The FSG model.

[billypilgrimnz]

So we're in a worse position now under Rodgers/FSG than we were under Hodgson/Hicks & Gillette?

 

I think that's scraping the barrel a bit.

 

Could be worse; imagine if I were not be able to read a simple post, leading me to consequently argue a point that's not even being made. Wouldn't that suck?

[dennis tooth]

Its not that we are in a worse position just not much better

[WhiskeyJar]

So we're in a worse position now under Rodgers/FSG than we were under Hodgson/Hicks & Gillette?

 

I think that's scraping the barrel a bit.

 

People actually forget how dark those days were.

 

We were days from administration and deduction of points.

[RobbieOR]

Could be worse; imagine if I were not be able to read a simple post, leading me to consequently argue a point that's not even being made. Wouldn't that suck?

 

So what does 'I just took the first game of the season, the last game of their third season, and our very last game to illustrate that it is not objectively obvious we are closer to the top 4 on the pitch.' mean then?

 

We  quite obviously are closer.

[WhiskeyJar]

Its not that we are in a worse position just not much better

 

Could be worse; imagine if I were not be able to read a simple post, leading me to consequently argue a point that's not even being made. Wouldn't that suck?

 

It could be argued that we are talking about the status of the club overall; both football wise and financial.

 

Coming to what Denis said, we have to accept that 4th is not a guarantee anymore, in fact it hasn't been since Rafa days and even finished outside the top 4 in his last season with us.

 

All we need to do is play better football, to do that we need a plan which falls on Rodgers. 

[ritchie]

The 'losers' weren't going to get this stand up either

They had to do something because it was a condition of sale. Easier and cheaper to just build a new stand 5 years later.

[Russ Atmosphere]

I'd take FSG over H&G, Rodgers over Hodgson, and the club finances now as opposed to then, not that we aren't loaded with debt. However, I'd swap this team for the one when FSG took over.

[billypilgrimnz]

So what does 'I just took the first game of the season, the last game of their third season, and our very last game to illustrate that it is not objectively obvious we are closer to the top 4 on the pitch.' mean then?

 

We  quite obviously are closer.

 

On the pitch = the actual squad. And I would argue we are NOT obviously closer in that regard. Our squad is piss weak.

 

I wasn't talking about anything off the pitch at all. 

[ritchie]

I tend to think financially speaking FSG have a reasonable plan for what happens off the pitch. In the absence of an oligarch, their blueprint of gradual expansion and better sponsorship deals is pretty sound.

 

It's just a pity that it's meaningless without anyone who knows what to do with the money in order to bring success on the pitch. We've made more money under them, and wasted more as well, which leaves us pretty much where we were. We used to spend £10m on shite, now it's £20m, we used to have a cheap bench of players we didn't want to turn to, now we've got an expensive bench the manager won't turn to.

 

I still get the feeling that we're run by people who think they're smarter than football.

I suppose we could have an 80,000 seater stadium shitting money but if these fucking clueless idiots won't employ anyone with a clue what they're doing in the transfer market (or a manager who can get the best out of them) then it'll get pissed away anyway.

 

The FSG reign/model is broadly comparable to the Moores regime. Moores did things on the cheap and always thought small. Something that killed us while the Premier League juggernaut started and continues to blight the club now. The upside to FSG is they've improved the commercial revenues (this was also the upshot to Hicks and Gillet because Moores' regime was that useless commercially) but won't employ the right people to spend those revenues. The upshot to Moores' regime is he went out and got Houllier and then Rafa to implement the vision that was completely lacking at the club and they were the ones to take into the 21st century literally and figuratively. However, too often we lacked the funding needed because we fell so far behind United off the pitch and then Chelsea and City.

[RobbieOR]

On the pitch = the actual squad. And I would argue we are NOT obviously closer in that regard. Our squad is piss weak.

 

I wasn't talking about anything off the pitch at all. 

 

That squad was piss poor so I still disagree. It's much better now.

[Cardie]

They had to do something because it was a condition of sale. Easier and cheaper to just build a new stand 5 years later.

 

I agree with you in as much as I would prefer a new stadium over redevelopment (I think we differ on the specifics of what and where), but I think the overwhelming opinion from supporters seemed to lead towards redevelopment over a new stadium because of historic factors.

 

given the success they had with Fenway and fan support being behind redevelopment it's hard to criticise them (though seemingly not too hard to make up a scenario in order to criticise them) for taking that route,

[ritchie]

I agree with you in as much as I would prefer a new stadium over redevelopment (I think we differ on the specifics of what and where), but I think the overwhelming opinion from supporters seemed to lead towards redevelopment over a new stadium because of historic factors.

 

given the success they had with Fenway and fan support being behind redevelopment it's hard to criticise them (though seemingly not too hard to make up a scenario in order to criticise them) for taking that route,

All being equal fans would favour redevelopment.

 

For example:

New stadium around 60,000

current ground expanded to around 60,000

 

A majority would say stay where we are.

