Notices
Closed Thread
Page 1 of 97 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 2890

Thread: Stadium Expansion?

  1. #1 Anfield Stadium Expansion? 
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    53
    Can somebody please tell me when this stadium expansion at Anfield is going ahead because it is really getting on my nerves! It's taking the club nearly 11 years to begin proper talks on plans etc. so does anybody have any details on this to inform me about.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #2  
    Coach791 is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    34,662
    Quote Originally Posted by LFClegendLFC View Post
    Can somebody please tell me when this stadium expansion at Anfield is going ahead because it is really getting on my nerves! It's taking the club nearly 11 years to begin proper talks on plans etc. so does anybody have any details on this to inform me about.
    think they're still trying to negotiate sale of last properties in area, those in there don't want to leave and you can't blame them if that's their home. CPO's been approved but LFc won't want to rush in and be heavy handed.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #3  
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    23,775
    Quote Originally Posted by LFClegendLFC View Post
    Can somebody please tell me when this stadium expansion at Anfield is going ahead because it is really getting on my nerves! It's taking the club nearly 11 years to begin proper talks on plans etc. so does anybody have any details on this to inform me about.
    Last information was awaiting on about 5 properties, all empty, to be bought/sold. If that doesn't happen it goes to compulsory purchase order, which takes yeons!
    Nothing is impossible whilst it's still possible..........
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #4  
    Banger1 is offline Armchair supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2
    I hope they go for an over 70, 000 capacity stadium rather than the original 60,000.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #5  
    smokintony is offline Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    53,665
    we will be asking this same thing in another 10 years time
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #6  
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    53
    70,000 seats would be perfect. It will be a real boost for us financially, and the KOP will be even louder than ever! Will be a true fortress!
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #7  
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,745
    I wouldn't snub a 60,000 capacity stadium, that's like adding an entire Kop end stand plus an additional 3,000 seats!!

    70,000 wouldn't half be sweet though
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #8  
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    20,295
    Quote Originally Posted by RedTrilogy View Post
    Last information was awaiting on about 5 properties, all empty, to be bought/sold. If that doesn't happen it goes to compulsory purchase order, which takes yeons!
    This is what I don't understand why we're looking to develop Anfield far as I remember reading the houseing around the stadium has always been stumbling block I think about 15 years the development as people do not want to sell even double asking price,

    Like you said it could take years for us to actually get rid of the remaining houseing all that lawyer fees so on and so forth to just get this far seems ridiculous when we could have used that money to go ahead with the original plan to move away from Anfield
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #9  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,830
    Quote Originally Posted by BeautifulHistory View Post
    This is what I don't understand why we're looking to develop Anfield far as I remember reading the houseing around the stadium has always been stumbling block I think about 15 years the development as people do not want to sell even double asking price,

    Like you said it could take years for us to actually get rid of the remaining houseing all that lawyer fees so on and so forth to just get this far seems ridiculous when we could have used that money to go ahead with the original plan to move away from Anfield
    But to build a new stadium would have cost twice as much as redeveloping and extending Anfield. Not only would we have lost the traditions associated with Anfield, we would have been starved of money to invest in the team for years

    Lower divisions in England are full of clubs who built new stadiums when they were in the Premiership but their teams suffered, got relegated and have never recovered
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #10  
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    27,456
    Quote Originally Posted by BeautifulHistory View Post
    This is what I don't understand why we're looking to develop Anfield far as I remember reading the houseing around the stadium has always been stumbling block I think about 15 years the development as people do not want to sell even double asking price,

    Like you said it could take years for us to actually get rid of the remaining houseing all that lawyer fees so on and so forth to just get this far seems ridiculous when we could have used that money to go ahead with the original plan to move away from Anfield
    I am in favour of preserving Anfield but obviously update it. It is terribly frustrating that this expansion is taking so long.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #11  
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    20,295
    Quote Originally Posted by TAFFYFROG View Post
    But to build a new stadium would have cost twice as much as redeveloping and extending Anfield. Not only would we have lost the traditions associated with Anfield, we would have been starved of money to invest in the team for years

