FC Augsburg Thread

[Eco]

Yikes, Patrick scores his second of the match, this one has an unlucky bounce in the box and Giki had no chance. 

Come on guys. 

Augsburg 0 - 2 Qarabag

[Eco]

Clear handball in the box and Augsburg get a penalty kick! 

C'mon Gouw

[Eco]

And Augsburg score thanks to Gouweleeuw from the spot. 

Augsburg 2-1 Qarabag

[Eco]

Flo scores and it's 2-2 at halftime. 

Could easily be up 3-2 after Caliguri missed an absolute sitter. 

So far, the team is looking good. Nice to see Jakob and Dorsch on the pitch. With the latter really trying to connect with Flo. 

[Eco]

It's over at 2-2. 

Quality game honestly, the new guys were super impressive and just a little bit more clinical in front of net and we'd have taken this 4 or 5 to 2. 

Ah, I'm ready for the new season to kick off. 

[Eco]

Excited for this - 

 

[Coma+]

10 minutes ago, Eco said:

Excited for this - 

 

It'll be like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

[Eco]

Just now, Coma said:

It'll be like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

But it'll be good for the guys. PSG aren't going to take this very seriously, but I always prefer these pre-season fixtures over ones against teams in the 8th tier. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

5 minutes ago, Eco said:

But it'll be good for the guys. PSG aren't going to take this very seriously, but I always prefer these pre-season fixtures over ones against teams in the 8th tier. 

Couldn't disagree more. These clubs owe their wealth to the widespread popularity football gained in Germany through the tiredless dedication of grassroots clubs. as well as their members and players. Therefore said teams deserve those matches, while friendlies against some fancy foreign clubs only serve the purpose to attract even more limelight and therefore are dispensable.

[Eco]

4 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Couldn't disagree more. These clubs owe their wealth to the widespread popularity football gained in Germany through the tiredless dedication of grassroots clubs. as well as their members and players. Therefore said teams deserve those matches, while friendlies against some fancy foreign clubs only serve the purpose to attract even more limelight and therefore are dispensable.

My point is being that I prefer friendlies against bigger clubs. This we have Qarabag, PSG, and Cagliari, which all top level foreign clubs, and I much prefer that compared to matches against Ingolstadt II or some other young development team.

[Eco]

10 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Couldn't disagree more. These clubs owe their wealth to the widespread popularity football gained in Germany through the tiredless dedication of grassroots clubs. as well as their members and players

I also disagree with this as well. 

Clubs like PSG gain their wealth from oil rich people who want to get into the sport. If anything, I'd say the rise in the EPL globally brought more attention to the sport as whole, not the grassroots and membership system in Germany. 

With that being the case, I think the German system is by far the best and healthiest, but I don't think it's why teams like PSG would want to play a team like Augsburg, which don't appear well liked within Germany and have a membership less than 20k and not even in to top 20 in Germany. 

[nudge]

27 minutes ago, Eco said:

I also disagree with this as well. 

Clubs like PSG gain their wealth from oil rich people who want to get into the sport. If anything, I'd say the rise in the EPL globally brought more attention to the sport as whole, not the grassroots and membership system in Germany. 

With that being the case, I think the German system is by far the best and healthiest, but I don't think it's why teams like PSG would want to play a team like Augsburg, which don't appear well liked within Germany and have a membership less than 20k and not even in to top 20 in Germany. 

And I disagree with that, personally. Clubs like PSG gain their wealth from people and governments who want to whitewash their image or clean their dirty money, mostly.

Bringing all that money might have helped with popularity of the sport (although I'm not sure it's a good argument, considering that football has been one of the most popular sports globally for about a century before oil, corporations and oligarch money), but at what cost? The gap between the big and small clubs is massive and is getting larger and larger, the game has become by far less affordable to the fans, the clubs do not represent the community and do not perform their social functions and responsibilities as they used to. It is mostly just about the money now and viewing the fan solely as a customer. Rising cost of everything including tickets, beer and snacks in the stadium, fan merchandise. The absolutely ridiculous transfer fees and agent payments. Forced entertainment and cringy media circus. Matches being broadcast on three different pay channels requiring three subscriptions. Football becoming a sterile entertainment biz and alienating itself from local match-going fans. That's not what sport is supposed to be, in my opinion, and ongoing commercialisation is the root cause for it. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

34 minutes ago, Eco said:

I also disagree with this as well. 

