football test

Topic: Barcelona Elections 2010

Title: Marquez, Ibrahimovic, or Chegrnskiy? Part one

By: Ramzi

The following few months will announce a farewell. Laporta will no more be the president of this club. You can complain about his political obsession during his presidential period (or periods). You may not miss the concerning stress you felt every time you knew that he will have a speech or an interview, as he is not exactly the one who only say it right. But without any doubts, he stamped his name for being the most successful president in the history of this club. Some may envy him for being “Just an extremely lucky dude” who's presidential period concurred with one of the most successful cycles in this club history. Needless to say that I don’t agree on that, But to keep it short as it’s not our topic today, Laporta as a man destined to success is no different from any other successful leader. If you really believe that men* create history, then think again. That’s just one face of the truth coin. In fact, events create men who make history. It requires specific yeast of men who have the right sensors to seize the moment and make that first step forward. From there on, he just have to keep pulling the strings wisely and take the right decisions (tough ones most of the time) to extend his successful era as far as he can.

Elections are always tricky. Creating the right election campaign is one of the most complicated strategies to set. Any wrong step is irreversible. Moreover, trying to set an election campaign for a successful club is more delicate than planning a strategy to become the president of a club in Crises. To become a president of a club in crises it’s enough to claim you will do the opposite of whatever the present board did. That will guarantee you the emotionally terrified votes that represent the annoyed majority at any club facing crises. But what will your elections kit be when you seek to take over after Laporta Reign? That’s why this election will be a very interesting process to follow. The candidates could be classified in three main categories:

Marquez

The contract extension of Marquez raised lot of eyebrows. There is no doubt that Marquez is a quality defender. His attributes fit Barcelona football style like a glove. He is the defender who set offense throw initiating the first pass forward. He signed during the period of total reengineering and contributed successfully in rebalancing the mess Barcelona Backline suffered for years. He was there during all the glory moments during Laporta era, and he understands the club philosophy well. But still, how smart was it to continue with the same player who is not getting younger while there are a host of center defenders who can carry the flag –better? - for the present and the future of the team? Is there a sense of security in keeping the ones who proved being reliable rather than gambling with someone new? Is it just an extension motivated by the sense of gratitude toward a player who served the team during the ups and downs?

In fact that’s the same question that must be asked when a candidate considers himself as “The candidate of continuity”. In that matter, he is trying to label himself as being “The Secure tested option”. Or even “The one you owe too much to NOT elect” so you have no choice but to be fair and elect him or else you show no gratitude. Regardless of the quality of the guy, I won’t elect him if I will have to vote. First, because continuity in management is the norm regardless of who takeover. You have to expect it from anyone who will be the next president of Barcelona to continue from where the previous one ended. Fix the defects and build on the success. I don’t even understand why being loyal to Laporta and not letting him down in the moment of crises makes you a good presidential candidate. If last summer vote of no confidence fulfilled its objectives, Ferran Soriano and may be Marc Ingla would have been the best continuity candidates in the Laportism Campaign for the following elections only for proving loyalty after Sandro Rosell resignation in 2005. Now they are considered as the Bad guys.

If there was any possibility for Laporta to stay for another period, I would have been –against my natural instinct that demand change- very tempted to keep him in place. Who blames me? I like the club we have at the moment. But now that Laporta is leaving, I want to see a New president taking place, not a Laporta boy. In fact I don’t want Laporta to be any close to the board of directors neither in person nor through his ghosts and angels.

Being a current board member must not be an advantage or a disadvantage. I was one of those who are demanding a new president who is loyal to the same model that proved success during Laporta Era. But not to the extent that I’ve noticed so far. There are no clear projects. No clear Ideas or tempting programs. I started to doubt if those who are representing the continuity are actually aware of what they are going to continue. If so far they failed to unite under one candidate then at least one of the two candidates is not right (regarding continuity). If both candidates are seeking Laporta blesses then the continuity is not related to the model that’s independent of any individual, but the continuity of a brotherhood. Brotherhoods dictate commitments that I don’t want the new board of directors to bow under. Laporta's great era must not crown him as a godfather for the following board of directors.

They started their campaigns by reconciling their defeat. If they will not unite under one candidate them none of them will have a solid ground to seek support. And after the whole mess between the board members, if they agreed on one candidate, I will keep wondering if they united under the successful model they want to keep in place, or they had to unite against Rosell just to keep him out of space. And what’s next? Another clash after winning the elections?

So far this category of candidates is doomed to failure unless if something exceptional happens. Something like being the less worse? This will not be promising, or pleasant.

How about Ibra and Chegrnskiy? We leave that for another day.