I don't think it will quite be the same as with Everton. We generate more money and a higher profit then they do. However, the principle will be the same. We need to takes things a step at a time and getting a decent side that can compete for Champions League football is the first step. Achieving Champions League football will bring in that extra income and help us move on to step two, establish regular Champions League football enabling us to get better players. and so on...
That's the whole point though b4f. Are they just interested in making us competitive "overnight"? If they can't do it "overnight" they aren't going to do it at all? Isn't that the kind of short term planning that's kept us stagnant for years? As I stated above a new stadium/redevelopment of Anfield WOULD make us more competitive but only "in the long term".
It's exactly the same as with Everton I'm afraid mate. Granted we have a much bigger income but we also have a much bigger squad to pay for and higher transfer fees to pay etc. Basically we need BR to be a miracle worker if we are expecting him to reduce our wage spend with little to spend on transfers except what we generate from sales AND get us into top four whilst all our rivals are spending big. It's not impossible but it's going to be tough.
My immediate suspicion is it's a political move. Ayre was very positive on the progress recently, which makes me think something's become a stumbling block. Naming rights means a global brand like Emirates Airlines for big boys and JB Sports shops for little boys. I don't think FSG want to be little boys. FFP will be imposed. Look at Rangers. Now Sky are demanding they aren't demoted or they'll pull out their sponsorship. Meanwhile, every non-Rangers fan appears to be saying, "Go ahead but Gers are going down." The problem there is allegedly that if Sky do pull out then half the SPL teams will also go under. Transfer that across every league Sky are involved in and the powers-that-be are going to be ****ting breezeblocks. They can't lose global TV deals so their only option is to make sure clubs stop screwing up.
Rangers need to hang on to their players first. There is an issue on who they are contracted to - currently contracted to Rangers Football Club that will cease to exist. There are question marks as to whether that contract can be transferred to the new company. They could end up in SPL with no players and very little money. It'll be like starting a new team and chucking them straight into the Championship and saying "go!"
Dont see how he can say it doesn't improve finances.Take Arsenal as an example, their turnover and value as a club has increased massively since their move. Once the debt has been paid off they will be in a fantastic position, and it seems to be being paid off pretty quickly. When that american bloke bought all those shares last year the club was valued at around a billion, so I would think it makes sense from an investment point of view to build a new stadium for us aswell especially if they can finance it themselves. There are also footballing reasons not just financial, If we want to be perceived as one of the biggest clubs in europe and players to think that when we try to buy them we surely need one of the best stadiums. As important as Anfield is to us fans, as a football ground it just doesnt compare to the the grounds top Spanish, Italian, German and even other English teams are playing at. It's the fans that make our place special not the bricks and mortar.
Just a thought but, what if FSG are in it for the long haul but are hoping England get to host a World Cup or European Championships so money is contributed towards Stadium renovation...??? Yes, I know, extremely long shot especially with most tournament destinations decided until 2024...was just a thought
Firstly an apology. Having re-read my last comment it sounds like a personal attack and it wasn't meant to come out that way - so sorry. We do have to remember that we are owned by a commercial organisation and not by fans or by somebody who considers the club as their personal plaything. Hence all decisions, both on and off the pitch, will be made from a commercial standpoint. That can only be in the long term best interests of both the club and FSG. John Henry is clearly stating that whilst he is well aware that there is value in building/refurbishing, the Opportunity Cost of so doing without support in the present climate is too high - and hence not in the clubs best long term interests. If that cost burden can be reduced by collaboration with a partner then the Cost/Benefit picture changes significantly. Perhaps even more importantly, he is pointing to LFC becoming a self funding organisation through its own efforts. That does not mean that FSG will not invest in LFC but it does mean that any investment in the club will be directed to one goal - making the club successful enough that it is not reliant upon FSG for the major part of its investment requirements. If FSG had taken-over any other form of company then you would expect them to adopt the very same principles. Sure, I would like us to be able to play in a modern stadium (new or refurbished) but I don't want to see that at the expense of our being able to invest in both the team and our commercial activity. Being ancient, I can remember the link that appeared to develop between clubs building new stands and a decline in that clubs success. I don't want to see that happen to LFC. Page wanted to know about the relationship between LFC and other FSG clubs/activities. I have to say that the direct relationship between the entities appears to be at arms length. There does not appear to be any X-funding (where profits from one are transferred to another). However, I do believe that we will see more integration in the coming years on commercial activities eg Warrior. It appears that FSG wishes to stand behind each of its entities as a guarantor. Hence, if one venture fails it does not bring down the rest like a pack of cards. Now, as I understand it, FSG sees LFC as a major future profit centre. The bits are already in place and the decks have been cleared. We now need to prove via success on the pitch. The more success on the pitch, the more the income, the more we can invest. Though we can assume that money will be made available to Rodgers for new players. People point to the greater income achieved by those with bigger stadiums and on an income basis that is unarguable. However, if the cost of achieving that £1 million per game is such that we cannot afford to by better players and thereby make ourselves more successful then I will forgo it. The more success that we have the higher the value of our naming rights and the closer a new stadium becomes.
