Liverpool Signings and General Rumours Thread

copacetic

SectionF wrote:

Are you saying you don't know or don't consider there to be a difference between the two? Yer man certainly does: he was very careful to correct himself. Perhaps someone had marked his cards in the interim.

it is what they call all teams over there because of how the league is set up. He is simply used to calling teams that. I don't like it but it doesn't mean anything since liverpool aren't a 'franchise'

PHB

Getting back to the earlier conversation, I got this off another forum,

Using Soccerbase* I've come up with this:

2007 Liv spent: 9.3 Liv got: 3.3 Liv net spend: 6.0
2006 Liv spent: 32.4 Liv got: 9.5 Liv net spend: 22.9
2005 Liv spent: 19.6 Liv got: 2.5 Liv net spend: 17.1
2004 Liv spent: 22.5 Liv got: 6.3 Liv net spend: 16.2
2003 Liv spent: 8.7 Liv got: 5.8 Liv net spend: 2.9
2002 Liv spent: 30.0 Liv got: 18.7 Liv net spend: 11.3
2001 Liv spent: 18.5 Liv got: 12.6 Liv net spend: 5.9
2000 Liv spent: 36.3 Liv got: 9.7 Liv net spend: 26.6
1999 Liv spent: 12.0 Liv got: 4.9 Liv net spend: 7.1
1998 Liv spent: 5.0 Liv got: 1.8 Liv net spend: 3.2
1997 Liv spent: 14.0 Liv got: 9.7 Liv net spend: 4.3

2007 Utd spent: 18.6 Utd got: 23.5 Utd net spend: -4.9
2006 Utd spent: 17.5 Utd got: 6.5 Utd net spend: 11.0
2005 Utd spent: 20.0 Utd got: 3.9 Utd net spend: 16.1
2004 Utd spent: 53.0 Utd got: 40.0 Utd net spend: 13.0
2003 Utd spent: 31.5 Utd got: 2.0 Utd net spend: 29.5
2002 Utd spent: 57.6 Utd got: 28.2 Utd net spend: 29.4
2001 Utd spent: 0.0 Utd got: 8.0 Utd net spend: -8.0
2000 Utd spent: 17.8 Utd got: 1.8 Utd net spend: 16.0
1999 Utd spent: 17.0 Utd got: 1.8 Utd net spend: 15.2
1998 Utd spent: 15.8 Utd got: 6.4 Utd net spend: 9.4
1997 Utd spent: 3.5 Utd got: 4.5 Utd net spend: -1.0

Liverpool net spending in the last 10 years: £123.5 million

United net spending in the last 10 years: £126.6 million

*but I added on the money from the RVN sale as £10.3M and the £12M for John Obi Wan Kenobi Mikel

SectionF

redspider wrote:

There is a difference between an NFL franchise and a English league club business.

In NFL (or NHL or NBA), there is a limited number of teams and there is no promotion or relegation. For example, there is nothing to stop anyone here from going to England, or close to it (Wales, Scottish borders, etc), forming a club, entering a local league and playing your way up via promotions and leagues allowing you do to so, etc, all the way to the top level, ala Wimbledon. That doesnt happen under the NFL franchise system as the number of clubs are limited and hence there is an inherent value to that team no matter how bad it does. Aussie rules is the same I believe. You could that that the GAA is similar, 32 counties plus New York and London. And in club rugby Ireland has just 4 teams, and no chance of anyone else getting in under the current structure.

If there were franchises in english football, there would be no promotion or relegation between the championship and the top-flight. So, Liverpool FC is clealy not a franchise in a business sense. It certainly is a brand though.

In business terms, perhaps a limited league is better, especially when the gap between the top-flight and the next level is large, and getting larger (money-wise). But in sporting terms, relegation is healthy for competitive reasons and gives everyone a chance.

Redpider

Interesting. I would think the real meaning of franchise here is a brand that is exploitable, exportable and that can be monetised. Something that is very, very good for owners and television moguls, but not so good for clubs and fans.

iregk

The big difference as well with american franchises is that they are not held to a specific community or location. Franchises (teams) regularly move to a different location to exploit a new market place or increase a support base. The LA Raiders for example moved from central LA up to Oakland and became the Oakland Raiders (just 1 example) basically becausee they felt that there were more business oppertunities to be had from Oakland. Also merchandise price is an issue. You can get a cheap replica NFL jersey for $70 however the authentic one will set you back a cool $250 - 300...