 

 

New stadium 60,000+ to make us the second biggest ground in the country in a plush new stadium.

current ground with a new stand to 53,000 to match St James' Park leaving the ground very lopsided, cramped and 3/4 small and outdated.

 

The result would be different.

 

FSG would get goodwill if they do sort the Anny Road straight after although 58,000 is still selling ourselves short in the medium to long term and considering the planning permission for Stanley Park. As it is, it's doubtful we'll get that even.

[Cardie]

All being equal fans would favour redevelopment.

 

For example:

New stadium around 60,000

current ground expanded to around 60,000

 

A majority would say stay where we are.

 

 

New stadium 60,000+ to make us the second biggest ground in the country in a plush new stadium.

current ground with a new stand to 53,000 to match St James' Park leaving the ground very lopsided, cramped and 3/4 small and outdated.

 

The result would be different.

 

FSG would get goodwill if they do sort the Anny Road straight after although 58,000 is still selling ourselves short in the medium to long term and considering the planning permission for Stanley Park. As it is, it's doubtful we'll get that even.

 

You'd have to factor in cost when considering that shortfall of 2,000 seats. If the cost of redeveloping the stadium is 150 million but the cost of a new stadium is 500 million plus then is it worth spending 350 million extra on 2,000 extra seats.

 

To expand to the 70k-80k capacity some wanted would have meant a far bigger outlay again on infrastructure before we could even get planning permission.

[ritchie]

You'd have to factor in cost when considering that shortfall of 2,000 seats. If the cost of redeveloping the stadium is 150 million but the cost of a new stadium is 500 million plus then is it worth spending 350 million extra on 2,000 extra seats.

 

To expand to the 70k-80k capacity some wanted would have meant a far bigger outlay again on infrastructure before we could even get planning permission.

A naming rights deal would help a lot with the shortfall as would the extra revenues and business from a new stadium. It'd also have been an investment for the next few generations. We're paying the best part of £150m but the job will only be half done so at some point we're going to have to pay again. The Kop and Centenary Stand are already outdated because they were done on the cheap. The Anfield Road is a mess of a stand as well.

 

I'd stay at Anfield for the sake of 2,000 seats but 53,000 and 3/4 outdated isn't good enough when compared to what our competitors will have over the next few seasons. Sorting out the Main Stand AND Anfield Road would suffice for a while.

[stringvest]

And where's the money coming from to build this super duper new stadium? xerxes is already advocating letting fans in for free because of the tv revenue money (while thinking the club is still going to remain 'competitive'). Fans are rightly complaining about the price of tickets so there's a limit on where the money's coming from.

 

In contrast city and west ham have effectively been give new stadiums http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/19/olympic-stadium-cost-rises-west-ham

 

See, you're still at it, speke wasnt the right location! And getting into and out of the city centre on matchdays would be an utter joke except it wouldnt be funny!

 

I dont share your optimisim about tourists filling the OS even if its only 54,000. We'll have to wait and see.

 

Speke wouldn't actually be the worst idea.  You could put a station on the main line - straight into Lime Street.  Right near the airport, so the southern softies/scandos/oirish can get to the game easier, and not that far from Otterspool should the need for a straightener arise.  

[magicrat]

Speke wouldn't actually be the worst idea.  You could put a station on the main line - straight into Lime Street.  Right near the airport, so the southern softies/scandos/oirish can get to the game easier, and not that far from Otterspool should the need for a straightener arise.  

Yeh we could be playing at Dobbies Arena !

[xerxes]

And where's the money coming from to build this super duper new stadium? xerxes is already advocating letting fans in for free because of the tv revenue money (while thinking the club is still going to remain 'competitive'). Fans are rightly complaining about the price of tickets so there's a limit on where the money's coming from.

 

In contrast city and west ham have effectively been give new stadiums http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jun/19/olympic-stadium-cost-rises-west-ham

 

See, you're still at it, speke wasnt the right location! And getting into and out of the city centre on matchdays would be an utter joke except it wouldnt be funny!

My point was , and is, that if we did let everyone in for free, we would still be ahead of our closest PL rivals in the income league table. So our ability to outbid our competitors remains unchanged.

 

Conversely, even with a half redeveloped stadium, and with that increased income, we will still be behind Arsenal, our closest income rival ahead of us.

 

If you can still be outbid by the same people with a half redeveloped stadium, and could still outbid the same people by letting in everyone for free, is our competitiveness affected?

 

In practice, the only people who benefit from the gate are FSG with increased turnover affecting the value of the club. There are several practical reasons why free entry could never be a reality, however the theoretical point is worth making- but cheaper prices could be a reality, now.

 

Could we have afforded a new stadium? Yes. The increase in PL rights alone is worth £35m a year, enough to pay off a £400m stadium in under 13 years, not allowing for enhanced gate money and commercial deals. Of course we would not be spending that money on players, but we would still have been in the same position to outbid, and be outbid.

