Nike

[Barrington Womble]

43 minutes ago, Daisy said:

Still think its a fucking shit deal. Barely more than NB were goving us

It's one of the best in world football. 

 

It's just a shame it doesn't seem to translate into anything on the pitch aside from shit kits. 

[Scott_M]

2 hours ago, Daisy said:

Still think its a fucking shit deal. Barely more than NB were goving us

Not what the thread says but never-mind - you continue to ignore factual evidence and base everything on your own mis-informed opinion. 

[Harry Squatter]

2 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

It's one of the best in world football. 

 

It's just a shame it doesn't seem to translate into anything on the pitch aside from shit kits. 

Billy Hogan said in one of his interviews last season that it will be next season that the Nike deal allows the club to fire on all cylinders. 

 

Yet here we are with 2 years left of it to run and out of the Champions League.

[Barrington Womble]

13 minutes ago, Harry Squatter said:

Billy Hogan said in one of his interviews last season that it will be next season that the Nike deal allows the club to fire on all cylinders. 

 

Yet here we are with 2 years left of it to run and out of the Champions League.

What does that even mean? How can you fire on all cylinders on a contract you're yet to sign? Just more lipservice to why despite the growth in commercial revenues, we're as skint as ever. 

[Red74]

Not one for wearing any of our shite since I was a kid but I’d defo wear one of these on holiday 

 

[Tony Moanero]

57 minutes ago, Red74 said:

Not one for wearing any of our shite since I was a kid but I’d defo wear one of these on holiday 

 

That’s shite in, my opinion. Just buy a decent hat and attach a Liverpool pin badge to it, if you must.

[Red74]

7 minutes ago, Tony Moanero said:

That’s shite in, my opinion. Just buy a decent hat and attach a Liverpool pin badge to it, if you must.

Get lost Toe. That’s boss that 

[Harry Squatter]

6 hours ago, Barrington Womble said:

What does that even mean? How can you fire on all cylinders on a contract you're yet to sign? Just more lipservice to why despite the growth in commercial revenues, we're as skint as ever. 

Fuck all. Just another empty set of words to justify not spending. 

 

Let's face it, the matchday revenue has gone up and will go up again this season, they are talking about getting a world record shirt sponsor from a crypto currency company once the deal Standard Chartered expires, record kit deal, high TV revenues and big earners that have left in the summer. They just have no intention of spending any of it and just use tons of excuses to put in the absolute bare minimum effort and investment. The investment in infrastructure is paid for via the club and helps their asset become more appealing to investors or would be buyers.

[Leyton388]

All their kits have been shit. 

[Tony Moanero]

10 minutes ago, Leyton388 said:

All their kits have been shit. 

The 2023-24 home kit looks ok from a distance.

[Jarvinja Ilnow]

45 minutes ago, Harry Squatter said:

Fuck all. Just another empty set of words to justify not spending. 

 

Let's face it, the matchday revenue has gone up and will go up again this season, they are talking about getting a world record shirt sponsor from a crypto currency company once the deal Standard Chartered expires, record kit deal, high TV revenues and big earners that have left in the summer. They just have no intention of spending any of it and just use tons of excuses to put in the absolute bare minimum effort and investment. The investment in infrastructure is paid for via the club and helps their asset become more appealing to investors or would be buyers.

 

Hopefully not paid in crypto currency, though.

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, Harry Squatter said:

Fuck all. Just another empty set of words to justify not spending. 

 

Let's face it, the matchday revenue has gone up and will go up again this season, they are talking about getting a world record shirt sponsor from a crypto currency company once the deal Standard Chartered expires, record kit deal, high TV revenues and big earners that have left in the summer. They just have no intention of spending any of it and just use tons of excuses to put in the absolute bare minimum effort and investment. The investment in infrastructure is paid for via the club and helps their asset become more appealing to investors or would be buyers.

The crypto thing has gone for now, new terms with SCB were signed last year. Hence why we're back there again this summer. 

[Leyton388]

50 minutes ago, Tony Moanero said:

The 2023-24 home kit looks ok from a distance.

Reminds me too much of the 99 home kit. A year of football I'd like to forget. So for me it's shite.

[Harry Squatter]

12 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

The crypto thing has gone for now, new terms with SCB were signed last year. Hence why we're back there again this summer. 

There was another article about it the other day saying they are considering it after the extended SC deal expires. Looking for £75m.

 

Not that any of it will go on the team of course.

 

 

[Red74]

Their kits may be shit but they knew how to make an advert

 

 

[VladimirIlyich]

3 hours ago, Red74 said:

Not one for wearing any of our shite since I was a kid but I’d defo wear one of these on holiday 

 

LFC Mancs on tour.

[Bjornebye]

48 minutes ago, Leyton388 said:

Reminds me too much of the 99 home kit. A year of football I'd like to forget. So for me it's shite.

 

It had its moments

 

 

 

 

[Reacher]

"During the court case it emerged that the New Balance deal was generating for the club far more money than it claimed publicly- in 18/19, it emerged that the deal generated £64m (off of 1.8m in kit sales).

 

That was well in excess of the £45m that the deal was widely reported to be generating for the club (though that figure was likely fairly accurate in the 17/18 season):"

 

Am I reading this wrong as this just seems shady and inline with FSG's MO.

[No2]

1 minute ago, Reacher said:

"During the court case it emerged that the New Balance deal was generating for the club far more money than it claimed publicly- in 18/19, it emerged that the deal generated £64m (off of 1.8m in kit sales).

