|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
Marko what's the best option for the stadium is based on what the level of investment is availiable that's what the consultants (paid for by FSG) will have deliberated upon had FSG said we have £500m to invest in a new stadium then the outcome would be different. You don't need to be an accountant to understand that it's basic common sense
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
|
MyKneeGrows
Unregistered
|
|
MyKneeGrows
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
Marko what's the best option for the stadium is based on what the level of investment is availiable that's what the consultants (paid for by FSG) will have deliberated upon had FSG said we have £500m to invest in a new stadium then the outcome would be different. You don't need to be an accountant to understand that it's basic common sense I disagree Stan... If you can afford both, you take a look at what is better value for money and what will in the end, be a better investment and better for the overall running of the club. If the clubb has 500 mil to spend, is it better to throw 450 mil into a new stadium and leave 50 mil for the tranfer kitty until the stadium is completely paid off, raising capacity by 100%. Or is it better to invest 150 mil, raise the capacity by 50% and tehrefor income aswell, yet still have 350 mil to spend on transfers and what not? It is a very delicate question, with many parameters where a fine balance needs to be struck. It is not nearly as simple as you are trying to make it out to be. You know that and so do I.
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
An example of how they went back on their word.
They told us we could compete with anyone in the transfer market.
Yeah, anyone from the Championship. I have seen no evidence to suggest we can't...The fact we don't want to throw bags of money at players who might not be worth that money does not mean we cannot. We activated, Mkhytaryans release clause, we activated Costa's release clause, we offered the same terms to Mickey as Dortmund did...hence we can compete...I don't know what terms we offered Costa so I won't comment on that. What the fvck is this! 
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
Marko what's the best option for the stadium is based on what the level of investment is availiable that's what the consultants (paid for by FSG) will have deliberated upon had FSG said we have £500m to invest in a new stadium then the outcome would be different. You don't need to be an accountant to understand that it's basic common sense I disagree Stan... If you can afford both, you take a look at what is better value for money and what will in the end, be a better investment and better for the overall running of the club. If the clubb has 500 mil to spend, is it better to throw 450 mil into a new stadium and leave 50 mil for the tranfer kitty until the stadium is completely paid off, raising capacity by 100%. Or is it better to invest 150 mil, raise the capacity by 50% and tehrefor income aswell, yet still have 350 mil to spend on transfers and what not? It is a very delicate question, with many parameters where a fine balance needs to be struck. It is not nearly as simple as you are trying to make it out to be. You know that and so do I. Looking forward to seeing all these big money signings then !! Actually I disagree I feel the long term future of the club is better than a few players who may or may not work. The way football is going the stadium might be as little as four players. I say this not for my benefit it's better for me the stadium stays as is I gave a very good seat in the centenary also it's better for me at my age mid 50,s the money is spent not on the stadium but new players for me to watch. But I am over riding my personal benefit for the future of the club without a proper stadium we have no future long term
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
|
MyKneeGrows
Unregistered
|
|
MyKneeGrows
Unregistered
|
An example of how they went back on their word.
They told us we could compete with anyone in the transfer market.
Yeah, anyone from the Championship. I have seen no evidence to suggest we can't...The fact we don't want to throw bags of money at players who might not be worth that money does not mean we cannot. We activated, Mkhytaryans release clause, we activated Costa's release clause, we offered the same terms to Mickey as Dortmund did...hence we can compete...I don't know what terms we offered Costa so I won't comment on that. What the fvck is this! Still no top players come. I didn't know FSG had offices in Serbia.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595 |
Herc, you say building a new 75k stadium would make a very investment but why should I or anyone take your word for it over the word of numerous financial consultants? You also said they have proved they cant be trusted, i ask you, how?
