• Benvenuto! Sei atterrato sul forum dell'Inter più frequentato del web. Iscriviti subito per interagire con centinaia di tifosi neroazzurri.
    Ti aspettano giochi a premi e mille altre sorprese.   Clicca qui per registrarti adesso!

Questions for Inter fans

Eiskönig

Pulcino
19
0
0
Very interesting infos, piotor!

How do Italians feel about foreigners buying their football clubs?

...btw, am I using the thumbs up/down feature correctly? I mean to give you guys thumbs up but I fear I might be doing the other way around. :all
 

Angelus

Redazione Interfans.org
Moderatore
12.231
4.461
76
Very interesting infos, piotor!

How do Italians feel about foreigners buying their football clubs?

...btw, am I using the thumbs up/down feature correctly? I mean to give you guys thumbs up but I fear I might be doing the other way around. :all
Don't worry,you're using that correctly:giusto
 

piotor

Capitano
Moderatore
9.949
3.129
69
Very interesting infos, piotor!

How do Italians feel about foreigners buying their football clubs?

...btw, am I using the thumbs up/down feature correctly? I mean to give you guys thumbs up but I fear I might be doing the other way around. :all
Don't care about the thumbs, so just click all the buttons! :D

Well, I wouldn't say there's any strong opinion about it. Some other fans make fun of us for it, but it comes down to how well they run the club. Since you cannot count on a rich individual (Moratti/Berlusconi) always having the money and passion to run a team that requires a *lot* of investiments and dedication, we have understood that being owned by a large company is the lesser of two evils. Football has
become an international business so it's very hard for local businessmen to run a football team. Juventus is backed by FIAT so they will always be solid. On the other hand, with Moratti and Berlusconi in their 70s, we realized that there was no other option.
 

Angelus

Redazione Interfans.org
Moderatore
12.231
4.461
76
Very interesting infos, piotor!

How do Italians feel about foreigners buying their football clubs?

...btw, am I using the thumbs up/down feature correctly? I mean to give you guys thumbs up but I fear I might be doing the other way around. :all
Foreigner buyers usually mean "a lot of money"...
 

Eiskönig

Pulcino
19
0
0
Don't care about the thumbs, so just click all the buttons! :D

Well, I wouldn't say there's any strong opinion about it. Some other fans make fun of us for it, but it comes down to how well they run the club. Since you cannot count on a rich individual (Moratti/Berlusconi) always having the money and passion to run a team that requires a *lot* of investiments and dedication, we have understood that being owned by a large company is the lesser of two evils. Football has
become an international business so it's very hard for local businessmen to run a football team. Juventus is backed by FIAT so they will always be solid. On the other hand, with Moratti and Berlusconi in their 70s, we realized that there was no other option.
yeah it seems Italian clubs have historically had owners. In my country clubs usually don't have owners but chairmen/presidents which are elected by the fans who are paid registered members. It's only a matter of time until one of the bigger clubs here end up having an owner, though. And tbh, some presidents have been leading the same club for several years now, so it's almost likw they're owners.

A lot of European football fans are against rich Arabs and Americans buying clubs, and not against rich owners from their own countries doing so. That's an understandable fear, imo, since you never know if they're interested in making the club successful or use it as their own laundry.
 

Geenja

Prima squadra
539
1.939
64
Very interesting infos, piotor!

How do Italians feel about foreigners buying their football clubs?

...btw, am I using the thumbs up/down feature correctly? I mean to give you guys thumbs up but I fear I might be doing the other way around. :all
As long as they put money in the club and they buy players we would be fine to even be legally owned by a rock
 

piotor

Capitano
Moderatore
9.949
3.129
69
yeah it seems Italian clubs have historically had owners. In my country clubs usually don't have owners but chairmen/presidents which are elected by the fans who are paid registered members. It's only a matter of time until one of the bigger clubs here end up having an owner, though. And tbh, some presidents have been leading the same club for several years now, so it's almost likw they're owners.

A lot of European football fans are against rich Arabs and Americans buying clubs, and not against rich owners from their own countries doing so. That's an understandable fear, imo, since you never know if they're interested in making the club successful or use it as their own laundry.
It's an (almost) inevitable change in Football, unless you have a larg fan base (Real/Barca) or in a system like in Germany.

The new owners in Europe have understood however that they need not to mingle too much with how the football operations are run. They "bought" the company and let it continue to run normally. They want to see profit and there's only one way to do so: being competitive. That's why foreign owners are not frowned upon: they invest a lot of money in the club and want to expect a return on the field. That's exactly what we also want.

