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

[redasever]

We are not going to agree. I stand by my figures. Liverpool is a gold mine but they need to put in equity. I'll see what they have done by end of the season.

 

You reckon a club's worth what you put in. ok.

 

I think (it’s not entirely clear) that your figures say they need to put in £15m net of naming rights for 20 years and £33m for 3 years (I’m not sure what happens after that). So they’re putting in £450m. They’ve already paid £300m for the club. A total of £750m. You say it might be worth £600m. Mmmm. You also say it might be worth £1bn. How so?

 

Stand by what you like. I guarantee they'll live within the club's means. I'll also guarantee, they'll at least think about how much income the club will generate rather than freewheel some numbers on equity.

 

I'll also guarantee that if the club or any new stadium actually loses money and it looks like it will continue to do so, the value will go down - not up.

.

[redasever]

I should also add that, of course you're not taking into account how the assets (players and stadium) are depreciating over that time or whether you reckon a £30m top-up on players should be an annual and recurring event after three years. That alone wold cost someone £600m over 20 years. No?

[satmann]

You reckon a club's worth what you put in. ok.

 

I think (it’s not entirely clear) that your figures say they need to put in £15m net of naming rights for 20 years and £33m for 3 years (I’m not sure what happens after that). So they’re putting in £450m. They’ve already paid £300m for the club. A total of £750m. You say it might be worth £600m. Mmmm. You also say it might be worth £1bn. How so?

 

Stand by what you like. I guarantee they'll live within the club's means. I'll also guarantee, they'll at least think about how much income the club will generate rather than freewheel some numbers on equity.

 

I'll also guarantee that if the club or any new stadium actually loses money and it looks like it will continue to do so, the value will go down - not up.

.

 

What are you on about? I Said they need to put in £100 million MORE. The £15 million after naming rights will come from the increased revenue. So the total they put in ...£220 million they paid for club plus £100 million gives you £320 million in total. And the club would be worth between £600 million to £1 billion.

 

Good night.

[Heinze]

YANKS OUT 2.0

[Guest The Chimp]

I'm not there so this might be a daft question, but Peel holdings seem to be investing heavily in Merseyside, are they not an option for the club to sound out. I'm not saying relocating a new stadium to the banks of the Mersey and incorporatihg it in their redevelopment of the northern docks area (if indeed that goes ahead) but maybe naming rights/stadium build or even as part of a larger development of the Anfield area. Probably talking bollox but it just wanted the views of those closer to the situation geographically.

[Kopite Pete]

I'm still waiting for them to over deliver like they said. These guys are a safe pair of hands. Nothing more or less.

[Cardie]

 

We are not going to agree. I stand by my figures. Liverpool is a gold mine but they need to put in equity. I'll see what they have done by end of the season.

 

You stand by your plucked from the air made up figures?

[Cardie]

I'm still waiting for them to over deliver like they said. These guys are a safe pair of hands. Nothing more or less.

 

Isn't that what we want?

[redasever]

What are you on about? I Said they need to put in £100 million MORE. The £15 million after naming rights will come from the increased revenue. So the total they put in ...£220 million they paid for club plus £100 million gives you £320 million in total. And the club would be worth between £600 million to £1 billion.

 

Good night.

 

You aren’t making any sense. Even here you’re saying ‘they need to put in £100 million MORE”. More than what? For what? For players? What about the stadium? If they put in ‘£100m more’ for players (as you said), what pays for the stadium? The increased revenue? £15m a year? No. It doesn’t.

 

You then say the £100m put in is equity. Well, it might be if you were mad enough to do it but it don’t work that way. But so, you want them to put in another £100m (hey, why not. It’s only money). They paid £300m for the club including taking on the stadium and operating debt. You say it’s £220m. Ok. That’s a total of £420m.

 

If you want them to put £320m to £420m (your figures), where's the return on investment mate? The '£600 million to £1 billion’? When the club's sold? How’s that mate? How do you work that out? How will that be valued? Who will be around to buy? Will they get around to looking at income do you think? What it would be worth to them perhaps? But what income? Have you deducted £5m naming rights from £20m cost and called it £15m a year in income?

 

And if there's no nett income, it makes sense to wait till you sell for a return? No it doesn't

 

Then there’s the question of depreciation. Where’s that mate? Where’s the costs of running the business? Where’s the cost of insurance against part of that £100m on players going west on a broken leg? Where’s the wages? Where’s the amortisation of player costs?

