In short, with this article, we've a prominent Spirit Of Shankly figure saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) that we should forget about building the club within our financial means, operate in the transfer market without any kind of eye on asset or resale value, and build a stadium with a capacity about 20,000 beyond what there's any reasonable demand for, with all concomitant cost. This 11 months after we came within inches of winning the league, when Man City put in a miraculous run of form to pip us at the post, slips and Crystal Palace demises or not. I can remember Neil Atkinson on TAW saying, "I'd love to see this side pitted against the likes of Bayern Munich". 11 months ago that.
I doubt anyone can argue about the issues of ticket prices or the creeping wankification of the game at every turn, not least the ground itself, but if one club suffers less than any other it's Liverpool. But beyond that, it reads a bit like a Spirit Of Shankly volte face to wishing for a sugar daddy with a magic wand.
You've let yourself down badly there. Very badly.
Peter posts on TAW in his personal capacity despite having lots of people who support his views about the fact that FSG and LFC are two very different entities with two very different aims.
Owners with a long term strategy would be looking to cash in for their benefit and for LFC's benefit on the massive fanbase and opportunity - a long term strategy would see that feasible and achievable, it would also meet the issues Peter makes about the gentrification of the ground.
To suggest he is asking for a sugar daddy is naive at best, he's asking for these owners to get on board for the long term and sort the ground out properly and as a byproduct get the best for themselves. The ground solution sees it being paid off as a first draw on income and the advantage for non-corporate supporters being minimal in the scheme of things, FSG first, LFC second. The Anny Road? Fingers crossed.
And by the way, there's 20,000 on a waiting list and countless other thousands as members who would all love access to the ground - that's before you see Anfield at 3.15pm on a match day - outside - there are hundreds of people hanging around, desperate to grab a bit of the atmosphere and wanting to be inside - so don't trot out rubbish about no demand.
What we do have, by their own admission, is a development that maximises the return per seat - the sweet spot.
What supporters don't realise is that LFC is an asset in a hedge fund portfolio, the more we are worth, the more they can leverage within that hedge fund to raise funds for other ambitions - that's why we all think they're brilliant not taking money out - we are collateral for other deals. Proof? Le Bron James.
I'm the new Merseyside rep on the Supporters' Commmitee put their primarily by the support of Union members, so let me set my stall out here and now - this Club was built on local support creating a culture from the local community - all the things Peter talks about implicitly.
I want a bias back to local supporters - not excluding non-locals but getting the balance where it should be, and part of that needs to see a ground solution that accommodates the competing interests but primarily allows locals access at a fair price.
Your suggestion that the Union want a sugar daddy is silly and you're generally better than that - and by the way we came 2nd under Hicks and Gillete, trotting out stats like yours above doesn't give the right picture in isolation, were you arguing for H&G because they came 2nd? No.
The more we ask the owners why they have limited ambitions, the more we will be able to connect to where we end up in the League. They're the best financial owners we have had for forty years (but it's a low baseline) but dont think for a second LFC represents anything other than an asset and not the first thing they think of each morning when they get up.
Count me in if you fancy a debate on this with any other posters on here who constantly push the FSG (rather than LFC) line.