Clubs like PSG gain their wealth from oil rich people who want to get into the sport. If anything, I'd say the rise in the EPL globally brought more attention to the sport as whole, not the grassroots and membership system in Germany. 

With that being the case, I think the German system is by far the best and healthiest, but I don't think it's why teams like PSG would want to play a team like Augsburg, which don't appear well liked within Germany and have a membership less than 20k and not even in to top 20 in Germany. 

Of course PSG gained their wealth oil money. I was talking Augsburgh though,  and the rise of EPL and the attention it' gets in Amerika is irrelevant to their existence, to be frank. All German clubs, including Bayern., own their wealth the the German system not the risen interest in some countries that traditionally ignored football.

[Eco]

1 minute ago, nudge said:

And I disagree with that, personally. Clubs like PSG gain their wealth from people and governments who want to whitewash their image or clean their dirty money, mostly.

Certainly could be the case, but I would imagine this is rare and not the norm. 

1 minute ago, nudge said:

Bringing all that money might have helped with popularity of the sport (although I'm not sure it's a good argument, considering that football has been one of the most popular sports globally for about a century before oil, 

Yes, but Oil started the massive overseas investments in large scale. Starting with Chelsea, and then going with Munich, PSG, and others. Now we have a ton of outside investment from all starts of industries, but I think the floodgates opened when ME and Russia got a massive influx of oil money. 

 

4 minutes ago, nudge said:

The gap between the big and small clubs is massive and is getting larger and larger, the game has become by far less affordable to the fans, the clubs do not represent the community and do not perform their social functions and responsibilities as they used to. It is mostly just about the money now and viewing the fan solely as a customer. Rising cost of everything including tickets, beer and snacks in the stadium, fan merchandise. The absolutely ridiculous transfer fees and agent payments. Forced entertainment and cringy media circus. Matches being broadcast on three different pay channels requiring three subscriptions. Football becoming a sterile entertainment biz and alienating itself from local match-going fans. That's not what sport is supposed to be, in my opinion, and ongoing commercialisation is the root cause for it. 

The gap here in the States don't exist like it does in global football, because all of our sports have tight-ish salary cap rules. Some much more strict than others. 

But certainly the rise on tickets, food, and disconnect with the community is very common here as well, and has really outpriced the normal, everyday fan. That's why I love what Arthur Blank did with Atlanta United, but basically putting a cap on beer, food, and everything inside the stadium as he knows it's expensive to get into the stadium, and people shouldn't have to be broke because a beer is $15 and a cheeseburger is $20. Instead, Beer here is $4, and a cheeseburger is $5, which is the normal price anywhere in the city. 

[Eco]

7 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Of course PSG gained their wealth oil money. I was talking Augsburgh though,  and the rise of EPL and the attention it' gets in Amerika is irrelevant to their existence, to be frank. All German clubs, including Bayern., own their wealth the the German system not the risen interest in some countries that traditionally ignored football.

Ah, I misread that and assumed you were directing it towards PSG and not Augsburg. 

I know there have been outside investment for Augsburg, but I still don't think they are doing anything wrong here. They still apply to the 50+1 rule, and I feel like they do a solid job with connecting with the community, but all I see and hear is online as I don't actually live in Augsburg. 

But you have a smaller city, that has made the Bundesliga and remained there (barely in most years), with a chance to take the boys to Paris and play a CL contender in PSG and get more recognition. I still don't see any issue with it. 

[nudge]

23 minutes ago, Eco said:

Certainly could be the case, but I would imagine this is rare and not the norm. 