    Lower divisions in England are full of clubs who built new stadiums when they were in the Premiership but their teams suffered, got relegated and have never recovered
    If my memory serves me right I think in 2000 we have had planning permission to build a 60,000 stadium on Stanley Park and we were already to build the stadium but we pulled out because the manager at the time wanted more money to buy players


    When Fenway Sports Group took over the lease, planning permissions, and the go-ahead was already for Stanley Park, it was just a case of raising an extra hundred million,

    In their three years or so being here they spent money after money trying to scrap the whole Stanley Park project, pouring money into get new designs for Anfield and trying to move residents out of Anfield


    Basically this been from from 2000 permission to build a new stadium,

    I agree that Anfield has tradition but tradition shouldn't hold back a club, these to be saying associated with Liverpool don't follow trends they make, all-around Europe virtually every top club has got a brand-new spanking stadium which puts Anfield like a relic,

    The fact of the 20 odd years the club was in a time loop thinking it was still in the 80s where money then roll football cost us dramatically and we slowly cottoning on to the idea that money is the only driving force in football

    But that's just all my opinions and everyone has their own happy New Year
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #12  
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    40
    I did the ground tour a few months back the guide was 63000 max to start with until they prove the club can handle the extra traffic then after 2 years can go to 70000+ if the council clear it
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #13  
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    72
    All this talk of how much extra it would cost to build in Stanley Park and that we would lose the special atmosphere of Anfield is talking a load of tosh/cr*p.

    If FSG had started construction 2 years ago the ground would be almost complete by now if not finished. We would then be reaping the benefits of the extra matchday revenue. By the time the redevelopment actually occurs we will have lost millions and millions of the revenue we could have had if the new stadium had been built. This is a number that nobody seems to take into account when comparing the 2 plans.

    As to the atmosphere at Anfield, I have had some great times and occasions on the Kop, but the important thing to remember is that it is us the fans that create the atmosphere, the more there the better the atmosphere. Many has been the time in which we have gone to an away match and recreated the atmosphere of Anfield so that the home fans and team are not sure where they are playing.

    The other specious argument is that the expense of building will reduce the money available for squad building. Apart from when King Kenny was appointed FSG have kept a tight rein on expenditure. We are now shopping in the bargain basement, sometimes that gets us a gem, eg Coutinho, Sturridge, but mainly it gets us players with potential (smiles amusingly) such as Borini, Aspas, etc.

    We desperately needed a creative midfielder in the summer but were not allowed to pay the price for quality. We still need to fill this position but does anybody really think that FSG will let Brendan spend £25-30million for the quality player who can come straight in and make the difference.

    Although we didn't deserve to lose the Christmas games, what they showed was the lack of depth in the squad, having to replace Coutinho with Aspas is like replacing caviar with ant eggs but still expecting the taste to remain the same.

    I trust Brendan Rodgers to spend wisely but he does need to be able to compete in the market with the other teams, not spending stupidly like City, Chelski, Spuds, etc., but with his normal astute common sense approach.

    I have said it before and I repeat it here again, though nowhere near as bad as H&G there are now a lot of similar things being done by FSG. Transfer funds grudgingly released, promises of changes to the stadium, not even a hint of a date.

    As per H&G string them on, take their money say sweet reassuring things but do very little.

    We were lucky to have Rafa with H&G and I believe we are also lucky to have Brendan with this new lot.

    Happy New Year to all you RedMen, and women, out there

    YNWA
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #14  
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,378
    Quote Originally Posted by fanfor50yrs View Post
    All this talk of how much extra it would cost to build in Stanley Park and that we would lose the special atmosphere of Anfield is talking a load of tosh/cr*p.

    If FSG had started construction 2 years ago the ground would be almost complete by now if not finished. We would then be reaping the benefits of the extra matchday revenue. By the time the redevelopment actually occurs we will have lost millions and millions of the revenue we could have had if the new stadium had been built. This is a number that nobody seems to take into account when comparing the 2 plans.

