KopTalk

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 70 of 103 1 2 … 68 69 70 71 72 … 102 103
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By: Stanley Park
Check the last year's accounts and you'll see there is not much of exceptional (one off items there), it's about 3m.

A quick simple calculation on your 500m investment in the stadium over 30 years: Yearly Capital repayment 17m, first year interest 4% - 20m, let's average capital and interest repayment over 30 years (first year + last year divide by 2, (17+20+17)/2, ie 27m yearly. Yes, inflation will increase our revenues but also our costs including interest too, so in present value let's assume the same. In your plan additional revenues (compared to a refurbished stadium) could come up only as from year 11 and additional investment will be required for additional seats (above the 60k) and nobody knows if there will be enough of match going fans then. Simple maths for me unless you can come up with other figures.

Yes United's bigger stadium contributes to much higher revenues but they never spent in a brand new stadium and have been adding seats at minimal marginal costs. So you just have a vision without anything to back it.


As an accountant Vish reading the clubs accounts I would not even bother refurbishing the stadium. But football clubs accounts are a mystery probably no premership club at all or any club for that matter is solvent. Whereas the 2013 exceptional costs are not high there are significant losses on disposal of players. What I do know about football clubs accounts is you cannot take a single years trading and extrapolate it the accounts are extremely variable. Based on B/E payback to year 11 that to me seems very reasonable given a stadium lasts for 100 years or more. Nor do the numbers allow for business growth (none matchday) surely this is ultra coinservative especially as we are back in the chamopions league. You could argue we can't guarantee being in the champions league ansolutely not but we have to assume we will be (Arsenals model did) otherwise we plan ahead on the lowest denominator and we know where that will end up. No business I know plans like that otherwise you would never achieve anything planning to fail you plan for success and growth. Liverpool's debt is tiny relative to other clubs whereas thats good we are under levered and we have capacity to borrow to achieve growth. Based on those assumptions and numbers a new build is easily acheivable in the long term (30 years) which is what I have consistently said.


So your response is don't trust the accounts and Arsenal did it so we can. I maintain you don't know what you are talking about out of passion and I mainatin our cash flows cannot allow a new stadium or we become uncompetitive if we do not go bust (even over 30 years). Arsenal acheived it through CL (but won nothing) and selling players when City was nowhere near top half of the table, now we have 5 or even 6 clubs competing. We need an additional 25m gross profit which we do not have. I am done because you just talk talk and nothing to back it up.

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
The other thing which I forgot was stadium sponsorship those numbers assume no grants or sponsorship at all. We could generate naming rights for the next hundred years £350m would be small change


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
And as I keep saying vish just saying I don't know what I am talking about does not make your argument more convincing


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By: Stanley Park
And as I keep saying vish just saying I don't know what I am talking about does not make your argument more convincing



Because you don't back up anything, explain to me how much it will cost yearly and how we finance it by keeping net spend on players around 35m which would be required to qualify for CL regularly. Anyway I don't expect to convince you because you are unreasonably stubborn.

Last edited by vish LFC; 20/06/14 04:13 PM.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Vish I don't know whether it's your english but you keep misinterpreting I did not say the accounts were wrong but that football clubs accounts are highly variable and you can't take a single year in isolation

As for presenting numbers I don't have the detail and neither do you.

But based on Arsenal they took out a 30 year bond in 2006 st 5 per cent given interest rates today that bond would be two to three per cent max. Bonds will increase I agree so let's say four per cent. Arsenal achieved almost half the £400m build costs by naming rights let's be conservative and assume £150m for Liverpool and say the ground costs £500m that would be about £15m a year or so. Yes that would mean less in the transfer market short term but as time went on inflation would negate that and in 10 years would be negligible. As time went on we would become bigger and stronger the impressive stadium would I am sure attract more general club sponsorship rather than a revamped anfield (sponsors want to be associated with impressive things). Yes there would be a short term impact on the ability to buy players but that does not necessarily mean the quality falls as we saw with andy Carroll. Why do I care ? I am better off with anfield refurb personally as my fantastic seat in the middle of the centenary will stay but I passionately care about the long term future of the club I have supported as a boy. None of this is easy of course but the. Nothing of worth is ever easy.

Last edited by Stanley Park; 20/06/14 04:33 PM.

IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Sorry cash flow interest probably £20m early years then falling to average of £15m thoughtout the 30 year term and we nay be able to negotiate better terms over a 40 year term


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
M
Under 23 Player
Under 23 Player
M Offline
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
Arsenal also got scrap value for the land around Highbury which Liverpool wouldn't for Anfield.

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Originally Posted By: Maxi88
Arsenal also got scrap value for the land around Highbury which Liverpool wouldn't for Anfield.


We could argue numbers all day you could say arsenal have more potential for corporate but at the end of the day Liverpool are one of the top clubs in the world how can aiming low be right for us? If I am wrong fine but them you must accept long term Liverpool will not be a top club


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
M
Under 23 Player
Under 23 Player
M Offline
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
ok

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By: Stanley Park
Vish I don't know whether it's your english but you keep misinterpreting I did not say the accounts were wrong but that football clubs accounts are highly variable and you can't take a single year in isolation

As for presenting numbers I don't have the detail and neither do you.

But based on Arsenal they took out a 30 year bond in 2006 st 5 per cent given interest rates today that bond would be two to three per cent max. Bonds will increase I agree so let's say four per cent. Arsenal achieved almost half the £400m build costs by naming rights let's be conservative and assume £150m for Liverpool and say the ground costs £500m that would be about £15m a year or so. Yes that would mean less in the transfer market short term but as time went on inflation would negate that and in 10 years would be negligible. As time went on we would become bigger and stronger the impressive stadium would I am sure attract more general club sponsorship rather than a revamped anfield (sponsors want to be associated with impressive things). Yes there would be a short term impact on the ability to buy players but that does not necessarily mean the quality falls as we saw with andy Carroll. Why do I care ? I am better off with anfield refurb personally as my fantastic seat in the middle of the centenary will stay but I passionately care about the long term future of the club I have supported as a boy. None of this is easy of course but the. Nothing of worth is ever easy.


Sponsors want to be associated with success more than anything else and regular success is what is required in the next 10 years. It's only through repeated success that the value of the club (and sponsorship deals) will increase and spending in something we might need in 10 years time at the expense of competitiveness is nonsense. Yes we need additional seats because the demand is there and it's great to be able to do it for 150m instead of 500m

Page 70 of 103 1 2 … 68 69 70 71 72 … 102 103

Moderated by  KopTalk Team 

Link Copied to Clipboard
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Advertisements
Liverpool FC Discussion