Well, what else are FSG going to do with that @£300m they saved on the book price when they bought Liverpool in a distressed sale? Not on a new stadium, apparently, though I seem to remember that was one of the conditions RBS selected them over the two other declared bidders at the time....
yup same here. investing in a stadium would yield long-term rewards, the fact that fsg have said we're not makes me think they're in for a quick buck from turning us around and selling up in a few years.
Is it just me or am I the only person who realises that there is an international financial crisis - Sovereign nations are struggling to borrow money to pay their bills.....right now, funding the debt that a new stadium would bring would be, well, painful, to say the least. How much of Utd's reported $2 billion value comes from their stadium? Not much. We all want a nice gleaming new stadium but for me, not at the expense of the team; successful teams make much more money than a stadium. I do not remember a single promise being made about a stadium. I don't take any pleasure in saying this, but like it or not, Henry is right.
so why don't they say that? Rather than some bullshit excuses about how a stadium won't help us financially in the long-term
It's not really an excuse, since it's actually true. A new stadium only helps financially because seat prices are raised (as well as there being more seats, but this isn't as great a factor as the price.) And you don't need a new stadium to increase seat prices, do you? They could literally do that right now.
They should charge £1000 for you to sit pitch side with a substitute on your lap. My mums obsessed with Jamie Carragher so she'll be right on that.
It's not really true though is it. An extra million per home game (plus all the additional corporate income, alternative uses of stadium in off season etc) would pay for itself in the long term quite easily especially with any sort of half decent naming rights deal. What they are basically saying (but frustratingly NOT actually saying) is that they are going to do sod all like the last owners...and the ones before that...and so on and so on. They won't INVEST and they will only consider it if a magic leprechaun appears with a suitcase full of either local taxpayers money (not gonna happen) or a huge naming rights deal. I'd rather they just came out and said "look we just aren't willing to take the risk at the moment" rather than these sorts of we could, we might, maybe if conditions are right bullshit flim flam wishy washy meh kinda statements. And I don't agree about the idea that due to the financial crisis it's a bad time to do it. It could actually prove to be a bloody good time over the next few years. Let's be honest these boys collectively are NOT short of cash. Building costs are getting lower now, construction/material costs are starting to fall and more firms would fight for a contract because thre are more firms fighting for less work like this thus cheaper costs for us (relative to a few years ago). The thing that always amazes me is this..."we shouldn't build it at the detriment of the team" argument. It's such a short term view. The owners aren't exactly throwing money at transfer targets as it is so what exactly is it that building a new stadium is going to stop us doing in the transfer market? Yes of course it will be painful and costly (obviously) in the short term and yes it will involve a certain amount of debt (but probably not as much as everyone thinks) but if we leave it ANOTHER ten years we are still going to have to go through that cost and pain at some bloody point surely and IF it is to be to the detriment of the team if we did it today why the hell will it be any different ten years down the road? Quite frankly had we not taken massive losses/spent crazy money on certain players these last few years (Keane, Aqua, Downing to name but 3) we could have already rebuilt half the main stand At least spending madly on the ground would give us a certain return eh. If we do it now we start to reap the rewards 10 years sooner and if we keep putting it off then we keep putting back the days when we can compete as a whole (and on a regular basis) with the boys at the top table. It's really no good saying the team will suffer if we invest in a stadium when the club as a business and thus the team has already fallen miles behind BECAUSE we have failed to invest over the past two decades. Finally do I understand why they are putting this on the back burner now? Yes I can understand they are hard headed businessmen who just won't take a risk at the moment and from their point of view I can totally understand it, I'm not particullarly anti FSG as I don't see that anyone other than an excellent local council or a rich sugar daddy would do this unless they intended to own the club for many years to come. I understand it...but it's still sod all comfort to me.
so if stadiums mean **** all then lets have a 2000 seater then ffs? what bullshit, cant believe so many of you fall for their rhetoric. THey won't build a staidum because THEY won't see a financial return on it within the timeframe they see themselves owning the club (10 years max). That is just pathetic as part of the reason they got us so cheap and won the bid was because they would build a stadium. A 70,000 seater would benefit us for years and years to come throughout ownerships. Seems we'll ahve to wait though for owners who actually deliver on what they say
Think you're missing the point Kenny. They bought a £600m club for £300m. At the time, RBS said they weren't necessarily the highest bidder (much to the fury of H&G) but they were the considered the bidder with the most concrete plans to develop the club AND IT'S STADIUM. I appreciate that they HAVE paid off the @£50m stadium plans of H&G so that we are now technically debt free. But when they prattle on about not wanting to load any debts onto the club (good for them) let's please not forget that recession or not they got the club on the cheap, and if their plan is not to exploit revenue through matchday support then the only way to exploit the worldwide brand is for more success on the pitch. Now. Sorry, but I think we've just swapped one set of cowboys for another with different colured hats.
