KopTalk

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,886
Under 23 Player
Under 23 Player
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,886
Originally Posted By: Hercules/AF 58
Fully agree cp, but I’d stress that the mistakes we’ve made in the past and the moneys spent is water under the bridge, as far as I’m concerned. Theres little to be gained by looking backwards and less to be gained by using it to defend the current policies and penny pinching approach, and yet we see too much of that on this forum.
As far as the current regime goes, it can hardly be said that the current manager is responsible for compromising on player choices as some persist in doing. He’s labouring under what you describe as "an overall master plan" that makes no sense in a league as competitive as the PL. He has called publicly for quality over quantity in both of the last seasons to no avail. The buy cheap young potential policy still rules ok in the main, and predictably results in what you describe as “madness”. Yet there are posters who defend and make excuses for this policy and the equally mad decision on the stadium. It must now be clear that current policy is the path towards perpetual mediocrity. What self respecting fan support let alone defend such policies


+1

For anyone still thinking Rogers has final say and make excuses for FSG in this area of the club then read the article from the Guardian.

Gerrard quite clearly criticizes this policy that prevents us buying the finished article even though that is what the manager would like. He is not allowed to buy a Costa or Fabregas so it leaves us where we are!

Link:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog...nsition-anfield

Last edited by Top4; 01/11/14 10:28 AM.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

George Washington
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381
B
Under 23 Player
Under 23 Player
B Offline
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381
Originally Posted By: RedsforChampions


You don't have to believe if you don't want to but additional seats especially corporate is going to increase our current match day revenue significantly, I think by at least 50%. That would cover a big share if not all the financing for the redevelopment. Of course a new stadium will generate more revenue, but not enough to cover for the additional costs even over the long time. If that was possible, any sensible investor would have done it. The only owners that could do such a thing is those who have excess capital and want to do it for reasons other than financial as investing in football in today's environment makes no sense, there are much better investments.


This is absolutely false from an economic stand point (regardless of my or your view on what is best for the club). You've said "even over the long time", this is jsut untrue. All the new stadium would mean over redevelopment is a greater initial capital, and would significantly increase revenue. Arsenal have shown how well this can be done.

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Originally Posted By: bigredkop
Originally Posted By: RedsforChampions


You don't have to believe if you don't want to but additional seats especially corporate is going to increase our current match day revenue significantly, I think by at least 50%. That would cover a big share if not all the financing for the redevelopment. Of course a new stadium will generate more revenue, but not enough to cover for the additional costs even over the long time. If that was possible, any sensible investor would have done it. The only owners that could do such a thing is those who have excess capital and want to do it for reasons other than financial as investing in football in today's environment makes no sense, there are much better investments.


This is absolutely false from an economic stand point (regardless of my or your view on what is best for the club). You've said "even over the long time", this is jsut untrue. All the new stadium would mean over redevelopment is a greater initial capital, and would significantly increase revenue. Arsenal have shown how well this can be done.


Arsenal has been able to do so because they have been constantly qualifying for CL, which was easier then as City was not that strong and we were more or less at par with them. Ever over the longer term I don't think we will be able to generate that much of additional revenues to cover for interests and loan repayments.

Last edited by RedsforChampions; 01/11/14 01:24 PM.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
But arsenal paid for their stadium in record quick time did they not vish ? Is it mortgage free now ? The notion you have to pay for a stadium in a few years I don't get it's a very long term asset


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
But arsenal paid for their stadium in record quick time did they not vish ? Is it mortgage free now ? The notion you have to pay for a stadium in a few years I don't get it's a very long term asset


As I said, it much more difficult now to qualify for CL. We are struggling to do it now, how will it be when we will have a huge debt to pay for, we won't be able to even buy the so called cheapies, we will have to become a selling club as Arsenal had been. Until only last season, they were regularly making profits on player transaction if not breaking even or a small deficits. Even if it is longer term than Arsenal the interest will be higher over time as we would be taking longer to pay. Anyway, I don't think we could afford that (without stadium interests payments we have regularly made losses bar perhaps last season), but if you think it's possible so be it.

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Originally Posted By: RedsforChampions
Originally Posted By: Stanley Park
But arsenal paid for their stadium in record quick time did they not vish ? Is it mortgage free now ? The notion you have to pay for a stadium in a few years I don't get it's a very long term asset


As I said, it much more difficult now to qualify for CL. We are struggling to do it now, how will it be when we will have a huge debt to pay for, we won't be able to even buy the so called cheapies, we will have to become a selling club as Arsenal had been. Until only last season, they were regularly making profits on player transaction if not breaking even or a small deficits. Even if it is longer term than Arsenal the interest will be higher over time as we would be taking longer to pay. Anyway, I don't think we could afford that (without stadium interests payments we have regularly made losses bar perhaps last season), but if you think it's possible so be it.


Nothing is possible with these jokers running the club. All your arguments are based on us being a third rate club with third rate plans. Your arguments are based on what our owners are willing to invest which is pretty much nothing even the anfield redevelopment us being financed by sponsors and probably increased ticket prices they are investing nothing of significance


IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

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