Liverpool Sell thier Souls - Commerical Deal discussion thread

We really should have had a thread on this before now, esp when we started with nike


https://www.liverpoolfc.com/corporate/partners

OFFICIAL MAIN PARTNER

please log in to view this image

OFFICIAL KIT SUPPLIER

please log in to view this image

Nike

OFFICIAL PRINCIPAL PARTNERS

please log in to view this image

AXA

please log in to view this image

Expedia



OFFICIAL PARTNERS

please log in to view this image

Carlsberg

please log in to view this image

Wasabi

please log in to view this image

Vista

please log in to view this image

SC Johnson

please log in to view this image

Kodansha

please log in to view this image

Sonos

please log in to view this image

EA Sports

please log in to view this image

Mauritius Tourism

please log in to view this image

Monster Energy

please log in to view this image

Nivea

please log in to view this image

Petro Canada - Holly Frontier

please log in to view this image

Think Markets

please log in to view this image

Quorn

please log in to view this image

Cadbury

please log in to view this image

Acronis

please log in to view this image

Joie


Cardless


Alex Bank

 

Latest deal by Liverpool

please log in to view this image

Red shirts, red coke bottle. makes sense i suppose.

Salah holding a Pepsi can won't make any more sense though.

How do people feel about this one?

 

I just can't muster any interest in the commercial side of the game, it just doesn't interest me. I'll watch the football and leave all that to the club.

 

this is true, its a balance between a) these guys get us the players we want to see by giving us money and b) the sponsor types reflect on the club.

would you care for example if a fake betting company in Asia was associated with us (city have done this)

 

I'd find that most objectionable - but tbh, dig deep enough into many of those we do have and you'll no doubt find something immoral or corrupt.
I despair at the level of commercialism in the modern game, and that a club that has any hope of competing has to go down that road. I feel that most of these large global companies are built on exploitation of some kind.

 

its big business. I don't know that these companies REALLY make money off these deals but fear missing out by not being in them. I USED to work for one company that had its logo on F1 car and on a football shirt and on a stadium in USA. the business absolutely, categorically was never making more sales via this route. they type of stuff sold was not to peopel who watched sports.

The thing is sadly not funding cheap seats in the stadium for locals. the thing in our case is funding building ever more ways to get more money on match day via club stores, concessions, premium seating, restaurants, bars etc.

The local pubs round anfield etc report a lack of actual trade as the club keeps putting in more and more facilties inside the stands that sucks up all the trade.

Example: Bayern (these ****s gouge at CL btw)

Cat 1 80 €
Cat 2 60 €
Cat 3 50 €
Cat 4 40 €
Cat 5 15 € Standing*




Now anfield



while the top rate isn't as eyewatering as in Bayern (pound was stronger unitl truss tanked the economy) the vast majority of tickets are more expensive. the concessions for kids are very very small minority

think about it like this, if you've ever sat in the lower Sir kenny stand and paid £55 to be cramped you'd be not very happy

the reality is someon in the front of the kop will pay between 42 and 43 quid (why **** knows) compared to a bayern fan paying 15.

All the commercial deals in the world.... and this is not changing.

 

Yes I would. Not enough to boycott the team tbh, but it would annoy me. While I've not looked at our Sponsors in detail, I don't see anything too objectionable on the surface.

 

I think tobacco and alcohol advertising/sponsoring was banned a while ago; betting companies should be added to the list. As saint said, with regard to other sponsors, if you dig deep enough you will find something that you don't like or agree with.

Coca Cola used to want to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, now they have been labelled as one of the woke companies for getting involved in political issues that have nothing to do with them as a soft drinks manufacturer. Their CEO has been actively involved in voting rights issues and campaigning against the States that made it illegal for transgender people to take part in women's sports. That's not their role. Do it in a personal capacity if that's how you feel but not on the company's official media accounts. Their sales saw a downturn in response. In the current climate it doesn't take much for the link to be made to LFC itself supporting the issues that their sponsors support. Having said that, I have no objection to Coca Cola as a sponsor. I don't buy their products anyway and their sponsorship won't alter that.

 

Type of people that watch sports? I think that's a broard cross-section of the population all the way from pauper on the street to Elon Musk, and Prince William.

I mean look at this board, you have billionaire Garlic, who has a Butler than has his own butler. You have someone that works with non profits in a dingy midlands town. You have a headhunter that drinks Carling and a man in Germany who tortures and cannibalizes people in his basement... Oh and the erudite, suave transatlantic web developer sex machine. We come from all walks of life.

I don't think there is a "type of person" that watches sports. That said, even though advertising doesn't seem like it's working, and an ad for Coca Cola on a Liverpool ad board won't make you buy a Coke, it does register.


