PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[Happinesstan]

I'd also add that it would have become sustainable in the following years. Succes at the time was a top 3 finish, but only a couple of years later top 6 or 7 was adequate to keep the cash registers turning over.

[Guest HTT II]

I think we were outselling the likes of LFC in shirt sales by 3-1 at one point and were not far off Man Utd. Our commercial prospects under KK in those days was insane, again we went from being 6m in the red and losing 2m a year which not even player sales was covering, to 40-50m turnover, in basically 5 years, but in reality it was more like 3 once we gained promotion and solidified our seat at the top of the table along with Man Utd.

[Happinesstan]

1 minute ago, HTT II said:

Of course, and that’s the only way to achieve both, but it has to be balanced and we couldn’t ever quite get that right once SJH basically took a back seat and FS took more control and started flicking managers around and doing dodgy deals with agents and his family members…

Aye, but dodgy deals are all over the place now.

[Happinesstan]

2 minutes ago, HTT II said:

I think we were outselling the likes of LFC in shirt sales by 3-1 at one point and were not far off Man Utd. Our commercial prospects under KK in those days was insane, again we went from being 6m in the red and losing 2m a year which not even player sales was covering, to 40-50m turnover, in basically 5 years, but in reality it was more like 3 once we gained promotion and solidified our seat at the top of the table along with Man Utd.

Aye. Our battles with Man U were a massive boon for our global exposure. If they'd turned to shit that year and we'd won the league at a canter it probably wouldn't have grown so quickly.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Happinesstan

[Guest HTT II]

1 minute ago, Happinesstan said:

I'd also add that it would have become sustainable in the following years. Succes at the time was a top 3 finish, but only a couple of years later top 6 or 7 was adequate to keep the cash registers turning over.

Today it’s very sustainable to achieve a top 6 consistency with the right manager and recruitment model in place, it always hinges on having the right manager though. Our suspect our new owners, short term will put people in place to reach the top 4 and once we become a ‘CL club’ they will go all out to win the league and the Cl and become an elite club which will take big money once we get to that kind of transition like City have. 

[kingxlnc]

There's two models effectively. The Chelsea and Man City model. And everyone else. 

 

What those two clubs have done amazingly well is beyond the initial silly investment into the playing staff and getting a brand new team, the next layer was to build not just world class but world leading infrastructure. With Chelsea, their academy and buying all those young players has made them hundreds of millions now - as well as generated top class talent for the first team. With Man City, they've acquired other clubs in a global model, and have created a system/network and a playing style that is repeated from U7's all the way up to the first team. It's so strategic and so well done, very holistic and interconnected. That's what billions spent right can do - as it future-proofs the club and allows them to join the elite for good. Neither clubs are 'traditional' elite like Man U, Liverpool, Bayern etc - but I can't see them falling from grace any time soon due to how solidly they've been set up and this joined up thinking. 

We now have money beyond both of these clubs. The $64,000 question is whether we have the thinking and the strategy - as that trumps all. 

 

Otherwise you end up with what Everton and Man U etc have done with their multi-millions. Buying £40m players who don't fit the team. 

[Guest HTT II]

Just now, Happinesstan said:

Aye. Our battles with Man U were a massive boon for our global exposure.

Our 5-0 win over the, was beamed to over a billion people at the time. When we signed Shearer, basically the poster boy of the PL and English football, our profile rocketed, we did a tour of Asia and thousands turned up just to greet the team-bus. We were massive at the time. Without the silverware of course. Unprecedented in modern English football IMO, our rise that is. Blackburn won it of course, but they didn’t have the profile or revenues and needed big debt and Jack Walker and it was never sustainable without both and with success alongside it all. They were never going to hang on to Shearer for example, they were always a small, but successful club punching above their weight. Kind of like Leicester today in many ways.

[Happinesstan]

2 minutes ago, HTT II said:

Today it’s very sustainable to achieve a top 6 consistency with the right manager and recruitment model in place, it always hinges on having the right manager though. Our suspect our new owners, short term will put people in place to reach the top 4 and once we become a ‘CL club’ they will go all out to win the league and the Cl and become an elite club which will take big money once we get to that kind of transition like City have. 

