Separate TV deals!?

This afternoon sometime, or this evening - just gotta get some work out of the way first.

 

Swarbs

I understand the mechanics of what he was trying to do mate, I just don't believe that he will have won anyone over in the way that he has gone about it.

Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and dare I say Chelsea have the audiences and would all have wondered as to whether it's workable, as mentioned by many before, but there are ways of going about it.

So maybe my question should have read:

"By doing it in the way that he has, can you explain to me how he has stengthened your bargaining position"

And re your speculative comment...if he's using terror tactics to strong arm the lower clubs then that is even worse.

 

Riddle me this Lucaas. Why did Liverpool not sell out v Malaysia all stars. But Chelsea sold out one week in advance (84,900).

One major reason was Torres; Asian fans identify with the present stars not a bundled Toshack header from the 70s

 

Youtube has a global reach. So they'll probably be burning their Torres shirts after his spectacular miss. Whilst you're at it look at LFC's audience for a training session!

 

Well, as has been mentioned before, nobody knows what sort of negotiations have gone on behind the scenes. The only person to have really attacked him is Whelan, who seems to want to yell at anyone who says anything most of the time.

Chelsea and Utd have both said they support the collective agreement, but haven't said they support the collective agreement with a completely equal split between the clubs. So maybe the plan is for Ayre to raise the issue of individual rights, get everyone riled up about how unfair that would be, and then Utd and Chelsea swoop in with a new collective proposal that gives the top clubs a bigger slice of the pie whilst still giving the lower clubs a lot of cash. As the amount of revenue from the overseas deal may well double in this round of negotiations, everyone would come out with more money than they already have, so this might win through as a reasonable compromise. Norwich, Swansea etc get £30 million from international rights instead of the current £18 million, and Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal etc wind up with £35-40 million each.

Obviously this is now getting into the realm of extreme speculation, but my point is that it's impossible to know what Ayre is trying to achieve, or if he has strengthened or weakened his position, without knowing what's going on behind the scenes.

 

Chelsea had 50000 for a training session in Malaysia. Liverpool only had 38000.

 

Cheers Swarbs. Let us all know when we can watch it.

 

Didn't realise that Malaysia represented the whole of Asia...

Thailand is one of the other big ones too, think one of their clubs has just signed Fowler too

 

In respect of your revised question. LFC are identifying that their commercial strategic decision making will be driven by truly commercial criteria as opposed to some other clubs presently in the Premiership.

 

The ironic thing is, or maybe i'm wrong on this one; but I would expect Chelsea and Man City to be more popular in Asia, North America, South America and Africa based on the fact that the new fans being younger and witnessing current success rather than Historic. Albeit Man City havent been successful but the players they have would be well known.
So i dont see how it could benefit them that greatly.
I think it should stay as it it. i saw an article not too long ago showing the difference in tv revenue in La Liga and it was shocking, Real madrid and Barca got €141m each followed by Valencia with €40m, A.Madrid €35m, Vilarreal €29m, with the last 15 teams getting between about €9m - €13m. That would be awful.

 

So what you're saying is Chelsea only sold a couple hundred more tickets than Liverpool minus their two biggest present stars. Interesting, very interesting.

And what you're saying is Chelsea's only present star is idolised only because of the things he did for Liverpool, and has become the butt of all jokes since moving to Chelsea?? Very interesting points there mate, I suppose its proof that Chelsea are a nothing club.

 

I agree with this.

The fact that Liverpool have a great history, whilst widely recognised in the UK and Europe, I don't think it will give them to much / if any of an advantage in being more popular in Asia than say Chelsea.

 

are you lot still hammering away trying to see who can pee higher up the school wall.....

 

United are way in front of everyone.

Even the Liverpool chairman said this in THe Guardian last week.

In an interview with Big Paper's David Conn, Henry admits he knew "virtually nothing about Liverpool Football Club nor EPL" when he invested in the club, while chairman Tom Werner said at the time he "certainly knew about Manchester United", something which will endear him to Liverpool fans around the world. So, if Henry's Fenway Sports Group didn't know that much about Liverpool, what was the impetus behind the purchase of the club?

 

So pleased the dippers are still pissed about Torres choosing Chelsea for success.

Let it go, hate is a bad thing.

 

Thats not the point though Eric,Fenway would'nt make this public unless they had their marketing people do their homework on the subject before hand.

The Chelsea fans claims that they've got more fans than us is irrelevant,this is about LFC's popularity and tv pulling power in the region not theirs.

 

Eric,

LFC's advantage, particularly in Asia, has been built over a number of years - in the same way that United's has been. Given the poor performance of our club (and near extinction) it is amazing how they have been able to build both their support levels and their commercial returns.
However, the advantage that we still hold over Arsenal, Chelsea, City etc. will be reduced if we do not improve our on the pitch performances. Hence our new owners have made clear their intention to invest in the club to return it to its former position.

NSV did not buy the club because of its history or the culture of the club. They made a commercial decision and are now setting about maximising their commercial opportunity through their actions both on and off the pitch.

 

We don't hate you, we hate what your club stands for - there is a difference. As for Torres time will tell if he made a good choice but the omens don't look too good.

 

Lucaas.
Interesting point.
I can remember Standard Chartered saying a few months back that Liverpool sold a player that had the ''wow factor'' but was losing his sparkle amongst fans. In other words that ''wow factor'' was decreasing. They also said that Liverpool did something clever in signing Luis Suarez that they signed a player with an equal ''wow factor'' and on his new stage would increase that further.
Guess what he has, in the space of 6 months Luis Suarez is idolised, his star is shining brightly. He's become an instant hero, nobody has become idolised as quickly since the current manager in 1977. Kevin Keegan, Robbie Fowler, Ian Rush, John Barnes all took time to be accepted by the Liverpool faithful. Whereas at Chelsea Torres' spark has been quenched, the players don't want him in the team, and neither do the fans, on some occasions neither does the manager.

 

Come on be fair! Torres hasn't set the world alight at Chelsea but we don't know what the attitude of either the players or the manager is towards him.