Separate TV deals!?

Im not agreeing with the proposal by Ayres but if he and LFC decide to "go it alone" no matter how many people disagree they'll still go ahead with it.

But lets be honest if LFC managed to get through the legalities and were making millions from selling our TV rights globally you can bet the morals of Utd,Chelsea,Arsenal etc would'nt stand in the way of them doing the same very soon after.

 

Page why doesn't Ayre put the tickets prices up?

Surely with a 60k waiting list there is some scope to get some extra revenue there??

 

Knee jerk reaction would imply that he had reacted instantly to us not qualifying for the CL and came out with this, he didn't. Its what, four or five months since we knew we knew weren't in the Champions League this season, so its hardly knee jerk. How do you not know this isn't Ian Ayre improving our bargaining position for when the European TV deal is renegotiatied in 2013. Similar to what Bayern Munich (and other champions league clubs) have been doing recently by coming out and hinting at a Super European league for the elite clubs, when they have no intention of actually going through with it, they're just improving their position when the UEFA Champions League deal is up for renenwal in 2014.

 

Our owners are business orientated GaR and you can bet higher ticket prices has been discussed,but the TV rights issue puts any ticket increase into the shade.

The Fenway Group own the North East Sports Network tv channel which owns the rights to amongst others the Boston Red Sox,and they sell the rights to Red Sox home games to FSN and ESPN and the proposal by LFC to sell our tv rights to overseas tv companies is what our owners see as a natural thing to do.

But as Lucaaas says it could be our getting our digs in first on the long road to a European super league.

Either way if its legally possible they'll go for it imo.

 

Page, Ian Ayre is putting a marker down. He knows that there will be too much opposition at the moment to win the issue prior to this round of negotiations. It will aslo flush out those clubs to whom the idea may have some attraction depsite what is said in public.

Did anybody have a close look at the sports intelligence piece and the survey that underpins it by Dr Rohlmann? Strange that it only concerned itself with replica shirt sales. As it finally admitted whilst LFC were way behind Real Madrid in this catagory, overall Addidas sales of LFC branded goods were far higher than the total RM sales. It was also interesting to look at the banding used to table club sales. A 22% band width is just crazy. With this type of goods even standard research reports such as Retail Index can achieve far more accurate sales figures with an error factor down to 2-3%.

It appears that some people will try and use any data they can to support their claims without questioning its validity.

 

Whilst I completely disagree with the idea, one of the things I find funny about this thread is the fans of other clubs condeming Liverpool or any other club for that matter in regards to this.

Do Chelsea fans really think their club hasn't at least looked into this idea, we will have done at United, it's just Ayre has gone public with it.

SAF seems against it and rightly so imo and I can't see how it could happen anyway as the would be far too much opposition.

 

Eric, there are many fish out there to fry and individual tv rights is only one of them. However, Ayre is cleraly demonstrating that LFC will approach al of the issues on the basis of commercial viability. Hence, it would be no surprise if LFC supported a Euro League.

As you say, this idea is not unique and I do know that David Gill has recieved reports upon its viability - even though the United public statements have been negative towards it. Now Gill is no fool and would not reject an idea without having researched it first. However, neither will he be tied to a collective policy if that ultimately proves not to be in Un ited's best interest.

 

i.e once again you are trying to distract away from the fact you've been show up (again!), are a bitter deluded fool with no grasp of reality.

I think from now on your name should be 'clown shoes' and we should all refer to KPR as such...cos frankly you are a joke.

 

Classic. Love the way KPR then completely changes the subject. Oh well. If a small club in fulham outsells Liverpool in their apparent massive asian market, what does that really say about Liverpool's global appeal or is KPR just talking **** again??

 

I'd guess the owners don't want to risk alienating the fans yet. They're probably looked at how the anti-Glazer backlash at Utd correlated very strongly to the annual rise in ticket prices. I reckon they will wait until you are either back in the CL or have a new stadium, so they can use that goodwill to ease out the less well off fans and ensure that they are maximising the revenue they get from the waiting list.

