Sport Liverpool Football Club

[the_debaser]

Yeah I have. You've had loads to spend and bought shit. And are now in the shit. Sure you could've spunked even more cash on 'talent' like Aquilani, Babel, Glen Johnson who came to what, £50m or something but you'd still be in the shit. It's not because of the owners.

[SMD]

An injection of funds to catch up? Surely we need a stadium to catch up. An injection of funds can only be a short term answer. What do you reckon they'll do with the stadium? Do up Anfield? That's what they did with some American stadium I read. Not ground sharing and certainly no new stadium. How many seats can they get into a redeveloped Anfield? Where would we play in the meantime? I don't know. I understand RBS want their money but would you not like even more time given to finding new owners? Particualrly as now we know the asking price and it's not the £600,000,000 that H&G were asking for.

Well, I was having a chat with a mate last night and he pointed out that United made £180m from media and commercial activities, which is more than our turnover.

He was arguing that we need to improve our off the field performance to really catch up financially.

On the other hand, we need more seats in order to make it easier to offer cheaper tickets without affecting revenue too much. It's difficult for kids to go to matches, particularly if parents have to shell at least £60 to take their child.

I don't know if the redevelopment of Anfield has been costed properly but even if it has, it was done over ten years ago so should really be looked at again. The area needs regeneration, the people of Anfield have been waiting for years for it.

How much more time do you want to find new owners? The club has been hawked around the world since 2004. When Hicks and Gillett bought the club, they were still open to offers and could've sold for a profit in 2006 to Sheikh Mohammed. They were too greedy and now have lost it all.

The asking price was always known, Hicks added the premium because he wanted to dig his heels in until his holy grail of individual TV rights could be achieved.

Yeah I have. You've had loads to spend and bought shit. And are now in the shit. Sure you could've spunked even more cash on 'talent' like Aquilani, Babel, Glen Johnson who came to what, £50m or something but you'd still be in the shit. It's not because of the owners.

Beard?

[DeNeo]

The main thing is that the interest repayments are off our back, that was what was stopping us when it came to transfers. I know we've been over this, but having to make a profit from transfers in the past few windows has set us back - we've not been able to buy the 2 or 3 top class players we needed to improve the first team.

[Guest]

Do we think the true fans will keep their "Yanks out" banners ready for a few years down the line?

[ras el hanout]

To be fair I don't think new owners will make a blind bit of difference. In terms of spend since the original yanks came in Liverpool have only been behind Man City and Spurs or something ridiculous like that.

They can't be wholly held responsible for the state you're in, it's mostly down to past and current managers and players.

You're quite right. Benitez did, in my opinion, far more damamge than H&G. He spent all that money and look what we've got. I believe Hicks and Gilette got such a hard time because a lot of our fans needed somebody to blame and they sure as hell weren't going to blame Rafa. If Rafa had been able to build a strong premiership team with all the money he spent then the heat would have been off the cowboys to a certain extent. Of course the Americans fucked up badly as well. Promising things they couldn't deliver.

Chelsea and Man U didn't spend much the last couple of seasons. They did okay. We didn't spend as much the last two seasons and SOMEBODY MUST PAY.

[DeNeo]

Purslow's interview with 5Live at the weekend was interesting in terms of the stadium:

GR: “Just a couple of final points. The situation with the new ground when the new people come in? What would happen there? Can you tell us that?”

CP: “Well a key part of their interest in Liverpool has been to try and improve the experience of our fans on match day. We all know that for far, far too long, too many of our fans have been unable to get in to watch the team on match day.

“Now we’ve shown NESV all the plans around the stadium that we have full planning permission for in Stanley Park. They know how strongly we as a management team believe this is the way forward. They’ve been very impressed by that. I think it’s been a key ingredient in attracting them to Liverpool.

“I think a bit too much has been made this week into the fact that when they bought the Red Sox in Boston they refurbished the existing stadium. In fact the very same ownership group in two previous teams built new stadia, in Baltimore and San Diego.

