Liverpool 2016/17

[SAXON_GB]

Yes, especially for owners who want a return.
An owner who doesn't want a financial return (like a Sheik) is a different thing - his 'return' isn't money, it's other matters - like promoting Abu Dhabi PR and business etc. With that sort of owner, Liverpool could do as City have done - but they are few and far between.

There is a nice little saying: If want to end up as a millionaire owner, you need to start off as a billionaire.

To spend what City have done, and get your money back with profits would probably be a 20 year project - and not many investors will wait that long for what is STILL a gamble. The likes of FSG probably expect a return in 10 years, and without the huge initial investment like City. As you say, it's just not feasible for a 'normal' investor.

Yes but if 50% of the world's population like United then for a song you have 50% of the world's non United fans supporting City.

 

[SAXON_GB]

Yes, especially for owners who want a return.
An owner who doesn't want a financial return (like a Sheik) is a different thing - his 'return' isn't money, it's other matters - like promoting Abu Dhabi PR and business etc. With that sort of owner, Liverpool could do as City have done - but they are few and far between.

There is a nice little saying: If want to end up as a millionaire owner, you need to start off as a billionaire.

To spend what City have done, and get your money back with profits would probably be a 20 year project - and not many investors will wait that long for what is STILL a gamble. The likes of FSG probably expect a return in 10 years, and without the huge initial investment like City. As you say, it's just not feasible for a 'normal' investor.

Yes but if 50% of the world's population like United then for a song you have 50% of the world's non United fans supporting City.

 

[Metalartin]

We should be worried about United, yes. They aren't going to just fade away without a fight - we've already seen the levels of spending they are wiling to engage in, and it's not over yet. Damn right we should be worried (although 'worried' isn't the best term). They are competition, let's put it that way, and anybody who thinks they won't be a threat for some time is deluded. They will be.

It's clear they will be competitive but there will always be healthy competition in this league(If it's not them it will be someone else, why worry about it so much?). We've established ourselves in a great position/place as a club in our own right now would you not agree?

Currently with what they've spent and the team they have they are still behind they haven't spent well IMO even though Pogba will probably come good next season in fairness.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Again though I remind you of FFP it will slow them down you need to check just how far behind they are in revenue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloitte_Football_Money_League
Arsenal currently have a bigger stadium than us that sells out, they have a bigger worldwide fanbase too... look where they are.
y
You're oversimplifying pretty much everything, from revenue streams, to success on the pitch, brand perceptions etc. I'm not claiming to be an expert in it but clearly you're not either.

Yes but we have been able to spend on infrastructure and other clubs in other countries to help promote the City brand, we have been creative with FFP outside of the UK as a result of having the financial clout to do that... Arsenal have not, nor have Liverpool, or even United and Chelsea.
We have been more creative out of necessity, but we've also had the financial backing to turn those creative ideas into reality in a way that the other clubs haven't.
For instance, we have been able to extend our south stand without FFP restrictions (because it's exempt from FFP), but Liverpool have to find funding for their stand to be rebuilt. They have to recoup those costs, and we don't. That puts us at a significant advantage.

Arsenal had to pay full whack for their stadium. they've been recouping the costs of that for years, so sure, matchday revenue at Arsenal is bigger than ours, but their other revenue streams generally aren't - because they've not been as able to invest in them like we have.

We had a brief period of time prior to FFP when were able to invest heavily, and we've set up other clubs abroad (including staff and marketing) where some of our costs and efforts can be split which helps the bottom line. Meanwhile, Liverpool and United have been out of CL and missing out, whilst we've benefitted from it... so things have swung in our favour considerably.

But, and this is the crucial part - given a similar backing and strong ownership, other clubs can do precisely what we have done too. We're just lucky there aren't many such owners around.

 

[FanchesterCity]

It's clear they will be competitive but there will always be healthy competition in this league(If it's not them it will be someone else, why worry about it so much?). We've established ourselves in a great position/place as a club in our own right now would you not agree?

Currently with what they've spent and the team they have they are still behind they haven't spent well IMO even though Pogba will probably come good next season in fairness.

I would say we're in a very nice position now, we aren't dominating like some feared we might, but we're competitive. I think we've generally been pretty poor with transfers - as have Liverpool and United. Wasteful with money let's say. All in all, we now have a damn good team, but we're still a good way behind the very best in Europe (imo).

 

[Metalartin]

Yes but we have been able to spend on infrastructure and other clubs in other countries to help promote the City brand, we have been creative with FFP outside of the UK as a result of having the financial clout to do that... Arsenal have not, nor have Liverpool, or even United and Chelsea.
We have been more creative out of necessity, but we've also had the financial backing to turn those creative ideas into reality in a way that the other clubs haven't.
For instance, we have been able to extend our south stand without FFP restrictions (because it's exempt from FFP), but Liverpool have to find funding for their stand to be rebuilt. They have to recoup those costs, and we don't. That puts us at a significant advantage.

Arsenal had to pay full whack for their stadium. they've been recouping the costs of that for years, so sure, matchday revenue at Arsenal is bigger than ours, but their other revenue streams generally aren't - because they've not been as able to invest in them like we have.