 

That was well in excess of the £45m that the deal was widely reported to be generating for the club (though that figure was likely fairly accurate in the 17/18 season):"

 

Am I reading this wrong as this just seems shady and inline with FSG's MO.

It's definitely worth further investigation. From memory that guy was a waffler, probably can't understand the basics. On the face of it it looks wrong to me, that's about £30 per kit. That margin is far to big, the manufacturers, distributors, New Balance and Retailers all need their cut. No way are we getting that much.

[Reacher]

4 minutes ago, No2 said:

It's definitely worth further investigation. From memory that guy was a waffler, probably can't understand the basics. On the face of it it looks wrong to me, that's about £30 per kit. That margin is far to big, the manufacturers, distributors, New Balance and Retailers all need their cut. No way are we getting that much.

 

Im not quite at FSG out levels but I've thought for a long time now they just have a better PR operation than most owners. I'd imagine theres all sorts of these "inconsistancies" within our accounts

[Red74]

Is that thread saying we earnt £90m from Nike last season? 

[No2]

36 minutes ago, Reacher said:

 

Im not quite at FSG out levels but I've thought for a long time now they just have a better PR operation than most owners. I'd imagine theres all sorts of these "inconsistancies" within our accounts

I can't find a single article showing what he claims was said in court. The only figures on the internet related to £62m or 1.8m kits all lead back to Mo Chatra as the source. He appears go me to be another wannabe making a living talking shite about Liverpool. Nobody ever fact checks anything anymore, a thread on twitter is assumed as gospel.

[Barrington Womble]

18 hours ago, Harry Squatter said:

There was another article about it the other day saying they are considering it after the extended SC deal expires. Looking for £75m.

 

Not that any of it will go on the team of course.

 

 

 

 

I hadn't seen that. That seems early though as I think the new deal runs until 2027. And 75m doesn't seem that amazing in the context that I think scb will pay 60m when the new deal kicks in (this season). 

 

1 hour ago, Reacher said:

"During the court case it emerged that the New Balance deal was generating for the club far more money than it claimed publicly- in 18/19, it emerged that the deal generated £64m (off of 1.8m in kit sales).

 

That was well in excess of the £45m that the deal was widely reported to be generating for the club (though that figure was likely fairly accurate in the 17/18 season):"

 

Am I reading this wrong as this just seems shady and inline with FSG's MO.

It's been a while since I looked at the accounts, but I'm pretty sure the accounts are vague enough that they can earn pretty much whatever they want, they just have to specify which category of revenues the deal sits in (which I think is commercial). So for instance, if we had commercial revenues at 200m, it wouldn't matter if 60m or 80m come from Nike/NB or elsewhere. 

 

It's why I think you can't say you can take our wage bill on face value. You look at the number and it seems extraordinary if you compare to the supposed values reported in the media. But what else is included. We might well include agent fees for example - we do say elsewhere "and the club paid £xxm to agents" but never used to say whicj category that sat in (I've not read the recent accounts where to see if that has changed).

 

Company accounts are broadly works of fiction to makes sense of a balance sheet and to paint a picture of company health to suit whatever your agenda (this is not just football related, but all companies). I don't see a large issue if LFC have struck a deal the public believes to be 45m if they can get bonuses on top of that and add 50% quietly. They have to be able to protect their commercially sensitive data. It spins the other way with salaries. We might think thiago and vvd earn 200k per week, but their bonuses might well mean they get 300k. We don't list individual salaries in the accounts. 

[Reacher]

8 minutes ago, No2 said:

I can't find a single article showing what he claims was said in court. The only figures on the internet related to £62m or 1.8m kits all lead back to Mo Chatra as the source. He appears go me to be another wannabe making a living talking shite about Liverpool. Nobody ever fact checks anything anymore, a thread on twitter is assumed as gospel.

 

 

Ah, fair enough. Yeah, nowhere near enough fact checking is going on anymore. Someone makes an article up with numbers that doesn't make sense and instead of ridiculing the author. The consensus is just to argue with each other instead of going after the source.  

[Reacher]

3 minutes ago, Barrington Womble said:

 

It's been a while since I looked at the accounts, but I'm pretty sure the accounts are vague enough that they can earn pretty much whatever they want, they just have to specify which category of revenues the deal sits in (which I think is commercial). So for instance, if we had commercial revenues at 200m, it wouldn't matter if 60m or 80m come from Nike/NB or elsewhere. 

 

It's why I think you can't say you can't take our wage bill on face value. You look at the number and it seems extraordinary if you compare to the supposed values reported in the media. But what else is included. We might well include agent fees for example - we do say elsewhere "and the club paid £xxm to agents" but never used to say whicj category that sat in (I've not read the recent accounts where to see if that has changed).

 

Company accounts are broadly works of fiction to makes sense of a balance sheet and to paint a picture of company health to suit whatever your agenda (this is not just football related, but all companies). I don't see a large issue if LFC have struck a deal the public believes to be 45m if they can get bonuses on top of that and add 50% quietly. They have to be able to protect their commercially sensitive data. It spins the other way with salaries. We might think thiago and vvd earn 200k per week, but their bonuses might well mean they get 300k. We don't list individual salaries in the accounts. 

 

 

 

Thank you for the breakdown and explanation, I usually give most people or organisations the benefit of the doubt but after the last couple of years my opinion is slowly changing as regards to FSG.

 

A few years ago, I'd have looked at that article and pay no heed to it. Not so much anymore and I'd imagine there’s plenty of other reds paying a lot more attention as to what FSG might be doing or not doing in many cases.