Fortunately UEFA also came up with a system to protect the clubs (the so called financial fair play), which doesn't allow clubs to rely solely on the money of the owners, but rather pushes for the owners to invest in the financial soildity of the club through sponsor and infrastructures, so if that they happened to quit, the club would be solid regardless.
 

Eiskönig

Pulcino
19
0
0
It's an (almost) inevitable change in Football, unless you have a larg fan base (Real/Barca) or in a system like in Germany.

The new owners in Europe have understood however that they need not to mingle too much with how the football operations are run. They "bought" the company and let it continue to run normally. They want to see profit and there's only one way to do so: being competitive. That's why foreign owners are not frowned upon: they invest a lot of money in the club and want to expect a return on the field. That's exactly what we also want.

Fortunately UEFA also came up with a system to protect the clubs (the so called financial fair play), which doesn't allow clubs to rely solely on the money of the owners, but rather pushes for the owners to invest in the financial soildity of the club through sponsor and infrastructures, so if that they happened to quit, the club would be solid regardless.
I think it's mostly people from smaller countries that don't like this change. Although what made the gap between big and small countries in terms of club football really was the Bosman ruling and UEFA seeding of teams and allowing 2 to 4 temas of the top countries into the Champions League. Clubs from smaller countries due to their countries of origin having lower nominal GDP and lower populations, thus less fans and less revenue pouring in. Makes you wonder if it's only a matter of time until Turkey and Russia become European football powerhouses...
 

piotor

Capitano
Moderatore
9.949
3.129
69
I think it's mostly people from smaller countries that don't like this change. Although what made the gap between big and small countries in terms of club football really was the Bosman ruling and UEFA seeding of teams and allowing 2 to 4 temas of the top countries into the Champions League. Clubs from smaller countries due to their countries of origin having lower nominal GDP and lower populations, thus less fans and less revenue pouring in. Makes you wonder if it's only a matter of time until Turkey and Russia become European football powerhouses...
In sports were less money is involved in absolute (Basketball, Waterpolo, Volleyball) minor countries have excellent results.

I'd say however that until the day when UEFA "locks" the CL to only the major leagues, minor countries should still be happy. Making to the group stage alone is *a lot* of money for them (think of Ludogorets, Dinamo Kyev, Celtic, Rostov etc) that allows them to invest.

And there's always the EL.
 

Angelus

Redazione Interfans.org
Moderatore
12.231
4.461
76
yeah it seems Italian clubs have historically had owners. In my country clubs usually don't have owners but chairmen/presidents which are elected by the fans who are paid registered members. It's only a matter of time until one of the bigger clubs here end up having an owner, though. And tbh, some presidents have been leading the same club for several years now, so it's almost likw they're owners.

A lot of European football fans are against rich Arabs and Americans buying clubs, and not against rich owners from their own countries doing so. That's an understandable fear, imo, since you never know if they're interested in making the club successful or use it as their own laundry.
That's impossible in Italy.
 

Eiskönig

Pulcino
19
0
0
In sports were less money is involved in absolute (Basketball, Waterpolo, Volleyball) minor countries have excellent results.

I'd say however that until the day when UEFA "locks" the CL to only the major leagues, minor countries should still be happy. Making to the group stage alone is *a lot* of money for them (think of Ludogorets, Dinamo Kyev, Celtic, Rostov etc) that allows them to invest.

And there's always the EL.
Depends on the small country. In a country without much football tradition or historically successful clubs such as Slovenia or Bulgaria, I'm sure people don't mind that much; not to mention that in many of those countries people support a foreign club instead of local ones. I know a Slovenian guy who supports Bayern München and once met a Slovak who supports Liverpool, per example.

To some clubs, playing in Europe is already a bonus, but for others playing in the EL is considered a failure unless your club wins it. Here in Portugal; Benfica, Sporting and Porto fans consider a failure to finish 3rd in the CL group stage and then falling onto the EL and ending up not winning it. I'm sure Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord fans feel the same about that competition, same for fans of top Russian, Ukrainian and Turkish clubs.

Perhaps in a few decades domestic leagues will eventually stop existing as we know and regional leagues/divisions will be founded such as Iberian League, Benelux League, Balkan league, Scandinavian League, UK plus Rep. of Ireland League, etc. I don't think that would be good for football since Europe isn't a sole country like the United States or China, but I can't help but think that UEFA has been entertaining the idea of a possible European Super League for a while now.

That's impossible in Italy.
It does seem to be a very typical Portuguese thing, indeed. Although in Spain Barcelona and Real Madrid also function that way. Same for Panathinaikos in Greece. German clubs tend to work that way as well if I'm not mistaken.