“So I think it’s simple. Given that a new owner will be paying for a new stadium, it’s entirely reasonable and their prerogative that when they get here, they want to pull up the carpets, look in fine-tune detail at what we’re proposing, and make their final decision. But one thing is crystal clear: they want to increase the capacity of Liverpool football club.”

I thought it was made pretty clear a few years back that we had no chance of redeveloping Anfield, due to the houses surrounding it? I think a new stadium is the only way forward really.

[SMD]

Most of the houses concerned are empty now.

[Guest]

Yeah that girl is on X Factor, right?

[ras el hanout]

Well, I was having a chat with a mate last night and he pointed out that United made £180m from media and commercial activities, which is more than our turnover.

He was arguing that we need to improve our off the field performance to really catch up financially.

On the other hand, we need more seats in order to make it easier to offer cheaper tickets without affecting revenue too much. It's difficult for kids to go to matches, particularly if parents have to shell at least £60 to take their child.

I don't know if the redevelopment of Anfield has been costed properly but even if it has, it was done over ten years ago so should really be looked at again. The area needs regeneration, the people of Anfield have been waiting for years for it.

How much more time do you want to find new owners? The club has been hawked around the world since 2004. When Hicks and Gillett bought the club, they were still open to offers and could've sold for a profit in 2006 to Sheikh Mohammed. They were too greedy and now have lost it all.

The asking price was always known, Hicks added the premium because he wanted to dig his heels in until his holy grail of individual TV rights could be achieved.

Beard?

Well I don't think a price of £300m has always been known. I think H&G wanted £600,000,000 like they said and went to court for. So maybe wait a little bit longer. And Hicks and Gilette were looking to improve off field performance. That's a no brainer. But then Man U are so widely supported and do so well commercially because they're so successful. They're so successful in part because they've got a massive cocksucker of a staduim (and an incredible manager). But the Stadium's the moneymaker.

We need a stadium.

[ras el hanout]

Purslow's interview with 5Live at the weekend was interesting in terms of the stadium:

I thought it was made pretty clear a few years back that we had no chance of redeveloping Anfield, due to the houses surrounding it? I think a new stadium is the only way forward really.

The economic climate has changed since they put up those stadiums.

H&G would have built one if they could finance it. Maybe this new group but...

[Smoothy]

Purslow's interview with 5Live at the weekend was interesting in terms of the stadium:

I thought it was made pretty clear a few years back that we had no chance of redeveloping Anfield, due to the houses surrounding it? I think a new stadium is the only way forward really.

Most of the houses concerned are empty now.

Yeah, those houses were all bought up by Liverpool FC IIRC because previously they wanted to redevelop and expand the existing stadium. However, they now see a new stadium as being a better deal for the club. Or at least now it's all up in the air...

[Graham S]

I hear you, I don't see why you're doing a irish jig though. Adminisrtation wasn't really on the cards. That real threat only came about because of this court case. H&G must have been confident of refinancing. So it just seems like we're happy to have anybody but Hicks and Gilette. It's a bit sad.

I was far less confident than you. Administration and similar major disasters seemed a real possibility to me.

I'm also glad that it seems like NESV are professionals. I'd be warier of most of the sort of businessmen that have been associated with other football clubs, like Portsmouth, over recent years. I bet ticket prices go up.

It seems like you still believe in H&G's good faith. I'm not so trusting. And whatever their initial intentions, it's hard to argue they've been competent professionals in managing the club. And it's clear at some point, once the shit hit the fan, the interests of the owners and the interest of people wanting the best for the football club had diverged considerably.

NESV will want to make money out of us. That's fine by me, if in return we get competent management over the long term.

[phresh]

The ruling is good for the PL as it shows that owners can't just run off with a profit should their 'gambling' go tits up. It's slightly disappointing that the board haven't been able to find a local owner, especially at £300 million (although I expect the stadium issue is quite off-putting), after all you've just exchanged one American owner looking for a profit for another, hopefully better, one.

That transfer money might be needed too as reports are suggesting that Kuyt has a bad knee injury.

[dogsout]

Yeah I have. You've had loads to spend and bought shit. And are now in the shit. Sure you could've spunked even more cash on 'talent' like Aquilani, Babel, Glen Johnson who came to what, £50m or something but you'd still be in the shit. It's not because of the owners.