Love the crest btw Blanch. Liverpool, welcome to the sold your soul club! Go Liverpool Stealers...

~Rebel~

iregk wrote:

Liverpool, welcome to the sold your soul club!

Hehe, era twas always only a matter of time seeing as the club has had a massive "come and get me" sign over it for the past 3 years. Doesnt make much difference to me thats its 2 yanks rather then DIC or any other random nationality, seeing as it was always obvious it would be a foreigner that would take over. Hopefully the americans just keep to the backseat that they claim they would, enjoy their nice days out at Anfield smiling for the camera and leave the business end to the lads who know whats going on, occasionally opening their wallets when required.

redspider

SectionF wrote:

Interesting. I would think the real meaning of franchise here is a brand that is exploitable, exportable and that can be monetised. Something that is very, very good for owners and television moguls, but not so good for clubs and fans.

Well, if the brand is exploited it can be good for both Owners and Fans. Success brings in money, so fans want success and Owners want money, and success. Even the most cold owners want more money and the best way of doing that is to be succesful on the field. The big question is how much risk are they willing to take, how much financial pain and investment would they be willing to make.

For the likes of an Abramovich, there is no pain spending 300m or so and he wants to offload it anyway. Just look at his yacht collection. Chelski is another bit of bling, jewellry for the mega-rich as it were.

For the likes of a Dubai IC there would be some pain of spending 300m, as they would want to get some return. They have very deep pockets thought so could keep Liverpool going along nicely if need be.

For the likes of Gillet/Hicks, they dont have deep pockets at all. They have to run Liverpool as a viable business, which is of course possible, but they are no way going to be able to waste 300m on it.


In terms of the franchise aspect, the key thing is the limited number of them. This keeps the market concentrated. And, with consent, some sports allow you to move location.

Liverpool will be moving as well, albeit 100m or so .......

Redspider

redspider

Here is an excerpt on money matters in relation to Liverpool from the recently published Deloitte Football Money League annual report:

Liverpool, the 2004/05 UEFA Champions League winners, slip two places to 10th position, as revenue decreased by 3% in Euro terms. On the pitch an improved domestic season – the club finished in third position in the Premiership and won a classic FA Cup final – helped offset the disappointment of a first knockout round exit from the Champions League.

This on pitch performance is reflected in the revenue generated from each competition. The Champions League campaign generated total revenue – including matchday receipts – of € 27.0m (£18.7m), a reduction of € 14.6m (£10.1m) from the previous year. This was partially offset by € 4.8m (£3.3m) from the Super Cup and World Club Championship and an additional € 3.2m (£2.2m) generated from domestic cup competitions.

Liverpool’s matchday revenue was € 47.2m (£32.7m). This is less than half of the matchday revenue generated by Manchester United, while Arsenal and Chelsea both generate significantly higher matchday revenue from similar sized stadia, largely due to higher ticket prices. Arsenal’s move to the Emirates Stadium in 2006/07 means Liverpool are likely to fall further behind.

For some time, Liverpool has been strongly linked with deals which would see additional capital introduced into the club and help fund a new stadium development in Stanley Park. This move would enable Liverpool to significantly increase its matchday revenues and, providing it continues to qualify for the Champions League, it should see the club challenging further up the Football Money League. In February 2007, the club announced that its Board had agreed the terms of an offer for the club from George Gillett and Tom Hicks.

