Liverpool laughing stocks?

[Lord Kangana]

City will be smashing Liverpool out of sight in about 5 years if the arabs stick around. Lets not kid ourselves that the people watching in the far east have any geographical loyalty to one club.

[blurred]

You mean after some seriously rich Arab would issue every kid throughout Asia with a brand spanky FREE Man City shirt that they won't have just a mega pull as your lot?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean, and exactly why Chelsea and Man City won't have and don't have anywhere near the pull that Liverpool and Man United do. Chelsea have been at the top of the English game for nearly 10 years, and they've made nowhere near the level of inroads in the global fanbase as the historically successful sides like Liverpool and United have. The people who were around while we and United were being successful have had kids, and those kids supported Liverpool and United. Those kids (born in the nineties and later) are starting to have children, who support Liverpool and United. That's 3 generations of families throughout the EMEA and far east that support the respective clubs. It'll take a long, long time for Man City to get anywhere near the levels that we have in terms of support. They could win 5 of the next 8 Premier Leagues (like Chelsea have done over the last decade) and they'd still be nowhere near the levels of support that Liverpool and United have.

It's not some glib, smug boasting that Liverpool have got a huge fanbase. I couldn't give two shits about how many fans we have in Kuala Lumpur, and it doesn't make me think we're a better team or make me support my team any more. We have a far bigger fanbase than just about any other club, and that's a fact. If the rights were sold based on demand in the wider world then we would comfortably outsell any team in the PL with the possible exception of Man United. The two clubs have both had sustained periods of success, which has begat a huge rise in the fanbase around the world at the time that football in the UK was reaching fans in non-European countries. It's the way it is.

Liverpool and United didn't need to give people in the middle east a load of free shirts or set up a load of shops to make them fans of us - sustained success at the right times did that for us.

[blurred]

What a simpleton.

You have to worry when a Premier League director thinks like that. No, you tit, people from Bolton who support Bolton do not subscribe to Sky to watch Bolton, they subscribe to Sky to watch FOOTBALL. Because guess what? They love football. Most people who live in Bolton, who support Bolton go to the fecking Reebok if they want to watch Bolton play.

Do they, though? Attendances have dropped at the Reebok over the last however many years you care to mention - full crowds have turned into 70% crowds, even for huge games, which are only really made up from the fact that the away sides are being given more and more tickets. When I first started going to the Reebok we were lucky to get all the lower tier - now we're one of a few sides who take the whole stand, and when sides like Chelsea come up who can't guarantee a full away end you give them the lower tier and half the upper, and then just block off the other 2,000 seats and don't even try to sell them, because there's loads of home seats that are empty anyway.

Yes, people subscribe to Sky to watch football in general, but the point that he was making is that people will watch games on the telly rather than at the ground because it provides better value. Whether it's Football First or live games or foreign transmissions that are available in the pub, people are spewing going to the game because it's becoming economically realistic to stop going to matches. I've stopped going to anywhere near the level of games I did 5 years ago (and 5 years ago I did 38 games a season) because it's just not worth the money any more. Whether I watch those in my living room on Sky, in the pub, or on a dodgy stream/illegal satellite broadcast, that's what he's referring to.

Same goes for Liverpool, of course they'll watch them on telly if they're not at the game, but they hardly think of Sky as some sort of Liverpool season ticket, they buy it because they can watch football whether it be Premier League, Chmapions League, Championship, Blue Square Premier League, International or otherwise.

At least 50% of our games are on telly anyway in some form. Getting a Sky subscription is almost as good as a season ticket for most big sides, particularly for those who hardly go to the game anyway. Why would you spend £50 on train tickets and £40 on a ticket and all the associated costs when you get 2 games a month for half that on your telly anyway?

[Lord Kangana]

You're making a great fist of defending a position you claim to dilsike.

Your clubs run by mercenaries, same as everyone else's. All the trophies, won in the past, in the world won't change that.

