Flag carrier Garuda Indonesia has signed a sponsorship deal with English Premier League (EPL) club Liverpool FC and Athletic Grounds Ltd., the owner of Liverpool FC, for next season. Garuda is given the right to be the “Official Partner of Liverpool Football Club” and the “Official Global Airline Partner of Liverpool Football Club. A number of six-minute advertisement videos about Garuda Indonesia will be broadcast during matches at the Reds’ home ground, Anfield, for the 2012-2013 season starting on Aug. 19 with the first EPL match. Garuda marketing director, Elisa Lumbantoruan, said the airline took the opportunity as Anfield Stadium hosted a number of high profile matches. The agreement is expected to assist Garuda expand its international market as well as trim the airline’s advertisement expenses. “It is cheap when compared to placing advertisements on television to be seen by the entire population of the Earth.” she said. Elisa said the flag carried had looked into cooperation with other clubs but refused to reveal which clubs. In its regulatory filing, Garuda also announced its capital expenditure of US$400 million which would be used mostly to develop its fleet in addition to repaying pre-delivery payment and security deposit fees on leased aircraft. This year Garuda plans to add 21 more aircraft of which 11 will go to the flag carrier and the remaining 10 to low-cost carrier subsidiary Citilink.
There was some speculation that we were in negotiation with the Chinese airline for naming rights. If that is so then this Garuda deal puts the stadium another year off.
Partly, but also because having a brand like Liverpool (along with Boston Red Sox & Roush) bring in money for their other business ventures. Do you think they could have nailed the marketing deal for LeBron James without Liverpool? That is massive amounts of money right there! They also make money through NESN and the advertising brought in to that channel through showing Liverpool (and to a higher degree, Red Sox games). Within 3-4 season FSG will have a Liverpool side which is completely self sufficient (the last financials showed a loss only because FSG paid off the last of the old stadium debt and those figures didn't include the warrior deal which would have heavily cushioned that payments impact). FSG can then branch out with FSM and say "look at our portfolio of successful companies, work with us!" The Red Sox have won the world series, Rousch have won 2011 Nationwide NASCAR Championships and their drivers have won the Daytona 500 races in 2009 & 2012 (these races are not to be snuffed at, they draw about 13-15m viewers) and now they have Liverpool who need to start winning big. Look at New York Times, in 2002 they investred $75m in to NESV... those shares were then sold for $225m 10 years later - and this is 10 years later when the world is in a financial depression. Off the top of my head FSG have paid for the club, paid to get rid of the stadium debt, paid to get rid of Woy, Paid off Dalglish, Paid off Comolli + the other staff from their recent cull... FSG have invested but their main aim is to make LFC self sufficient and successful so they can promote it and make money with FSM
They didn't actually "pay" off the H&G stadium debt out of their own pockets though did they. They "loaned" that money which they get back (fair enough it was interest free) and as for paying off Comolli and Kenny...so they bloody should. They ****ed up massively either when they hired them or when they fired them (you decide which option you prefer) or both. So basically whether they take "dividends" or not isn't massively relevant to me. They make money off the back of the club (fair enough) but what is relevant to me is that so far they have hired the wrong people and fired them 18 months later, we have seen a relatively small net spend on the squad and what seems like a determination to drive down the wage bill when the clubs at the top are already spending three times what we spend anyway. New sponsorship deals/kit deals are all well and good but the amount of time they have been here so they bloody should be able to sort out a few sponsorship deals with random Far Eastern airlines and how much of that can be instantly offset by losing fortunes with bad buys in the transfer market (or bad sales) as the case may prove to be. Success on the pitch is what they strive for? No not really. LFC still have a worldwide reputation which they can whore around the world to get the deals that suit themselves not just the club. Having a "portfolio" of sports teams means they never throw heart and soul into any one of them they just use the fact that they have the portfolio to wave at people like LeBron and say look at how "sport crazy" we are buddy come let's us milk you too. The one "brand/franchise" they really should know about the Red Sox and how havethey been performing recently? Is that a good sign considering baseball really should be where they are thriving?
