Bolton Wanderers Forum The-Wanderer.co.uk

Worthy4England wrote:If the model makes him millions in the manner that he's proposing, then it's ceased to be anything to do with football in my opinion. What happens when he wants to extend half time by 30 mins so his "in stadium" sales reps can try flogging the latest Amway products to the non-football supporting people that may have turned up to watch?

He lobbies the FA to change the laws of the game, otherwise he can't. Which he won't. So it's a ludicrous suggestion.

Yes, I agree that ownership issues such as this are the thin end of the wedge, but let's not get fantastical about things, becaues it skews the debate.

seanworth wrote:

jimbo wrote:For Liverpool fans it's a shame Liverpool are so useless at it, considering they have been one of the most supported clubs in the world for the past 30 yrs or so. They should be generating a lot more revenue than they actually do.

Seems to me like they do milk quite a lot of money off the Liverpool fans. Pretty much everyone here walks round in replica clothing - be it coats, hats, shirts, trackies, shorts or whatever. Plus tickets at Anfield are expensive and they sell out most of the time.

Talking more about overseas, which brings in huge revenue. Man U's overseas marketing is vastly better than Liverpools. Even Liverpool fans here are disgusted at the wasted opportunities. When I first came here (Thailand) in the 80's Liverpool was by far the most supported team, followed by Juventus and Real Madrid distant second and third. Certainly Liverpool's lack of success has contributed to this, but they should actually be performing (marketing wise) much better than they are. I believe Hick's even addressed this a few
months ago. I don't think can all be blamed on Rafa being a prick.[/quote]

While Sean's point is correct, the amount of money made from 'merchandising' is minuscule in comparison to the other revenue streams of a big football club. Yes, Man United have 'grown the brand' out in Asia, but if I recall correctly their merchandising department brings in single figures of millions of pounds in a year, and is comparable to revenue created from just one or two fixtures at Old Trafford. We do lag behind, but it's not the huge issue - Arsenal and United's matchday revenue dwarfs Liverpool's to the tune of something like £2m per match, because of the increased corporate seating and larger capacities available at OT and the Emirates.

If you ever get the chance to Blurred, you must buy the Spitting Image annual from a few years ago.

It has a cartoon strip entitled "Ray of the Receivers" in it. The football club realises that the least profitable part of its business is football, so fans chant at a big screen with the corporations share prices on it. This thread reminds me of it. Its pricelesss.

This guy is no billionaire so is it likely he's happened upon the perfect moneymaking scheme for a football club that nobody's discovered before?

And as for Tesco- it does do what it's customers want, it stocks what they want at a price they want. If they don't people go to asda.

communistworkethic wrote:And as for Tesco- it does do what it's customers want, it stocks what they want at a price they want. If they don't people go to asda.

Is that saying that it's no different to a football club or that it's the same?

blurred wrote:

communistworkethic wrote:And as for Tesco- it does do what it's customers want, it stocks what they want at a price they want. If they don't people go to asda.

Is that saying that it's no different to a football club or that it's the same?

someone suggested that they only listen to the owners, which is just nonsense, without customers tesco is nothng

communistworkethic wrote:

blurred wrote:

communistworkethic wrote:And as for Tesco- it does do what it's customers want, it stocks what they want at a price they want. If they don't people go to asda.

Is that saying that it's no different to a football club or that it's the same?

someone suggested that they only listen to the owners, which is just nonsense, without customers tesco is nothng

Yes, but Tesco don't have TV rights and sponsorship deals that dwarf their 'through the tills' income. They've diversified, but their chief source of income is through their shops and supermarkets, and banking or insurance or telecoms. Football clubs' chief source of income is usually not its fans.

And your analogy above rings just as true for football - if clubs do things that fans don't like (change name/raise ticket prices/sell off top players/whatever), they'll go elsewhere. Ok, with football they're more likely to just stop going at all rather than go to another club, but it's largely the same thing, given that it's loss of revenue.

blurred wrote:

Worthy4England wrote:If the model makes him millions in the manner that he's proposing, then it's ceased to be anything to do with football in my opinion. What happens when he wants to extend half time by 30 mins so his "in stadium" sales reps can try flogging the latest Amway products to the non-football supporting people that may have turned up to watch?

He lobbies the FA to change the laws of the game, otherwise he can't. Which he won't. So it's a ludicrous suggestion.

Yes, I agree that ownership issues such as this are the thin end of the wedge, but let's not get fantastical about things, becaues it skews the debate.

The man is looking at the possibility of renaming the team Harchester? and you're suggesting that I shouldn't get "fantastical"?

