Liverpool close in on naming rights partner

And that's because of the size of the stadium is it? If it is, Newcastle should be in there year on year out. And by the way our first season without Champions League football for some time came under that genius who made us punch above our weight.

Continued failure to maximise gate revenue is one of the factors that keep us behind United and Madrid and one of the reasons they are always in the Champions League and we are not. There are other factors, of course. I am fully aware that Rafa failed to take us into the Champions League in his final season. This was because the damage caused by G&H was reaching it's peak and we were in the process of selling some of our best players. The person who alerted us to the damage they were causing was Rafa after his second European Cup final in 3 years.

Continued failure to maximise gate revenue is one of the factors that keep us behind United and Madrid and one of the reasons they are always in the Champions League and we are not. There are other factors, of course. I am fully aware that Rafa failed to take us into the Champions League in his final season. This was because the damage caused by G&H was reaching it's peak and we were in the process of selling some of our best players. The person who alerted us to the damage they were causing was Rafa after his second European Cup final in 3 years.

They were also there during the days of beating United and Madrid. Rafa played his part in our decline as did the players, board and to some extent the fans given the divide among us.

We are not in the Champions League because we haven't been good enough for the past two seasons, nothing to do with gate revenue, capacity or stadium. If your side is good enough, it'll achieve what it wants. Ours hasn't been good enough.

The extra money is vital. It's too much to pass up in this day and age. We can hold on to values and memories but that won't automatically keep us a strong club.

Need to continue to increase income. We're a business, as is every other football club at the end of the day, and if you don't make money your business will fall behind.

Probably not worth getting into a Rafa debate, here DLS. I have a different opinion to you about what Rafa achieved at our club.

There is a very strong correlation between how good a squad is and how much income that club has. It's why Everton and Nottingham Forest will never will the league again (unless something major changes) despite their successful history. You cannot have a title winning side or even a side capable of qualifying for the Champions League without a significant spend on wage bill/transfer kitty. That is the unpleasant reality of modern football.

I know what Rafa achieved but will not make out he's faultless.

Anyway, Arsenal manage to stay in the Champions League for the past 15 years with their wage cap and very little spend in the transfer market. In fact in recent years they've led the title chase for large periods of the year and fell short at the back end of each season.

Also I've seen several clubs spend more, both in transfers and wages that haven't got anywhere near us. Spurs being the prime example, they only caught us up when we hit rock bottom despite them constantly throwing money away on transfers and wages. Newcastle are another example, though they did have the odd year in the Champions League in the early 2000s under Bobby Robson. Then you get clubs with little spend on wages and transfers such as Everton who make the Champions League, though not on a regular basis but still ahead of clubs who outspend them.

Either way, if your team is good enough you'll achieve. That is one fact that hasn't changed throughout history. If we're good enough, we'll get in the Champions League, if we're not - we won't. It's that simple. It's nothing to do with our wage bill, which we've, apparently, cut from last year and are an improvement. It's nothing to do on how much we spend. It's nothing to do with the size of the ground. It simply comes down to who is best on the field.

And as I've said, with this shitty arse 45,000 seater we've beat United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal under Kenny Dalglish. Before that we'd beaten Madrid, Inter Milan, Barcelona all in their back yards. AC Milan in a European Cup final. Bayern in the Super Cup final. Held Juventus and Chelsea to goalless draws at their grounds. If we're good enough, we'll win regardless of anything else.

The extra money is vital. It's too much to pass up in this day and age. We can hold on to values and memories but that won't automatically keep us a strong club.

Need to continue to increase income. We're a business, as is every other football club at the end of the day, and if you don't make money your business will fall behind.

Very true ... Everything else is just romantic nonsense ... We could earn the additional money, and still remain faithful to our basic principles ... At the moment, there is a very clear financial division between the top 3 clubs, and the rest of us ... It is true that 2 out of those 3 clubs are financed by sugar daddies, but they are already finding the ways to bypass the FFP rules ... Once Arsenal return their loans for the stadium (in 2-3 years, at most), they would join the (financial) big 3 in the market ... The clock is ticking for LFC, if we have any serious intentions of challenging for top honors again ...

Also I've seen several clubs spend more, both in transfers and wages that haven't got anywhere near us. Spurs being the prime example, they only caught us up when we hit rock bottom despite them constantly throwing money away on transfers and wages. Newcastle are another example, though they did have the odd year in the Champions League in the early 2000s under Bobby Robson. Then you get clubs with little spend on wages and transfers such as Everton who make the Champions League, though not on a regular basis but still ahead of clubs who outspend them.

