German Football 23/24 |

[hasanejaz88]

I don't think it makes sense to compare Dortmund to plastic clubs, it's just different worlds.They should look inward: find out what changes to make in order to get the team on a functional level again.

I think you mean comparing with a club with ambition and smart signings versus a club without any. Leverkusen have a net spend of only 40m EUR over the last ten seasons, it's hardly as if Dortmund are being compared to some juggernaut that is spending loads of money. If anything, Dortmund have spent much more than Leverkusen, but that's also because they've received a ton of income from player sales. Though Dortmund also have a larger wage bill than Leverkusen as well, 1.5 times higher based on this season.

It's ridiculous that Dortmund have a positive 190m EUR net spend over the same period as Leverkusen's -40m EUR. Was it necessary to maintain such a large positive cash flow and not invest, or maybe they need it to fund their large wage bill. Either case, it's makes complete sense to compare them to Leverkusen. For all of the last decade, Dortmund have had a better squad, it's only now that Leverkusen have a clearly better one from good youth investment.

I think Leverkusen have also benefited from being more under the radar than Leverkusen. Leverkusen haven't had some of their youngsters like Frimpong, Palacios, Hincapie, Tapsoba, Kossonou poached like Dortmund have seen theirs, so they've had time to build a more settled squad. They'll face that problem this summer though, especially if they continue with their success. All of Europe will be after these players (haven't included Wirtz since he would be signed regardless of Leverkusen's success) and it will interesting to see how they are replaced.

 

[GhastlyHun]

It was the right move to inform me. It was a great read until I read further back and some German bully called me a weirdo

A German bullying a Dutch guy, unbelievable

 

[do.ob]

I think you mean comparing with a club with ambition and smart signings versus a club without any.

I struggle to understand what you're trying to say here.

Leverkusen have a net spend of only 40m EUR over the last ten seasons, it's hardly as if Dortmund are being compared to some juggernaut that is spending loads of money. If anything, Dortmund have spent much more than Leverkusen, but that's also because they've received a ton of income from player sales. Though Dortmund also have a larger wage bill than Leverkusen as well, 1.5 times higher based on this season.

It's ridiculous that Dortmund have a positive 190m EUR net spend over the same period as Leverkusen's -40m EUR. Was it necessary to maintain such a large positive cash flow and not invest, or maybe they need it to fund their large wage bill. Either case, it's makes complete sense to compare them to Leverkusen. For all of the last decade, Dortmund have had a better squad, it's only now that Leverkusen have a clearly better one from good youth investment.

I think Leverkusen have also benefited from being more under the radar than Leverkusen. Leverkusen haven't had some of their youngsters like Frimpong, Palacios, Hincapie, Tapsoba, Kossonou poached like Dortmund have seen theirs, so they've had time to build a more settled squad. They'll face that problem this summer though, especially if they continue with their success. All of Europe will be after these players (haven't included Wirtz since he would be signed regardless of Leverkusen's success) and it will interesting to see how they are replaced.

Again, you're not making any sense. You point out that Dortmund have a different financial MO than Leverkusen, but don't understand it. You point out that Leverkusen have been able to keep their youngsters for longer, but don't understand the implication. But you also write "it makes complete sense to compare them to Leverkusen".

No one is banking massive amounts of money at Dortmund, there's players, agents and the state taking a cut from the transfer revenue, part of it is used on wages and of course there was this little thing called Corona pandemic, that may have had an impact on spending.

Leverkusen's finances on the other hand are like an immovable object. Let me remind you of their league finishes:

Miss CL5 times in 7 years? Corona pandemic closing down stadiums? Get dropped by Adidas? Have to discount tickets to fill the stadium? It doesn't matter. They just keep maintaining the 3rd to 4th highest wage bill and a moderate transfer spending, as you pointed out yourself. If Dortmund were that indifferent to results and completely free of any kind of pressure they'd have a different transfer strategy, too. But they don't, so it's not a good comparison and it's outright stupid to use half a season as a measuring stick for club strategy.

 

[do.ob]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Now I'm not saying it would be a good idea at all, but it would certainly be a lot of entertainment if Dortmund were to approach him to finish the season.