    As to the atmosphere at Anfield, I have had some great times and occasions on the Kop, but the important thing to remember is that it is us the fans that create the atmosphere, the more there the better the atmosphere. Many has been the time in which we have gone to an away match and recreated the atmosphere of Anfield so that the home fans and team are not sure where they are playing.

    The other specious argument is that the expense of building will reduce the money available for squad building. Apart from when King Kenny was appointed FSG have kept a tight rein on expenditure. We are now shopping in the bargain basement, sometimes that gets us a gem, eg Coutinho, Sturridge, but mainly it gets us players with potential (smiles amusingly) such as Borini, Aspas, etc.

    We desperately needed a creative midfielder in the summer but were not allowed to pay the price for quality. We still need to fill this position but does anybody really think that FSG will let Brendan spend £25-30million for the quality player who can come straight in and make the difference.

    Although we didn't deserve to lose the Christmas games, what they showed was the lack of depth in the squad, having to replace Coutinho with Aspas is like replacing caviar with ant eggs but still expecting the taste to remain the same.

    I trust Brendan Rodgers to spend wisely but he does need to be able to compete in the market with the other teams, not spending stupidly like City, Chelski, Spuds, etc., but with his normal astute common sense approach.

    I have said it before and I repeat it here again, though nowhere near as bad as H&G there are now a lot of similar things being done by FSG. Transfer funds grudgingly released, promises of changes to the stadium, not even a hint of a date.

    As per H&G string them on, take their money say sweet reassuring things but do very little.

    We were lucky to have Rafa with H&G and I believe we are also lucky to have Brendan with this new lot.

    Happy New Year to all you RedMen, and women, out there

    YNWA
    That was a delightful read.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #15  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,830
    Quote Originally Posted by BeautifulHistory View Post
    If my memory serves me right I think in 2000 we have had planning permission to build a 60,000 stadium on Stanley Park and we were already to build the stadium but we pulled out because the manager at the time wanted more money to buy players


    When Fenway Sports Group took over the lease, planning permissions, and the go-ahead was already for Stanley Park, it was just a case of raising an extra hundred million,

    In their three years or so being here they spent money after money trying to scrap the whole Stanley Park project, pouring money into get new designs for Anfield and trying to move residents out of Anfield


    Basically this been from from 2000 permission to build a new stadium,

    I agree that Anfield has tradition but tradition shouldn't hold back a club, these to be saying associated with Liverpool don't follow trends they make, all-around Europe virtually every top club has got a brand-new spanking stadium which puts Anfield like a relic,

    The fact of the 20 odd years the club was in a time loop thinking it was still in the 80s where money then roll football cost us dramatically and we slowly cottoning on to the idea that money is the only driving force in football

    But that's just all my opinions and everyone has their own happy New Year
    What an incoherent load of crap that was!

    A new stadium would have cost £600 million

    Redevelopment of Anfield will cost an estimated £300 million. That is £300 million saved that can be reinvested elsewhere, including in the team

    Where the hell did you get it from that we were only £100 million short of the money to build the stadium in 2010? The club were already over £260million in debt and certainly did not have £500 million waiting to spend on a new stadium

    H&G had no money for a new stadium, they never had. Their plan was to borrow further massive amounts to build the stadium secured against the club. The financial crisis meant they could not borrow the money as they intended, and tighter financial reviews by lenders started to raise questions about their sport franchise business dealings in the USA, most of which had followed the same blue print they were proposing at Liverpool and most had ended up as total disasters

    Until H&G "bought" Liverpool FC we were owned by members of the Moores family who did not have the financial resources to build a new stadium, nor ultimately to compete with the spiralling transfer fees when the billionaire owners started to move into football

    David Moores tried to do the decent thing and sell the club to responsible owners but sadly failed to identify the right buyers
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #16  
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    9,018
    Quote Originally Posted by TAFFYFROG View Post
    David Moores tried to do the decent thing and sell the club to responsible owners but sadly failed to identify the right buyers
    Aye, your possibly right there..

