KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum LFC staying at anfield and the fallout

As a very small child I have been at Anfield when there was 56,000 on it.

But...talking of flat caps how about this then ? Halifax vs Warrington 1954 = 102,000 at the Odsal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odsal_Stadium

exactly the support did'nt have to travel far as they would walk or get the bus, I get the feeling this decision whenever it is made could really make or break the Club I really do feel it's that important, if we get it wrong we will be finished as a major player for good.

finished for 20-25 years while we pay for it or finished forever if we dont build it as our rivals will disapear and leave us behind for ever as we will never catch them up again, thats the choice we have.

Because we will be permently behind our rivals. Man Utd are already 75,000 and they can if needed go to 90,000. We will be stuck for all time at 55,000 0r 50,000. But its not just the money its a means of the new generation having a chance to go to a game and expanding the fan base. Plus its also a question of prestige and status all great clubs Barcelona etc have great stadia.

Third choice is the only option you can't expand Anfield without knocking all the housing down surrounding the ground. Agreed that may happen with the regeneration which is going ahead anyway. But then you are in exactly the same position as you were on Stanley park in effect a new stadium. The piecemeal approach may work in cash flow terms but long term it will be more expensive thats why Aresnal, Spurs and almost all clubs go for a purpose built solution. And as for the hundreds of millions what happened to the great new owner with all his contacts on the NY stock exchange. Thats why we got rid of Gillet and Hicks remember? If Henry has not gor the wherwithall to fund a club of Liverpool's stature he should not have acquired them in the first place. Unless he got the club on the cheap and wants to use the club to make a quick buck no that would never happen would it ?

totally agree given that nesv wont spend without income, it would be suicidal for fans to w ish for a new stadium which bankrupts us, rather do it in stages if its possible , let man united have 75000, when ferguson kicks the bucket they wont be half the team they were and there ground could be well half empty if what happened to lfc happens to them. Apart from that if you look at the example of arsenal , teams fancied less going to highbury than to the emirates, the atmosphere in the ground counts

Rafarendum you are thinking short term. With naming rights and a 25 year mortgage secured on season ticket revenue its financially possible. It is a risk but then so is do nothing option which in my view tarting up Anfield is. Completely redeveloping Anfield is a different position but that probably we be more expensive than Stanley Park. But my earlier point you have not answered John Henry made his money in the city that was one of virtues touted when he took over. Wheres his expertise / resources in that area he knew it needed massive investment before he took over. Now its penny pinching time something does not add up here.

And where is this billionaire consortium people talked about with Henry when he took over. No mention of it now unless the consortium was to finance their purchase with the chance of a short term profit. Liverpool FC always needed £500m injecting if that is now not to be the case we are finished relative to our rivals. You buy £300m inject £500 sell on in 10 years for £2b. That’s the sort of deal I thought we were getting. Man Utd are currently being touted at 1.5b so if Liverpool were one of top clubs in Europe with a massive stadium those figures work.

Being successful on the field and having a world class ground are not mutually exclusive we have to do both. And don’t confuse the personal qualities of Gillet and Hicks with those of professional advisors. And I can understand criticism of David Moores who was just a rich kid with inherited wealth from within the Moores family. I am against Gillet and Hicks as much as you but they are self made billionaires and puts them one up from me the last time I checked my Halifax gold saver account I was not a billionaire. How about you Rafarendum? Both of us have I suspect not seen the business case for the new ground but the fact is it must have stood up to rigorous testing. And if you know anything about business you will know these are always developed on a conservative income projection. It was also an intrinsic part of the L1 regeneration (the original theme of this thread) and Liverpool City Council would not have entertained it were it not workable have you ever seen a planning application on this scale. I have and nothing is left to chance but I accept the commerciality would be less of a concern for the council. If Henry has your mindset then he is risk adverse but in football there is always inherent risk. The do nothing much option (yours) also carries risk because our success as a club is relative to our rivals. We fell behind more than decade ago and it very much looks like Henry does not want to invest to make up that gap. Short term tinkering and then sell on seems to be the name of the game. We were all pleased to see Gillet and Hicks leave with nothing (none more so than me) but I fear we may just have attracted a short term speculator. I hope I am wrong I really do and I say again no one every built a successful anything without vision and ambition.

'the fact is' must have stood up to rigorous testing' oh yes like the decision to sell the club to hicks and gillette was correctly made and the due diligence was respected!
A lot has been left to chance certainly in the selling of liverpool fc the first time round