You see a Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola and a Store Brand Cola on a shelf, all the same price. Odds are you won't buy the Store Brand Cola (even though its almost certainty made by Coke or Pepsi and just relabeled). People tend to stick with what they're familiar with, it's part of our normalcy bias.

If those ads didn't work, companies wouldn't spend so much on advertising.

 

#allaboutzanjinho

 

Tax dodge.

 

Thanks for the mention

 

I am quite confident that the company i talked about made zero deals off sponsoring an F1 car. Especially a **** one.

Their business was not like coke that needs that constant in the consumers mind rather than the rival. That business was on big contracts and selling services etc and decisions are not made based on looking good on a sports screen, plus it really only has 2 rivals so they switch round in terms of contracts with other businesses and their rivals never ever advertise like that. It was ego by a CEO imo.

 

another new minor sponsor

please log in to view this image

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/reds-unveil-new-global-partnership-and-official-wi-fi-provider

now the executive suits can log on and check their stocks while at the game, cos the wifi was desperate.

 

If they want to give us money so they can say they're official sponsors... That's alright with me. Helps us compete with City just a little bit.

 

As long as we're partnering with actual brands, then it's not a problem for me. Unlike City who are literally fabricating commercial deals to cook their books.

Unfortunately, we're in a day and age where we have to be involved heavily on the commercial side else we will be left behind. In fact, even with our big commercial deals now, we're struggling to compete.

Whether that's down to a lack of financial resources, or negligence from the management team ... who knows.

 

Its neither. Its a hard and fast run that we shall not go into any debt. the club paid for kirkby and are paying for the anfield road end... we are paying back 12mil a year to fsg for main stand. All that sucks cash flow. if you add all that up its 120+50+80 = 250mil of capital investment FSG absolutely refuse to pay for in any way that the club has to.

the Revenues are higher than man utds. when they are published it will state "record" turnover

If you look at cheslea, that have they invested in?
If you look at man utd, how dilapidated is their training facility and stadium?
If you look at man city, who funds the entire capital side and runs it through a separate set of books?
if you look at spurs, how much debt have they run up?
If you look at arsenal, how long has the stadium been paid off now? 5/6 years?

all our rivals are unburdened by worries about debt (wrongly imo) or simply don't invest in facilities much, of fake it.

FSG want a self sustaining entity thats an appreciating asset for the big pay off sometime. the best they did for us was freeze the stadium repayments for 2 season of covid (not forgave it, just delayed it, the glaziers did the same to utd this season btw they took 33mil in dividends out to make up for the lower dividiend they took in covid)

we are simply not able to run at a loss or borrow money to fund transfers like other clubs. Chelsea are actively going form 0 debt, new owner to a billion in debt over the enxt 2/3 seasons. LUNACY. Spurs are running a massive debt levy secured cheap financing on during covid. 830million. Man utd's debts are increasing 526mil.

LFC took out a covid covering option so the last figures shows us at 208mil debt. this will drop radically in next accounts as well as most was handed right back and not spent. (so yes we could have bought players but chose not to)

 

So basically all this stuff about having record revenues and huge commercial deals is just nonsense.

Can't wait to see New Training Ground as our number 7, or New Sponsorship Deal as the Bobby replacement.

I'm all for investing in the infrastructure but the playing squad is what will pay it off. Success on the pitch = success off the pitch.

 

its not nonsense. Its the truth. We have masses of cash coming into the club, its flowing out the other end to pay for what FSG could have paid for but didn't.

If you look round anfield currently its a massive poor. The council have completely let the area down. utterly and totally.

FSG around fenway. big plans. lots and lots of revenue sources and they are all in for development https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2021/06/07/fenway-park-construction-plans/

Anfield.

please log in to view this image

appraently walton breck is "too busy and imprtant" to reroute it.

Meanwhilte.
Top left derelict open ground. Opposite side to club shop., derelict site.

behind main stand, (cant see here) derelict site behind the tv compound.

We can see the albert pub beside the club shop.( this is ok)

We can see what amounts to the park pub, the chruch (not huge) and just on the corner there the chippy

Want a bigger kop? simple move the road and those buildings need to go to do it.

BUT... look at all that green field that FSG could step in and say sorry council you are just not going it, sell us the sites and we will develop them. FSG are not doing it.

his clearly shows the pecking order for FSG. Red sox first second and third. LFC go do whatever yourself.

 

Let me rephrase - all this talk about being to compete with the biggest clubs and go for the best players is nonsense.

Not doubting that FSG have done good things for this club but there will always be a limit to our success unfortunately. As I say, it may not all be down to FSG - I think Klopp and Pep need to take responsibility for our current predicament.