|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
This story pretty much sums up everything said against FSG in relation to the stadium they have no interest in the club or its long term future at any level. Unless the investment returns to their criteria it's a none starter. As for us not being a billionaires plaything if it's their plaything then at least they have an interest in the club or even the sport. Moores for all his faults loved the club how can you be an owner of a club and not be interested in its fortunes ?
Depressing If match going fans who are basically the consumers of the product do not want to pay more, I don't know who will. If I am not mistaken, the Emirates tickets were 75% more of the Highburry ones, and the Arsenal fans paid more. This is why I always said a new stadium is not sustainable unless somebody gifts one to LFC. Yes, you will talk of the brand I know, but if the brand doesn't bring that kind of revenues, then what? I can't recall the exact figure but match day figures are a small % of big premierships income
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 691
Under 18 Player
|
|
Under 18 Player
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 691 |
Im disappointed in some ways but then again im not really surprised. We know the owners wont be around long enough to get any benefit from increasing another stand. I really think its strange what Henry was saying regarding ticket prices in England. It seemed as if he was having a bit of a dig at the protest about ticket prices. Theres been a few small incidents like this with FSG and Liverpool.
We have the new main stand now and its all good but I would like to see the stadium completely maxed out if and/or when new owners take over. 55,000 is far too small for Liverpool, personally I think 70,000+ is what we should be looking at because I think we would sell that every week.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
Im disappointed in some ways but then again im not really surprised. We know the owners wont be around long enough to get any benefit from increasing another stand. I really think its strange what Henry was saying regarding ticket prices in England. It seemed as if he was having a bit of a dig at the protest about ticket prices. Theres been a few small incidents like this with FSG and Liverpool.
We have the new main stand now and its all good but I would like to see the stadium completely maxed out if and/or when new owners take over. 55,000 is far too small for Liverpool, personally I think 70,000+ is what we should be looking at because I think we would sell that every week. Exactly and and as the previous poster has pointed out match day revenue is 20% of income and that will decline over the years the brand is all and having a less than impressive stadium will see us finished off as a top club
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 |
Im disappointed in some ways but then again im not really surprised. We know the owners wont be around long enough to get any benefit from increasing another stand. I really think its strange what Henry was saying regarding ticket prices in England. It seemed as if he was having a bit of a dig at the protest about ticket prices. Theres been a few small incidents like this with FSG and Liverpool.
We have the new main stand now and its all good but I would like to see the stadium completely maxed out if and/or when new owners take over. 55,000 is far too small for Liverpool, personally I think 70,000+ is what we should be looking at because I think we would sell that every week. Exactly and and as the previous poster has pointed out match day revenue is 20% of income and that will decline over the years the brand is all and having a less than impressive stadium will see us finished off as a top club The Brand helps on the commercial side and it is results based. Anfield road and the Kop has a huge brand a new stadium will take ages to get to. Impressive stadiums are great for match going fans mainly. The brand value which has inproved the most in the last in the last decade is Chelsea and this doesn't have anything to do with their stadium
Last edited by RedsforChampions; 01/10/16 05:06 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,988
1st Team Regular
|
|
1st Team Regular
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,988 |
Its supply v demand so Henry does have a point here. The walk out signifies that people will not pay those prices and rightly so as they are way too high but at the same time Henry is not going to just fund it with his own money. The problem lies with the extraordinary price rise in the transfer market and because we are paying 30m to sign players who may have cost 3m 5-10 years ago the club cannot win on both fronts by simply self servicing its costs. Its getting harder and harder to build or develop stadiums because of that. Unless someone is willing to take a big hit on us for the long run, I don't see any more developments or a plan to build a new stadium for the forseable future.