Worthy4England wrote:The man is looking at the possibility of renaming the team Harchester? and you're suggesting that I shouldn't get "fantastical"?

MK Dons. Leigh Genesis. The New Saints. Arsenal. Manchester United.

Teams names change, that's just a few I can think of off the top of my head. If he wants to rename it it wouldn't be the first time it'd happened, and wouldn't be the last. I think people have latched onto this 'Harchester' thing as fact, when he himself has said that it's one of a few possible options, if he chose to rename it at all.

blurred wrote:

communistworkethic wrote:

blurred wrote:

communistworkethic wrote:And as for Tesco- it does do what it's customers want, it stocks what they want at a price they want. If they don't people go to asda.

Is that saying that it's no different to a football club or that it's the same?

someone suggested that they only listen to the owners, which is just nonsense, without customers tesco is nothng

Yes, but Tesco don't have TV rights and sponsorship deals that dwarf their 'through the tills' income.

Neither do Chester City.

warthog wrote:

blurred wrote:

communistworkethic wrote:

blurred wrote:

communistworkethic wrote:And as for Tesco- it does do what it's customers want, it stocks what they want at a price they want. If they don't people go to asda.

Is that saying that it's no different to a football club or that it's the same?

someone suggested that they only listen to the owners, which is just nonsense, without customers tesco is nothng

Yes, but Tesco don't have TV rights and sponsorship deals that dwarf their 'through the tills' income.

Neither do Chester City.

According to this new owner and his sponsors, they'll have plenty coming in through these sponsorship deals to obviate the need for large attendances.

blurred wrote:

Worthy4England wrote:The man is looking at the possibility of renaming the team Harchester? and you're suggesting that I shouldn't get "fantastical"?

MK Dons. Leigh Genesis. The New Saints. Arsenal. Manchester United.

Teams names change, that's just a few I can think of off the top of my head. If he wants to rename it it wouldn't be the first time it'd happened, and wouldn't be the last. I think people have latched onto this 'Harchester' thing as fact, when he himself has said that it's one of a few possible options, if he chose to rename it at all.

MK changed their name because they'd moved to Milton Keynes. Arsenal and United 100-odd years ago for purposes nothing to do with "making a quick buck".

Ok - let's look at this from a different angle. This particular person was at the helm when York City went tits-up, admitted to being a liar at the time and still managed to come out of the particular deal £120k up over the 9 months he had the "business" - not a great return, but not a loss either at a time when the UK lost a football club, and also with some interesting questions about where £400k from Persimmon Homes in sponsorship had gone to. Funny how it all happened about the time that ITV Digital(?) went tits and "promised TV monies" went with them - so a revenue stream he might have though was heading his way didn't. Don't think there was great enthusiasm from Mansfield earlier in the year when he was hovering around there, and I fully understand why there would be nervousness at Chester.

I don't think he has any particular interest in Chester (or necessarily football - his main interest is motorsports) - only in how much it could pocket him, and with I suspect a decent chance that he doesn't come out bearing any losses. Again from a business perspective no problems with people not wanting to make a loss, I would just question whether football clubs going into administration is the right way to go about it, from a wider footballing perspective.

blurred wrote:

warthog wrote:

blurred wrote:

communistworkethic wrote:

blurred wrote: Is that saying that it's no different to a football club or that it's the same?

someone suggested that they only listen to the owners, which is just nonsense, without customers tesco is nothng

Yes, but Tesco don't have TV rights and sponsorship deals that dwarf their 'through the tills' income.

Neither do Chester City.

According to this new owner and his sponsors, they'll have plenty coming in through these sponsorship deals to obviate the need for large attendances.

Hmm, we'll see. A League Two club who were in the conference not long ago. Can't see it bringing in mega bucks somehow.

blurred wrote:

communistworkethic wrote:

blurred wrote:

communistworkethic wrote:And as for Tesco- it does do what it's customers want, it stocks what they want at a price they want. If they don't people go to asda.

Is that saying that it's no different to a football club or that it's the same?

someone suggested that they only listen to the owners, which is just nonsense, without customers tesco is nothng

Yes, but Tesco don't have TV rights and sponsorship deals that dwarf their 'through the tills' income. They've diversified, but their chief source of income is through their shops and supermarkets, and banking or insurance or telecoms. Football clubs' chief source of income is usually not its fans.

And your analogy above rings just as true for football - if clubs do things that fans don't like (change name/raise ticket prices/sell off top players/whatever), they'll go elsewhere. Ok, with football they're more likely to just stop going at all rather than go to another club, but it's largely the same thing, given that it's loss of revenue.

really???? wow, thanks for pointing that out