Absolutely. Like I say we were only a couple of years away from that, at the time. It all seems so inevitable, in hindsight.

[Guest HTT II]

Btw how fucking good is it to be talking about ambition again and what we can and cannot do or should or shouldn’t and how we can now use our club’s past under KK to gauge just what the potential can be again, some very good posts on the subject, keep them coming 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by HTT II

[Guest HTT II]

Just now, Happinesstan said:

Absolutely. Like I say we were only a couple of years away from that, at the time. It all seems so inevitable, in hindsight.

We got KK’s replacement so badly wrong even if the intentions were right and then again Sir Bobby’s, where the intention was never right. Liverpool get Rafa and we get Souness and the rest is history.

[Guest HTT II]

I highly regard Chelsea’s model. In terms of recruitment, their loaning out of players as a revenue stream and their succession of managers, they’ve nailed it to be honest since Abramovic took over.

[kingxlnc]

1 minute ago, HTT II said:

We got KK’s replacement so badly wrong even if the intentions were right and then again Sir Bobby’s, where the intention was never right. Liverpool get Rafa and we get Souness and the rest is history.

The ultimate sliding doors moment - what if SBR replaced Keegan? 

Or what if Keegan left at the end of the season? 

 

With Dalglish and Souness' track record I'm glad we missed out on Gerrard as manager - we defo don't need another Liverpool legend with a Scottish connection in the dugout - as promising as they may seem. 

[Manxst]

2 minutes ago, HTT II said:

I highly regard Chelsea’s model. In terms of recruitment, their loaning out of players as a revenue stream and their succession of managers, they’ve nailed it to be honest since Abramovic took over.

Avram Grant, Big Phil Scolari, Di Matteo….not to mention Frankie L all beg to differ. The difference being they had the ambition (and finance) to change things instantly when it wasn’t going right or the manager wasn’t suited, unlike ourselves. 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Manxst

[Happinesstan]

1 minute ago, HTT II said:

We got KK’s replacement so badly wrong even if the intentions were right and then again Sir Bobby’s, where the intention was never right. Liverpool get Rafa and we get Souness and the rest is history.

I know, but you can understand why Dalglsh was their second choice after Bobby. He seemed jus as charmed as Keegan, and had followed him before.

Think maybe a bit too much fairytale stuff and reality had had enough.

[Happinesstan]

1 minute ago, Manxst said:

Avram Grant, Big Phil Scolari, Di Matteo….not to mention Frankie L all beg to differ. 

Just goes to show there are few guarantees when it comes to spending big, on backroom staff.

[Guest HTT II]

Just to illustrate, we were tramps when we were kids, bit I subscribed to the Black & White magazine, bought videos which mainly consisted of some highlights and mostly filler shit and we all were full kit wankers in our household. Two sisters included. We paid to see games at the Odeon, scrimped and saved for the odd home or away game and from pencil cases to calendars to fucking wall paper, we bought the shit out of anything and everything NUFC were selling merch wise. The club shops you couldn’t get moved in even on school days. We were monetising the brand that is NUFC in ways that Man Utd were copying what we were doing and we were leaving the traditional teams for dead, Arsenal, Spurs, Everton, Villa and Liverpool. 

[Wolfcastle]

10 minutes ago, HTT II said:

I think we were outselling the likes of LFC in shirt sales by 3-1 at one point and were not far off Man Utd. Our commercial prospects under KK in those days was insane, again we went from being 6m in the red and losing 2m a year which not even player sales was covering, to 40-50m turnover, in basically 5 years, but in reality it was more like 3 once we gained promotion and solidified our seat at the top of the table along with Man Utd.

 

Second only to Manchester United. Surprised me to learn recently we sold £8million worth of asics shirts from their release in May 93 until mid-December that same year, which I believe was a record and read a story where Spurs were laughed at claiming they could match the shirt sales we had with the first adidas kit.

