Dzeko's Right Boot
Well-Known Member
Another brilliant post, cheers Ruhr. One question: what is this 'Club members' category you mention?
Bundesliga review
- Thread starter Ruhr
- Start date
- Status
Dzeko's Right Boot said:
In Germany 51 per cent of the Bundesliga club (apart from Wolfsburg and Leverkusen who started as clubs for companies Volkswagen and Bayer) has to be owned by a membership association.
To take Bayern:
Professional football at Bayern is run by the spin-off organization FC Bayern München AG. AG is short for Aktiengesellschaft, and Bayern is run like a joint stock company, a company whose stock are not listed on the public stock exchange, but is privately owned. 84.1% of FC Bayern München AG is owned by the club, the FC Bayern München e. V. (e. V. is short for Eingetragener Verein, which translates into "Registered Club") and 9.4% by sports goods manufacturer Adidas and 6.5% by automobile company Audi.[73] Adidas acquired its shares in 2002 for €77m. The money was designated to help finance the Allianz Arena.[74] In 2009 Audi paid €90m for their share.
It is about 20 per cent for Adidas and Audi - Wiki is wrong here.
FC Bayern München e.V. has 183.000 members - they own 84.1 % of the shares of the club.
ManCitizens.
Well-Known Member
Maldeika said:
Thanks for your information. Quick question why do Bayern fans have a problem with clubs like Wolfsburg and Hoffenheim because of their ownership? urely it's a bit rich when Bayern are also 15% commerically owned by Adidas and Audi.
Ruhr
Well-Known Member
Maldeika said:
i´m a club member at Schalke. Once a year i´m able to vote at least for one member of the control board of the club. The control board hires and controls the club management (general manager, finance manager, team manager). So at least i have a small influence on the club management. (by the way, it is nearly unpossible to get a ticket for Schalke matches, if you are not a club member.)
Most fans don´t like Wolfsburg and Leverkusen, because they are an exception from that "51 per cent" rule quoted above. And they hate Hoffenheim. In Hoffenheim club fans my have the same rights like i have at Schalke, but their sponsor Dietmar Hopp finally decides everything, though he is not even their club manager. This is a clear violation of that rule, but noone cares and fans are afraid, that other will follow that example, like Red Bull is doing it at Leipzig currently.
Bembeltown
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2011
- Messages
- 1,065
- Location
- Waldstadion, Frankfurt, Germany
- Team supported
- Eintracht Frankfurt
I think the majority of people (at least the ones that care) hate Hoffenheim because they are as plastic and artificial as it gets.
Rich sugar daddy decided to invest loads of money into his hometown (actually its a viallage) club and basically "forces" them all the way to the Bundesliga with his money.
Just because they are all of a sudden playing Bundesliga a "fanbase" developes and a club that used to have 1000 to 2000 fans all of a sudden gets an average attendance of 28000.
All that while the "proper" clubs from the same region of Germany like Waldhof Mannheim, Karlsruhe, Kaiserslautern are struggeling to either stay in the top tier (Lautern) or disappeared in the depths of amateur football (Waldhof).
The whole sugardaddy concept is despised by the majority of German football fans for the reasons Ruhr stated.
I think two years ago when this shower of shit was playing Dortmund at home Hoffenheim installed additional PA systems right under Dortmund´s standing area to be able to "drown out" any critical chants or in general chants aimed at Dietmar Hopp.
Thats how pathetic they are...
As Kaiserslautern once stated on a huge banner "Der Mob hasst Hopp" (the mob hates Hopp).
Rich sugar daddy decided to invest loads of money into his hometown (actually its a viallage) club and basically "forces" them all the way to the Bundesliga with his money.
Just because they are all of a sudden playing Bundesliga a "fanbase" developes and a club that used to have 1000 to 2000 fans all of a sudden gets an average attendance of 28000.
All that while the "proper" clubs from the same region of Germany like Waldhof Mannheim, Karlsruhe, Kaiserslautern are struggeling to either stay in the top tier (Lautern) or disappeared in the depths of amateur football (Waldhof).
The whole sugardaddy concept is despised by the majority of German football fans for the reasons Ruhr stated.
I think two years ago when this shower of shit was playing Dortmund at home Hoffenheim installed additional PA systems right under Dortmund´s standing area to be able to "drown out" any critical chants or in general chants aimed at Dietmar Hopp.
Thats how pathetic they are...
As Kaiserslautern once stated on a huge banner "Der Mob hasst Hopp" (the mob hates Hopp).
Ruhr
Well-Known Member
Bembeltown said:
Banner says: A rich man is often just a poor man with a lot of money lol
ManCitizens.
Well-Known Member
Point taken, but that doesn't answer my question. Why is it acceptable for Bayern to be commericially owned by 2 seperate entities purely to make money. Why is 1 individuals money wrong yet the money from Audi and Adidas is fine? Double standards.
Surely the difference is that Bayern would still be a very big club without Audi and Adidas. Hoffenheim without Hopp would be just another small town team. If Audi and Adidas were to withdraw, Bayern would have no difficulty in finding other funders. Hoffenheim would find it almost impossible to find another sugar-daddy.ManCitizens. said:
Also, Bayern fans would still seem to have a lot of power in the club's affairs, and actually do still own the major part of the club. Hoffenheim's fans, as has been pointed out, have very little or no power, because the sugar-daddy could always threaten to withdraw all his funding, and Hoffenheim would return to being just what it was before he put all his money in.
ManCitizens. said:
No double standards - it is nothing else at the other Bundesliga clubs (apart from the clubs with other histories). 51 per cent of the shares and the controlling rights have to be in the hand of the club members.
It does not matter if it is an individual or another company - the 51 per cent are the stake.
And owned - they do not have to say anything - they just have a place in the controlling board - not in the club lead. It is an investment for Audi and Adidas - not much more (apart from showing their long lasting connection to the club, marketing or image reasons - the partnership between Adidas and Bayern lasts since 50 years...)
bayern-flo2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 97
The official website states:Maldeika said:
FC Bayern München e.V. (FCBM e.V.) 81,8 %
adidas AG 9,1 %
AUDI AG 9,1 %
183k members sounds impressive, but the number is also due to the fact that you need to be a member in order to have at least a chance to get a ticket for not completely uninteresting matches.
But anyway: For me the adidas-Deal was understandable in the context of the new stadium. But after the Audi-Deal the club-members (imo correctly) forced that the FC Bayern München AG (FCBM AG) needs a 75% approval of the club-members annual meeting if the FCBM AG plans to sell more than 20% of the shares to one single shareholder or if the FCBM e.V. would own less than 70% of the shares.
The club-members also forced the FCBM AG to end their partnership with f***ing viagogo at the next possible date. They have an partnership for selling tickets of domestic matches.
If you own a season ticket or a normal ticket for a certain domestic match, you can sell your ticket at face value. For some matches viagogo directly sell some tickets. Viagogo charges several disputable fees, ok... But on the other hand the same 'business partner' allows that customers can easily sell their tickets for away games (like cup-finals) at exorbitant prices.
There are still some club-members left who want success of course, but not at any price.
- Status