When are we likely to get definitive stadium news?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

and repetition isn't interesting.

Nor is needless negativity, based in bias. However, it doesn't seem to stop anybody else. If its repot ion that irks you, you might want to look elsewhere. Still, less deflection and more 'who gives a fuck what clueless naysaying cunts think'.

[stringvest]

That's all good then.  So the point you're making is that lots of people doubted FSG would build a new stadium or alter the existing one.  Then FSG went and built a new stand.  So that's one in the eye for all those clueless naysaying cunts.  Got it.  

 

I still think it's unlikely they'll redevelop the ARE.  

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

That's all good then. So the point you're making is that lots of people doubted FSG would build a new stadium or alter the existing one. Then FSG went and built a new stand. So that's one in the eye for all those clueless naysaying cunts. Got it.

 

I still think it's unlikely they'll redevelop the ARE.

That is my point, yes. Those, who went out of their way to repeat over and over and over how FSG won't do anything with the stadium because they're looking for a quick sale aren't particularly worth listening to when it comes to that subject. I think it's a pretty sound point.

 

As for the ARE, I don't know how much sense it makes to do it. If it makes sense, I think they will. If it doesn't, I hope they don't.

[stringvest]

That is my point, yes. Those, who went out of their way to repeat over and over and over how FSG won't do anything with the stadium because they're looking for a quick sale aren't particularly worth listening to when it comes to that subject. I think it's a pretty sound point.

 

As for the ARE, I don't know how much sense it makes to do it. If it makes sense, I think they will. If it doesn't, I hope they don't.

 

 

It's absolutely a sound point.  I thought they'd sell up, and I'm sure if it wasn't for the TV money hikes they would have done.  While we continue to be unsuccessful, our stock will in relative terms continue to fall.  And once the SKY handouts have peaked, our stock in real terms will fall.  I don't have FSG down as bad owners.  They're doing more or less exactly what they said they'd do, except for making us successful.  

 

Extending the ARE will make sense from a fans perspective, but not so much in financial terms.  Which is why I don't think they'll do it.  

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

While we continue to be unsuccessful, our stock will in relative terms continue to fall.  And once the SKY handouts have peaked, our stock in real terms will fall.  I don't have FSG down as bad owners.  They're doing more or less exactly what they said they'd do, except for making us successful.  

 

They've certainly given the footballing side enough firepower to make us successful. Where they've fallen short, in my view, is not getting a new CEO/MD in and moved Ayre across. We need somebody runnign the club who is willing to cut the dead wood from the scouting staff and committee. Outside of that, the money they've put into players in their time here is pretty much excellent, regardless of where it came from. The reason, I'd argue, we're not successful isn't down to their support, even if they have to take some of the blame for the performance of those under them. Now they've gone and got Klopp... I don't think we're likely to get better owners if they do choose to sell. I also think we will win more things under than them. 

[stringvest]

They have made plenty of mistakes though. The off-pitch management selection and structure has been terrible; giving rise to bad decision after bad decision that has been very damaging to the clubs fortunes. Klopp's recruitment has arguably been their only real success, and it remains to be seen whether he'll be stymied by poor organisation and incompetence elsewhere.

 

I agree with you that as far as funding goes, we're unlikely to find better. They have presided over incompetence and poor governance though, and it's a bit of a leap of faith to assume all that is going to be fixed before the transfer window opens.

[jimmycase]

They've made no more mistakes than other owners.

 

The manc owners have made loads more mistakes from this observer's point of view. Just look at the last two managers, never mind the millions they've blown on transfers recently.

 

abramovic has presided over a number of mistakes, giving shitcoat his head, the doctor eva case, the backroom staff never mind their failed transfers

 

arsenal's majority owner has overseen stagnation on and off the pitch. They havent replaced that mastermind dein behind the scenes.

 

But hey ho.

[3 Stacks]

They've made no more mistakes than other owners.

 

The manc owners have made loads more mistakes from this observer's point of view. Just look at the last two managers, never mind the millions they've blown on transfers recently.

 

abramovic has presided over a number of mistakes, giving shitcoat his head, the doctor eva case, the backroom staff never mind their failed transfers

 

arsenal's majority owner has overseen stagnation on and off the pitch. They havent replaced that mastermind dein behind the scenes.

 

But hey ho.

 

Agreed. I suppose people would be happier with the Glazers who have syphoned money out of United for a decade? Or Kroenke who doesn't give a fuck? Or a Russian mobster? Or a bunch of oil barons?

 

FSG are about as sensible as it gets when it comes to ownership groups.

[Nightcat]

6 seasons, one League Cup. Success. 9th in the league, while we slowly sink deeper into the abyss of mediocrity.

[Barrington Womble]

I'm pretty pissed at the moment, so my post will probably be less coherent than the normal shit I post. My view has been consistently fsg will do what improves the bottom line on their exit plan. I still see no change.

 

As for people bringing the glaziers into it, of course they're awful owners. They've taken the most powerful club in the country and made them into nothing. Thank fuck and we should be happy. We should be trying to avoid that though, not wanking ourselves because we have some new seats and still trail them in the league

 

Those who want to disparage abramovic, he wouldn't be be my choice of owner, but he's the best thing that's ever happened to Chelsea - for all he's done wrong they've been European champions and become a genuine world renowned club. They were just bellends before. Now they're bellends with trophies and a name.

 

This crowd who own us aren't interrested in success on the pitch, just how they'll make it work off the pitch. It doesn't make them the worst owners, I think it makes them probably like the other American owners in this league. They're here for the money and the exposure it gives their other businesses. They just aren't arsed about anything else. Good luck villa, Fulham, Sunderland.

 

FSG bought a club with a remit of building a new stadium. All these years later they're build 8k more seats, 5k which don't go to fans. And if they'd have had their way, they'd have made people get dry bummed for the remaining 3k seats.

 

Gee thanks. You've made us into what we are today. The shittest Liverpool team since Shankly joined us. But don't the worry about trophies, we've just been reported as the 6th most valuable club on the planet. Who needs trophies eh? Mid table glory.

 

[G Richards]

6 seasons, one League Cup. Success. 9th in the league, while we slowly sink deeper into the abyss of mediocrity.

That's why we made a change and brought Klopp in. Hopefully we will see this bear fruit soon. We've seen some good signs as Klopp gets his hands on it, but obviously it's not his team yet. I fully expect a good summer and an upturn in our fortunes, though we will have to fight harder than ever for anything we achieve, as there is an ever deepening pool of opposition teams giving it a real go.

 

Man Utd is a cash juggernaut, though fortunately underperforming in relation to money spent.

Man City are getting Guardiola and have money to burn.

Chelsea will come again.

Arsenal are always there or thereabouts.

Spurs have been better than us for a little while (most but not all recent seasons) and its clicking for them right now, with their manager and some good young players.

West Ham have won the lottery with the stadium and will grow.

Everton have a decent team but Bobby brown shoes can't set them up. They might make a change to spend that investor's money.

Leicester are having an amazing season but I'd be very surprised if they kept it together beyond this campaign, at least at the sort of level they've been at this season.

 

It's more competitive than I've ever known it to be in the league, but we are poised for an upturn with Klopp and I can't wait to see what happens. Keep the faith.

[xerxes]

As for the ARE, I don't know how much sense it makes to do it. If it makes sense, I think they will. If it doesn't, I hope they don't.

History will rightly judge our ownership post 1991 harshly when it comes to stadium redevelopment. Whilst others have embraced change, and metamorphosed with it, we have missed the boat of increased crowds and the revenues associated with it.

 

I simply do not see the financial case which supports our inaction. FFP allows for expenditure on stadia to be discounted, whilst revenues are allowed on balance sheets. Since 2001 the value of football TV rights has quintupled. Steel prices have reduced by two thirds, interest rates are at an all time low as attendances continue to burgeon. When exactly does the LFC board think WOULD be the right time to increase capacity and modernise?

 

As we thrill to the prospect of a new stand, Man City have relocated and extended capacity, and will do so again, Man U are looking at increasing to 80,000, West Ham will combine a new stadium and a 54k capacity, Spurs and Chelsea will rebuild to 60k.

 

We are the second best supported club in England by historic average home attendance, apparently we have gazillions of foreign support- but even a half new/half old ground leaving us slipping down the capacity rankings is beyond us for the pygmies who run us.

 

New grounds/ major redevelopment can be a drain, but a combination of naming rights, TV monies, and ticket price inflation make them excellent investments for the future. We haven’t won much while ploughing the money into the team rather than safeguarding our financial future. The money that Brendan squandered could have bought us a new ground in three years- there’s a thought for you.

 

The ARE increased by 5000 seats to create a 59,000 capacity would generate £6.25m a year in ticket revenue alone at £50 a ticket over 25 home games . It would pay for itself in eight years (£50m) before programme/ refreshment/corporate income, ticket price inflation, TV money inflation, and sponsorship money is taken into account.

 

Why do it? Three reasons. It enables more fans to watch our games. It improves our FFP position. It safeguards our future financial and infrastructure requirements.

 

I find it difficult to become excited about a new stand that offers sumptuous Directors facilities, 4000 new hospitality seats but precious little for the average fan.

[jimmycase]

This has got to be an early April Fool

 

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/505002/Liverpool-takeover-Fenway-Middle-East

[Arl arse]

This has got to be an early April Fool

 

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/505002/Liverpool-takeover-Fenway-Middle-East

Yeah, bit of a shit effort too.

[kop77]

its true 

[redasever]

Many people didn't think anything would get done.

 

 

Aye, it's not bad for a 'lick of paint'

[Trumo]

Not us, but West Ham's hugely favourable Olympic Stadium deal has been made public. As if it wasn't obvious before, they are ripe for plucking by a wealthy foreign owner of the sort Man City got, and the porn barons stand to make a killing.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36043808
 

 

Olympic Stadium bosses reveal West Ham deal after dropping case

 

West Ham's Olympic Stadium deal has been made public after the stadium's owners decided they would not pursue the case any further.

 

The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) fought a ruling that the contract should be made public, but the appeal was rejected by an Information Tribunal earlier this week.

 

West Ham will pay an annual rent of £2.5m per year over the 99-year lease, the 207-page document has revealed.

 

The Hammers move in this summer.

 

The first £4m of any naming rights deal will go to the LLDC and Newham borough, with anything above that between the two bodies and West Ham.

 

The LLDC, which had spent thousands of pounds fighting the ruling, said the decision could cost the organisation "millions of pounds".

 

But it has decided not to appeal against the tribunal's ruling.

 

The club were awarded tenancy of the London 2012 stadium in 2013, and at least £272m has been spent to convert the site for use as a Premier League ground.

 

West Ham have contributed £15m towards those costs. Last year a BBC documentary revealed the club was having many of the running costs of the stadium paid for it by the taxpayer under the terms of the tenancy agreement.

 

A coalition of 14 supporters' trusts from around the country submitted a Freedom of Information request to obtain that tenancy agreement and believe that the deal gives West Ham a competitive advantage.

 

[Barrington Womble]

Not us, but West Ham's hugely favourable Olympic Stadium deal has been made public. As if it wasn't obvious before, they are ripe for plucking by a wealthy foreign owner of the sort Man City got, and the porn barons stand to make a killing.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36043808

 

 

is there anything new there? i struggle to believe that £2.5m a year isn't some way index linked. also, they are only anchor tenants aren't they, so other tenants can be rented to (tottenham for a season as example or a rugby team or something). so while costs are low, i am not sure they could buy the stadium in quite the manner city did. 

[Trumo]

is there anything new there? i struggle to believe that £2.5m a year isn't some way index linked. also, they are only anchor tenants aren't they, so other tenants can be rented to (tottenham for a season as example or a rugby team or something). so while costs are low, i am not sure they could buy the stadium in quite the manner city did. 

 

Just to point out that City were handed their stadium on favourable terms 5 years before the Sheikh bought the club.

 

The point is, West Ham stand to make quite a bit of revenue from the use of a 60k-plus stadium even after their share of annual costs is deducted. They'll make much more than they do from the wholly-owned Upton Park, without the huge costs normally associated with the building of a new stadium. That might not be 'news' as such, but it is what it is.

[Manny]

Absolutely fucking stinks that West Ham deal, the cunts. No time whatsoever for them now.

[Lee909]

Why would they want to buy the stadium they have it for the next 99 years for the pricely sum of £247.5ml. They will cover the costs via the 50% of naming rights alone. And the cheeky cunts are still saying the cant afford Benteke wages

[Gym Beglin]

Not us, but West Ham's hugely favourable Olympic Stadium deal has been made public. As if it wasn't obvious before, they are ripe for plucking by a wealthy foreign owner of the sort Man City got, and the porn barons stand to make a killing.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36043808

 

Did you ever hear the story on 'The Football Ramble' about the cleaner on board a luxury yacht, and the mystery PL owner?

 

Never revealed the name, but I bet it was one of these sordid cunts.

 

Basically, the dirty bastard shat all over the place. Shitting on the bedsheets, shitting all over the place like a wrong un.

[G Richards]

Clearly a very favourable deal to West Ham. They will be a growing threat. There will be 6-7 teams all trying, and realistically believing, they will get top four next season.

[Russ Atmosphere]

Did you ever hear the story on 'The Football Ramble' about the cleaner on board a luxury yacht, and the mystery PL owner?

 

Never revealed the name, but I bet it was one of these sordid cunts.

 

Basically, the dirty bastard shat all over the place. Shitting on the bedsheets, shitting all over the place like a wrong un.

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Absolutely fucking stinks that West Ham deal, the cunts. No time whatsoever for them now.

Don't blame the club.

 

If someone is stupid enough to offer a stadium on those terms, they'd be nuts not to take it.