Either way, if your team is good enough you'll achieve. That is one fact that hasn't changed throughout history. If we're good enough, we'll get in the Champions League, if we're not - we won't. It's that simple. It's nothing to do with our wage bill, which we've, apparently, cut from last year and are an improvement. It's nothing to do on how much we spend. It's nothing to do with the size of the ground. It simply comes down to who is best on the field.

And as I've said, with this shitty arse 45,000 seater we've beat United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal under Kenny Dalglish. Before that we'd beaten Madrid, Inter Milan, Barcelona all in their back yards. AC Milan in a European Cup final. Bayern in the Super Cup final. Held Juventus and Chelsea to goalless draws at their grounds. If we're good enough, we'll win regardless of anything else.

TOP PREMIER LEAGUE WAGE BILLS 2009-10
Chelsea - £174m (£167m)
Man City - £133m (£83m)
Man Utd - £132m (£123m)
Liverpool - £121m (£107m)
Arsenal - £111m (£104m)
Source: Deloitte, 2008-09 wage bills in brackets
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13679632

Arsenal are regular Champions League entrants. They are a well managed club with an excellent manager but they are the fifth top wage payer and were probably fourth until City's rise (down to income increase). The fourth top payer should be in the Champions League with 4 teams qualifying.
Spurs don't typically spend more than us.
Everton have never qualified for the Champions League and in all likelihood never will (particularly after the rise of City)

I agree that our wage bill cut has coincided with better form but we are a much better managed club now and whether we make Champions League qualification next season or not is unclear. We still look some way off winning the league title competing against the big salary payers-Chelsea, United and City.

You are right DLS in that if you are good enough you will do well but being good enough is down to how much you pay your players and this is dependent upon revenues such as gate receipts.

TOP PREMIER LEAGUE WAGE BILLS 2009-10
Chelsea - £174m (£167m)
Man City - £133m (£83m)
Man Utd - £132m (£123m)
Liverpool - £121m (£107m)
Arsenal - £111m (£104m)
Source: Deloitte, 2008-09 wage bills in brackets
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13679632

Arsenal are regular Champions League entrants. They are a well managed club with an excellent manager but they are the fifth top wage payer and were probably fourth until City's rise (down to income increase). The fourth top payer should be in the Champions League with 4 teams qualifying.
Spurs don't typically spend more than us.
Everton have never qualified for the Champions League and in all likelihood never will (particularly after the rise of City)

I agree that our wage bill cut has coincided with better form but we are a much better managed club now and whether we make Champions League qualification next season or not is unclear. We still look some way off winning the league title competing against the big salary payers-Chelsea, United and City.

You are right DLS in that if you are good enough you will do well but being good enough is down to how much you pay your players and this is dependent upon revenues such as gate receipts.

So we paid the fourth highest wages and finished seventh? Does that not tell you why I don't buy into how much you pay your players is massively important? That just puts an entire flaw in the plan. In fact United spending the third highest yet still win the League just goes to show that it's nothing to do with the wages but how good you are over the course of the season.

And by the way Everton qualified for the 2005/06 Champions League, didn't make the group stage to Collina chalking off a perfectly good goal by Ferguson (I think) against Villareal (or however it's spelt) in the qualifiers. Suppose the ref's inability to referee is due to Everton not paying their players 100k a week an all.

Nothing is gonna prove to me that it's down to how much you pay players, or how big a stadium you have, or how much you earn from gate receipts that stops us. It's simply down to ability as a playing squad and manager.

You can argue against it if you like DLS, but there is a proven correlation between league position and wage bill since Sky's injection of cash.

Of course at the end of the day it's down to the abilities of the manager and his playing staff, but having a bigger stadium with a larger revenue incomes means we can attract more higher paid 'quality' players and will actually be able to afford to pay them these ridiculous wages! Regardless of the issue over naming rights, and it's a contentious one that few Liverpool fans will agree completely on, we do need to fit more people in on matchdays, of that there's no doubt. We, as a club, were extremely slow to adapt to the new influx of money in the game. We failed to develop our youth structure in order to produce talent we didn't have to go out and buy, and we didn't build a new stadium like Arsenal have now. Hicks and Gillett were meant to provide the second, but obviously they failed there and set us back further. In order to compete consistently for many years we need a solid economic base. Whether or not you agree with or detest the stranglehold money has over football, you have to agree that to compete at the top you need money, money and more money.