You're wrong. Do you honestly believe that being in profit for 4 transfer windows in a row constitutes having 'had loads to spend'? You have a point about some of the signings made in those last few transfer windows, but you fail to acknowledge the loss of the players the new flops were replacing.

It is because of the owners. Rafa made some mistakes and paid dearly for them, but you can't put it all on him. The owners were driving the club into the ground. Look at the signings made in the summer just gone. They had nothing to do with Rafa, and everything to do with us having no money to spend because we had to focus on managing their debt.

[Nate Dogg III]

I think the assumptions that a) £40m saved per year interest payments means £40m per year in the transfer kitty and b) that increased capacity means cheaper tickets for the same revenue, rather than the same tickets for increased revenue, are dangerously naive.

SMD's got it right, cautious optimism is the way. You're unburdened by debt and have owners with a track record of success, but at the same time you've ousted one set of owners from the most unpleasantly, rampantly capitalist country on the planet and replaced them with another. They're not here to be nice or for an Abramovich/Mansour-style vanity project - the primary motivation is making a profit and Arsenal lead the way in showing you can have a big fat stadium and fuck all success but still have a thoroughly profitable business. Regarding the stadium development they'll do whichever is the most cost effective and not what's best for the area - you'd need someone like Moores for that, a local lad like Phresh says. I'd keep the banners under the bed for a couple of years just in case. All depends on whether they think they've bought a club or a business, I guess. They're making the right noises but remember the spade in the ground promise.

As a neutral I think (hope) the most important thing right now is for Spirit of Shankly to shut the fuck up for a while. If they start stamping their feet over a fan ownership and don't get it, and try to turn the fans against the board again you'll be getting nowhere. Time to start abiding by that Liverpool Way thing again methinks.

[AbZorba]

Yeah I have. You've had loads to spend and bought shit. And are now in the shit. Sure you could've spunked even more cash on 'talent' like Aquilani, Babel, Glen Johnson who came to what, £50m or something but you'd still be in the shit. It's not because of the owners.

Sure there's been some shit signings but Liverpool have hardly been splashing the cash recently.

Net Spends since H+G took over.

07/08 £39,850,000

08/09 £6,250,000

09/10 -£8,650,000

10/11 -£7,800,000

Or were you just trolling for the sake of it - hard to tell?

[Warszawa]

To be fair I don't think new owners will make a blind bit of difference. In terms of spend since the original yanks came in Liverpool have only been behind Man City and Spurs or something ridiculous like that.

They can't be wholly held responsible for the state you're in, it's mostly down to past and current managers and players.

The net spend has been around 20m since their arrival. Rather like Manchester United, this is a very profitable club horribly stymied by irresponsible ownership.

[Nate Dogg III]

The whole net spend thing is a bit of a smokescreen anyway I think, as they never factor in tax and agent fees. Also it's not the be-all and end-all - I seem to remember someone in here saying 'so we got Joe Cole + £5m for Benayoun!" ignoring the fact that you're paying Cole double Benayoun's wages for four years.

I read an H&G statement earlier in the week that claimed they'd increased revenues - does anyone know how they've done this? I assume they mean commercially rather than just by hiking ticket prices (if they did that, I have no idea tbh), and don't mean transfer revenue either.

[Guest]

.

That transfer money might be needed too as reports are suggesting that Kuyt has a bad knee injury.

He is also struggling with being Dirk

I jest of course; not the most stylish player, at least he's had decent spells and RUNS AROUND A LOT.

[dogsout]

I think the assumptions that a) £40m saved per year interest payments means £40m per year in the transfer kitty and b) that increased capacity means cheaper tickets for the same revenue, rather than the same tickets for increased revenue, are dangerously naive.

Regarding your first point: if the new owners are willing to spend half of that amount, plus whatever we generate from player sales each year, that would be a massive improvement. Judging by what they did with the Red Sox they are willing to spend a bit. As far as ticket prices go, I don't think many people are holding their breath for a reduction in ticket prices.

[the_debaser]

Sure there's been some shit signings but Liverpool have hardly been splashing the cash recently.

