Topic: Was LFC Ticket Pricing Forum Now an Al555 usual mantra topic

[Groundskeeper Willie]

"Right now in my opinion the Football Club exists for the needs of FSG"

Please state all your concrete reasons for that.

[Eeyore]

How does that back up Al's claim that because he has spent money he therefore should be getting a return?

I mean the fact he has spent and received a product (be it a ticket, a shirt, a pie, whatever) is his return. That's what has been pointed out to him. So what in that charter disputes this?

The whole point Craig is the notion that you can treat a Football Club in pure business terms. I fully agree that I shouldn't get a financial return and that what I have spent has had a return in terms of the entertainment and emotions I have received.

The real question is why should say Mike Gordon get that same entertainment and emotions for free and get a huge return on his financial investment. What is wrong with the notion that we can' all be fans but with differing wealth.

I find it quite enlightening that a lot of fans say they support LFC because of Shanks. So what is wrong with his line that “The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That’s how I see football, that’s how I see life.”

[CraigDS]

The whole point Craig is the notion that you can treat a Football Club in pure business terms. I fully agree that I shouldn't get a financial return and that what I have spent has had a return in terms of the entertainment and emotions I have received.

The real question is why should say Mike Gordon get that same entertainment and emotions for free and get a huge return on his financial investment. What is wrong with the notion that we can' all be fans but with differing wealth.

I find it quite enlightening that a lot of fans say they support LFC because of Shanks. So what is wrong with his line that “The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That’s how I see football, that’s how I see life.”

He gets that return via stumping up the cash to buy the club and taking the risks (and flack!!) that comes with that.

The fans had the chance, one I backed, to own the club and be the ones to benefit from that but couldn't pull it off.

[ianburns252]

The reason we nearly went into administration is very clear it happened because the owners of the Football Club put their own interests ahead of the Football Club. They leveraged the acquisition debt onto the Football Club.

As for the rest of your post what is the relevance. It is patently obvious that the business side of the Club has to be run properly. The question is whether the business side of the Club exists to support the needs of the Football side of the Club.

Right now in my opinion the Football Club exists for the needs of FSG. When the likes of yourself are talking about making the correct business decisions those decisions aren't even in the best interests of LFC the business.

The owners themselves have stated quite openly that they were shocked initially about how decisions made in Liverpool effected their relationship with fans of the Red Sox and vice versa.

And these owners haven't - they aren't taking massive amounts from the club, leveraging debt on us, or generally taking the piss.

My point is that we must operate as a business and not ignore the requirements of that to meet every wish of the fans as if the club do that then soon enough there won't be a club to support.

Regarding your comment on Shanks version of socialism, does that not go against your feelings on local vs non-local fans and 'everyone having a share in the rewards'?

[jooneyisdagod]

those two things come hand in hand surely? as in the owners obliviously wanted a greater return/more revenue hence the 77 pound tickets.

I find it laughable some on here are so defensive over how people have opinions on the club and the owners,  to the point of giving shit to the fans that had the balls to actually stand up and say no, enough is enough.

I hope more protests are planned and I think most clubs fans should start doing joint protests. the clubs, players and agents are bleeding us dry.

Revenue can be found elsewhere and not just from tickets. Which is why I understand the protesting of very expensive tickets but don't understand the need to determine what an appropriate level of roi is.

[Johnny Foreigner]

Will be interesting too see how porto away turns out. United played Sevilla off the park on their stupid pricing, while Liverpool has been soft so far

[TheTeflonJohn]

While the net spend might be low the progress on the pitch is visible for all to see. If it wasn't then there would be an issue.

As for success being modest, we've gotten to 4 finals under FSG winning one and losing 3, I don't think you can blame the owners for losing a one off game, but some will.

Also i'd count the 13/14 run to the title as a final as it's the closest we've come.

Getting to a final is not the definition of success.

We`ve won one trophy under FSG, the rest is pointless. 

People go on about the 13/14 run as a highlight of FSG`s tenure? We didn`t win the league and that run was built on good coaching and some good buys by the transfer commitee/Rodgers. Suarez (not a massive transfer fee), Coutinho & Sturridge (peanuts),Sterling (bought from QPR under the previous owners for £1.5m I believe?) and a homegrown Gerrard.

You could say their ability to underspend compared to others is part of the reason why we had players in those finals who wern`t up to scratch and drag us over the line?