 

[hasanejaz88]

I struggle to understand what you're trying to say here.

It was more of a throwaway comment that Leverkusen seem to have title challenge ambitions while Dortmund on the other hand have slumped to the Arsenal syndrome of just being happy to be in the UCL places. Leverkusen knowning they would challenge for the title is a stretch, but I certainly think Dortmund don't go into the season looking to challenge Bayern anymore and are more than happy with a comfortable top 4 place.

Again, you're not making any sense. You point out that Dortmund have a different financial MO than Leverkusen, but don't understnad it. You point out that Leverkusen have been able to keep their yongsters for longer, but don't understand the implication. But you also write "it makes complete sense to compare them to Leverkusen".

No one is banking massive amounts of money at Dortmund, there's players, agents and the state taking a cut from the transfer revenue, part of it is used on wages and of course there was this little thing called Corona pandemic, that may have had an impact on spending.

Leverkusen's finances on the other hand are like an immovable object. Let me remind you of their league finishes:

Miss CL5 times in 7 years? Corona pandemic closing down stadiums? Get dropped by Adidas? Have to discount tickets to fill the stadium? It doesn't matter. They just keep maintaining the 3rd to 4th highest wage bill and a moderate transfer spending, as you pointed out yourself. If Dortmund were that indifferent to results and completely free of any kind of pressure they'd have a different transfer strategy, too. But they don't, so it's not a good comparison and it's outright stupid to use half a season as a measuring stick for club strategy.

The youngsters point is something I acknowledge, but the positive net transfer for Dortmund is not something I agree with. Covid cannot be used as a reason, especially in case of transfers, for which there is more concrete data available, because it's not as if there has been a massive difference in expenditure between the two clubs since the pandemic. Since 2020/21, the first transfer window effected by Covid, Dortmund have had a +39m EUR transfer cash flow while Leverkusen have had +15m EUR, not a major difference. Most of Dortmund's positive net transfer cash flows comes from seasons before covid, when Dembele, Auba and Pulisic were sold in consecutive windows.

My gripe is that you're making out Leverkusen to be a massive club that Dortmund just cannot compete with financially as an excuse to forgive Dortmund for their poor squad building. Using the term 'plastic', something that is used more for clubs with little prior history that have recently been owned by states and have a clear financial advantage over their rivals, is not fair for clubs like Wolfsburg and Leverkusen, both of whom are over a quarter of a century old and were created by their parent companies, rather than being bought out, and neither have a massive financial advantage in their league. I can agree with the term being used on Leipzig, who while not hvaing a financial advantage do have a competitive advantage in having priority on players within their system of clubs and were a little known club before Red Bull bought them.

 

[KirkDuyt]

A German bullying a Dutch guy, unbelievable

I surrendered my accountdetails immediately.

 

[do.ob]

It was more of a throwaway comment that Leverkusen seem to have title challenge ambitions while Dortmund on the other hand have slumped to the Arsenal syndrome of just being happy to be in the UCL places. Leverkusen knowning they would challenge for the title is a stretch, but I certainly think Dortmund don't go into the season looking to challenge Bayern anymore and are more than happy with a comfortable top 4 place.

You're writing this under a graphic that shows Leverkusen finishing 6th place on average in the 7 years before the current season. There's recency bias and everything, but this is just stupid.

The youngsters point is something I acknowledge, but the positive net transfer for Dortmund is not something I agree with. Covid cannot be used as a reason, especially in case of transfers, for which there is more concrete data available, because it's not as if there has been a massive difference in expenditure between the two clubs since the pandemic. Since 2020/21, the first transfer window effected by Covid, Dortmund have had a +39m EUR transfer cash flow while Leverkusen have had +15m EUR, not a major difference. Most of Dortmund's positive net transfer cash flows comes from seasons before covid, when Dembele, Auba and Pulisic were sold in consecutive windows.

So you don't agree with the amount of money Dortmund spends on transfer fees. What logic is your disagreement based on? Do you think Watzke just forgot to spend €300m?

