https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/06/premier-league-finances-club-guide-2016-17 Gate and matchday income £74m TV and broadcasting £154m Commercial activities £136m Net debt Not stated; bank loan £72m; £130m owed to FSG Interest payable £7m Highest-paid director Unnamed, £914,000 State they’re in Rebuilt, and beginning to approach the intentions John Henry and his FSG co-investors had for Liverpool when they bought a crisis-stricken club in 2010. The owners reversed planned ticket price increasesafter a walkout by protesting fans, and match-day income still increased £11m because of the opening of Anfield’s new main stand. FSG loaned £110m at 1.24% interest for its construction, and Liverpool also invested in players – the accounts note £146m net spend in the summer of 2017.
Commercial activities is where there are opportunities to be had & next years TV/broadcasting will be higher due to CL I suppose its what we do with it on the pitch /transfer market that counts as some clubs like Arsenal are in a healthy financial position yet on the field it's not the same story
we're a good way behind in commercial income: manure 276M city 218M chels 140M LFC 136M arse 91M spurs 73M
The so-called “big six” Premier League clubs have won their persistent battle to be paid a greater share of the league’s burgeoning international TV rights, which have for 26 years been shared equally between all the league’s clubs. Led by Manchester City and Liverpool, supported by Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur, the six clubs have pressed the case that as they are the prime attractions for global audiences and money paid by international broadcasters, they should receive more of the money. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...big-six-win-battle-overseas-television-rights
And there it goes...more of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer...not sure I really like that...
That’s a turn up for the books, that is. Never thought it would psss. I can see the argument for it— not many would bid for Burnley v Everton but many would pay for Arsenal Burnley etc. Given that the league operates a relegation system, it seems fair that prize money is distributed according to league position. For all the whingin, remember that Leicester was atop the pile only a couple of seasons ago. And didn’t Southampton finished above Liverpool in that awful season when we got drubbed at Stoke? The so-called top six isn’t cast in stone.
I do suppose it makes those mid-table teams play for something...but the reality is that teams like City and United, who are already "rolling in it" will continue to bring in money and stay on top of the heap...while other teams (including those that were once at/near the top...Newcastle, Villa etc) will continue to struggle financially... As much as I like the promotion/relegation of the European system...there is something to be said for the "American" side of salary caps and "equality" across the leagues - where any one team (with ambition) can build a squad that can really do something (ie the Golden State Warriors in B-Ball)...
Another interesting thing to note is the new Main Stand has pushed the gate receipts higher, with only Utd and Arsenal now earning more. These numbers are also from a season with no CL, so everything across the board is going to increase. For 2017/2018 season I'd expected overall revenue increase on the order of 100M.
That’s interesting about only the skanks and Arsenal bringing in more gate receipts— I thought Man City had an equally large stadium as Liverpool? That performance by the new Main Stand seems to have convinced the owners to go ahead with the Anfield Road development.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...liverpool-named-eighth-most-valuable-14779835 Liverpool named eighth most valuable club in world after 30% increase Liverpool have been named one of the most valuable clubs in world football – but are placed behind four of their main Premier League rivals.
Liverpool news: Jurgen Klopp and John Henry disagree over major decision - offer rejected https://www.express.co.uk/sport/foo...hn-Henry-Amazon-Prime-All-Or-Nothing-Man-City
https://talksport.com/football/4316...chester-united-arsenal-chelsea-and-liverpool/ surprised to see how few sponsorship deals we have - 17, the lowest of the top 10 teams in Europe. I expect FSG to be improving that soon, surely.
I wonder if this is current? because our year to year revenues have never been higher. that could of course be due sales, CL money, new stand, etc. and maybe the deals we have being lucrative.
I suspect we hold the line on the value on any deals. Chelsea only have 18, Madrid 19, so its not like we are way behind on quantity. Many of ours are up for renewal, so we'll see an increase in value over the next few years.
yes but the $ value of theirs is millions above ours. I would like more of these deals but don't want to see ads for "official Feminine Product sponsor" which is where MU will be one day soon ... right on. I suspect a number of ours don't reflect current pulling power.
I meant our current deals - for example there are already rumors that Standard Charter has reupped the shirt rights at almost double the amount.
Those numbers for us aren’t correct. Our 16/17 commercial income is 136m. See above. Our 17/18 income will be much more due to CL clauses.
we made 81million Euros for the CL run last season. https://www.fourfourtwo.com/news/real-madrid-received-eu886m-champions-league-win