[Hoboh]

You mean after some seriously rich Arab would issue every kid throughout Asia with a brand spanky FREE Man City shirt that they won't have just a mega pull as your lot?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean, and exactly why Chelsea and Man City won't have and don't have anywhere near the pull that Liverpool and Man United do. Chelsea have been at the top of the English game for nearly 10 years, and they've made nowhere near the level of inroads in the global fanbase as the historically successful sides like Liverpool and United have. The people who were around while we and United were being successful have had kids, and those kids supported Liverpool and United. Those kids (born in the nineties and later) are starting to have children, who support Liverpool and United. That's 3 generations of families throughout the EMEA and far east that support the respective clubs. It'll take a long, long time for Man City to get anywhere near the levels that we have in terms of support. They could win 5 of the next 8 Premier Leagues (like Chelsea have done over the last decade) and they'd still be nowhere near the levels of support that Liverpool and United have.

It's not some glib, smug boasting that Liverpool have got a huge fanbase. I couldn't give two shits about how many fans we have in Kuala Lumpur, and it doesn't make me think we're a better team or make me support my team any more. We have a far bigger fanbase than just about any other club, and that's a fact. If the rights were sold based on demand in the wider world then we would comfortably outsell any team in the PL with the possible exception of Man United. The two clubs have both had sustained periods of success, which has begat a huge rise in the fanbase around the world at the time that football in the UK was reaching fans in non-European countries. It's the way it is.

Liverpool and United didn't need to give people in the middle east a load of free shirts or set up a load of shops to make them fans of us - sustained success at the right times did that for us.

Citys aim will be an awful lot more than just premier league titles after this season and for a good few years down the lineMuch as I hate it City in 5-10 years with the present owners will be the biggest club globaly

[blurred]

You're making a great fist of defending a position you claim to dilsike.

Your clubs run by mercenaries, same as everyone else's. All the trophies, won in the past, in the world won't change that.

Which is why I said this is a catastophically bad decision that I don't support. I don't want the end to collective bargaining (in fact I've championed it on here many a time, even when some dumbarse Bolton fans complained about the current situation).

If it happens, the Premier League dies a little more. I don't blame Ayre for what he's saying (because he's right, and if I was in his position I'd be pushing for the end of collective selling rights, because we'd make a fecking fortune, which is why various Liverpool figureheads have been doing it for years, pre-dating even Gillett and Hicks) but that doesn't make it right for the game as a whole. It's not even necessarily right for LFC in the long term. Yes we'd get more money now, and would get some in the future, but it'd kill the league in the medium term, which'd be the end of us in the long term.

It's a stupid decision, and I'll oppose it with every breath in my body and with every tool at my disposal. I just laugh when people point out that we're only doing this 'because we're falling behind the top four' or claiming that Chelsea or City or Spurs stand to gain more from this than we do - because that's frankly ridiculous.

[blurred]

Citys aim will be an awful lot more than just premier league titles after this season and for a good few years down the lineMuch as I hate it City in 5-10 years with the present owners will be the biggest club globaly

Most successful? Possibly, although it'll take them a long time to catch up to Liverpool and United in terms of trophies won (even in the modern era). Biggest in terms of fanbase? Not a chance. It'll take a generation or more for them to catch up. Chelsea, despite their CL final and loads of PL titles have got feck all fans worldwide. City won't better that, even if they manage to out-perform Chelsea on the pitch. United are still a massive global name, and City will really struggle to take that crown from them.

[Lord Kangana]

But you are falling behind the top four. Thats a fait accompli that most in football outside Anfield would accept. Both Blakburn and Arsenal have won the League more recently than you. And Arsenal are considered in the shit, with their better stadium and huge (far bigger than yours) match day revenue. I realise its hard to accept, but people around the wolrd don't follow Liverpool because they're Liverpool. That would be insulting the intelligence of other posters on here to suggest as much. Its because they won things. Lots of things. So did Huddersfield years ago. They don't really much any more. It would take a huge injection of cash to stop the slide, but that only comes from winning things or wealthy owners.

United, City and Chelsea are way out of your League financially. Only a fool would see that changing any time soon. You know, I quite like Stuart Downing and Charlie Adam. But please, they are not top signings. Maybe Suarez is. But thats it. This is the action of a drowning man clutching at stones.

[blurred]

But you are falling behind the top four. Thats a fait accompli that most in football outside Anfield would accept. Both Blakburn and Arsenal have won the League more recently than you. And Arsenal are considered in the shit, with their better stadium and huge (far bigger than yours) match day revenue. I realise its hard to accept, but people around the wolrd don't follow Liverpool because they're Liverpool. That would be insulting the intelligence of other posters on here to suggest as much. Its because they won things. Lots of things. So did Huddersfield years ago. They don't really much any more. It would take a huge injection of cash to stop the slide, but that only comes from winning things or wealthy owners.

