Profit

[Ne Moe Imya]

I find it staggering we seem to be on such a small shirt deal....we must be one of the biggest shirt sellers and i would personally find it surprising if arsenal were selling more shirts than us.

 

Well, I think the latest data has us behind United and about even with Arsenal. But again, it's all skewed because of the nature of the deal we have with New Balance/Warrior. With Nike or any of the major manufacturers, the team gets a royalty on every shirt and that's it. With NB, we get a royalty plus we have the ability to control the sales side.

 

Ergo, there's probably some revenue we're getting separate to the simple sponsorship deal that you're not seeing in that 25m/season figure that we get from NB. 

 

I still wonder if we'll continue with the deal past this next season. I think it's probably telling that rather than a lengthy extension we just agreed on one more season with NB. That likely tells you we're shopping around for a long-term partner, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see us go back to Adidas or one of the other major brands.

[Aventus]

Overall I've been a fan of nearly all the Warrior/NB kits.

[The Woolster]

Puma are supposed be taking over as Man City's kit supplier soon. Wouldn't want them anyway looking at that horrific kit they've come up with for Arsenal.

 

A lot of these kit and shirt sponsorship deals are headline figures anyway, with a lot of the money quoted being the maximum the club will get depending on success (winning trophies) and especially CL quaification. I remember reading that the Mancs deal with Adidas drops by about £25m if they're not in the CL.

 

That was if they didn't get in 2 years in a row, which made their Europa League win even more galling

[Trumo]

Overall I've been a fan of nearly all the Warrior/NB kits.

 

You also like socks that are made to look like shoes.

[Jairzinho]

Hoping Zonko doesnt read this page.

[an tha]

Well, I think the latest data has us behind United and about even with Arsenal. But again, it's all skewed because of the nature of the deal we have with New Balance/Warrior. With Nike or any of the major manufacturers, the team gets a royalty on every shirt and that's it. With NB, we get a royalty plus we have the ability to control the sales side.

 

Ergo, there's probably some revenue we're getting separate to the simple sponsorship deal that you're not seeing in that 25m/season figure that we get from NB.

 

I still wonder if we'll continue with the deal past this next season. I think it's probably telling that rather than a lengthy extension we just agreed on one more season with NB. That likely tells you we're shopping around for a long-term partner, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see us go back to Adidas or one of the other major brands.

Interesting, ta...

[Trumo]

Well, I think the latest data has us behind United and about even with Arsenal. But again, it's all skewed because of the nature of the deal we have with New Balance/Warrior. With Nike or any of the major manufacturers, the team gets a royalty on every shirt and that's it. With NB, we get a royalty plus we have the ability to control the sales side.

 

Ergo, there's probably some revenue we're getting separate to the simple sponsorship deal that you're not seeing in that 25m/season figure that we get from NB. 

 

I still wonder if we'll continue with the deal past this next season. I think it's probably telling that rather than a lengthy extension we just agreed on one more season with NB. That likely tells you we're shopping around for a long-term partner, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see us go back to Adidas or one of the other major brands.

 

When the club signed with Warrior in 2012, it was a 6-year deal worth £25m a year. Three years into that deal, New Balance took over and (according to one source that I'd have to dig out) upped that to almost £30m a year, claiming it to be a 'multi-year' deal. They could claim it as such because 'multi-year' was still valid when there were 3 years left to run on it, but again it was later reported that the NB deal - apart from an increase in the amount paid per year - had extended the duration by another year so the deal actually expires in summer 2019. If that is indeed the case, there will be a load of media reports between now and next May claiming that we are negotiating a new deal with NB or one of the big guns.

 

What isn't clear is just how lucrative the Warrior/NB deal has been overall. Because the club's parent company is a private limited company (Ltd), they are not required to provide the sort of detailed financial reports a public limited company (PLC) would have to. The level of disclosure on that specific matter is up to the board of directors. All they must to is file a 'true and fair' set of accounts with Companies House that show the company to be a going concern (ie solvent).

 

Ian Ayre did a series of interviews around the time of the Warrior deal announcement and in them he claimed that the club would retain control of their own merchandising, which is true. The club controls Liverpool-branded stores around the world whereas the likes of the Mancs, Real Madrid, Barcelona and co have to bow to the whims of Adidas and Nike. Ayre also claimed that the amount of profit generated through the merchandising deal would basically double the amount Warrior were paying us, so he was selling the deal as one that was worth £50m a year to the club. From the club's subsequent annual accounts, there's no way of proving Ayre's claim. Even the directors' statements in these accounts do not touch upon it.

 

The Standard Chartered deal started in 2010, to run for 4 years and earn the club £20m a year. It was extended to summer 2016 shortly before it ran out, upping the annual payment to £25m a year. Before it ran out again, it was extended to summer 2019 and the club would get £30m a year. Today's announcement tells us that Standard Chartered have extended the deal again to summer 2023, and the club will get £40m a year from 2019.

 

When it comes to leaving NB and signing up with one of the bigger brands, the question for the owners is whether they are prepared to give up control of merchandising. Is the amount generated by our relatively unique merchandising agreement worth less or more than if the club ceded control? If signing up with a bigger brand gets more product to more places around the world but gives the club only a fraction of the royalties they get from controlling the merchandising themselves, will they still get more money coming in?

 

What gets me thinking as to whether the club are going about it the right way is that none of the other big clubs control their own merchandising. It's all in the hands of Adidas or Nike in the main. Is that actually a more profitable way to go? The other way to look at it is that the amounts shelled out by the big brands may soon level off or even fall, so these clubs could end up looking at smaller deals than they have at present, and with no merchandising control systems in place to do what Liverpool have done. Maybe if this happens, Liverpool have already got a massive headstart because the club has had control over it's merchandising for years and is already familiar with the benefits and pitfalls. Then again, these clubs have shielded themselves from any tail-off by signing up to agreements that run for 10 years or more.

