Chelsea earn more than us?

[anfield11]

I wouldn't have thought so, but even if they do, there expenses including transfer spending make this a huge loss.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1779

[Gomez]

I wouldn't have thought so, but even if they do, there expenses including transfer spending make this a huge loss.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1779

 

The reason we were such an attractive proposition was our potential for increasing revenue. I am not in the least surprised we are 10th, we hardly exploit our brand at all compared to scum, chavs and the a***. The fact that the chavs make more money from their paltry product is damning.

[Guest efcrmagic]

Has anyone the top 20 please?

 

Thanks.

[Guest truered]

The reason we were such an attractive proposition was our potential for increasing revenue. I am not in the least surprised we are 10th, we hardly exploit our brand at all compared to scum, chavs and the a***. The fact that the chavs make more money from their paltry product is damning.

 

 

that sucks, we as a club with the best heritage etc, should be way, way ahead of everybody

[CarraLegend]

I wouldn't have thought so, but even if they do, there expenses including transfer spending make this a huge loss.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1779

 

They charge double what we do on some tickets aswell as having other £47 tickets, £49, £50 in a similar size ground to us and theyve just got a massive new sponsor last season or whenever while we've still had Carlsberg which is an old deal so not exactly a surprise. We'll shoot up the next one.

Edited February 7, 2007 by CarraLegend

[RaoulD]

I suspect it has more to do with the fact that our share of the prize money from the Premier League finish in 2005 (5th) was significantly less than Chelsea's as champions and the fact that our share of the pooled funds from the Champions League was tiny compared with the amount Chelsea got as national league champions. Arsenal had a good run in the Champions League. That coupled with the fact that you need a mortgage to get a ticket at Chelsea these days!

 

I think it is our potential to do much better that has made us particularly attractive to outside investors. There will also be a major increase in our turnover when we move to the new stadium.

 

Personally I still regard LFC as my football club rather than a business so where we are in the table and how much we earn are very low down on my list of priorities. Even more so now that we have secured the necessary investment from 2 rich yanks!

[Rushian]

It's partly to do with Chelsea charging more per ticket and mainly due to them including the revenues from the associated Chelsea Village businesses in their accounts.

[Bootle Buck]

The reason we were such an attractive proposition was our potential for increasing revenue. I am not in the least surprised we are 10th, we hardly exploit our brand at all compared to scum, chavs and the a***. The fact that the chavs make more money from their paltry product is damning.

 

Then why have we kept our Chief Executive?

[RedSalmon]

For the yanks to learn from I guess.

[Rushian]

I am not in the least surprised we are 10th, we hardly exploit our brand at all compared to scum, chavs and the a***. The fact that the chavs make more money from their paltry product is damning.

 

That's absolute nonsense if you look at the bare figures.

[fyds]

That's absolute nonsense if you look at the bare figures.

I get really hacked off covering and re-covering this same misinformed bit of selective figure tyoe listing. We had £8om debt according to just about all the press too, remember? Oh hang on - no we didn't!

 

In the end - last year, despite Reebok nobbing us about, we made £10.4m net profit - this should have been £16,4m. Chelsea made a net operating loss of £220m to bring their total net operating loss to £480m.

 

'This is an incredibly well run club' said George Gillett and he wasn't lieing.

[growler]

despite our success, we haven't capitalised on it, because we have been focussed on being a football club. However, reality suggests that we need to move forward.

 

Has the sky era happened during our success, perhaps we would be in a different position now.

 

we have a good base to grow our turnover now, so hopefully that will happen.

 

as for higher priced tickets in london, they have a higher cost base there too though.

[Anfield Fox]

I get really hacked off covering and re-covering this same misinformed bit of selective figure tyoe listing. We had £8om debt according to just about all the press too, remember? Oh hang on - no we didn't!

 

In the end - last year, despite Reebok nobbing us about, we made £10.4m net profit - this should have been £16,4m. Chelsea made a net operating loss of £220m to bring their total net operating loss to £480m.

