Liverpool FC Forum

by **stmichael** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:59 pm

John Barnes' Granny wrote:The list above is a reflection of our lack of Champions League action last season.

I think in 2002 we were the 5th richest club in the world.

I think the whole thing about our losses has been overstated. The club usually made small profits or broke even, but last year was hopefully a freak year in that we didn't have CL football, were knocked out of the cups reletively early and getting rid of Houllier and his backroom staff, as well as certain players, cost us £10million. The club insists that it only added around £3million to our debt (we'll see) so we are not exactly talking about Leeds UTD here.

The figures do show the importance of CL money, though.

We'll definitely have an income greater than £100million this season, probably around £110m.

Agreed JBG. Nobody should ever be surprised that Manure are top. However I think the term "rich list" is highly misleading.

United have more money to invest in the club from a) being a PLC and b) having a larger stadium. They obviously spend this income wisely to generate more profit but as they are a PLC, not all the profit goes back into the club. The shareholders will take a huge slice of profit every year.

It's not something that Moores and Parry are doing incorrectly which could be corrected overnight. Making our brand popular in other parts of the world costs a hell of a lot of money in marketing. I'm sorry but what's more important to me is investing in the team (which is what they are doing).

We made a loss last year, this was because we spent our profits (and more) on players (and paying off Ged). I don't think people can criticise Parry and Moores too much - they're doing a good job for the club and trying to make us successful.

The truth of the matter is that successful clubs will earn more money. We will not get into the top group in terms of income anyway unless we start having more success on the pitch. To me, Parry and Moores seem committed to this. Also, I'd so much rather have the club in their hands than some bloody PLC.

by **dawson99** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:01 pm

i know im naive. i know we need money. but i just wanna play good footy. who gies a stuff about this list. if anything im glad we are not top. we are a football club, not a business. we are so much more fan based than the other money grabbing companies... makes me proud to be a red
YNWA

by **JBG** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:11 pm

Those figures just show that for all the doom and gloom, Liverpool are still a powerhouse in financial terms.

Those figures are based on a bad season in which a lot of things went wrong. It just shows our potential in financial terms what could happen if the team becomes successful again and we eventually get a new stadium. Even a return to the relative successful mid Houllier days would see us return to the top 6 or 7 financially, and a bigger stadium and better success under Benitez could see us in the top 5.

Also, while Chelsea's income has jumped (which is impressive even aside from Abramavich), they still had enormous losses last year. A loss of 2 or 3 million pounds is acceptable. I won't get worried until we start seeing losses of £20million or so.

Lets face it, Liverpool are just too big a club and brandname to keep down forever. Sure, we have made hundreds of mistakes over the past 15 years and the London press are delighted to predict our slide into mediocrity, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and we'll eventually get it right. Even back in the 1980s a lot of Liverpool fans had a laugh at Man UTD but most of us knew that some day UTD would rise again. The same will happen to Liverpool.

by **JBG** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:14 pm

BTW, how are Barcelona ahead of Inter Milan?

by **stmichael** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:16 pm

dawson99 wrote:who gives a stuff about this list.

i agree daws that it certainly loses credibility because man city and spurs are in it :laugh:

by **Fowler_E7** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:17 pm

John Barnes' Granny wrote:The list above is a reflection of our lack of Champions League action last season.

I think in 2002 we were the 5th richest club in the world.

I think the whole thing about our losses has been overstated. The club usually made small profits or broke even, but last year was hopefully a freak year in that we didn't have CL football, were knocked out of the cups reletively early and getting rid of Houllier and his backroom staff, as well as certain players, cost us £10million. The club insists that it only added around £3million to our debt (we'll see) so we are not exactly talking about Leeds UTD here.

The figures do show the importance of CL money, though.

We'll definitely have an income greater than £100million this season, probably around £110m.

thats correct in 2002 we were the worlds 5th richest club, just goes to show how lack of success has blighted us on the financial side of things as well.

by **The_Rock** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:26 pm

John Barnes' Granny wrote:Those figures are based on a bad season in which a lot of things went wrong. It just shows our potential in financial terms what could happen if the team becomes successful again and we eventually get a new stadium.

agree

. An awful year last year and we are the 10th richest team in the world.... just imagine a good year and where would we be.

On a side-note....aston villa 20th richest club in the world

Whats doug doing with the money

by **banana** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 4:30 pm

Since we are so god damn rich,why haven't this materialized on the field?

Answar: money have been wasted. GH you teapot.

by **azriahmad** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 5:00 am

Guys, the list is only the income. how rich one club is is dependent on how well it is run and how much liabilities it has. Manure has no borrowings at all, as compared to Real Madrid, Barcelona (both heavily in debt) or other clubs. Bayern Munich is another club which is debt free. Chelski, since Abramovich's interrvention would also be debt free, if the shareholders' advances are not considered as debt, Chelski is being heavily funded by Abramovich as their income is clearly insufficient to fund the transfers and wages.

Liverpool, on the other hand has less income than manure and is not debt free. According to sources from Taksin's advisers during their due dilligence study on Liverpool FC, there are debts of some 18 million pounds as of June 2004. It may have come down since then and there is no mention if all or part of these debts of Liverpool FC are owed to Moores or institutions.

Despite being 5th or so in the 2002 turnover list, this does not indicate that Liverpool FC are 5th richest club, only 5th highest turnover. The 2 richest clubs, on an overall basis (excluding "free and hobbyist" funding such as Chelski) are Manure and Bayern Munich in that order but the financial well-being gap between Manure and Bayern must be big as Manure churn out the highest turnover every year and continue to make profits. Bayern have a policy of not buying very big and keeping their wage levels under control.

I don't really know where we stand on the rich list, but overall we should be ahead of Barcelona because their debts and buying big policy be huge wheres Real Madird wiped out their debt after selling their training ground in Madrid a couple of years ago but must have been borrowing again to fund their galacticos purchases.

Liverpool FC Forum

Football rich list - We're 10th

Who is online