Net Spends since H+G took over.

07/08 £39,850,000

08/09 £6,250,000

09/10 -£8,650,000

10/11 -£7,800,000

Or were you just trolling for the sake of it - hard to tell?

Do I need to say it again? Since they took over only Tottenham and Man City have spent more. What do you expect them to do, continue to throw good money after bad in an effort to keep up with Man City? The problem lies with the signings, not because they haven't fully supported the manager.

[dogsout]

The whole net spend thing is a bit of a smokescreen anyway I think, as they never factor in tax and agent fees. Also it's not the be-all and end-all - I seem to remember someone in here saying 'so we got Joe Cole + £5m for Benayoun!" ignoring the fact that you're paying Cole double Benayoun's wages for four years.

It's not the be all and end all but it is a far fairer indicator of transfer policy than the gross spend figures these divs love chucking about when talking about all the money we've wasted. You're quite right to mention wages, and I suppose it would come as a surprise to some to discover we spend less on wages than all of Arsenal, Chelsea, both of the Mancs, and Tottenham.

Your point about Cole is on the money and it is one of the reasons I was against us signing him.

[dogsout]

Do I need to say it again? Since they took over only Tottenham and Man City have spent more. What do you expect them to do, continue to throw good money after bad in an effort to keep up with Man City? The problem lies with the signings, not because they haven't fully supported the manager.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it won't make it true. You're also still ignoring the impact of the outgoing players in that time. The teams we're supposed to be competing with have all been getting stronger in that time, while we've grown weaker and weaker.

[AbZorba]

Do I need to say it again? Since they took over only Tottenham and Man City have spent more. What do you expect them to do, continue to throw good money after bad in an effort to keep up with Man City? The problem lies with the signings, not because they haven't fully supported the manager.

But you're ignoring the fact that Chelsea spent over £290million building their squard prior to H&G taking over at Liverpool and the Man Utd figures are distorted by the sale of Ronaldo for a World Record Fee. If we all had a Ronaldo to sell people would be falling over themselves to buy Football Clubs.

[SMD]

I think the assumptions that a) £40m saved per year interest payments means £40m per year in the transfer kitty and b) that increased capacity means cheaper tickets for the same revenue, rather than the same tickets for increased revenue, are dangerously naive.

SMD's got it right, cautious optimism is the way. You're unburdened by debt and have owners with a track record of success, but at the same time you've ousted one set of owners from the most unpleasantly, rampantly capitalist country on the planet and replaced them with another. They're not here to be nice or for an Abramovich/Mansour-style vanity project - the primary motivation is making a profit and Arsenal lead the way in showing you can have a big fat stadium and fuck all success but still have a thoroughly profitable business. Regarding the stadium development they'll do whichever is the most cost effective and not what's best for the area - you'd need someone like Moores for that, a local lad like Phresh says. I'd keep the banners under the bed for a couple of years just in case. All depends on whether they think they've bought a club or a business, I guess. They're making the right noises but remember the spade in the ground promise.

As a neutral I think (hope) the most important thing right now is for Spirit of Shankly to shut the fuck up for a while. If they start stamping their feet over a fan ownership and don't get it, and try to turn the fans against the board again you'll be getting nowhere. Time to start abiding by that Liverpool Way thing again methinks.

What we save in interest payments will go back into the club, whether or not it manifests as an increased transfer kitty or not. Given we've made a profit for the last 4 windows, any sort of spend now is an improvement.

We don't want to spend outside our means. We've never been a club to spend outside our means. When we dipped into the red, it's something very basic.

I don't think we'll cut the price of all tickets, what I mean is that you'll get a situation where in a 60k stadium with more corporate boxes, you have scope to have say a couple of thousand tickets for kids at half price or less, with greater scope for cup games. It'd also get the season ticket waiting list moving again and free up credit hunters.

We don't want a sugar daddy, I don't care what ramone says. Winning the CL in 2005 was so satisfying because we didn't buy our way to the title, it was desire and effort. Those are the kind of nights I want, not a hollow competition of who has the bigger cock.