Breakdown of Revenues:
Matchday € 47.2m (£32.7m)
Broadcasting € 72.0m (£49.7m)
Commercial € 56.8m (£39.3m)

The table:
Here is the Deloitte Money League table (Revenue) for 2005/06:
(millions euro)
1. Real Madrid € 292.2
2. FC Barcelona € 259.1
3. Juventus € 251.2
4. Manchester United € 242.6
5. AC Milan € 238.7
6. Chelsea € 221.0
7. Internazionale € 206.6
8. Bayern Munich € 204.7
9. Arsenal € 192.4
10 Liverpool € 176.0
11 Olympique Lyonnais € 127.7
12 AS Roma € 127.0
13 Schalke 04 € 122.9
14 Newcastle United € 124.3
15 Tottenham Hotspur € 107.2
16 Hamburg SV € 101.8
17 Manchester City € 89.4
18 Rangers € 88.5
19 West Ham United € 86.9
20 Benfica € 85.1 20




Redspider

PHB

Indeed, Liverpool have less income. But the increased revenue that will come from the stadium increase will have on bearing on the transfer budget imo. It's more likely those profit increases will just pay back the money that the new owners have invested in the club. It'll take about 10 years of increased profit from the stadium to get back the money that it cost to buy the club.

missingtime

Interesting article about the youth system at Melwood/Anfield
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/6303863.stm

woodyg

It is intresting to see that the supply line from Melwood has dried up of late. i think every body is aware that to brake through in the Premiership in this day and age is quite difficult but to not have produced 1 current 1st team player is quite dis-hearting for the current batch of youth team members, to see that no body has come through must have a big barring on the player that wants to join the pool as a kid. The supply line was a big bonus for the pool with astonishing players found usually with in a 50 mile radius of the ground. Owen, Fowler, Gerrard, McManaman, Carragher, Warnock all came through and produced and went on to play for there country. This production line was vital as 1 it produced top players for low investment and 2 it produced home grown players that fans can relate too. The fans connection with Carra is unlike any. They see him as a fan more than a player but this connection will not be kept unless a shake up is carried out with the youth development and players start coming through.

Stky10

If you look at Ajax, they have probably the most famous youth system in the world. They have a target of one and a half players per year making it from the youth system to the first team (or 3 players every 2 years). Some years they make that target some times they don't. Some years they'll have a great year like they did in the early 90's and they'll get the likes of Seedorf, Kluivert, Kanu etc coming through together.

The advantage they have though is that with their reputation for youth development they have the pick of all the best talent in Holland. They also don't have the purchasing power of english, spanish or italian clubs, so to improve their first team they have to give their youth team players a good chance to make it. So even if they don't do well in the first few games they play in the first team, they will be given a few chances to prove themselves. Even with this, a good ratio of players that make the first team from the youth system, don't make it and are let go.

The problem with Liverpool (and other teams in england) is that they can only draw players in to its academy system from an area within 90 minutes travel to the centre. They also have bigger squads and more purchasing power so youth team players that get a chance have to hit the ground running. If they get a chance and don't take it then they'll be dropped like a hot snot.

Thats why I hope that with the injection of money into the club that we set up a feeder club system like ManU, Arsenal and Chelsea (unofficially PSV) have so that we can send players that are close to making it to them so that they get competitive experience in a high quality league to see if they're up to it. If they are then they should come back better players, if they're not, then they can have no complaints, they got their chance and they weren't good enough.

zing

Carlsberg deal to be renewed for another 3 years.

Was expecting a new sponsor entirely but 21.6m over 3 years isn't bad at all - and is certainly a lot better than the existing deal.. Still not up there with Utd, Spurs or Chelsea though

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc/0100news/tm_headline=%2D21m-sponsors-deal-for-reds%26method=full%26objectid=18598685%26siteid=50061-name_page.html

rondeco

zing wrote:

Carlsberg deal to be renewed for another 3 years.

Was expecting a new sponsor entirely but 21.6m over 3 years isn't bad at all - and is certainly a lot better than the existing deal.. Still not up there with Utd, Spurs or Chelsea though

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc/0100news/tm_headline=%2D21m-sponsors-deal-for-reds%26method=full%26objectid=18598685%26siteid=50061-name_page.html

The deal is a disgrace. How can u sya its not bad at all.

HashSlinging

Aye, its a bargain. The amount of coverage carlsberg get from it is unreal.

smoke

very odd to think no-one would offer more than that. Anyway at least it looks alot better on the jersey than AIG or any of those poker sites.

