Anfield or New Anfield

[robslappa]

I knew you'd chicken out.

 

I knew you'd never come over the match.

[Guest Gucci_Ledge]

Broughton saw it coming, it's exactly why he had the undertakings signed.

 

He and the rest came out of the initial court win proclaiming job done. There's that famous picture of purslow punching the air, and an official statement from NESV. Yet the saga went on for another 3 days. So I disagree that they saw H&G's final throw of the dice coming. They had done enough to make it all watertight so they eventually won, but that doesn't alter the fact that H&G managed to delay things until the final day while they prepared a dodgy deal with Mill Financial. Looking at this evidence I would suggest that they were smarter than people thought when it came to sneaky legal moves.

[Captain]

I knew you'd never come over the match.

 

I already did, so you're wrong there as well.

[robslappa]

I already did, so you're wrong there as well.

 

Hahaha.

[Barrington Womble]

 

Redeveloping Anfield was NEVER a viable option, but they fully researched it, and made sure that it could NOT be done. So, now, they're are like the yanks before them?

 

Go fuck yourself. Seriously. Knee-jerk mong.

 

You are a complete fucking tit. The last yanks did what was in the interest of the last yanks. The new yanks will do what's in the interests of the new yanks, but with better PR. If you think they'll let some throw away comment on LFC tv get in the way of making money, you're a fool as well as a tit. But then reading most of your posts, that's clear to see anyway.

[redasever]

I’ve been attending games at Anfield since the seventies, so qualify as an old git. What I find quite curious is that the majority of seasoned veterans amongst my peers are prepared for a stadium change ( perhaps more so than younger supporters)....

 

We have a responsibility to the next generation ( and generations) of fans to come and watch our club in a stadium that allows us to compete. The Anfield of our glory years was a match in facilities and capacity for any of our competitors, ....

 

Great post that xerxes.

 

Hello Xerxes. Whatever this post might be, it is slanted one particular way.

 

We are all aware of the inadequacies of Anfield and we are all aware of the emotional and sentimental attachments to it. We are all also aware of the vanities of the situation.

 

This issue is about none of those. The issue is about the wherewithal to win trophies and affordability for the fans. The responsibility of this generation is to itself and to future generations to provide that wherewithal. A redeveloped Anfield meets the need better than a new stadium. As it happens, it also maintains the continuity of the soul and spirit of the club, without which we may as well be Arsenal.

 

 

Incidentally the old farts of my generation know the value of a quid and are keen to see Anfield stay and to avoid sinking loads of cash into someone else’s vanity project. And I remember the kop end at Villa in the seventies. It was awesome then, bigger but never as 'great' as the Spion Kop.

 

 

-

Edited July 9, 2011 by redasever

[xerxes]

not that I believe FFP will ever be enforced, but as it stands today revenues from outside football will not be considered as far i am aware. so for instance the revenues chelsea pull from the hotel will not be counted. where you draw the line between inside and outside football remains to be seen and it also remains to be seen if it can be enforced, but that's the angle UEFA are claiming.

 

The relevant section in the regulations is as follows :

“Relevant income is defined as revenue from gate receipts, broadcasting rights,sponsorship and advertising, commercial activities and other operating income, plus either profit on disposal of player registrations or income from disposal of player registrations, excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets and finance income. It does not include any non-monetary items or certain income from non-football operations.”

 

I am not going to tell anyone anything here. Everyone can read and make up their own minds. I will ask a few questions , though.

 

You suggest that revenue from the Chelsea Village Hotel will not count. Check their site for Matchday Residential packages. It would be very difficult to argue that this was not a legitimate commercial activity would it not?

 

What about fans who book into the hotel to stay and do Ground Tours on non-match days? Is there any difference between income from a conference at the Hotel owned by Chelsea, and on site, and a conference in an Emirates Conference room? What about fans who book in, but don’t visit the ground, but visit the shop ? Or fans who just book because its Chelsea? And then there are just plain tourists – where do you draw the line? Might it not be that if it is Club owned, on Club land its Club commercial revenue?