Ever wondered why German and Portuguese clubs have so many paid registered members? That's the reason. To be able to vote in club elections. Benfica used to have about 200k+ ones, being ranked number 1 in the world, now Bayern München are number 1 in that department.
 

piotor

Capitano
Moderatore
9.949
3.129
69
In Basketball we have already seen the rise of the Euroleague, which has pretty much become a league of its own.

In football I think there are not enough markets to make the league sufficiently varied (Italy, France, Spain, England, Germany) and on the other hand there'd be too many teams left out.

Therefore I think that CL will become bigger and bigger, but will never "replace" national tournaments, which have far too much prestige.

A merging of national "minor" leagues instead is more likely (see Basketball once again) simply to make them more competitive. Swedish football would gain a lot in a league with Norwegian, Danish and Finnish teams.

Therefore i'd say: Superleague no, but balkan/baltic/nordic leagues probably yes.
 

Eiskönig

Pulcino
19
0
0
In Basketball we have already seen the rise of the Euroleague, which has pretty much become a league of its own.

In football I think there are not enough markets to make the league sufficiently varied (Italy, France, Spain, England, Germany) and on the other hand there'd be too many teams left out.

Therefore I think that CL will become bigger and bigger, but will never "replace" national tournaments, which have far too much prestige.

A merging of national "minor" leagues instead is more likely (see Basketball once again) simply to make them more competitive. Swedish football would gain a lot in a league with Norwegian, Danish and Finnish teams.

Therefore i'd say: Superleague no, but balkan/baltic/nordic leagues probably yes.
Also gotta keep in mind that there's more independent European nations and therefore more national leagues today than back in 1950-1989.

I don't know much about basketball. Portugal is pretty terrible at it. Benfica dominates Portuguese basketball but it certainly isn't top 10 in Europe. It occasionally had good runs in the 90s beating Panathinaikos once even but that's it. Most Portuguese basketball teams are amateurish. And our league seems to mostly buy American player who weren't good enough for the NBA. Portugal is only really good at football and futsal... and roller hockey but only about 3 European countries care about that sport nowadays.

Well yeah several small countries border each other. We don't border any country with a small league. The alternative would be being swollen by La Liga and that would be terrible for us. Benfica and Porto wouldn't want to become an Everton or a Newcastle. I personally would rather be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond.
 

piotor

Capitano
Moderatore
9.949
3.129
69
Also gotta keep in mind that there's more independent European nations and therefore more national leagues today than back in 1950-1989.

I don't know much about basketball. Portugal is pretty terrible at it. Benfica dominates Portuguese basketball but it certainly isn't top 10 in Europe. It occasionally had good runs in the 90s beating Panathinaikos once even but that's it. Most Portuguese basketball teams are amateurish. And our league seems to mostly buy American player who weren't good enough for the NBA. Portugal is only really good at football and futsal... and roller hockey but only about 3 European countries care about that sport nowadays.

Well yeah several small countries border each other. We don't border any country with a small league. The alternative would be being swollen by La Liga and that would be terrible for us. Benfica and Porto wouldn't want to become an Everton or a Newcastle. I personally would rather be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond.
Portugal anyways has 4 teams of "high" level: Benfica, Porto, Sporting and Braga, all of them with more than decent results in Europe. I think Portugal is big enough to be independent.

The idea of merging leagues usually has more to do with countries where the overall quality is too low and a merging would bring more competition, thus rising the level of the national teams. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norawy have been virtually insignificant in Europe since the fall of Rosenborg and a more competitive league would benefit them massively.
 

Eiskönig

Pulcino
19
0
0
Portugal anyways has 4 teams of "high" level: Benfica, Porto, Sporting and Braga, all of them with more than decent results in Europe. I think Portugal is big enough to be independent.

The idea of merging leagues usually has more to do with countries where the overall quality is too low and a merging would bring more competition, thus rising the level of the national teams. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norawy have been virtually insignificant in Europe since the fall of Rosenborg and a more competitive league would benefit them massively.
Portugal's main issue is having at least 95% of the country supporting one of the big 3 clubs. Also we're only 10M people and have probably the lowest fertility rates in Europe. Plus the crisis hit our country hard between 2011 and 2014 and we nearly lost half a million young people to go work elsewhere. We're not a very economically strong Western European country either(Greece has been doing worse, though) despite our economy slowly improving lately. We should focus on our former African colonies where the big 3 still have lots of supporters, but Cape Verde, S. Tomé and Guiné-Bissau are too small and lowly populated to make a huge difference. And even Angola and Mozambique, despite their massive sizes, they "only" have about 20-25M people each.

