• This website uses cookies. More information.
  • The This Is Anfield Forums community is moving to a new home. Click here for more information on the transition.

The Owners

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
16,595
Sure, but our financial improvement has been driven largely by Tv revenues and player sales/value purchases.

Commercial revenues have only kept in line with other clubs despite being a strong brand now getting more exposure at a time when other clubs had fallen out of CL.
The sales cycle on some of these things is pretty long, so isnt this the sort of thing we might expect to see lag 2-3 years behind our actual increase in attractiveness?
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,608
The sales cycle on some of these things is pretty long, so isnt this the sort of thing we might expect to see lag 2-3 years behind our actual increase in attractiveness?
While I can't fault your logic, it doesn't explain why/how tottenham's growth in commercial revenue (172% since 2010/11), has been greater than ours (143% since 2010/11).

To put it another way, had our commercial revenue simply grown at the same rate as tottenham, a team that hasn't won anything during the period in question, last season our commercial revenue would have been nearly £23 million greater.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
While I can't fault your logic, it doesn't explain why/how tottenham's growth in commercial revenue (172% since 2010/11), has been greater than ours (143% since 2010/11).

To put it another way, had our commercial revenue simply grown at the same rate as tottenham, a team that hasn't won anything during the period in question, last season our commercial revenue would have been nearly £23 million greater.

Looking at income only not any of the outgoings associated with it.
 

Prolix

Long Time Nemesis™
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
3,297
While I can't fault your logic, it doesn't explain why/how tottenham's growth in commercial revenue (172% since 2010/11), has been greater than ours (143% since 2010/11).

To put it another way, had our commercial revenue simply grown at the same rate as tottenham, a team that hasn't won anything during the period in question, last season our commercial revenue would have been nearly £23 million greater.
Genuine question: how much commercial impact can we expect from London vs. Liverpool?
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,608
Genuine question: how much commercial impact can we expect from London vs. Liverpool?
Honest answer: I'm not sure; however it doesn't appear to help the arse (worst commercial revenue performance of any of the top six teams), and it doesn't hinder manure (highest commercial revenue)!
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
I'm not sure I get your point. How does spending on a new stadium impact upon the spuds ability to grow commercial revenue?
Because the costs aren't covered by just looking at income from commercial revenue. But all/most the deals they took out to help fund the project would come under it. How many more cafes/bars/hospitality suites over what they used to have, how many extra sponsorships on various things etc how much attention is being applied to them? Also up till last summer they seemed to be booming as on the verge of becoming a top side. The media have always loved them too. A lot of positive attention.
 

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
16,595
While I can't fault your logic, it doesn't explain why/how tottenham's growth in commercial revenue (172% since 2010/11), has been greater than ours (143% since 2010/11).

To put it another way, had our commercial revenue simply grown at the same rate as tottenham, a team that hasn't won anything during the period in question, last season our commercial revenue would have been nearly £23 million greater.
Relative metrics are very often difficult to interpret. Without looking at the figures, I would have assumed our 2010 revenue was higher than Spurs' and so it would be easier to produce higher relative improvements.
 

Neukolln

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
4,240
John Henry saying thank you to everyone but particularly to the Boss.
I watched that earlier, John Henry is a good guy, he knows what he’s doing. He also has good people in the right positions making decisions. The club is in good hands. They don’t always make decisions the fans like, but as he said in that video, they’re always “tomorrow thinking”.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,608
Because the costs aren't covered by just looking at income from commercial revenue. But all/most the deals they took out to help fund the project would come under it. How many more cafes/bars/hospitality suites over what they used to have, how many extra sponsorships on various things etc how much attention is being applied to them? Also up till last summer they seemed to be booming as on the verge of becoming a top side. The media have always loved them too. A lot of positive attention.
I think we might be arguing at cross purposes. Commercial revenue includes money earned from advertising and partnerships with other brands promoting brands through shirt logos and banners. You appear to be, at least in part, to be including matchday revenue, which is money earned from ticket sales, food and hospitality.