No for me to distil this down to the essence of what Henry is saying.... We don't want to pay for this. We want the club to be in London, so we can charger twice as much for seats. We'd love the council to pay for a new stadium. As MFG states, this is so politically loaded, you'd think we were ran by women. This is the same vague ****e a woman says to you when she wants something, but doesn't want to ask for it, and will be so pissed with you, when you get it wrong. So as a bloke I'm sat here asking, what do you want, a new stadium, or a new main stand? Do you want me to buy all the houses around the ground and make it all bigger, or do you want me to build you the coke-cola stadium somewhere else? What do you want???!!! To which the girly response would be, "No silly, I want a new stadium in London, so I can charge £115 a seat per match! Will you do that for me baby?" What John knows from America is that having a big team in your city, brings in money, and so he does have a leaning towards a new ground being publicly funded in part, and the naming rights making up the difference. Then he wants to make fans pay 65% more for tickets, and have lots of franchises inside the ground, like McDonalds again, who will pay for the privilege of being there, so the club don't even have to pay staff or buy their own food and drinks. He has a point, based on the American model, just having this "big brand" should be enough to get other people to want to do this for free for you, just to get you there. But much like his goldenbollox, I'm not sure his American ideas will get much purchase over here. So he's looked at what Arsenal have done, and he's still less than thrilled with his options, so here he is spitballing... I think the biggest problem he has, is that there is not a big enough city anywhere, who don't have a big club, that will pay for ours to move there.
It used to be ten minutes of Englsih footy a week when I first came to Jockistan. Now it's ten minutes of Scottish footy a week if you don't have Sky. As weak as Scottish football is surely the joke is on any league Sky have the rights for because clearly they have everybody by the proverbials? I'm wondering, though, Mr. Dako, whether you're still referring to those not bending over, puckering up and kissing FSG's arse as "whiney bitches" following this stadium statement?
No offence taken pal (I know you can be a moody **** at times ) I think the summary of this article is that we all want to see stadium improvement but also respect the financial aspects and understand FSG stand point of not wanting to commit their money to the cause. I think the only real question mark lies in whether FSG see Liverpool Football Club as a long term project or not. Quite simply, if they are in it for the long haul then the stadium development would surely be an investment in which they would eventually see a return for. If they are in it for the short term then Henry is correct to say the the financial benefit is not there (well, he said myth but...)
None of us are multimillionaire businessmen are we? Sentimentality tells us that we need a new/bigger stadium because that's what we have been told is the only way to make money. Who told us that? Well, for one, H&G did. They blamed all their lack of funds on the "small stadium blah blah blah". It always seemed like a cop out to me. Henry has been here before. He has owned teams, had the chance to expand/build new baseball fields etc. He has an army of advisors, consultants and experts at his disposal. If they have told him it isn't necessarily viable in the long term I will believe them. You and I aren't economists or strategic management advisors so to sit here and say "well 20000 extra seats = 40m more pounds so we can buy Xavi etc etc. It's more complicated than that, what with licensing issues, council issues, zoning, planning, extending a rail link, designs, contractors, cost overruns, finding a replacement pitch, naming rights, important tradition being brought over, etc. He has a board of directors to answer to no? So if it really was such an amazing, necessary investment as most of you think, they would take it. To not take it would be incompetence in the long run. There must be a reason they don't want to invest in a stadium IF the profits many of us expect are so guaranteed. Those who question their leadership are too sentimental, too emotional and don't understand the business side of a club. They hired a manager who was the people's choice, reinvested 60 million pounds of transfers and added 60 of their own in 6 months. They cleared our massive debts and finally I have a sense that our owners love sports. One massive economic decision that could bankrupt them cannot be used to judge them this early. They are in it for the long run, because you can't make a short term profit on a club. As for transfer funds, they would be minimized during any stadium building, which is counterproductive to the footballing side. So what if we have a 70k seater if we finish 10th and can't attract top talent? As long as we invest in the squad and get good young players I could not care less about the stadium. It's not a priority, CL is a priority. After that, when we have more income from CL and sponsors I'm sure the stadium question will come up with a more promising response.