When have they gone back on their word? No I didn't say it would make a very good investment. I said it would make good financial sense. And I gave the reasons why, which you decided to ignore. As it happens I also think it would make a very good investment, but not for the short term. And that is precisely the point I was making to explain why I suspect FSG haven't gone for that option, as it would commit them to the longer term to get their beloved ROI. Can you now see the difference between what I actually said and what you tried to put in my mouth Ninja? I also didn't say they can't be trusted, I said they can't be taken at their word, and for someone who demands hard evidence of what others say you're rather loose with your own interpretation! I note others have given a number of examples of where they haven't lived up to their previous statements, all of which are credible imo. I see no reason to repeat those, but I'll just add that I recall FSG saying that regarding the stadium all options are on the table, but clearly that was at best weasel words, and at worst outright misleading, for if they did propose or intend to build a new stadium they would have done so for the sound financial reasons I stated earlier, rather than this bit of a tart up. They had an offer of a site in Stanley park and turned it down. As regards hiding behind consultants reports, I've had many years dealing with large international consultancy firms and I can assure you, that what you get from them as their employer, is what you want from them. Their approach is to establish what you want and then give you what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
Marko what's the best option for the stadium is based on what the level of investment is availiable that's what the consultants (paid for by FSG) will have deliberated upon had FSG said we have £500m to invest in a new stadium then the outcome would be different. You don't need to be an accountant to understand that it's basic common sense I disagree Stan... If you can afford both, you take a look at what is better value for money and what will in the end, be a better investment and better for the overall running of the club. If the clubb has 500 mil to spend, is it better to throw 450 mil into a new stadium and leave 50 mil for the tranfer kitty until the stadium is completely paid off, raising capacity by 100%. Or is it better to invest 150 mil, raise the capacity by 50% and tehrefor income aswell, yet still have 350 mil to spend on transfers and what not? It is a very delicate question, with many parameters where a fine balance needs to be struck. It is not nearly as simple as you are trying to make it out to be. You know that and so do I. Looking forward to seeing all these big money signings then !! Actually I disagree I feel the long term future of the club is better than a few players who may or may not work. The way football is going the stadium might be as little as four players. I say this not for my benefit it's better for me the stadium stays as is I gave a very good seat in the centenary also it's better for me at my age mid 50,s the money is spent not on the stadium but new players for me to watch. But I am over riding my personal benefit for the future of the club without a proper stadium we have no future long term If it was such an easy decision to build a new stadium I wonder why only Arsenal has built one in the last couple of decades and we have been only talking about it for more than 25 years. I am dead sure that a new stadium makes no economic since and by building one, we will surely put the club's future in jeopardy while we keep paying for it in the next 15-20 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 12,422
1st Team Regular
|
|
1st Team Regular
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 12,422 |
They have gone back on their word even on the poxy stadium redevelopment they are now talking phase one and phase two, phase two being the anfield road which is to be redeveloped at an indeterminate time in future in other words put to the long grass As a matter of fact it was always stated that it would be one stand first, then the other. From the get go. You guys are clutching at straws to beat our owners with, but the reality is, there is not that much that they have done wrong. I understand we don't agree, but let's not argue amongst eachother, let's just look at the facts. They are the only owners owners who have promised to do something regarding the stadium, and have actually done it. They said they would consider all options and they have and ecided what they think is best. The work is ongoing as we speak. Thats a lot more than any of our previous owners. Ayre told there ECHO in an exclusive interview today: ‘We’ve pressed the go button. “Never mind a spade being in the ground in 60 days, we’ll have one in there within six days now.” He described the news as ‘massive’ for Liverpool Football Club as it bids to up its capacity to just short of 60,00 over time, with the new stand adding an extra 8,500 seats to begin with. That takes Anfield’s capacity to 54,000 plus. Further plans to rebuild or extend the Anfield Road stand are being considered and progressed but no decisions on that potential second phase have yet been taken and only outline – or in-principle - planning permission for that exists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381 |
Looking forward to seeing all these big money signings then !! Actually I disagree I feel the long term future of the club is better than a few players who may or may not work. The way football is going the stadium might be as little as four players. I say this not for my benefit it's better for me the stadium stays as is I gave a very good seat in the centenary also it's better for me at my age mid 50,s the money is spent not on the stadium but new players for me to watch. But I am over riding my personal benefit for the future of the club without a proper stadium we have no future long term
Stan you're 100 percent right, that fine balance bol!ocks is exactly that, bol!ocks. There is only one option that is BEST for the long term future of the club, but FSG (not a criticism of them as their loyalty isn't to making Liverpool a top club again) like you say chose the lower cost revenue boost. It is absolutely as simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
