KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum What have FSG brought to the table ?

As I remember arsenal had some form of bond issue to raise finance I agree with you it will raise revenue but my concern is within 10 years we will face a situation where the ground is too constrained and with insufficient capacity it may not of course but if it does we will have no where to go.

I still can't understand why we can't finance the stadium over a longer term the balance sheet is not the prime consideration for raising finance a balance sheet is just a financial snapshot. But collateral and robust income steams are and possibly the Liverpool city region or even the FSG group could underwrite it or perhaps a consortium but FSG might need to dilute their holdings but potentially will get a greater return

-.-

In any case there is no reason to do it now as we will be using in in 10 years. If required we can do those things in 10 years when footballing ecomonics become healthier and more predictable, right now there are too many uncertainties and as you said a number of times, the bubble may burst. This is not the time to spend above our means and feed financial institutions as even with long term bonds, interests will be payable. Only Arabs and some Russians give money for free.

I know but my suggestion was 65k on Stanley park with an option in the design to go to 90k. I accept that is more expensive an refurbishing anfield which incidently just seems to be building two new stands.

However if it was financed over a longer term it would be affordable and we would be set up for whatever changes are required in the future

I still feel even if there is a correction 65k will still sell out for Liverpool

Even over a long term financing we'll need to find 20m every year and the longer the term the more interest you pay. We just cannot afford to spend 20m every year, the team needs reinforcements to be able to qualify for CL more often than not and not qualifying for CL is a downwards spiral as we know. So IMO, it's a wise decision by FSG, I have more question marks over their transfer policy.

£20m us not a huge sum with the amount of money in modern football. And I would rather that went to our long term future rather than players who you can waste a huge amount of money on in transfer fees and contracts. As we proved last year it's the quality of your dealings not the absolute transfer fund value when it comes to players more Suarez less of Aspas would be good.

You are right the longer the period the more interest you pay but you are forgetting the compound affects of inflation on the principal capital. When your parents bought their house at the time it was a huge sum now the amount seems peanuts it will be the same with a football stadium.

20m a year is a lot of money for us right now, it can be the difference between qualifying for CL or not and not qualifying is a further 35m or bigger dent, so as I said, it would be a downward spiral.

I make more money than my parents so bought a better house even 25 years later, meaning if we can have success on the pitch in the next 10 years, we will be able to reinforce our world wide fan base improving revenues through mechandising and sponsorships. Therefore a bigger stadium will be more affordable and the demand for tickets higher.

Your option could mean, not enough money to buy players, no CL, no fan base growth, less sponsorship, less demand for tickets but an expandable and new stadium. I know what I would choose.

Is this the most repetitive thread of all time?

I think yes, I've been very patient but there is a limit which is very close now.

It's been absolutely mind sapping.