Have argued the same case elsewhere that when you look at what was spent - then what was made from player sales added to things like the tickets, bonds, shirt sales, merchandice it was a modest spend and nothing like Blackburn then or a Man City now.  Because it went so well people forget we sold our top three goalscorers in the space of two years, Kelly/Peacock being replaced by Cole and Beardsley and Cole being replaced by Ferdinand and GIllespie. ffs we sold Ruel Fox for double what we paid for Ginola. KK deserves even more credit than he already gets for me in hindsight.

 

[Guest HTT II]

3 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Avram Grant, Big Phil Scolari, Di Matteo….not to mention Frankie L all beg to differ. The difference being they had the ambition (and finance) to change things instantly when it wasn’t going right or the manager wasn’t suited, unlike ourselves. 

 

 

 

Their hit rate is very high, that can’t be denied, if it looks like things are going to shit, they are ruthless and it’s a winning model for them. I can see Tuchel not lasting the entirety of next season even if he wins the league this season for example. What works for one club won’t always work for another, however. We need to find our own model or merge various models together to give us our own strengths over the opposition, on and off the field. Money will always talk, but not always be the de facto deciding point. 

[Guest HTT II]

2 minutes ago, Wolfcastle said:

 

Second only to Manchester United. Surprised me to learn recently we sold £8million worth of asics shirts from their release in May 93 until mid-December that same year, which I believe was a record and read a story where Spurs were laughed at claiming they could match the shirt sales we had with the first adidas kit.

Have argued the same case elsewhere that when you look at what was spent - then what was made from player sales added to things like the tickets, bonds, shirt sales, merchandice it was a modest spend and nothing like Blackburn then or a Man City now.  Because it went so well people forget we sold our top three goalscorers in the space of two years, Kelly/Peacock being replaced by Cole and Beardsley and Cole being replaced by Ferdinand and GIllespie. ffs we sold Ruel Fox for double what we paid for Ginola. KK deserves even more credit than he already gets for me in hindsight.

 

We rarely wasted money, Cole, huge profit, Sir Les, money back, Fox, Ginola the same we even got 750k for Beardsley. That team was built on a relative shoe string really in comparison to today and some of the clubs around us at that time. Souness spent more on LFC in a few seasons than KK did in 5 net spend I believe. They were fortunate they had some top talent coming through the youth teams which we didn’t. Man Utd had that but still outspent everyone else and rightly so as the top dogs.

[Guest HTT II]

9 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I know, but you can understand why Dalglsh was their second choice after Bobby. He seemed jus as charmed as Keegan, and had followed him before.

Think maybe a bit too much fairytale stuff and reality had had enough.

Definitely, and he did make some crucial signings, right man but wrong time maybe for both? Sir Bobby after KK would have been amazing!

[LFEE]

Also for those too young to remember the EPL was basically built upon NUFC and The Entertainers. NE1 and surrounding areas in the North East were by far an away the biggest subscriber base for Sky Sports. Those who created it have always acknowledged this and the gear change when we entered into the division a year after it’s formation, even if today they may pretend it was the Big Six.

[Guest HTT II]

15 minutes ago, Wolfcastle said:

 

Second only to Manchester United. Surprised me to learn recently we sold £8million worth of asics shirts from their release in May 93 until mid-December that same year, which I believe was a record and read a story where Spurs were laughed at claiming they could match the shirt sales we had with the first adidas kit.

Have argued the same case elsewhere that when you look at what was spent - then what was made from player sales added to things like the tickets, bonds, shirt sales, merchandice it was a modest spend and nothing like Blackburn then or a Man City now.  Because it went so well people forget we sold our top three goalscorers in the space of two years, Kelly/Peacock being replaced by Cole and Beardsley and Cole being replaced by Ferdinand and GIllespie. ffs we sold Ruel Fox for double what we paid for Ginola. KK deserves even more credit than he already gets for me in hindsight.