My gripe is that you're making out Leverkusen to be a massive club that Dortmund just cannot compete with financially as an excuse to forgive Dortmund for their poor squad building. Using the term 'plastic', something that is used more for clubs with little prior history that have recently been owned by states and have a clear financial advantage over their rivals, is not fair for clubs like Wolfsburg and Leverkusen, both of whom are over a quarter of a century old and were created by their parent companies, rather than being bought out, and neither have a massive financial advantage in their league. I can agree with the term being used on Leipzig, who while not hvaing a financial advantage do have a competitive advantage in having priority on players within their system of clubs and were a little known club before Red Bull bought them.

I said nothing of the kind. Dortmund have to blame themselves first when they finish behind one of the plastic clubs. But that still doesn't mean you can compare their strategies. This whole point of discussion is incredibly stupid. Leverkusen have made one speculative signing after another and have failed their targets most years, that was sustainable for them, because their parent company will always prop them up when necessary. Real football clubs don't have that luxury. They start to spiral when they miss their targets with some consistency, so they need to operate differently.

 

[ForEverEleven]

I love the tears, always very amusing stuff to read.

Mind the gap!

 

[hasanejaz88]

You're writing this under a graphic that shows Leverkusen finishing 6th place on average in the 7 years before the current season. There's recency bias and everything, but this is just stupid.

As I said, it was a throwaway comment more meant to mock Dortmund lack of ambition, which I certainly feel is true compared to a few years ago.

So you don't agree with the amount of money Dortmund spends on transfer fees. What logic is your disagreement based on? Do you think Watzke just forgot to spend €300m?

I don't think Watze forgot it, rather they were satisfied with maintaining that positive cash flow and didn't think it investing more of it into the squad on better players. That's the part I disagree with and, again, it's not necessarily all to do with Covid since they weren't spending all of it before as well.

I said nothing of the kind. Dortmund have to blame themselves first when they finish behind one of the plastic clubs. But that still doesn't mean you can compare their strategies. This whole point of discussion is incredibly stupid. Leverkusen have made one speculative signing after another and have failed their targets most years, that was sustainable for them, because their parent company will always prop them up when necessary. Real football clubs don't have that luxury. They start to spiral when they miss their targets with some consistency, so they need to operate differently.

You're saying that you are saying Dortmund cannot compete with Leverkusen but then towards the end of paragraph incinuate Leverkusen aren't a 'real football club'. Again, how is a 40mil negative net spend over 10 years an unsustainable strategy, even if it coincides with a few years without European football.

Comments like 'real football club', sound incredibly condescending and petty when talking about Leverkusen. I don't anyone holds as much contempt for them and their ownership as you seem to hold.

 

[Zehner]

Miss CL5 times in 7 years? Corona pandemic closing down stadiums? Get dropped by Adidas? Have to discount tickets to fill the stadium? It doesn't matter. They just keep maintaining the 3rd to 4th highest wage bill and a moderate transfer spending, as you pointed out yourself. If Dortmund were that indifferent to results and completely free of any kind of pressure they'd have a different transfer strategy, too. But they don't, so it's not a good comparison and it's outright stupid to use half a season as a measuring stick for club strategy.

Wow, that's a trainwreck of a paragraph even by your standards! First things first, funny that you chose the rather uncommon observation period of 7 years. I'm sure it's just coincidence that you chose a period that starts with the Leverkusen's worst placement in the last 20 years and ignores that we finished top 4 in six of the seven previous seasons. But for the sake of it, let's just ignore that and take a look at your arguments:

Miss CL5 times in 7 years?

This would only make sense if four teams achieved better results in those 7 years. But Leverkusen secured UEL 4 times and UCL 2 times, only missing out on international football once. Only Leipzig, Bayern and Dortmund are better than this, so which club should have overtaken them?

Corona pandemic closing down stadiums? Have to discount tickets to fill the stadium?

That applies to all clubs in the league so again it makes no sense that another club should have overtaken the 4th highest wage bill as they encountered the same (or if we're being nitpicky: In the case of Frankfurt and co. even larger) challenges. Which leaves us with:

Get dropped by Adidas?

