When are we likely to get definitive stadium news?

[Nightcat]

Liverpool are looking to tie up a lucrative £90million naming rights deal for Anfield's new Main Stand.[/size]

The Reds' chief commercial officer Billy Hogan has been in Asia this week holding talks with three interested parties.

No agreement is imminent but Anfield officials have been delighted by the level of interest and a naming rights partner for the £120million development is expected to be confirmed before the summer.

Liverpool are seeking a 10-year contract which would be worth £7million to £9million per season.

Owners Fenway Sports Group have always ruled out selling naming rights to Anfield itself but a commercial link up for the Main Stand has long since been part of their business plan.

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-set-tie-up-10918771

 

And these greedy bastards still wanted to fleece fans, no wonder they changed their minds pretty quickly. There should have been ticket price cuts not supposed freezes.

 

Greedy twats!

But, but, but they have invested so much... They have even provided an interest free loan for the new stand.

 

fsgz isz so greatzz.

 

You will aLL wake up sooner or later.

 

You are paying a fortune to watch playing a gutless Southampton team wearing Liverpool shirts.

[Ginny]

We need to change the 'This is Anfield' sign to 'This is Xang Hui Ze Dong Sports consortium'. It won't matter to the players touching the sign anyway. No one gives a fuck.

[jimmycase]

But, but, but they have invested so much... They have even provided an interest free loan for the new stand.

 

fsgz isz so greatzz.

 

You will aLL wake up sooner or later.

 

You are paying a fortune to watch playing a gutless Southampton team wearing Liverpool shirts.

 

You dont half chat some utter shit. Its piss easy to spend other people's money never mind a zero interest loan of £150m. Just think about that or even say it aloud, £150m. It rolls off the tongue easily doesnt it never mind it being an insignificant amount of money. Not!

 

I just love dicks like you who want ownership change when there's nothing or nobody else lined up. Its so easy for pissheads like you to live in your utopian world where everything you want is delivered up on a silver platter for you.

 

Whether FSG deliver success on the pitch remains to be seen. But, apart from constant fucking whinning, what the fuck exactly do you bring to the table?

[Barrington Womble]

You dont half chat some utter shit. Its piss easy to spend other people's money never mind a zero interest loan of £150m. Just think about that or even say it aloud, £150m. It rolls off the tongue easily doesnt it never mind it being an insignificant amount of money. Not!

 

I just love dicks like you who want ownership change when there's nothing or nobody else lined up. Its so easy for pissheads like you to live in your utopian world where everything you want is delivered up on a silver platter for you.

 

Whether FSG deliver success on the pitch remains to be seen. But, apart from constant fucking whinning, what the fuck exactly do you bring to the table?

it's not a £150m loan though is it? LFC is owned by FSG, who are a sports investment company. In order to fund investment, they have their own funds. As a consequences, they had a simple choice - what will give FSG the greater return on investment, moving in cash from their reserves or loaning money. I would feel 100% certain if FSG could find something better to invest in than a stand at LFC, they would. But they couldn't. Loaning for this stand would be fucking simple, not only does it pay for itself, TV revenues are so great they could just guarantee the loan. They'd get the loan dirt cheap, but yet it was still better for them to invest themselves. If we owned LFC and they gave us an interest free loan, that might be worth talking about. All they're doing is shifting money around accounts. 

[jimmycase]

it's not a £150m loan though is it? LFC is owned by FSG, who are a sports investment company. In order to fund investment, they have their own funds. As a consequences, they had a simple choice - what will give FSG the greater return on investment, moving in cash from their reserves or loaning money. I would feel 100% certain if FSG could find something better to invest in than a stand at LFC, they would. But they couldn't. Loaning for this stand would be fucking simple, not only does it pay for itself, TV revenues are so great they could just guarantee the loan. They'd get the loan dirt cheap, but yet it was still better for them to invest themselves. If we owned LFC and they gave us an interest free loan, that might be worth talking about. All they're doing is shifting money around accounts. 

 

Look mate, if you want to believe an intra company loan of £150m isnt a 'loan' that's up to you. The alternative is the owners go to the commercial market and lump a £150m interest bearing loan on the club.

 

Which do you want?

 

And if its so simple, how come all the other clubs in the prem aint doing it?

 

You're going on about the club paying it itself. Well yes, its paying the 'loan' back out of all the sponsorship deals the owners have secured.

 

If you want to believe FSG would invest their money in something better than a stand, Im not going to convince you otherwise. But, the question you need to ask yourself and answer is, where is the mythical owner you appear to want who's going to pump hundreds of millions of pounds into the club and not ask for a penny back.

[Barrington Womble]

 

 

Look mate, if you want to believe an intra company loan of £150m isnt a 'loan' that's up to you. The alternative is the owners go to the commercial market and lump a £150m interest bearing loan on the club.

