|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381 |
We could of offered twice the release clause but if we didn't offer the wages the player wanted then fsg could go around triggering twenty release clause wouldn't mean they really wanted the player if you have done your homework and decide this player is great for LFC you don't match wage offer that's cheapstating you beat the rivals wage offers we didn't we don't have the players simple really no player ever will come out and say a club didn't offer him enough wages they come up with other excuses like I prefer london or such things other wise they get labelled as mercenary money grabbers if you want a player you trigger the release and you offer a better wage deal than others or he signs else where !
Spot on sixties. It's the same old opinions from some about meeting this wage offer or that, but the only fact and evidence out there is that these players we 'trigger release clauses' choose to go else where because it's not enough to match the wages being offered by those (at the time) better teams, we need to better them, like nearly every single team that have tried to get to the top from an outside position have had to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 11,128
1st Team Regular
|
|
1st Team Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 11,128 |
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 buy from the cheap rails. The fact we don't throw bags of money at players proves the very point. Compare united's summer buying to ours and you immediately see the difference between owners willing to put their money where their mouth is and owners who are not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
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 buy from the cheap rails. The fact we don't throw bags of money at players proves the very point. Compare united's summer buying to ours and you immediately see the difference between owners willing to put their money where their mouth is and owners who are not. How can you compare United to us, have you seen the revenue they are generating? You probably don't know, but United owners haven't put a cent in the club whether as equity or loan but have been drawing dividends and are getting the club to pay for the loan they took to buy the club, they are the worst owners possible. If you talk about Roman Abramovic and Sheik Mansoor, then ok, but not the Glazers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
The reason Man United are generating such revenue Vish is that they had the foresight to build a new stadium. I know you will say they redeveloped it but the point is old trafford has a big footprint anfield has not which is why we have to move. Also man united did more than build one stand. Yes match day receipts are not their main revenue but the whole package is built on that infrastructure had they never built that stadium man united would not have the sponsoshio and merchandising they do today. As for the glaziers they don't need to inject capital the job is done with us the job has not started.
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 537
Under 18 Player
|
|
Under 18 Player
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 537 |
No Stanley, the reason Man Utd are generating such revenue is because they happened to have their most successful period at the perfect time when the TV deals started going through the roof and the rest of the world was watching them be successful. The stadium boost came after years of success and money rolling in from other sources.
Success at the right time when media coverage is so absolute is the key reason why clubs become popular and why massive sponsorship deals come rolling in. It has absolutely nothing to do with how many people turn up at the stadium. It's all about which club happens to be 'trending' at the moment.
That's why barely anyone outside England knew about Man City or Chelsea until they started being successful after massive investment. Now you see Chelsea and Man City shirts popping up anywhere...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
No Stanley, the reason Man Utd are generating such revenue is because they happened to have their most successful period at the perfect time when the TV deals started going through the roof and the rest of the world was watching them be successful. The stadium boost came after years of success and money rolling in from other sources.
Success at the right time when media coverage is so absolute is the key reason why clubs become popular and why massive sponsorship deals come rolling in. It has absolutely nothing to do with how many people turn up at the stadium. It's all about which club happens to be 'trending' at the moment.
That's why barely anyone outside England knew about Man City or Chelsea until they started being successful after massive investment. Now you see Chelsea and Man City shirts popping up anywhere... Some points Partially true but they starting building their stadium before the success fully developed and even before they started redeveloping old trafford was still a big stadium their advantage was the land as well they have space as do man city.
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 |
The reason Man United are generating such revenue Vish is that they had the foresight to build a new stadium. I know you will say they redeveloped it but the point is old trafford has a big footprint anfield has not which is why we have to move. Also man united did more than build one stand. Yes match day receipts are not their main revenue but the whole package is built on that infrastructure had they never built that stadium man united would not have the sponsoshio and merchandising they do today. As for the glaziers they don't need to inject capital the job is done with us the job has not started. As you said, they redeveloped it and didn't do anything new. The whole package is built though on continued success not on the stadium size. City have significantly higher revenues than us and they have less seats, same can be said about Chelsea. Newcastle and Villa have a bigger stadiums than us but lower revenues, so your analysis is flawed. Last but no least, nobody thought that Anfield could be expanded 18 months ago, so it could probably be further developed in years to come with new building technologies and buying additional land around.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394 |
The reason Man United are generating such revenue Vish is that they had the foresight to build a new stadium. I know you will say they redeveloped it but the point is old trafford has a big footprint anfield has not which is why we have to move. Also man united did more than build one stand. Yes match day receipts are not their main revenue but the whole package is built on that infrastructure had they never built that stadium man united would not have the sponsoshio and merchandising they do today. As for the glaziers they don't need to inject capital the job is done with us the job has not started. As you said, they redeveloped it and didn't do anything new. The whole package is built though on continued success not on the stadium size. City have significantly higher revenues than us and they have less seats, same can be said about Chelsea. Newcastle and Villa have a bigger stadiums than us but lower revenues, so your analysis is flawed. Last but no least, nobody thought that Anfield could be expanded 18 months ago, so it could probably be further developed in years to come with new building technologies and buying additional land around. City have a couple of thousand MORE seats than us and Villa are a couple less. Sunderland have more at 49000 though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
The reason Man United are generating such revenue Vish is that they had the foresight to build a new stadium. I know you will say they redeveloped it but the point is old trafford has a big footprint anfield has not which is why we have to move. Also man united did more than build one stand. Yes match day receipts are not their main revenue but the whole package is built on that infrastructure had they never built that stadium man united would not have the sponsoshio and merchandising they do today. As for the glaziers they don't need to inject capital the job is done with us the job has not started. As you said, they redeveloped it and didn't do anything new. The whole package is built though on continued success not on the stadium size. City have significantly higher revenues than us and they have less seats, same can be said about Chelsea. Newcastle and Villa have a bigger stadiums than us but lower revenues, so your analysis is flawed. Last but no least, nobody thought that Anfield could be expanded 18 months ago, so it could probably be further developed in years to come with new building technologies and buying additional land around. City have a couple of thousand MORE seats than us and Villa are a couple less. Sunderland have more at 49000 though. Ok, but the message stands though even if we are exact
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381 |
The reason Man United are generating such revenue Vish is that they had the foresight to build a new stadium. I know you will say they redeveloped it but the point is old trafford has a big footprint anfield has not which is why we have to move. Also man united did more than build one stand. Yes match day receipts are not their main revenue but the whole package is built on that infrastructure had they never built that stadium man united would not have the sponsoshio and merchandising they do today. As for the glaziers they don't need to inject capital the job is done with us the job has not started. As you said, they redeveloped it and didn't do anything new. The whole package is built though on continued success not on the stadium size. City have significantly higher revenues than us and they have less seats, same can be said about Chelsea. Newcastle and Villa have a bigger stadiums than us but lower revenues, so your analysis is flawed. Last but no least, nobody thought that Anfield could be expanded 18 months ago, so it could probably be further developed in years to come with new building technologies and buying additional land around. Moore's said it could in the 90's. Everyone's always known it could be done but previous owners knew the new Stadium was the best thing for the club without a shadow of a doubt. These owners are interested in increasing the revenue a bit without putting too much money in, fair enough for them but that's categorically not the best outcome for the club.
|
|
|
|
|
