10 most hated football teams
in [World Football]
|
From: Bruce D. Scott on 5 Mar 2010 06:54 anders t (anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com) wrote: : "Otto Rehhagel, was also attacked during the time he was coach at : Bielefeld. Later, during Greece�s 2004 European Championship, there was a : lot of whispering about the iron endurance of his Hellenic eleven players, : against which the opposition shattered." : ( : http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1834&Itemid=74 : ) A lot of whispering. I thought so. There is always whispering from people who can't admit someone beat them by trying harder. I wasn't rooting for Greece either (and I don't particularly like Rehhagel), but it was Portugal's fault for losing to them by not being aware of the danger on Greece's first corner. Here's my leap of logic: if Rehhagel had been a doper coach we would have seen a fitter Bayern when he was here. -- ciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
From: FF on 5 Mar 2010 15:29 MH wrote: > FF wrote: > > MH wrote: > > > >>FF wrote: > >> > >>>Well, maybe, but those other clubs practically stand no chance of > >>>winning trophies anyway, because of clubs from Bayern, Bremen, Hamburg > >>>etc. Unless of course a sugardaddy comes their way too. > >> > >>Bad examples. Hamburg have not won the BL since the 1980s (early 80s), > >>in spite of having a larger city to draw on and a nice big stadium with > >>good attendance. > >> > >>Bremen have won a few titles but are actually quite a small club, with > >>lower attendances than the likes of Dortmund, Schalke, Stuttgart, K�ln, > >>Moenchengladbach etc. > > > > Maybe, but they're the only german clubs I know about. :-) Except for > > Borussia who won the Champs League in 97. Anyway, my point was that > > cities like Hoffenheim don't win titles. > > > >>Kaiserslautern (tiny city) have won championships more recently than > >>Hamburg, K�ln, Schalke and Hertha Berlin. > > > > So I guess they must have had a big sponsor. A sugardaddy. > > Nope. No sugar daddies, no owners (you can't really own a Bundesliga club). > > > >>In Germany it is not just about being a big (or big city) club. The > >>same is also true for France - PSG and Marseille, the two teams with the > >>biggest attendances, do not dominate proceedings > > > > No, but Lyon is a big enough city, as is Bordeaux. As a general rule I > > don't think you can deny what I'm saying. There may be exceptions, I > > don't know such details, but they are exceptions. And most of them > > probably have a sugardaddy behind them anyway. > > I think you will find that they don't, historically. > > here is a list of teams from smaller centres, without large attendances, > that have won league titles or European trophies - as far as I know none > of them had sugar daddies: > > Derby County > Nottingham Forest > Ipswich > Aberdeen > Kaiserslautern > Auxerre > Lens (though their attendances are big by French standards) > Borussia Moenchengladbach (now have a large stadium but didn't then) > Strassbourg > Nantes > St. Etienne (again, they have large support for a smaller city, though) > Deportivo La Coruna > Real Zaragoza > Bruges All these are still pretty big cities, with the possible exception of Auxerre. Still much bigger than Hoffenheim. You may find that Hoffenheim is too small to rightfully belong in the Bundesliga. You probably have a point. Still, I can't hold it against Hopp that he wants his city (village, whatever) to win a title and is willing to put big money into it (especially since he failed so far). If he did this for say more than 2 titles I would probably begin to hate it too. Anyway, Hopp isn't the one to kill the chances of smaller clubs in Germany. From what I can say, he looks benign, at least so far. Burlesco OTOH is another matter. > With the influx of sugar daddies and rich owners, those type of events > are being killed. I think this is a bad thing You're probably right. But then, as you surely know better than me, this isn't the only cause, probably not even the main cause. The recent mobility of players is one. Then, in recent times, say the last 10 years, top football has become dominated by rich clubs, with or without sugardaddies. Money has a much greater say now, that's how it is; all leagues must follow the trend or they risk being left behind, as has happened to the german and french and to some extent to the italian one. So I don't know, in the current landscape I still think sugardaddies are a necessity for smaller clubs to win something. All your examples BTW were prior to 2000 I believe.
