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

I must also correct something marko implied that Liverpool in their glory days always worked their way up from the bottom, as opposed to plastic fans, as he put it. Nothing could be further from the truth from the very early days shankly had blazing rows with the owners and (relative to the times back then) we were big spenders as we were through Paisley fagan and dalglish, We were not relative to the top European clubs but we were in British football. Liverpool FC always used to be ambitious and aim for the very top that's what made us great. I remember having a very heated argument with a forest fan in the eighties when he accused Liverpool fans of being glory hunters (plastic fans? ) and that Liverpool bought their trophies.

So come out of your fantasy world marko read shanklys autobiography and you will not read the words pragmatic, second best, demand curves, being realistic etc

That's the attitude we need back and if this thread goes on for another ten years no one will pursade me Liverpool FC should have a second best re patched ground 20 to 30k below our rivals because utd and city will expand over the next 20 years you would be a fool to think otherwise

Stan. You have been one of the loudest voices when it comes to the season ticket waiting list and that you think if it was offered to them that they wouldn't actually take one. How can you justify spending an extra couple of hundred million for a new stadium at the same capacity roughly (with room for expansion) when you have repeatedly said that we don't have as many fans searching for tickets as they say? The new stadium would very quickly become a white elephant do you not think?

Bang on Maxi.

You argued that case like you have this one Stan.

I think there will be a crash in ticket prices said this many times and I see no reason to change. Manchester United one of the most in demand clubs in the world are struggling to sell out. So for Liverpool's ground (if you read what I said) we should new build to 65k with an option in the design to go to 90k. If there is no crash we will be fine at 65k and leave it at that. But football will I believe change the game cannot go on as it is what that change will be I don't know but one possibility is clubs reduce ticket prices to attract lost fans back and build bigger stadia to get the volume. With a re-patched anfield Liverpool have no room for flexibility to adapt and I fear in future we will be left high and dry. Look at Manchester city to see how it's going a lot of people think city are a rich Arabs plaything nothing could be more wrong they are building a huge concourse (buying out an Asda superstore) that can only mean one thing growing the club on the field and building up a huge fan base and thst stadia will be the focal point. I also feel in the future TV viewing will become saturated and people will become more tired of it we are already seeing in the champions league. And more people will want to see something real this all points long term to bigger stadiums, All I am saying is let's build in thst flexibility which meand 65k and option 90 k

But if there's a crash, surely having the extra capacity doesn't make sense either? If we drop prices then any meaningful revenue for the club will be gone while still having massive repayments to make.

Thing is we don't know do we ? We don't know the future so you need to allow for flexibility even with no crash as the economy grows I see demand fir bigger stadia even if TV rules the day an impressive stadium will sell the product. It's also not just about finances it's about prestige and the city of Liverpool and other intagisble factors. I know vish will come on and say FSG are private investors and he is right but thst does not make it acceptable we are not building a supermarket here this us our soul and the soul of the city of Liverpool

Tarting up anfield will be a disaster and I think this was always FSG,s intention from day one. They don't care about the club I do.

so Stan wants to build a huge stadium that will load the club with debt, but also expects a ticket price crash to happen sooner or later.

Borrow over long term 40 years.

We either take on debt (normal thing to do in business) or have a poor stadium for all time and reduce the club to second best status.

Which do you prefer ?

Should there not be a point at which you say this debt is not serviceable? Saying we should take on debt is very vague. We could take on 1billion as debt or we could take on 1 million. Both result in very different outcomes

I also dont want to build a huge stadium box if you read

65k option option OPTION to go to 90k if appropriate.

Try to grasp the concept