 

And then, where’s the acknowledgment that FSG have in fact been open right from the start? If you wanted/expected hundreds of millions thrown at the club, no-one promised it, it isn’t necessary and you will be disappointed.

 

Just to remind you, this is what you wrote:

 

“Your wrong. Stadium they will get a loan, say £300 million... £20 million over 30 years. Naming rights at a low end figure of £5 million will take that to £15 million a year. £100 million over 3 years to supplement the transfer kitty by £30 million a year.

 

That's £100 million equity, £200 million they could put £100 million towards stadium. We do not need rich owners just money put in.

With a new stadium Liverpool will be worth £600 million- £1 billion.

 

They knew this when they took over, so they need to be open.”

.

Edited March 29, 2012 by redasever

[redasever]

And then look at the value of Anfield. It's 'worth' about £42m a year (less operating costs) say £40m. Even taking the remaining deprecation period of 5 years, you can look at the tail end of the depreciation, pick an interest rate and amortise that. For easy calculation - ignore interest (on the one hand and depreciation, on the other) and look at £210m over 5 years.

 

To build a new stadium , the first thing you need to do is to demolish Anfield. To throw away £210m of value at the stroke of a demolition ball. Take on a huge debt for a new stadium. Hope you will fill it every game. All for £5m a year naming rights. Brave man.

 

[And no, it's not going to fall down after five years anyway]

 

.

Edited March 29, 2012 by redasever

[xerxes]

If you wanted/expected hundreds of millions thrown at the club, no-one promised it, it isn’t necessary and you will be disappointed.

 

Coming unstuck on the numbers? What a surprise.

 

We have not won the League for over two decades. We will be out of the CL for a minimum of two seasons. We have the 63rd largest stadium in Europe, and the sixth biggest in England - yet are the second best supported club in England by average attendance of all time. We are the 22nd best supported club in Europe by home average attendance when we would be in the top ten - if our capacity was big enough.

 

The team will need £100's of millions to return to the euro elite (we have already spent £100m just to get in the EL). The ground needs an upgrade of £100+ million just to stand still.

 

The claim that spending £100ms on the ground and team is "unnecessary" is absurd. Bovril tasted nice - once.

 

If the indecision on the ground continues we face the prospect of the museum tour being extended to incorporate the entire ground.

[satmann]

You aren’t making any sense. Even here you’re saying ‘they need to put in £100 million MORE”. More than what? For what? For players? What about the stadium? If they put in ‘£100m more’ for players (as you said), what pays for the stadium? The increased revenue? £15m a year? No. It doesn’t.

 

You then say the £100m put in is equity. Well, it might be if you were mad enough to do it but it don’t work that way. But so, you want them to put in another £100m (hey, why not. It’s only money). They paid £300m for the club including taking on the stadium and operating debt. You say it’s £220m. Ok. That’s a total of £420m.

 

If you want them to put £320m to £420m (your figures), where's the return on investment mate? The '£600 million to £1 billion’? When the club's sold? How’s that mate? How do you work that out? How will that be valued? Who will be around to buy? Will they get around to looking at income do you think? What it would be worth to them perhaps? But what income? Have you deducted £5m naming rights from £20m cost and called it £15m a year in income?

 

And if there's no nett income, it makes sense to wait till you sell for a return? No it doesn't

 

Then there’s the question of depreciation. Where’s that mate? Where’s the costs of running the business? Where’s the cost of insurance against part of that £100m on players going west on a broken leg? Where’s the wages? Where’s the amortisation of player costs?

 

And then, where’s the acknowledgment that FSG have in fact been open right from the start? If you wanted/expected hundreds of millions thrown at the club, no-one promised it, it isn’t necessary and you will be disappointed.

 

Just to remind you, this is what you wrote:

 

“Your wrong. Stadium they will get a loan, say £300 million... £20 million over 30 years. Naming rights at a low end figure of £5 million will take that to £15 million a year. £100 million over 3 years to supplement the transfer kitty by £30 million a year.

 

That's £100 million equity, £200 million they could put £100 million towards stadium. We do not need rich owners just money put in.

With a new stadium Liverpool will be worth £600 million- £1 billion.

 

They knew this when they took over, so they need to be open.”

.

 

You are so negative and your a fan.

Thats all rubbish. New staduim will pay for itself with a mortgage. Stand by what I said they just need to put in £100 million more...taking their total investment in the club too £320 million not £420 etc.

 

And when the new stadium opens the club will be worth between £600 million and £1 billion, just look at what Man u and Arsenal are worth.

 

The only way FSG are going to earn money from the club is by building a new stadium. The exact reason hicks wanted to hold on.

