Go fuck yourselves FSG

[dennis tooth]

Head in the clouds stuff by Numero there but I wont dissect it much, cos you dont like getting owned by me, on one hand you claim it 'might' affect our short term spending, on the other you say if deffo wont.

 

Everything else is 'it'll be alright' stuff based on nothing much at all best case scenario underestimations. Glad your on a forum and not in charge of my or the clubs finances.

[vanball]

Thats true. To be fair its Xerxes using Arsenal as some model as the crux of his argument, along with Numero.

Actually they are diverting/disrupting any sane and reasoned discussion on the subject by doing it.

Personally I dont think its as straightforward as you make out, we always dream of best case scenario, I think if anything our interest would be higher due to the credit crunch etc.

Also Arsenal had very valuable land at highbury they sold off. However I'd welcome a sane discussion on the matter I just havnt seen one, most the people arguing the case for or against have their heads up their arses in the sand in their vagina.

In the end I think it is a diversion, we can try and fund a new stadium and watch billionaires buying clubs and getting top players in and shooting up the league past us, or we can focus on the football side and get our team together under a top manager, I dont beleive Brendan is but he's here so he's gonna get his chance, the owners have invested in him, he has a blank record really being young so we doubters will have to wait and see as he's getting his chance either way. They wont sack him until they are flogging a dead horse, even if he does well I can see Roman coming calling for him and think he would go. Then we can get Wenger in to oversee the building of a new stadium by being ridiclously good in the transfer market, although we will stand still for years wherever we were at that point. Or something.

 

No sand in mine :wow: - but just as you don't think it is as straight forward, I don't think it's all doom as your last para reads. C'mon, he is probably shit, but if he is not then he is gone?

Our owners aren't billionaire playboys, they are business people and will make business decisions that make sense to them. If there is enough dough left after debt service to buy another player and/or give a return on the investment, then that is what they will do. An improved stadium will yield a return for decades which may be seen as a better investment than blowing the wad on players that get old, injured, underperform or hey, even bite people and demand sale. You want to blow money on players like Man City?

Today's transfer market is madness - I like what we are doing and I like Rogers stuff so far.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Head in the clouds stuff by Numero there but I wont dissect it much, cos you dont like getting owned by me, on one hand you claim it 'might' affect our short term spending, on the other you say if deffo wont.

 

Everything else is 'it'll be alright' stuff based on nothing much at all best case scenario underestimations. Glad your on a forum and not in charge of my or the clubs finances.

 

It looks like your maths is as good as your English. Not very.

[dennis tooth]

You should have held that thought and pretended to be 'above' debating any of the many relevant points raised as per usual.

Your silence, speaks volumes. You had your chance.

[Neil G]

Yeah, but you're inherently negative about FSG. I think it's unlikely as an option because it doesn't make business sense.

 

 

It's got nothing to do with my views of FSG. I said I wasn't as confident as you because they've only owned the club for two full seasons, and that's not a big enough sample size to conclude with any certainty that they'll guarantee net investment in the squad every season, without fail.

 

Given the importance of the stadium to our long-term sustainability, I don't think it's outlandish to suggest that they might cut back on squad investment for a couple of seasons if it proves necessary to finance the redevelopment. They certainly wouldn't fuck the entire thing off as you suggested in your earlier post.

 

 

Again, even if it did happen, the impact on player procurement wouldn't be that heavy. Considering, even in this negative and unlikely scenario, we'd stagger the borrowing, interest repayments wouldn't be very prohibitive. That's in the case where we'd somehow, for some reason, not have these repayments deferred.

 

Okay, imagine we live in the world where they're just going to borrow £150m, all in one lump, and need to start paying it back at 3% interest from day 1. Forgetting that these things are not going to happen, interest would be 4.5m a year. But only if we sent loadsamoney in to broker the deal.

 

 

You're making some very positive assumptions based on the most optimistic reading of the situation. Surely the last six years have shown us that nothing can be taken for granted when it comes to finance and business, either in general, or specifically concerning football and Liverpool FC. So you can't predict the likelihood of any given scenario with any kind of certainty.

 

None of us know when the work will actually start, and so none of us know how safe a bet we might look to a lender when it eventually happens. If we're marooned in 7th or worse, and if stadium and sponsorship revenues are falling as a result (because they will if we don't start to improve soon), we won't be offered as favourable terms as we might be now. Add in the potential for delays and the work going over budget – occasionally known to happen in the UK construction industry – and for complications caused by the fact that the stadium work is tied in to a major local government regeneration project, and there is plenty of scope for a less rosy picture than the one you paint. And that's before considering the implications if the global economy and the financial markets take another downturn.