    Pity him or any of his advisors and friends never had the internet. Could have saved millions of people plenty of heartache all for £7.50 a month or free with sky subscription
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #17  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,830
    Quote Originally Posted by fanfor50yrs View Post
    All this talk of how much extra it would cost to build in Stanley Park and that we would lose the special atmosphere of Anfield is talking a load of tosh/cr*p.

    If FSG had started construction 2 years ago the ground would be almost complete by now if not finished. We would then be reaping the benefits of the extra matchday revenue. By the time the redevelopment actually occurs we will have lost millions and millions of the revenue we could have had if the new stadium had been built. This is a number that nobody seems to take into account when comparing the 2 plans.

    As to the atmosphere at Anfield, I have had some great times and occasions on the Kop, but the important thing to remember is that it is us the fans that create the atmosphere, the more there the better the atmosphere. Many has been the time in which we have gone to an away match and recreated the atmosphere of Anfield so that the home fans and team are not sure where they are playing.

    The other specious argument is that the expense of building will reduce the money available for squad building. Apart from when King Kenny was appointed FSG have kept a tight rein on expenditure. We are now shopping in the bargain basement, sometimes that gets us a gem, eg Coutinho, Sturridge, but mainly it gets us players with potential (smiles amusingly) such as Borini, Aspas, etc.

    We desperately needed a creative midfielder in the summer but were not allowed to pay the price for quality. We still need to fill this position but does anybody really think that FSG will let Brendan spend £25-30million for the quality player who can come straight in and make the difference.

    Although we didn't deserve to lose the Christmas games, what they showed was the lack of depth in the squad, having to replace Coutinho with Aspas is like replacing caviar with ant eggs but still expecting the taste to remain the same.

    I trust Brendan Rodgers to spend wisely but he does need to be able to compete in the market with the other teams, not spending stupidly like City, Chelski, Spuds, etc., but with his normal astute common sense approach.

    I have said it before and I repeat it here again, though nowhere near as bad as H&G there are now a lot of similar things being done by FSG. Transfer funds grudgingly released, promises of changes to the stadium, not even a hint of a date.

    As per H&G string them on, take their money say sweet reassuring things but do very little.

    We were lucky to have Rafa with H&G and I believe we are also lucky to have Brendan with this new lot.

    Happy New Year to all you RedMen, and women, out there

    YNWA
    OMG, a second load of crap to read on the same morning in the same thread by another clueless individual!

    If FSG had started to build the new stadium 2 years ago as you suggest, who would have financed the £600 million needed?

    As Ian Ayre has pointed out several times the difference in the additional seats available in the new stadium compared to an enlarged Anfield do not and will never justify the additional £300 million required to build the new stadium

    The lower leagues are full of clubs who at one time were in the top division and owned by egotistical owners who invested huge some in brand new stadiums, that are now three quarters empty as the crippling debts of the stadiums forced the clubs to sell their best players, and often into administration

    We have a small number of fans whose collective IQs would not reach double figures who's answer to every difficult question is that FSG, that collection of sports fan businessmen from the USA, should just spend every last nickel they have to give Liverpool supporters what ever they want

    FSG are confident they can get the money to extend Anfield, and increase revenues from tickets, refreshments and merchandise without crippling the club with debt, allowing the club to remain largely self financing and sustainable and allowing ongoing investment in the team. They have a track record of doing this successfully with the Boston Red Sox

    Despite this we still have fans who want to spend £600 million on a new stadium with no ideas as to where the money will come from, how it will be paid back without strangling the team of investment, the levels of interest payments required, etc, etc

    Of all the teams at the top of the Premiership inly two have new stadiums. man City's was built by the tax payer for the Manchester Commonwealth Games, and Arsenal borrowed to fund the building of The Emirates Stadium but were then starved of money to strengthen the team for several years, which coincided with several of their established players leaving the club and not being able to replace with similar quality

    Manure, Chelsea, Tottenham and Newcastle all extended or improved their existing facilities. Southampton built a new stadium but then got relegated and went into administration and spent a long time in the next league down
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #18  
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    23,775
    Anfield or nothing, it's worth the wait even if the stadium has had no expansion since Rushy hung up his boots!