Braga aren't as good as they were between 2009 and 2012. Although they're currently ranked above Sporting in the UEFA rankings :ghigno: But anyway, Braga are just the current "token 4th club" like Boavista were back in the 90s and early 2000s. In some years another one will fill in that role. Also, Braga benefitted from Sporting struggling between 2009 and 2014, kinda like Baovista benefitted from Benfica going through a very rough period between 1995 and 2003. I remember watching Boavista play in the Champions League when I was a kid while Benfica was finishing Primeira Liga in 6th place and 4th place :lac

I miss Rosenborg. Wasn't alive when Sweden had clubs such as Malmo FF and IFK Gottemburg doing interesting things in UEFA competitions.

Sweden has always had better players than clubs anyways. Norway and Denmark also had good teams in the 90s. Hard to believe Norway has once had players like Flo, Solsjkaer, Riise and Carew.
 

piotor

Capitano
Moderatore
9.949
3.129
69
Portugal's main issue is having at least 95% of the country supporting one of the big 3 clubs. Also we're only 10M people and have probably the lowest fertility rates in Europe. Plus the crisis hit our country hard between 2011 and 2014 and we nearly lost half a million young people to go work elsewhere. We're not a very economically strong Western European country either(Greece has been doing worse, though) despite our economy slowly improving lately. We should focus on our former African colonies where the big 3 still have lots of supporters, but Cape Verde, S. Tomé and Guiné-Bissau are too small and lowly populated to make a huge difference. And even Angola and Mozambique, despite their massive sizes, they "only" have about 20-25M people each.

Braga aren't as good as they were between 2009 and 2012. Although they're currently ranked above Sporting in the UEFA rankings :ghigno: But anyway, Braga are just the current "token 4th club" like Boavista were back in the 90s and early 2000s. In some years another one will fill in that role. Also, Braga benefitted from Sporting struggling between 2009 and 2014, kinda like Baovista benefitted from Benfica going through a very rough period between 1995 and 2003. I remember watching Boavista play in the Champions League when I was a kid while Benfica was finishing Primeira Liga in 6th place and 4th place :lac

I miss Rosenborg. Wasn't alive when Sweden had clubs such as Malmo FF and IFK Gottemburg doing interesting things in UEFA competitions.

Sweden has always had better players than clubs anyways. Norway and Denmark also had good teams in the 90s. Hard to believe Norway has once had players like Flo, Solsjkaer, Riise and Carew.
Sure, but Portugal's liga has a sufficientyl high value to be interesting and competitive for the whole national movement.

Minor countries instead play "nonsense" leagues, where 1-2 teams dominate and there are semi-amateurs teams in the league.

Even in nordic leagues the teams in the bottom half are "barely" professional, with often coaches having two jobs :D It's no good for the movement to have such disparity. A merging would make sure that all teams would be professionals, allowing also the younger players to have tougher competition. Hence the need for a merge.
Not to mention that in some countries tehre are other minor sports that compete with football (hockey in scandinavia, basketball in the balkans), thefore "draining" a lot of potential talent.
 

Eiskönig

Pulcino
19
0
0
Sure, but Portugal's liga has a sufficientyl high value to be interesting and competitive for the whole national movement.

Minor countries instead play "nonsense" leagues, where 1-2 teams dominate and there are semi-amateurs teams in the league.

Even in nordic leagues the teams in the bottom half are "barely" professional, with often coaches having two jobs :D It's no good for the movement to have such disparity. A merging would make sure that all teams would be professionals, allowing also the younger players to have tougher competition. Hence the need for a merge.
Not to mention that in some countries tehre are other minor sports that compete with football (hockey in scandinavia, basketball in the balkans), thefore "draining" a lot of potential talent.
Football has been professionalised here since the 50s or so, I think.

And our league is not the least competitive in the world but... look at the list of winners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Portuguese_football_champions

As for Inter... do you guys miss this crest?

 

Eiskönig

Pulcino
19
0
0
You guys also had an oval shaped one like Milan and Juventus did? Had no idea.

And what's with the snake one? That one stands out significantly.

Do crests get big changes in Italy like they do in England? In Portugal they don't tend to change much.
 

-LT-

Utente bannato
1.074
3
0
You guys also had an oval shaped one like Milan and Juventus did? Had no idea.

And what's with the snake one? That one stands out significantly.

Do crests get big changes in Italy like they do in England? In Portugal they don't tend to change much.
snake = biscione = simble of Milano

 
Alto