|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 11,128
1st Team Regular
|
|
1st Team Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 11,128 |
The debt I mean not the ground Those three have precious little debt when it comes to their stadiums. Chelsea don't have a new ground. United expanded Old Toilet. City got their ground on the cheap as it was built for the commonwealth games. We are one of the top spenders in the league over the last 20 years and we still haven't won the title. A new stadium wont suddenly transform our fortunes. Leagues are won on the pitch, no one will give a sh1t what Anfield looks like if Klopp wins the league. Yes that's true Shaggy, but no one is saying a new stadium will suddenly transform our fortunes, but would you accept that a new stadium of around 70 - 75,000 seats would make a contribution? Would you accept that the quality and capacity of a clubs stadium is at the very least, one of the defining indicators of the clubs identity, ambition and status? Herc's a new stadium would be lovely but it is not essential to our long term success (only my opinion). Success on the pitch is what attracts players and we need to get that right first.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394 |
The debt I mean not the ground Those three have precious little debt when it comes to their stadiums. Chelsea don't have a new ground. United expanded Old Toilet. City got their ground on the cheap as it was built for the commonwealth games. We are one of the top spenders in the league over the last 20 years and we still haven't won the title. A new stadium wont suddenly transform our fortunes. Leagues are won on the pitch, no one will give a sh1t what Anfield looks like if Klopp wins the league. Yes that's true Shaggy, but no one is saying a new stadium will suddenly transform our fortunes, but would you accept that a new stadium of around 70 - 75,000 seats would make a contribution? Would you accept that the quality and capacity of a clubs stadium is at the very least, one of the defining indicators of the clubs identity, ambition and status? How would a big new stadium help us on the pitch? It can't kick a ball can it? It might show some form of intent but at what cost. Football matches and therefore leagues and cups are won on the pitch and if building a new stadium impacts on our playing staff and who we can recruit, how will that help us win anything? As Vish has said, they're doing things the most sensible way for a club that isn't run by some sugar daddy. They're increasing the capacity to a level that we can compete with most top clubs. All they need to do now for me is make sure they back our manager to the extent we need to sign whoever he wants to help us win things. That's the sign of ambition I want to see not some soulless new stadium to try and get one up on the Jones'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595 |
The debt I mean not the ground Those three have precious little debt when it comes to their stadiums. Chelsea don't have a new ground. United expanded Old Toilet. City got their ground on the cheap as it was built for the commonwealth games. We are one of the top spenders in the league over the last 20 years and we still haven't won the title. A new stadium wont suddenly transform our fortunes. Leagues are won on the pitch, no one will give a sh1t what Anfield looks like if Klopp wins the league. Yes that's true Shaggy, but no one is saying a new stadium will suddenly transform our fortunes, but would you accept that a new stadium of around 70 - 75,000 seats would make a contribution? Would you accept that the quality and capacity of a clubs stadium is at the very least, one of the defining indicators of the clubs identity, ambition and status? Herc's a new stadium would be lovely but it is not essential to our long term success (only my opinion). Success on the pitch is what attracts players and we need to get that right first. It's not a case of either one or t'other though Shaggy, nor is it a case of it having to be one before t'other either, as stadia tend to be built with long term borrowings, whereas players tend to be signed from current expenditure. There never will be a better time to finance a new stadium than now, with interest rates at historical lows, plus the likely rise in inflation, given that governments are desperately trying to stoke it upwards. The odds are that with owners interested in longterm involvement we would have built a new stadium on the free site offered to us in Stanley Park, but as we all know FSG aren't interested in longterm investment, hence the cheap tart up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
It's not a case of either one or t'other though Shaggy, nor is it a case of it having to be one before t'other either, as stadia tend to be built with long term borrowings, whereas players tend to be signed from current expenditure. There never will be a better time to finance a new stadium than now, with interest rates at historical lows, plus the likely rise in inflation, given that governments are desperately trying to stoke it upwards. The odds are that with owners interested in longterm involvement we would have built a new stadium on the free site offered to us in Stanley Park, but as we all know FSG aren't interested in longterm investment, hence the cheap tart up. Interest are all time low yes, but for how long? Banks are not going to fix your interest rates for the next 25 years on current terms, will they? Then you will also need to repay the capital, so it is a case of either or, the proof is Arsenal. I am not even sure banks will loan out money for the new stadium on the current LFC balance sheet and ticket prices, higher risk also means higher interest rates from Banks. Spurs are probably in a different situation as property prices in London are not like Anfield road and probably Londoners will accept a ticket price increase more easily.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595 |
