Look out London, here we come!

[Jim MM]

What's the problem with getting investors drunk in a lap dancing bar? Sound business strategy if you ask me.

[JaminKibbler]

Wine and dine those Barca bastards down there then let them see what a real city is like rather than that soulless money grabbing shitter  

[Harry Squatter]

I think it's good that we are finally making some money after being run like a charity shop for years. I know some of us will cringe but its better to do this stuff than not to. We need as much money as we can to pay those wages and transfer fees. Sponsors want to be associated with the Premier League as it is broadcast all over the world. I'd rather have Dunkin Do nuts pay us a couple if million a year than pay Chelsea, Arsenal or The Manc clubs.

 

One thing I do hate is that although we seem to be making money from these deals and the TV money is that ticket prices are still ridiculously expensive when there is no justification for it. I paid 23 Euros to watch Benfica last week, I've paid roughly that much to watch matches in Spain, Italy and Getmany yet our ticket prices are a fucking rip off yet England has the most lucrative TV deal.

[G Richards]

If setting up a London office helps to grow the commercial side of the club then bring it on. We're doing very well commercially, especially given the years outside the CL and the disastrous previous ownership. If the trajectory we are on commercially helps to improve the stadium and the team, and also secures our seat at the top table, then that's what matters.

 

If you like grass roots, follow Sunday League. Football at the top end is sport, entertainment and big business all at the same time.

[Trumo]

Our commercial revenue for 2012/13 was close to £100m apparently, and given that the club has agreed some lucrative new partnerships since then, the commercial revenue in the next set of accounts (for 2013/14) will be well above £100m. Considering we got close to £100m in TV money without Champions League football, and with matchday revenue close to £50m, we should be looking at £250m or more in total revenue for last season. And those numbers will be higher than that for this season.

[Reckoner]

So can investors get their phone unlocked or not?

[stringvest]

So can investors get their phone unlocked or not?

 

they can, just a stone's throw away.  I got some very decent stage lights in a shop on Tottenham Court Road.  And a hooky battery for an old Macbook.  Blinding.  

[Iceman]

It's a top plan.The next Sanchez comes onto the market, we need him but the usual shithawks are circling, usually Ayre's still on the train eating egg sarnies while the deals already going down.

 

But this time we meet player X at London City Airport, quick journey to TCR, after he's unlocked his phone (obviously), you take him to the vag shop get him dazzled by the toot and the tits, while he's still zipping himself up and dusting his hooter, you slam him into a limo and he's in Liverpool before his bell's dry.

 

Ladies and gents I present to you the next scoring sensation. And fuck off Chelsea.  

[Trumo]

I was just reading an article in World Soccer about European clubs' transfer spending this summer, and while the figures given don't seem to tally with the generally accepted numbers in a lot of deals (many are overstated), there was one key point which jumped out.

 

The writer talks about what Man Utd have spent even though they don't have Champions League football this year. While suggesting that their transfer business was more like a panic spree than a calculated squad restructure, he says that they can afford to splash out like this in the short term. Part of the reason is that for the last financial year, they generated £433m in total revenue, of which £189m was commercial revenue. That obviously doesn't include the Adidas deal which kicks in next summer, and I'm not sure whether it includes the first part of their Chevrolet deal, both of which are record sponsorship deals in the Premier League.

 

To put that into context, that commercial revenue for last season is only £20m less than we generated in total revenue the season before last.

 

THAT is why a move of the club's commercial department to London represents sound business savvy. It's not taking the club away from its Liverpool roots, but rather making it easier to deal with and sign up with potentially bigger commercial partners for the club. London can offer a vast array of hospitality to business clients that Liverpool simply cannot match and whether we like it or not, such things are deal-breakers in the competitive climate.

[ratcatcher]

I was just reading an article in World Soccer about European clubs' transfer spending this summer, and while the figures given don't seem to tally with the generally accepted numbers in a lot of deals (many are overstated), there was one key point which jumped out.