 

Has a provisional schedule for the redevelopment work been published? I'd be interested to see how the club plans to stagger the stages and the costs, and also by how much the capacity of each stand will be reduced while the work is taking place, because that will obviously have financial implications as well.

 

 

I totally agree with you about needed to get back into the CL, and needed to put money into the squad. I think, regardless of other faults, they've done that pretty well. Whether those players were good or not doesn't change the fact that the money was provide for bringing in players. Part of that was raised by selling shit players, sure, but that's just smart business.

 

 

Yes they have, the amount of money they've made available overall has been pretty decent. Let's hope that continues.

[xerxes]

Well dickhed, check the emirates stadium wiki page, becase thats what happend, Wenger has, in a timely fashion come on recently to dispute both yours and Numerong's claims that the stadium has not affected their transfer cash and confirmed that now, after a very long time Arsenal will be returning to the top table of doing deals for top money.

 

I wander what he was referring to? Oh must be me being correct again and you being wrong.

 

Once again, a new stadium will have a very detrimental impact on our transfer funds for 10 years as it just has Arsenal, just ask Arsene not numties like you two.

 

Laughed? I almost cried laughing:P

 

Carry on, it's better than any comedy.

[dennis tooth]

What watchin everything u say get discredited watching you change your goalposts and terms of reference backing up and being left with nothing better to do that a bit of empty baiting?

 

Pretty sad really, you're irritating but thats about it, you and Numero know it all arrogant type shit have been taken apart and just because you are deluded enough to pretend it isnt happening and your shattered reputation for chatting baseless ignorant shit is still intact so continue, apart from a few twisted jealous fucks everyone else recognise the tooth gets to the root an u another victim. I will leave you to pick up the peices. Have fun.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

You're making some very positive assumptions based on the most optimistic reading of the situation.

 

No, I'm not. If doing the things which make basic financial sense is the most optimistic reading to you, I'm not sure what else I can say. Doing things like staggering the loan is basic and saves interest payment. Deferring payment, at least partially, makes basic financial sense.

 

If I was making positive assumptions based on the most optimistic reading, I'd say that FSG were going to pay for it themselves, or the entire thing would be paid via sponsorship deals. I'm not saying that, I'm saying we should set the minimum level of expectations at basic financial sense. That's not optimism, it's just sensible.

 

So you can't predict the likelihood of any given scenario with any kind of certainty.

 

Yet you're erring on the side of doom rather than the basic common sense. I guess, yes, you're technically right that they could needlessly throw money down the drain. I'm just going to chose to believe they're probably not going to.

 

If I was guessing at what actually will happen, I think a big chunk will be paid for by sponsorship, and some will be loaned from the bank or by FSG (in the same way they've lent us money before).

 

My point was that even in the most gloomy of idiotic financial scenarios, it's a very small hit for a short time. Thing is, I'd bet massive amounts that this group of billionaires are not totally stupid with money.

[Neil G]

No, I'm not. If doing the things which make basic financial sense is the most optimistic reading to you, I'm not sure what else I can say. Doing things like staggering the loan is basic and saves interest payment. Deferring payment, at least partially, makes basic financial sense.

 

If I was making positive assumptions based on the most optimistic reading, I'd say that FSG were going to pay for it themselves, or the entire thing would be paid via sponsorship deals. I'm not saying that, I'm saying we should set the minimum level of expectations at basic financial sense. That's not optimism, it's just sensible.

 

 

I meant the most optimistic reading as regards the terms we might be offered by an external lender, if we end up going down that route. Those terms will be influenced by a whole range of factors, many of which are impossible to predict several years ahead, if that's how long the house purchase issue takes to sort out.

 

 

Yet you're erring on the side of doom rather than the basic common sense. I guess, yes, you're technically right that they could needlessly throw money down the drain. I'm just going to chose to believe they're probably not going to.

 

 

I'm not erring on any side. I haven't said "I think this will happen." I'm just being open to a range of possibilities, from the best to the worst.

 

What have I suggested that would qualify as needlessly throwing money down the drain? You made a similar comment in a previous post, something about fucking ourselves for the fun of it. I asked you to explain it and you didn't.

 

 

If I was guessing at what actually will happen, I think a big chunk will be paid for by sponsorship, and some will be loaned from the bank or by FSG (in the same way they've lent us money before).

 

 

What's a big chunk? I'd be cautious about expecting a lot of the money to come from naming rights. I don't think FSG would have any qualms about renaming Anfield, but I'd have to wonder how much a sponsor would be prepared to pay for it, as people will still call it Anfield. Naming rights usually happen with new stadiums, where the sponsor's name isn't competing in the public consciousness with a stadium's well-established original name. Plus the Anfield name is a key part of the LFC brand anyway, so removing it might have commercial drawbacks.

 

We'll presumably get some from the stands being renamed, but what's the going rate for that? Any comparison figures from other big clubs that you're aware of?

 

 

My point was that even in the most gloomy of idiotic financial scenarios, it's a very small hit for a short time. Thing is, I'd bet massive amounts that this group of billionaires are not totally stupid with money.

 

 

I'd have to see more specifics about costs and timings before I share your optimism. Being able to foresee what the global financial climate will be like in a year or two's time would be pretty helpful as well.

 

You keep suggesting that I think FSG might make idiotic decisions on financing the stadium. I haven't said anything like that. I'm just considering what kind of financing offer might be on the table when the time comes to start the work.

 

I should reiterate that if we re-establish ourselves in the CL before the redevelopment has to be paid for, this whole issue will be moot.

[dennis tooth]

He claimed the crime rate would go up as well and the government an Nick Clegg wouldnt last as long as they have.

 

His 'predictions' are tired of him.

[vanball]

What watchin everything u say get discredited watching you change your goalposts and terms of reference backing up and being left with nothing better to do that a bit of empty baiting?

 

Pretty sad really, you're irritating but thats about it, you and Numero know it all arrogant type shit have been taken apart and just because you are deluded enough to pretend it isnt happening and your shattered reputation for chatting baseless ignorant shit is still intact so continue, apart from a few twisted jealous fucks everyone else recognise the tooth gets to the root an u another victim. I will leave you to pick up the peices. Have fun.

 

Hmmm - you know, you may or may not be right in your assessment, but your way of expressing it does not put you in a good light, that is for sure.

You accuse them of arrogant type shit and then add "the tooth gets to the root"?

there are some pretty good points being raised, but they are lost due to taking and giving things personally.

A little civility would maybe kill this crap thread.:yes:

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'm not erring on any side. I haven't said "I think this will happen." I'm just being open to a range of possibilities, from the best to the worst.

 

If that's true, then great. As I've posted a different range of options, I don't disagree. You've not offered that opinion until now, you've been pretty negative. I think we're pretty much in agreement.

 

What have I suggested that would qualify as needlessly throwing money down the drain? You made a similar comment in a previous post, something about fucking ourselves for the fun of it. I asked you to explain it and you didn't.

 

I've explained it several times, to be fair.

 

What's a big chunk? I'd be cautious about expecting a lot of the money to come from naming rights. I don't think FSG would have any qualms about renaming Anfield, but I'd have to wonder how much a sponsor would be prepared to pay for it, as people will still call it Anfield.

 

We're one of the biggest clubs in the world, which is why we've got some of the biggest sponsorship deals in the world despite being out of the CL. We're massive in Asia, so I feel like we'd get quite a lot.

 

Naming rights usually happen with new stadiums

 

True, but we have seen stadia sell their naming rights. Like City a while ago. There's no reason a development can't attract a stadium or stand naming deal. Obviously the latter would be worth a lot less.

 

I'd have to see more specifics about costs and timings before I share your optimism.

 

That's not optimism. It's baseline. It's what happens when all positivity is taken out and we get the dry bread and water.

 

 

You keep suggesting that I think FSG might make idiotic decisions on financing the stadium.

 

Nope, I keep saying that for it to be any worse than the baseline it'd take idiotic decisions.

[dennis tooth]

Hmmm - you know, you may or may not be right in your assessment, but your way of expressing it does not put you in a good light, that is for sure.

You accuse them of arrogant type shit and then add "the tooth gets to the root"?

there are some pretty good points being raised, but they are lost due to taking and giving things personally.

A little civility would maybe kill this crap thread.:yes:

 

I am aware, its all part of it, Im not trying to win, Im not vain in that way like the Vietcong I just need to stop them winning. If we both end up covered in shit them Im happy, in the end. Anyone who posts on a forum has a certain ego but I wont get into that now.

[vanball]

I am aware, its all part of it, Im not trying to win, Im not vain in that way like the Vietcong I just need to stop them winning. If we both end up covered in shit them Im happy, in the end. Anyone who posts on a forum has a certain ego but I wont get into that now.