 

I don’t have the figures, but ASICS was only short term type dealing I remember right after Umbro and after huge sales they went to the club begging to extend the sponsorship, but Adidas blew them out of the water. Our great relationship with S&N helped us massively mind in terms of access to ready funds, all aided by one of the most influential figures in our club’s history who rarely gets a mention of note, Freddie Fletcher, he was a marketing and corporate pit bull. We owe a lot of the success of that time to him, even more than SJH.

[Guest HTT II]

3 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Also for those too young to remember the EPL was basically built upon NUFC and The Entertainers. NE1 and surrounding areas in the North East were by far an away the biggest subscriber base for Sky Sports. Those who created it have always acknowledged this and the gear change when we entered into the division a year after it’s formation, even if today they may pretend it was the Big Six.

Aye our whole street and neighbouring streets (except us because we were tramps), no-one employed, all suddenly had Sats on their house walls. The growth of NUFC and SKY is tied together from the early 90s. Or rather the product that is the PL today. We were Box office, even at the cinema!

[TRon]

15 minutes ago, Wolfcastle said:

 

Second only to Manchester United. Surprised me to learn recently we sold £8million worth of asics shirts from their release in May 93 until mid-December that same year, which I believe was a record and read a story where Spurs were laughed at claiming they could match the shirt sales we had with the first adidas kit.

Have argued the same case elsewhere that when you look at what was spent - then what was made from player sales added to things like the tickets, bonds, shirt sales, merchandice it was a modest spend and nothing like Blackburn then or a Man City now.  Because it went so well people forget we sold our top three goalscorers in the space of two years, Kelly/Peacock being replaced by Cole and Beardsley and Cole being replaced by Ferdinand and GIllespie. ffs we sold Ruel Fox for double what we paid for Ginola. KK deserves even more credit than he already gets for me in hindsight.

 

 

When Keegan was manager the club was privately owned, SJH was prepared to back him, money no object, and Keegan's player recruitment was mostly fantastic. Even if we didn't win trophies, most of the players bought went up in value or we recouped our money if they didn't work out. 

 

Once we went public and we started looking at dividends and share value, suddenly every penny was scrutinised, and Keegan left. What was noticeable after that, when Dalglish took over, we were still buying big players, but there was one or two key players in every area, supplemented by some bargain basement types. So suddenly we started seeing Des Hamiltons, and over the hill stars like Ian Rush and John Barnes turning up. Compare that with Keegan's buying where he was spending top dollar on every position. 

 

While Shepherd still liked to pull out the marquee signings such as Michael Owen, or Robert, we often used all our money on them, then had to make do and mend with secondary players in other positions. It wasn't really the same model at all, we were well on our way to mid-table mediocrity by then. 

[Wolfcastle]

6 minutes ago, HTT II said:

We rarely wasted money, Cole, huge profit, Sir Les, money back, Fox, Ginola the same we even got 750k for Beardsley. That team was built on a relative shoe string really in comparison to today and some of the clubs around us at that time. Souness spent more on LFC in a few seasons than KK did in 5 net spend I believe. They were fortunate they had some top talent coming through the youth teams which we didn’t. Man Utd had that but still outspent everyone else and rightly so as the top dogs.

 

Agree fully.

Even fringe players like Guppy and Huckerby came into their own, just couldn't force their way into our team.

Looking back its frigthening to see our relative spend.

KK's first summer we spent the same as the mackems - we blitzed the league they nearly went down to the fhird and a third of Derby's who did nothing. 17 clubs spent the same or more.

93 11 clubs spent the same or more (including two in the league below us) - only two finished ahead

94 9 clubs - including West Ham, Everton, Man City, Chelsea and Sheffield Wed who were looking at relegation.

 

Under the PLC though Dalglish still spent a fortune in a small space of time, yes he sold players, but we always had under Keegan too. Speed, Hamman, Tomasson, Solano, Anderrsson, Pistone, Guivarch, Griffin, Hamilton, Dabizas, Charvet, Serrant, Brady was rougly £33million in a year and a half