|
TyChan posted:From what I have been told, Liverpool has a long way to go into developing its foreign market presence as well as Manchester United have. Also, only recently has Liverpool been close to fully realizing their potential as far as sponsorship, licensing and merchandising deals go. The board of that club basically slept during the 90s when smart clubs like Manchester United were pushing their profit potential. It's not totally hopeless for Liverpool, but they are going to have to find a way to stay on the top level of the EPL/CL and keep their best players to see their through this debt mess. Liverpools commercial side is actually, really really, strong, we're ahead of Chelsea and Arsenal and only a few million behind United, and thats before our new sponsorship deal comes in. The gold pot of Foreign markets is something thats gone on about all the time, but it's mostly a fallacy. As it stands theres no major money there - thought it will probably come when the premierleague pull their fingers out of their collective arts and sort out internet streaming rights. Check out the Deliotte report for the past year: 3 (2) MANCHESTER UNITED Revenues: 327.0 (from 324.8) Matchday: 127.7 Broadcasting: 117.1 Commercial: 82.2 5 (6) ARSENAL Revenues*: 263.0 (from 264.4) Matchday: 117.5 Broadcasting: 89.0 Commercial: 56.5 (*In million pounds: 224 from 209.3) 6 (5) CHELSEA Revenues: 242.3 (from 268.9) Matchday: 87.4 Broadcasting: 92.9 Commercial: 62.0 7 ( 8 ) LIVERPOOL Revenues: 217.0 (from 207.4) Matchday: 49.9 Broadcasting: 87.6 Commercial 79.5 As for the Yanks, they are on their way out and it's plain to see. Purslow is pretty clearly RBS' man and put their for the exact reason of bringing new money into the club. The summer will be very interesting, and will probably be some pretty big power plays coming through from everyone involved. Purslow is prattling on about investment 'coming' and has been for a long time, yet it never appears. We dont' even have any smoke of it coming either. I can't see anyone sane pumping in £100m to a club thats still debt ridden from a rubbish LBO plan and two owners who hate each other as much as the fans hate them.
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
So G+H have wheeled Keith Harris out on SSN for a bit of PR, "Price is too low", "It's worth well more than 325million now that there is a new manager", "the previous manager spent liberally and just failed to build a good squad" etc etc Sitting in front of a manc top going on about United. oval office.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2010 12:12
|
|
|
I imagine Huang's sttaement is just hanging on a technicality, and that the first round of 'bids' that Broughton was on about was actually just expressions of interest and detailed proposals. Rather than 'formal' bids. Still think the Syrian stuff is a complete smokescreen and Harris is just a bellend. "Oh that price? No no, thats far too low, the people I'm representing would like to pay more!"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2010 17:49
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:I'm not sure how that makes a difference. There are differences, but you're right in so much as they're not massive either way. H+G were cash poor and couldn't raise any more money to refinance the club on anything close to favourable terms. The Glazer's got their bond issue that bought them another 4 years. However, Liverpool's debt was owed solely to one company, a company that actually acted pretty responsibly when the crunch time hit, the mish-mash of investors that took up United bond won't (and by the nature of the bond issue, can't) do the same. The interesting thing about United finances is the 'missing' chunk of debt, where it got shifted to, where it got refinanced, or who bought it. As it stands we don't know and probably won't know unless things hit the fan. The Glazer's ownership of united is just as much of a cancer on them as H+G was on Liverpool, it's just taking longer due to bite to the relative starting positions and availability of credit/assets to guarantee against. You just can't support that levels of loss year after year while only paying interest on debt. They've either got some master plan to flip it we can't see, or are simply holding on in the hopes of some massive internet streaming/individual TV rights contracts to come about. But both of these are years and years away at minimum. But without the latter anyone buying it will think the same thing - 'these guys are ****ed, we can get this cheaper if we play hard ball or let them fail first'. The summer after next will be the interesting one at United, because they can probably blag their way through this next window without that much investment in players, but they can't stretch that next summer as well - not with the holes that their squad will have by then.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2011 19:31
|
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:We can't. Remember we have one of the largest stadiums and it's generally 95% or more filled so we get significantly more matchday revenue than Everton or even Liverpool. This isn't true at all. Liverpool turnover £43m a year from matchdays, compared to £24m for City.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 18:53
|
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13313804.stm Plymouths' creditors have accept the deal. 0.77p for every pound. Crazy.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2011 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
The problem with FFP is how vague and ill defined some of the elements are. We already know there's a clause that excuses commitments prior to 2010 - but to what extend that goes no one knows. If a player signed a £10m a year deal before that time does that mean his wages don't count towards the limit? What about the amortisation of transfer fees? Do all those from before that cut off get excused to? It's impossible to look at any numbers clubs have released so far and say 'yep, they're hosed' because we have no idea what UEFA are actually going to pickup on or excuse away. There's ridiculous parts in it about 'progress' that means if the club is deemed to be making strides towards lowering costs, but still fall foul of the imposed UEFA spending limits, 'it will be taken into consideration'. Hell, we don't even have a solid list of punishments and the criteria for hitting them. Just some vague threat of no European license for football 'but only in the extreme cases'. On top of that there's the stuff that includes revenue generated from non-footballing matters in the vicinity of club stadium/training ground - which I why City are trying to build that huge complex outside the CoM - because they can apparently offset the revenues (not profits, revenues) of all that against footballing loses. The whole thing is a clusterfuck and it's going to get even worse once clubs are seen to be falling foul of it but UEFA are letting them through.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 11:33
|
|