United, City and Chelsea are way out of your League financially. Only a fool would see that changing any time soon. You know, I quite like Stuart Downing and Charlie Adam. But please, they are not top signings. Maybe Suarez is. But thats it. This is the action of a drowning man clutching at stones.

We've been behind them in the past two seasons, but can you really see much past a Liverpool/Spurs/Arsenal battle for 4th this year? And can you really see Arsenal (18 points in the their last 18 league games) forming much of a fight for that? Yes, we've had a lean couple of years, but to suddenly claim that Arsenal or Blackburn are in any way ahead of Liverpool globally makes you look like a fool. I know that people follow us because of our success in the 80s - that's actually exactly what I'm pointing out. It would take the current sides to have a massive period of domination to get anywhere near to the levels of overseas support we have. Chelsea have relatively dominated (at least alongside Man United) in the last decade and still nobody really cares about them abroad. History does count for a lot. We're not talking about matchday revenue here, because Ian Ayre's comments have nothing to do with that - he's after Game 39 and the foreign dollar, all of which we're infinitely better placed than Arsenal, Blackburn, Chelsea, Spurs or City to go after.

Yes, we're dropping behind them domestically over the last few years (how many European finals have Chelsea or City or even Arsenal been in in the last decade, though?), but if you go to the streets of Delhi or Kuala Lumpur or Hong Kong you're going to see far more Liverpool shirts than you could reasonably expect to. Look at the attendances in Malaysia on Liverpool and Chelsea's respective pre-season tours for a start - we dwarfed their match attendance just for a training session. I agree that United, Chelsea and City are beyond our means financially under the current system, depending on how they manage to implement financial fair play under the UEFA rules, but that's precisely why Ian Ayre's made the points he has today - to expand our revenues in areas that only Man United could hope to match us in. If the amount that was allocated in overseas deals was suddenly made available for each side to negotiate themselves, Liverpool would practically remove the advantage that Chelsea and Man City had through their owners, and also the advantage that Arsenal had through their matchday revenue.

We'd absolutely clean up on global revenues, and anyone who thinks otherwise is pretty deluded. Regardless of who would do better out of it, however, it can't be allowed to happen.

That being said, the whole thing is completely abhorrent. Every football fan should do what they can to oppose it, whoever they support.

[Prufrock]

Interesting article in today's Guardian about TV rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011 ... ay-tv-deal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"What is absolutely certain is that, with the greatest of respect to our colleagues in the Premier League, but if you're a Bolton fan in Bolton, then you subscribe to Sky because you want to watch Bolton. Everyone gets that. Likewise, if you're a Liverpool fan from Liverpool, you subscribe. But if you're in Kuala Lumpur there isn't anyone subscribing to Astro, or ESPN to watch Bolton, or if they are it's a very small number. Whereas the large majority are subscribing because they want to watch Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal."

What a simpleton.

You have to worry when a Premier League director thinks like that. No, you tit, people from Bolton who support Bolton do not subscribe to Sky to watch Bolton, they subscribe to Sky to watch FOOTBALL. Because guess what? They love football. Most people who live in Bolton, who support Bolton go to the fecking Reebok if they want to watch Bolton play.

Same goes for Liverpool, of course they'll watch them on telly if they're not at the game, but they hardly think of Sky as some sort of Liverpool season ticket, they buy it because they can watch football whether it be Premier League, Chmapions League, Championship, Blue Square Premier League, International or otherwise.

Maybe people in Kuala Lumpur don't think like that, but quite frankly, no-one cares, this isn't the Malaysian Premier League.

He's wrong on Bolton, but right on the rest. If you live in Liverpool and support Liverpool, or Salford and support that lot, chances are you get sky because you don't have the Jag you need for the season ticket. And that lot are all they care about.

[boltonboris]

Blurred. Here's one for you.

From my personal experience of Asia. You're 4th behind United, Arsenal and Chelsea. The blues have really pushed a campaign over there and their players faces are on every train, building and poster

[seanworth]

Blurred from my experience in Thailand.

The most support team is Man United, followed by Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea.