It is not like they play without a sponsor now, you know

 

[do.ob]

Wow, that's a trainwreck of a paragraph even by your standards! First things first, funny that you chose the rather uncommon observation period of 7 years. I'm sure it's just coincidence that you chose a period that starts with the Leverkusen's worst placement in the last 20 years and ignores that we finished top 4 in six of the seven previous seasons. But for the sake of it, let's just ignore that and take a look at your arguments.


This would only make sense if four teams achieved better results in those 7 years. But Leverkusen secured UEL 4 times and UCL 2 times, only missing out on international football once. Only Leipzig, Bayern and Dortmund are better than this, so which club should have overtaken them?

I'm just making the simple point that I expect teams to finish according to their spending. Leverkusen are the 4th biggest spenders in Bundesliga, so my expectation is that they finish 4th. If they miss top four that's underperformance. Someone tells me about their strategy and I see that they have missed it more often than not recently, then something doesn't add up.

That applies to all clubs in the league so again it makes no sense that another club should have overtaken the 4th highest wage bill as they encountered the same (or if we're being nitpicky: In the case of Frankfurt and co. even larger) challenges. Which leaves us with:

"Someone" balanced out their losses while they kept spending on transfers. Proper football clubs had to balance their books themselves.

It is not like they play without a sponsor now, you know

No, but getting dropped usually doesn't go hand in hand with an increase in prestige or money.

 

[do.ob]

As I said, it was a throwaway comment more meant to mock Dortmund lack of ambition, which I certainly feel is true compared to a few years ago.

Sounds like the meaning of ambition and current success level have a near total overlap for you.

I don't think Watze forgot it, rather they were satisfied with maintaining that positive cash flow and didn't think it investing more of it into the squad on better players. That's the part I disagree with and, again, it's not necessarily all to do with Covid since they weren't spending all of it before as well.

What does maintaining "positive cash flow" even mean in this context. Since the money isn't lying around somewhere it has to have been spent on something, do you think it was on anything else than an attempt to further sporting success?

You're saying that you are saying Dortmund cannot compete with Leverkusen but then towards the end of paragraph incinuate Leverkusen aren't a 'real football club'. Again, how is a 40mil negative net spend over 10 years an unsustainable strategy, even if it coincides with a few years without European football.

Comments like 'real football club', sound incredibly condescending and petty when talking about Leverkusen. I don't anyone holds as much contempt for them and their ownership as you seem to hold.

I'm still not saying anything of the kind. Dortmund have too much money to be threatened by Leverkusen and probably even Leipzig, if they do their own homework.

What I disagree with is your apples and oranges comparison of investment. Because plastic clubs operate under different financial model.

And towards the wider point, I consider all (German) clubs that aren't operating in accordance with 50+1 to be plastic and clubs that are ultimately controlled by an "e.V." as real clubs. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but it's hardly an opinion I have exclusively.

 

[Zehner]

I'm just making the simple point that I expect teams to finish according to their spending.

No, you didn't. You specifically asked how they could maintain the 4th highest wage bill and your arguments for why they shouldn't have been able to do so without help were illogical. Now you're making a new point.

Leverkusen are the 4th biggest spenders in Bundesliga, so my expectation is that they finish 4th. If they miss top four that's underperformance. Someone tells me about their strategy and I see that they have missed it more often than not recently, then something doesn't add up.

Over the period you quoted, Leverkusen is still the fourth best team in the league. They may not have finished top 4 often enough but only three teams were better over those 7 years. By your logic, Dortmund failed to meet their goals 3 out of 7 seasons as well since they have the second highest budget.

"Someone" balanced out their losses while they kept spending on transfers. Proper football clubs had to balance their books themselves.

€23.51m. Over those 7 seasons, Leverkusen had a net spent of €23.51m. It is evident that Leverkusen hasn't spent more money on their football operations than Dortmund but because you really, really don't want that to be legit, you're clutching at straws. In this case, your straw is the balancing out of losses. As if that somehow evens out that Dortmund has a >1.5 times higher wage bill than Leverkusen. Especially since - what you know but coincidently doesn't even mention - the "balancing" in "balancing out losses" simultaneously means that profits go to Bayer as well and that the club can't just reinvest e. g. the money from the Havertz transfer. So to sum it up, you intentionally chose an observation period that sheds the worst light on Leverkusen and still the best you can come up with is that the fourth most successful team in Germany scanadlously maintained the fourth highest wage bill despite having a mindblowing average of €3.36m net spent per year.