 

A similar argument applies to Anfield Plaza. Club owned on Club land and effectively part of the New Anfield Complex. Are not fans who use any hotel , entertainment and refreshment facilities generating legitimate commercial revenue? And who is to say what part of the rent from AP is football related, and what is not?

 

Gary Cook from Man City is quoted as saying that they are undertaking an “aggressive” commercial policy. So will everyone else. In the scheme of things do you think that Anfield Plaza revenues could NOT be classified as legitimate commercial revenue?

 

I believe that some are approaching FFP the wrong way round by talking about restrictions and loopholes - the trick will be making FFP WORK for us.

 

 

 

.

[George Costanza]

we will end up with a souless piece of shite. same as every other new ground but its ok, we'll rake it in from corporate facilities and having some shitty brand as the name for our new stadium. its all about keeping up with the jones, lets be sheep & do what they do. no fucking imagination.... don't see why we don' t drop the fc from our name while we are at it.

[Barrington Womble]

 

The relevant section in the regulations is as follows :

“Relevant income is defined as revenue from gate receipts, broadcasting rights,sponsorship and advertising, commercial activities and other operating income, plus either profit on disposal of player registrations or income from disposal of player registrations, excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed assets and finance income. It does not include any non-monetary items or certain income from non-football operations.”

 

I am not going to tell anyone anything here. Everyone can read and make up their own minds. I will ask a few questions , though.

 

You suggest that revenue from the Chelsea Village Hotel will not count. Check their site for Matchday Residential packages. It would be very difficult to argue that this was not a legitimate commercial activity would it not?

 

What about fans who book into the hotel to stay and do Ground Tours on non-match days? Is there any difference between income from a conference at the Hotel owned by Chelsea, and on site, and a conference in an Emirates Conference room? What about fans who book in, but don’t visit the ground, but visit the shop ? Or fans who just book because its Chelsea? And then there are just plain tourists – where do you draw the line? Might it not be that if it is Club owned, on Club land its Club commercial revenue?

 

A similar argument applies to Anfield Plaza. Club owned on Club land and effectively part of the New Anfield Complex. Are not fans who use any hotel , entertainment and refreshment facilities generating legitimate commercial revenue? And who is to say what part of the rent from AP is football related, and what is not?

 

Gary Cook from Man City is quoted as saying that they are undertaking an “aggressive” commercial policy. So will everyone else. In the scheme of things do you think that Anfield Plaza revenues could NOT be classified as legitimate commercial revenue?

 

I believe that some are approaching FFP the wrong way round by talking about restrictions and loopholes - the trick will be making FFP WORK for us.

 

.

 

Its late, so I'm not going through all that. However I've heard platini speak on it and he actually referenced Chelsea. That's what he's trying to do. He won't achieve it because uefa can't organise a football match at a football stadium as we know, so there will certainly be easy ways for people to beat the laws. Or as you put it "work for us"

[xerxes]

The issue is about the wherewithal to win trophies and affordability for the fans. The responsibility of this generation is to itself and to future generations to provide that wherewithal.

I agree.

 

A redeveloped Anfield meets the need better than a new stadium

 

Asking or telling?

 

We agree the need for the Club to be able to compete for trophies in a stadium that our fans can afford to visit. I disagree that a redeveloped Anfield meets the need better than a new stadium.

 

If we can build a 60,000 seater in situ that has 21st facilities that will last the next 50 years, then I am happy. But I doubt that Anfield can.

My worry is that a redeveloped Anfield will be the worst of all worlds, a partial development, with insufficient capacity, with compromised facilities – another botched job like it was last time. Anfield as it is has squeezed out many fans - £45 to sit on the Kop?!

 

An increased capacity will allow more Reds in, a 60k new stadium offers the prospect (but no guarantee)of lower prices than the current 45k capacity does because of the ability to offer a bigger range of prices. Although I do accept that all football clubs will charge as much as they can get away with.

