Well it looks as if UEFA are now gonna be tested by Citeh regards financial fair play and the Etihad deal,which is dodgier than a News of The World article Personally I think Citeh will get away with it,UEFA will prove they have no balls,and financial fair play wont happen If this occurs, will JW Henry/FSG stick around,when he bought the club, he admitted that he probably wouldnt have been interested , if the FFP rules werent about to come into force. If UEFA dont do anything with Cieth,I think JWH could decide to move on Thoughts!!!
henry is going nowhere now. he's got lebron james in doing work, he knows full well he got us on the cheap and he's got us making a killing world wide. far more than red sox ever will. YOu are right about city and fair play rules. it is simply impossible to prove anything about it as the arabs are not going to give anything up. we all know why its done but i nthe end you know what? utd beat chelsea, city will end up with a team they are kind of happy with and will compete with that. the mad spending will stop and as long as the rest do the work on young players, smart transfers and sustainability they'll be competing. uefa are corrupt head to foot and plantini is up to his neck in it.
FSG have started putting roots down now so I doubt they'll look to sell. They know we're a marketing gold mine and they have already brought the club (which is a cash positive business with a global reputation). If they did decide to offload us then i'd imagine it would be for a massive profit and if someone can afford to pay that then they can afford to fund the clubs needs (not that they will need much finance after being brought as it pays for itself with it's own profits). If Man Utd can handle the monthly payment on £500m debts + have money to spend in the transfer window then we have a great shot at being a massive money spinner with no debt as the only difference between us and them is a stadium, a decent marketing team and the fact that they are currently winning things - these are all things that we can do with little to no impact to further reinvestment. EDIT - Further more City need that extra money as they are not cash positive, if they couldn't sell the naming rights to etihad then the'y be in **** in 3 years time. what you have to ask yourself is at what point does their owner stop throwing £100m in here and £100m in there, what would that do to the club? They'll always be overshadowed by Manchester United and whatever they spend on marketing they will always be seen as Manchester Unite Lite because they are from the same city, it's like the Lakers and the Clippers. Chelsea are slightly different as they are the only club in london who spend big, they have a nieche. City are just another Manchester Club
Day Do Doh Don't Day Doe In my humble opinion, FSG are fully committed to us, for many of the reasons listed above. I really believe that they have 'bought into' the club, not just with their money, but with their hearts. I don't think they quite understood what this club was about until they got involved - they're business people, but one's with soul.
Bozz. Exactly. I'm still convinced that FSG have the marketing experts to blow Man United out of the water commercially and tie up deals that they can only dream about tying up.I'm 100% sure Liverpools margin for improvement is greater than theirs.Liverpool in marketing speak are a ''cash cow that has just began being milked''.
i think bozz has made a great point. it would take 10 years of utter dominance with probably at least 2 CL for city to emerge for utds shadow in manchester. yet i want to expand on the london point. Surely the fact that we see chelsea as the team in london is yet more evidence of the utter failure of arsenal and wenger to build upon thier success. Arsenal should have dwarved chelsea. now chelsea are it. was a 60k stadium worth not keeping your team up to strength given 50mil profits as well? surely evolution in 2004 was all that was needed not revolution. 6 years of no success and players who don't have the bottle coming in = arsenal are now firmly and probably for the long term in chelsea's shadow. KPR is right i think we are certainly competing well with every club interms of marketing now. stadium is one element and a 60k stadium will only close a gap slightly. the one thing not being said is a new stadium = more corporate boxes so more revenue and it is that thats the key thing. if you put 3 sides of boxes you compete. utd can't compete with city of chelsea but TODAY, if rumours of sneijder are true they are set to dominate for years. If we build properly we can take arsenal out as well and at least get back to 4th
I'm not so sure they didn't know. The NESV exec who first got them interested, can't recall his name, said his Red Sox office was plastered with LFC stuff. He was a big fan and would've drawn all the parallels with the Red Sox for Henry and Werner that have been drawn since. Werner also played football as a youth so knows about the game. I doubt it long-term. How much of their stadium have they paid off? because it seems to me that's been their strategy. They're happy to go without short-term because when all that stadium profit is theirs they'll be as rich as they need to be. Ironically Wenger built the Invincibles at Highbury, Chelsea have still to win the CL and Real Madrid, not a poor club, went out of the CL in round two six years running. The money ain't no guarantee. There'll be a bunch of test cases over the next few years for aspects of FFP. There'll be compromise and the clubs will get away with what they can but I don't see FSG leaving because City manage to get more from a sponsor. They get more sponsorship, we sell more shirts.
Agree with the points already made. They have brought the club knowing that we have a worldwide appeal and with the right marketing decisions, they can make money out of Liverpoolw which is what they want.
Agree with most of the above although it needs pointng out that a £100m here and £200m there for City's owners is chickenfeed. Their wealth is staggering - they simply don't value money like the rest of us. On the marketing front we just need to find an 'oriental Gerrard' and we are in business (Gewward?! sry)
General. Yes you're right about that. However, it's not the same unless you're at Anfield and can hear and feel the passion!
Liverpool have got a bigger margin for improvement, I agree with you on that. However to suggest Liverpool will get deals we can only dream of is optimistic to say the least. Maybe and if Liverpool get successful again they will be able to match United with their marketing income but I suspect they are currently some way off.
On the merchandising point. There is no way of comparing the income streams directly. United's Nike contract si not directly similar to the one Liverpool had with Addidas - yours is a management programme whereas ours was a sponsorship programme ) though Addidas did say that we were their biggest client for shirt sales. Our new contract with Warrior looks excieting but has yet to be proven. Take a look at the Forbes analysis of branded sales between Nike and Warrior and it makes really interesting reading - especially in the Far East. I think the claim regarding our ability to tie-up deals that may not be open to other clubs is based upon our tie with Fenway Sports Management via our parent company. FSM are very active and hugely profitable not only in the US but also in South America and the Far East. I don't think any English clubs have yet to truly identify the size and shape of opportunities in the Far East. I do agree with you that the maximisation of our potential is directly linked to the club becoming successful again. That is not going to happen overnight - I would be very suspicious if it were. Not merely trying to point score but the difference in merchandising income is probably more than offset now that we are no longer saddled by debt interest payments.
What a load of toss. He's going nowhere. I think Platini might get stuck in this time. His hatred of England will motivate him.
Your right. He doesn't grab me as the type to throw he toys out of the pram and walk out over Citeh. He is here to do work for Liverpool regardless what is happening at other clubs. I wouldn't worry too much if I was you.
City had to try someting other than merchandising because they don't have any fan's outside Manchester. To allow the owner of City sponsor the name of the ground with his own airline and make his own price would be suspect but then again U.E.F.A are a bunch of idiot's so I would'nt expect them to do anything.
Just a question, is the Financial Fair Play rules actually 'fair'? Yes in theory clubs should only spend what they earn but does this rule just mean that the richer clubs will just get richer and the champions league spots will be even more of a closed shop (further widening the divide between rich and poor clubs with all the champions league money). Is what City and Chelsea have done actually a bad thing for football? Have a look how other clubs have benefitted from them paying ‘over the odds’ think about the amount of money has been brought into the country (all being taxed) is it more interesting having more teams able to compete at the top and have a more competitive league? To me the financial Fair Play rules strike me as something to protect the bigboys