I don't think I know somebody who is as knowledgable as you on a lot of things but at the same time as unable as you to maintain an at least somewhat objective perspective on things you don't like. One could say you're so good at arguing that you can convince yourself of the stupidest shit as long as it is what you want to be true. Amazing, really.

 

[Acrobat7]

I don't think I know somebody who is as knowledgable as you on a lot of things but at the same time as unable as you to maintain an at least somewhat objective perspective on things you don't like. One could say you're so good at arguing that you can convince yourself of the stupidest shit as long as it is what you want to be true. Amazing, really.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this applies to both of you.

 

[Zehner]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this applies to both of you.

I'll just remember that you think of me as knowledgable and ignore the other part

 

[do.ob]

No, you didn't. You specifically asked how they could maintain the 4th highest wage bill and your arguments for why they shouldn't have been able to do so without help were illogical. Now you're making a new point.



Over the period you quoted, Leverkusen is still the fourth best team in the league. They may not have finished top 4 often enough but only three teams were better over those 7 years. By your logic, Dortmund failed to meet their goals 3 out of 7 seasons as well since they have the second highest budget.



€23.51m. Over those 7 seasons, Leverkusen had a net spent of €23.51m. It is evident that Leverkusen hasn't spent more money on their football operations than Dortmund but because you really, really don't want that to be legit, you're clutching at straws. In this case, your straw is the balancing out of losses. As if that somehow evens out that Dortmund has a >1.5 times higher wage bill than Leverkusen. Especially since - what you know but coincidently doesn't even mention - the "balancing" in "balancing out losses" simultaneously means that profits go to Bayer as well and that the club can't just reinvest e. g. the money from the Havertz transfer. So to sum it up, you intentionally chose an observation period that sheds the worst light on Leverkusen and still the best you can come up with is that the fourth most successful team in Germany scanadlously maintained the fourth highest wage bill despite having a mindblowing average of €3.36m net spent per year.

I don't think I know somebody who is as knowledgable as you on a lot of things but at the same time as unable as you to maintain an at least somewhat objective perspective on things you don't like. One could say you're so good at arguing that you can convince yourself of the stupidest shit as long as it is what you want to be true. Amazing, really.

I can only reiterate that I never said that Leverkusen are in any way richer than Dortmund, just that their financial realities aren't comparable.

What are you referring to with the Havertz money? As far as I know Leverkusen made a (minor) loss the year he was sold.
And again: I don't think they are spending crazy money compared to Dortmund, just that you approach decisions and handle risks differently, when you can't make losses and may even get a little extra money if you find yourself in trouble.
I also don't think it's controversial to suggest Dortmund have underperformed in recent years. More like the opposite.

 

[do.ob]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I wonder what's next for him. Certainly a character and he had success with Köln, but not exactly a tactical hipster.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

"interesting" turn of events

 

[ForEverEleven]

Baumgart is nailed on to be the next HSV coach if they decide to sack Walter throughout the season, Im convinced of that.

 

[Zehner]

I can only reiterate that I never said that Leverkusen are in any way richer than Dortmund, just that their financial realities aren't comparable.

What are you referring to with the Havertz money? As far as I know Leverkusen made a (minor) loss the year he was sold.
And again: I don't think they are spending crazy money compared to Dortmund, just that you approach decisions and handle risks differently, when you can't make losses and may even get a little extra money if you find yourself in trouble.
I also don't think it's controversial to suggest Dortmund have underperformed in recent years. More like the opposite.

The initiator of this whole discussion was that you suggested there's nothing to learn from "plastic clubs" as they operate under different rules because the company behind them could just cover any losses. Ignoring that it is not even clear Leverkusen utilized this theoretical competitive advantage to begin with looking at results, wage bill and transfer balance, Dortmund is so much richer than Leverkusen that they simply could have made the same transfers as Leverkusen since those relatively small expenditures wouldn't even be risky for a club with this financial muscle.