Waster

Very surprised by the carslberg deal. Seems very low. I would have thought that the new owners would be looking at areas like this.

jesus_thats_gre

Gone from 2.5 to over 7 million a year. Tis crazy

missingtime

Liverpool new boy Javier Mascherano made a real faux pas by saying how proud he was to become a Red Devil. (The Sun)

Do'h!

missingtime

Couple of articles from Sky Sports...
Sinnama Pongolle
Iriome Gonzalez

Hey -- 400 posts

zing

rondeco wrote:

The deal is a disgrace. How can u sya its not bad at all.

We were going to get any better ? How long did it take us to find investment when everyone one of us assumed people would be queueing up to buy into the club ?

There's a number of things to consider with this deal
* It's 3 times the value of the last deal with Carlsberg although admitedly the
last deal was agreed to before the CL. That's a 3 fold increase in just 2 years.
* It's for a relatively short period of time - longer term sponsorship deals like
this are almost always more lucrative than short term ones.
* It's for a relatively short period of time and if we sell the naming rights to the
new stadium this deal probably won't run it's course as odds are shirt
sponsorship will be sold with the stadium name rights (and Carlsberg are
probably very aware of this).
* It's for a relatively short period of time and if the new owners can deliver on
the marketting/branding side we'll be in a far better position to negoiate a
better deal next time.
* Despite what any of us want to think we are no where close to competing with
Utd from a branding pov or Chelsea from a financial muscle pov. The spurs deal
really is the odd one out and the value of their deal is largely down to Mansion
being on the rebound after Utd rejected them - they'd the money in place
burning a hole in their pockets.

So taking those factors (and others) into accound it doesn't seem like a bad deal to me but what would I know ..

But I don't think Carlsberg have been a particularly great sponsor over the years. I know the players do ads/photoshoots for them, etc.. (from a StevieG documentary on Sky a year or two ago) but I can't remember ever seeing a Carlsberg ad (be it in print or on tv) featuring LFC. We might promote them by wearing their name on our shirts, etc.. but they don't seem to do much to promote us.

mike65

Rafa Barclays MOTM for January

Mike.

copacetic

zing wrote:

We were going to get any better ? How long did it take us to find investment when everyone one of us assumed people would be queueing up to buy into the club ?

There's a number of things to consider with this deal
* It's 3 times the value of the last deal with Carlsberg although admitedly the
last deal was agreed to before the CL. That's a 3 fold increase in just 2 years.
* It's for a relatively short period of time - longer term sponsorship deals like
this are almost always more lucrative than short term ones.
* It's for a relatively short period of time and if we sell the naming rights to the
new stadium this deal probably won't run it's course as odds are shirt
sponsorship will be sold with the stadium name rights (and Carlsberg are
probably very aware of this).
* It's for a relatively short period of time and if the new owners can deliver on
the marketting/branding side we'll be in a far better position to negoiate a
better deal next time.
* Despite what any of us want to think we are no where close to competing with
Utd from a branding pov or Chelsea from a financial muscle pov. The spurs deal
really is the odd one out and the value of their deal is largely down to Mansion
being on the rebound after Utd rejected them - they'd the money in place
burning a hole in their pockets.

So taking those factors (and others) into accound it doesn't seem like a bad deal to me but what would I know ..

But I don't think Carlsberg have been a particularly great sponsor over the years. I know the players do ads/photoshoots for them, etc.. (from a StevieG documentary on Sky a year or two ago) but I can't remember ever seeing a Carlsberg ad (be it in print or on tv) featuring LFC. We might promote them by wearing their name on our shirts, etc.. but they don't seem to do much to promote us.

but how does chelseas 'financial muscle' get samsung a return on a massive sponsorship deal for the shirt?

I would have said the exposure would be about equal for us and chelsea as a sponsor and much better than we spurs. I'm dissapointed in that deal

zing

daveym wrote:

I would have said the exposure would be about equal for us and chelsea as a sponsor and much better than we spurs. I'm dissapointed in that deal

Chelsea's exposure is probably greater than ours as they're the dominant team - maybe not in the league this year but ya know what I mean... Just look around the estates or schools these days - I see more kids/youths wearing Chelsea shirts than I do wearing Liverpool shirts. Similarly I see more Utd shirts and maybe the same number of Arsenal shirts. But it's not just that - they're creating hype (maureen does that on his own) and pimping themselves about. Something we've never been able to do - or maybe were too dignified/old school to do ?

