redasever

Yeah. Ask him. He knows soooo much about it. May as well ask the afore-mentioned cat (or dog)... .

Like many others, I've had the benefit of much research, discussion and personal exploration and investigation into the relative benefits of the designs and various method of finance and feasibility. I'm sorry you come to it so late. You could find it if you took the same trouble to look. Bugger-up as a plan has its drawbacks, no? But perhaps you know more. Which stadia are the ones that have moved new into modest increases in capacity and what was the circumstance of their funding that so accurately mirrors our own? And what was the outcome of their feasibilities? Do tell. That's the proper internet. .

As insightful and incisive as ever. A dog is an animal. A cat is an animal. Therefore a dog is a cat. Thanks. .

Bit of ITK there mate? How do you know FSG have chosen not to buy? How do you know Arena/Council are willing (or able) to sell? Or the independents? And at what price is that exactly? .

I've simply taken the stadia of the clubs at the 'top of the list'. Seven out of the ten richest clubs have redevelopments. I mention Westfalen simply because it's a great stadium and caters most effectively for the fans, not the suits. There's a huge amount of back-up to the statement that a redevelopment would always be the most cost-effective for us and anyone else like us, who does not have the benefit of supporting developments (Emirates), alternative uses (Veltins-Arena) or government aid (Allianz Arena). Anyone who believes that paying £300m for a new stadium for an extra 15,000 seats is more cost effective than paying even as much as £150m for the same thing in a redevelopment needs their head examined. .

I've followed your 'debate' for a bit in the hope it might get above the spitting and kicking but to no avail. Sometimes there are some to whom it's not just not worth the effort of explaining anything. However and to return to the point (which is to say, if the owners went to Wembley, they'd understand why we need a new stadium), I now have this to hand... "...as we've gaily tripped our way into the Premier League and embraced the luxury of modern stadia we forgotten a few things. It's slipped our minds that this is our church and the fans are its followers. We've shamelessly enjoyed the ride as the game has raced away from its support - ever since the Premier League began. And, there are one or two pushing it ever further. FFP must rein them in or the game will implode. We managed by the skin of our teeth (and the grace of FSG) to escape but others haven't. They won't be the last. Meantime we must compete with the richest there is. Yes, we trust on a levelling playing field but if we you want to make your stadium pay, you need to build it cost effectively and keep prices within reach of your customers. That's not to say build cheaply or go back to the good old days of the 80s but look again at the 'European Elite' of stadium design and see if you can spot the frills expected here. There are none. And not everyone has the property advantages at the Emirates. Or in the extreme, the kind of nonsense we have at Wembley that means that all cup finals and games of any significance have to be booked by corporates and hangers-on from here to eternity to pay for it and each club only gets 25% of the seats for its fans. Clearly then , the most cost-effective way of building a stadium and gaining the greatest financial reward has to be, to hang on to the one you've got and bought and paid for and add the appropriate number of seats as necessary. Precisely in the fashion followed at the Camp Nou, the Bernabéu and the San Siro and Westfalen and others - and, even Old Trafford." .

Wonderful level of debate. I'm glad I bothered. If it's down to slinging mud instead of rational argument, maybe just lob it at the club. They're saying no different. .

If you want a big shiny stadium, to show off to your mates, get your wallet out. Clear enough? .

Yes he is. Just as well it isn't about personality though isn't it? .

What are they then? Why do you think Wembley tickets costs so much and we now have semi-finals there? If you want to advocate the standards that Wembley sets, you have to be prepared to pay the price, which was my point. Sorry to have to spell it out for you. .

And... 'standard' prices for Wembley: "Liverpool has received an allocation of 25,074 tickets for this ALL ticket fixture. Within the allocation of tickets received approximately 10 per cent of the adult tickets are priced at £115; 46 per cent are priced at £85; 28 per cent are priced at £65 and 16 per cent are priced at £45. A £10 concession off each price will be available to juniors aged 16 years and under and over 65s." .

I should hope so too. .

As soon as they get £890m together? .

Since we're going to be at Anfield for another three or four years whatever happens, I'm sure any extra income from advertising would be welcome. Putting in a couple of screens means nothing more than that. .

But I thought you said, we only need 11 players and a square of grass...? What's all this 'sports science, business and psychology' nonsense? I guess there's simple and there's simplistic. .

I meant that there is no real alternative for the ‘top’ clubs. The formation of a super league from the numbers of teams at that level (of wealth) is not viable. There simply isn’t enough of them. It won’t happen that way for that reason. And, the creation of a super league with the help of the (financial) ‘also-rans’ will simply replicate the problems of the EPL at a wider geographic level and a higher financial level. Why would Liverpool join Chelsea in a European or Global Super League where there is no restraint on Abramovitches extravagance? When it puts all the power and financial clout in the hands of Chelsea (and clubs like Man City)? Not a brilliant or forward-thinking strategy at all. It would be a blunder of the the highest magnitude. A complete and utter fuck up for us. We need FFP to work. We need the level playing field. We don't have the cash that Abramovitch can 'splash'. .

Well, isn’t it just the mark of a man losing an argument to keep turning it into a personal attack. I’ve told you mate - nobody gives a monkey’s to hear this spat. *** FSG’s plan was set out in their letter to SOS. They took a spell to listen and they gave us their verdict. ‘We’ll do this’ (and, ‘we want you to do that’). It’s as strong a declaration of intent as any. ‘I’m out’ is a reasonable position for you (for anyone) to take. FSG set out their case. No-one beeped then. If you want to beep now, the right thing to do is to leave. Because FSG are following the right way. An updated version of the Liverpool Way. Right for now and right for the future. And they aren’t changing. It is however the clearest possible confirmation that you just don’t like them or what they do and you would rather they were gone. Good Luck to you. I’m in. *** You have recently brought new material regarding the ‘super league’ and that has been refreshing to say the least. But the other bits of actual comment offered here have been answered without further material counter from you, many times over. To avoid dredging through it again, you can simply state that you accept or reject the same conclusions arrived at by ‘parallel’ process by the club. Clearly, you reject them. As you like. *** The rest is largely wantonly offensive. As I said, you can keep it. No one wants to know. .

I think we all know that stadium costs 'don't count' under FFP. But they sure do count when you have to write out the cheque! Really? No way? (Even if it actually came to it?) What are they going to do? Play with all the other super-rich clubs? oh... .

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? .

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

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

You're awake then. .

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

'scuse me? .

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.