    Although some suggest nothing has been done, loads has been done. FSG and the Council have worked tirelessly to get where we are now. Yes, it's slow but it's slow progress rather than nothing.

    Here are a few things that have happened, even since the acquisition of many homes and the demolition of some, particularly to the rear of the Annie Road:

    Main Stand Corporates?

    A LIFELONG Liverpool FC fan spoke of her rage after the club changed her season tickets so it can develop the corporate hospitality market.

    Susan Roberts, whose two Anfield Main Stand seats have been in her family for 108 years, said the club lacked “honour” and have treated long-standing fans in a “shoddy manner”.

    The 67-year-old Mossley Hill resident was one of 55 season ticket holders who were informed that the club wanted to make changes to the stand in order to “better link” lounges and seating facilities in readiness for next season.

    The area set for change includes the first five rows of the Main Stand.
    Clearly plans have started on the Main Stand.

    Although completed in phases, this appears to be the expected first and second phase development to take capacity over 60k seats: https://fbexternal-a.akamaihd.net/sa...re%3Dog&jq=100

    YOUTUBE version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba12Q_dOMRY

    They appeared in national and local papers.

    If you are worried about finance, this is what JH said:

    Liverpool owner John W Henry says finance is in place for Anfield revamp

    John W Henry, Liverpool's principal owner, has said there will be no repeat of the stalled stadium projects of Tom Hicks and George Gillett because Fenway Sports Group has the financial backing to redevelop Anfield.

    Liverpool announced last October that plans for a new stadium on Stanley Park had been scrapped in favour of refurbishing the club's historic home into a 60,000-capacity stadium, costing approximately £154m. Henry insists "good progress" has been made by Liverpool city council in purchasing the few remaining privately owned properties around Anfield, although a planning application will be submitted only once those deals are complete.
    All in good time.
    Nothing is impossible whilst it's still possible..........
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #19  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    879
    I think we all need to accept that
    1: we will be staying put at Anfield and have it redeveloped
    2: it's gonna take time

    The owners have done a lot of background work and when your dealing with someone's home/homes you have to act in a dignified manner.

    Being selfish I'd love a 65000 stadium
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #20  
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,093
    FSG seem the real deal and the polar opposite of H&G......

    The figures and financial analysis spoken of by Ayre and FSG gives me confidence in their decision making......

    I would prefer the redevelopment of Anfield any day, keeping our traditions at our traditional home for the next 50yrs or so is worth waiting for than building a soulless new stadia......
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #21  
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    53
    I think we need to qualify for Champions League first, and then begin expansion, as if we were to go all the way, (not saying we will) we would receive in the region of £60-70 million from the entire competition which is alot of money. This is what I would plan:

    This season: Qualify for Champions League to ensure we bring in further funding for the owners.
    End of season/pre-season: Begin stadium expansion to 60,000-70,000.
    Sell off name rights, which I understand would upset some supporters, but we have to be realistic here, and it is costing the owners alot of money so I understand that they will want to make some of that back, from selling off name rights for Anfield, and Melwood.

    I did hear about some Dubai Oil company willing to pay us £25 million a season for us to have their name on the training ground, or stadium. It would also only be on their for two seasons.