 

Which do you want?

 

And if its so simple, how come all the other clubs in the prem aint doing it?

 

You're going on about the club paying it itself. Well yes, its paying the 'loan' back out of all the sponsorship deals the owners have secured.

 

If you want to believe FSG would invest their money in something better than a stand, Im not going to convince you otherwise. But, the question you need to ask yourself and answer is, where is the mythical owner you appear to want who's going to pump hundreds of millions of pounds into the club and not ask for a penny back.

That post is one of the biggest piles of shite I've read on here and of you'd followed even a 10th of what I've posted over the last 10 years you'd know that. I don't want a mythical owner to pump millions in. In fact I was happy 15 years ago for Moores to take out a 80m loan to build the parry bowl. I'd have preferred to stay at Anfield if it was plausible, but it wasn't then. Everything we've done since is fucked up. We never needed new owners when Moores sold up, he just thought we did as he didn't compute debt doesn't have to be bad.

 

Not all other clubs need new stands and are owned by investment firms, that's why others are not doing it. I don't care if the loan for a stand is lumped on LFC, it makes no odds, we wouldn't be paying it back in 5 years(as we are with this advance) , we'd pay over back over 15-20 years and by then the repayments would match about 1 televised game payment. Interest rates are as low as they're ever going to be and we are a minimal risk, so I'd have no problems doing that. What FSG are doing is good for FSG, every single decision they make is in the interests of FSG. Inevitably the interests of the holding company and child company match, but if they don't, the best for fsg always wins. This loan is in the best interests of the investment firm who own us. That might also be in the best interests of LFC, but they're doing us no favours.

[jimmycase]

 

That post is one of the biggest piles of shite I've read on here and of you'd followed even a 10th of what I've posted over the last 10 years you'd know that. I don't want a mythical owner to pump millions in. In fact I was happy 15 years ago for Moores to take out a 80m loan to build the parry bowl. I'd have preferred to stay at Anfield if it was plausible, but it wasn't then. Everything we've done since is fucked up. We never needed new owners when Moores sold up, he just thought we did as he didn't compute debt doesn't have to be bad.

 

Not all other clubs need new stands and are owned by investment firms, that's why others are not doing it. I don't care if the loan for a stand is lumped on LFC, it makes no odds, we wouldn't be paying it back in 5 years(as we are with this advance) , we'd pay over back over 15-20 years and by then the repayments would match about 1 televised game payment. Interest rates are as low as they're ever going to be and we are a minimal risk, so I'd have no problems doing that. What FSG are doing is good for FSG, every single decision they make is in the interests of FSG. Inevitably the interests of the holding company and child company match, but if they don't, the best for fsg always wins. This loan is in the best interests of the investment firm who own us. That might also be in the best interests of LFC, but they're doing us no favours.

 

Why the fuck would I follow you for 10 years? Do you want a stalker or something?

 

As for the rest of your missive, yeah, ok. If you think so!

[Barrington Womble]

Why the fuck would I follow you for 10 years? Do you want a stalker or something?

 

As for the rest of your missive, yeah, ok. If you think so!

Great argument.

[TheHowieLama]

Can we take this 90 mil as definitive news?

[Harry Squatter]

The Echo doing weekly updates, I think they do an article when they put 3 new toilets in and a bit of glass.

[jimmycase]

Great argument.

 

Says the man who's opening line was "That post is one of the biggest piles of shite I've read on here"

 

You can sit in your corner and fucking rant all you want, pal.

[Barrington Womble]

Says the man who's opening line was "That post is one of the biggest piles of shite I've read on here"

 

You can sit in your corner and fucking rant all you want, pal.

If you just want to pop around and make sarcastic comments, why come to a forum?

[jimmycase]

If you just want to pop around and make sarcastic comments, why come to a forum?

 

You're fucking brilliant you, arent you? Like I said, Im not going to waste time trying to convert your closed mind.

 

If you think the owners are a bag of wank, fair enough. but you seem to think there's a magical better owner out there. Somewhere.

 

I dont. But there you go.

[Trumo]

Take it to PM you tarts.

[Jairzinho]

If you just want to pop around and make sarcastic comments, why come to a forum?

Now hang on a minute.

[Barrington Womble]

You're fucking brilliant you, arent you? Like I said, Im not going to waste time trying to convert your closed mind.

 

If you think the owners are a bag of wank, fair enough. but you seem to think there's a magical better owner out there. Somewhere.

 

I dont. But there you go.

 

i would bet my life there are better owners than ours out there. i would also bet my life there are worse owners, in fact we experienced worse before these. it doesn't stop them being shit.  