 

'This is an incredibly well run club' said George Gillett and he wasn't lieing.

 

The figures are based on last season and following the 2005 CL win revenue was always going to drop if we didn't match the previous season's success. Having been knocked out in the last 16 we lost out on a LOT of revenue there not to mention our leage finish. We didn't in the CWC either and our main success was obviously the FA Cup but the prize money for that from the 3rd round to the final is only 2 million. Yes we also charge much less for seats and we also have a ground that is now only 30,000 seats short of United.

 

With recent developments though i have no doubt we'll shoot up that list very soon as we will the Premiership

[fyds]

The figures are based on last season and following the 2005 CL win revenue was always going to drop if we didn't match the previous season's success. Having been knocked out in the last 16 we lost out on a LOT of revenue there not to mention our leage finish. We didn't in the CWC either and our main success was obviously the FA Cup but the prize money for that from the 3rd round to the final is only 2 million. Yes we also charge much less for seats and we also have a ground that is now only 30,000 seats short of United.

 

With recent developments though i have no doubt we'll shoot up that list very soon as we will the Premiership

Yes, but as Rushian says - even then, the interpretation of the figures is selective, fact is, we made a profit and Chelsea didn't.

[JRC]

More interesting are the comparisons which break turnover down into TV, sponsorship, Merchandise, 'Match Day' Income, Winnings etc. TV Money varies greatly depending on progress, number of TV Matches selected etc.

 

As has been said, I'm not sure if the Chelsea Turnover includes Chelsea Village anyway

[Rimbeux]

Turnover's for show, bottom line's the dough

[R A Softlad]

Has anyone the top 20 please?

 

Thanks.

 

Try top 100.

 

The reason we are down there and Chelsea are higher is simple. Ticket prices.

[Michael]

ignore

Edited February 8, 2007 by Michael

[XXX]

ignore

[Dule]

It cannot be that simple to say Ticket prices are the reason they hey so much more money than us.

 

I mean ffs we have the same capacity stadiums, how much more could they charge to have 30 million pounds more than us?

[R A Softlad]

It cannot be that simple to say Ticket prices are the reason they hey so much more money than us.

 

I mean ffs we have the same capacity stadiums, how much more could they charge to have 30 million pounds more than us?

 

Our most expensive individual ticket for the upcoming Man U game is £34.

 

Chelsea's structure is this:

 

FA PREMIER LEAGUE

Adult member prices are £35, £45, £48 or £60

Juvenile & OAP member prices range are £15 or £20

Student member prices are £35

 

UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE

Adult member prices are £35, £45, £48 or £60

Juvenile & OAP member prices range are £15 or £20

Student member prices are £35

 

FA CUP

Adult prices are £25

Juvenile & OAP prices are £12

Student member prices are £18

 

CARLING CUP

Adult prices are £20

Juvenile & OAP prices are £10

Student member prices are £15

Edited February 8, 2007 by R A Softlad

[Gomez]

Then why have we kept our Chief Executive?

 

Because Liverpool FC is about more than just making money. There are a lot of thing Parry has got spot on.

 

That's absolute nonsense if you look at the bare figures.

Probably the chelski bit is, but you can't argue we don't rake in anywhere near as much as we should, we are too far behind teams we should be on a par with.

[jimmylibel]

Any read the other article there about our shirt sponsorship. Suggesting we'll only get a maximum of £6 million a year... seems very low.

[honourablegeorge]

Their recently-negotiated Sponsorship deals dwarf ours, they charge fortunes for tickets, they got more prize money than us, sold more players for more cash, and include their Hotel money. And they're c****.

[Guest ojdk]

Has anyone the top 20 please?

 

Thanks.

 

http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/ne...icle2248727.ece

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2008280,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtm...08/sfnmon08.xml

 

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/press_release/...D145152,00.html