redasever

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. .

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. .

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. .

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. .

'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. .

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] .

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.” .

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?

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. .

Of course they will borrow the money but they would be putting very little in. The more they put in, the worse is the return on investment. It’s fundamental. Absolutely basic. No one will do it. They've been absolutely open about it. From day one. It was the second thing JWH said when he came in. Not enough people were listening. And they were right to say it. The alternative is the finances of the madhouse. With a new stadium, the value of Liverpool will only increase by the net increase in the amount of money they get back from a stadium, not by how much a stadium costs. The increase in the amount of money the club will get back is all but consumed by the amount needed to pay for it. That is why it is not viable. The only’ saving grace’ is naming rights. But based on your figures we will do all this, take all this risk, put the club’s cock on the block for £5m a year (if, you get the naming rights). It is as they say, a dog. .

Parry and Moores were convinced that a new stadium produced more income. It was their preferred option. They were wrong. Council would have accepted either one. Council have spent a lot of time and effort to get the club the consent in the park. They don’t want to let go of that but they will if it solves their problem. Their problem is no funds for housing. Council have no right to say no to a redevelopment per se and they haven’t. Council may be ‘pro-groundshare’ but they can’t insist on it. How? By denying permission on a redevelopment? They can’t do that. They know that, the club knows that. They can try to lean but they can't push. And as I say, They'd bite the hand off an answer to a redevelopment/area regeneration. The new owners also know that a new stadium doesn’t make money, or rather makes very little money - for the next ten to fifteen years. They might be able to ‘afford’ it but if it doesn’t make (enough) money for that long, what is the point? To make money after fifteen years with the potential of not making any even then? I think not. .

I don't think that's true. 'Heavy investment is required, we need someone with big pockets', 'Bring back DIC', 'China would be good'. That was the story going around. I'm sure FSG didn't see it that way. I'm sure FSG saw it as 'the FFP's coming. Everyone will have to live within their means. That's our style. We can do that. We've done it in Boston. Ok, we're in'. And it's the way to go. Either FFP works or the PL implodes. More financial grief. Higher and higher (player) costs. Higher and higher prices to keep up. More and more bankruptcies. .

You have a long history of putting words in people’s mouths. Myself included. I have never acknowledged that I do not have a handle on the numbers. Indeed, you and I have a long history of swapping numbers. Mine are substantiated, yours are not. I include the true costs. You do not. Mine are supported by the club, yours are not. In other words, my numbers make sense and yours, do not. *** FSG have a policy of hiring the most suited to a task and giving them their head. If they think that’s Peter Barwick - their call. Who are you or I to differ? Any leader, in business or sport cannot aim to lead and do. That way failure. Whilst I’m sure Thomas DiBenedetto has excellent experience of working wherever he has worked, why him? FSG have in-house experience of stadium development, whether as new or as redevelopment. I’m also sure that FSG have received the benefit of UK experience from whomever they have asked. Unless you have a full list and a reasoned evaluation of those on it, I can’t see how you can criticise the approach. *** FSG’s experience is of taking a club back to success on the basis of living within that club’s means. Living within means will be the only sustainable way forward for football, otherwise more business failures will surely follow. If you would like to see it otherwise. If you would like a return to splash the cash like you just don’t care - enjoy the Championship (or the bankruptcy courts) *** There is nothing small about redeveloping Anfield. It’s as significant as a new stadium. For the club, it’s bigger - it makes more money (see numbers). Liverpool’s have had had the Daniel Burnham quote as a motto for regeneration for some time. I have referenced it elsewhere but I’ve also looked at the consequences of a ‘big plan’ or a ‘noble diagram’ (as he put it) too. A big plan yes. But a big plan without substance is just all a bit disappointing. That’s just what a new stadium is. A bag of air. A white elephant. A pipe dream. .

Nice. I imagined he realised pretty quickly (a lot quicker than most) where he was going wrong. Good night. .

FSG came in because of FFP not despite it. They aren't Abramovitch or Sheik Mansour. They couldn't compete with them. And neither can anyone else. That's why we need FFP. That's why coming in is attractive to people like FSG now - that and their experience is why they have a real chance of competing in the sport and a real chance of making a difference. .

I suppose you've met lots then. I went to the GEC2012 and there was Richard Branson giving a talk. As big a getter of money as you're likely to meet. A businessman if ever you saw one. His advice was make a difference first. Go with your passion. Worry about the money later. .