The whole Real vs Liverpool kit and shirts thing does make me wonder. Given that adidas pay Real 30 million Euros a season for their kit manufacture, and Real want 60 million Euros when they renew, why were adidas so unwilling to match Warrior's £25 million a year offer for Liverpool kit? That implies that even if Liverpool bring in higher revenue, it makes less profit for adidas when compared to Real. Does Liverpool kit achieve lower prices than Real kit, or do Liverpool just sell more of the low margin items like socks and keyrings? If so, are Warrior going to bump the prices up try and milk the fans to justify the high cost of the deal?

 

No not at all, but researching it and publically contemplating it are completely different though surely?

 

Can you explain to me how he may have improved your bargaining position on what is a collective rev share deal?

This is what I meant in an earlier post by obviously not having spoken to his peers or polled for opinion, because let's not forget clubs do talk to each other, as his comments seem to isolate Liverpool from the rest of the league.

This may not bother you as you are LFC etc etc, but regardless of what other clubs may look at behind closed doors in PR terms it's a total gaff...Wigan weren't even a professional club 25 years ago and here they are competing in one of the best leagues in the world on their own merit, why shouldn't they benefit financially from that?

I may be wrong and stand to be corrected, but I thought the Champions League/ Euro League debate is as much to do with UEFA and FIFA's bullish attitude and ignorance of clubs wishes regarding international fixtures as it is money.

 

Can I say that this has nothing to do with managers. Those saying SAF is against this (as if it indicates that United take an opposite stance to us) overestimate his powers. I'm sure he doesn't want individual TV rights but it's not his decision to take the club's stance, it's the glazer's. Just as Kenny has no say in what Ayre and FSG have to do with how the club is managed financially - if it was Kenny's say then this wouldn't even be mentioned as he is a staunch socialist and a great believer in tradition and the old ways of footie.

 

One thing for sure is that neither Addidas or Warrior are going to give us the figures upon which they based their evaluations of the value of the Liverpool contract. You also have to consider that Warrior are the new and probably aggressive kid on the block and therefore their value decisions will be different from that of Addidas. However, your contention as to profit contribution between LFC and RM cannot be confirmed from the figures provided by Dr. Peter Rohlmann. Neither of us know the detail of the contract that RM signed with Addidas and hence the apparent doubling of the renewal demand.

At this point I have no idea as to Warrior's proposed price points. However, they will have to be competitive with those of Addidas and Nike.

 

What Fergie wants, Fergie gets

 

Perhaps Ayre's statement has already achieved its objective?

 

You may think that. I'm sure that David Gill may have another view on that

 

Well, if he's trying to improve Liverpool's bargaining position he may be looking to using the individual rights thing as a stick to try and get the clubs to agree to a new collective sharing deal that is graduated based on the number of appearances around the world. At the moment, the overseas rights are split absolutely equally between all 20 clubs, with each club getting around £18 million last season. Ayre might just be trying to test the water to propose that the new collective agreement should give more revenue to clubs like Liverpool and Utd who are regularly shown around the world, and less to clubs like Wigan and Wolves that aren't.

I'd assume that a shift in the revenue split in a new collective agreement would only require a majority of 11 to succeed as it isn't a fundamental change. So maybe Ayre is hoping that by mentioning individual rights he can scare a couple of the lower clubs into voting for it in fear of losing all their overseas revenue if the rights were sold on an individual basis. But then that's just idle speculation on my part.

 

Swarbs. Off-topic I know, but when's the virtual footie match happening?

 

I dunno, speaking as someone who used to play lacrosse a lot, and thus was buying a lot of kit, Warrior tended to be the most expensive company in the market. And now that they have exclusive rights to Liverpool kit they do have a little monopoly right there. They don't really need to be competitive with Adidas and Nike, as it's not like Liverpool fans will have anywhere else to go for their shirts if Warrior jack the price up by £5-10 to boost their margins. Revenues may fall, but profits may well increase if they get their pricing right.