spending your time in this forum, your gifts are clearly wasted in here.

Hansi Fick said:

I said in general, wasn't refering to your posts but the whole argument.

Click to expand...

Alright, sorry then.

kaiser1 said:

Is the bold not what Dortmund did and triggered this thread? By giving Sancho a big contract to keep him and remain competitive. Dortmund can find local talents like Bayern too that is if they can pay the salary Bayern can afford that is why their team is filled with Bundesliga talents that Bayern do not want like Thorgan, Brandt etc.
Bayern can afford to buy Lucas, Tolliso and Pavard for prices that will be Dortmund's record fees and stick them on the bench. Upamecano signed a contract with a release clause when he was under the radar, What can Leipzig do about his contract and release clause at this point? Can they force him to increase it? when they will lose him free. Its either Leipsig sells for the release clause to whichever club Upamecano wants(like Gotze) or lose him to Bayern for free (like Lewandoski)

Click to expand...

Selling or keeping Sancho is not the issue here. Selling him but get good amount of money as long as the club use it for the sake of the team to win trophies or keeping him for same purpose as well especially for long term, whichever they decide to do is fine, in fact that's why I mentioned the idea of getting rid Dembele & Aubameyang are fine. But to let your best players like Lewandowski, Gotze and Hummels for example go to Bayern is the problem.

There is a reason why club like Manchester United refuses to proceed with Haaland's deal due to release clause and also refused to proceed with Reguilon due to release clause.

kaiser1 said:

I am also for abandoning the 50+1. The main difference between EPL and Buli is the money and if we didnt have Roman or Sheikh how much different will it be from the Buli?
Chelsea Man city wont happen without external investments. That is like 10 EPL titles in the last 15yrs

With the 50+1, the others have to hope Bayern fail spectacularly, lose their investments, all their signings flop, while all the rival signing work perfectly. You must never have a Schurrle type transfer while Bayern continues to have Gotze, Tolliso flop deals until they become broke

Click to expand...

Yes, unfortunately that's how it is. 50+1 is the desperate attempt to artificially preserve a romanticized but outdated image of football. And the Bundesliga will never be competitive at the top as long as this rule remains in place.

It was something else durimg the 00s when German talent level was at itvs lowest but ifnm the development continues as it does, the Bundesliga won't even be attractive for homegrown players anymore.

German clubs are generally managed very professionally I believe. They fare very well with the financial resources EPL clubs have at their disposal.

Zehner said:

Wow, now that convinced me. Dortmund should just tell the clubs they buy players from and the players who want to leave because they can earn more elsewhere that they shouldn't pay so much inportance to the 'financial shit'. You just revolutionized the system, you're a genius! Why are you spending your time in this forum, your gifts are clearly wasted in here.

Click to expand...

You said it not me. Keep guessing and making things up, you makes yourself stupid for doing so.

UNITED ACADEMY said:

Selling or keeping Sancho is not the issue here. Selling him but get good amount of money as long as the club use it for the sake of the team to win trophies or keeping him for same purpose as well especially for long term, whichever they decide to do is fine, in fact that's why I mentioned the idea of getting rid Dembele & Aubameyang are fine. But to let your best players like Lewandowski, Gotze and Hummels for example go to Bayern is the problem.

There is a reason why club like Manchester United refuses to proceed with Haaland's deal due to release clause and also refused to proceed with Reguilon due to release clause.

Click to expand...

So you want them to sell their prized player like Sancho, Dembele Auba, Pulisic, Gundogan, Kagwa Sahin, look for another starlet groom another Man Utd comes and they are forced to sell, Isn't that what a feed team or selling clubs look like? And what we are deriding Dortmund for being

With Gotze, Bayern triggered a release clause, You know how release clauses work right? The selling club has no choice in it
With Lewandoski, they offered him to other clubs Lewandoski refused, It was either they sell to Bayern at a lowball offer or go for free. He went for free (Or bench your best striker for 2 seasons like was suggested earlier)
Hummels on the last year of his deal wanted to move to Bayern and he was sold for 37M in 2016 for a player with 1yr left on his contract

All 3 players insisted on Bayern alone, So tell what option did Dortmund have?

Obviously, if Dortmund was as rich as Man Utd, they will give those players a very big salary and they will never move, or stick them on the bench for 2 seasons while paying them

Man Utd refused the Haaland deal because they can afford to and worst case, they will buy another top player. You have VdB on the bench waiting for his time, you benched Pogba to set him straight despite his huge salary, Fred was on the bench for a long time till he fit in, Dortmund cannot do that. Every big money transfer must work else it might be bad for them

UNITED ACADEMY said:

You said it not me. Keep guessing and making things up, you makes yourself stupid for doing so.

Click to expand...

You won, that one finally left me speechless. I need to read something more reasonable than your posts now. Guess I start with some Qanon theories or footage of a Trump press conference.

What exactly is 'wrong' with Dortmund being a feeder club? They're simply not as rich or as prestigious as Bayern.

Synco said:

I don't even want to be rude, but you just lack a basic understanding of the whole situation.

Anyway, everything relevant has been said on the last 3 pages or so. People can make of it what they want.