[redasever]

You are so negative and your a fan.

Thats all rubbish. New staduim will pay for itself with a mortgage. Stand by what I said they just need to put in £100 million more...taking their total investment in the club too £320 million not £420 etc.

 

And when the new stadium opens the club will be worth between £600 million and £1 billion, just look at what Man u and Arsenal are worth.

 

The only way FSG are going to earn money from the club is by building a new stadium. The exact reason hicks wanted to hold on.

 

 

'Thats all rubbish' is not really an argument is it? You can do better than that.

 

The new stadium will not pay for itself. The cost of the mortgage is more or less equal to the increase in revenue. Nobody's hiding this. The club is telling you this.

 

If you think it's £320m. Ok.

 

But what is your reason for believing we'd be worth anything like £600m to £1bn? Because Arsenal are? Because Arsenal sold 2000 homes in Islington homes to help pay for a stadium? Because Arsenal have much higher prices and still ‘fill’ their stadium? Because Arsenal have a huge corporate market? We've none of those things.

 

And United. How much are they worth exactly? And how is that driven? How is that different from us. Couldn't be their revenue generation could it? Couldn't be that their total revenue from broadcasting, commercial and matchday revenues is 80% more than ours could it? Couldn't be that they've had sustained success could it?

 

That isn’t negative. That’s realistic. Something this club was crying out for after the bullshit from Hicks. Something we still need.

 

Hicks only wanted to hang on for as long as it took to get what he saw as the value of the new stadium. Everyone else looked at it and thought - well, it’s worth bugger all. And that’s exactly what he got for it.

.

[redasever]

Coming unstuck on the numbers? What a surprise.

 

We have not won the League for over two decades. We will be out of the CL for a minimum of two seasons. We have the 63rd largest stadium in Europe, and the sixth biggest in England - yet are the second best supported club in England by average attendance of all time. We are the 22nd best supported club in Europe by home average attendance when we would be in the top ten - if our capacity was big enough.

 

The team will need £100's of millions to return to the euro elite (we have already spent £100m just to get in the EL). The ground needs an upgrade of £100+ million just to stand still.

 

The claim that spending £100ms on the ground and team is "unnecessary" is absurd. Bovril tasted nice - once.

 

If the indecision on the ground continues we face the prospect of the museum tour being extended to incorporate the entire ground.

 

Come on mate. Give up the personal jibes. Nobody wants to know.

 

The point (which I suspect you know) is not whether the club needs to spend money on this or that, but where is it to come from.

 

FSG say (and I agree with them) that it’s to come from revenue. UEFA say (and I agree with them) that it’s to come from living within the club’s means. Abramovitch would like to be able to spend as freely as he can, because he can and very few people can compete with that.

 

That attitude is fucking up the game, driving up players costs, driving up ticket prices and driving up the number of liquidations from clubs trying to compete financially when they can’t. Don’t forget that was nearly us.

 

And the past has a value, yes. But only if you don’t live in it.

.

[Horus]

FSG aren't stupid, They know after the way they swooped in, and the condition we were in at the time, that they've got another couple of years grace before anyone raises serious questions.

 

Here is a microcosm of Liverpool support, and the minute it's raised, it's met with a "they saved the club" reply.

 

If a doctor saves my life, how long am I indebted to him? Does he then have the right to phone it in if I get cancer?

 

They've been very clever. First they appointed Ayres - who was one of the public faces of taking the club away from the cunts, get Kenny in post - at the request of the fans, and don't go round making bold statements.

 

Keep flashing their stadium knickers at us every so often, make it look as though everything is moving along, and we'll all sit there.

 

I personally believe that our days as a truly big club in the hunt for big trophies (league & CL) are coming to an end. The continued mismanagement throughout the club, at the worst time in history to do so, is just a bridge too far.

 

United are secure. They may have a few bad years after the cunt retires, but they'll be ok. The glazers will have paid a lot of their deb off (due to massive united profits), and will have sold it on, before they have a 20 year fiasco.

 

City are going to be this leagues dominant force. The money they have behind them is obscene, and they are also investing in the local community, which strongly suggests that they are definitely here for the long term.

 

Chelsea depend on Roman, but he has no reason to leave. The money it costs him to keep Chelsea running, he makes back on his wealth anyway, so he isn't losing any money by keeping them, he just earns more in other ventures. Besides, he's ridiculously cash-rich, and as such doesn't have any need to release capital in emergencies.