It is just a factually wrong notion to indirectly discredit that a 'plastic club' operated much more cost efficiently than Dortmund. Of course Dortmund can learn something from Leverkusen. You could even argue that their strategic plan should be the role model for Dortmund.

 

[do.ob]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Köln's transfer ban has been upheld. It will affect the upcoming two transfer windows.

That sounds pretty catastrophic:

I expect Mainz and Union (they arguably already did) to pick themselves up after the break. Heidenheim are already halfway through to safety, Augsburg look stable since their coaching change, Gladbach should stay clear of relegation worries, too. Bochum and Werder have the potential to slip up, but even they are already six points ahead. I'd say relegation is more likely to happen than not now and approaching relegation with a transfer ban is a second - huge - mess in itself. Who would take the job given these circumstances?

The initiator of this whole discussion was that you suggested there's nothing to learn from "plastic clubs" as they operate under different rules because the company behind them could just cover any losses. Ignoring that it is not even clear Leverkusen utilized this theoretical competitive advantage to begin with looking at results, wage bill and transfer balance, Dortmund is so much richer than Leverkusen that they simply could have made the same transfers as Leverkusen since those relatively small expenditures wouldn't even be risky for a club with this financial muscle.

It is just a factually wrong notion to indirectly discredit that a 'plastic club' operated much more cost efficiently than Dortmund. Of course Dortmund can learn something from Leverkusen. You could even argue that their strategic plan should be the role model for Dortmund.

Cost efficiency is always lopsided in football, I'd wager Heidenheim are the most cost-efficient club in Bundesliga right now, probably followed closely by Stuttgart and then someone like Freiburg. In previous years it was Union. That doesn't mean teams at the top can learn a lot from them.

And if Dortmund would have made the same transfers as Leverkusen they would have missed top four 5 times out of 7 years, too. And the people in charge would have been sacked twice over during that period. The same way Bayern was not the place to start some of the kids that Dortmund had every week, until they turned into top players.

 

[stefan92]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I wonder what's next for him. Certainly a character and he had success with Köln, but not exactly a tactical hipster.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

"interesting" turn of events

Sad to see Baumgart leave, but this exit was coming. His unhappiness about the situation in the club and city wasn't a secret and he voiced that for quite some time. Hope his next club will be more like Paderborn (who actually tried to build on their success and did quite a lot for their infrastructure with the money for their surprise promotion to the Bundesliga)

 

[do.ob]

Sad to see Baumgart leave, but this exit was coming. His unhappiness about the situation in the club and city wasn't a secret and he voiced that for quite some time. Hope his next club will be more like Paderborn (who actually tried to build on their success and did quite a lot for their infrastructure with the money for their surprise promotion to the Bundesliga)

What happened with the city?

 

[stefan92]

What happened with the city?

Their training grounds are not up to the standard you would expect from a Bundesliga club (and Baumgart complained about how much better they were in Paderborn) and club and city are haggling for years now about where and how to expand and modernize that.

 

[B. Munich]

Didn't think Dortmund would keep Terzic after these poor results in the Bundesliga.
They over performed in the CL but to be honest they were quite lucky in a few matches too (against Milan at home, in Newcastle and against PSG at home).

If they had any ambition they had separated from Terzic after May 27th. I'm 100% sure that's exactly what Bayern would have done in that position.

 

[Acrobat7]

Didn't think Dortmund would keep Terzic after these poor results in the Bundesliga.
They over performed in the CL but to be honest they were quite lucky in a few matches too (against Milan at home, in Newcastle and against PSG at home).

If they had any ambition they had separated from Terzic after May 27th. I'm 100% sure that's exactly what Bayern would have done in that position.

But who would you replace him with? There is no really obvious solution available mid-season

 

[stefan92]

But who would you replace him with? There is no really obvious solution available mid-season

Baumgart is available now
More serious option: Glasner

 

[B. Munich]

But who would you replace him with? There is no really obvious solution available mid-season

If the reports are true that Terzic lost (parts of) the dressing room, the board has to act in order to secure the vital CL qualification spot.