    2015-2016- finish stadium expansion and let the revenue roll in.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #22  
    raybarnes is offline Football Discussion Football Poster of the Season 2013-14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    39,313
    Champions League football equals ground redevelopment
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #23  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,830
    Quote Originally Posted by redrazer View Post
    I did the ground tour a few months back the guide was 63000 max to start with until they prove the club can handle the extra traffic then after 2 years can go to 70000+ if the council clear it
    I think is the most exciting "news" in the whole thread

    That would make a lot of sense for all concerned, including placating our fans who would like us to have a bigger stadium

    We appear to have started some of the initial internal redevelopment based on some of the posts above. If we can start the major redevelopment shortly and have it completed in 18 months that would be great. If we enter the 2016/17 season in the Champions League for the 3rd successive year that could be the catalyst for the final expansion to a 70,000 seater stadium which would be great

    I have no issues with naming rights for the training ground, and no particularly strong views on the naming rights for the stadium other than that "Anfield" is an iconic brand and so hopefully a major interested party would wish to retain that brand name within the new name
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #24  
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    23,775
    Just reading about the first 5 rows of the Main Stand again, I wonder if there is an intention to widen the pitch and indeed lengthen it at the Annie Road end during works?
    Nothing is impossible whilst it's still possible..........
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #25  
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    72
    I so enjoy reading a clueless idiot calling other people clueless idiots. To each his own but check your IQ before calling anybody a clueless idiot, just to help you mine was last tested at 168. Take the test and see if you can score above 120.

    If Stanley Park was going to cost £600 million the planned expansion will be at least half of that, where's that money coming from.

    Arsenal built their new stadium for around £390 million, rising to nearly £4700 million if you include other costs, on loans backed by their sponsors, and incredibly enough they have proved my point. They have repaid entirely the loans on the new ground from the extra revenue raised on matchdays and other occasions. Meanwhile they also managed to retain European Champions League every year.

    As a clueless idiot have you calculated how much revenue we will lose from closing off parts of the ground while redevelopment occurs, unless we do it piecemeal further delaying the full increase in revenue.

    Whether it is redevelopment or new build, it will probably be done by a series of stage payments, like when a house is built.

    Meanwhile none of this distracts from my main point, could my new clueless idiot "friend"give me a date as to when we will see FSG putting a spade into the ground.

    Also I still need him to answer why FSG have not given Rodgers the normal annual budget, say £25 million, for transfers to which should be added the extra £30 million that each PL club has gained as a result of the new TV deal. To me, and I did check it with a calculator, that comes to £55 million. Does my new "friend" believe that Rodgers will be given that amount, I somehow doubt it but no accounting for clueless idiots.

    We all cheered when H&G took over and gave us all sweet whispers, I remember how the people who warned against them were criticised. I'm not saying that FSG will turn into H&G merely stating that there appears to be a lot of similarity with H&G in how they are acting, eg. low transfer budgets, ground progress, etc. The main difference between H&G and FSG at the moment is that we now have a supporters committee, possibly a toothless sop to make us feel more involved.

    As I have said on previous occasions, I truly hope to be proved wrong and that FSG do everything they promised, but I have just placed a bet that the spade will not be in the ground before 2020.

    As before, Happy New Year to all red-people and try not to dribble and drool too much my new found clueless "friend". I found it easier to talk at your level after I took my prescribed pain medication of morphine because otherwise I would have probably found it too demanding.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #26  
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    23,775
    The planned expansion is set to cost £150 million, as indicated by FSG and Ian Ayre recently. They claim the money is already in place and of particular note, infrastructure costs do not affect FFPR.
    Nothing is impossible whilst it's still possible..........
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #27  
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,057
    Quote Originally Posted by fanfor50yrs View Post
    I so enjoy reading a clueless idiot calling other people clueless idiots. To each his own but check your IQ before calling anybody a clueless idiot, just to help you mine was last tested at 168. Take the test and see if you can score above 120.

    If Stanley Park was going to cost £600 million the planned expansion will be at least half of that, where's that money coming from.

    Arsenal built their new stadium for around £390 million, rising to nearly £4700 million if you include other costs, on loans backed by their sponsors, and incredibly enough they have proved my point. They have repaid entirely the loans on the new ground from the extra revenue raised on matchdays and other occasions. Meanwhile they also managed to retain European Champions League every year.

    As a clueless idiot have you calculated how much revenue we will lose from closing off parts of the ground while redevelopment occurs, unless we do it piecemeal further delaying the full increase in revenue.

    Whether it is redevelopment or new build, it will probably be done by a series of stage payments, like when a house is built.

