Separate TV deals!?

My fault for not being as clear. I meant more in the US we are falling behind, the last time Liverpool came over was 04-05 I believe? During the years from 04-05-09 Liverpool were growing over here despite rarely coming over. This was mainly due to the fact we were challenging for honors and were always in some highly intense Champions league games with Chelsea and others. I am telling you during that time, when a Champions league game was on ESPN ( back then it was just one game on Tuesday and one on Wednesday), it was a majority of the time Liverpool as people wanted to watch us play. I think outside of the US is where the brand is getting bigger and bigger, but over here I think it has dropped. You know us Americans, we are suckers for the next hot, big, successful thing, hence the City comment as you are seeing more and more support of City now.

I was just giving my two cents on the state of Liverpool stateside, I think we have slipped behind United ( they are obviously huge over here), Chelsea, Arsenal, and I would say we are on par with Tottenham and City is just behind in terms of support. You could also throw Everton and Fulham in there too for obvious reasons but they are still not close enough I don't think.

 

Evidence? I read that Liverpool Arsenal Chelsea had similar shirt sales until Pool sold Torres; the third biggest selling shirt behind Messi Ronaldo globally; and now Chelsea have overtaken them.

PS I would not like Putin's sizing my assets; but I am not that way inclined

 

You can't ever produce facts when dealing with global support but the article at least supports what most fans think i.e United are first and then comes a group comprising the rest of us (CFC AFC Liverpool in particular). Whereas the likes of KPR seem to think Liverpool are way above the likes of the London clubs and sit level with United and would massively benefit from the rights change which may not actually be the case.

 

I wish it wasn't, but this is true, especially over here (US). When he was flying for us, he was raking in profit left, right, and center. I think I read somewhere that although Madrid spent 80 million on Ronaldo, they made almost all of it back within a week from shirt sales alone, something crazy like that. This is where that tag "marquee" player comes in as they can help boost your brand, profits, and more.

Suarez could do the same for us though, his name is starting to climb higher and higher and could help boost our South American contingent since we lost Mascher and Lucas is not one who will have his tops flying off the racks in Brazil.

 

That's part of the reason why Chelsea overpaid for Torres; to increase shirt sales in emerging markets.

As for Adidas, 2005-9, Real are way ahead of Liverpool shirt sales.

Chelsea and Arsenal are equal. Since then Chelsea have won the league and Liverpool have dropped out of Europe and replaced global stars Masch, Torres, Alonso with Adam , henderson and Caroll; so you would assume Chelsea's sales have gone and L'pool's gone down. Especially with their expulsion from Europe

http://www.sportingintelligence.com...lds-best-selling-club-football-shirts-310802/

 

Based on the data I've seen Liverpool are still on a par with Chelsea and Arsenal in shirt sales:

http://www.sportingintelligence.com...lds-best-selling-club-football-shirts-310802/

But Liverpool do top the English table for merchandise sales:

http://www.fcbusiness.co.uk/news/ar...league+usurps+europe%91s+merchandising+throne

Not sure how that will actually translate into direct revenue for the two clubs, but it does imply Liverpool are still ahead of Arsenal and Chelsea and close to Utd in terms of commercial clout around the world. Then again it could just imply that Scousers love wearing trackie bees more than Mancs

 

Those figures are two years out of date when you still played in Europe

 

They're for the 09/10 season when 'pool got dumped out of the CL in the group stage and finished 6th. They're also the most recent figures available. You can assume whatever you like about the more recent seasons, but that's all they are - assumptions.

 

I am only talking about what I see and hear in the US. In terms of the whole world, ya we might still be up there and about, but we are not as strong a brand (yet) as we were when we had the CL finals, FA cups, always in CL, stars such as Torres, Mascher, Alonso, Gerrard was on fire too. I am not sure why but it seems Liverpool want to expand as much as possible in Asia but don't seem as interested in the US, almost like it is a losing market since United has it pretty locked down?

I think with Arsenal as well, what were the big names that were pulling in shirt sales? Fabregas of course, RVP, and then probably Nasri but when they had Henry and were winning things or at least in contention, I would bet they had a nice big profit off of their brand.

This debate will probably go back and forth, but I am looking at it through what I see here in the states which for me at the moment I see it as United, Chelsea, Arsenal/Liverpool/Tottenham in terms of the jerseys I see, the games being played, the shops what they sell, etc. For a while in the 00's Celtic were right up there and probably bigger than Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, they were pretty big here for awhile.

 

United are way ahead of everyone

http://www.fcbusiness.co.uk/news/ar...ted+is+sport%92s+most+powerful+brand+-+report

 

Generally, articles, or snippets of, provoke comment and discussion.

If you demand that every one deals in facts all the time then we'll get no where.

The fact, as you are so fond of them, remains that Ayre was a little out of his depth by making this statement as he clearly hadn't sought the counsel of his peers prior to his rather too public assertions, and has been left looking rather like a complete twat, espescially with your owners confession that he'd never really heard of you prior to the buy out.

 

That report is a load of bollocks.
Liverpool globally are slightly behind Manchester United around the world and are light-years ahead of no-mark clubs like Arsenal and Chelsea. As someone else said when someone thinks of Chelsea in they USA, they think of Bill Clintons daughter.

 

Even the owners admitted United were a name in the States; and Pool aren't.

"We knew virtually nothing about Liverpool Football Club. I certainly knew about Manchester United."

 

The report is bollocks but your opinion is correct ?

 

So you are disagreeing with your fellow Liverpool fans that the report is correct.

Why, pray tell me, is the report 'a load of bollocks'?

And why is your view more accurate?

 

y

 

In order to have gained a large global following, you have to have a strong pedigree. Manchester United and Liverpool do, Zero times European Champions Arsenal and the small club in Fulham aka Chelsea don't. This is why that report is a load of bollocks and a bucket of piss.

 

Maybe you should do your own survey; or tell the surveyers went wrong

 

I guess they're going for Asia cos it's an easier market to grow in. Lots of people who haven't had that much exposure to footy and will often just follow a team based on having seen them play in the local area. The US must be tougher to get new fans in now Utd have built a big following, and MLS is rolling out the Galacticos to try and attract people to the domestic game. I reckon Liverpool will plug away in Asia for a few years until it gets harder to expand their following and then will try and crack the American market. First rule of business - win the easy customers first before trying for the hard ones!

 

Probably the best , most insightful post you have ever made