• Liverpool Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • Loki Loki Jan 26, 2013 23:06 Flag

    FSGs financial commitment

    Look, I would love a stadium with 80,000 scousers scaring the opposition half to death. We all would I think. However, not at the cost of the club getting into debt again and being on the edge of the financial cliff. No way.

    What my point of this was for those who are not Fsg fans is this:. What does a good owner look like? Is it Abramovich? Chelsea is hardly a stable club with virtually a manager every year on average - I want to us to build something, and the only way of doing this is to have continuity, not a different idea every season. Is it to be like City. To be fair they have been patient with their manager and bunged a few quid in, I think they do want to build something, including community stuff. I'm not aware of Abramovich being very community minded.

    Anyway back to FSG. How much should they be spending on transfers? Should they throw another £500 mil into the kitty for a fantasy stadium which essentially will never pay for itself except for a paper value? Think what your house is worth. It doesn't mean anything unless you flog it, and I don't think they want to do that.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • If we went into minor debt to build the stadium it's worth it. As FSG would get their money back. They could hire it out etc.. all these things would recoup money back into the club and would clear off any such debt..

      Lets start at 60,000 then take it from there. Anfield can be developed if the houses surrounding the stadium could be bought and demolished?

      They could expand Anfield over time rather than immediately..

      Maybe get naming rights for each stand thats re-developed?

      • 1 Reply to LFC_Armchair_Supporter
      • Minor debt? Oh you mean 500 million quid?

        Which by the way, is double the debt that nearly sank us two years ago! The interest alone would be about 40 million quid a year on that (bye-bye transfer kitty), then you have to find a bank who will lend (good luck with that one).

        I told you, we are redeveloping Anfield at a cost of £150 million- capacity over 60K, some room for expansion thrown in. Have a look in the Echo archive. There's a couple of things to sort out, but work should be well underway by 2015 I think.

    • Loki...the' whole franchise of LFC they have bought is simply papaer value unless they flog it . So...by building a new mega stadium they are adding papaer value for the time when they do sell the franchise. You spend 35 mill on Andy C then u loan him out and he ends up what he started out with us ..injured. You sign a sick note like Harry Kewell and pay him back then 80,000 squid a week and he never gets off the physios table...these are papaer value to the franchise gone bad..not much chance of a new mega stadium going bad in theway an investment in players can and ..in our case often has....Kewell Aquillani Andy C tomention just 3. So...what do we do there never buy anybody particularly for heavy money ?

      • 2 Replies to colin
      • Colin. A point or two on the stadium. FSG purchased the club for £300m which included Anfield, Melwood and any other assets (including players) held by the club. Demolish Anfield and build a new stadium and I dont think the increase in asset value would be all that remarkable.

        To me the real value in the club is its position in the league and Europe etc. This drives how much TV money you get and other commercial revenues. Even the alue of players, when considered as assets increases with league position and form.

        Yes a stadium is important but not as you may think. Extra capacity helps but its everything else really. It's more about getting the maximum out of those 60,000 people. Ticket prices play a part but the humble pie and a pint plays a huge part too. Make Anfield an experience for the whole day and capture the whole crowd rather than letting them come and go before and after a game. Then your money per seat goes up but people also have a good time.

        So spending £400m on and extra 15,000 seats makes no sense at all. Better to spend less and develop Anfield and everything around it.

        On the playing side I've made no secret of my support for what I'm currently seeing. I pointed to Swansea as a role model in a previous thread but Armchair didn't grasp teh idea. Basically they have built that club up on limited funds by SETTING A DIRECTION AND STICKING TO IT DESPITE HAVING 4 DIFFERENT MANAGERS. THEY'VE BASICALLY APPOINTED MANGERS THAT FOLLOW THE SAME PRINCIPLES. It's worked and I can see the same thing happening at Liverpool. We just need to sit tight.

      • Colin - I don't mind us spending big on the right player. Forking out 35 meg on Carroll when he had played only 20 times in the league was plain stupid. I bet Newcastle couldn't believe it when that fax came through!

        Anyway on to your point about paper value. As I've said before, the problem is the ongoing costs which are expected to be dished out before the realisation of that paper value I.e upfront. Where's that dosh gonna come from?

        Another question. A new stadium for 400 million and 60k capacity or a refurb of Anfield for 150 million and the same capacity?