The commercial revenue figures I quoted are from the team accounts, for the seasons 2010/11 to 2018/19 inclusive. Given that spuds new stadium didn't open until April 2019, I think it is unlikely that the stadium would have had much impact on commercial revenue during the period in question, especially as the naming rights remain unsold.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,608
Relative metrics are very often difficult to interpret. Without looking at the figures, I would have assumed our 2010 revenue was higher than Spurs' and so it would be easier to produce higher relative improvements.
Based upon your assertion, as our commercial revenue in 2010/11 (£77.4 million) was less than manure's (£103.4 million), by 2018/19 we should have enjoyed a relatively higher rate of growth than them. As you say, "it would be easier to produce higher relative improvements".

So, how come by 2018/19, their commercial revenue had grown by 166% to £275 million, whilst ours had only grown by 143% to £188 million?

:unsure:
 
Last edited:

Limiescouse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
16,595
Based upon your assertion, as our commercial revenue in 2010/11 (£77.4 million) was less than manure's (£103.4 million), by 2018/19 we should have enjoyed a relatively higher rate of growth than them. As you say, "it would be easier to produce higher relative improvements".

So, how come by 2018/19, their commercial revenue had grown by 166% to £275 million, whilst ours had only grown by 143% to £188 million?

:unsure:
I said relative metrics are difficult to interpret on their own, and speculated why in this case they might mean something other what they presented as meaning. I didn't say they never reflect reality.
 
Last edited:

KYRed18

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
272
While I can't fault your logic, it doesn't explain why/how tottenham's growth in commercial revenue (172% since 2010/11), has been greater than ours (143% since 2010/11).

To put it another way, had our commercial revenue simply grown at the same rate as tottenham, a team that hasn't won anything during the period in question, last season our commercial revenue would have been nearly £23 million greater.
Spurs played in Europe every single one of those seasons including 5 in the CL.

In comparison we have spent 4 seasons in the CL, and missed out on Europe 3 times in the same span. Commercial revenue can be impacted by multiple things, especially exposure in the European competitions. To put in frankly, Spurs were more consistent than we were in qualifying for the needle moving competitions.
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
15,932
I think we might be arguing at cross purposes. Commercial revenue includes money earned from advertising and partnerships with other brands promoting brands through shirt logos and banners. You appear to be, at least in part, to be including matchday revenue, which is money earned from ticket sales, food and hospitality.

The commercial revenue figures I quoted are from the team accounts, for the seasons 2010/11 to 2018/19 inclusive. Given that spuds new stadium didn't open until April 2019, I think it is unlikely that the stadium would have had much impact on commercial revenue during the period in question, especially as the naming rights remain unsold.
Isnt the difference at least in part due to naturally higher prices (London rates), multi use (concerts, other sports) and greater non match day hospitality opportunities because of the number of businesses / HQs in London?
 

KYRed18

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
272
Based upon your assertion, as our commercial revenue in 2010/11 (£77.4 million) was less than manure's (£103.4 million), by 2018/19 we should have enjoyed a relatively higher rate of growth than them. As you say, "it would be easier to produce higher relative improvements".

So, how come by 2018/19, their commercial revenue had grown by 166% to £275 million, whilst ours had only grown by 143% to £188 million?

:unsure:
Possibly because they signed the world's largest kit deal ever during this time
 

KYRed18

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
272
That's kind of the point. In terms of the respective commercial teams, we've been historically and consistently outperformed by most of our rivals.
But we can't have it both ways right? We want better commercial figures, but we also want the soul of Liverpool. It is incredibly hard to do both. I get I may have missed the mark on my comments by not thoroughly reading through all the posts above, but what I constantly see in this thread is how we want to be better commercially and maintain the things we love about this club. Do we want it to fully be a business? Or do we want to be a fiscally responsible club that abides by the values that built this club?
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,608
Spurs played in Europe every single one of those seasons including 5 in the CL.

In comparison we have spent 4 seasons in the CL, and missed out on Europe 3 times in the same span. Commercial revenue can be impacted by multiple things, especially exposure in the European competitions. To put in frankly, Spurs were more consistent than we were in qualifying for the needle moving competitions.
During the same period the arse played in Europe in every single season, including seven seasons straight in the Champion's League. By your reasoning, as the arse were more consistent than the spuds, their commercial performance should have been better than that of the spuds, but it wasn't.