From: Sven Mischkies on 5 Mar 2010 16:00 FF <FAIRFOOTBALL.COM(a)domainsbyproxy.com> wrote: > All these are still pretty big cities, with the possible exception of > Auxerre. Still much bigger than Hoffenheim. Well, of course, Hoppenheim is not a city, it is a village: Population 3,272 (12 February 2010) Founded 1972 > You may find that Hoffenheim is too small to rightfully belong in the > Bundesliga. You probably have a point. No, I wouldn' make that point. If a small club rises thanks to good work, than I appreciate that. Look at Mainz and Freiburg for clubs that have risen in the past 20 years. No, both places are no villages, but both have a very small history in top league football. > Still, I can't hold it against > Hopp that he wants his city (village, whatever) to win a title and is > willing to put big money into it (especially since he failed so far). > If he did this for say more than 2 titles I would probably begin to > hate it too. ;) > Anyway, Hopp isn't the one to kill the chances of smaller clubs in > Germany. No? What do you say to the clubs that couldn't get promoted to Bundesliga, 2. Bundesliga, 3. Liga, Regionalliga thanks to the financial behemoth that jumped the queue? > > With the influx of sugar daddies and rich owners, those type of events > > are being killed. I think this is a bad thing > > You're probably right. But then, as you surely know better than me, > this isn't the only cause, probably not even the main cause. I agree. The main cause is the growing financial disparity between clubs, and the rising effect finances have on success on the pitch, the latter mostly due to the higher player mobility. Sugardaddies are the main cause for bigger clubs being unable to achieve their aims, though - e.g. used Bayer to buy HSV's transfer targets for a time, and we just couldn't compete with their offers; Or look at Man City or Chelski buying players that clubs Liverpool or Spurs would be interested in. Sugardaddies rise the bar for everyone, and raise transfer sums and wages across the board. Sugardaddies are not the cause of the development of the past 20 years, but they are the turbo that speeds up the process. ;) > The > recent mobility of players is one. Then, in recent times, say the last > 10 years, top football has become dominated by rich clubs, with or > without sugardaddies. Money has a much greater say now, that's how it > is; all leagues must follow the trend or they risk being left behind, > as has happened to the german and french and to some extent to the > italian one. Yes. > So I don't know, in the current landscape I still think > sugardaddies are a necessity for smaller clubs to win something. All > your examples BTW were prior to 2000 I believe. Thanks to the sugardaddy of Lyon, yes. If not for him France would have had the last truly competitive top league. Ciao, SM -- http://www.gourockviews.co.uk I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously. Douglas Adams
From: MH on 5 Mar 2010 18:16 FF wrote: > MH wrote: > >>FF wrote: >> >>>MH wrote: >>> >>> >>>>FF wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Well, maybe, but those other clubs practically stand no chance of >>>>>winning trophies anyway, because of clubs from Bayern, Bremen, Hamburg >>>>>etc. Unless of course a sugardaddy comes their way too. >>>> >>>>Bad examples. Hamburg have not won the BL since the 1980s (early 80s), >>>>in spite of having a larger city to draw on and a nice big stadium with >>>>good attendance. >>>> >>>>Bremen have won a few titles but are actually quite a small club, with >>>>lower attendances than the likes of Dortmund, Schalke, Stuttgart, K�ln, >>>>Moenchengladbach etc. >>> >>>Maybe, but they're the only german clubs I know about. :-) Except for >>>Borussia who won the Champs League in 97. Anyway, my point was that >>>cities like Hoffenheim don't win titles. >>> >>> >>>>Kaiserslautern (tiny city) have won championships more recently than >>>>Hamburg, K�ln, Schalke and Hertha Berlin. >>> >>>So I guess they must have had a big sponsor. A sugardaddy. >> >>Nope. No sugar daddies, no owners (you can't really own a Bundesliga club). >> >>>>In Germany it is not just about being a big (or big city) club. The >>>>same is also true for France - PSG and Marseille, the two teams with the >>>>biggest attendances, do not dominate proceedings >>> >>>No, but Lyon is a big enough city, as is Bordeaux. As a general rule I >>>don't think you can deny what I'm saying. There may be exceptions, I >>>don't know such details, but they are exceptions. And most of them >>>probably have a sugardaddy behind them anyway. >> >>I think you will find that they don't, historically. >> >>here is a list of teams from smaller centres, without large attendances, >>that have won league titles or European trophies - as far as I know none >>of them had sugar daddies: >> >>Derby County >>Nottingham Forest >>Ipswich >>Aberdeen >>Kaiserslautern >>Auxerre >>Lens (though their attendances are big by French standards) >>Borussia Moenchengladbach (now have a large stadium but didn't then) >>Strassbourg >>Nantes >>St. Etienne (again, they have large support for a smaller city, though) >>Deportivo La Coruna >>Real Zaragoza >>Bruges > > > All these are still pretty big cities, with the possible exception of > Auxerre. Still much bigger than Hoffenheim. > You may find that Hoffenheim is too small to rightfully belong in the > Bundesliga. You probably have a point. Still, I can't hold it against > Hopp that he wants his city (village, whatever) to win a title and is > willing to put big money into it (especially since he failed so far). > If he did this for say more than 2 titles I would probably begin to > hate it too. > Anyway, Hopp isn't the one to kill the chances of smaller clubs in > Germany. From what I can say, he looks benign, at least so far. > Burlesco OTOH is another matter. > > >>With the influx of sugar daddies and rich owners, those type of events >>are being killed. I think this is a bad thing > > > You're probably right. But then, as you surely know better than me, > this isn't the only cause, probably not even the main cause. The > recent mobility of players is one. Then, in recent times, say the last > 10 years, top football has become dominated by rich clubs, with or > without sugardaddies. Money has a much greater say now, that's how it > is; all leagues must follow the trend or they risk being left behind, > as has happened to the german and french and to some extent to the > italian one. So I don't know, in the current landscape I still think > sugardaddies are a necessity for smaller clubs to win something. All > your examples BTW were prior to 2000 I believe. Not quite - Deportivo won the Spanish like in 2000 so just under the wire. Nantes won in 2001. Bruges most recently in 2005. Note that Bruges is a much smaller city than Brussels, Antwerp, Charleroi, Liege or Ghent, but supports two top division clubs, one of which is regularly champion. Population is 117 k. Metro area 255 k.
From: FF on 5 Mar 2010 19:42
Sven Mischkies wrote: > FF <FAIRFOOTBALL.COM(a)domainsbyproxy.com> wrote: > > > You may find that Hoffenheim is too small to rightfully belong in the > > Bundesliga. You probably have a point. > > No, I wouldn' make that point. If a small club rises thanks to good > work, than I appreciate that. Yes but a club the size of Hoffenheim will never make it in the BL without a sugardaddy. So either you accept that they don't belong in the BL, or you accept the sugardaddy. > > Anyway, Hopp isn't the one to kill the chances of smaller clubs in > > Germany. > > No? What do you say to the clubs that couldn't get promoted to > Bundesliga, 2. Bundesliga, 3. Liga, Regionalliga thanks to the financial > behemoth that jumped the queue? I'm sorry but I don't care much about whether a club is last in the first division or first in the second one. I'm talking first of all of chances of winning the title or at least getting into the champs league. Anyway, I don't know the specifics here but I imagine if somebody like Hopp is putting so much of his own money into such a thing, with a very slim chance of seeing much of it back, he'll at least want good results for it so he'll want things to be done the right way. And since he's definitely and undoubtedly the boss there, and I guess he has some head for business, maybe even for football or else maybe he wouldn't be venturing into this, he might be doing a good job. You know, military is better in wartime than democracy. I imagine in many clubs there will be a lot of influences and interests, which may not always result in the best decisions. Correct me if I'm wrong. > > So I don't know, in the current landscape I still think > > sugardaddies are a necessity for smaller clubs to win something. All > > your examples BTW were prior to 2000 I believe. > > Thanks to the sugardaddy of Lyon, yes. If not for him France would have > had the last truly competitive top league. Competitive internally but not externally. In recent years the only french club to mount a halfway credible attempt at competing in the Champs League is Lyon. MH wrote: > FF wrote: > > > > sugardaddies are a necessity for smaller clubs to win something. All > > your examples BTW were prior to 2000 I believe. > > Not quite - Deportivo won the Spanish like in 2000 so just under the > wire. Nantes won in 2001. Nantes is pretty big, I wouldn't count it here. > Bruges most recently in 2005. Note that Bruges > is a much smaller city than Brussels, Antwerp, Charleroi, Liege or > Ghent, but supports two top division clubs, one of which is regularly > champion. > Population is 117 k. Metro area 255 k. In Belgium. Weaker leagues will of course allow for such things much more frequently than the top ones. |