 

[do.ob]

If the reports are true that Terzic lost (parts of) the dressing room, the board has to act in order to secure the vital CL qualification spot.

Some media reported that they want to hold the players to account instead of putting all the blame on the coach. But one of the biggest problems has been that the build up falls apart entirely (literally) under even halfway decent pressing and that's been a persistent problem from start to finish of the season. It also explains (much better than "mentality" or motivation) why the team was more successful in the CL as Newcastle and Milan somehow were reluctant to press up high the pitch and PSG just decided to settle for the draw in the last game.

In general I always think we shouldn't ignore that everyone is just looking at it from the outside and internally things may be quite different than what they seem, but at the moment it looks a lot like Watzke doesn't want to swallow his pride after committing so heavily to Terzic in previous interviews. The fact that there haven't been any public statements, despite the press sticking one knife after another into Terzic('s reputation), also looks like a lack of leadership. So if the situation further deteriorates I think Watzke should take responsibility and "adjust" his role at the club.

 

[G3079]

Absolutely not-serious proposal for Dortmund: Lehmann described himself as a "jobless football coach" during his newest appearance in front of a court, and after getting slapped with a 420k Euro fine he might want a little financial help, so maybe they want to bring back one of their former greats?

On a more serious note though, it's really sad to see what's going on with Lehmann. Reading the article about his current sentencing and some other ones, he comes across as entirely unhinged. Damaging his neighbours garage and cameras with a chainsaw because it destroys his view over the lake, tailgating another car with only centimeters of a gap so he doesn't have to pay the parking ticket for the car park, insulting policemen after they want to confiscate his driver's license after he has been caught once again massively speeding, and the apparently very erratic behavior and odd claims in front of the court... something is clearly very wrong with him. He has gotten lucky that he got away with only a fine.

And everyone always thought that Kahn was the more unhinged of the two old rivals.

 

[Acrobat7]

Absolutely not-serious proposal for Dortmund: Lehmann described himself as a "jobless football coach" during his newest appearance in front of a court, and after getting slapped with a 420k Euro fine he might want a little financial help, so maybe they want to bring back one of their former greats?

On a more serious note though, it's really sad to see what's going on with Lehmann. Reading the article about his current sentencing and some other ones, he comes across as entirely unhinged. Damaging his neighbours garage and cameras with a chainsaw because it destroys his view over the lake, tailgating another car with only centimeters of a gap so he doesn't have to pay the parking ticket for the car park, insulting policemen after they want to confiscate his driver's license after he has been caught once again massively speeding, and the apparently very erratic behavior and odd claims in front of the court... something is clearly very wrong with him. He has gotten lucky that he got away with only a fine.

And everyone always thought that Kahn was the more unhinged of the two old rivals.

Nothing of this comes as a surprise. Kahn was a maniac on the pitch. Lehmann is simply a maniac.

 

[stefan92]

Nothing of this comes as a surprise. Kahn was a maniac on the pitch. Lehmann is simply a maniac.

Exactly. Kahn simply is someone who would do anything for success. Whatever it takes, from basically scaring the shit out of anybody around him or actually getting a degree in economics. Lehmann always appeared to be prone to just getting out of control of himself.

 

[G3079]

In hindsight, maybe. But back when both Kahn and Lehmann were actually active it always felt like Kahn was seen as the bigger lunatic between the two by the public. Though that impression might just be due to Kahn always having been on the bigger stage as both Bayern's and Germany's #1 he probably was more in the eye of the press. Those legendary pictures of Kahn biting at Herrlich's neck or flying at Chapuisat with a high and outstretched leg will probably forever be amongst the first ones that come to mind when anybody mentions him, and the press certainly never seemed to get tired of digging up Kahn's escapades.