 

The writer talks about what Man Utd have spent even though they don't have Champions League football this year. While suggesting that their transfer business was more like a panic spree than a calculated squad restructure, he says that they can afford to splash out like this in the short term. Part of the reason is that for the last financial year, they generated £433m in total revenue, of which £189m was commercial revenue. That obviously doesn't include the Adidas deal which kicks in next summer, and I'm not sure whether it includes the first part of their Chevrolet deal, both of which are record sponsorship deals in the Premier League.

 

To put that into context, that commercial revenue for last season is only £20m less than we generated in total revenue the season before last.

 

THAT is why a move of the club's commercial department to London represents sound business savvy. It's not taking the club away from its Liverpool roots, but rather making it easier to deal with and sign up with potentially bigger commercial partners for the club. London can offer a vast array of hospitality to business clients that Liverpool simply cannot match and whether we like it or not, such things are deal-breakers in the competitive climate.

 

Not that Im interested in manchester united but I dont have a problem with them spending big. They generate a huge amount of money through their sponsorship deals and if it wasnt for the huge interest they pay due to the glazer's debt, they'd be massively out of sight.

 

But once again, some of our fans want to hold the club back because having an office in London just isnt the 'Liverpool Way.' This despite the fact we were the first English club to wear a sponsored shirt in the league which really was a massive initiative at the time.

[stringvest]

I'm amazed we haven't already got one to be honest.  A massive oversight for a club of our size.  

[Trumo]

But once again, some of our fans want to hold the club back because having an office in London just isnt the 'Liverpool Way.' This despite the fact we were the first English club to wear a sponsored shirt in the league which really was a massive initiative at the time.

 

In one of the amnesty threads, I said I hate this notion of 'The Liverpool Way' (not this website, just the notion). It has been used as a crutch by many of our fans and a number of club officials as some sort of ethos supposedly based on what the likes of Shankly or Paisley would do. It ignores the fact that the decisions made back then were done to benefit the club and move it forward. It's wasn't some self-conscious ethos to follow like it's become over the past 20-30 years. The right move for the club in the prevailing footballing climate is the right move for the club period. It's unfortunate if it somehow takes a little away of what people hold dear but the alternative is to stand still or go backwards and just become a relic.

[stringvest]

In one of the amnesty threads, I said I hate this notion of 'The Liverpool Way' (not this website, just the notion). It has been used as a crutch by many of our fans and a number of club officials as some sort of ethos supposedly based on what the likes of Shankly or Paisley would do. It ignores the fact that the decisions made back then were done to benefit the club and move it forward. It's wasn't some self-conscious ethos to follow like it's become over the past 20-30 years. The right move for the club in the prevailing footballing climate is the right move for the club period. It's unfortunate if it somehow takes a little away of what people hold dear but the alternative is to stand still or go backwards and just become a relic.

 

 

To be fair, I'm not sure anyone is against it.  A few people were moaning about the increasingly overt commercialisation and the prioritisation of commercial success over footballing success, but I don't think anyone was moaning specifically about having a London base.  

 

I just wish we'd been a bit smarter and more savvy about location.  Perception is important.  

[Trumo]

Not that Im interested in manchester united but I dont have a problem with them spending big. They generate a huge amount of money through their sponsorship deals and if it wasnt for the huge interest they pay due to the glazer's debt, they'd be massively out of sight.

 

I don't want them to be dominant or even competitive but the money they spend is money they've generated, even if some of their sponsorship deals are ridiculously overinflated, so I can't complain if their spending it as that's what I would want us to do - spending only what we generate after working hard to generate that income both on and off the field. It's not the same as the nouveau riche clubs being propped up by wealthy owners

[ratcatcher]

I don't want them to be dominant or even competitive but the money they spend is money they've generated, even if some of their sponsorship deals are ridiculously overinflated, so I can't complain if their spending it as that's what I would want us to do - spending only what we generate after working hard to generate that income both on and off the field. It's not the same as the nouveau riche clubs being propped up by wealthy owners

 

Agree with you totally.