|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
Did you actually read what I wrote - or were you replying to somebody else? I read it all none of it answered my points when you were not digging at me you raised another issue avioding mine
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595 |
What are your thoughts on a ground share stan? At one time Marko I was against it but would prefer ground share to redeveloping Anfield for all the reasons stated before No Stanley, I’m against ground share, I still can’t buy it, though I can understand how you would see how a 75 -80k ground share would be better than being stuck with a mickey mouse 58,000 for a generation. The truth is I feel diminished by this financially cowardly redevelopment job, to me it’s an admission that we’ve been well and truly beaten by United and the big boys in Europe, it’s the lilly-livered white flag of surrender as far as I’m concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
I am sorry you feel that way guys, but that's really no the way i see it. I prefer to see it as us finally deciding to take the "smart" option. I think a new stadium would have been too much of a burden on the club.
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595 |
I am sorry you feel that way guys, but that's really no the way i see it. I prefer to see it as us finally deciding to take the "smart" option. I think a new stadium would have been too much of a burden on the club. I don’t agree, the finance coming into football is increasing all the time, that and the extra seating income from a 75’000 seater would pay for itself over time. If you can’t face commercial risk and reward investment, then one has no future in a competitive business market, particularly todays football market place.
Last edited by Hercules/AF 58; 11/06/14 01:28 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 5,205
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 5,205 |
Did you actually read what I wrote - or were you replying to somebody else? I read it all none of it answered my points when you were not digging at me you raised another issue avioding mine ???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
Look Mr Donut lets leave it. Happy to debate but mud slinging is pointless.
The debate about the ground is the most important there is because whatever we decide we are stuck with it for generations.
I am finding it hard to accept the best we can do is 77% of uniteds CURRENT capacity never mind what they have in 15 years.
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
I am sorry you feel that way guys, but that's really no the way i see it. I prefer to see it as us finally deciding to take the "smart" option. I think a new stadium would have been too much of a burden on the club. I don’t agree, the finance coming into football is increasing all the time, that and the extra seating income from a 75’000 seater would pay for itself over time. If you can’t face commercial risk and reward investment, then one has no future in a competitive business market, particularly todays football market place. . But all the studies show that the extra income would not be that great unless we saw a drastic increase in ticket prices. And whilst the money coming into football is increasing, so to are the expenses. 20 years ago a wage of 300 thousand pounds was unthinkable. But look at today's wages.
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 5,205
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 5,205 |
Look Mr Donut lets leave it. Happy to debate but mud slinging is pointless.
The debate about the ground is the most important there is because whatever we decide we are stuck with it for generations.
I am finding it hard to accept the best we can do is 77% of uniteds CURRENT capacity never mind what they have in 15 years.
What's your solution then?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
New stadia Stanley Park financed by long terms loans.
It would be done no problem but it would reduce FSG's short term return and that would never do would it ?
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,446
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,446 |
What sort of team would we be fielding in the 10-20 years that the loan of £400m would be being repaid? Because surly you don't think we could stay competitive and have a new stadium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