The Owners wife retweeted the following link. Make of that what you will: http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/06/the-game-plan/
I for one can't believe how angry some people get. First this is nothing new being said. It is irrational to believe it is really new as Henry is merely showing how that extra cash form 15k extra seats is good but weighed against the cost is not so attractive. Second i for the life of me can't see how people thing if a 60k seater is built that the MAJORITY of the extra seats will in fact end up on the most lucrative area and that's the boxes. folks corporate boxes make more money per head so the middle of any ground will have a bunch of them right round it. I can't see how ordinary fans will really get more tickets to go to a new stadium in that context. thirdly and finally. the thought that commerical revenue will not fill the gap is frankly wrong thinking. there are three strands to the model. first is commercial revenue off the field and we all hear about the big deals but the shirt sales etc are through the roof.... the second strand relates directly to on field success and that is CL football and prize mone/tv revenue.... the final strand is match day revenue from anfield..... Frankly if we get back into the CL, sell a heap of merchandise then that gap between us and MANC LAND goes away as the glaziers pocket more than the revenue off 30k seat. Fixating on a stadium is wrong thinking as it is the wagon owners like moore and G&H hooked their horses too. on pitch investment is the only thing that shows the owners care.... and we need to see rodgers spend 100mil this summer to prove it. get back to top 4 by beating arsenal to 4th and see what happens then.
MITO I'm generally in an agreement with you but I think you are going to he disappointed on the transfer budget. I wanted a clear statement on the stadium & corporate speak aside (asking a CEO type not to corporate speak like some here have, is like asking the Pope not to reference God: ive gone through 4 CEO's at work, all very different but talk about work & they slip helplessly into the lingo, every time. Henry has pretty much made clear they will not be going alone with either plan. One needs council assistance the other needs naming writes investors. But they will continue to work to get either. Simple & straight forward. I don't read into it that they are the messiahs & I don't read into it that they are scoundrels looking for a quick profit in a 6 year turn around sale. The "what makes more money" debate is irrelevant too. FSG are saying they are going to try their hardest on ALL fronts to maximise commercial gains just that some might be more achievable sooner than others. Again; we'll see wether they do or not. Their actions with deals etc suggests they will at least try their best. As for spending their own cash being proof of commitment; why? They have clearly stated a model of self sufficiency with support from FSG when necessary. they appear to be cautious financially whether people like it or not. I'd honestly rather have frugal owners than flashy ones without a plan . The only cloud on this is their limited spending versus unlimited expectations: they can't have both without a great deal of luck on the pitch & in the transfer market. But; I think with their own model now in place those expectations will be more realistic timing wise. Taking this into account I just can't see them (even if available) handing £100m to a new manager in his first window when there hasn't been time for their new "committee" to formulate their data & research. Their strategy also suggests pretty specific targeting of players that fit the model so I would assume that if they decide world class player x is the one, but he's not available this year in budget due to a contract with another club but we can get him cheaper next year then so be it. They'll not just spend the money this year on the "sort of" alternative to "prove" their commitment. I don't think this will apply to the younger stars of the future but they should be within budget anyway. I think you'll be lucky to see one "world class star" buy this window, a couple of smart deals like Sigurdsson for reasonable money & a couple of bets on younger players based on the scouts & BR's vision of the finished squad. £30m new money at most with a little extra from sales & wage savings. To tell you the truth it will obviously depend as much on what BR thinks he can get the existing squad & youth to do for him. We may be pleasantly surprised! I'll put my trust in him because he looks like he's opinionated enough. If he says he needs x; it'll then be up to FSG to provide it. If they don't then I'll winge about lack of commitment.
I KNOW I am going to be disappointed on the transfer budget. I am well prepared for it and am also prepared for not achieving what some think we an next year. You are in agreement that working on all fronts is whats required. unfortunately the reality of our team (which most seem to deeply want to deny) is that its nowhere near top 4 quality. That is not to say we could not luck into a good run for one year like Newcastle..... it is my honest opinion that we need to spend 100million... but not on world class stars. they won't come. I think we need to buy a raft of players who are on the up for a lot of positions. Rodgers will have to assess things but the facts remain when you write out a 25man squad you come up with huges gaps. gk: doni, reina rb kelly, jonhson LB enrique GAP 1 CB: coates skertl Agger GAP 2 (carragher cannot be kept on here) CM Gerrard Lucas Adam Henderson (gaps 3&4) surely we cannot keep adam and gerrard is looking past it.... only shelvey to come in here. LW downing Sterling RW GAP 5 & 6 Assuming maxi goes as per kuyt ST Carroll Suarez GAP 7 & 8 (bellamy is nearly finished) top sides need 4 strikers, top sides need 3/4 wingers top sides need defensive cover. i don't see us buying 8 players but i sincerely hope guys don't think joe cole or aquilani or even suso, coady or sterling are the answers. We do need a priority set for buying and yes getting the RIGHT player not any player is vital... ie don't buy another aquilani or keane...... but there is only so much even mourinho could get out of our players, we have no options upfront and have not had them for years/ we've never got the wingers in properly. IMO we need at least one striker, one RW, one CM and one defender... minimum. Rodgers alluded to 3/4 players. I think he needs to bring in more as well but i an see how hard it will be. 30mil or new money won't cut it. 7mil on sigurdsson, another 5-6mil on a defender and that leaves very little to get quality into the side up front.
