DFL votes to keep 50+1 rule

[Rucksackfranzose]

https://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/bundesliga/startseite/719998/artikel_502b1-bleibt-bestehen_profiklubs-gegen-regelaenderung.html

Normally I expect very little from the DFL, that´s a brilliant decision, though.

[Tommy]

[Faithcore]

At the moment the 50+1 rule is nothing but a joke. The original idea is still very good but I don't see that it's being used anymore looking at Hoffenheim and Leipzig. So I'm not sure what to think of this decision. 

[nudge]

Just now, Faithcore said:

At the moment the 50+1 rule is nothing but a joke. The original idea is still very good but I don't see that it's being used anymore looking at Hoffenheim and Leipzig. So I'm not sure what to think of this decision. 

I agree with the sentiment, and I also have mixed feelings about the actual implementation of 50+1 (or rather lack of it in certain cases), but at least as it stands now,  the likes of Hoffenheim and Leipzig are annoying and unfair exceptions rather than the "normal" way the things are done, so it's still preferable to a full-blown private ownership model for all. 

However, it's also obvious that the gap between Bayern and the rest of the league (as well as the gap between the Bundesliga and other top European leagues, although I personally don't really care about that) will keep on widening. Now, I don't think that getting rid of 50+1 rule and allowing investors to take over would solve the problem, but something else needs to be done to level the playing field a little bit. Unfortunately, I don't really see any feasible solutions at this point. Well, other than getting rid of Bayern, but I guess that's not really an option  

[Rucksackfranzose]

18 minutes ago, Faithcore said:

At the moment the 50+1 rule is nothing but a joke. The original idea is still very good but I don't see that it's being used anymore looking at Hoffenheim and Leipzig. So I'm not sure what to think of this decision. 

Well the article says they´re eager to make the rule iuridicaly unchallengable, which suggests they seem to be honest in their attempt to defend the underlying spirit of this rule against its undermining through e.g. the two teams you mentioned in the future. This would be something I appreciated.

[Faithcore]

4 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Well the article says they´re eager to make the rule iuridicaly unchallengable, which suggests they seem to be honest in their attempt to defend the underlying spirit of this rule against its undermining through e.g. the two teams you mentioned in the future. This would be something I appreciated.

For sure.

I think they should start with kicking both of those teams out of the league

[Rucksackfranzose]

9 minutes ago, nudge said:

I agree with the sentiment, and I also have mixed feelings about the actual implementation of 50+1 (or rather lack of it in certain cases), but at least as it stands now,  the likes of Hoffenheim and Leipzig are annoying and unfair exceptions rather than the "normal" way the things are done, so it's still preferable to a full-blown private ownership model for all. 

However, it's also obvious that the gap between Bayern and the rest of the league (as well as the gap between the Bundesliga and other top European leagues, although I personally don't really care about that) will keep on widening. Now, I don't think that getting rid of 50+1 rule and allowing investors to take over would solve the problem, but something else needs to be done to level the playing field a little bit. Unfortunately, I don't really see any feasible solutions at this point. Well, other than getting rid of Bayern, but I guess that's not really an option  

Actually don´t think getting rid of the 50+1 rule would reduce the gap between the richer and the smaller clubs. The contrary is true since investors a more likely to invest at Bayern, BVB, Schalke and a few other clubs than to give their money to Mainz, Freiburg and the likes, in my opinion.

[nudge]

Just now, Rucksackfranzose said:

Actually don´t think getting rid of the 50+1 rule would reduce the gap between the richer and the smaller clubs. The contrary this the truth since investors a more likely to invest at Bayern, BVB, Schalke and a few other clubs than to give their money to Mainz, Freiburg and the likes, in my opinion.

I absolutely agree, hence my post saying that instead of getting rid of the 50+1, something else needs to be done to level the playing field to reduce the gap  

[Viva la FCB+]

On 3/22/2018 at 09:13, Faithcore said:

At the moment the 50+1 rule is nothing but a joke. The original idea is still very good but I don't see that it's being used anymore looking at Hoffenheim and Leipzig. So I'm not sure what to think of this decision. 

There in lies the problem with such a rule, If you can jail tax evasion why cant you jail RB 

 

[Batard]

It must be a cultural difference, but I will never understand the dislike that Hoffenheim and RB generate in Germany. PSG safe to say are an anathema in France to many because they’re a young plastic club, is it something similar? Then again. This is the face of modern football. If nothing changes then the status quo is maintained and that only benefits those who have a semblance of history. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

I hope my English will be sufficient to explain only one of the reasons why some people including me dislike both clubs. To do so I have to go further back, historically all German clubs, not only football clubs but also carnival, gun et al clubs even the voluntary fire fighters, to put it short literally every club is organised the same way. A number of persons unite to persuade the same aim. By doing this they place an obligation on themselves to pay annually a defined amount of money to ensure the club may be able to fulfill its tasks. As compensation for said sum the members have the right to determine the means the club use to reach their aim and to elect the clubs officials in annual member meetings. These elections follow the one member one vote principle. Usually a club long to gain as much members as possible since more members mean more membership fee. ( On a sidenote this explains why the most Germans tend to use the terms we and us when referring to their club, as many of them are members.)

RB on the other hand undermined this system by introducing two kinds of membership, the membership as above, which is reduced to 13 persons, all of which are Red Bull employees, and a so called "Förder" membership were people may pay their fee but got exactly none of the aforementioned rights. So they lead the democratic principle which is inherent to the German club system ad absurdum.

Concerning their undermining the 50+1 rule we should agree to disagree as I remember several threads on the former forums when we discutated that and couldn´t come to an agreement because our mind sets were to different.

I could go on about RB not starting in the lowest tier like other new formed clubs are obliged to do, but if I mentioned each and every reason to dislike both the clubs you were reffering to Sir Balon would be moaning about this post being much to long.

[nudge]

Apparently the four clubs that voted against the 50+1 rule were Bayern, RB, Heidenheim and Fürth  Fürth claim to have voted not against the rule, but against its current implementation; Heidenheim's reasoning is similar, and they said they would be in favour of some sort of a reform due to current unequal opportunities. Somewhat surprisingly, Hannover abstained.

[nudge]

Original quote from Kicker: "Es befremdet mich, dass ein Zweitligist, der nach meinem Kenntnisstand noch nie in einem europäischen Wettbewerb mitgespielt hat, auf einmal nicht nur eine prominente, sondern auch dominierende Rolle einnimmt", sagt Rummenigge gleich zu Beginn, spricht später noch von einem "mäßig erfolgreichen Zweitligisten", einem "populistischen Spektakel von Rettig" und davon, dass sich die DFL "nicht von Ideologen oder Zwecknostalgikern vorführen lassen" dürfe.

 

[Relling]

What a disgustingly arrogant thing to say. I do not see how playing in the soap opera commonly known as Champions league gives your word more weight on this issue.