    Meanwhile none of this distracts from my main point, could my new clueless idiot "friend"give me a date as to when we will see FSG putting a spade into the ground.

    Also I still need him to answer why FSG have not given Rodgers the normal annual budget, say £25 million, for transfers to which should be added the extra £30 million that each PL club has gained as a result of the new TV deal. To me, and I did check it with a calculator, that comes to £55 million. Does my new "friend" believe that Rodgers will be given that amount, I somehow doubt it but no accounting for clueless idiots.

    We all cheered when H&G took over and gave us all sweet whispers, I remember how the people who warned against them were criticised. I'm not saying that FSG will turn into H&G merely stating that there appears to be a lot of similarity with H&G in how they are acting, eg. low transfer budgets, ground progress, etc. The main difference between H&G and FSG at the moment is that we now have a supporters committee, possibly a toothless sop to make us feel more involved.

    As I have said on previous occasions, I truly hope to be proved wrong and that FSG do everything they promised, but I have just placed a bet that the spade will not be in the ground before 2020.

    As before, Happy New Year to all red-people and try not to dribble and drool too much my new found clueless "friend". I found it easier to talk at your level after I took my prescribed pain medication of morphine because otherwise I would have probably found it too demanding.
    Arsenals ground cost them £4.7 billion?? No wonder they couldn't afford Suarez.....

    And tbf they recouped a large percentage of this money from the sale of the land at Highbury.
    Cos I'm brown and knobbly.....
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #28  
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,830
    OMG, some people should stop digging once they find themselves in a hole!

    The extra tv money is for this season, therefore it was not available for last summer's transfer window!

    As FSG and Ian Ayre have pointed out several times, Arsenal are based in London, and the kind of ticket prices, corporate box fees and sponsorship money available in London is simply not achievable in Liverpool. The club undertook external research on the best and most affordable options rather than just state drivel

    During the time it took Arsenal to build the Emirates stadium and pay off the debt they won NO trophies. The nearest they got was losing a Carling Cup final

    The poster states Arsenal's sponsors were prepared to underwrite the cost of the stadium. I don't believe our sponsors made the same offer so the whole debt and the whole risk would be on Liverpool FC

    Repeated threads on the stadium confirm that there are an increasingly small group of fans who are fixated on building anew stadium, almost for the sake of having a shiny new edifice

    Most fans don't want the current owners to repeat the mistakes of H&G and make false promises on when redevelopment will eventually start

    Most fans want a team that wins meaningful trophies and view that as more important than spending a few hundred million needlessly on a new stadium
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #29  
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,745
    Quote Originally Posted by twiglet1974 View Post
    Arsenals ground cost them £4.7 billion?? No wonder they couldn't afford Suarez.....

    And tbf they recouped a large percentage of this money from the sale of the land at Highbury.
    I think he over pressed the zero key

    It wasn't £4.7 billion

    It was a reported £470 million
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #30  
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    72
    I would rather be digging a hole, spiral with steps to enable easy access and egress, than start each of my comments with your religious fervour. It is understandable that you believe OMG gives your posts some sort of credibility because they are backed up by your version of a Supreme Being, but most people are able to see past that.

    I find it incredible, but not surprising, that you believe that I said he should have had the extra TV money for the summer signings. Just 4 simply put, just for you, points to make on that:-

    1 - nowhere in my post did I say in which window when Brendan should have that money.

    1 - that money became available at the start of this season not at end.

    2 - Any business would be given a short term low interest loan on the basis of a good order book or guaranteed income. So the money could have been made available for minimal cost.

    3 - There should be a budget for the January window, same as every year, unless your name is Vincent Tam.

    4 - Now do a simple sum, just message me if you need any help, add together the normal January transfer budget, let's say £20 million, plus the new TV money of £30 million and you arrive at, I'm sure you've got it by now, £50 million.

    Now in your naivety you might believe that this is how much Brendan will be given to spend in January. Meanwhile I personally have my doubts about this but if I'm wrong then I hope to see Draxler or Martinez or Mata walking into Anfield and signing on the dotted line.