[jimmycase]

i would bet my life there are better owners than ours out there. i would also bet my life there are worse owners, in fact we experienced worse before these. it doesn't stop them being shit.  

 

And that's your problem. You think there's better out there and they'll magically turn up if you just look hard enough.

 

You've got to prove the football equivalent of fermi's paradox, where the fuck are all these better owners never mind a single one that you'd give your life for?

 

How long would it be before you said these mythical owners youd give your life for were shit?

 

Id say not long.

 

Im not saying the owners are perfect by a long chalk. But neither are they shit. We clearly fundementally disagree with each other's opinion.

[Arl arse]

They're not shit, but they are big match whoppers.

[Barrington Womble]

 

 

And that's your problem. You think there's better out there and they'll magically turn up if you just look hard enough.

 

You've got to prove the football equivalent of fermi's paradox, where the fuck are all these better owners never mind a single one that you'd give your life for?

 

How long would it be before you said these mythical owners youd give your life for were shit?

 

Id say not long.

 

Im not saying the owners are perfect by a long chalk. But neither are they shit. We clearly fundementally disagree with each other's opinion.

You keep telling me what I think. And you're wrong every time. I'm under no illusion the club won't change hands until they get a value for the club they want. That may happen soon if they prove the revenues on the new stand they want are real. I am also equally clear that if they sell there is a possibility any new owners could be worse or better.

 

However, what all that won't do is stop me criticising them when they're shit. From a footballing perspective, they've failed badly since they have been in charge. They seem to think they need no footballing skills in the senior staff, just stats and a coach who can develop players when they buy shit ones. I think that is flawed and the reason we're now massively behind spurs and on a par with Southampton.

 

If you take their appointment of Rodgers as an example. They took an inexperienced coach who knew little of the game or magnitude of the club. They compounded his weaknesses by selling senior players, leaving him short of players after his 1st window and him having no experienced people to talk to and support him, the way all our previous managers had had before.

 

Then we hired a bunch of failed scouts and statisticians from man city. Who did nothing but be devisive with the manager. This lead to more division with the nonsense of the manager having players he didn't want.

 

They've now fixed the manager problem, but continued with the failed scouting team and spreadsheet, because they want the spreadsheet to work as it worked for a couple of years in baseball and it's how Henry and Gordon made their cash trading .

 

FSG if they were good owners would have hired competent people. They chose not to as the answers were in spreadsheets. I think they're poor, they're not the only poor owners in the league, but I don't care about anyone else.

[jimmycase]

 

You keep telling me what I think. And you're wrong every time. I'm under no illusion the club won't change hands until they get a value for the club they want. That may happen soon if they prove the revenues on the new stand they want are real. I am also equally clear that if they sell there is a possibility any new owners could be worse or better.

 

However, what all that won't do is stop me criticising them when they're shit. From a footballing perspective, they've failed badly since they have been in charge. They seem to think they need no footballing skills in the senior staff, just stats and a coach who can develop players when they buy shit ones. I think that is flawed and the reason we're now massively behind spurs and on a par with Southampton.

 

If you take their appointment of Rodgers as an example. They took an inexperienced coach who knew little of the game or magnitude of the club. They compounded his weaknesses by selling senior players, leaving him short of players after his 1st window and him having no experienced people to talk to and support him, the way all our previous managers had had before.

 

Then we hired a bunch of failed scouts and statisticians from man city. Who did nothing but be devisive with the manager. This lead to more division with the nonsense of the manager having players he didn't want.

 

They've now fixed the manager problem, but continued with the failed scouting team and spreadsheet, because they want the spreadsheet to work as it worked for a couple of years in baseball and it's how Henry and Gordon made their cash trading .

 

FSG if they were good owners would have hired competent people. They chose not to as the answers were in spreadsheets. I think they're poor, they're not the only poor owners in the league, but I don't care about anyone else.

 

Yet you still dont answer your own connundrum. You keep sitting on the fence with saying we may get better new owners or we may get worse new owners. You never define what 'better' new owners are.

 

From a footballing perspective the current owners have failed badly? Yeah ok then bit that's a ludicrous suggestion.

 

If they were good owners, they'd have hired competent people? They have hired competent people. Sure, they've made mistakes but ayre isnt the bogeyman so many on here make him out to be. They've increased the club's turnover that has permitted the club to do massive transfer deals. Oh yeah, some havent worked out but its only LFC that does duff deals, isnt it?

 

They've hired a bunch of failed scouts.? Really? I dont think all the transfers have failed. But who would you replace them with? Oh yeah, you dont know but the club should. Well, where are all these super scouts who arent already at city, chelsea, arsenal and united who'd walk over broken glass to Liverpool?

[Barrington Womble]

Yet you still dont answer your own connundrum. You keep sitting on the fence with saying we may get better new owners or we may get worse new owners. You never define what 'better' new owners are.