 

Spurs have now stolen a march on us, and you can almost guarantee they'll have a stadium in place, and that mythical spade in the ground, just as we're beginning another attempt to see if staying at Anfield is a viable option.

 

Arsenal are often mocked as not really that ambitious, but when that stadium is paid off then they will be serious players in the transfer market. Wenger knows what he's doing, and he's in the process of laying the foundations to a club that will be more than self sufficient long after he has passed away, and for generations to come.

 

There are 5 teams that will prove remarkably difficult for us to get past, and without big investment there is no way that it's possible in the long run.

 

We could have just about got through the Moores and Parry shit, if they'd have sold to Dubai, who at the very least would have built that stadium. As history shows, we didn't, we made just about the worst move imaginable, by selling to those despicable cunts.

 

So that's where we are now in my view. We're still performing in the 80's and everyone else is playing in the year 2012. We have no imagine or no spark, and that's the people in the boardroom to the players we signed.

[xerxes]

We're still performing in the 80's and everyone else is playing in the year 2012.

An excellent post in full.

 

What saddens me is that I have seen our glory years in the 70's and 80's. They were built on good management and strategic thinking by men who knew the game. Even before that we had the foresight to build a 30,000 capacity Kop. The legacy that successive Boards have left post Hillsborough will be harshly judged by future generations.

 

Leeds United under Howard "Sgt" Wilko were the last team that won the league on the back of footballing judgement alone - since then it has been, and will continue to be, about how much money you put in.

 

The 21st Century has seen Man City and Chelsea backed with unimaginable global wealth, and Arsenal and Man u trading out of 60 and 76k new/rebuilt stadia, and each successive year that gap between them and us is exacerbated. Meanwhile some fans fondly draw sketches of a half rebuilt ground on land we don't own- and our MD looks to open a few shops in the Far East.

 

Reluctantly, I do accept that maybe it is already too late. Both times we have been up for sale recently the big money passed us by. The redevelopment around the Kings Dock has passed us by. In any case some don't want us to move a few hundred metres to Stanley Park, let alone a few miles to a regeneratio site . The past, once a source of such pride, now for some drags us back, because it is easier for them to reminisce than to create a new history.

[xerxes]

The point (which I suspect you know) is not whether the club needs to spend money on this or that, but where is it to come from.

 

FSG say (and I agree with them) that it’s to come from revenue. UEFA say (and I agree with them) that it’s to come from living within the club’s means. Abramovitch would like to be able to spend as freely as he can, because he can and very few people can compete with that.

 

That attitude is fucking up the game, driving up players costs, driving up ticket prices and driving up the number of liquidations from clubs trying to compete financially when they can’t. Don’t forget that was nearly us.

 

And the past has a value, yes. But only if you don’t live in it.

 

We agree that investment has to be funded. We disagree about the medium to long term financial benefits that LFC would reap from a new stadium.

 

I believe that the failure on the part of FSG to progress a new or redeveloped stadium is about an unpreparedness to put money into the club, and commit for the medium to long term. You believe that it is because it is uncommercial. We disagree – but I respect your view. It’s a future call, none of us can be certain either way.

 

I profoundly disagree with you and FSG that we will be able to return as a regular top four club, let alone title/CL contenders from revenue. I see no way that increased (from where?) revenues alone will crack it. We and Villa spent £100m – to get a EL place. City have spent £400m to crack the top four. We will never generate those sorts of surpluses from revenue . Whatever incremental increases in revenue we get are likely to benefit our competitors too – we are no better off. Commercially, pro rata, we are doing really well. The ONLY thing that we can do which increases our revenues, and ultimately (we can argue when) profits is a new or substantially redeveloped stadium. Spending on a stadium is outside FFP – it really is the only way to claw back lost ground.

 

We also disagree with FFP. You think that it will create a level playing field and rein in Chelsea and City, I don’t. It is a way to consolidate the position of those at the top, and exclude the rest. The Ethiad sponsorship will be replicated, and repeated , to make things work for both clubs.Man U and Arsenal are piling in an extra £60m a year from their stadiums alone, now.

 

I totally agree with your sentiments on the insanity of the commercial side of the modern game. I also share your sentiments on valuing – but not living in the past. I know your devotion to the club is as great as anyone’s, including mine. We see things differently, which is fine, as is testing our respective arguments. The shame is that the club is afraid to test the arguments and detail about this subject in the same way that many of our fans, like yourself, are prepared to.

 

I genuinely share your passion for the statement:"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood" - both of ours run red.