When people say they have not invested in the club is that just from a player perspective ? How much of our debt have they paid off? Genuine question - I can't remember
As far as I'm aware they paid it all off as part of the deal to buy the club (hence them getting a good deal on it). I might be wrong but I did read somewhere that they have since put £30 million debt back onto the club but I am willing to be corrected on this if its not the case. Possibly something to do with costs related to scrapping the previous stadium plans but again not 100% sure on that.
The club is only worth £600m if someone is prepared to pay for it! Are you trying to tell me that RBS turned down that figure in favour of £300m? If so, I'd have to leave this thread now as it would be verging on the ridiculous!....So it's debatable that they got in on the cheap - Sure, they probably benefited from buying in the depths of the worst post war recession, when RBS had to shed assets from it's books, but it was the market price then; there may of been a set of criterion that potential bidders had to meet including a commitment to a stadium but neither you or I know this. FSG have a set of shareholders like any other company; If they started to make irrational investments; ones that are based on emotion, rather than logic, then we really will be in trouble! They are not a sugar daddy, they are a business. I'd love much more investment in the team and stadium but am rational enough to understand that under FSG, for however long that may be, we will be run like a good business; This means what happens off the pitch is driven by but as important as what happens on it - Win first, build brand equity, get more investment, then build stadium/team some more. Will that set the world alight for many LFC fans - no, I doubt it. Welcome to the real world. Actually can't wait until FFP kicks in properly and in full....football is changing before our eyes right now - many cannot see it happening. Not many will like my views....Sorry.
Yep, I agree with that. I realise I made a comment (on another thread yesterday) were I was moaning about FSG and the stadium developments but I was being rational at the time. I've had a chance to divulge the information since then But, IMO, FFP couldn't be much more unfair! It helps the clubs establised in the Champions League to get stronger whilst making harder and harder by the year for the non-Champions League clubs. That's assuming that UEFA actually implement this rule - ie, eliminate a big club from European competition to set an example. However, since most clubs seem to be ignoring it at present, there may be a few clubs that would require this punishment should UEFA stand by the ruling
Why are people obsessed with finding fault in our owners? They've explained why the stadium is taking a while. I'd rather they took time and did the right thing. We can't expect to spend like City and Chelsea. That was never going to happen. If we need a player and they agree, we can finance them. Fine. Sorry, I forgot, all football fans are also part time economists.
I work in corporate finance, if u want to go down that route. Believe me, I don't look for faults in our owners, so far they've done pretty well showing up these faults all by themselves. They will only do something if it makes financial sense to THEM and their IRRs not the long term benefit of the club, but I suppose that is to be expected. At least city and Chelsea have owners who care more about showing off than getting a return which means the club actually benefits from having them as owners, from a cash perspective. All I ever wanted from new owners was honesty and lets be honest - we're not getting any. Just a load of rhetoric.
Yes, but an 'extra million' could be achieved by raising the current ticket prices. So I said was, in fact, true.
Its not a question of finding fault just for the sake of it its a question of discussing the ramifications of their latest statement on the stadium plans, transfer budgets etc. I for one am not looking to slag them off as I could see this coming a mile off. I never really expected them to plough any of their own cash into the club. What i do take issue with is bland statements that us part time economists are expected to swallow even though ultimately what JH said doesn''t add up in anything other than than short term economics (and just so you know I might not be JM Keynes but I did study economics so like to think I have a basic grasp of the situation). I have no particular issue with the stadium statement as I never expected anything else but I do expect a bit more than having my intelligence (such as it is) insulted with bland banal excuses. Just say it as it is and have some balls about it from now on please FSG.
Not really as you would have to stick an extra twenty quid on every ticket to get that much revenue and then you wouldn't sell out games and thus wouldn't get that extra revenue.
At the end of the day they're businessmen and they understand that success will bring money. We can't and shouldn't expect miracles. Maybe if one of us owned the club we'd be banging Barca's door down to sign Iniesta and Pique and so on but we're not. And that's that. What they said about the stadium does make sense without viewing it cynically.
As I said above a few time mate is makes sense to them as businessmen who are in this for short term gain. I accept that without argument. What you ignore at your peril though is that it STILL makes absolutely no sense to us ten, twenty, thirty years down the line.