 

From a footballing perspective the current owners have failed badly? Yeah ok then bit that's a ludicrous suggestion.

 

If they were good owners, they'd have hired competent people? They have hired competent people. Sure, they've made mistakes but ayre isnt the bogeyman so many on here make him out to be. They've increased the club's turnover that has permitted the club to do massive transfer deals. Oh yeah, some havent worked out but its only LFC that does duff deals, isnt it?

 

They've hired a bunch of failed scouts.? Really? I dont think all the transfers have failed. But who would you replace them with? Oh yeah, you dont know but the club should. Well, where are all these super scouts who arent already at city, chelsea, arsenal and united who'd walk over broken glass to Liverpool?

If anything shows up that entire post it's you "you don't know but the club should" line. Of course they should know, they're meant to be professionals. That's the whole point, I don't do that for a living, they do or should at least hire people who do.

 

My definition of good owners is really simple actually. To look at the fact we have revenues in the top 10 in the world and have consistently with or without them as owners since people talked about such things and attempt to have us be the best version of Liverpool we can be in a sporting sense. I don't believe FSG are very worried about anything sporting. If it happens great, but their true measure of success to them increasing the value of their asset. To use a phrase from that cunt Tom hicks, in that respect we're no different to weetabix to them as an asset.

 

[Trumo]

This is like reading Demolition Dan on skyscrapercity.

[G Richards]

My take on the owners is that they are not bad.

 

Revenue - big increase

 

Stadium - capacity increase with new stand. Not a new stadium, but scope for further expansion down the line. Keeps us at Anfield, which a lot wanted, and they made more progress than previous owners on this difficult issue.

 

Stadium expansion finance - an interest free loan from owners. Obviously they will get their money back, and more, when they sell; but their funding has helped the club take this step. A sponsor might yet be found to offset the cost too.

 

Football - this is the biggest problem. If we take Shankly's old adage that the directors are there to sign cheques, they have done their job. But if we are looking for them to do more on the footballing side than that, then their biggest mistake has just been rectified and they have a top manager at the helm now. Obviously we need to see if he is backed, but you would have to think, given his track record, that if he is, we'll be fighting higher up the league soon enough.

[xerxes]

I share your view that FSG are not bad owners, but I think you overstate their achievements, Graham.

 

The improvement in income has been largely windfall TV rights driven. The hard work , and land acquisition, had been largely been done by others before FSG opted for the minimum possible development. A new Main Stand dates back to Morgan’s era. Putting us on a par with Newcastle and a quarter new stadium is pretty modest stuff. Combine windfall income growth and naming rights and a new stand will cost them nothing, but the revenue enhancement will improve the value of their asset. The failure to either move, or comprehensively redevelop, will haunt us as West Ham, Spurs and Chelsea show us how it is done.

 

Their appointment of placemen like Ayre and Rodgers significantly set the club back, the appointment of Klopp gives us renewed hope IF he is backed in the transfer market.

 

FSG saved us from Administration. There were no other credible alternatives. The club is being run sensibly – and that is about it.

[Kloppite]

I share your view that FSG are not bad owners, but I think you overstate their achievements, Graham.

 

The improvement in income has been largely windfall TV rights driven. The hard work , and land acquisition, had been largely been done by others before FSG opted for the minimum possible development. A new Main Stand dates back to Morgan’s era. Putting us on a par with Newcastle and a quarter new stadium is pretty modest stuff. Combine windfall income growth and naming rights and a new stand will cost them nothing, but the revenue enhancement will improve the value of their asset. The failure to either move, or comprehensively redevelop, will haunt us as West Ham, Spurs and Chelsea show us how it is done.

 

Their appointment of placemen like Ayre and Rodgers significantly set the club back, the appointment of Klopp gives us renewed hope IF he is backed in the transfer market.

 

FSG saved us from Administration. There were no other credible alternatives. The club is being run sensibly – and that is about it.

FSG are the investment vehicle that on the club so from that perspective they have done a good job in the same way Arsenal are a well run club from a financial perspective.

 

It's the football side of things that have let them down but that doesn't make them bad owners. They have employed people in good faith to deliver on the pitch and it hasn't worked out for them. They have now got one of the most sort after managers in world football at the helm. If they are the cow boys people are saying they are then they would have fobbed us off with another young upcoming brendanesque manager but they haven't.

 

In my opinion FSG are as good owners as your going to get. They have spent their own cash for the stadium, yes I know they will see a return but they could have lumped the club with interest payments but they didn't.

 

People seem to believe that city's owners are throwing money at that club for the love of city, the fact isn't they are doing it to ultimately protect and advertise their other assets and interests in their home country.