That revenue differential of 100M is solely based on performance on the field. If we were in CL, and they weren’t, it would be 100M in our favourLiverpool’s revenue is about 25% more than ours or over 100 million a year. The difference is significant.
I don’t write off our history — it contributes to us having the 5th highest revenue in the EPL. Without our history, it would be lower.
I ‘ve spent the last couple of days hearing from Liverpool fans as to how greedy their owners are.
( Salah contract renewal). That from a club who won the EPL and UCL in the last couple of years. The only owners immune to the criticism would appear to be those that subsidize their clubs by 100 million per.
That’s not a defense of ENIC. They piss me off royally — because they run the club poorly in terms of converting that revenue to on-field success due to poor recruiting, development etc. I just accept that, like nearly all the other owners, these guys are running a business and they’re not going to bring us up to the revenue levels required to compete with the top 4 out of their own pocket. I doubt that new owners would either.
It would be pretty stupid to ask someone running a business to take on huge losses for the pleasure of their customers (us mugs) even if they can afford to.
Football isn’t a vanity project— owners will do the math as to what sustained on-field success will cost and what it is worth in terms of branding and for a future sale.
I certainly don’t expect 100M annual investment from ENIC, that’s ridiculous…. I do expect a plan/strategy and a desire to succeed and an alternative to making the same mistakes again and again. Also expect one time boosts via naming rights to be completed and outside invetsment through a minority stake sale
Fuck Salad and his greedy agent. That’s a good move from their owners imo as I suspect he wants £0.5M x 260 weeks (130M)
Last edited: