KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum The word 'stadium' is conspicuous by its absence

? 'repay long term debt' 'investment in the squad' but no stadium??? i suppose we can't have it all - good to get rid of that pair and this lot 'seem' like a more credible outfit??? I'm nervouse though - or 'nerrvouuussss' as Maradonna would say.

I think first and foremost we need the new owners and some investment on the team. We'll get the new stadium in time I would imagine.

agreed

Yep, most important thing is getting financially viable and playing good football again. For me the stadium follows on from that.

It has to take a backseat, no point in building a beautiful new stadium and then havin no team or success to go wih it.

As much as I want Hicks and Gillet out, I'm really worried about this takeover, I can't see that there is going to be massive investment in the team. On talk sport this morning they were saying that he invested $50m into the Red Sox and they won the world series, well big wooop! £50m will buy you f**k all in the world of football. I'm 100% sure that this wasn't the sort of investment the players were hoping for. BBC reports say's this guys fortune currently stands at around £550m, peanuts in comparison to United, Chelski, City. I fear we will continue to buy budget players that will get us nowhere.

Your missing the point, at present all our profit (40+m) goes on servicing debt, we will no longer have to service debt meaning money can be invested in the squad instead. New television revenues next year, an intitial investment of say 20-40m on top of profits this year and our team will be laughing. Also this guys personal worth does not matter since he is not investing his own cash.

Winnning the world series is a big deal, in America at least, and baseball players do not come cheap.

he has a lot of contacts, and really, do you want us to turn out like another city team? spending 200 mil a year on players, that's not lfc.

no point in having a new stadium with no supporters to fill it because we play like crap, so first thing on the agenda is to get the team playing good football.

he spent 58 mil on one player for the red sox...more than what we spent on torres.

I'm not saying that winning the world series isn't a big deal, im sure it is, I was just saying that if this guy thinks an amount of around £50m will turn things around for us he is in for a shock.

When you look at the top teams in the premiership they have all spent serious amounts of money to get where they are. Year upon year Man Utd spend £60/70m in the transfer market and buy quality players, my concern is that after the joy of getting rid of Hicks and Gillet are we going to be left with an owner who has aquired an amazing asset but doesn't want to invest money in players in these uncertain financial times. People with serious amounts to invest don't have as much to worry about in this regard.

I'm not saying he will or he won't, I hope he comes through and turns the club around finacially but if he, like Hicks and Gillet realised pretty quickly they had taken on more than they could handle financially we could be in this same situation two years down the line.

I've got my fingers crossed but I won't be celebrating too soon.

This geezer is alledgedly worth a 'mere £540m'

We don't know how much he's proposing to pay for the club, but if it's say a mere £350m, can we get a new stadium built with the change?