|
|
|
thundyr
Unregistered
|
|
thundyr
Unregistered
|
+1, cp1972. Well said.
What did Kenny say about Wenger a few weeks ago? Something like, "He's been amazing for them, keeping the club in the Champions' League despite moving to a new stadium, something that can cripple a club." Liverpool is headed down the same path - I think someone on the LFC blog site called us "the new Arsenal, but with bite".
We will buy youth, we will focus on lower wages, and we will still try to win the league anyway. The key will be how the squad is managed, because Wenger's philosophy has begun to suddenly unravel and we wouldn't want to go the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605 |
As I understand it, one big issue surrounding the stadium development plans is how to get a positive return on investment if we spend big (= new stadium) and only add 15,000 - 20,000 seats.
I can only see one solution to this problem and that's selling naming rights for huge sums of money.
On the other hand, that transaction doesn't make a new stadium any better (financially spoken) compared to redeveloping Anfield. We can remain at Anfield and still sell the naming rights there!
It will be very interesting to see which path LFC chooses to walk!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,988
1st Team Regular
|
|
1st Team Regular
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,988 |
To me a new stadium is the right way van. I know its easy to say that from my point of view because there is many issues and obstacles to cross but poor old anfield can't take those many years and expanding seems to be even more difficult.
Back to Back World Champions baby!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
Guys, I just wanted to say that you have put up some great posts, makes for interesting reading. Good thread. Keep it up 
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 12,422
1st Team Regular
|
|
1st Team Regular
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 12,422 |
I'm not in the slightest bit concerned that John Henry is the next coming of Hicks and Gillett. You know why? Because he's open about what his plans are, and he does what he says he will. There may be a degree of lip service in there, but football is a lie.
Kenny's net spend is not particularly high. About 40m in total, with a significant portion of that regained via a huge reduction in the wage bill. So, no, John Henry is not putting in huge amounts of his personal cash. But you know, he never said he would. He said that the club would pay its own way, including as regards the stadium issue. So the fact that he has not only allowed Kenny to do as he pleases with the money gained from player sales, he HAS invested something out of his own pocket. He also has an actual vision of where he would like the club to be, producing guidelines of what kind of players and their ages we would concentrate on, and he seems determined to build towards winning the title.
It's a pretty stupid thing to point out he's interested in a return on his investment. That's obvious, and it's true of everyone who is not an oil baron. But the fact that he hasn't asset-stripped ANY of his company's investments, and has instead guided them to glory, suggests that he understands that the return on his investment stems entirely on its success. Perhaps some people haven't been paying attention to what's been going on off the pitch since FSG arrived. New shirt sponsorship well in excess of what we have with Adidas, for one. Lebron James showing off LFC gear in front of NBA cameras.
The stadium issue is awkward, not because he doesn't want to spend money, but because there are a lot of obstacles to expanding Anfield, and a significant cost to building a new stadium in Stanley Park without investment from 3rd parties via things like naming rights. Anyone thinking that can be resolved in ten minutes is wrong, and anyone thinking that Liverpool FC will not pay the lion's share of the bill is just as wrong. How do I know this? Because John Henry said it himself, and thus far he's been a man of his word.
He hasn't promised things he couldn't deliver - he's simply gone about his business, made sure everyone is on the same page, and frankly he's been really successful with LFC since the day he walked in. The difference between where we were 12 months ago and now is as chalk is to cheese. I expect the stadium issue to drag out because it's much more complicated that sticking a spade in the ground, but I also expect the correct decision to be made when the time comes. great post mate and agree whole heartedly
|
|
|
|
|
|
thundyr
Unregistered
|
|
thundyr
Unregistered
|
John Henry wasn't entirely enamoured with the idea of adding seats at a cost of a million pounds each, which is what a new stadium ultimately amounts to. Expanding Anfield is at the mercy of the city council, and they have the speed of snails. So unless someone will give big money for naming rights, I can't see ANY change in terms of the stadium.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,365
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,365 |
I would not want to go near any loans once again. That interest is what brought us on the brink of administration in the first place, we do not want to repeat the same mistake again.
Henry is a great man, he has achieved success with other sport clubs and the fans have nothing but praise and positive remarks about him from the red sox and other institutions. I am thankful that he saved us from the previous owners, saved us getting into administration which would have been en embarrassment for such a great club like Liverpool. He has supplied Kenny with the money he needed to strengthen the team. If he builds a new stadium, he would have basically done everything for this club. Very happy with him at the helm, long may it continue. snakeye - I see your fear of loans and rightfully so. Debt is not a problem if it's manageable. Hicks/gillete tried to wing ii inthe hope it would all come together, neither had the funds to realistically pull it off. However to a certain extent their model wasn't flawed - increasing turnover through new commercial channels was indeed a correct thing to do and really should have been done a decade earlier. NESV work on a different mantle - let me explain; if you have a million quid and you buy a house for 1mil then you avoid paying interest, you look after it and even make it better in a years time it's worth 1.1mil. great return and profit of 100k. seems reasonable? or you buy 4 million pound houses putting down a 25% deposit on each, the rest you borrow at say 5%. if as before you look after and improve your 4 houses they inturn are now worth 1.1mil each giving a profit of 4x100k = 400k however you have paid interest of 5% per house which equals 200k so profit is 200k. double what you would have on the original 1mil investment. year on year and over 5/10years this becomes a huge amount of money. whilst as many would say there is tax and also risk, the skill of the owner is to get his money working hard for him. By negotiating low interest loans(better reputation/lower wage bill=low risk),getting others to stump up the initial fee(naming rights)and improving the house(investing in the team) NESV will be able to easily fund the stadium whilst maintaining and even increasing investment. makes sense but you do need the money,knowhow and more importantly the reputation - all of NESV have in spades.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,304
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,304 |
It seems the council would prefer to do what ever it takes to ensure the entire area is redeveloped! that's fair enough it'll kill two birds with one stone,however we need to spend a lot of money to achieve whats needed for the club,either way to build new will cost alot more than a revamp but still not really add the amount of seats needed to profit in the future,it seems its impossible to revamp Anfield with enough seats to grow into for the future cos the residents rites will be affected ie high stands cutting out their light,so the owners do have a real problem in deciding,i though think we have to move even tho the costs will be enormous because the ground will be surrounded by slightly more land and thatl mean hopefully in the future we can add to the capacity as and when we can afford it,stay at Anfield and we deffo wont have that option, so even tho the owners want profits to benefit them they will have to sacrifice them for now so we can grow and get profits in the future,if they are still here then they will reap the rewards.
Life is beautiful when you find Love when you find the place your meant to be when you find the one to give your heart to as for me this is you this is Love 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 880
Under 18 Player
|
|
Under 18 Player
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 880 |
Guys, I just wanted to say that you have put up some great posts, makes for interesting reading. Good thread. Keep it up Was just thinking that myself. What a great thread with smart posts. A rarity nowadays. must be because of the guy who started the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 679
Under 18 Player
|
|
Under 18 Player
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 679 |
stay or move good either way.just as long as no groundshare.
|
|
|
|
|