 

I favoured a new stadium. I accept that is not going to happen now for a lifetime. But I do respect those who favoured redevelopment. My gripe was that FSG never offered a proper debate, and that some of the pro redevelopment arguments were pretty flimsy.

 

As the above figures show, a half redeveloped stadium leaves the club’s competitiveness neither better off, nor worse off. At some point any club needs to modernise its facilities. That is an investment in the future. We missed the opportunity to relocate to the Kings Dock in the 90’s with considerable assistance. We have missed the opportunity to “move next door” as Arsenal have done, in the early part of this century. Meanwhile, the 74,000 capacity Millenium stadium , with a roof ( what a defining feature that could have been for us) was built for £120m, considerably less than half of what our part redevelopment will cost, Arsenal are coining it in from a stadium move, and Man U from an almost total redevelopment.

 

People are right to be concerned about the cost of a new stadium, but too few are concerned about the costs of NOT moving/comprehensively redeveloping.

 

FSG’s Fenway Park, home of their Boston Red Sox, has retained a capacity of around 37,250 since it was built. They pride themselves on having sold out every game since 2003 for 793 games till 2013. Yet the capacity of Fenway Park is only the 27th largest American Baseball stadium. They are not interested in providing a fitting auditorium for the second best supported English football team by historic average attendance in Liverpool, just in “squeezing the lemon”. THAT is the FSG model.

 

Stadium moves and redevelopment are an inexact science. There never was, or will be, an ideal solution. What I am certain of is that the FSG redevelopment we are being given is half-arsed, inadequate, short-sighted, and fails to do justice to our Club, our support, and our city.

[Hades]

Tony Evans seems sure they're going to put the club up for sale after the redevelopment. That also seems to be the buzz around Twitter. It would certainly explain the complete lack of interest and appearances by John Henry over the last 12 months. 

[Bradderzzz]

Tony Evans seems sure they're going to put the club up for sale after the redevelopment. That also seems to be the buzz around Twitter. It would certainly explain the complete lack of interest and appearances by John Henry over the last 12 months. 

 

Its the buzz on other forums as well. Mostly stoked up by Tony Evans, he has been axe grinding since they arrived. I don't know whether they will or won't. This transfer window may tell us quite a lot about their thinking.

 

I think they came in thinking FFP would be a lot stronger than it was and have probably had a rethink. I don't believe the original intention was to come in redevelop and sell up.

 

Also i'm in the camp of preferring the idea of redevelopment. Mainly because of what we were shown as the alternative. A bigger Reebok in the park, followed by that utterly stupid NFL stadium and then back to the Reebok in the park. At one point they were going to move for 55k seats.

 

I don't think Speke was ever a serious option. It was more just a way of getting the council to play ball on the planning in the park. Kings Dock i will agree had potential. There was never the will though. 

[Guest davelfc]

Tony Evans seems sure they're going to put the club up for sale after the redevelopment. That also seems to be the buzz around Twitter. It would certainly explain the complete lack of interest and appearances by John Henry over the last 12 months. 

 

I think it has looked that way for a while. As someone else has said, like splashing a coat of paint in the front room before you sell your house. The only problem is we don't have a clue who would buy us and what they would do. 

[xerxes]

Its the buzz on other forums as well. Mostly stoked up by Tony Evans, he has been axe grinding since they arrived. I don't know whether they will or won't. This transfer window may tell us quite a lot about their thinking.

 

I think they came in thinking FFP would be a lot stronger than it was and have probably had a rethink. I don't believe the original intention was to come in redevelop and sell up.

 

Also i'm in the camp of preferring the idea of redevelopment. Mainly because of what we were shown as the alternative. A bigger Reebok in the park, followed by that utterly stupid NFL stadium and then back to the Reebok in the park. At one point they were going to move for 55k seats.

 

I don't think Speke was ever a serious option. It was more just a way of getting the council to play ball on the planning in the park. Kings Dock i will agree had potential. There was never the will though.

There is still a lot of time before the half redeveloped stadium is "complete". For a consortium like FSG, their assets are always "for sale". I am unconvinced that one, maybe two, new stands, and a team fashioned by Brendan and Ayre will be significantly more saleable than last time.

 

As for the stadium debate. My problem with the redevelopment is that it is inadequate. As for a new stadium, exactly what we built was always going to offer far more room for manoeuvre than a redevelopment. I share your concerns about the new plans proposed, but that did not have to be what we ended up with.

[moof]

Does tony Evans think China is going to buy us again?

[Bad Red Bull]

http://www.koptalk.co.uk/201506201635/exclusive-fsg-ready-to-sell-liverpool-football-club.html

 

This was the link on koptalk a couple of days back. 

[moof]

Koptalk?

[Bradderzzz]

http://www.koptalk.co.uk/201506201635/exclusive-fsg-ready-to-sell-liverpool-football-club.html

 

This was the link on koptalk a couple of days back. 

 

FSG not selling the club confirmed then.