Liverpool still have a huge fan base in Asia. When I first came to Thailand in the mid 80's it was Liverpool by a long shot. I couldn't even identify who was 2nd back in those days. If Thai's weren't talking about Liverpool they were talking about Juventus. Liverpool have done the worst job though capitalizing on that support and Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea have made moves over the past 15 years. I'm sure if Man City win a title they will also grow. Asian support winners or teams that have their national players playing for them. Now I have met, Spurs, Newcastle, Southhampton and Everton supporters over the years but they tend to be old timers.

Of Bolton players the ones who had the largest local support it was Jay Jay, and Diouf.

[Hoboh]

Blurred from my experience in Thailand.

The most support team is Man United, followed by Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea.

Liverpool still have a huge fan base in Asia. When I first came to Thailand in the mid 80's it was Liverpool by a long shot. I couldn't even identify who was 2nd back in those days. If Thai's weren't talking about Liverpool they were talking about Juventus. Liverpool have done the worst job though capitalizing on that support and Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea have made moves over the past 15 years. I'm sure if Man City win a title they will also grow. Asian support winners or teams that have their national players playing for them. Now I have met, Spurs, Newcastle, Southhampton and Everton supporters over the years but they tend to be old timers.

Of Bolton players the ones who had the largest local support it was Jay Jay, and Diouf.

Ever found a "genuine" Thai Bolton fan Sean?

[thebish]

thebish applauds the Daily Mail shocker!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... esson.html

[Prufrock]

Blurred from my experience in Thailand.

The most support team is Man United, followed by Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea.

Liverpool still have a huge fan base in Asia. When I first came to Thailand in the mid 80's it was Liverpool by a long shot. I couldn't even identify who was 2nd back in those days. If Thai's weren't talking about Liverpool they were talking about Juventus. Liverpool have done the worst job though capitalizing on that support and Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea have made moves over the past 15 years. I'm sure if Man City win a title they will also grow. Asian support winners or teams that have their national players playing for them. Now I have met, Spurs, Newcastle, Southhampton and Everton supporters over the years but they tend to be old timers.

Of Bolton players the ones who had the largest local support it was Jay Jay, and Diouf.

By not winning owt!

[thebish]

presumably "you'll never walk alone" is being replaced with "we want to walk alone"?

[bobo the clown]

thebish applauds the Daily Mail shocker!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... esson.html

Ayre still has a court case to deal with when Hicks & Gillette challenge the way he & his pals robbed them of the club they owned and sold it for a pitance. Since then they've begun spending money like water and pushing their weight around again. Obnoxious git.

[jimbo_bwfc]

Some cheap but nontheless funny 'trolling' from Coyle. I can already hear the Scouse 'eeeeehhhhhh's' of discontent when they open this one up in the paper tomorrow morning.

He probably thinks Liverpool are a big attraction, but some other elite clubs in the Premier League might not think so.

[Beefheart]

Some cheap but nontheless funny 'trolling' from Coyle. I can already hear the Scouse 'eeeeehhhhhh's' of discontent when they open this one up in the paper tomorrow morning.

He probably thinks Liverpool are a big attraction, but some other elite clubs in the Premier League might not think so.

Haha, where's that from?

[thebish]

Some cheap but nontheless funny 'trolling' from Coyle. I can already hear the Scouse 'eeeeehhhhhh's' of discontent when they open this one up in the paper tomorrow morning.

He probably thinks Liverpool are a big attraction, but some other elite clubs in the Premier League might not think so.

Haha, where's that from?

full set of quotes...

'I haven't seen the comments directly - were they from Liverpool's chief executive?' he said. 'I don't want to get caught up in a slanging match, particularly with someone I don't even know.

'Good luck to him. He obviously knows his stuff. Whatever his perception is, there's no point saying too much about it, because it is completely hypothetical.

'It needs 14 of the 20 Premier League clubs to vote for it. Now a lot of clubs in this league are a lot of things, but they're not stupid. The bottom line is we have the best product in the world, and it is made up of 20 teams. That's why it is what it is.

'We all have our own ideas. He probably thinks Liverpool are a big attraction, but some other elite clubs in the Premier League might not think so. Whether he is trying to create something to talk about, I don't know, but really there is nothing to talk about, because I would be very surprised if it ever came to fruition.'

I'd just like to add that Kenny Dalgleish is a top, top manager in the Barclays Premier League.

(OK - I may have added the last bit!)