Back to Back World Champions baby!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
It's not to John Henry's advantage to take a risk or invest in the club maybe but there are consequences to that to the clubs future. And it's nonsense to say stadiums are only for match going fans you watch any game on TV and the camera views the stadium all the time even from the air. A stadium is an intrinsic element of the club and sponsors and future overseas fans don't only see the team they see the package the players and the team are just part of the club they are not the club itself
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 |
It's not to John Henry's advantage to take a risk or invest in the club maybe but there are consequences to that to the clubs future. And it's nonsense to say stadiums are only for match going fans you watch any game on TV and the camera views the stadium all the time even from the air. A stadium is an intrinsic element of the club and sponsors and future overseas fans don't only see the team they see the package the players and the team are just part of the club they are not the club itself
I watch games on tv more than you and I see the pitch for more than 90 mins while the stadium is viewed for a few seconds. As a fan I care much much more about the result than a stadium, in fact on tv it is mainly the stands which is viewed and rarely the full stadium. Emirates doesn't look much much better than Anfield on tv. I agree that the difference is huge to match going fans but as you said the importance of gate revenue is constantly going down. If match going fans do not want to pay more for an improved product, then there is no reason to offer that product.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,849
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,849 |
It's not to John Henry's advantage to take a risk or invest in the club maybe but there are consequences to that to the clubs future. And it's nonsense to say stadiums are only for match going fans you watch any game on TV and the camera views the stadium all the time even from the air. A stadium is an intrinsic element of the club and sponsors and future overseas fans don't only see the team they see the package the players and the team are just part of the club they are not the club itself
I watch games on tv more than you and I see the pitch for more than 90 mins while the stadium is viewed for a few seconds. As a fan I care much much more about the result than a stadium, in fact on tv it is mainly the stands which is viewed and rarely the full stadium. Emirates doesn't look much much better than Anfield on tv. I agree that the difference is huge to match going fans but as you said the importance of gate revenue is constantly going down. If match going fans do not want to pay more for an improved product, then there is no reason to offer that product. improved product? in terms of what, bigger capacity, better football? haha there could be more fans yet it not improve the atmosphere, better football wow you did really get value for money back then if you think existing fans should have to shell out more, it's not like we're hosting big CL nights, (of which we're not ready for imo)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
T It's not to John Henry's advantage to take a risk or invest in the club maybe but there are consequences to that to the clubs future. And it's nonsense to say stadiums are only for match going fans you watch any game on TV and the camera views the stadium all the time even from the air. A stadium is an intrinsic element of the club and sponsors and future overseas fans don't only see the team they see the package the players and the team are just part of the club they are not the club itself
I watch games on tv more than you and I see the pitch for more than 90 mins while the stadium is viewed for a few seconds. As a fan I care much much more about the result than a stadium, in fact on tv it is mainly the stands which is viewed and rarely the full stadium. Emirates doesn't look much much better than Anfield on tv. I agree that the difference is huge to match going fans but as you said the importance of gate revenue is constantly going down. If match going fans do not want to pay more for an improved product, then there is no reason to offer that product. You watch TV more than I do ? Really ? Evidence please
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 |
T It's not to John Henry's advantage to take a risk or invest in the club maybe but there are consequences to that to the clubs future. And it's nonsense to say stadiums are only for match going fans you watch any game on TV and the camera views the stadium all the time even from the air. A stadium is an intrinsic element of the club and sponsors and future overseas fans don't only see the team they see the package the players and the team are just part of the club they are not the club itself
I watch games on tv more than you and I see the pitch for more than 90 mins while the stadium is viewed for a few seconds. As a fan I care much much more about the result than a stadium, in fact on tv it is mainly the stands which is viewed and rarely the full stadium. Emirates doesn't look much much better than Anfield on tv. I agree that the difference is huge to match going fans but as you said the importance of gate revenue is constantly going down. If match going fans do not want to pay more for an improved product, then there is no reason to offer that product. You watch TV more than I do ? Really ? Evidence please I am watching Hull Chelsea right now live and in HD, if I want I can switch to WH/Mbrough or Watford/Bmouth, which one are you watching right now on tv? I watched Everton (not whole game because preferred to sleep after first half) and Swansea LFC earlier, tomorrow I can watch all the games if I want, I get most Spanish games though I watch mainly Barca and Real, get most CL and EL games. So though I do not watch all of them in full, I am preety sure I can watch more games than you (basically because the Saturday 3pm KO is not on tv in UK and you go to some games). What other proof do you want? I am not inviting you to Mauritius though, you can forget about this,you're too grumpy.
|
|
|
|
|