 

As to the first part, you definitely show commitment :whoops:

 

As to the ego part, nah, that's the problem, IMO - but hey, when in Rome...

[dennis tooth]

I think Im falling in love

[xerxes]

We're one of the biggest clubs in the world, which is why we've got some of the biggest sponsorship deals in the world despite being out of the CL. We're massive in Asia, so I feel like we'd get quite a lot. i

 

My worry is that in commercial terms we are running on empty.

 

The equation for sponsorship is simple- how many times are a team on television and how many people watch them. What is the "reach"?

 

Last time around Ayre struck a magnificent deal with Warrior after Addidas stepped aside on the basis that the Warrior deal was uncommercial. Whether it was/is remains to be seen.

 

We are now in out fourth season without CL football. How the next round of deals pans out as our shirt sales drop,( we are now behind Chelsea, Arsenal are within a whisker, City are gaining momentum) may not be pretty. our place in the income league table is on the slide.

 

Even our stadium deals are hamstrung by our capacity. An advert at old trafford reaches a 68% greater audience, at the Emirates its 33%, income reflects that.

 

Our status as one of the worlds great clubs in terms of trophies won is indisputable, but on the balance sheet and in contemporary achievement we are on the wane.

 

I have no rpoblem with FSG balancing the books. But it is no recipe for a return to our glory years.

[Magic Sponge]

 

My worry is that in commercial terms we are running on empty.

 

The equation for sponsorship is simple- how many times are a team on television and how many people watch them. What is the "reach"?

 

Last time around Ayre struck a magnificent deal with Warrior after Addidas stepped aside on the basis that the Warrior deal was uncommercial. Whether it was/is remains to be seen.

 

We are now in out fourth season without CL football. How the next round of deals pans out as our shirt sales drop' date='( we are now behind Chelsea, Arsenal are within a whisker, City are gaining momentum) may not be pretty. our place in the income league table is on the slide.

 

Even our stadium deals are hamstrung by our capacity. An advert at old trafford reaches a 68% greater audience, at the Emirates its 33%, income reflects that.

 

Our status as one of the worlds great clubs in terms of trophies won is indisputable, but on the balance sheet and in contemporary achievement we are on the wane.

 

I have no rpoblem with FSG balancing the books. But it is no recipe for a return to our glory years.[/quote']

 

Shut up you boring twat.

[xerxes]

Shut up you boring twat.

 

Oh the irony;)

[xerxes]

I'd be cautious about expecting a lot of the money to come from naming rights. I don't think FSG would have any qualms about renaming Anfield, but I'd have to wonder how much a sponsor would be prepared to pay for it, as people will still call it Anfield. Naming rights usually happen with new stadiums, where the sponsor's name isn't competing in the public consciousness with a stadium's well-established original name. Plus the Anfield name is a key part of the LFC brand anyway, so removing it might have commercial drawbacks.

 

We'll presumably get some from the stands being renamed, but what's the going rate for that? Any comparison figures from other big clubs that you're aware of?

 

One of the main criticisms of FSG is that they have never come clean on the numbers for a new stadium. With Man U selling the naming rights for Carrington for £150m, naming rights alone may have paid for half of a new £300m stadium.

 

Galatasaray are a good example of a progressive Euro club who old the stadium AND stand naming rights.

 

The naming rights to the stadium have been sold to Türk Telekom for a period of 10 years for US$10.25 million a year. The stadium has officially replaced the Ali Sami Yen Stadium at the middle of the 2010-2011 Süper Lig season, under the name of Türk Telekom Arena. North tribune' s name of this stadium were sold to Pegasus Airlines for €4 million a year.[22][23] The naming rights of the first tier of the east tribune of Türk Telekom Arena were also sold to Ülker for $2 million a year and will be named as Ülker Family Tribune.[24] All 198 suites' and 4,844 VIP seats' naming rights were sold to Denizbank for 3 years. [25] On 18 December 2012 Galatasaray SK and Opel signed a 2,5 year contract for the Naming rights of the Southstand.[26][27] The Club will receive € 1.5 million a year.[28][29]

 

One of the problems wih an in situ stadium with history is it is far more diffuclt to sell both the stadium and stand rights ( the Carling Kop anyone?)

 

I have long argued that a redevelopment could well be a very expensive £150m scheme, a more expensive one, cheaper in the long run.