I'm staggered DLS that you don't acknowledge a correlation between payroll and success. Are you not curious that it always seems to be the same teams at the top of the Premier League and in the final stages of the Champions League. I know there are exceptions because there are other factors at work eg Hodgson F***ing up continually. I won't try and convince you any further.

For the record, Everton failed to win a Champions League qualifier against Villareal and thus have never qualified for the Champions League. I amuse myself correcting Evertonians on this.

I'm staggered DLS that you don't acknowledge a correlation between payroll and success.

Well, the subject is yet to appear in LFC's history books, so his lack of information on the issue is understandable ...

Well, the subject is yet to appear in LFC's history books, so his lack of information on the issue is understandable ...

No need for comments like that. You're just baiting him.

For the record, Everton failed to win a Champions League qualifier against Villareal and thus have never qualified for the Champions League. I amuse myself correcting Evertonians on this.

I won't say anymore on this either but against TNS in the qualifier in 2005 Liverpool didn't wear their new Badge of Honour/Distinction. Disgruntled supporters at the time were told that was because this wasn't the Champions League yet. In the group stages and knockouts they proudly wore the badge.

No need for comments like that. You're just baiting him.

Well, he is doing the same to me on every occasion, so I don't really feel any guilt ... 

On a serious note, it is amazing that a serious part of our fan base is still unaware of the direct co-relation between the money available, and the achieved success ... I'd be very happy for us to stay at Anfield, but the modern day football economics are pointing out in a single possible direction: Building a new, modern stadium, with increased capacity and heavily improved corporate and match-day hospitality facilities ... Of course, selling the naming rights to the new ground is an obligatory part of the process ...

Well, the subject is yet to appear in LFC's history books, so his lack of information on the issue is understandable ...

No need mate, DLS could just as easily argue that you don't understand the connection with Anfield because you have never (or rarely) been there. Neither argument adds anything to the debate.

I don't believe we have any real option but to move to a bigger stadium if we are to secure our long term future and continue to compete with the other top clubs. Yet like Arsenal it may cost us some success in the short term .... hopefully not!

I don't believe we have any real option but to move to a bigger stadium if we are to secure our long term future and continue to compete with the other top clubs. Yet like Arsenal it may cost us some success in the short term .... hopefully not!

To be honest, I am hoping that FSG would help us bridge that period of paying back for the stadium ... Still, getting the best possible naming rights deal would be crucial to the financing of the new ground ... We might even see some other marketing exercises like naming right deals for the separate stands (apart from The Kop, of course) ...

Hopefully the extra cash generated by a new stadium would cover the loan payments with some spare left over. We should not be worse off than we are now. In the long term we should be much better off.

You can argue against it if you like DLS, but there is a proven correlation between league position and wage bill since Sky's injection of cash.

So that's why clubs with massive wage bills go down like Newcastle, Leeds, West Ham (few times) Southampton (had some players on top whack for the lower end of the table). And that's why we, despite having a bigger wage bill for a large part of the 90s, failed to win the League. We, despite having a much greater wage bill than most for the most part of the 21st Century failed to win the League.

Ultimately, it comes down to ability which is why Newcastle, despite them having a F***ing good capacity every other week, silly transfer fees and even sillier wages have amounted to nothing more than the odd Cup final and the occasional top four finish. Spurs spent huge amounts, especially on wages during the 90s and came nowhere. Leeds with their massive wages and transfers achieved practically F**k all for what they'd spent. Think their highest finish was 4th, which was behind us.

And I don't buy this you need the extra revenue to purchase those players. If we didn't spend huge wages on sh*t players, we'd be alright to afford the top quality anyway. If for years we weren't paying the likes of Babel, Riera, Cole, Jovanovich huge amounts, we'd have more spare to spend on top quality - this despite a 45,000 seater stadium.

Finally anything the dickhead says is invisible to me as I'm ignoring the c**t to avoid getting dragged into his pathetic arguments that he continues to try and cause in every thread. It's much easier for me to have his posts invisible to me and can only see them when somebody quotes him. But for his information money and stadiums is in our history books, that's how we came to get Anfield in the first place because Everton wouldn't pay John Houlding the rent he wanted but his record of our history isn't that good so I'm not surprised to see the dickhead not have a clue again.