Here's a question. You say they WILL have a club that's self sufficient within 3-4 years but isn't that to a certain extent dependant on league position etc? One poor season like last years means revenue streams go down right? That means to be "self sufficient next year" something has to give ie a player sold (even if its at a loss) or wages reduced right? Doesn't being "self suifficient" just mean the owners never invest any money in. We could in theory slide down the table year on year and still remain "self sufficient" right? Do we have to get CL qualification first before we see extra investment? Could be a very slippery slope then in theory.
I had at the time assumed FSG were going to build a side buy spending THIER cash (not city like but some) and then they would ensure our revenues were strong to support ourselves thereafter. It looks to me FSG put very little cash in for players, (40mil net is even something we could pay ourselves) assume this is fine and are hawking us to every revenue stream possible. At some point we must view the evidence once enough exists and decide whether their claims they want us at the top are true or not. It seems to me that either they are naive about our team and how it should be top 4 now OR they don't care and see us as a cash cow that will produce even if 10th. We need more evidence to figure it out i think.. why did they sack comolli and kenny... due to results or the moeny spent badly.... who will they sanction to be bought... thier eventual plans for the clubs facilities etc etc. bozz.. in fairness.... fsg paid 200mil for the club and that paid of the existing debt. they wrote off 50mil this year from stadium and it looks to me the club will pay that off in no fees for players and further the tax man here will not get anything as no profits.... they brought in comolli and kenny so those are thier issues.... again paying off hodgson may have been on the club. we need to see the next financial results.
Have we suffered due to the players we have sold? The only player we have missed is Torres and he didn't want to play for us long before FSG took over. You're right they have invested very little of their own money but that's because they haven't had too. The money from Torres, Meireles, Mascherano & Babel has been enough to allow over £100m spending!!! Has the money been spent well? No. But that's not really FSG's fault and the people whose fault it is are now no longer with the club. FSG haven't spent money because they haven't needed too. If FSG had provided Kenny/DC with another £100m, do you really think they would have spent it wisely? Would FSG trust them to spend it wisely? I mean, they spent £35m on Andy Carroll with the first bit of money they got (admittedly he is looking good now but certainly not £35m good). We need to look at what we spend this season (now the cash from old transfers has run out). Rodgers has said that he is looking to pretty much keep the squad he has now plus make 4/5 additions... if we average those additions at £10m each thats approx £50m in one transfer window (Obv. Kuyt has gone) That's not bad investment, admittedly it's not Man City or Chelsea spending but if UEFA are really serious with implementing FFP then we'll stand a much better, safer future
this is a good question... for me the real question is if they thought they couldn't trust kenny and comolli with more money then why are they not trusting their new man with much (according to him) the other thing that doesn't add up is if he's looking at getting shut and has moved kuyt and now carroll is in the firing line then we have to wonder... I am open minded to see what occurs and what the actual squad is in august..... right now there's no positive evidence and the negative evidence is paper stuff and guess work off rodgers' comments all over the place. ... we'll have to wait and see finally FFP is an absolute load and completely forgotten by uefa by now... city are mad and cheslea won the cl by spending far more than their revenue. ther eis no uefa punishment coming imo
Maybe Rodgers is saying we have little cash because he doesn't want to pay over the odds for players. I think Sigurdsson was used as a pawn to back up this theory... could we have double his wage demands? yes! we're currently offering a new deal to Suarez as well as looking to sign others on to new deals but Sigurdsson wasn't worth the extra money and by not bucking to his demands and giving in like we've done in the past *cough* Joe Cole *cough* clubs, players and agents are looking at our initial wage offers and taking them seriously
I think you're forgetting something. FSG may have ''loaned'' Liverpool money for some reason, I think there is an agreement in place where Liverpool play at Fenway Park every couple of years. Who benefits from that? NESN benefit from it, The Red Sox also benefit from it, as do Fenway Sports Management. Who owns the above? Fenway Sports Group do. In other words, The owners of Liverpool owe themselves nothing.
