Your team was franchised by City Football Group, or by Red Bull?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Would you rather...?
Collapse
X
-
Is Red Bull a franchise though?
They started by buying the football club in the nearest town, as it was going bust.
They then went to Germany where they bought a low level club, used its licence to start a new club, but the existing club carried on at exactly the same low level they were before.
In America, they took over a club that was already owned and named after a multi national corporation.
In Brazil, they set up a new club.
For Salzburg and Leipzig, they put in massive amounts of money into the clubs, which has seen them rise to European levels.
I can’t say the final versions of these teams are anything I’d be interested in, but the seemingly common inference that Red Bull have a world wide network of clubs that were quaint and successful, and that Red Bull have just turned up and added their name to, is some way off the mark.
Comment
-
BB&F's final sentence is accurate, but the previous sentences are exactly what a franchise is and does.
As Sits says, Red Bull aren't quite as bad, but I wouldn't be supporting a club run by either. Which is one of the myriad reasons why I find it hard to be interested in modern football.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
- Oct 2011
- 26998
- Cambridgeshire
- Ipswich (convert)
- Those chocolate-coated ring-shaped ones you get at Christmas
Yep, I think I'd go with the RB option too with the human rights issue being decisive.
BB&F! the latest WSC mentions the newest club in the RB stable, Bragantino, whom they took over mainly because the club they set up got mired in the lower leagues. They won promotion last year and will be lining up in Serie A in May.
seand, did you never play this game at school? The point is that the two choices have to be grim, usually starting at primary school with something like 'Would you rather eat bogies or earwax?'
OK, this one might be easier:
Assuming your team happened to be in the Premier League, would you rather win the FA Cup but end up going down to League One, or stay in the Premier League for three seasons and win nothing?Last edited by Kevin S; 23-01-2020, 11:13.
Comment
-
- Oct 2011
- 26998
- Cambridgeshire
- Ipswich (convert)
- Those chocolate-coated ring-shaped ones you get at Christmas
Originally posted by Etienne View PostBB&F's final sentence is accurate, but the previous sentences are exactly what a franchise is and does.
As Sits says, Red Bull aren't quite as bad, but I wouldn't be supporting a club run by either. Which is one of the myriad reasons why I find it hard to be interested in modern football.
(You're spot on of course, mind.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kevin S View PostBB&F! the latest WSC mentions the newest club in the RB stable, Bragantino, whom they took over mainly because the club they set up got mired in the lower leagues. They won promotion last year and will be lining up in Serie A in May.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kevin S View PostYep, I think I'd go with the RB option too with the human rights issue being decisive.
BB&F! the latest WSC mentions the newest club in the RB stable, Bragantino, whom they took over mainly because the club they set up got mired in the lower leagues. They won promotion last year and will be lining up in Serie A in May.
seand, did you never play this game at school? The point is that the two choices have to be grim, usually starting at primary school with something like 'Would you rather eat bogies or earwax?'
OK, this one might be easier:
Assuming your team happened to be in the Premier League, would you rather win the FA Cup but end up going down to League One, or stay in the Premier League for three seasons and win nothing?
Comment
-
It's lovely* with vodka.
Regarding the FA Cup and Premier League question - it's FA Cup every day of the week. I'd take relegation to the Hellenic League to see Cheltenham lift the cup.
*the only time I've ever had it - and I was usually smashed by then anyway...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Etienne View PostBB&F's final sentence is accurate, but the previous sentences are exactly what a franchise is and does.
As Sits says, Red Bull aren't quite as bad, but I wouldn't be supporting a club run by either. Which is one of the myriad reasons why I find it hard to be interested in modern football.
What Red Bull have done is either start up new businesses, or else buy existing ones, put in huge amounts of money, and run the clubs themselves whilst use their own brand.
I'd say this is just general business expansion with new outlets or acquisitions, rather than any sort of franchising?
Comment
-
Red Bull had board-level discussions to take over my German club (SpVgg Unterhaching). It would have become Rot-Blau Unterhaching (geddit?). Our former chairman didn't fancy it. The fans neither.
I'm not really here to defend Red Bull, but they're not spending crazy money and are about the only example of an eastern German team being successful (and well-run) since unification.
Comment
-
Come on, Red Bull are cunts.
I may be particularly sensitive towards changing the colours and badge of a club but that doesn't mean they're not cunts, no amount of money spent or success bought changes that.
The only team they should ever have been allowed to be involved in was Bristol Rovers, and then only as shirt sponsors ;
Comment
Comment