[Guest ShoePiss]

McGurk v Xerxes 2.0

[xerxes]

Its late, so I'm not going through all that. However I've heard platini speak on it and he actually referenced Chelsea. That's what he's trying to do. He won't achieve it because uefa can't organise a football match at a football stadium as we know, so there will certainly be easy ways for people to beat the laws. Or as you put it "work for us"

 

By all means pick this up when you are rested!

 

My sense is that Platini is against the likes of Abrahamovic bankrolling uncommercial operations resulting in what amounts to financial doping (See Pompeys FA Cup win). I don't think he is against clubs becoming financially more efficient which is what Chelsea Village/Anfield Plaza is all about.

 

I think that there is a big difference in working within the rules to maximum advantage ( which all businesses do) and breaking the rules/cheating.

 

My personal view is that FFP is fundamentally flawed. I don't hink that thye offer financial fair play, I think that they ensure that the richest clubs will never be caught by the rest.

 

Whether we are on the inside looking out, or the outside looking in, will be a very close call.

[Carra_is_legend]

The last yanks did what was in the interest of the last yanks. The new yanks will do what's in the interests of the new yanks, but with better PR.

 

Couldn't agree more if I tried Barry. Absolutely fucking spot on.

 

Did someone say "knee jerk" ? What the fuck?? Have we not learnt a SINGLE lesson looking at what happened to the club since 2007? A so-called BIG Liverpool fan selling down the drain with assistance from another BIG Liverpool fan?

 

It took us nearly FOUR years to get rid of the two cunts who nearly put into administration. With the help of a CHELSEA fan. From one set of American businessmen to another set. During Feb'2007 none of us knew about acquisition debt and even now we don't fucking know. The owners can do what the fuck they like and there is nothing stopping them. They may not do that but pardon me for having a niggling doubt! And sorry for being negative about the new stadium too - I've heard too much of it in the last few years. And the stadium is, like it or not, still a piece of paper in one of the cupboards at Anfield!!!

 

If that is "knee jerk", I don't give a flying fuck. It will take a LONG time to warm up any ownership of Liverpool Football Club. Because the game is fundamentally fucked with too many vultures looking for pieces every minute of every day.

 

Oh....and as someone said I can't really say I'm excited about our owner passing comments through Twitter!!

[Unrighteous]

LAST YANKS = NEW YANKS = WE'RE FUCKED = GROUNDSHARE = IMMINENT

 

We've seen no evidence to doubt their words, yet. Only a fucking retard would start shooting snide comments out about it... oh wait...

 

Nevermind.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

The last yanks did what was in the interest of the last yanks. The new yanks will do what's in the interests of the new yanks, but with better PR.

 

The difference is that, with the model the last yanks were using, what was in their own interest wasn't in our interest. What's in the new owner's interest is actually in our long term interest.

 

The old owners wanted to turn a short-term profit, which was quite possible given how cheap we were at the time. The new owners see it as far more sensible to be in it for the long-term, build the 'franchise' up and up and up, and then take whatever profits they want when the time comes. They're interested in the value of the asset.

[Chinandeler Bong]

McGurk v Xerxes 2.0

 

I know, It's bad enough on RAWK, lets not have it spread over here lads.

[Chinandeler Bong]

I agree that we should keep a Beady eye on our new owners. They have a lot to learn.

We'd be idiots to trust them implicitly and I do think they are very aware of that.

The Twitter stuff ? Dont bother me one bit, its a bit of banter and at least fans can communicate with them.

So far they seem alright but im not completely sold on them. It will take time.

[redasever]

The difference is that, with the model the last yanks were using, what was in their own interest wasn't in our interest. What's in the new owner's interest is actually in our long term interest.

 

The old owners wanted to turn a short-term profit, which was quite possible given how cheap we were at the time. The new owners see it as far more sensible to be in it for the long-term, build the 'franchise' up and up and up, and then take whatever profits they want when the time comes. They're interested in the value of the asset.

 

 

As JWH says, there's no money in sport(s) unless you're a player, a manager or an agent. I think the guy's doing it for sport. He doesn't want to lose money for sure and he knows the club needs money for success but it's not ever been money he's been after for itself.

 

H&G were the men for 'value of the asset' and that's all it seems they wanted to know. As ever, if the fundamentals are wrong, everything is wrong.