Evidently, just being in Europe isn't enough to explain the difference.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
I think we might be arguing at cross purposes. Commercial revenue includes money earned from advertising and partnerships with other brands promoting brands through shirt logos and banners. You appear to be, at least in part, to be including matchday revenue, which is money earned from ticket sales, food and hospitality.

The commercial revenue figures I quoted are from the team accounts, for the seasons 2010/11 to 2018/19 inclusive. Given that spuds new stadium didn't open until April 2019, I think it is unlikely that the stadium would have had much impact on commercial revenue during the period in question, especially as the naming rights remain unsold.
I'm not talking about the pies and pints sold in those establishments on match day. But won't those companies have paid contracts to be the suppliers and runners of these facilities which would have all been set up prior to the stadium opening? Wouldn't those things have shown as commercial revenue?
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,608
Isnt the difference at least in part due to naturally higher prices (London rates), multi use (concerts, other sports) and greater non match day hospitality opportunities because of the number of businesses / HQs in London?
If that were to be the case, we might expect the arse should outperform us. After all, they've got a big, modern stadium in London. However, out of the "top six" clubs, the arse are the only club with a poorer commercial growth than us. So, just being in London doesn't explain the difference.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,608
I'm not talking about the pies and pints sold in those establishments on match day. But won't those companies have paid contracts to be the suppliers and runners of these facilities which would have all been set up prior to the stadium opening? Wouldn't those things have shown as commercial revenue?
It comes under hospitality, which is included in matchday revenue.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,608
One possible explanation would be that a lot of Arsenal supporters come from BAME families and, consequently, are likely to have less disposal income.
And yet the arse are the most expensive team to support in the Premier League e.g. they have the highest season ticket prices.
 

Nikola

"Oh, history writer, don't close the pages yet!"
Admin
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
19,407
That's kind of the point. In terms of the respective commercial teams, we've been historically and consistently outperformed by most of our rivals.
Am I wrong to think that shirt manufacturer and shirt sponsor are the biggest individual sources of commercial revenue to clubs at Premier League level? I know that Man United set the standard here because of huge number of smaller partnerships but they managed to negotiate unreal sponsorships with Adidas and Chevrolet first and foremost. Liverpool's commercial department might catch up with this Nike deal but I don't see them replacing or renegotiating Standard Chartered deal to levels of Chevrolet or Yokohama/Three (if I'm not mistaken, Chelsea also had/have huge sponsorship deals with them).
 

KYRed18

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
272
During the same period the arse played in Europe in every single season, including seven seasons straight in the Champion's League. By your reasoning, as the arse were more consistent than the spuds, their commercial performance should have been better than that of the spuds, but it wasn't.

Evidently, just being in Europe isn't enough to explain the difference.
What's your point? Would you like me to say that during your decade comparison FSG in their first 10 years of PL ownership were out done commercially by someone who owned a club for 10 years longer than them? If that's the case, sure Levy was a better business owner than FSG during that tenure. Limie's right, these sponsorship deals do lag pretty significantly, and manure can be the prime example. The timeline on this whole argument is constructed to fit a moment in your point rather than logically across a spectrum like it should.

I am not sure I understand the whole idea of poking holes in everybody's logic and not providing some insight as to why you believe we are wrong, which frankly we very well could be wrong. So I am asking you, do you think we are failing commercially or is there something you'd like the owners to do better?
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,504
What's your point? Would you like me to say that during your decade comparison FSG in their first 10 years of PL ownership were out done commercially by someone who owned a club for 10 years longer than them? If that's the case, sure Levy was a better business owner than FSG during that tenure. Limie's right, these sponsorship deals do lag pretty significantly, and manure can be the prime example. The timeline on this whole argument is constructed to fit a moment in your point rather than logically across a spectrum like it should.

