Punching above our weight?

[friedk]

When you look at the turnover of the top 20 clubs in world football for last season:
1. Real Madrid (Turnover in season 2006 / 2007 was £260m)
2. Manchester United (£233m)
3. Barcelona (£215m)
4. Chelsea (£210m)
5. Arsenal (£195.5m)
6. AC Milan (£168m)
7. Bayern Munich (£165m)
8. Liverpool (£147m)
9. Internationale Milan (£144m)
10. AS Roma (£117m)
11. Tottenham Hotspur (£113.5m)
12. Juventus
13. Lyons
14. Newcastle (£96m)
15. Hamburg
16. Schalke 04
17. Celtic (£83m)
18. Valencia
19. Marseille
20. Werder Bremen

We are closer in earning to Spurs than to the top 3.

I would love to think that all we need is a new stadium to turn this around, but Chelsea are in a smaller stadium than ours and their turnover is £63m more than ours.

You just need to look at the teams in that list to see there is a definite connection between earnings and league positions; and the gap between us and the top three is widening in that respect.

I know it's not the only thing of course, but it does have a massive part to play because it affects not only who we buy, but every aspect of our negotiations, from price, to salaries, to terms of payment, which means we are more often than not playing catch-up in the transfer market.

On a brighter note, our reserves

[The Birdman]

Completely agree, money is everything in the Premiership.
We should finish in the top 4 as we have more money than those below us but 3rd/4th is realistic at the moment until the finances are sorted or until Rafa is given enough time to bring youth players through

[Van Halen]

We are definitely not punching above our weight. Our problem is a) Small stadium, b) very poor marketing. This is a much clearer state of where we are: The value of the club, not necessarily the turnover.
With better marketing and a new stadium Liverpool would really maximise their potential. We are fourth without even trying - our stadium is the smallest of the top 7 and our marketing is virtually non existent!

Special Report
Soccer Team Valuations
04.30.08, 6:00 PM ET



Rank Team Country Current Value 1 ($mil) Debt/Value(%) 2 1-Yr Value Change(%) Revenue ($mil) Operating Income 3($mil)
1 Manchester United England 1,800 60 24 394 111
2 Real Madrid Spain 1,285 27 24 474 112
3 Arsenal England 1,200 43 31 329 77
4 Liverpool England 1,050 65 131 269 60
5 Bayern Munich Germany 917 0 9 302 72
6 AC Milan Italy 798 0 -3 307 54
7 Barcelona Spain 784 7 47 392 92
8 Chelsea England 764 0 42 382 -5
9 Juventus Italy 510 5 -10 196 35
10 Schalke 04 Germany 470 48 0 154 36
11 AS Roma Italy 434 12 94 213 48
12 Tottenham Hotspur England 414 15 70 207 64
13 Olympique Lyonnais France 408 7 19 190 15
14 Inter Milan Italy 403 0 -27 207 21
15 Borussia Dortmund Germany 323 57 63 122 31
16 Newcastle United England 300 43 16 175 12
17 Hamburg SV Germany 293 0 32 163 41
18 Werder Bremen Germany 262 0 NA 131 11
19 Valencia Spain 254 159 31 145 -49
20 Celtic Scotland 227 11 23 151 48
21 Everton England 197 30 24 103 -1
22 West Ham United England 195 23 25 115 -22
23 Manchester City England 191 63 -8 114 27
24 Aston Villa England 190 12 36 106 -40
25 Olympique Marseille France 187 0 19 134 13

[spud_gun]

Special Report
Soccer Team Valuations
04.30.08, 6:00 PM ET



Rank Team Country Current Value 1 ($mil) Debt/Value(%) 2 1-Yr Value Change(%)
4 Liverpool England 1,050 65 131 269 60

How the **** did Moores sell somthing worth in excess of $1billion for a packet of 20 Woodbine and two lucky bags?

[Exiled_red]

How the **** did Moores sell somthing worth in excess of $1billion for a packet of 20 Woodbine and two lucky bags?

I guess it depends who made the valuation and/or what it's based on

[rage]

I know it's not the only thing of course, but it does have a massive part to play because it affects not only who we buy, but every aspect of our negotiations, from price, to salaries, to terms of payment, which means we are more often than not playing catch-up in the transfer market.

from my point of view thats what sets apart a great manager from the rest. You see I don't think Grant is a great manager but its easy for him because he can have the pick of the sweets in the sweet shop. He'll never be called a great manager even if he wins the premiership & champions league.

A great manager, can compete in spite of his financial limitations, which makes what rafa has done so far extra special. time for us to stop using lack of finances as a reason for not competing in the premiership - to continue the analogy of the sweet shop its time for rafa to buy the right sweets not a 10p pick and mix or lucky dip.

[Skillz]

When you look at the turnover of the top 20 clubs in world football for last season:
1. Real Madrid (Turnover in season 2006 / 2007 was £260m)
2. Manchester United (£233m)
3. Barcelona (£215m)
4. Chelsea (£210m)
5. Arsenal (£195.5m)
6. AC Milan (£168m)
7. Bayern Munich (£165m)
8. Liverpool (£147m)
9. Internationale Milan (£144m)
10. AS Roma (£117m)
11. Tottenham Hotspur (£113.5m)
12. Juventus
13. Lyons
14. Newcastle (£96m)
15. Hamburg
16. Schalke 04
17. Celtic (£83m)
18. Valencia
19. Marseille
20. Werder Bremen

We are closer in earning to Spurs than to the top 3.

I would love to think that all we need is a new stadium to turn this around, but Chelsea are in a smaller stadium than ours and their turnover is £63m more than ours.
You just need to look at the teams in that list to see there is a definite connection between earnings and league positions; and the gap between us and the top three is widening in that respect.

I know it's not the only thing of course, but it does have a massive part to play because it affects not only who we buy, but every aspect of our negotiations, from price, to salaries, to terms of payment, which means we are more often than not playing catch-up in the transfer market.

On a brighter note, our reserves

That includes the Hotel.

[Craig_H]

When you look at the turnover of the top 20 clubs in world football for last season:
1. Real Madrid (Turnover in season 2006 / 2007 was £260m)
2. Manchester United (£233m)
3. Barcelona (£215m)
4. Chelsea (£210m)
5. Arsenal (£195.5m)
6. AC Milan (£168m)
7. Bayern Munich (£165m)
8. Liverpool (£147m)
9. Internationale Milan (£144m)
10. AS Roma (£117m)
11. Tottenham Hotspur (£113.5m)
12. Juventus
13. Lyons
14. Newcastle (£96m)
15. Hamburg
16. Schalke 04
17. Celtic (£83m)
18. Valencia
19. Marseille
20. Werder Bremen

We are closer in earning to Spurs than to the top 3.

I would love to think that all we need is a new stadium to turn this around, but Chelsea are in a smaller stadium than ours and their turnover is £63m more than ours.

You just need to look at the teams in that list to see there is a definite connection between earnings and league positions; and the gap between us and the top three is widening in that respect.

I know it's not the only thing of course, but it does have a massive part to play because it affects not only who we buy, but every aspect of our negotiations, from price, to salaries, to terms of payment, which means we are more often than not playing catch-up in the transfer market.

On a brighter note, our reserves

Not sure we're punching about our weight, we have the 4th highest turnover (of the english clubs) and we'll finish 4th behind the three with the highest english turnover....

[andyinswinton]

I wouldn't say we are punching above our weight but we are certainly one of the lightest in the weight division.

With our history, tradition and fan base, we should certainly be more succesful than we are off the field. I think thats all really been discussed at length though with the threads about DIC/Hicks/Gillett/Parry.