Is that now approved and official is it? It’s certainly going to be interesting to see how this impacts not only us but the rest of the clubs that are paying around or more than us annually on wages.
Not sure what % we’re at currently but sounds to me this further widens the gate for players to move to Saudi.
Does a better job than I will of explaining.
Are these rules written for us or do other clubs have to start abiding by them aswell?
Probably any club that isn’t Newcastle or Man City throw in Chelsea whose spending just baffles.
Fixed.
Quick question: when were we ever promised Bellingham money without any sales?
By the same journalists who linked us to a hundred players? Or not even them?
We are clearly still in the market so our net spend will rise again but some of the attention we give some of these Twitter posters is not healthy.
He makes it sound like the Fabinho money is burning a hole in our pockets… When he isn’t even gone yet.
I never believed so, same when all these rumours were being spread of a “200m war chest”…if there was anybody then I’d like to know by who(m).
Wasn’t all that keen on reading too much what they guy had to say so I ought to have cropped that out really as I was only interested in the transfers/wages (off the books mainly) and we’ve done a good job getting that down without it being of detriment to the squad.
Someone needs to let this guy know that we aren’t in the Champions League and that improving the team while reducing wages is a good thing.
Probably not all that much, but it could double the figure he gives for the net spend. I just didn’t like the post’s somewhat flippant comments (and am I right in reading he wants four more players signing on top of the two we have already brought in?) - if you are going to go down the route of saying something like that, then it should come with a better breakdown of the clubs income and expenditures.
We don’t know the salaries or the contract details (who ever posts them is going to get that wrong - but it is feasible these are in the right ballpark), and the context in which the Bellingham ‘warchest’ comments are important - for example was that on the proviso we made the CL, or only needed 1-2 signings?
Four more players is a ridiculous request.
Manure signing the biggest deal in the PL with Adidas, while at the same time we totally outperformed them on the pitch for several seasons. Even last season, the 7-0 thrashing showed that we are the superior football team. But somehow that is not enough, when we speak about commercial deals.
While mr. Hogan is still trying to read and understand ‘‘the lucrative’’ new contract with Nike… Hopefully next time we will have a smarter person to negotiate better terms for our club.
Yeah, but our Nike deal will allow us to sign Mbappe without having to directly pay him.
Look at film and music: in the modern world, it isn’t a question of how good you are; it’s a question of how marketable you are.
Unless I have misread the article, their £90m a year deal is from 2025. £15m higher than their deal in 2015/16.
Our £80m a year deal was from 2020 - so it was always likely they were going to get more than what we do this time round, particularly with the fairly high inflation we have been seeing.
Utd may have also thrown in other ‘mini-deals’ within this to make the top number appear larger - for example the article mentions the women’s team.
Mate, I don’t know why you think our deal is worth 80 mln. pounds. It is 30 mln. pounds guaranteed per season and everything else is optional, but looking at our financial results, you can say that we are far away from 80 mln. pounds per year.
Yup, you see tonnes of PSG shirts around Kingston for instance you have a feeling if you asked the people about their recent performances you’d get the reaction you’d get if you asked someone wearing a Yankees cap about their performances.
That was the figure I thought I saw on the club website.
As I understand it, the deal is made up of two parts. There is the flat fee and then a royalties fee - our royalties being 20% rather than the standard 7.5%. The £30m is the flat fee element.
I think I read Utd were getting approximately £40m as their flat fee on the old deal. I don’t know what the split is on their new deal.
Does the club’s financial results give a break down of income from shirt sales etc? From what little I remember reading about the results, I don’t think a lack of income from shirt sales was mentioned as a significant issue - I have seen it posted elsewhere on the internet (so don’t know how reliable) that 2.45m shirts were sold in 2022 which isn’t that far off Nike’s goal of 2.9m.
How much does the club get from each shirt? If the club get £12 a shirt, that’s about £30m. If it is £16 then its about £38m. Plus the base £30m. Then there is the money raised from sales of non kit sales on top of that. I haven’t seen a breakdown of that latter part so haven’t a clue on the value but would imagine it isn’t out of this world to think it could be worth around £10m or £20m, if not more?
All things being equal, you would expect a 2025 deal to be worth more than a 2020 deal, given the ever rising costs in football.
Beyond that, it is well known that the deal we struck with Nike was a bit of a gamble, with a lower guaranteed payment, but a higher margin on units sold. I think we are doing quite well out of it, and as Klopp’s team 2.0 hits its stride, I think we will do very well indeed.
Traditionally Man Utd were miles ahead of us, commercially, but we have closed the gap dramatically. They still benefit from a slightly larger global (deluded) fanbase.
We will finish ahead of them in the Prem next season.
The estimation is that Liverpool get 100m a season from the Nike deal. I suppose the full results are only known once the books are made public.
Either way, We aren’t getting 30m only.
2.45m involves just the shirts. There’s plenty of other apparel that’s been badged with the club. With the nike reach , I’ll be very surprised if they don’t even go forward and sell Liverpool branded Lingerie or some other things like that.