http://tomkinstimes.com/2012/08/exclusive-john-henry-qa/ Earlier in the summer, TTT, as part of a new era of open communications between the club and its fans, was invited to ask Liverpoolâs principal owner, John Henry, some questions. Recently I felt the time was right to submit a series of questions, which were devised by contributors to this site. As part of FSGâs wider self-sustainability drive for LFC and in line with the FFP regulations, do such aims mean that in the coming transfer windows starting with this one, all wage and transfer expenditure needs to be self-generated? The mandate of financial fair play in Europe is for clubs to live within their means. Recently I was told that half of the clubs in the top divisions within Europe are losing money and 20% are in straits of varying degrees. Itâs up to LFC to invest properly in players going forward so that the club can not only be sustainable but a powerhouse. This club should be able to significantly increase its revenues. Without UEFA publishing sanctioning guidelines as yet for clubs who breach the FFP regulations, it appears there will be a raft of sanctions for clubs breaching the FFP regulations including fines, points deductions and limiting player squad sizes etc. Is it wrong that clubs may still make serious losses over 2 or 3 years (i.e. over â¬45m) and not be excluded from the Champions League? Is a fine or points deduction enough of a deterrent? Are LFC engaging with UEFA to clarify how sanctions will be imposed? How much of a hard line stance needs to be taken? There are a lot of clubs within the league that support financial fair play. We believe the league itself may have to adopt its own rules given that clubs seem to be ignoring UEFAâs rules, which may be porous enough to enable clubs to say that the trend of huge losses is positive and therefore be exempt from any meaningful sanctions. Does staying at Anfield impede a stadium rights naming deal? If costs can be offset with such a deal, this could give the club a clear FFP advantage too? A naming rights deal at Anfield could occur, I suppose, if the partner were right. We havenât pursued it. Most fans assume that, commercially, Liverpool were starting from a very low base when you took over. How much more scope is there to increase commercial revenues compared to where we are today? Is it reasonable to expect double digit, year-on-year commercial growth for a number of years to come? This club should be able to significantly increase its revenues. But it wonât be easy. I believe we have the right people in place to accomplish this. But I donât see it happening at the local level â the vast majority must come from our global agenda. With the Premier League broadcasting deal being potentially worth over £100m for the winners come the 2013-14 season, does the Premier League become more important as a revenue generator than the Champions League? There are various ways to generate revenues. A big club has to hit on all cylinders so to speak. Champions League, Premier League, commercial â everywhere that makes sense. As evidenced by Manchester Cityâs success and that of Chelsea and Manchester United, you have to have sufficient resources to replenish and improve your squad annually in the Premier League. You donât have a choice. In an ideal world, success would be possible in at least both competitions but just as the Carling Cup and to an extent the FA Cup has been somewhat demoted in importance by the financial gains on offer in the Premier League and Champions League, is there a case for diverting finite resources (playersâ playing time) to the competitions that can guarantee the greatest returns? No. You donât compete for money; you compete to win. Winning the Carling Cup last year was huge for the club just as making it to the final of the FA Cup was huge. Supporters are the backbone of Liverpool Football Club and theyâve been through a lot over the last few years. Our players knew what those cups meant to the supporters last year. In some ways they were the only thing we were playing for last year because the league performance was so disappointing. Our goal is to win the Premier League. Itâs not going to happen this year, but that is what we are building for â first and foremost. Thatâs only going to happen if our league performance turns around substantially. Youâve said it is vital to increase revenues and improve youth development if Liverpool are to compete. This raises two questions. Firstly, do you see it as necessary to match the revenue of rival clubs before Liverpool can compete, or does the introduction of players through the youth system mean this will not be necessary? Itâs a massive challenge given where weâve been. Winning the Premier League entails all of that if you want to build a sustainable, powerful club. We will do that.
nothing new, same old same old including the "we want to win the prem without investing any money" line.
If they invested time instead of money to work on multiyear sponsorship deals like the warrior one, would that make you happy? - IMO the time and the sponsorship agreements are better than having a sack full of money thrown at us as money can be taken back, sponsorships contracts are much harder to break
Interesting what he says about the obvious loopholes in FFP (as many of us suspected) on a European level. Ridiculous amounts still being spent by certain clubs (chavs, PSG, Zenit etc) and yet we seem to be basing transfer policy on FFP being vigorously implemented (which it won't be). Did I also just read correctly that they haven't pursued a naming rights deal? I thought they were "actively" looking into it?