Click to expand...

I do want to be rude, you haven’t the first clue.

Liverpool wouldn’t be where they are, climbing the money league season on season with Dortmund’s attitude.

Everything’s been said, you’re right there.

VorZakone said:

What exactly is 'wrong' with Dortmund being a feeder club? They're simply not as rich or as prestigious as Bayern.

Click to expand...

They were on the path to though, but have since reverted to stepping stone mentality.
The prestige was coming, and the fan base was growing immensely, everyone I knew desperately wanted to visit the yellow wall.
Then.... well, you know the rest.

kaiser1 said:

With Gotze, Bayern triggered a release clause, You know how release clauses work right? The selling club has no choice in it

Click to expand...

Isn't it that's how stepping stone and feeding club operates? Cut the release clause non-sense to allow your rival to steal your best players and maybe it could be good first step to go into direction of being club that has ambition to win. Blame the club, don't blame the player or contract, the club is the one set the standard/rule. And that's why I mentioned my last sentence as example (the post that you replied).

kaiser1 said:

With Lewandoski, they offered him to other clubs Lewandoski refused, It was either they sell to Bayern at a lowball offer or go for free. He went for free
Hummels on the last year of his deal wanted to move to Bayern and he was sold for 37M in 2016 for a player with 1yr left on his contract

All 3 players insisted on Bayern alone, So tell what option did Dortmund have?

Click to expand...

And that's what happened when you let player on their final year of their contract. Who's to blamed? Dortmund. We have seen the same situation with RVP left Arsenal.

Zehner said:

You won, that one finally left me speechless. I need to read something more reasonable than your posts now. Guess I start with some Qanon theories or footage of a Trump press conference.

Click to expand...

What is not reasonable from my post? You can't answer that because you haven't read them or may be you just can't read?

Regulus Arcturus Black said:

I do want to be rude, you haven’t the first clue.

Liverpool wouldn’t be where they are, climbing the money league season on season with Dortmund’s attitude.

Everything’s been said, you’re right there.

Click to expand...

That's rich

Synco said:

That's rich

Click to expand...

That’s mature

UNITED ACADEMY said:

Isn't it that's how stepping stone and feeding club operates? Cut the release clause non-sense to allow your rival to steal your best players and maybe it could be good first step to go into direction of being club that has ambition to win. Blame the club, don't blame the player or contract, the club is the one set the standard/rule. And that's why I mentioned my last sentence as example (the post that you replied).
And that's what happened when you let player on their final year of their contract. Who's to blamed? Dortmund. We have seen the same situation with RVP left Arsenal.

Click to expand...

Players enter their last year of contracts for different reasons, Martial and Pogba were on 2 yrs of their contract at some time, Sane entered his last 2 yrs, Alaba did the same, Messi is currently on his last season. Mbappe is about to enter his final season
Point is, you cannot force a player whose head has been turned to stay, It even makes it worse when you do not have the money to compete with richer clubs hovering

Blame Dortmund for not being rich or having a deep pocket sugardaddy, Give them a rich Sheikh and watch them grow and you will see them stick it to Barca, Madrid Bayern like Citeh and PSG were doing

Haaland was looking to move from Salzburg, Man Utd refused to bend to a release clause, Dortmund needed a striker, Haaland was beyond them without a release clause. Do they pass on a great striker even if for 3 seasons to prove they are not a stepping stone?, when the options to Haaland that will consider them will be significantly lower in quality
Get Haaland for 3 seasons with a release clause or get Mark Uth forever without a release clause

Per the Deloitte money league, Man Utd with an income of 711M declined Haaland because of the release clause, You think Dortmund with 355M should do the same?

Regulus Arcturus Black said:

I’m also pretty sure United or Liverpool would never put themselves in situations where the other can pick up their players for free or cheap on release clauses.
The thick shits have done the same now, and I wouldn’t at all be surprised if Haaland seamlessly takes over from Lewa.

Click to expand...

United and Liverpool operate in a different sphere to Dortmund though. They are behemoths of the game, not just in the world of football but sport in general, it's impossible for a club like Dortmund to operate the same way to survive. I don't know what Haaland's future plans are (he would be a perfect replacement for Lewa though) but Dortmund managed to buy one of the best strikers in the world precisely because of their approach, they get one of the best young players in the world and are guaranteed to triple their money at the very least. It's very good business for them.

Regulus Arcturus Black said:

Well run clubs prevent the Götze & Lewa, Hummels situations from happening. Strengthening your closest competitors whilst weakening yourselves is the worst thing you can do in football; yet Dortmund let it happen without a fight. It also sets a horrific precedent and firmly cements you as a feeder club rather than a rival, all future players now know this, join Dortmund and you can go to Bayern later.