And yeah - I never see a spurs shirt. As I said that deal is the odd one out..

As for the dissapointment look at it from another angle - if there were better deals out there and would-be sponsors have been knocking on Parry's office door since the CL final offering sheds loads more money ... where have they all gone to all of a sudden ? A change of sponsor == more shirt sales, etc.. and you'd expect the board to capitalise on that if it were expected to be more lucrative. But they haven't and presumably they haven't for a damn good reason..

zing

mike65 wrote:

Rafa Barclays MOTM for January

Mike.

You know what to expect tomorrow so ...

PHB

I'm fairly sure that if DIC had come in two weeks earlier, they would have gotten a better deal.
It's actually quite a poor deal considering Liverpools status. You can say that they don't have the same marketing as United, thats obvious enough, but I don't think there is that big a difference between them and Chelsea. Chelsea might have won the league, but they didn't do it in style, which was always a major reason for people supporting United. Liverpool won the CL, which arguably has more worldwide exposure. I've a feeling this deal was tied up before the change in ownership, and if the owners had had like 2-3 months in charge, it would be significantly better. That's probably also the reason why the deal is only three years.

mike65

Rafa buys mansion in Wirral for 4 million. He must be staying!

Mike.

copacetic

zing wrote:

Chelsea's exposure is probably greater than ours as they're the dominant team - maybe not in the league this year but ya know what I mean... Just look around the estates or schools these days - I see more kids/youths wearing Chelsea shirts than I do wearing Liverpool shirts. Similarly I see more Utd shirts and maybe the same number of Arsenal shirts. But it's not just that - they're creating hype (maureen does that on his own) and pimping themselves about. Something we've never been able to do - or maybe were too dignified/old school to do ?

And yeah - I never see a spurs shirt. As I said that deal is the odd one out..

As for the dissapointment look at it from another angle - if there were better deals out there and would-be sponsors have been knocking on Parry's office door since the CL final offering sheds loads more money ... where have they all gone to all of a sudden ? A change of sponsor == more shirt sales, etc.. and you'd expect the board to capitalise on that if it were expected to be more lucrative. But they haven't and presumably they haven't for a damn good reason..

but the way the sponsors look at it is the worldwide exposure and liverpool have a massive worldwide support and interest compared to chelsea. Not saying we should have got what they did but it should at least be in the same ballpark as the new owners might say!

missingtime

Grr - search not working!
Did anyone know that we signed Ronald Huth, a defender from Paraguay?

Link - http://home.skysports.com/transferarticle.aspx?hlid=445698

Daemonic

missingtime wrote:

Grr - search not working!
Did anyone know that we signed Ronald Huth, a defender from Paraguay?

Link - http://home.skysports.com/transferarticle.aspx?hlid=445698

Yes and apparently had a tough time in his first game. http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N154982070213-1653.htm

Guy:Incognito

The papers during the week had rumours of Arsenal looking for Carson and apparently Rafa has said he is willing to listen to offers from clubs. What is he at?

Malice

Stekelly wrote:

The papers during the week had rumours of Arsenal looking for Carson and apparently Rafa has said he is willing to listen to offers from clubs. What is he at?

That sounds like random paper talk. I strongly doubt Scott Carson will be sold. Benitez will listen to offers, that's just courtesy. He doesn't actually have to act on them. Jerzey Dudek will surely be going at the end of the season. I think his contract's up but I am open to correction on that. With him gone, obviously Pepe's first choice. Italian keeper Daniele Padelli is only on loan until the end of the season so I assume Carson will therefore be second choice behind Reina. Mind you, Reina's only 25 so Carson will have a while to wait before he gets too old!

gary the great

Apparenetly Arsenal are going to offer 5million for Scotty.


And he has said he wont be happy to sit on the bench.

I think 5million is a fair enough price!

PiE

Yea there's no way they'd reject a £5m offer (especially if its one lump sum) for a backup goalkeeper.

