Would you accept a Stadium name change for £50 million+ a season?

[dennis tooth]

But Arsenal are paying their stadium off solely to produce revenues that will enable them to compete. There is no way they will remain a selling club any longer. They splashed £40m on Ozil, now they're looking at Draxlers release clause of £37m. For Arsenal it was always just a means to an end.

 

It's OK us being no ones bitches, but when Chelsea come and take away what was our best player for a British record then we are definitely other clubs bitches. Suarez wanted to leave us for Arsenal in the summer. Arsenal were widely being talked about as a team on a decline rather than an upward curve at the time as well, and being the ones to drop out of the top 4 at the expense of spurs.

 

You make it sound so easy - sell player x, buy player y and the production line goes on - but it doesn't, at least not on a generational basis. 

 

Compare us with Barca all you like but it's fantasy. They're in a different stratosphere to us at the moment. Modern life is full of idiots and modern football is a perfect replication. When players like Lukaku talk about dreaming about playing for Chelsea, then it shows how quickly teams can get left behind and others can take their place.

 

But the fact that they have been competitive in that time anyway makes that method as redundant as dumbo's feather.

Arsene has always been a tight bastard and I doubt that will stop, they were supposed to have all this money in the summer but bid a pound for Suarez. 

Wenger may be, as many have predicted about to the buck the trend of a lifetime but Im sceptical, until it happens Im gonna pass on discussing it further, I may be wrong but I dont think it will happen. Spurs are an ace case in point, just blown £100m on new players, half of them want out already and they are in disarray, whereas Arsenal are top with Chelsea and City scrambling behind them, a mere snapshot but relevant. We have leapfrogged Spurs ourselves, in a big way, its the continuity thats done that, they've been disrupted, had to sack their manager, Man U have lost that same continuity they have enjoyed for years, these are bigger pointers.

In the torres to chelsea deal we werent the bitches in that, even if Purslow personally acted like one. If you sell a aston martin with no engine to someone for price of a fully working one then they are the bitch not you, even if at the time they think you are.

As for Ozil, well thats a tranfer well within the parameters of being prudent, likewise Barca buying Neymar or the occasional Villa but interestingly its always the players grown internally that  they rely on the most.

[dennis tooth]

I'm not sure you know what you're for/against and it changes as comparisons are drawn.

Nar its just called devils advocat.

[dennis tooth]

I don’t think that developing from within on its own is enough. Man U, Barca and Madrid have all bought heavily in their glory years and Dortmund have spent £64m in two seasons on four players alone.

 

It is a new, or significantly expanded, stadium that will really pay us back in the future, something which FSG continue to dither over.

 

I worry about a rebranded Anfield but not a corporate branded new stadium. The former would undoubtedly attract FSG as it is money for nothing, just as squeezing extra cash through price rises on a stadium kept artificially small suits them as it is all profit. Don’t imagine that it wouls all go into the players’ fund.

 

I quite like our stadium and I'd rather take my chance within it, its hardly woodison and we can do just fine with what we have its what we do on the training pitch and the pitch that counts

[dave u]

Absolutely, depending on who it is.  For example, I wouldn't want the 'Primark Stadium' or 'Matalan Park'.

 

As long as it's nothing cringeworthy then take it.  It'll always be Anfield to us anyway.

[xerxes]

I quite like our stadium and I'd rather take my chance within it, its hardly woodison and we can do just fine with what we have its what we do on the training pitch and the pitch that counts

Arsenal and Man U bank £50m a season more than us in matchday income, there is no chance that ducking and diving can overhaul that. Of course there will be the odd season when we get lucky, but it is impossible to do that consistently.

[Horus]

But the fact that they have been competitive in that time anyway makes that method as redundant as dumbo's feather.

Arsene has always been a tight bastard and I doubt that will stop, they were supposed to have all this money in the summer but bid a pound for Suarez. 

Wenger may be, as many have predicted about to the buck the trend of a lifetime but Im sceptical, until it happens Im gonna pass on discussing it further, I may be wrong but I dont think it will happen. Spurs are an ace case in point, just blown £100m on new players, half of them want out already and they are in disarray, whereas Arsenal are top with Chelsea and City scrambling behind them, a mere snapshot but relevant. We have leapfrogged Spurs ourselves, in a big way, its the continuity thats done that, they've been disrupted, had to sack their manager, Man U have lost that same continuity they have enjoyed for years, these are bigger pointers.

In the torres to chelsea deal we werent the bitches in that, even if Purslow personally acted like one. If you sell a aston martin with no engine to someone for price of a fully working one then they are the bitch not you, even if at the time they think you are.

As for Ozil, well thats a tranfer well within the parameters of being prudent, likewise Barca buying Neymar or the occasional Villa but interestingly its always the players grown internally that  they rely on the most.

It doesn't make it redundant at all as It was circumstances that enabled that. If Man City had been around as long as Chelsea then Arsenal (who have constantly been stripped of their best players by their rivals), wouldn't have coped. They've found it increasingly difficult these last few years, and we were finishing above them for most of Rafa's reign, so they've relied (as we have) on others not being to standard to get in to the top 4.