 

[stefan92]

In hindsight, maybe. But back when both Kahn and Lehmann were actually active it always felt like Kahn was seen as the bigger lunatic between the two by the public. Though that impression might just be due to Kahn always having been on the bigger stage as both Bayern's and Germany's #1 he probably was more in the eye of the press. Those legendary pictures of Kahn biting at Herrlich's neck or flying at Chapuisat with a high and outstretched leg will probably forever be amongst the first ones that come to mind when anybody mentions him, and the press certainly never seemed to get tired of digging up Kahn's escapades.

Lehmann peed behind his goals, or left a match at half time, had to beg a fan for money to be able to take the sub home. Such incidents never happened with Kahn, so I think Kahn might have been seen as more unhinged, but Lehmann always was the weird one.

 

[do.ob]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

On paper it looks like Sahin did alright at Antalyaspor (did you by chance keep tabs on him @KirkDuyt - considering he was one of the biggest names to ever play for Feyenoord, even bigger than Berghuis), so I assume he didn't just give that up to be a random assistant.

I guess by himself I'd give that move the benefit of the doubt, but bringing in Bender at the same time looks like they drew the wrong conclusions from their analysis. The coaching staff is not the place you load up based on folklore and nostalgia.

 

[Acrobat7]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

On paper it looks like Sahin did alright at Antalyaspor (did you by chance keep tabs on him @KirkDuyt - considering he was one of the biggest names to ever play for Feyenoord, even bigger than Berghuis), so I assume he didn't just give that up to be a random assistant.

I guess by himself I'd give that move the benefit of the doubt, but bringing in Bender at the same time looks like they drew the wrong conclusions from their analysis. The coaching staff is not the place you load up based on folklore and nostalgia.

In my opinion, a very clear signal to Terzic. It reminds me of Bayern appointing Flick as Kovac's assistant in order to have the successor already in place...

 

[do.ob]

In my opinion, a very clear signal to Terzic. It reminds me of Bayern appointing Flick as Kovac's assistant in order to have the successor already in place...

Yes, that looks likely. But is setting up a fan favorite as the successor really the correct lesson to be learned from the fan favorite coach not working out? While also adding another fan favorite to the staff, who even has next to no experience? Watzke needs to be careful that he doesn't make the same mistakes as Schalke: appointing Terzic and even sticking with until now was (somewhat) reasonable, but at this rate the club is going to be run by the 10/11 team entirely.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

On paper it looks like Sahin did alright at Antalyaspor (did you by chance keep tabs on him @KirkDuyt - considering he was one of the biggest names to ever play for Feyenoord, even bigger than Berghuis), so I assume he didn't just give that up to be a random assistant.

I guess by himself I'd give that move the benefit of the doubt, but bringing in Bender at the same time looks like they drew the wrong conclusions from their analysis. The coaching staff is not the place you load up based on folklore and nostalgia.

Yeah, really someone you put in a list with Willem van Hanegem, Johan Cruijff, Coen Moulijn and Robin van Persie I know he went to Dortmund and was always injured or something? Or another German club?

 

[do.ob]

Yeah, really someone you put in a list with Willem van Hanegem, Johan Cruijff, Coen Moulijn and Robin van Persie I know he went to Dortmund and was always injured or something? Or another German club?

Exactly. I know how important winning Bundesliga is for you guys.

Confirmed now:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The current no2, Reutershahn, who joined a year ago and was thus credited with the team's stark improvement, is leaving, too. So Sahin will probably be the clear second in command immediately.

 

[stefan92]

This just feels weird how Dortmund approach this. I really am not sure if this is smart or stupid.

 

[do.ob]

This just feels weird how Dortmund approach this. I really am not sure if this is smart or stupid.

No one seems to know how good a coach Sahin is, let alone assistant, so we have to wait and see how this plays out. On the other hand I don't think Dortmund would hire some guy from Antalyaspor if he wasn't an ex-player, so it's reasonable to suspect some degree of nostalgia or whatever you want to call it, that should not factor into such a decision.

I also don't think Flick at Bayern is an example that validates the "successor in waiting" approach. That just tells me the bosses know the current coach isn't going to work out, but they aren't willing to admit it yet. Bayern could afford it (and got lucky too), but that may not be the case for Dortmund, if they wait until results have forced their hand even more than they already did.