You know what RFC, you're arguments make sense, and it reminds me of all the similar sensible arguments I had to endure in my (thankfully) long and varied working life, but fortunately I had the courage of my convictions and (while not ignoring them) carried on with my projects. And you know what? Despite all the predictions of doom, all worked out fine. A stadium on a free site would cost a maximum of 400m especially if it was built within the last 4 or 5 years, given the competition among building companies due to the financial crash. Well we're still in uncertain times but there are projects now under design expected to cost multiples of that, and yet those concerned are proceeding. Thank god for the risk takers for theirs is the stuff of progress. If all investors were as pessimistic as you RFC, we'd all be still living in the trees. Nobody would invest in anything because they'd have to repay the finance with interest. I'm sure you're a very skilled accountant, but I'd hazard a guess you'd never make a successful business man. In business you have to take risks, calculated risks of course, but risk none the less, otherwise you're going nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
You know what RFC, you're arguments make sense, and it reminds me of all the similar sensible arguments I had to endure in my (thankfully) long and varied working life, but fortunately I had the courage of my convictions and (while not ignoring them) carried on with my projects. And you know what? Despite all the predictions of doom, all worked out fine. A stadium on a free site would cost a maximum of 400m especially if it was built within the last 4 or 5 years, given the competition among building companies due to the financial crash. Well we're still in uncertain times but there are projects now under design expected to cost multiples of that, and yet those concerned are proceeding. Thank god for the risk takers for theirs is the stuff of progress. If all investors were as pessimistic as you RFC, we'd all be still living in the trees. Nobody would invest in anything because they'd have to repay the finance with interest. I'm sure you're a very skilled accountant, but I'd hazard a guess you'd never make a successful business man. In business you have to take risks, calculated risks of course, but risk none the less, otherwise you're going nowhere. FYI I am not an accountant and run a company and I know about risks and business plans having been taught at London Business School where I am an alumni. So please, your post makes me laugh. Do you even know what calculated risk is, do you know that you shouldn't invest where your target market cannot afford your product, looks like you don't. I hope it is not only your courage and intuition that made your conviction but your market study convinced you as well otherwise you were just lucky. Luck does work every now and then but is not the norm in business. Why didn't you take the risk of buying LFC, it was a bargain when H&G almost put it under administration?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 11,128
1st Team Regular
|
|
1st Team Regular
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 11,128 |
You know what RFC, you're arguments make sense, and it reminds me of all the similar sensible arguments I had to endure in my (thankfully) long and varied working life, but fortunately I had the courage of my convictions and (while not ignoring them) carried on with my projects. And you know what? Despite all the predictions of doom, all worked out fine. A stadium on a free site would cost a maximum of 400m especially if it was built within the last 4 or 5 years, given the competition among building companies due to the financial crash. Well we're still in uncertain times but there are projects now under design expected to cost multiples of that, and yet those concerned are proceeding. Thank god for the risk takers for theirs is the stuff of progress. If all investors were as pessimistic as you RFC, we'd all be still living in the trees. Nobody would invest in anything because they'd have to repay the finance with interest. I'm sure you're a very skilled accountant, but I'd hazard a guess you'd never make a successful business man. In business you have to take risks, calculated risks of course, but risk none the less, otherwise you're going nowhere. FYI I am not an accountant and run a company and I know about risks and business plans having been taught at London Business School where I am an alumni. So please, your post makes me laugh. Do you even know what calculated risk is, do you know that you shouldn't invest where your target market cannot afford your product, looks like you don't. I hope it is not only your courage and intuition that made your conviction but your market study convinced you as well otherwise you were just lucky. Luck does work every now and then but is not the norm in business. Why didn't you take the risk of buying LFC, it was a bargain when H&G almost put it under administration? You're not wrong there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 8,595 |
You know what RFC, you're arguments make sense, and it reminds me of all the similar sensible arguments I had to endure in my (thankfully) long and varied working life, but fortunately I had the courage of my convictions and (while not ignoring them) carried on with my projects. And you know what? Despite all the predictions of doom, all worked out fine. A stadium on a free site would cost a maximum of 400m especially if it was built within the last 4 or 5 years, given the competition among building companies due to the financial crash. Well we're still in uncertain times but there are projects now under design expected to cost multiples of that, and yet those concerned are proceeding. Thank god for the risk takers for theirs is the stuff of progress. If all investors were as pessimistic as you RFC, we'd all be still living in the trees. Nobody would invest in anything because they'd have to repay the finance with interest. I'm sure you're a very skilled accountant, but I'd hazard a guess you'd never make a successful business man. In business you have to take risks, calculated risks of course, but risk none the less, otherwise you're going nowhere. FYI I am not an accountant and run a company and I know about risks and business plans having been taught at London Business School where I am an alumni. So please, your post makes me laugh. Do you even know what calculated risk is, do you know that you shouldn't invest where your target market cannot afford your product, looks like you don't. I hope it is not only your courage and intuition that made your conviction but your market study convinced you as well otherwise you were just lucky. Luck does work every now and then but is not the norm in business. Why didn't you take the risk of buying LFC, it was a bargain when H&G almost put it under administration? Who says the target market can't afford the product? Everton is planning to build a new stadium and they operate a couple of hundred yards from Anfield! You're some businessman if you operate on assumptions like that! Or is it that you heard about the protest against FSG when they tried to increase charges? If that's the case then all I can say is the sum total of your research leaves a lot to be desired.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
You know what RFC, you're arguments make sense, and it reminds me of all the similar sensible arguments I had to endure in my (thankfully) long and varied working life, but fortunately I had the courage of my convictions and (while not ignoring them) carried on with my projects. And you know what? Despite all the predictions of doom, all worked out fine. A stadium on a free site would cost a maximum of 400m especially if it was built within the last 4 or 5 years, given the competition among building companies due to the financial crash. Well we're still in uncertain times but there are projects now under design expected to cost multiples of that, and yet those concerned are proceeding. Thank god for the risk takers for theirs is the stuff of progress. If all investors were as pessimistic as you RFC, we'd all be still living in the trees. Nobody would invest in anything because they'd have to repay the finance with interest. I'm sure you're a very skilled accountant, but I'd hazard a guess you'd never make a successful business man. In business you have to take risks, calculated risks of course, but risk none the less, otherwise you're going nowhere. FYI I am not an accountant and run a company and I know about risks and business plans having been taught at London Business School where I am an alumni. So please, your post makes me laugh. Do you even know what calculated risk is, do you know that you shouldn't invest where your target market cannot afford your product, looks like you don't. I hope it is not only your courage and intuition that made your conviction but your market study convinced you as well otherwise you were just lucky. Luck does work every now and then but is not the norm in business. Why didn't you take the risk of buying LFC, it was a bargain when H&G almost put it under administration? Who says the target market can't afford the product? Everton is planning to build a new stadium and they operate a couple of hundred yards from Anfield! You're some businessman if you operate on assumptions like that! Or is it that you heard about the protest against FSG when they tried to increase charges? If that's the case then all I can say is the sum total of your research leaves a lot to be desired. When did I claim I did the research, market study rather? I would have if I was running LFC and this is why I think those running the club did one. What I have been told here though is that Merseysiders cannot afford what Londonners can in general, one of our season ticket holders is sharing his. Regarding Everton's planning, well were also planning for the better part of the last 2 decades and nobody knows how feasible their plan is. What I have seen is the money Arsenal has been spending on transfers after they built their stadium and they have the most expensive ticket prices in the EPL+have been able to qualify for CL regularly because there were fewer competitive teams. If you cannot see that then I can do nothing, you can carry on being miserable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
I think (whatever we think) we all know there is no chance of a new stadium under FSG not a hope in hell. But this thread is about the anfield road stand rebuild which correct me if I am wrong that until a year or so ago was part of the anfield refurbishment plans following the decision not to rebuild the stadium. John Henry claims this is because of the fans not paying as much as he wants. Apart from being hugely disrespectful to the supporters (some of whom have supported the club for a lifetime) it does not hold water the marginal cost of say a £70 or a £60 ticket price within the context of TV and sponsorship money is peanuts. It may be good news it might signal FSG,s commitment to the club is going (not that they had any) and they are positioning to sell up
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|