Guy:Incognito

Yeah but the question is whether he should be the back up or not. Going on this season he is a better keeper than Reina. He's getting hammered week in week out and still looks a top notch keeper. Especially with Reina doing things like he did at the weekend.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Completely unrealted subject, but am I right in thinking that, if we get knocked out in Barca, we only have three matches in March?

copacetic

Stekelly wrote:

Yeah but the question is whether he should be the back up or not. Going on this season he is a better keeper than Reina. He's getting hammered week in week out and still looks a top notch keeper. Especially with Reina doing things like he did at the weekend.

don't know about that, I think any decent keeper looks good when they have a lot of saves to make. The hard bit at the top level clubs is keeping your concentration and never making mistakes which very few keepers have been good at over the years. He is up there with Reina but wouldn't say this season indicates anything really..

zing

Ikky Poo2 wrote:

Completely unrealted subject, but am I right in thinking that, if we get knocked out in Barca, we only have three matches in March?

How can we get knocked out in Barca - it's a two leg fixture (home & away). So it'll be 4 games in March regardless of the result next week.

The Rooster

Stekelly wrote:

Yeah but the question is whether he should be the back up or not. Going on this season he is a better keeper than Reina. He's getting hammered week in week out and still looks a top notch keeper. Especially with Reina doing things like he did at the weekend.

I've seen a fair few Charlton goals (conceded), especially early in the season, where I thought Carson could have done better.

In saying that I do like Carson, and would have liked to see him get a run at Liverpool and I havent seen much of him in the last 6 weeks or so, so perhaps the run of games has improved him. But personally I'd rate him behind Reina and ahead of Dudek.

eirebhoy

Carson has been Charlton's best player this season apparantly.

mike65

When the keeper is your star performer you know you're in trouble.

Mike.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

zing wrote:

How can we get knocked out in Barca - it's a two leg fixture (home & away). So it'll be 4 games in March regardless of the result next week.

Sorry, that should have read knocked out BY Barcelona. As far as I can tell, the second leg and premiership matches against Man U and Villa.

~Rebel~

Nope;

Man U on the 3rd,
Barca on the 6th,
Villa on the 18th,
Arsenal on the 31st.

A hectic start with Manu and barca in quick succession but will be very quiet alright after that, giant breaks then, 12 and 13 days off.

Doesnt matter if we do get to the next round of champions league, still no more matches in March, the quarters are on the 3rd and 11th of April according to uefa.com

gary the great

So there was absolutly no need for all that rotation at the start of the season, the players are having loads of breaks to keep fresh. Sure there not even playing this weekend.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

~Rebel~ wrote:

Nope;

Man U on the 3rd,
Barca on the 6th,
Villa on the 18th,
Arsenal on the 31st.

A hectic start with Manu and barca in quick succession but will be very quiet alright after that, giant breaks then, 12 and 13 days off.

Doesnt matter if we do get to the next round of champions league, still no more matches in March, the quarters are on the 3rd and 11th of April according to uefa.com

Ah, thought Arsennal was on the Sunday.... still, makes a change

redspider

If Dudek is out of favour with Rafa, and likely to be sold, and if Carson is sold, who will be the 2nd goalie to Reina??

Personally, I dont think Reina is good enough for the standard we need to be at, so I would prefer to keep Carson, who is just 21, and buy in a new top-quality goalie, but definitely keep Carson as he has the potential.

David Martin and Dean Bouzanis are too young (not good enough?) at the moment although they have yet to get a decent chance.

Redspider

Dont be at yourself

We did get some Italian guy in on loan this season, didnt we? Maybe it'll be made permanent...

Zapp Brannigan

Yeah Daniele Padelli, he wants to make the move permanent aswell.

Dunno if he's any good though?

Dr. Nick

What LFC forums do you fellas go on? I used to be on Koptalk (6 years) until he started charging £££.

The only one I go on now (hardly ever post) is sixcrazyminutes. It's fine but a little purile, any recomendations?

PiE

theroadend.co.uk lolz.

Stky10

Dr. Nick wrote:

I used to be on Koptalk (6 years)

You might not like this then

http://koptalkinsider.wordpress.com/

See the list of LFC sites on the right hand side for other decent sites.