when did Liverpool lose its commercial innovation

[andyhanrahan]

With all the talk of the new investors going to overhaul how Liverpool perform on the commercial field what I'd like to know is when did we lose our ability to be commercialy innovative. At one stage Liverpool were considered extremly innovative( first team in the old first division to have a shirt sponsership deal). Where did it all go wrong how when we were winning everything in the eighties were the scum cleaning up commercially?

[captainfog]

With all the talk of the new investors going to overhaul how Liverpool perform on the commercial field what I'd like to know is when did we lose our ability to be commercialy innovative. At one stage Liverpool were considered extremly innovative( first team in the old first division to have a shirt sponsership deal). Where did it all go wrong how when we were winning everything in the eighties were the scum cleaning up commercially?

Did we ever have it?

When we were in our prime, football was not the worldwide brand/moneymaking machine that it is today.

I think we have just been slow on the uptake

[AFII]

When Moores took over the club.

He simply didn't had the business brain to keep up with all the things that happened when the PL started. Man U used the oportunity that opened up a lot better than we did and that is why they now are bigger bussiness than us.

[carrsim]

I always think that the change in football happened at a time when as a club we were in the middle of our most retrospective period.

As we struggled to recover from the tragedies on and off the pitch (which of course accelerated/caused/influenced the change) I feel that collectively the club looked back rather than forward.

It's quite understandbale in individuals when you thinka bout it- after great shock some people tend to stick with what they know and retreat into a "comfort zone". I think this is what happened with us- a "this is how we do things and its worked for 25 years" approach

add the fact that the Souness appointment (who in his way tried to modernise the club after his time abroad) backfired and he was suppossed to be a link with the past boot room ideal coupled with a more broadminded footballing experience.

These factors probably mean it is no surprise that the new commercialisation of football in the 90s was better exploited elsewhere (add in teh fact that certain clubs cashed in on their tragedies as a unique selling point but thats another story)

But the key is that that other club had a better on pitch team at the time (and still does sadly) and ALL of their success flowed from that. They may have been in a great position with such a worldwide following to cash in on with their success but the pitch remains the crux of the issue.

If teh US boys want to make cash the best way from them to do it is to build a successful team on the pitch- everythign else will follow.

I know from my job (live in asia and work at the largest sport broadcaster in the region) that there are 100,000s of floating fans out here who suport the winning team and if we can add them to our hardcore fans in this part of teh world we'll make an absolute killing (in the finanical sense)

[Parm]

Carrism, I do agree with most of your points, except for the utd having the better team and everything else following. I think they looked at the Stadium years ahead of where they were in 90/91, saw that if they got that right they would generate the money to bring in big name players. Combine that early success with the initial boom/popluarity of football/EPL and they were laughing-biggest stadium in the Country (Club), packed out every week, star names, trophies, loads of merchandising and the rest is history.

[Tee]

The decision makers never realised how a big a club we were during the 80s.

We should have been the biggest club in the land, no doubt about it. Opportunity to put the mancs firmly in the shade was missed as we enjoyed being run as a family club/business.

Times are changing now though, as we will witness. I just hope we do not lose that 'uniqueness' by exploiting every commercial avenue.

[Red_Polo]

when did Liverpool lose its commercial innovation

It was a Thursday I believe

[Mumsafan]

It was a Thursday I believe

[Parm]

It was a Thursday I believe

after lunch probably.

[tsb]

Blues are first online with YouTube deal

Paul Kelso
Saturday February 17, 2007
The Guardian

Chelsea have struck a deal to show archive footage and club news on the online video-sharing website YouTube, the first such deal to be done by a Premiership football club. The deal will allow content from the club's subscription channel, Chelsea TV, to appear in a branded area of the website, www.youtube.com/chelseafc. The site will feature daily news updates, archive footage of Chelsea games and other features, including jokes from the Chelsea physio, Billy McCulloch, although restrictions in the Premier League's broadcast contract means live footage will not be shown. Content is produced by Chelsea Digital Media, a joint venture subsidiary owned by Chelsea and Sky.

The Chelsea chief executive, Peter Kenyon, said: "We are delighted to work with YouTube. Chelsea is the first football club to move into what is clearly one of the fastest growing new media platforms. This will allow us to offer our fans exciting Chelsea FC content in a very unique way, as well as an opportunity to reach a whole new audience."

The deal comes as YouTube, recently purchased by Google for $1.65bn, moves to legitimise its content. The site's success was built on home-made video contributions and bootlegged clips posted by users - more than 100,000 are uploaded every day - but increasingly broadcasters and rights holders have sought to have content removed. Football is a huge driver of traffic to the site, with millions of clips and goals available. The Premier League has been in talks with YouTube over removing their content from the site, and the entertainment company Viacom recently demanded that YouTube remove 100,000 clips from the site.

Chelsea's move, however, acknowledges that some bootlegging is inevitable, so it is more useful to attempt to control the content that appears on the site.

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2015126,00.html

[FoxForceFive]

Got to hand it to the horrible baldy ****, that's an innovative move that will net them cash & help spread the brand globally.

I ****ing hate him though.

[calvoboy]

When Moores took over the club.

He simply didn't had the business brain to keep up with all the things that happened when the PL started. Man U used the oportunity that opened up a lot better than we did and that is why they now are bigger bussiness than us.

Man U has always been the bigger business.

[FoxForceFive]

Man U has always been the bigger business.

How old (or should I say young) are you?

We made more money, both on & off the pitch then Utd ever did before the Premiership was formed.

[SouthAfricaRed]

How old (or should I say young) are you?

We made more money, both on & off the pitch then Utd ever did before the Premiership was formed.

Yes. Some people dont seem to realise that Football did exist before The Premier League

The sad truth is that we never realised the marketing potential of Liverpool during the 70s and 80s. In the 90s when clubs like Man Utd were coining it, we just never got on the Bus.

I can only speak for Southern Africa, but I'd say the ratio of Supporters here are 40% Mancs, 40% Liverpool and 20% rest. (I do a lot of work with Youth Club Football and You can see which clubs are supported by the kids by the training gear they wear) There is a Huge worldwide market of Liverpool supporters. If it can be tapped up, we have the potential to be as Big as Utd, if not Bigger. All we need is Better marketing and Conisitent Performances on the Field.

[CJ]

Wasnt it Robinson who said in the 70s or 80s that if united ever sorted out the business side that they would be the most commercially sucsessful club in the country?