Oliver Burke

[vanderark14]

7 minutes ago, deecie said:

No, the difference is that only one of them is being bankrolled by their parent company as a marketing exercise.

I have no doubt that this is one of the RB agendas but lets be honest its not their only agenda, the people behind it do want to create a successful football team and they have huge focus on youth players. they are not perfect but my point is that its hardly worth the protests and fuss being held.

[davew]

9 minutes ago, deecie said:

No, the difference is that only one of them is being bankrolled by their parent company as a marketing exercise.

so playing your home games in the Volkswagen Arena, and putting the Volkswagen emblem on all your shirts has nothing to do with marketing?

[TA-West Germany]

In addition to some other points mentioned here there are a few other important things missing why RB Leipzig is highly disliked:

1)by the usual structure of German clubs called "e.V." you as a private person are eligible to get member of your club. For example, by paying a yearly fee you can join your club, decide/vote in the part of that e.V. etc - let's say if the members of the club would like to rule out a president that does a bad job they could do that after some time. Within the structure of RB Leipzig this is not possible because the membership costs far more than an average one (1000€ compared to about 80-100€ average in other clubs) and you don't get the right to vote anybody in there.

2)they don't care at all about any supporters related topics. They would ban critical banners, etc. They do not have any democratic sense of this at all

3)their club logo and advertisement only fall to Red Bull. A normal club will have to be supported by different sponsorships. Here, only one company makes it all but decides all. They had to change their club logo before being allowed into 2. Bundesliga (DFL owns this) several times.

The real mess about all of this being made happen is that DFB (football association) and league (DFL) allowed all this. Some of their rules to allow a club playing in top flight of German football were clearly broken and they don't care at all.

 

[thplinth]

21 minutes ago, davew said:

All clubs owned by large companies. So their situations have something in common.

 Very good point. So they are completely alike then.

[Yorkie]

10 minutes ago, TA-West Germany said:

1)by the usual structure of German clubs called "e.V." you as a private person are eligible to get member of your club. For example, by paying a yearly fee you can join your club, decide/vote in the part of that e.V. etc - let's say if the members of the club would like to rule out a president that does a bad job they could do that after some time. Within the structure of RB Leipzig this is not possible because the membership costs far more than an average one (1000€ compared to about 80-100€ average in other clubs) and you don't get the right to vote anybody in there.

 

That's really interesting - thanks.

"e.V" sounds like an eminently sensible structure. Clubs in the UK take note.

[TA-West Germany]

24 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

That's really interesting - thanks.

"e.V" sounds like an eminently sensible structure. Clubs in the UK take note.

e.V. is sensitive in the way that it allows members to take ownership or decisions. It is very different to UK clubs. The e.V. part of the club is not allowed to be sold more than 49% to public and that is what means 50+1

[BraveheartGordon]

The real story of the emergence of clubs like RB Leipzig and TSG Hoffenheim is that they are almost pitted against the underperformance of traditionally big clubs like Hamburg and Stuttgart who have been managed horribly over the last few years.

 

The real point is that it doesn't matter if you were founded in the 1860's or 2010's, if your club isn't well run then you'll fall behind.

Clubs in Scotland would do well to heed the same message.

[thplinth]

I was trying to see how they managed to get round the 50+1 rule without predating it. All I can see here is this big membership fee stuff but that can't be solely it. 1000 euros v 80 euros is a lot but feck all as we know for mug football fans (just look at the UK model). That would not be enough to stop them. So what else did they do? Surely the german law must have approved it or how are they operating? So what was their trick?

[davew]

The trick was to make the majority of members red bull employees, then make it a closed shop.

The German league later forced them to allow new members, but they got around this by denying new members a vote (TAWG already mentioned this)

22 hours ago, TA-West Germany said:

the membership costs far more than an average one (1000€ compared to about 80-100€ average in other clubs) and you don't get the right to vote anybody in there

 

[dezmondo]

Have read some critical comments about his performance tonight. I must have been watching a different game as I thought he was by far our most dangerous player. 

[adamntg]

5 minutes ago, dezmondo said:

Have read some critical comments about his performance tonight. I must have been watching a different game as I thought he was by far our most dangerous player. 

I agree.  Very direct, had Lithuania shiting themselves. 

[JamDav1982]

9 minutes ago, adamntg said:

I agree.  Very direct, had Lithuania shiting themselves. 

Burke never created anything or looked like scoring, countless times had poor touches and was lazy as when they had ball.

Always looks dangerous as one of those strong direct runs has potential to come to something but they never did.

[dezmondo]

5 minutes ago, JamDav1982 said:

Burke never created anything or looked like scoring, countless times had poor touches and was lazy as when they had ball.

Always looks dangerous as one of those strong direct runs has potential to come to something but they never did.

As opposed to everyone else who were having blinders!! At least he was driving forward instead of backwards passing or hopeful crosses into the box.

[JamDav1982]

Just now, dezmondo said:

As opposed to everyone else who were having blinders!! At least he was driving forward instead of backwards passing or hopeful crosses into the box.

He lost the ball constantly through dribbling into dead ends and poor touches.

All of them were shite going forward. He was as bad as the rest and lazier defending etc. 

A couple of those hopefull crosses caused troubles to their defence. Not one of his driving runs did.

[adamntg]

13 minutes ago, JamDav1982 said:

Burke never created anything or looked like scoring, countless times had poor touches and was lazy as when they had ball.

Always looks dangerous as one of those strong direct runs has potential to come to something but they never did.

I disagree - he had a great run forward followed by a good flick with the outside of his boot opening up the Lithuania defence.  When you're up against guys defending in depth I don't agree you should take off players who always look dangerous. 

[JamDav1982]

1 minute ago, adamntg said:

I disagree - he had a great run forward followed by a good flick with the outside of his boot opening up the Lithuania defence.  When you're up against guys defending in depth I don't agree you should take off players who always look dangerous. 

He never looked dangerous by what he was producing. 

Other players were looking more likely to create chances and working harder.

Scotland looked more likely to score in his time off pitch anyway.

[thplinth]

7 hours ago, dezmondo said:

As opposed to everyone else who were having blinders!! At least he was driving forward instead of backwards passing or hopeful crosses into the box.

Could not agree more. When Strachan made the Burke substitution I was gobsmacked. I just thought 'this is the change you think needs made here'? WTF. And then so soon after that they scored. Felt connected somehow.

I just cannot fathom Strachan's thinking and suspect that underneath he does not really rate Burke and played him under fan & media pressure so hooked him first chance he got to prove yet again how right he is and how wrong everyone else is. While his favourites of course can be anonymous and invisible no problem at all. He is an arse.

[Mark frae Crieff]

Burke worried them as he usually had 2 players in attendance in the final third. I think with the 2 centre halfs being booked he should have been played through the middle more, but that should have been transmitted from the side lines or from his more experienced colleagues.  Remember this was his first full start at Hampden and paired for the second time with Patterson at RB,also when subbed did his replacement have any surging runs? in what was 15 mins i think Forrest touched the ball 3 times. 

[hunchy]

Would have preferred to see Burke on the left and Ritchie on the right where they usually play. Don't think he had a bad game but wasn't his best performance. 

[Third Lanark]

7 minutes ago, hunchy said:

Would have preferred to see Burke on the left and Ritchie on the right where they usually play. Don't think he had a bad game but wasn't his best performance. 

Played for Forest nearly always on the right.