Agree to disagree, then. In my opinion, the absolute majority of investors are there not because they love the game and want to be part of it, and not even because they want to make money, as owning a football club is hardly profitable. Whether its the oil-rich Gulf states and sheikhs, dodgy Russian oligarchs, or lemonade corporations, it's just a way to expand their brand, improve their image, a geopolitical tool, or a good old money laundering.

23 minutes ago, Eco said:

Yes, but Oil started the massive overseas investments in large scale. Starting with Chelsea, and then going with Munich, PSG, and others. Now we have a ton of outside investment from all starts of industries, but I think the floodgates opened when ME and Russia got a massive influx of oil money. 

I think the main difference between us is that I don't see those investments as anything good for the sport in long-term, so I'm not sure why I should applaud it.

23 minutes ago, Eco said:

The gap here in the States don't exist like it does in global football, because all of our sports have tight-ish salary cap rules. Some much more strict than others. 

But certainly the rise on tickets, food, and disconnect with the community is very common here as well, and has really outpriced the normal, everyday fan. That's why I love what Arthur Blank did with Atlanta United, but basically putting a cap on beer, food, and everything inside the stadium as he knows it's expensive to get into the stadium, and people shouldn't have to be broke because a beer is $15 and a cheeseburger is $20. Instead, Beer here is $4, and a cheeseburger is $5, which is the normal price anywhere in the city. 

I think the key difference is the fact that MLS is a franchise with no promotion and relegation, and no real international competition - contrary to Europe, where the influx of foreign money meant that other leagues and clubs also had to look for alternative sources to ensure the money flow in order to stay relevant. Those who do are able to compete, those who don't slowly disappear into nothingness. Sure, some clubs were always better off than some others, that's just the nature of things, but it was by far more balanced before that, with smaller clubs able to survive and improve their standing through hard honest work for decades.

[Eco]

1 minute ago, nudge said:

Agree to disagree, then. In my opinion, the absolute majority of investors are there not because they love the game and want to be part of it, and not even because they want to make money, as owning a football club is hardly profitable. Whether its the oil-rich Gulf states and sheikhs, dodgy Russian oligarchs, or lemonade corporations, it's just a way to expand their brand, improve their image, a geopolitical tool, or a good old money laundering.

I think the main difference between us is that I don't see those investments as anything good for the sport in long-term, so I'm not sure why I should applaud it.

Oh, never said anything about applauding it. 

But on the flip side, I can't be too arsed with outside investment as I'm an American who has never been to Augsburg, that invests in Augsburg with shirts, jerseys, and membership. Granted it's nothing like trying to outdo the 50+1 rule, but if I had a billion euros, I'd like put a good bit into keep Augsburg competitive in the Bundesliga while keeping them financially healthy. 

1 minute ago, nudge said:

I think the key difference is the fact that MLS is a franchise with no promotion and relegation, and no real international competition - contrary to Europe, where the influx of foreign money meant that other leagues and clubs also had to look for alternative sources to ensure the money flow in order to stay relevant. Those who do are able to compete, those who don't slowly disappear into nothingness. Sure, some clubs were always better off than some others, that's just the nature of things, but it was by far more balanced before the that, with smaller clubs able to survive and improve their standing through hard honest work for decades.

Yeah - MLS is shit, and none of our sports have anything similar to Promotion/Relegation, so it's truly a foreign idea to us 'yanks'. 

It's a double edge sword for me though. I think the massive influx of money via tv deals, make it almost a make or break for some teams to remain in the Bundesliga. But without those TV deals, I wouldn't be able to watch Augsburg and you wouldn't likely be able to watch Bremen from anywhere in the world. 

But the TV rights and global broadcasting has allowed people like us to watch our teams from all over the world. 

 

[nudge]

6 minutes ago, Eco said:

Oh, never said anything about applauding it. 

But on the flip side, I can't be too arsed with outside investment as I'm an American who has never been to Augsburg, that invests in Augsburg with shirts, jerseys, and membership. Granted it's nothing like trying to outdo the 50+1 rule, but if I had a billion euros, I'd like put a good bit into keep Augsburg competitive in the Bundesliga while keeping them financially healthy.

