Liverpool Message Board
In a non aggressive manner of asking, what is your point?
When seeing the title, Football's Rich List, one would think about the actually footballers themselves, like Ronaldo, Beckham etc, or perhaps an owner like Sheik Mansour or Roman Abramovic..
Being 9th, which you predictably have already lumped as having cheap, and poor owners who won't spend, is actually not how these lists are made.
They are based on club's valuation on an open market vs others, commercial value, assets such as stadium etc., private deals such as tv, endorsements, and all revenues generated particularly from success in various competitions and cups.
Manchester Unite and Fail Madrid are absolute cash machines because of their global appeal, world wide fan base dwarfing many clubs besides them, large stadiums, and in Madrid's case an exclusive tv deal, not their owners. If it were the owners, Man United wouldn't even appear since they seem to operate in the 300-400M in debt range every couple of years, which if come due, would de-value ..
Considering we've finished 7th, 6th and 8th in the last 3 seasons with 1 Carling Cup and no Europe for a season, to still be amidst those clubs who are all winning Leagues regularly, and fighting for the Champions League is actually a credit to someone, just clearly not the cheap, crappy owners who've brought in a handful of record breaking endorsement deals for the club..
- 3 Replies to Loki
Actually I was rather impressed with this. We're the 5th highest earner in England even though we've not had a whiff of CL football in years, and in fact the year these earnings were pulled were not in Europe at all!
That tells me with the additional earnings European football, especially CL football provides we have a strong chance to secure our position and maintain our position in England’s top 4. Even more so when you consider the ownership is so focused on increasing the commercial revenue.
Which is actually another positive point you raise Mr. Loki.. It's actually quite impressive when you think about it, and look at those clubs vs where we are at the moment..
We obviously strive to always be amongst those names and near the top, so having gone through a period to the brink of bankruptcy and administration, yet to still hold that type of value at the moment, says someone's doing something right..
This is a great little table to make lots of dodgy conclusions from. Well done for putting it up Armchair. Some of mine are:
Chelsea need to be looking to develop the commercial side most. Winning the CL should help and the efforts in the Far east are obviously aimed at this.
Chelsea's stadium revenues are not far short of Arsenal's so splurging £400m on a new one needs justifying. If we could guarantee a 60k crowd every week it would be worth doing. If we averaged 50k at current bucks/bum I wouldn't think there is a financial case. I'm sure there's a vanity case (ba-boom).
Liverpool's stadium being the same size as Chelsea's but with a significantly lower revenue suggests to me the best way for LFC to increase its match-day revenue is simply to increase ticket prices. We've been here before.
England having five clubs in the top nine is impressive and the new Sky deal will help this.
Barceladrid get a disproportionate amount of help in TV revenue compared to other clubs. More generally, distribution of TV income increasingly determines clubs' spending power. One might have thought that FFP would have something to say about this. Should distribution rules be unified across Europe? Should the bigger clubs get a higher/lower proportion of revenues than the little clubs? If this is not done correctly will there be new leagues formed?
City's match day revenue is woeful. Maybe it will take years to fight back against their arrogant neighbours. FFP won't give them those years. So FFP helps those who have and penalises those who haven't but would invest to build.
As Senor Hobitez mentioned, Italian matchday revenues are dreadful, almost as bad as in France, whilst German clubs don't make as much from TV rights.
- 1 Reply to Robert M
The Italian job is the funny one, bearing in mind they are probably doubling our capacity, it must be about £8-10 a ticket!
The Chelsea revenue compared to Arsenal's (and most peoples) is probably quite relative to the progression to FA cup final and Champs league final, a lot more games then round 1 specialists Arsenal? It is odd, surely if Arsenals tickets are the most expensive in the world then Chelsea's corporate boxes must be really expensive?
I think Liverpool would probably find it easier to increase the ticket prices maybe as much as 10% at the point of doing the capacity increase, it would feel more comfortable then. It is a well trodden path as you said but it has to be done at somepoint.
I think it is probably fair to say, we are a very healthy club considering the ticket income and depleted tv revenue from no CL, if we get back in in the next couple of seasons we will probably be able to invest enough in the squad to stay there....I hope.
Blimey - sounds like the Labour party and council houses.
On a practical note, if you feel that signing up for a place in the season ticket queue in 1921 and not having reached the top yet means that it would be unfair to have newly available seats be auctioned, perhaps the queue could be kept for the existing 45,000 or so seats but the new capacity could be sold in a different way, with maybe some of the new capacity being made available to the queue.
Of course, the 40,000 waiting list will turn out to be smaller when tested at different pricing levels.