[redasever]

FSG aren't stupid, They know after the way they swooped in, and the condition we were in at the time, that they've got another couple of years grace before anyone raises serious questions...

 

This brave new world of spend, spend, spend, come what may, lose money or lose money - of buying success with cash - is coming to an end. We have liquidations in the British game, liquidations in the Spanish game. The financial model that got Abramovitch where it did is not sustainable by a stadium of any sort. Commercial developments in the Eastlands of Manchester are just that. They have little to do with football and more to do with piggy-backing football.

 

If the future is big and bright, it will come from commercial revenue and broadcasting revenue - around the world. In case anyone hadn't noticed, that is the German model. Their tickets are cheaper. They rely less on matchday revenue.

 

See how the FFP is close to that model. See how the future of the game must rely on revenue generated from the game not cash thrown at it, if it is to survive.

 

It's sad, more than sad - it's desperate, that some would rather throw FSG out than understand that.

 

If throwing money in is the future, the game is living with an outmoded and unsustainable model. That really is living in the economics of the 80s. That's not thinking clearly and strategically. That's not living within the means of a forward-looking economy.

 

Put very simply, it's thoughtless dick-swinging. Yes, we've got used to it. Yes, we've lived with it for the last twenty years. The very notion of a 'big' club these days is all about money or rather how frivolous you can afford to be with it. But it's time to throw it out before it's too late for the game.

.

Edited March 29, 2012 by redasever

[Kopite Pete]

 

Isn't that what we want?

 

Indeed a safe pair of hands. But the stadium issue is a concern for me.

[Antynwa]

 

Why the club would want to do something like this if they're going to move is weird.

[beejay]

Horus has nailed it probably.

 

Moores & Parry blew it by not selling to Dubai.

 

The acid test for FSG is the stadium and it doesn't look like that will happen any time soon, if at all. I'm not in the least bit optimistic about the future for us.

[satmann]

'Thats all rubbish' is not really an argument is it? You can do better than that.

 

The new stadium will not pay for itself. The cost of the mortgage is more or less equal to the increase in revenue. Nobody's hiding this. The club is telling you this.

 

If you think it's £320m. Ok.

 

But what is your reason for believing we'd be worth anything like £600m to £1bn? Because Arsenal are? Because Arsenal sold 2000 homes in Islington homes to help pay for a stadium? Because Arsenal have much higher prices and still ‘fill’ their stadium? Because Arsenal have a huge corporate market? We've none of those things.

 

And United. How much are they worth exactly? And how is that driven? How is that different from us. Couldn't be their revenue generation could it? Couldn't be that their total revenue from broadcasting, commercial and matchday revenues is 80% more than ours could it? Couldn't be that they've had sustained success could it?

 

That isn’t negative. That’s realistic. Something this club was crying out for after the bullshit from Hicks. Something we still need.

 

Hicks only wanted to hang on for as long as it took to get what he saw as the value of the new stadium. Everyone else looked at it and thought - well, it’s worth bugger all. And that’s exactly what he got for it.

.

 

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.

[xerxes]

This brave new world of spend, spend, spend, come what may, lose money or lose money - of buying success with cash - is coming to an end. We have liquidations in the British game, liquidations in the Spanish game. The financial model that got Abramovitch where it did is not sustainable by a stadium of any sort. Commercial developments in the Eastlands of Manchester are just that. They have little to do with football and more to do with piggy-backing football.

 

If the future is big and bright, it will come from commercial revenue and broadcasting revenue - around the world. In case anyone hadn't noticed, that is the German model. Their tickets are cheaper. They rely less on matchday revenue.

 

See how the FFP is close to that model. See how the future of the game must rely on revenue generated from the game not cash thrown at it, if it is to survive.

 

It's sad, more than sad - it's desperate, that some would rather throw FSG out than understand that.

 

If throwing money in is the future, the game is living with an outmoded and unsustainable model. That really is living in the economics of the 80s. That's not thinking clearly and strategically. That's not living within the means of a forward-looking economy.

 

Put very simply, it's thoughtless dick-swinging. Yes, we've got used to it. Yes, we've lived with it for the last twenty years. The very notion of a 'big' club these days is all about money or rather how frivolous you can afford to be with it. But it's time to throw it out before it's too late for the game.

.

 

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.

[xerxes]

Why the club would want to do something like this if they're going to move is weird.

 

It's about maximising revenue from what we have. New advertising revenue too, it is what Ayre is good at.

[Trucker Paddy]

 

It's about maximising revenue from what we have. New advertising revenue too, it is what Ayre is good at.

 

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