I am not sure I understand the whole idea of poking holes in everybody's logic and not providing some insight as to why you believe we are wrong, which frankly we very well could be wrong. So I am asking you, do you think we are failing commercially or is there something you'd like the owners to do better?
From my own personal perspective this is not about having a pop at FSG. Our commercial revenues weren't brilliant before they arrived either, but that's not an indication that the environment for Liverpool to grow/exploit commercial revenue streams is somehow, peculiar to the club, much harder than United, City, Chelsea for example. It's an indication that we weren't very good at maximising the income-generating appeal of the club.

Sure, you can point to the relative lack of success but that didn't stop Spurs from increasing their commercial revenues at a greater rate. It also didn't hold United back despite their slip out of contention for top four places let alone major trophies. We simply were not aggressive enough.

Of course there's a hesitation when it comes to generating revenue off the back of aspects of the club that give it its soul, but that's something that is acknowledged by the supporters. Indeed, it is directly referenced by SOS and others when it comes to their discussions with the club on ticket prices. A reluctance to exploit that aspect for commercial gain out of concern that it would somehow be seen as "selling out" ought to have been displaced long ago - the match-going supporters really won't care if the "soul" that they provide adds value to the club 'brand' particularly if it helps them in their discussions with the club on the cost to them of actually going to the game.

I'm also not saying that the commercial revenue side has been shit. I just think it's been average, at best. This is not a new theme for me. I've been critical of our commercial performance for years (just search for commercial and my username in this thread and you'll see!) and, in my opinion, our rate of improvement has been at least 10% less than optimal for at least the last 8 years.

Here's a post on AFC's lack of commercial revenue growth but it highlights the respective increases of all of our major rivals.


In 2010 when FSG came in we were second. Our Commercial revenue was £62m per year, £19m behind United who were top. (77% of United)

4 years later we were £85m behind (£189m compared with £104m) or were now at 55% of United. We had now also dropped to 4th behind City and Chelsea.

2 years later (2016) we were now a massive £152m behind United (£268m compared with £116m) or were now at 43% of United's figure.

2 years further on and we had finally begun to claw back some of our lost ground but we were still considerably (£122m) behind United (£276m compared with £154m) and were still 4th in the league.

In the 8 years whilst Hogan was at the helm of the commercial department he had increased commercial revenues, year on year, at an average rate of 13%. By contrast United had increased theirs at an average rate of just under 17% (from a higher starting figure). This may seem small but you can see the gap that quickly grows when that is expanded over the course of 8 years.

My own view is that the club ought to have been more than capable of matching United's growth rate over this period but did not pursue the sort of global multi-partnership deals that United did and also did not push quickly enough into emerging markets and digital media. However, even if the club had grown revenues at 15% (ie, only half way to matching United's rate of growth) our commercial revenues would have been £190m in 2018 which would have represented £36m more than where we actually were.

It's possible that some of the poor performance in our commercial revenues may be explained by FSM taking a 10% cut (hypothetically speaking) but even so I still consider that the performance of our commercial department has been underwhelming over the time. Now more recently the club's commercial revenue has increased in 2019 by £34m to take us to £188m but this still puts us £1m behind where I think we ought to have been the previous year. I am still of the view that we have underperformed relative to our comparable rivals in this area for some time and we remain at least £30m behind where I believe we ought to be (note, I am not saying that we ought to be ahead of United but the gap that was -£19m in 2010 ought to be much closer than what it was last year (-£87m) - ie In that time we've gone from being 77% of United's commercial revenue to 68%. Had we simply remained at 77% we'd have commercial revenues of £212m (£24m more than where we currently are).
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,395
From my own personal perspective this is not about having a pop at FSG. Our commercial revenues weren't brilliant before they arrived either, but that's not an indication that the environment for Liverpool to grow/exploit commercial revenue streams is somehow, peculiar to the club, much harder than United, City, Chelsea for example. It's an indication that we weren't very good at maximising the income-generating appeal of the club.

Sure, you can point to the relative lack of success but that didn't stop Spurs from increasing their commercial revenues at a greater rate. It also didn't hold United back despite their slip out of contention for top four places let alone major trophies. We simply were not aggressive enough.