We had a brief period of time prior to FFP when were able to invest heavily, and we've set up other clubs abroad (including staff and marketing) where some of our costs and efforts can be split which helps the bottom line. Meanwhile, Liverpool and United have been out of CL and missing out, whilst we've benefitted from it... so things have swung in our favour considerably.

But, and this is the crucial part - given a similar backing and strong ownership, other clubs can do precisely what we have done too. We're just lucky there aren't many such owners around.

They've had it paid off for some time, they have the overseas fanbase and brand recognition over us... Sure they haven't spent heavy but in recent years they've bought world known marquee signings such as Ozil and Sanchez, respected players in their prime from two of the biggest clubs in the world. I just think you're oversimplifying the revenue part as I said there has to be more to it. Success and brand perception maybe the key to it, there are no guarantees with those.

 

[Metalartin]

I would say we're in a very nice position now, we aren't dominating like some feared we might, but we're competitive. I think we've generally been pretty poor with transfers - as have Liverpool and United. Wasteful with money let's say. All in all, we now have a damn good team, but we're still a good way behind the very best in Europe (imo).

Yep which is kind of the point the idea that someone could come in and they would surpass us and we wouldn't have a prayer of competing isn't worth contemplating, not likely that would happen even if they got a sugar daddy owner not worried about profit.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Yes but we have been able to spend on infrastructure and other clubs in other countries to help promote the City brand, we have been creative with FFP outside of the UK as a result of having the financial clout to do that... Arsenal have not, nor have Liverpool, or even United and Chelsea.
We have been more creative out of necessity, but we've also had the financial backing to turn those creative ideas into reality in a way that the other clubs haven't.
For instance, we have been able to extend our south stand without FFP restrictions (because it's exempt from FFP), but Liverpool have to find funding for their stand to be rebuilt. They have to recoup those costs, and we don't. That puts us at a significant advantage.

Arsenal had to pay full whack for their stadium. they've been recouping the costs of that for years, so sure, matchday revenue at Arsenal is bigger than ours, but their other revenue streams generally aren't - because they've not been as able to invest in them like we have.

We had a brief period of time prior to FFP when were able to invest heavily, and we've set up other clubs abroad (including staff and marketing) where some of our costs and efforts can be split which helps the bottom line. Meanwhile, Liverpool and United have been out of CL and missing out, whilst we've benefitted from it... so things have swung in our favour considerably.

But, and this is the crucial part - given a similar backing and strong ownership, other clubs can do precisely what we have done too. We're just lucky there aren't many such owners around.

If I'm The Sheik, I can build you a shop to sell things, and you can keep the profits from that shop.
If I'm FSG, I can build you a shop to sell things, but I will need the money back for the cost of the shop first, then you can make profits thereafter - it's a massive advantage to us and it's one of the reasons our finances have improved to quickly. All the increased ticket sales from the South Stand go straight onto the books, whilst at Liverpool, they go straight onto the books, and back out again to pay off the cost of the new stand.

 

[Metalartin]

If I'm The Sheik, I can build you a shop to sell things, and you can keep the profits from that shop.
If I'm FSG, I can build you a shop to sell things, but I will need the money back for the cost of the shop first, then you can make profits thereafter - it's a massive advantage to us and it's one of the reasons our finances have improved to quickly. All the increased ticket sales from the South Stand go straight onto the books, whilst at Liverpool, they go straight onto the books, and back out again to pay off the cost of the new stand.

I get what your saying but that's profits not revenue. As you said we have smart owners who've been able to grow our brand and revenue streams but there was not a lot stopping others getting creative either, that's being good at business not just throwing money around. United clearly have mastered a lot of it already looking at where they still are despite having no CL football and not challenging for the title for a while.

 

[FanchesterCity]

They've had it paid off for some time, they have the overseas fanbase and brand recognition over us... Sure they haven't spent heavy but in recent years they've bought world known marquee signings such as Ozil and Sanchez, respected players in their prime from two of the biggest clubs in the world. I just think you're oversimplifying the revenue game as I said there has to be more to it. Success and brand perception maybe the key to it.

Ozil and Sanchez weren't mega names. Ozil was the bigger name. But, they've won nothing in recent years either. City on the other hand have had massive media exposure in recent years, and winning the PL twice has really put us on the map and made our brand exciting. Arsenal make more from merchandising and matchday revenue than we do, we make our money from other streams (some of which are arguably questionable, depending on who you choose to believe!) - namely broadcasting and commercial. I would also argue that our choice of signing in recent years like Aguero, Tevez, Toure, Silva etc have a stronger appeal than Arsenal's - but it's debatable, for sure.

Of course it's complex, and we're doing fantastically well, but I think we have to accept that levels of investment necessary have been exceptional, and far greater than most other 'investors' could manage.

They say you need to speculate to accumulate, and because we've been able to speculate far more than others, that's why we've accumulated. Others simply haven't been able to speculate to the same degree (or have been unwilling to do so, because of the risks involved).