Yeh but things have gone downhill rapidly since then.
Liverpool, without a decent stadium wouldnt fetch 300million today.
Foreign TV rights - should we be able to sell our own ??
- Thread starter theHotHead
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Yeh but things have gone downhill rapidly since then.
Liverpool, without a decent stadium wouldnt fetch 300million today.
I'm more worried at how people seem totally fine about what City/Chelsea are doing when it comes to either insulting their approach to buying titles or Liverpool's approach of increasing global revenue through foreign TV rights. If their owners stick around, it'll be City on top for the next 10years, Utd won't be able to keep up for that long. Chelsea might if they pump more money in. How is this any different from what happens in Spain where the big money makers see success?
I completely disagree with selling individual rights in the UK, but foreign rights I'm fine with. Not being able to maximise our income abroad is just plain restrictive. If there's 20million people outside the UK who want Liverpool shirts, we'll sell them. But if there's 20million people outside the UK who want to see all the Liverpool matches, we can't show them because it's unfair on stoke who have maybe 50,000 viewers outside the UK? Merchandising and Marketting are very similar in approach.
FFP rules won't do anything, too many loopholes and ways to get around it and Fifa don't have the balls to touch the big european clubs. So, baring that in mind, I would much rather see a dominant 4/5/6 rather than a dominant 2. At least we'd be earning our money to compete instead of being spoonfed by a sugar daddy who can't even name your starting eleven.
I completely disagree with selling individual rights in the UK, but foreign rights I'm fine with. Not being able to maximise our income abroad is just plain restrictive. If there's 20million people outside the UK who want Liverpool shirts, we'll sell them. But if there's 20million people outside the UK who want to see all the Liverpool matches, we can't show them because it's unfair on stoke who have maybe 50,000 viewers outside the UK? Merchandising and Marketting are very similar in approach.
FFP rules won't do anything, too many loopholes and ways to get around it and Fifa don't have the balls to touch the big european clubs. So, baring that in mind, I would much rather see a dominant 4/5/6 rather than a dominant 2. At least we'd be earning our money to compete instead of being spoonfed by a sugar daddy who can't even name your starting eleven.
Did you know KPR aka ( not telling ) spent 4 years as Ronan Keetings body guard and keeps a shrine of him in his spare bedroom?
The more you know.
The more you know.
And in 2009 there is no way in hell we could be valued at $1billion, 2011 valuation is $552mill so its been halved (according to Forbes) in 3 years. Despite our revenue only being 10% less, our debts reduces and still the same stadium.
So do you trust any of the other figures in that list?
Forbes are normally pretty reliable.
There could be numerous factors, including CL participation, the level of debt etc. etc. I do not pretend to know how it is all worked out exactly, but as stated, forbes, delloittes etc. are normally the companies used to value clubs.
Its the new stadium that had massively decreased your value combined with no european football and a rather well publicised boardroom **** up. The new owners got you on the cheap and have added no value to the club at all hence, £300million.
I find it strange that Liverpool want this and SAF doesn't i surpose that shows who the big club is.Liverpool must be desperate to get their Glory Days back at the expence of the EPL.Having lived in Spain for over 20yrs i can tell you it is not a good idea,has killed any competitive football here.I would think the same would happen in England.In all honesty it is a bad idea.
If clubs are able to sell their tv rights individually, surely this would have some benefit for the lower teams though, however small... I'm a Newcastle fan, and obviously we won't make nearly as much money from selling TV rights abroard as the top 4/5/6 prem teams... BUT:- Each game has two teams on the pitch, and if I owned a team playing LFC, and LFC were selling the rights abroad for big bucks, I would expect 50% of the revenue from that game, after all they are effectively selling my image rights. Without a second team on the pitch, there is no game to watch!
I think you'll find Liverpool fans outside of the UK can watch nearly all of their games. Most streams are off foreign channels that show the games! Most TV deals to broadcast the Premiership outside the UK allow the channels to pick and choose the games they show with no restrictions ie 3pm kick offs.
As pointed out by someone earlier (Swarbs I think), it doesn't work like that. The home team get the vast majority of the money. So for Newcastle, although you would get huge money from your home game against Man U for example, you would get less from a game against Bolton (no disrespect to Bolton), whereas Man U would get huge money for each and evryone of their home games.
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/.../1cf28c129dffd210VgnVCM2000001b56f00aRCRD.htm
The differentials between the revenues of clubs in countries where individual selling takes place are significant – in Spain the leading clubs reportedly generate 19 times more from TV deals than the smallest clubs in the top division. Atlético Madrid earned €62m from broadcasting (including UEFA distributions) but this is only c.40% of Real’s income from these rights, while other Spanish clubs generate fair less than this amount. In Italy Roma and Fiorentina each generated around €70m from broadcasting in 2009/10, €60-70m less than each of the ‘big three’.
These wide variations in broadcasting revenues between clubs in Italy and Spain, and their impact on overall revenues, have a significant impact on the sport in each country, exacerbating both competitive imbalance on the pitch and financial tensions off it. Collective selling – and hence the more equal distribution of revenue – is widely credited with delivering important benefits to the game, a view long held by many inside football. In a notable recent communication, following a series of inquiries the European Commission recommended collective selling, saying that it was ‘a good example of financial solidarity and redistribution mechanisms within sports’.
The differentials between the revenues of clubs in countries where individual selling takes place are significant – in Spain the leading clubs reportedly generate 19 times more from TV deals than the smallest clubs in the top division. Atlético Madrid earned €62m from broadcasting (including UEFA distributions) but this is only c.40% of Real’s income from these rights, while other Spanish clubs generate fair less than this amount. In Italy Roma and Fiorentina each generated around €70m from broadcasting in 2009/10, €60-70m less than each of the ‘big three’.
These wide variations in broadcasting revenues between clubs in Italy and Spain, and their impact on overall revenues, have a significant impact on the sport in each country, exacerbating both competitive imbalance on the pitch and financial tensions off it. Collective selling – and hence the more equal distribution of revenue – is widely credited with delivering important benefits to the game, a view long held by many inside football. In a notable recent communication, following a series of inquiries the European Commission recommended collective selling, saying that it was ‘a good example of financial solidarity and redistribution mechanisms within sports’.
Alex Ferguson actually said the same, that he wanted to see them get more money from the overseas TV.
So stop talking bollocks, basically.
That's the point, but even 50% of every Liverpool game would be more than 50% of every Newcastle game, for example. Liverpool would probably earn double what Newcastle would over the season, which would just kill competition.
What ferguson said is not the same, Liverpool do not want the funds shared equally now do they ffs
You really dont understand do you? Forget your hatred on Liverpool and think about how reliable this list is, they valued us in 2009 at $1bill due to what can only be coments made by our previous owners. How has a stadium that has never been built devalue an asset by 50%? All im trying to say is dont beleive all these list and facts on face value
TY that was my point until someone jumped down my throat,and accuses me of talking bollocks.
Fair point, but you're still talking bollocks, because Ferguson has no say in this, its down to Malcom Glazer and his gang, do you think Malcolm Glazer would side with competition and sporting integrity, or getting a bigger slice of the pie for himself?
I bet Kenny Dalglish would say the same as Ferguson (had Ayre not come out with these comments), so I do think your comments about Yernited being a big club because of these comments are ridiculous to say the least.
- Status