Everton vs Liverpool: "The Chosen One" highlights growing cash gap

Friday, 30 September 2011

Everton manager "The Chosen One" has spoken about the financial gap which has widened over the last year between his club and city rivals Liverpool.

Moyes said: "Liverpool have had a level of finance which has allowed them to buy a different level of player."

But, on the eve of the 216th Merseyside derby, he insisted he was not jealous of his opposite number, Kenny Dalglish.

Moyes said: "I don't think I look with envy. I'm just stating facts. It has never been any different here."

Liverpool, backed by wealthy owner John W Henry, spent millions in the last two transfer windows on Andy Carroll, Luis Suarez, Jordan Henderson, Charlie Adam, Jose Enrique, Stewart Downing and Sebastian Coates.

Everton, in contrast, made four loan signings and brought in Apostolos Vellios for a nominal fee.

Moyes said: "Over the years we've tried to be competitive, tried to get as close to them as we can.

"We know it's a big rivalry in the city, and I'm aware of that, but most people are aware there have been differences over the years between Liverpool and Everton, and all of it has been financial.

"This time last year Liverpool weren't in great condition. They were maybe in a similar situation to us here where they were having to give money back to the banks.

"The supporters were quite restless at the time, but they've had new owners, a change of manager and brought in new players, so they have turned it around quite a lot.

"That's there for everybody to see and everybody knows that. At this present time we've not got the funds Liverpool have had given to them in the last year. That's given them a big help."

Moyes is resigned to the fact that things are not likely to change in the near future and added: "We have always worked within our means, and in many seasons the same things have happened and we've still always found a way of getting there, so hopefully we can do that again this year.

"It has been hard to get above Liverpool in the league table, and we have done everything we can to win as many derby games as we can, which has been tough.

"We've tried to be competitive against them, tried to hang onto their shirt tails, and at times try to get above them, but as I say, it's not been easy."

Moyes believes that with more cash they would pose more of a threat.

He said: "We got really close last year, and things have changed very quickly for Liverpool in that time.

"Last season we had a really good side at times. I think we showed that, although not come the end of the season because our league position wasn't good enough.

"But with a little bit of help then we could have been up there competing."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/15131593.stm

Er some company can pay x amount of millions for the name of the stadium, its going to be Anfield to me

I think its the old argument mate, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Obviously there will be players you pay a lot who don't perform either (Cole, Aquilani, Keane to name but 3) but on the whole the better players demand higher wages and higher transfer fees.

The difference between the successful clubs and the also rans is not only how much money you spend but on how successfully you spend it. Buy a Torres for £25million and you're laughing, buy a Keane and you're in trouble.

No point having an extra £40million a season if we blow it on poor players, but buy the right players and they will make a difference.

I think its the old argument mate, if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. Obviously there will be players you pay a lot who don't perform either (Cole, Aquilani, Keane to name but 3) but on the whole the better players demand higher wages and higher transfer fees.

The difference between the successful clubs and the also rans is not only how much money you spend but on how successfully you spend it. Buy a Torres for £25million and you're laughing, buy a Keane and you're in trouble.

No point having an extra £40million a season if we blow it on poor players, but buy the right players and they will make a difference.

Exactly mate. People seem to believe having a bigger stadium will relate to success, it doesn't. Ask any Newcastle fan. Who up until Arsenal moved had the second biggest ground capacity in the League, they went F***ing down with that capacity.

Wasting money is something we've done quite well over the years, especially during the Premiership era. Not every transfer is gonna work, no manager always gets it right (apart from the Footy Manager experts out there) so the odd mistake is expected but it's become too frequent our big money mistakes recently. It's how the money is spent that's important. Look at Chelsea, splash 30 mill out on Shevchenko and he's one of the biggest flops they've ever made. Get Danny Sturridge for a couple of million (and add ons) and he's a F***ing revelation for them.

Regardless of stadium size, regardless of how much you get from gate receipts or pie sales, ultimately it comes down to your ability as a player and a manger. If you buy the right players and they play well you'll get results. But I'm sick of repeating meself, so I'm outta this thread now. Some think a new stadium is the be all and end all and the start of our success, I personally don't. And would rather stay at Anfield anyway.

Daniel Sturridge was signed as a 20-year-old Bosman ... The tribunal has set the compensation at £5 million ... The reason he was not re-signed by City is because even they were not willing to accept his £60,000 per week wage demands, an amount only Chelsea were willing to pay ... Probably one of the worst examples of responsible spending ...