I think the most interesting part is that Anfield could be renamed if the right partner comes along ...
Spot on, very worrying. Self-sustainin is great if we want to be like Everton or if FFP gets implemented, fact is FFP won't be enforced and **** if I will see our club become Everton mach 2. I don't want the owners to throw money at us but I think an investment of at least £30m a year plus player sales isn't unreasonable?? I just can't see us ever competing again tbh with the likes of Chelsea/City pulling away and FFP seeming further away than ever
I think a naming rights partner for Anfield wasn't really a priority, nor did it cross their mind - imagine the backlash from fans if we changed the name of Anfield? In theory - the self sustaining model is a good way to go. Promoting players and staff from within the club to create an ever lasting cycle. I think we have a lot of the grounf work in place i.e. acadamy facilities, top class youngsters, good staff. I do feel we need to chuck more money on the first term to get us back to the right level. I suppose FSG did chuck money last season but it wasn't spent wisely.
All well and good and exactly what they should be doing but it can't really be viewed as a massive task to get a shirt sponsorship deal/shirt manufacturing deal with the shirt sales we enjoy globally (leaving aside the issue of who we've jumped into bed with to get that revenue stream).
I think getting a big sponsorship deal etc for a team that hasn't qualified for CL for a few seasons, and hasn't won the league in over 20 years is quite difficult. We can only rely on our history/brand for so long before people forget about us and we lose our appeal.
Agree about the potential backlash of renaming Anfield but if those funds were guaranteed to be "ring-fenced" for either ground redevelopment or squad investment again that's surely not rocket science. Fair comment also that they spent heavily last year but bear in mind they did buy the club "relatively" cheaply AND did get an instant 50mill windfall from the sale of the ladyboy. Granted that was re-invested straight away so I give them credit for that.
I'm not sure where I read it but I'm sure FSG never said they were ever going to chuck money into the club and they were determined to make us self sustainable. We seem to be notorious for bad decision making: getting rid of Rafa, bringing in Hodgson, allowing Purslow to be involved in footballing matters, selling players like Torres and Alonso (I know they had valid reasons but we could have been more forceful). And imagine if we had been sold to DIC instead of H&G ...
Again fair point but we do still have that appeal (for now) as shirt sales, tv audiences etc will back up. No way on earth would FSG have bought the club without that global appeal ALREADY being there. The big problem will be that we'll start to lose our appeal a lot quicker if we keep slipping further and further behind the top boys
Exactly Our commercial revenue i.e. shirt sales etc is still up there with the biggest clubs despite our problems which is credit to our brand and our management. I think we're at a stage where we will find it more and more difficult to improve our growth/revenue streams without success on the pitch.
Henry seems to be the complete opposite to Kroenke at Arsenal and a few other chairmen. I don't know what your preference is, but I think it's best for the guys at the top to stay out of the press as much as possible and let players/manager do the talking. Ashley used to be quite prominent, but his retreat to the background has co-incided with Newcastle rise. Personally don't see much benefit from the owners giving more interviews beyond the first when they arrive, and to deal with any extra-ordinary circumstances. When they are too vocal or approachable, I think it can undermine stability as there is more chance of conflicting statements from players/manager to fuel the press.
Its credit to our amazing teams of the past. We have been a global name for over three decades but that is quite simply down to what we have done ON the pitch. I don't think its unreasonable to suggest that in order to retain our global appeal we need to have success ON the pitch thus making success off it (gaining sponsorship deals etc) a whole lot easier to attain and maintain.
Fair enough, in the context of this interview it is somewhat justified- but even then, I'm sure other owners get similar requests- his apparent enthusiasm for media interaction is reflected in this. I suppose it's a tough position to be in- the more he says the more that can be held against him. As Carragher said whilst a pundit during Euro 2012 - talking to the press is one big lie, very rarely does anyone tell the truth, they say what the media or fans want to hear. It seems a pointless game for owners to get involved in.