United were prepared to take Heinze to court ffs
They’d have sold him to Europe for a quid rather than see him at Liverpool.
Dortmund are as stupid as Arsenal and their situations as a side note in their leagues are no surprise.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you know this yourself, but for the sake of clarity for other posters reading this thread, Dortmund were recently on the brink of bankruptcy (Bayern Munich actually helped them out financially, albeit with only a small loan). The club could have very well ceased to exist. Thanks to very intelligent long term planning, the club managed to not only avoid bankruptcy, they have grown to become the second wealthiest German club (I think). I've said it in this thread before but I think many of you are looking at their situation through the prism of being a Manchester United supporter, as opposed to taking in the different situations of the two clubs. I agree with you that United would have sold him to Europe over a quid rather than selling him to Liverpool, their in a situation where they are able to do that, most clubs can't afford to take a stance like that. It's like complaining that a club like Southampton operates in a different manner to Liverpool, of course it does!

I can't agree that Dortmund are "stupid". The club managed to deal with the impending bankruptcy, absolutely divert the direction the club was going in and managed to have them competing against a club with far superior resources. Winning the titles they did, getting to the final of the European cup playing expansive attacking football while operating intelligently in the transfer market and becoming a club known for developing talent is all fairly admirable to me. I'd much rather see that than what the likes of Paris and Manchester City have done.

Regulus Arcturus Black said:

Do any of you defending Dortmund on losing those players think there’s a cat in hells chance Pogba will be allowed to join Liverpool on a free?
Would Greenwood be allowed a low release clause so City can just nab him after he scores a WC winner?

Click to expand...

No, I don't think that would be allowed to happen. I don't really see the relevance of it either though. After winning the title Leicester lost Kante to a team that finished below them, later on they lost Mahrez, despite being financially in a much more secure position than Dortmund. It's always going to be hard for teams to hold on to players when bigger clubs come around, it's just what happens.

I think the jokes about "you love to see it" are funny and fairly warranted. In the world of football anything and everything will be used for banter, but when making observations about a club, I think it needs to be done in a balanced manner and taking context into account. It seems to me that in the critique I've quoted from you and some other posters in this thread, the criticism boils down to "Dortmund don't operate like Manchester United"

kaiser1 said:

Players enter their last year of contracts for different reasons, Martial and Pogba were on 2 yrs of their contract at some time, Sane entered his last 2 yrs, Alaba did the same, Messi is currently on his last season. Mbappe is about to enter his final season
Point is, you cannot force a player whose head has been turned to stay, It even makes it worse when you do not have the money to compete with richer clubs hovering

Blame Dortmund for not being rich or having a deep pocket suardaddy, Give them a rich Sheikh and watch them grow and you will see them stick it to Barca, Madrid Bayern like Citeh and PSG were doing

Click to expand...

So? The club can do two things. You offers player new contract before they have 1 year or may be even 2 years left. If they refuse, you can always sell the player to different club before the situation gets into difficult to get money for new players.

You pay the price when you leave the player on their final contract, they are going to have more control on the situation and that's fact which is why I mentioned RVP's situation as he has confirmed it last year that Arsenal never offer him new contract until in his final year, he told the board some points that he wanted Arsenal to improve in order to win trophies, of course at the end the board can't meet his high standard/expectation and he joined United.

If you give them Glazer, they will still the same if they don't change the structure and the standard. If you give them Sheikh or Abramovich then the owner will change the structure and the standard. If you want do Barca & Madrid, it would still be the same without changing the structure and the standard because those two have no owner.

kaiser1 said:

Haaland was looking to move from Salzburg, Man Utd refused to bend to a release clause, Dortmund needed a striker, Haaland was beyond them without a release clause. Do they pass on a great striker even if for 3 seasons to prove they are not a stepping stone?, when the options to Haaland that will consider them will be significantly lower in quality
Get Haaland for 3 seasons with a release clause or get Mark Uth forever without a release clause

Click to expand...

Like I said before, selling player isn't the big deal here. Imagine set cheap release clause just for Bayern to steals it cheaply like Gotze or may be Upamecano, pathetic,. You might should just go for other option instead of keep feeding Bayern because if the club keep doing it, you are not going to change, agent and players will keep taking this as advantage and see your club as stepping stone. If Bayern doesn't steal Haaland then good. But United understood that his release clause is affordable for their PL rival which stupid if they do it which was my point.

Regulus Arcturus Black said:

That’s mature

Click to expand...

Dude, you're oblivious of the fact that a large difference in wealth means losing top players to bigger clubs. Instead you think it's about the wrong mentality and the board being "stupid" and "thick shits". So yeah, calling others clueless over this is a bit rich.

The reply two posts above has spelled it out politely, but it will be in vain, like the others.

Zehner said:

Alright, sorry then.

Click to expand...

No need to say sorry, I dish out, I can take backlash.

I just wonder how you still bother, feel like I've witnessed that very same argument with the very same back and forth of points 5 times already, and that's only since I registered. Think I read it a few times while lurking, and I'm sure it took place about 35 times before. Noone ever changes their preconceptions or corrects their misinformations. It just starts anew over and over again from the beginning. And again.

Cascarino said:

United and Liverpool operate in a different sphere to Dortmund though. They are behemoths of the game, not just in the world of football but sport in general, it's impossible for a club like Dortmund to operate the same way to survive. I don't know what Haaland's future plans are (he would be a perfect replacement for Lewa though) but Dortmund managed to buy one of the best strikers in the world precisely because of their approach, they get one of the best young players in the world and are guaranteed to triple their money at the very least. It's very good business for them.