Moores may have been local but he was spineless and had no real nose for leadership. He could've done what Arsenal have and done it years ago. He just didn't want that kind of risk and it showed in his business dealings with Littlewoods.

I don't get your beef with SOS. The long term aim should be fan representation for every club. I'm not saying it should be a case of lunatics running the asylum but neither can we trust suits in the boardroom to do what's best for the club. Need to have business people, football people and people who love the club on the board. Even if it's just one vote.

We don't want boardroom battles, we yearn for the days when our problems were people not singing enough in the stands and Rick Parry 'not playing the numbers game' for final ticket allocations.

We've been burnt once before, so why should we let it happen again? If NESV come in, we will cautiously welcome them but they need to take us on board. We're the ones going through the turnstiles, we're the ones paying the money and supporting the side. We just want to enjoy the football again, I don't want any more lectures on LBOs and credit notes and refinancing and shit like that. I want to talk formations and tactics and players and transfers. This summer I didn't even bother looking at who we were linked with, didn't even remember to pay attention on deadline day. That's how little faith I had in us doing any sort of business.

It's quite simple. If NESV genuinely want to compete and want to make Liverpool better, why exclude us? It's not like we're going to tell them how to market the club or what they should sell or promote or whatever. We just don't want to get shafted and we want to see the team do well. So if ticket prices are fine, if the manager (whoever he will be) is supported and we're working towards a medium and long term goal, what's the issue?

[SMD]

Do I need to say it again? Since they took over only Tottenham and Man City have spent more. What do you expect them to do, continue to throw good money after bad in an effort to keep up with Man City? The problem lies with the signings, not because they haven't fully supported the manager.

In 08/09 we finished second.

The season after we made £8.5m in transfers. Does that suggest to you that we had owners pushing for success? That they were seeking to help us get to the next level?

[Hawkeye]

As a member of a Trust that runs and owns the club I support I agree that fan input in football is much required. It does need a change in attitude though from supporters, who often have a very split everything great or doomed reaction to what is happening. Getting involved in the running of a club means that for the supporters that just turning up and thinking of players, formations etc is no longer possible, they will need to know the details.

Getting on the board. Is the SOS a Trust, with membership, AGMs, voting to it's committee etc? If not you need to sort that out. How does it fund raise? Can you purchase shares in the club, lobby politically for Stadium planning etc? A protest group is one thing, but that will never get on a board, nor should it. A Trust with a commitment to the club and it's supporters is another issue.

[ras el hanout]

O still xan't believe we've got fans on here defending rafa's spending. The summer he only bought aquilani and johnson he also, because he was in charge, gave out big contracts giving us a wage bill of over £100million a year. Higher that man city's.

Net spend, I still can't believe you're pulling that. For his first four years rafa had the second highest net spend in the premiership. How is this not relevant suddenly? It's all about the last year.

I didn't like rafa but actually his spending was pretty good. He built a cracking squad bug then he went mental and did things like robbie keane and alonso and aquilani.

[dogsout]

For his first four years rafa had the second highest net spend in the premiership. How is this not relevant suddenly?

Because we're not talking about Rafa; we're talking about our spending under H&G. Do you blame Hodgson for the squad being even weaker now than it was at the same time last season?

[ras el hanout]

Because we're not talking about Rafa; we're talking about our spending under H&G. Do you blame Hodgson for the squad being even weaker now than it was at the same time last season?

I think the squad is stronger than it was this time last year. Shame he had to wait so long for the Masherano money. H&G got him, and Torres, and Keane and Johnson and Aquilani. 5 near £20million pound players. Not too bad, eh? You know, we finished second. Nobody was saying we need to spend £40,000,000 not to finish 7th next year.

Nobody knows who Rafa wanted to buy. We've had the shit on here about this deal and that deal that were lined up. Most of them turned out to be made up. Personally I wouldn't have given Rafa anymnore money to piss away. This year everybody was talking about a firesale, how Hicks and Gilette were going to sell our best players. Didn't happen.

We didn't finish 7th last year because of lack of money spent on the squad and therefore it wasn't because of Hicks and Gilette. I don't think 20million pounds was the difference between us finishing 7th and the top four.