[Guest San Don]

One of the main criticisms of FSG is that they have never come clean on the numbers for a new stadium. With Man U selling the naming rights for Carrington for £150m, naming rights alone may have paid for half of a new £300m stadium.

 

No, its one of your many criticisms. Most people arent taking FSG to task over the numbers for a new stadium at all.

 

Galatasaray are a good example of a progressive Euro club who old the stadium AND stand naming rights.

 

The naming rights to the stadium have been sold to Türk Telekom for a period of 10 years for US$10.25 million a year. The stadium has officially replaced the Ali Sami Yen Stadium at the middle of the 2010-2011 Süper Lig season, under the name of Türk Telekom Arena. North tribune' s name of this stadium were sold to Pegasus Airlines for €4 million a year.[22][23] The naming rights of the first tier of the east tribune of Türk Telekom Arena were also sold to Ülker for $2 million a year and will be named as Ülker Family Tribune.[24] All 198 suites' and 4,844 VIP seats' naming rights were sold to Denizbank for 3 years. [25] On 18 December 2012 Galatasaray SK and Opel signed a 2,5 year contract for the Naming rights of the Southstand.[26][27] The Club will receive € 1.5 million a year.[28][29]

 

One of the problems wih an in situ stadium with history is it is far more diffuclt to sell both the stadium and stand rights ( the Carling Kop anyone?)

 

That it is a problem in a stadium with history is subjective. To the fans of those clubs who've played in their stadium for 75 or 100 years, that is their history. Dortmund have sold the naming rights to their stadium. They have plenty of history (might not be as illustrious as ours) and I bet their fans consider the history of the Westfalon as much as we do with Anfield.

 

I have long argued that a redevelopment could well be a very expensive £150m scheme, a more expensive one, cheaper in the long run.

 

Where are your numbers and proof to back them up for a complete new build?

[xerxes]

1. Most people arent taking FSG to task over the numbers for a new stadium at all.

 

2.That it is a problem in a stadium with history is subjective. To the fans of those clubs who've played in their stadium for 75 or 100 years, that is their history. Dortmund have sold the naming rights to their stadium. They have plenty of history (might not be as illustrious as ours) and I bet their fans consider the history of the Westfalon as much as we do with Anfield.

 

3.Where are your numbers and proof to back them up for a complete new build?

 

1.You are right to point out that the numbers for a new stadium have never been laid out, and a balanced case for, or against, put out.

 

My view is that FSG have cynically exploited the desire of all of us to stay at Anfield, if possible ,as an opportunity to squeeze profits out of Anfield with no investment by continualy ratcheting up prices, as supply undershoots demand.

 

2. New stadium branding has a premium over rebranding. That is fact. Objective, not subjective.

 

3. You are right to point out that hard numbers have been hard to come by from FSG on the stadium question. Ayre has been quoted as suggesting that a redevelopment might, at £160m, be half the cost of a new stadium.

 

Given that no costed estimate of a new stadium, finance and sponsorship has been made public ( rumour has it that it has not been done at all) we are all shooting in the dark. The same is true of redevelopment.

 

The moment of truth for FSG will come when, at some point in the future, a costed proposal, and the scheme with facilities and capacities,is made public.

 

My own view is that the benefits have been over stated , and the challenges understated , of redevelopment . But anything is possible, all of us hope that the end answer will produce a stadium, and facilities fit for the 21st century and capableof delivering CL title challenging levels of revenue.

 

Are Ian Ayre and Brendan Rodgers the men capable of taking on the best- and winning? We will find out over the next few years.

[Code]

And while all the clubs around us keep buying new players to improve, FSG continue their masterplan to try and save their way to the top.

[gmac]

Broughton FSG etc saved us from a quick death, sometimes I feel we’re in the middle of some sort of slow lingering one, gradually fading. Maybe it would have been better to have entered administration, start again with some sort of fan ownership based model.

[xerxes]

Broughton FSG etc saved us from a quick death, sometimes I feel we’re in the middle of some sort of slow lingering one, gradually fading. Maybe it would have been better to have entered administration, start again with some sort of fan ownership based model.

 

We had a long time to mobilise fan ownership- but failed to do so. The will, and money, seem to be absent.

 

To be fair, PL ownership requires so much cash now, that it may be beyond fan ownership.

[gmac]

We had a long time to mobilise fan ownership- but failed to do so. The will, and money, seem to be absent.

 

To be fair, PL ownership requires so much cash now, that it may be beyond fan ownership.

 

That may be so and the heights of previous years may not have been possible, but it may have felt more like our club than it does at the moment.