[redasever]

I know, It's bad enough on RAWK, lets not have it spread over here lads.

 

Xerxes, I agree with this. Although it's got better on RAWK lately, can we have a different discussion here. I've always kept them separate - no cut and paste.

 

 

-

[Unrighteous]

The difference is that, with the model the last yanks were using, what was in their own interest wasn't in our interest. What's in the new owner's interest is actually in our long term interest.

 

Yeah, but N.V. you're ignoring one major thing.

 

Speaking sense has no place on the FF.

[Carra_is_legend]

Yeah, but N.V. you're ignoring one major thing.

 

Speaking sense has no place on the FF.

 

I don't think are you getting the point mate.

 

We don't know about the new owners (yet) - and that is exactly the point people are trying to make. We don't know them yet. They may turn out to be brilliant owners or they may turn out to be worse than Hicks and Gillett. Who knows? Time will tell. But, in the mean time, you can at least understand if some are being skeptical? surely? You may feel confident but don't expect others to be exactly like that. I'm skeptical too, hugely if I'm honest and that has nothing to do with the fact that they are Americans. I just don't want to forget the debacle of last 3 years and so in a single minute.

[Unrighteous]

I don't think are you getting the point mate.

 

We don't know about the new owners (yet) - and that is exactly the point people are trying to make. We don't know them yet. They may turn out to be brilliant owners or they may turn out to be worse than Hicks and Gillett. Who knows? Time will tell. But, in the mean time, you can at least understand if some are being skeptical? surely? You may feel confident but don't expect others to be exactly like that. I'm skeptical too, hugely if I'm honest and that has nothing to do with the fact that they are Americans. I just don't want to forget the debacle of last 3 years and so in a single minute.

 

Err... I just said that.

 

I'm not going to be an obnoxious snide until they've shown what they've got planned, considering that they've not made any ominous soundings yet.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

We don't know them yet. They may turn out to be brilliant owners or they may turn out to be worse than Hicks and Gillett. Who knows? Time will tell.

 

But we're not totally ignorant, are we? We can look at how they've acted and conducted themselves in other sports. Gillett had been bankrupt and Hicks' company fucked over a company. FSG have, as far as I'm aware, a fairly exemplary record of running sporting institutions.

 

As JWH says, there's no money in sport(s) unless you're a player, a manager or an agent. I think the guy's doing it for sport. He doesn't want to lose money for sure and he knows the club needs money for success but it's not ever been money he's been after for itself.

 

H&G were the men for 'value of the asset' and that's all it seems they wanted to know. As ever, if the fundamentals are wrong, everything is wrong.

 

There's plenty of money to be made from sport, especially if you take on a world class asset for vastly less than it's worth, and astronomically less than its potential.

 

I think he's in it for the sport, and for the business. Good businessmen do what they think is good for business, but also good for their own passions. When you're a billionaire, you don't need to do anything solely for the money.

 

The difference is the length of the visions and the financial model used to achieve it. Nobody is suggesting their in it just for the fun, but that doesn't mean the best way to make a profit in the long term is to be ruthless. It's not, you grow your investment. The best way to make money in football is to be successful. Bigger sponsorship, bigger match day revenue, bigger naming rights, better players, better prize money, etc., etc.

[Barrington Womble]

 

We've seen no evidence to doubt their words, yet. Only a fucking retard would start shooting snide comments out about it... oh wait...

 

Nevermind.

 

You're a fucking prick. Sorry, I've just realised FSG are here the good of Liverpool and English football in general.

 

Get real dickhead, they're here for a profit. That might also include being good for us, but it won't be bad for them. They'll have learnt from the mistakes by C&A, it's amazing how few of our fans have done the same.

[redasever]

 

There's plenty of money to be made from sport, especially if you take on a world class asset for vastly less than it's worth, .....

 

Everything on the planet is worth precisely what someone paid for it. Someone might be able to make it worth more after but which owners of which clubs have made money???

 

For the sport but don't lose your shirt seems to be his motto. I like it.

 

 

-