Of course there's a hesitation when it comes to generating revenue off the back of aspects of the club that give it its soul, but that's something that is acknowledged by the supporters. Indeed, it is directly referenced by SOS and others when it comes to their discussions with the club on ticket prices. A reluctance to exploit that aspect for commercial gain out of concern that it would somehow be seen as "selling out" ought to have been displaced long ago - the match-going supporters really won't care if the "soul" that they provide adds value to the club 'brand' particularly if it helps them in their discussions with the club on the cost to them of actually going to the game.

I'm also not saying that the commercial revenue side has been shit. I just think it's been average, at best. This is not a new theme for me. I've been critical of our commercial performance for years (just search for commercial and my username in this thread and you'll see!) and, in my opinion, our rate of improvement has been at least 10% less than optimal for at least the last 8 years.

Here's a post on AFC's lack of commercial revenue growth but it highlights the respective increases of all of our major rivals.


In 2010 when FSG came in we were second. Our Commercial revenue was £62m per year, £19m behind United who were top. (77% of United)

4 years later we were £85m behind (£189m compared with £104m) or were now at 55% of United. We had now also dropped to 4th behind City and Chelsea.

2 years later (2016) we were now a massive £152m behind United (£268m compared with £116m) or were now at 43% of United's figure.

2 years further on and we had finally begun to claw back some of our lost ground but we were still considerably (£122m) behind United (£276m compared with £154m) and were still 4th in the league.

In the 8 years whilst Hogan was at the helm of the commercial department he had increased commercial revenues, year on year, at an average rate of 13%. By contrast United had increased theirs at an average rate of just under 17% (from a higher starting figure). This may seem small but you can see the gap that quickly grows when that is expanded over the course of 8 years.

My own view is that the club ought to have been more than capable of matching United's growth rate over this period but did not pursue the sort of global multi-partnership deals that United did and also did not push quickly enough into emerging markets and digital media. However, even if the club had grown revenues at 15% (ie, only half way to matching United's rate of growth) our commercial revenues would have been £190m in 2018 which would have represented £36m more than where we actually were.

It's possible that some of the poor performance in our commercial revenues may be explained by FSM taking a 10% cut (hypothetically speaking) but even so I still consider that the performance of our commercial department has been underwhelming over the time. Now more recently the club's commercial revenue has increased in 2019 by £34m to take us to £188m but this still puts us £1m behind where I think we ought to have been the previous year. I am still of the view that we have underperformed relative to our comparable rivals in this area for some time and we remain at least £30m behind where I believe we ought to be (note, I am not saying that we ought to be ahead of United but the gap that was -£19m in 2010 ought to be much closer than what it was last year (-£87m) - ie In that time we've gone from being 77% of United's commercial revenue to 68%. Had we simply remained at 77% we'd have commercial revenues of £212m (£24m more than where we currently are).
Well written summary theres only two things I think should be taken into account.

1st ignore City completely so if we are "4th" we are 3rd in reality. We know their deals aren't actually legit.

2nd for most of the period in question United have been the giants of the English game, most successful by far, massive historic club, with long term sponsorship that means they come to the table with all the cards. Yes the longer this current period drags out with them not hitting the top honours the worst it starts to look but it'll be now or maybe even in a few years before that starts to harm them. Likewise we've actually only just started to turn that promise into actual trophies and success. As our deals run out they should now be able to be replaced by better but we wouldn't have had that strong a negotiating stance prior to this. Between 2010 and 2018 we won a league cup they won 2 leagues, 1 FA cup, 1 league Cup and a Europa League. Sure as football fans we can see the United juggernaut grinding to a halt and LFC picking up momentum but it takes awhile for commercial deals to be agreed and then start paying so United are probably safe till now trading on their name and reputation to keep deals high. That ability will start slipping away but certainly was there up till recently. Our ability to trade off our name and reputation just received some major honour shaped steroids.
 

Walshy07

In Klopp we trust
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
2,727
FSG have been great for us but they have never bought big without selling big and I think that’s the reason why we can’t go for Sancho, havertz or at the time Werner. None of our top players want to leave - which is great - but FSG won’t sanction a big move for someone who won’t be a guaranteed starter.