 

Ultimately, as long as the money generated is invested into the playing side to deliver titles and trophies, that is all anyone really should care about.

[dockers_strike]

£40m a year is not to be sneezed at.

[stringvest]

£40m a year is not to be sneezed at.

 

 

a...a.....a.....a....a...

 

no, you're right.

[Bad Red Bull]

On 3/3/2018 at 12:33 PM, VladimirIlyich said:

The Mourinho that won the two trophies that we bottled two seasons ago and won them only last season?

I am not his biggest fan but to dismiss those trophies and the FA Cup they won the year befor under Van Gaal is ridiculous. What we'd give for only one of them.

Is this still valid? 

[ZonkoVille77]

Struggling to masturbate to this thread.

[VladimirIlyich]

19 hours ago, Bad Red Bull said:

Is this still valid? 

Yes,until we win a trophy or two.

[SlugTrail]

19 hours ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

Struggling to masturbate to this thread.

Wanker

[TheHowieLama]

When we sell Salah we have the Profit Mohamed - Mo Profit if you will

[Captain Turdseye]

On 3/1/2018 at 11:15 AM, General Dryness said:

I for one welcome our future influx of expensive world class playing staff.

 

Called it. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Yes,until we win a trophy or two.

Fortunately, it looks like our owners are thinking a little more long term and started from a much different starting point. 

[VladimirIlyich]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Fortunately, it looks like our owners are thinking a little more long term and started from a much different starting point. 

And hopefully trophies will follow very soon.

[Oh Buoy]

On 5/24/2018 at 3:57 PM, Trumo said:

 

When the club signed with Warrior in 2012, it was a 6-year deal worth £25m a year. Three years into that deal, New Balance took over and (according to one source that I'd have to dig out) upped that to almost £30m a year, claiming it to be a 'multi-year' deal. They could claim it as such because 'multi-year' was still valid when there were 3 years left to run on it, but again it was later reported that the NB deal - apart from an increase in the amount paid per year - had extended the duration by another year so the deal actually expires in summer 2019. If that is indeed the case, there will be a load of media reports between now and next May claiming that we are negotiating a new deal with NB or one of the big guns.

 

What isn't clear is just how lucrative the Warrior/NB deal has been overall. Because the club's parent company is a private limited company (Ltd), they are not required to provide the sort of detailed financial reports a public limited company (PLC) would have to. The level of disclosure on that specific matter is up to the board of directors. All they must to is file a 'true and fair' set of accounts with Companies House that show the company to be a going concern (ie solvent).

 

Ian Ayre did a series of interviews around the time of the Warrior deal announcement and in them he claimed that the club would retain control of their own merchandising, which is true. The club controls Liverpool-branded stores around the world whereas the likes of the Mancs, Real Madrid, Barcelona and co have to bow to the whims of Adidas and Nike. Ayre also claimed that the amount of profit generated through the merchandising deal would basically double the amount Warrior were paying us, so he was selling the deal as one that was worth £50m a year to the club. From the club's subsequent annual accounts, there's no way of proving Ayre's claim. Even the directors' statements in these accounts do not touch upon it.

 

The Standard Chartered deal started in 2010, to run for 4 years and earn the club £20m a year. It was extended to summer 2016 shortly before it ran out, upping the annual payment to £25m a year. Before it ran out again, it was extended to summer 2019 and the club would get £30m a year. Today's announcement tells us that Standard Chartered have extended the deal again to summer 2023, and the club will get £40m a year from 2019.

 

When it comes to leaving NB and signing up with one of the bigger brands, the question for the owners is whether they are prepared to give up control of merchandising. Is the amount generated by our relatively unique merchandising agreement worth less or more than if the club ceded control? If signing up with a bigger brand gets more product to more places around the world but gives the club only a fraction of the royalties they get from controlling the merchandising themselves, will they still get more money coming in?

 

What gets me thinking as to whether the club are going about it the right way is that none of the other big clubs control their own merchandising. It's all in the hands of Adidas or Nike in the main. Is that actually a more profitable way to go? The other way to look at it is that the amounts shelled out by the big brands may soon level off or even fall, so these clubs could end up looking at smaller deals than they have at present, and with no merchandising control systems in place to do what Liverpool have done. Maybe if this happens, Liverpool have already got a massive headstart because the club has had control over it's merchandising for years and is already familiar with the benefits and pitfalls. Then again, these clubs have shielded themselves from any tail-off by signing up to agreements that run for 10 years or more.

 

Ultimately, as long as the money generated is invested into the playing side to deliver titles and trophies, that is all anyone really should care about.

Read through all of that and struggled to come up with an insult. 

 

Fair summary, Trumo. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

And hopefully trophies will follow very soon.

Yes. Fortunately we are on the road the that, because of the path we chose. 

[Guest Alex_K]

Regarding trophies & Mourinho .. I was all for critiscising FSG during the years of barren spending and apparent downsizing and I certainly think they created some of their own bad luck then, but by contrast Mourinho had outrageous fortune in his own trophy wins at United. A route to the Europa final of FC Rostov, Anderlecht, Celta Vigo and Ajax bordered on the absurd when you consider some of the sides we've played in that competition (Batistuta's Roma, Barcelona, Atletico Madrid, Dortmund, Sevilla etc.) -- it really says nothing of Mourinho that they won that competition .. while semi final/final opposition of Hull City & Southampton hardly screams advertisity in his league cup run either ..

[Bad Red Bull]

20 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Fortunately, it looks like our owners are thinking a little more long term and started from a much different starting point. 

Exactly my argument with the guy you quoted.