Frankly, there's a difference between buying merchandise, paying membership fee, even sponsoring, and between being an owner of the club who runs it... 

9 minutes ago, Eco said:

Yeah - MLS is shit, and none of our sports have anything similar to Promotion/Relegation, so it's truly a foreign idea to us 'yanks'. 

It's a double edge sword for me though. I think the massive influx of money via tv deals, make it almost a make or break for some teams to remain in the Bundesliga. But without those TV deals, I wouldn't be able to watch Augsburg and you wouldn't likely be able to watch Bremen from anywhere in the world. 

But the TV rights and global broadcasting has allowed people like us to watch our teams from all over the world. 

I think we're not really understanding each other here. I'm not saying "all money in football is bad, let's ban all sponsorship deals, advertising, merchandise sales and TV deals altogether", that's completely unrealistic, unnecessary and it was also never the case before. TV deals are not a problem, the problem is fair money distribution, to be honest. Also, TV deals existed long before the influx of foreign money as well, it's a legit source of income, and not really comparable with some single entity taking over a club and injecting billions into it. But I do think it's ridiculous that a person living in Germany has to subscribe to both Sky and DAZN for example, if they want to watch their team play. At any case, if TV rights didn't exist for some reason, the league or each club could simply offer their matches for fans via a season subscription or PPV on their website. Over-commercialization and the influx of foreign money that completely changed the landscape of football is what I'm arguing against.

[Eco]

7 minutes ago, nudge said:

I think we're not really understanding each other here. I'm not saying "all money in football is bad, let's ban all sponsorship deals, advertising, merchandise sales and TV deals altogether", that's completely unrealistic, unnecessary and it was also never the case before. TV deals are not a problem, the problem is fair money distribution, to be honest. Also, TV deals existed long before the influx of foreign money as well, it's a legit source of income, and not really comparable with some single entity taking over a club and injecting billions into it. But I do think it's ridiculous that a person living in Germany has to subscribe to both Sky and DAZN for example, if they want to watch their team play. At any case, if TV rights didn't exist for some reason, the league or each club could simply offer their matches for fans via a season subscription or PPV on their website. Over-commercialization and the influx of foreign money that completely changed the landscape of football is what I'm arguing against.

Fair enough and this drives me nuts as well. 

I have to pay a fortune for NFL games, but not if I lived overseas, meanwhile for $10/mo, I get all the Bundesliga matches which is certainly not the case if you live in Germany. 

Completely backwards and shitty. 

But I see what you mean, TV right deals are bad in terms of it giving Sky and ESPN more control, but good for the simple fact that I can watch all games under one sub without having to sub to multiple teams to watch any match that I so want. 

[Eco]

Been trying to post the tweet, but today would have been Helmut Haller's 82nd birthday. 

I'm not familiar with him, but will certainly spend some time looking him up and his football impact. 

[SchalkeUK]

BeIn Sports 1 has coverage of PSG v Augsberg - kicked off 6 minutes ago.

[Eco]

1 minute ago, SchalkeUK said:

BeIn Sports 1 has coverage of PSG v Augsberg - kicked off 6 minutes ago.

yeah - I don't have it. 

I do have FCA but they aren't able to show it unless you are on a German server, which I'm going to try and VPN in. 

[nudge]

1 minute ago, Eco said:

yeah - I don't have it. 

I do have FCA but they aren't able to show it unless you are on a German server, which I'm going to try and VPN in. 

https://youtu.be/imK2xgk_UmM

[SchalkeUK]

Nice one Inga!!!

Water break half-way in first half and both teams playing as if this was a serious game - not a friendly and making it a good game to watch.  The PSG youngsters seem to be playing for their first team places and Augsb are making it a hard on for them.  Hope you can see this.

[Stan]

PSG scored on 62mins but Augsburg equalise a few minutes after.