 

Not even win trophies, just stay in the top 4. 

 

Arsene the tight bastard was happy to spunk money before Chelsea came along and he suddenly developed this moral compass - which coincidentally (hmmmm) happened at the same time as the stadium. 

 

We definitely were the bitches in that Torres deal. The fact that hindsight shows us as the winners, shouldn't hide that fact either. We didn't want to sell, he wanted to leave and pushed it through. 

[dennis tooth]

Arsenal and Man U bank £50m a season more than us in matchday income, there is no chance that ducking and diving can overhaul that. Of course there will be the odd season when we get lucky, but it is impossible to do that consistently.

Yeah but I just count the points tally.

[clangers]

The thing that concerns me most with the neverending commercialism is what's next? I assume we're staring at renaming ourselves the 'Liverpool Liverbirds' further down the line?

[Cardie]

Yeah but I just count the points tally.

 

Because there's no correlation.

 

It's why you saw Wigan or Palace up their at the top of the league year on year fighting it out as an under dog.

[Guest Kemlynreds]

Yes, they can call it what they want, it'll always be Anfield to me.

[Ne Moe Imya]

Absolutely, depending on who it is.  For example, I wouldn't want the 'Primark Stadium' or 'Matalan Park'.

 

As long as it's nothing cringeworthy then take it.  It'll always be Anfield to us anyway.

 

Basically, this sums it up for me.  

 

There would have to be some sliding scale based on the awfulness of the name (if something bland like "Arqiva Arena" will pay £50m/year, then "Tesco Stadium" has to pay £60 million and "The ExxonMobil Megaplex" would cost £100m).

 

To us it will always be just Anfield anyway, so I don't know why any company would bother to give us anywhere near these figures, but if one of them is stupid enough to do it and it's not too embarrassing we should take their money.

[jamespp]

Yeah, 50m is loads, everyone apart from TV/Radio & Evertonians will still call it anfield

Don't get me wrong its shit, It would make you flinch say if you have soccer Saturday on and jeff sterling shouts "WE HAVE A GOAL AT THE DOUGHNUT ARENA!"

[TheFridge]

It would be beyond daft not to.

 

 

Sent from my knackered out Toshiba laptop.

[Kant]

Yeah why not. Take the suckers' money and run and we'll call it Anfield anyway.

 

 

 

Sent from my ma's house.

[Russ Atmosphere]

Would they not do it if I didn't accept?

[Fugitive]

Yeah why not. Take the suckers' money and run and we'll call it Anfield anyway.

 

 

 

Sent from my ma's house.

To right.

 

Sent from Ken Barlows sex dungeon using a wifi enabled Dildo.

[sir roger]

I still say I sit in the Kemlyn, so a name change would pass me by, but the potential world-class players we might buy, wouldn't.

 

I'm in.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

I'm genuinely shocked at the way the voting is going.  Money is just money - THIS IS ANFIELD.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

The thing that concerns me most with the neverending commercialism is what's next? I assume we're staring at renaming ourselves the 'Liverpool Liverbirds' further down the line?

Nah, "Liverpool RedBull" - and 89% of people here will be OK with that.

[Clem H Fandango]

Nah, "Liverpool RedBull" - and 89% of people here will be OK with that.

 

I was just thinking that the only sponsor i would half accept would be red bull. Either that or Warrior.

[Anubis]

After due consideration I have voted no. Someone has to take stand at some point, and it may as well be us.

[Clem H Fandango]

I for one don't like the idea of buying success, it's not certain that it will. Teams that have been bankrolled of late do not appear to have done that much better in attaining trophies. It just adds a star player/household name to sell shirts, just look at Real Madrid spending 80m per season on star players and what have they achieved of late?

 

Footballs a simple game and with the right coach,tactics and desire any team of no-hopers can become successful. Rafa's Valencia, Fergiescums Aberdeen etc are prime examples of this. Just one truly world class player in a team can win a league with the right set-up around that player such as Barca (messi), Napoli (maradona) etc. There's no need to spend 50m per year on more world class Johnnies if you get it right from the start of a new managers career.

 

Just look at how the mighty AC milan have fallen after all their investment in top players throughout the 90's. I for one don't think it's good for the long term of any club to go down this route.

[Strontium]

God damn right I would accept the 50 mil.

 

Yes, it's corporate cocksucking, but where did these high morals come from? Our football team only exists because Everton weren't making enough money for Anfield's Tory owner. Our first side contained one solitary Englishman. We're the original corporate cocksuckers.

[Kant]

Anyone recall how The Ferrari F1 team changed the shade of red they had used on the cars since forever due to their Marlboro sponsorship?

Just sayin'

 

I voted yes but the This is Anfield sign has to stay

[razor]

God damn right I would accept the 50 mil.

 

Yes, it's corporate cocksucking, but where did these high morals come from? Our football team only exists because Everton weren't making enough money for Anfield's Tory owner. Our first side contained one solitary Englishman. We're the original corporate cocksuckers.

 

It's like the 80s never happened.