The sarcasm is fine but tell me what your reasons would be for doubting them, is all. Because they're 'businessmen' and all businessmen are the same? or because we like what the game's become? ie., we don’t like Abramovitch and what’s he’s done but we want to do the same anyway?! We’re all convinced that ‘buying titles’ is not right, right? We all think it’s about as plastic as Chelsea’s flags, right? We all think Abramovitch has inflated the game beyond sustainable, right? We all think that H&G tried to play that game and got blown out, right? We’d rather not see us or anyone go bust, right? And we all think we pay too much to get in to the match, right? *** FSG are not sugar-daddies. They never said they were. FSG came into football because they could see the potential for success at this club and they could see FFP coming. Because they could see that the game wasn’t worth it otherwise (and, if they’d thought about it, they would probably have seen the Premier League is going down the pan without it). They said, FSG said, that if the ‘level playing field’ of FFP wasn’t coming, they wouldn’t have bothered. FFP means living within your means. We’ve lost Champions’ League revenue. But we have better commercial deals. We have neither the naming rights for a new stadium nor the solution to land acquisition at Anfield. We might have some players to sell, some wages to lose. We have no magic wand. But we may nevertheless be able to strengthen the squad in the summer. *** FSG have committed to re-investment of everything the club gets. Great. But FSG will not spend one penny more than the club can afford from its revenues. Don’t expect anything else. After all the crap we’ve been through. Of playing money games and ‘increasing values’ and ‘leveraging’ and debt - I thank them for it. I won't thank them for going back to the way we were. .

You can think all that but why? Even Broughton made no definitive statement on a new stadium, let along NESV. If you think all that because a new stadium doesn't work (and it doesn't), do really think that would be a reason? Let's face it. The club has bigger fish to fry than a stadium. One shirt deal has already outstripped [sic] the net incremental income from increased capacity. .

FSG have put their intentions in writing (you remember the letter to SOS?). It is more or less a declaration of intent and expectation. This is what we’re going to do. This is what we expect from you (the fans). If that’s not a contract, I don’t know what is - there’s even a ‘consideration’ - every time you work through the gates. Some would say that some fans have already let them down. No, you misunderstand me entirely. FSG will do none of those things. They will not splash £600m plus, plus, plus. They’ve said it’s not necessary and if the rules apply, it is not necessary. They came here because of the likelihood of success and the forthcoming FFP rules. They said that without those, they would not have come. Because the games is going to hell in a hand-cart without firm application of FFP. Abramovitch has hijacked our game, inflated the cost of the game and taken it away from us. Whether they have ooodles of cash or not, it doesn’t matter. They will not invest it. They intend to live within the means of the club. To spend from revenue. As it says under FFP rules. That’s what they said they’d do and that’s what they’re doing. .

When we have reason for you to say that or even if you can give one now, maybe I'll listen. Till then I'll judge them by my standards and by what I believe are their standards. ditto .

They said, 'they hoped to be able to decide within a year' but that they would not box themselves in by giving any commitment - no statements of any 'spades in the ground by...' It's very sad for anyone to find themselves in a position of defending FSG. There's no reason to doubt their honourable intentions. They have done everything they said they would and nothing they said they wouldn't .

They ‘saved’ us with very clear terms of reference. They said they would take the time to understand us. They confirmed what that understanding was back to us (in writing - it was pretty much the Liverpool Way). They said what their aims are. They said they’re in it for the long haul. They said they’re not in it for the money. They said they primary aim was to make the club great again. They said they would live within their means to do it - they would spend from revenue. Not their back pockets They set out the deal, very clearly. Very carefully. If anyone thinks price and a nice little earner was their primary motive, they’ve misunderstood the deal. If a new stadium makes financial sense it has to have medium term sense to get there. It doesn’t. There’s no money outside naming rights to be made for the club and the team in the medium term. There is no point waiting for the end of the medium term if it doesn’t produce a penny to help now and for the next fifteen years. We need action now and in the mid-term to secure a long-term future. They said that too. Seems to me there’s been no ‘instant success’ and some are not happy with that. Well, it wasn’t promised and we shouldn’t expect it. .

We've been down that road before (or rather you've lifted it from someone who has) and I've no need to rise to it again. Just read what the result of the club's investigations are. There is no difference between what I've said since I first heard about the new stadium and what the club says now. I suppose you think they would be making fools of themselves too? A new stadium (bells, whistles and all) should cost between £3,500 to £5,000 a seat. At that level it can work. Not £20k. 15k seats should cost £52.5m to £70m - not £300m for a whole new 60k! T'aint economics. Governments do economics. .

Seemingly it was bit more than £10m but even so... if someone can explain to me how paying for 60k seats to get 15k extra works, I'd like to know. That's £20k a seat or between 4 to 6 times the going rate for a financially viable stadium. Even if you halved it with naming rights (ok...) that's still 2 to 3 times. It never worked. We were misled by those who knew no better and sold a pup by those who did. Even if it cost the 'right' amount, it still wouldn't work. 15k additional seats for the cost of 60k seats doesn't work. .

Wouldn't it though... you see this information is long-running, misleading and dangerous. It panders to everyone's worst fears. I don't know why. It serves no purpose that I can see. It's also divisive. It splits the fans from the club and would lead to disenchantment on the part of the owners, who after all, saved this club and have done nothing to suggest that they intend anything other than making it great again. If anyone wants the owners to cut and run, this is as good a way of going about it as any. .