    If you were paying attention to all of the words in my post you would not have seen a single word about wanting to see the mistakes of H&G repeated, I like a lot of LFC supporters sent protest emails to potential investors that might bail them out. I did in fact suggest that we might want to be cautious about FSG until we see their words followed by action, eg a start and finish date for the expansion, better transfer funds for Brendan. Last summer FSG did great work in keeping Suarez, but it was also suggested that if he did leave then Brendan would get some of the money to reinvest. In reality Brendan should have been told he would get all the money plus the original budget, say £50 million for Suarez and the £25 million budget.

    You appear to be prepared to wait forever for the ground expansion, I meanwhile, probably like a lot of other supporters, feel that after 3 years we should be getting an indication of when we will have the expansion. It appears at the moment that if just 1 or 2 householders decide to hold out then the current approach could lead to an indefinite delay.

    I find myself strangely in agreement with you about wanting to win things rather than wasting hundreds of millions, but would like to see some of that money invested in the team. We also need to build for now not just for the future. The problem with buying potential is that it is realised less than 50% of the time.

    Now to other points, I am not necessarily an advocate of building a new ground, I have merely stated the fact that if that had been the selected option we would now be sitting in the new ground at Stanley park and have started to pay off the costs. I believe we have waited too long for that to be a viable option now, however, just how much longer do we need to wait for the ground expansion and how much further might we fall behind the others.

    We are having a great season but unfortunately the lack of squad depth is making us suffer, What other team would need to substitute Coutinho, Sterling or Henderson with players the quality of Aspas and Moses. Why do we lack squad depth, bad investment and lack of transfer funds. It has been obvious we needed another creative midfielder but whenever we seemed to get close 2 thngs stopped us, lack of Champions League and money. Now we are in the top four do you think we'll spend the £25 - 40 million needed to get a quality proven creative midfielder who can step straight into the team. It's more likely that we'll buy 3 players for £7 million each and hope one of them will turn out to be a gem

    Both you and Ian Ayre just need to look a few miles down the road and you will see that a significant portion of their matchday revenue comes from corporate sales, ie boxes. This totally and unequivocally shows the speciousness of the argument about not getting corporate revenue because of our geographical position. The reason behind their corporate revenue is their success not their location. I know a lot of their support is from the South but I am also certain that their ground is not magically transported to the South for matchdays.

    Businesses will pay for a corporate box at a successful club no matter where they or the club are based. It often happens as a result of that marvellous invention by the Wright brothers. There are 2 reasons why businesses pay for corporate boxes, the first is if the MD is a fan and the second is that they want to associate their business with success and be able to show this to their clients by inviting them to the box on matchdays. I know this personally as a result of personal experience.

    I even mentioned in my response that Arsenal were not winning trophies while paying off their debt, but be a brave boy and tell me how many times they qualified for Champions League compared to us. If you were paying attention you would have noticed they managed to pay over £40 million for one truly world class player and were willing to pay that sum again for another. I'll give you a clue as to how they did it, matchday revenue.

    As to most fans. for whom you think you are the appointed mouthpiece, whilst they would probably like to win trophies they would also probably like to compete in the transfer market with the likes of Arsenal, Manure and even possibly Southampton and Spuds. Did you see how I have tried to get out of appearing to be the mouthpiece for all LFC fans.

    I was also overjoyed to see how close to the pulse of LFC business activities you are to be able to state that you don't think any financial backing/guarantees would be available from any of our business partners. Big statement, could be true might not be. In these cases unless I know for certain I tend to keep my mouth shut and my fingers under control.

    Now, in the spirit of being helpful I'll let you choose a little Xmas present from me, another spade to replace the current one which is probably getting a bit blunt by now, or, an expandable ladder. I would personally recommend the ladder although there is no accounting for certain people.

    OMG that could be a sign of me becoming magnanimous in my old age.

    OMG, I just noticed I used OMG. Must be that those three letters really do lend weight to a comment.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •