At what point is "no news" on the stadium unacceptable

[redasever]

Like I said before we are not going to agree. Still say we need a new stadium and we will be worth double what they invest.

Your so negative.

 

This is just silly. If you have no reason for what you think, why think it? Maybe you just want it to be that way. But wishful thinking helps no-one.

 

We have been in the shit. We are just coming out of it. We've had a great big fat dollop of realism and we need to keep that going to get on. We need to positively and creatively plan our way forward based on where we are and what we've got, not pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking based on sugar-daddy investment that's just. not. there. And should never be there.

 

It's about time football woke up and started acting like a business. Any other business behaving like Chelsea would have been in the toilet a long time ago.

.

[xerxes]

It's a good trait as he's fucking useless elsewhere

Oi! That's my line!:P

[redasever]

I agree that football as a sport has an economic cycle and a downturn is overdue. We disagree on its impact.

 

I believe that a downturn will hasten a Euro Elite ( a Euro league/ enhanced South American competition/ a world franchise versus elite competition). The question is will we be on the inside looking out or the outside looking in?

 

Chelsea and Man City will have the benefit of a multi-billionaire as guarantor for some time, that sets them apart from Rangers et al.

 

I share your enthusiasm for the German model – but see no prospect of it happening here. Of course football should be self sustaining at all levels. However I think that the way it will happen at the top end is via a Euro elite, not from democratisation.

 

I do not advocate the demise of FSG – I do fear that the dream is over with them being unable to deliver beyond a holding/slow deterioration position. I remember that FSG were as good as it got.

 

I also share your despair at the madness of English football economics, but I don’t think that we will return to the past, I think the game will reshape again.

 

The game will continue to be about money, and lots of it. Clubs in China, Russia and Brazil can now match PL wages, the petro dollars at PSG and Malaga continue to bite for talent. How all this will play out in detail is anyone’s guess, but one thing I am certain about. Failing to substantially redevelop Anfield or move to a new stadium has no part in any clear or strategic vision for how we will cope with the future.

 

Whilst sharing your lofty ideals for what the game should be about - I doubt our ability to grapple with the dirty stuff here and now.

 

Chelsea and Man City are a world apart from Rangers it’s true but ultimately they caused Rangers’ demise. It nearly did for us too. It's not 'idealistic' to want that stopped. It's a question of survival.

 

***

 

Let me put it another way.

 

Let’s assume that a significant number of clubs wriggle round the FFP and eventually put themselves at such a distance that the Super League does indeed happen.

 

Short of a super-rich, sugar daddy with the will to throw money at the club, we will be on the outside, looking in. For sure. No question.

 

Or, are we owned by a super-rich, sugar daddy with the will to throw money at the club? No, we are not. Do we see anyone else wanting to jump in and do the same? No, we do not.

 

So in that world, there’s us stuffed then.

 

***

 

In the real world, we are already in the top league of ‘wealthy’ clubs. We have relatively little debt. Good support. We are in a strong position. A hell of a lot stronger than 18 months ago when we were hours from going bust trying to follow the old model. Do you want us smacked on the head again before we learn the lesson?

 

Based on revenues, there are currently only 8 teams ‘richer’ than us in Europe. Not enough for a league just yet.

 

Action now (via successful FFP) can save the game. The alternative is a handful (literally - four, five maybe, clubs) that can break away to form a European super league (maybe they can play each other, say, eight times a season!).

 

Or as you say, they could join up with similarly positioned teams in South America. Now I wonder who would that be? Which 12 to 15 teams (say) would there be, or likely be, in South America that can jump into that circle? or in the Middle East? or Asia? or Africa? Which?

 

Even more importantly, why would anyone bother? The PL has access to those markets anyway. Europe has access to those markets anyway. Why pay more for the same? It’s almost a new stadium in macrocosm.

.

[xerxes]

It's about time football woke up and started acting like a business. Any other business behaving like Chelsea would have been in the toilet a long time ago.

 

Investing in your infrastructure and the future is exactly what good businesses do. Those that fail to do so end up like Kodak Film.

 

Chelsea , with all expenditure underwritten by a fabulously wealthy owner,is as sound as you can get.

 

Vanity ownerships of loss making businesses for reasons beyond the immediate P&L account of that business (Murdoch and the Times) as part of a wider portfolio have always existed, and will always do so.

 

Your hopes as to the way that football should be run are shared by many, certainly me.

 

Meantime there is work required on the here and now.

[xerxes]

Chelsea and Man City etc.[/color]

 

 

I disagree that Man City and Chelsea are responsible for Rangers demise.

 

Rangers are responsible for their own demise for living beyond their own means.

 

Rich men have always bankrolled clubs, you and I can remember Sam Longson and Bob Lord, more recently there has been Sir Jack Hayward, Sir Jack Walker, Dave Whelan, Steve Gibson and John Madjeski. I’m all for rich men having a go- so long as they can afford it. I think those clubs, and football , have been the better for it.

 

Your scenario in which you conclude “We are stuffed” is where I think we may be with FSG.

 

I agree that as of now, we are not in that bad a shape as around the ninth highest revenue earning club in Europe. Where we disagree is that I think that position is underpinned by a fading past, not a bright future. I think that our commercial performance has been carried by past momentum. Next time around when it comes to shirt deals, if we have failed to break back into the CL we are likely to take quite a hit.

 

The principle of FFP is fine. I do not think that the current system will deliver what you hope, I believe that instead it will achieve the reverse, clubs outside the top four will never be able to self –generate enough to challenge. We will see.

 

How Euro football will evolve is best dealt with in a separate thread. I would just pick you up on one point though. Any Euro league will I think be driven by TV sales across Europe. It would most likely comprise three or four clubs from England, Spain, Germany, France and Italy, with ones from Holland Portugal etc to make up the numbers. Like Eurovision for football really........................

[redasever]

 

Your scenario in which you conclude “We are stuffed” is where I think we may be with FSG.

 

 

I don’t think all those guys have done well for football. I think they’ve led us into a world of unsustainable football and poor business. The loser has been us. Everyone who pays what they pay to see the game. either there or on the box.

 

A modest increase in price for all-seater stadia was predicted after Hillsborough. Three years later the EPL had started and the average ticket price had jumped from £4 to £30. How is that better for us? How has pumping money into the game made it better for us? There’s certainly a few players who are better off.

 

The other losers are the clubs without the sugar daddies. To put it bluntly, if Rangers (or Portsmouth) hadn’t had to pay so much for players in the market created by Abramovitch et al, they wouldn’t have been in the dwang they’re in. We were lucky. H&G didn’t even have the money - they borrowed it. Lucky indeed.

 

***

 

I’m happy to acknowledge the past is fading but we are where we are. We can’t compete from any other base. We can’t (re-)start from somewhere else. This is the battle the owners have. This is what they have come to. This is what they have taken on.

 

They have said they will investment from revenue and that’s not going to change. It’s fundamental to their plan for LFC. It’s pointless to wish it otherwise. As it happens, I don’t. I’m glad of it.

 

***

 

TV and commercial revenue will rule the roost and it requires very little real investment. TV companies buy TV cameras. Shirt manufacturers make the shirts. We just have to agree to have their name on ‘our’ product.

 

We will take a hit without CL. Nevertheless one shirt deal is worth more than the incremental revenue from an increased capacity. This puts the stadium in perspective. It’s important but not as important.

 

It’s not ‘the only avenue to increase our revenue beyond our competitors’ because it contributes less anyway and just saying global revenue can be exploited, doesn’t make it so. The business has to be won. Others may do better. others may not do as well. It’s a battle off the field as much as it is on.

 

You have belittled Ayre’s ‘couple of shops’ in South East Asia but that represents a much bigger picture. A bigger picture of sponsor profile and subsequent sponsor contribution.

 

***

 

What FSG said they’d do, they are doing. Not a step out of place. They called for unity on that plan of action and no-one said no. No-one said we don’t want that. Maybe not enough people were actively listening.

 

Because what concerns me is the distraction that chivvying at FSG for doing what they said they’d do, doesn’t help. A return to the days of us v them.

 

And I have to say that people who put forward arguments such as yours, encourage that split. That’s not honesty. That’s not ‘healthy scepticism’. To the extent that the alternative is not directly contested, is not supported by the ‘facts’ or circumstances we find ourselves and follows populist headline rhetoric, it is unreasoned, unreasonable and misguided.

 

What’s more, it is both unnecessary and in the bigger picture of the game and the club, unwise.

[lifetime fan]

And another stadium thread fucking ruined by you two.

[redasever]

And another stadium thread fucking ruined by you two.

 

'scuse me?

.

[Bjornebye]

we can only start building when we want with the plans submitted by the 2 yank cunts. the afl designs need to be re-submitted and then we might have to wait 3 years without a guarantee of it being approved anyway.

this new fella running for mayor can fuck off as well.

[aws]

And another stadium thread fucking ruined by you two.

 

A bit unfair. It's like the last stages of a heavyweight boxing match with both fighters tiring but still swinging.

 

redasever well ahead on points in my book.

[lifetime fan]

'scuse me?

.

 

It's the pair of you, you already have another thread going with your tic tac dick measuring competition going on, why the need to ruin this one too?

[Guest ShoePiss]

I don't like the idea of banking on TV revenue alone to match the pace . Utd have their revenue streams balanced perfectly, they're about 33% each for match day, commercial and TV revenues. If one of those takes a hit like TV companies go bust or are forced to cut costs they'll have the others to fall back on.

 

We need to drastically increase matchday revenue, simple as that.

[Guest ShoePiss]

'scuse me?

.

 

How dare he, I mean, you did see Richard Branson once! :D

[Bjornebye]

I don't like the idea of banking on TV revenue alone to match the pace . Utd have their revenue streams balanced perfectly, they're about 33% each for match day, commercial and TV revenues. If one of those takes a hit like TV companies go bust or are forced to cut costs they'll have the others to fall back on.

 

We need to drastically increase matchday revenue, simple as that.

 

lets start selling branded condoms to african prozzies

[Guest ShoePiss]

lets start selling branded condoms to african prozzies

 

Catholic church won't allow it, sorry.

[redasever]

It's the pair of you, you already have another thread going with your tic tac dick measuring competition going on, why the need to ruin this one too?

 

It's not Janet and John but there's nothing out of place. Personally I was enjoying the reasonable level of discussion.

 

.

[redasever]

How dare he, I mean, you did see Richard Branson once! :D

 

You're awake then.

.

[Guest ShoePiss]

You're awake then.

.

 

9:37am and two coffees in, I should hope so.

[redasever]

I don't like the idea of banking on TV revenue alone to match the pace . Utd have their revenue streams balanced perfectly, they're about 33% each for match day, commercial and TV revenues. If one of those takes a hit like TV companies go bust or are forced to cut costs they'll have the others to fall back on.

 

We need to drastically increase matchday revenue, simple as that.

 

Yes we do. But it's not that simple. We've got lots of other things to do too.

.

[xerxes]

I don’t think all those guys have done well for football.

 

I agree that the players, agents and football administrators have done well out of the Sky era, the fans have been shat on.

 

Given that there are only a handful of billionaires out there, the rest have only themselves to blame for the squandered millions.

 

I agree that with your assessment of FSG’s business plan – I just think that it will confirm our ongoing gradual slide from grace. I accept that there were no other takers – nor is there anyone in the ings who thinks that they can do better.

 

I also agree that FSG are looking for windfall growth, with minimal investment.

 

I think you have the commercial dynamic wrong. I understand that the SC deal is worth £20m a year to us over four years, Warrior around £25m.Man U and Arsenal are pulling an extra £60m a year from their stadia. Both also have shirt deals which tend to leap frog each other and us (Nike last deal with Man u was £23.5m). It’s case of the tortoise and the hare, and over the medium to the long term an extra 15-20k seats will deliver a premium over and beyond fluctuating shirt deals which are available to all the leading clubs.

 

Underperformance on the pitch will catch up with us. Some of what Herbert Hainer said may have been sour grapes, the rest rang true: “Herbert Hainer, the chief executive of Adidas, has claimed that Liverpool's performances on the pitch – including their failure to qualify for European football for the first time in 12 seasons last year – and a difference of opinion over the club's commercial worth have seen the German kit supplier withdraw from negotiations for a new deal.

 

"The gap between their performance on the field and what the number should be is not in balance," Hainer told Bloomberg. "Then we said: 'OK we will not do it'. That's the end of the story. It all depends on the success and the effort and the popularity, the exposure on TV, revenue you can generate by merchandising.

 

"This all has to be brought in line between what you offer and what you get. We thought that what Liverpool were asking and what they were delivering was not in the right balance."

 

If our performance on the pitch does not improve we will not have a repeat of the warrior deal, and without an increase in revenue beyond that of our competitors, we will not be competitive.I don't think that the Far east is anything more than a sideshow, and is a distraction from our failure to tackle what really matters - the stadium.

 

I completely reject your review that questioning FSG’s strategy is damaging. What has been damaging has been our failure to do that with M&P, and then initially, with G&H.

 

When FSG arrived we were grateful to be in business , that is all.

 

In turn, your approach for me, continues the supine relationship with the Board which has so damaged us in the past ,and the acceptance of failing to plan for the future, which has seen our infrastructure decline and our title hopes all but disappear.

[xerxes]

It's not Janet and John but there's nothing out of place. Personally I was enjoying the reasonable level of discussion.

 

Agreed.

 

Two people offer different opinions on a subject of common interest, shock.............

 

Same objective, the best for LFC, different routes.

[redasever]

Agreed.

 

Two people offer different opinions on a subject of common interest, shock.............

 

Same objective, the best for LFC, different routes.

 

Well, I wouldn't get all loved up just yet mate.

.

[christhered]

The longer it goes on, the closer we will get to ground share.

[redasever]

I agree that the players, agents and football administrators have done well out of the Sky era, the fans have been shat on.

 

Then, you’re grossly unfair on those who’ve ‘squandered millions’ trying to keep up with the Abramovitches. If it wasn’t for him they wouldn’t be in the position of having to pay silly money just to get their hands on even mediocre players.

 

***

 

Whatever I’ve said of FSG’s business plan, it’s not ‘my assessment’. Like it was a secret I’ve winkled out.

 

They’ve been upfront with it and they’re doing it. They told us what they were going to do and they asked for our support for it.

 

Where were all the carpers then? Why didn’t even a single dickie bird peep up then? Now - oh, bugger me - FSG aren’t going to put their own money in. There is a shock.

 

***

 

I didn’t say FSG were looking for windfall growth. There not looking for windfall growth.

 

They’re trying to make a club great again within its means. Don’t you get it? That’s what they do. Have they ever taken any money out of Boston Red Sox? That’ll be a no then.

 

***

 

“Over the medium to the long term an extra 15-20k seats will deliver a premium over and beyond fluctuating shirt deals which are available to all the leading clubs”.

 

It won’t. You refuse to accept very supportable projections on it, or the word of the club. It still won’t.

 

***

 

The Adidas situation is a statement of the bleedin’ obvious. You don’t do so well on the field. The ‘fringe’ support is less enamoured. The club is less attractive to a sponsor. There’s less from TV. Fewer shirts sold. That’s the way it goes. So?

 

Or are you blaming FSG for our lack of performance on the pitch? Perhaps Henry and Werner should get themselves some boots.

 

As I said, one deal with tiny investment and miniscule risk by comparison has outdone a mega investment with huge risk. Again read JWH’s lips. We. will. focus. on. global. revenue. Day two. Look it up.

 

[While you’re there, look for where he effectively says “we will only invest the minimum required in a new stadium. We are very interested in a little thing called ‘return on investment’. There will be debt for a stadium. Some debt is good”. He ain’t pulling the wool]

 

In terms of absolute revenue a stadium is important. In terms of risk and reward, it is a sideshow

 

***

 

You play with words. It is entirely reasonable to question FSG’s strategy. It is entirely unreasonable to conclude that it will not work. How would you reason it?

 

With an effective cap on expenditure in the offing and a resolve for the game to live within its means, how can you possibly justify that conclusion?

 

Because the guys who break the rules will break away? We’ve done that. Look at it again if you like.

 

***

 

If you were ‘just grateful to be in business’ when they came, you’re a bigger fool than I thought you were. What on earth would have been the point of the selection process. To ‘select’ the highest bidder? I could have done that. The cat could have done it.

 

Or was the purpose to select the bidder with the best plan for the club in the interest of all concerned? Yes, I think it was. Or should we also include Martin Broughton in your list of failures?

 

***

 

And no, that wouldn’t be throwing the blame for past failures on to new owners either. That would be agreeing that the best bidder was selected for the job because you agreed with the basis on which they were selected. And then blow me down with a feather, they went on to be true to their word. How supine is that?

.

[Horus]

If anyone thinks FFP will stop the clubs with the most money, spending it, you are sadly mistaken.

 

There is no way they will throw Barca/Madrid/Man City/Chelsea out of their top competition. It just won't happen.

 

Ground renovations/building a new stadium are costs that don't count in FFP.