I'm sure you know this yourself, but for the sake of clarity for other posters reading this thread, Dortmund were recently on the brink of bankruptcy (Bayern Munich actually helped them out financially, albeit with only a small loan). The club could have very well ceased to exist. Thanks to very intelligent long term planning, the club managed to not only avoid bankruptcy, they have grown to become the second wealthiest German club (I think). I've said it in this thread before but I think many of you are looking at their situation through the prism of being a Manchester United supporter, as opposed to taking in the different situations of the two clubs. I agree with you that United would have sold him to Europe over a quid rather than selling him to Liverpool, their in a situation where they are able to do that, most clubs can't afford to take a stance like that. It's like complaining that a club like Southampton operates in a different manner to Liverpool, of course it does!

I can't agree that Dortmund are "stupid". The club managed to deal with the impending bankruptcy, absolutely divert the direction the club was going in and managed to have them competing against a club with far superior resources. Winning the titles they did, getting to the final of the European cup playing expansive attacking football while operating intelligently in the transfer market and becoming a club known for developing talent is all fairly admirable to me. I'd much rather see that than what the likes of Paris and Manchester City have done.



No, I don't think that would be allowed to happen. I don't really see the relevance of it either though. After winning the title Leicester lost Kante to a team that finished below them, later on they lost Mahrez, despite being financially in a much more secure position than Dortmund. It's always going to be hard for teams to hold on to players when bigger clubs come around, it's just what happens.

I think the jokes about "you love to see it" are funny and fairly warranted. In the world of football anything and everything will be used for banter, but when making observations about a club, I think it needs to be done in a balanced manner and taking context into account. It seems to me that in the critique I've quoted from you and some other posters in this thread, the criticism boils down to "Dortmund don't operate like Manchester United"

Click to expand...

The bolded is spot on. Banter is great, especially if it's directed at Bayern, but when you discuss a football club somewhat objectively, you should at least maintain some level of objectivity.

Dortmund's management isn't perfect but they've done very very well in the last 15 years. But they are no super club and cannot operate as one. If the BVB suddenly conducted themselves like United, Liverpool or Bayern, this would not be authentic but rather "fake it till you make it" - and agents and representatives of other big clubs aren't amateurs, they see through stuff like that.

If they continue operating like they do, they can get on the level of Arsenal, Tottenham, or maybe even Chelsea. But Bayern, Madrid and co. are just too far ahead and they aren't sleeping either. It's capitalism after all, the rich only get richer.

Hansi Fick said:

No need to say sorry, I dish out, I can take backlash.

I just wonder how you still bother, feel like I've witnessed that very same argument with the very same back and forth of points 5 times already, and that's only since I registered. Think I read it a few times while lurking, and I'm sure it took place about 35 times before. Noone ever changes their preconceptions or corrects their misinformations. It just starts anew over and over again from the beginning. And again.

Click to expand...

You're right about that. I let myself get into such "debates" far too easily

UNITED ACADEMY said:

So? The club can do two things. You offers player new contract before they have 1 year or may be even 2 years left. If they refuse, you can always sell the player to different club before the situation gets into difficult to get money for new players.
You pay the price when you leave the player on their final contract, they are going to have more control on the situation and that's fact which is why I mentioned RVP's situation as he has confirmed it last year that Arsenal never offer him new contract until in his final year, he told the board some points that he wanted Arsenal to improve in order to win trophies, of course at the end the board can't meet his high standard/expectation and he joined United.

Click to expand...

Why do you think Barcelona Bayern and PSG have been unable to extend Messi Alaba and Mbappe? These are clubs that have deeper pockets how much more Dortmund? Why do you think these clubs did not sell these players before their last year

If you give them Glazer, they will still the same if they don't change the structure and the standard. If you give them Sheikh or Abramovich then the owner will change the structure and the standard. If you want do Barca & Madrid, it would still be the same without changing the structure and the standard because those two have no owner.

Click to expand...

Can you change structures without the money? Talk is cheap when you have money to back it up

Like I said before, selling player isn't the big deal here. Imagine set cheap release clause just for Bayern to steals it cheaply like Gotze or may be Upamecano, pathetic,. You might should just go for other option instead of keep feeding Bayern because if the club keep doing it, you are not going to change, agent and players will keep taking this as advantage and see your club as stepping stone. If Bayern doesn't steal Haaland then good. But United understood that his release clause is affordable for their PL rival which stupid if they do it which was my point.

Click to expand...

The cheap release clause is in line with their finances, A release clause has to be agreed by both parties, Man Utd was able to reject a release clause, Dortmund and Leipzig cannot. You can tell Haaland to feck off if he wants a release clause, will Leipzig and BvB tell Upamecano and Gotze to feck off because of a release clause?

If you are angry that Dortmund is not run like Man Utd then sorry.

kaiser1 said:

Why do you think Barcelona Bayern and PSG have been unable to extend Messi Alaba and Mbappe? These are clubs that have deeper pockets how much more Dortmund? Why do you think these clubs did not sell these players before their last year


Can you change structures without the money? Talk is cheap when you have money to back it up



The cheap release clause is in line with their finances, A release clause has to be agreed by both parties, Man Utd was able to reject a release clause, Dortmund and Leipzig cannot. You can tell Haaland to feck off if he wants a release clause, will Leipzig and BvB tell Upamecano and Gotze to feck off because of a release clause?

If you are angry that Dortmund is not run like Man Utd then sorry.

Click to expand...

Why are you comparing this? Barcelona, Bayern & PSG have the money and suitable situation to take such risk, and that’s why they were willing to pay the price for it especially knowing the likes of Messi is already on his 30is, Alaba is near to his 30is while PSG has arab money.

Dortmund doesn’t have the money and suitable situation to take such risk. That’s why they shouldn’t take the risk to leave player especially the non ageing ones on the final year in their contract.

Rather than dragging this too long, let me ask you some questions.

When Leverkusen set massive price on Havertz, did Bayern buy him? Was it Ballack or Lucio the last time they sold their player to Bayern? Yeah that was long time ago. Don’t think Leverkusen needs arab money or run like man united to change the structure to not getting bullied by Bayern anymore.

Very contrast on how Dortmund handled their situation with Lewandowski, Gotze & Hummels.

What a weird place this thread has become in the last few pages. Hats off to @Cascarino for a great and calm post; I wouldn't be able to make those points without getting extremely snarky about some of things that have been said about Dortmund.

On German posters, I'll add that we likely don't have the most hardcore fans of their respective German clubs on here. Most posters laughing at German posters defending BL teams other than their own, likely wouldn't want to be found dead on any other football forum. The German posters on here likely have a very different mindset about football, and aren't as partisan. I don't know why that has to be ridiculed.

UNITED ACADEMY said:

They don’t need arab or oil money to turn their brain into smart to understand that leaving player in their final of the contract is high risk and especially knowing Bayern has been taking advantage of it. Given how much money they have been getting from selling the likes of Dembele & Aubameyang for ridiculous high fees and combine with cheap top local talent players in bundesliga that they can approach, the conditions suit to Dortmund‘s financially and at the same time be more ambitious instead of accepting to get bullied by Bayern.

Click to expand...

You never really respond to concrete counterarguments; you just keep saying high-level stuff that's been refuted. For example: what could Dortmund actually have done to stop Lewandowski from going to Bayern, giving he didn't want to renew, didn't want to go elsewhere, and was running out his contract? Bench him, thus ruining their own season only to see him go to Bayern afterwards anyway?

Also, if Dortmund are a feeder club, how do you all explain them fighting to keep Sancho? And if they need to think big and reach higher, why is it wrong of them to buy Haaland with a release clause, if the alternative is to not get him and buy someone of lesser quality instead?

It seems Dortmund have to have their cake and eat it at all times; I'd like one of their detractors to give some concrete examples of what Dortmund could do better with player management to become more competitive.

Tony247 said:

Nothing "elitist" about it. There are certain traits of being a feeder club. A basic quality is that club has a major portion of revenue from transfer in its balance sheet, that a club recruits to sell for x times profit few years later. Haaland and recently Bellingham recruitment come to mind. Now, please don't tell me they signed Haaland as a long term recruitment.

If you compare them with even PL bottom 10 teams, not one team you can just point out and say yes they are feeder club. Is Newcastle a feeder club? No. Burnley, Brighton, Villa? No. Yes, players do leave lower club for better opportunity but there is a difference. These clubs do not "recruit to sell", it happens that their player perform well and other club come with bag of money they can't refuse. There is a subtle difference of being helpless to sell and farming players to sell.

Dortmund is absolutely a feeder club.

Click to expand...

I really can't understand where this is coming from. Newcastle, Burnley, and Brighton are more focused on their own development than Dortmund, Leipzig, or Monchengladbach, who only buy to sell? Christ on a bike. What do you think any EPL club outside the absolute top would say if they could get someone of Haaland's ability on the condition of including a hefty release clause in his contract?

NYAS said:

A more pertinent question to ask would be: why don’t La Liga, Serie A and Ligue 1 fans get the same reaction from us? There must be a reason, no?

Click to expand...

There's far fewer posters from those countries on here. And anyway, that stuff about Ligue 1 being a 'farmer's league' is also strongly contested by French posters. Other than that, it's the same dynamic, with the French posters on here having a wider and more nuanced interest in football than most United posters (by the nature of the forum; you'd have the reverse dynamic on a PSG dynamic, I suppose), and being happy to discuss other Ligue 1 clubs in a reasonable way.

kaiser1 said:

Players enter their last year of contracts for different reasons, Martial and Pogba were on 2 yrs of their contract at some time, Sane entered his last 2 yrs, Alaba did the same, Messi is currently on his last season. Mbappe is about to enter his final season
Point is, you cannot force a player whose head has been turned to stay, It even makes it worse when you do not have the money to compete with richer clubs hovering

Blame Dortmund for not being rich or having a deep pocket sugardaddy, Give them a rich Sheikh and watch them grow and you will see them stick it to Barca, Madrid Bayern like Citeh and PSG were doing

Haaland was looking to move from Salzburg, Man Utd refused to bend to a release clause, Dortmund needed a striker, Haaland was beyond them without a release clause. Do they pass on a great striker even if for 3 seasons to prove they are not a stepping stone?, when the options to Haaland that will consider them will be significantly lower in quality
Get Haaland for 3 seasons with a release clause or get Mark Uth forever without a release clause

Per the Deloitte money league, Man Utd with an income of 711M declined Haaland because of the release clause, You think Dortmund with 355M should do the same?

Click to expand...

Before I start, I just want to make the point that I generally agree with most of what you're saying here.

I don't watch the Bundesliga so am genuinely wondering if there's a middle ground between the two arguments being discussed here?

I completely agree that Dortmund cannot operate like Man Utd in a financial sense and certainly understand them having to include things such as release clauses in order to obtain players like Haaland. I'm just wondering if there is anything you think Dortmund could've done differently in order to actually to compete with Bayern a bit more? I tend to think it's difficult for anyone not directly involved with the club to know where the line is to be drawn re finances etc but could they have coped without one or two of the transfer fees and as a result kept the team on a upward slope of improvement in your opinion?

Also interested to know how you may compare teams like Atletico Madrid to Dortmund in regards to their finance/ambition balance, and also if you think theres a difference between teams like Arsenal/Spurs in terms of their approach to managing the same balance?

Like I said, I'm genuinely wondering as I don't watch much Bundesliga and I generally am of the opinion that a club like Dortmund would love nothing more than to regularly compete with Bayern so if they could they would...

Cheimoon said:

You never really respond to concrete counterarguments; you just keep saying high-level stuff that's been refuted. For example: what could Dortmund actually have done to stop Lewandowski from going to Bayern, giving he didn't want to renew, didn't want to go elsewhere, and was running out his contract? Bench him, thus ruining their own season only to see him go to Bayern afterwards anyway?

Also, if Dortmund are a feeder club, how do you all explain them fighting to keep Sancho? And if they need to think big and reach higher, why is it wrong of them to buy Haaland with a release clause, if the alternative is to not get him and buy someone of lesser quality instead?

It seems Dortmund have to have their cake and eat it at all times; I'd like one of their detractors to give some concrete examples of what Dortmund could do better with player management to become more competitive.

Click to expand...

I have given concrete counterarguments what Dortmund could actually have done to prevent the situation. Here:
Feel free to make counterargument about it.

UNITED ACADEMY said:

The club can do two things. You offers player new contract before they have 1 year or may be even 2 years left. If they refuse, you can always sell the player to different club before the situation gets into difficult to get money for new players.

You pay the price when you leave the player on their final contract, they are going to have more control on the situation and that's fact which is why I mentioned RVP's situation

Click to expand...

UNITED ACADEMY said:

When Leverkusen set massive price on Havertz, did Bayern buy him? Was it Ballack or Lucio the last time they sold their player to Bayern? Yeah that was long time ago. Don’t think Leverkusen needs arab money or run like man united to change the structure to not getting bullied by Bayern anymore.

Very contrast on how Dortmund handled their situation with Lewandowski, Gotze & Hummels.

Click to expand...

UNITED ACADEMY said:

Selling or keeping Sancho is not the issue here. Selling him but get good amount of money as long as the club use it for the sake of the team to win trophies or keeping him for same purpose as well especially for long term, whichever they decide to do is fine, in fact that's why I mentioned the idea of getting rid Dembele & Aubameyang are fine. But to let your best players like Lewandowski, Gotze and Hummels for example go to Bayern is the problem.

Click to expand...

UNITED ACADEMY said:

I have given concrete counterarguments what Dortmund could actually have done to prevent the situation. Here:
Feel free to make counterargument about it.

Click to expand...

Easily - because it has already been countered a lot of times. (Which is exactly what I said about your posts.)

UNITED ACADEMY said:

So? The club can do two things. You offers player new contract before they have 1 year or may be even 2 years left. If they refuse, you can always sell the player to different club before the situation gets into difficult to get money for new players.

You pay the price when you leave the player on their final contract, they are going to have more control on the situation and that's fact which is why I mentioned RVP's situation.

Click to expand...

Lewandowksi did not want to renew and did not want to go elsewhere. Now what do Dortmund do?

UNITED ACADEMY said:

When Leverkusen set massive price on Havertz, did Bayern buy him? Was it Ballack or Lucio the last time they sold their player to Bayern? Yeah that was long time ago. Don’t think Leverkusen needs arab money or run like man united to change the structure to not getting bullied by Bayern anymore.

Very contrast on how Dortmund handled their situation with Lewandowski, Gotze & Hummels.

Click to expand...

Havertz did want to go elsewhere and never said it was all about Bayern for him. All he wanted was to play in top league. Quite the difference.

The correct comparison for Havertz is rather Sancho. Dortmund and Leverkusen both set very high prices for their star players. The only difference is that Leverkusen found a taker for Havertz and Dortmund didn't for Sancho. If anything, Dortmund played that better, cause they got to keep their player.

Cheimoon said:

Easily - because it has already been countered a lot of times. (Which is exactly what I said about your posts.)

Lewandowksi did not want to renew and did not want to go elsewhere. Now what do Dortmund do?

Click to expand...

How has it been countered? Unless you are telling me Lewandowski already set his mind to go to Bayern when he still had 2-3 years in his contract. But that’s not the case isn’t it.

Here the quote from his agent:

After 18 months of that deal (4 years deal), Dortmund realised they had more than a bargain on their hands and tried to tie him to longer terms as goal followed goal. "We are disappointed with the offer. I've said this to the president," his agent Cesary Kucharski told Revier Sport at the time. "A player of this class should be among the highest-paid footballers at Dortmund." There was a willingness, initially, to negotiate, to stay. Dortmund missed their chance.

Click to expand...

https://www.goal.com/en-ie/news/392...und-blunders-leave-lewandowski-with-no-choice

Cheimoon said:

Havertz did want to go elsewhere and never said it was all about Bayern for him. All he wanted was to play in top league. Quite the difference.

The correct comparison for Havertz is rather Sancho. Dortmund and Leverkusen both set very high prices for their star players. The only difference is that Leverkusen found a taker for Havertz and Dortmund didn't for Sancho. If anything, Dortmund played that better, cause they got to keep their player.

Click to expand...

So? The point is how Leverkusen handled the situation that led them having the power to set very high price. No cheap release clause like Götze to invite Bayern stealing their players for easily and cheaply. Not leaving Havertz to his final year of his contract so they don’t need to sell cheap to Bayern like Hummels was. And of course a free feckin Lewandowski.

I never say Sancho‘s situation was the issue. Read this:

UNITED ACADEMY said:

Selling or keeping Sancho is not the issue here. Selling him but get good amount of money as long as the club use it for the sake of the team to win trophies or keeping him for same purpose as well especially for long term, whichever they decide to do is fine, in fact that's why I mentioned the idea of getting rid Dembele & Aubameyang are fine. But to let your best players like Lewandowski, Gotze and Hummels for example go to Bayern is the problem.

Click to expand...

UNITED ACADEMY said:

How has it been countered? Unless you are telling me Lewandowski already set his mind to go to Bayern when he still had 2-3 years in his contract. But that’s not the case isn’t it.

Here the quote from his agent:

https://www.goal.com/en-ie/news/392...und-blunders-leave-lewandowski-with-no-choice

Click to expand...

So Dortmund tried to do exactly what you say they should be doing, but failed because Lewandowsky wanted more than they thought was reasonable?

How Gio Reyna doing this season and after Favre was sacked? He's still very young but a promising talent so very far from any finished article. And is the team missing Hakimi?

Cheimoon said:

So Dortmund tried to do exactly what you say they should be doing, but failed because Lewandowsky wanted more than they thought was reasonable?

Click to expand...

Give him the contract, the guy was one of the top striker at that time and could have been built winning team around him! If you don’t want then sell him right away when at that time he still had 2 and half years in his contract! That’s the point! Unless you have proof to tell me that Lewandowski already set his mind to go to Bayern when he still had 2-3 years in his contract? This is why I’m comparing the situation to RVP, leave it one year, and they are fecked.

UNITED ACADEMY said:

Give him the contract, the guy was one of the top striker at that time and could have been built winning team around him! If you don’t want then sell him right away when at that time he still had 2 and half years in his contract! That’s the point! Unless you have proof to tell me that Lewandowski already set his mind to go to Bayern when he still had 2-3 years in his contract? This is why I’m comparing the situation to RVP, leave it one year, and they are fecked.

Click to expand...

Dortmund just came out of a near-bankruptcy, they may have had good reasons not to give in to Lewandowski's demands.

I don't see why they should then immediately sell him. He's a great striker; why get rid while you can still get 2.5 years out of him? Where's the ambition or benefit in that? Wasn't the whole point here that they shouldn't be a selling club? Also, with so much time left, they may have thought they'd have a chance to discuss this again later.

It's a very hindsight discussion - and even then, getting rid of one of your best players when he doesn't want to renew with a lot of contract time left doesn't seem very wise.

A feeder club or not, you can't argue they did a great business in the transfer market since winning the league. They only lost on the transfer of Lewandowski and Immobile, but won the rest in a big time. They sold their players higher than their own value, and refuse to sell if the price tag wasn't met.

With or without a buy out clause, They sold Kagawa, Gotze, Mkhitaryan, Dembele, Aubameyang, Hummels, and Diallo in a perfect time with a perfect price. They even bought back some of them with a cheaper price. I'm glad we didn't signed Sancho last summer. This is how a healthy football club should run if they are not in the top 10 in the money league.

And Dortmund are not the only one, Atletico Madrid were also doing the same business model with their players, as they were a feeder club especially for their Strikers. Look at them now, challenging Barcelona and Real was almost impossible. If Dortmund keep doing it right (like Atletico), they will be great in the next 5-6 years.

Regulus Arcturus Black said:

I’m also pretty sure United or Liverpool would never put themselves in situations where the other can pick up their players for free or cheap on release clauses.
The thick shits have done the same now, and I wouldn’t at all be surprised if Haaland seamlessly takes over from Lewa.

Well run clubs prevent the Götze & Lewa, Hummels situations from happening. Strengthening your closest competitors whilst weakening yourselves is the worst thing you can do in football; yet Dortmund let it happen without a fight. It also sets a horrific precedent and firmly cements you as a feeder club rather than a rival, all future players now know this, join Dortmund and you can go to Bayern later.

United were prepared to take Heinze to court ffs
They’d have sold him to Europe for a quid rather than see him at Liverpool.
Dortmund are as stupid as Arsenal and their situations as a side note in their leagues are no surprise.

Do any of you defending Dortmund on losing those players think there’s a cat in hells chance Pogba will be allowed to join Liverpool on a free?
Would Greenwood be allowed a low release clause so City can just nab him after he scores a WC winner?

Click to expand...

Liverpool and United is a special rivalry. You can compare to Dortmund and Schalke 04.

Liverpool lost many of their best players over there years. Torres, Alonso, Suarez, Sterling, Coutinho.
Sterling even left to their direct rival Manchester City. Thus, they are nothing other than Dortmund.

Liverpool's luck was Klopp being able to recruit promising talents, which he developed into world class players in 2 to 3 years. He got the time as the big guns weren't that interested in these players yet. Now they are nearing their 30's already. If Salah or Mané would be a couple of years younger, you can expect Liverpool facing an uphill battle to keep them at Anfield.
It's similar to Dortmund and Klopp between 2010 to 2013. However, Dortmund didn't have the financial muscle Liverpool got and needed to sell at least some talent. Sahin, Kagawa but it didn't hurt them much and now they are in a much better financial position than 10 years ago and can say no to offers they don't consider enough; like it happened to Sancho and Man United in the summer. Dortmund of 2010/11 would have had to sell the player.

If Pogba won't sign a new contract and for some reason only wants to play for Klopp what could United do? Force him to join Paris or Juventus?
It (can) happen to all Clubs, even to Bayern with Alaba now and maybe even to Barcelona with Messi or Real Madrid with Ramos. Of course the big guns are able to avoid such situations more often than not by throwing money onto the players.
Dortmund can't, not yet at least. Same accounts for Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal, Leicester.

Cheimoon said:

Dortmund just came out of a near-bankruptcy, they may have had good reasons not to give in to Lewandowski's demands.

I don't see why they should then immediately sell him. He's a great striker; why get rid while you can still get 2.5 years out of him? Where's the ambition or benefit in that? Wasn't the whole point here that they shouldn't be a selling club? Also, with so much time left, they may have thought they'd have a chance to discuss this again later.

It's a very hindsight discussion - and even then, getting rid of one of your best players when he doesn't want to renew with a lot of contract time left doesn't seem very wise.

Click to expand...

I'm sure the guy would manage to run a club into bankruptcy even on Football Manager. The idea to use Leverkusen as a proof to the contrary alone when just two seasons ago we lost Brandt through a buyout clause to - exactly - Dortmund for a ridiculously low sum Can't make that up. We've been more of a feeder club to Dortmund in recent years than Dortmund to Bayern considering Brandt, Castro and Toprak.

Zehner said:

I'm sure the guy would manage to run a club into bankruptcy even on Football Manager. The idea to use Leverkusen as a proof to the contrary alone when just two seasons ago we lost Brandt through a buyout clause to - exactly - Dortmund for a ridiculously low sum Can't make that up. We've been more of a feeder club to Dortmund in recent years than Dortmund to Bayern considering Brandt, Castro and Toprak.

Click to expand...

Its the food chain in Germany.

Dortmund to find the players from other clubs, Bayern to get them when they are ready.

romufc said:

Its the food chain in Germany.

Dortmund to find the players from other clubs, Bayern to get them when they are ready.

Click to expand...

Bayern hasn't bought a Dortmund player in 5 years. There's not really a food 'chain' anymore. Dortmund can only pick up what the top clubs don't want from league competitors (Brandt, Castro, Toprak, Schulz, Wolf, Delaney, Hazard, etc.) and Bayern only signs cheap domestically (Goretzka, Süle), usually shortly before or after the contract runs out. So every club basically sells their top talents outside the league if they can get a huge fee: Dembele, Havertz, Jovic, de Bruyne, Werner, Keita, etc.

What's more of a thing nowadays is signing academy players from other clubs. Kimmich is a prominent example, Wirtz another one. But there were many, many more who failed. The early identification of world class talent is where the competition on the transfermarket currently takes place in Germany.

Zehner said:

I'm sure the guy would manage to run a club into bankruptcy even on Football Manager. The idea to use Leverkusen as a proof to the contrary alone when just two seasons ago we lost Brandt through a buyout clause to - exactly - Dortmund for a ridiculously low sum Can't make that up. We've been more of a feeder club to Dortmund in recent years than Dortmund to Bayern considering Brandt, Castro and Toprak.

Click to expand...

Do you even know what’s the discussion? No? I thought so.

The idea of Leverkusen and Havertz to tell you lot what Dortmund could have done with the Lewandowski, Hummels & Gotze. It’s to show you lot the potential what Dortmund had if they weren’t just feeding Bayern at that time.

I’m not sure what is Brandt joined Dortmund from Leverkusen had anything to do with the discussion, so irrelevant.