Personally not fussed with FSG either way, they`ve done some really good things and done some shit things, they could be worse as we all know given the previous owners but at the end if the day they are just suits to me who are in this to make buckets of money out of us (maybe not right now but some day the money pour into their accounts)

Just makes  me laugh this idea that FSG have done good things for us as a club by getting us to finals which we have lost and losing the title in 13/14!

So yeah, success under FSG has been extremely modest.

[CraigDS]

Getting to a final is not the definition of success.

We`ve won one trophy under FSG, the rest is pointless. 

It’s not pointless in the context of the discussion that was being had, which is this demand by some that we’re entitled to success.

The point that has been made is we aren’t entitled to anything, but we should expect to be in the running for success - which we have been as pointed out by the post you quoted.

[TheTeflonJohn]

It’s not pointless in the context of the discussion that was being had, which is this demand by some that we’re entitled to success.

The point that has been made is we aren’t entitled to anything, but we should expect to be in the running for success - which we have been as pointed out by the post you quoted.

Craig, there`s the whole discussion below, no one is saying we are entitled to success.

I`m not having a go at FSG here because they`ve done some good things and they are much better that the previous owners, I just don`t get this idea that losing finals and not winning the league in 2014 shows success under FSG. We`ve got a much better manager, squad, bigger ground etc but from a winning perspective, well we`ve won virtually nothing under FSG.

While the net spend might be low the progress on the pitch is visible for all to see. If it wasn't then there would be an issue.

As for success being modest, we've gotten to 4 finals under FSG winning one and losing 3, I don't think you can blame the owners for losing a one off game, but some will.

Also i'd count the 13/14 run to the title as a final as it's the closest we've come.

Absolutely no worries !

Yes, I can see where you're coming from and agree in principal..

However, painting a bleak picture - if FSG are selling out now :

* The club is in good financial shape
* But net spend is low and success on the pitch have been modest
* the financial return for the owners would be pretty decent to say it the least..

Cup half-full/half empty I guess; are we in a position to go full steam to win something - or will it be value preservation..

Sorry, it feels like I'm just chasing around after you but your points/questions are all in my field of interest.

I think the trade off is that the owners aren't extracting any of the profit via dividends or Glazed style repayments. Yes, we are paying the loan back quicker than most commercial lenders would require but we are paying a lot less interest and having seen our recent transfer activity it doesn't seem to hamper us.

If it would make a significant difference to pay it back over a longer period then I would be all for it but while it is sustainable and not holding us back I don't take issue with it

What's your stance on the current financial pay-back requirements ?

Is it fair for a footballing operation to have tougher requirements than organisations that solely have profit purposes ?

Seems like they've met all those criteria. So job in the process of being done.

A fully, committed focus on winning trophies combined with sound business operations..

In financial terms that would mean reduction of the requirements towards value creation (both in years and absolute values) and making us more competitive on the pitch..

Here's a question for you, other than what AL has bought from the club (ticket, shirts, pie, drink, whatever), what do you think he should be entitled to?

Maybe stop the patronizing and read up on the club charter

"Since its formation in 1892, Liverpool Football Club always has - and continues to - enjoy a unique relationship with its loyal and dedicated supporter base. It recognises and respects the invaluable contribution made by each and every supporter to the ongoing success and longevity of the Club"

[CraigDS]

Craig, there`s the whole discussion below, no one is saying we are entitled to success.

I`m not having a go at FSG here because they`ve done some good things and they are much better that the previous owners, I just don`t get this idea that losing finals and not winning the league in 2014 shows success under FSG. We`ve got a much better manager, squad, bigger ground etc but from a winning perspective, well we`ve won virtually nothing under FSG.

I could be wrong mate but half of this thread has been deleted in the last few days - I know a few of mine and the ones I replied to have gone.

The discussion was more one of demanding success, and the counter was as I put above - that I don't think success can be demanded but being in with a chance of success should be.

[TheTeflonJohn]

I could be wrong mate but half of this thread has been deleted in the last few days - I know a few of mine and the ones I replied to have gone.

The discussion was more one of demanding success, and the counter was as I put above - that I don't think success can be demanded but being in with a chance of success should be.

Fairy muff

[Roady]

Craig, there`s the whole discussion below, no one is saying we are entitled to success.

I`m not having a go at FSG here because they`ve done some good things and they are much better that the previous owners, I just don`t get this idea that losing finals and not winning the league in 2014 shows success under FSG. We`ve got a much better manager, squad, bigger ground etc but from a winning perspective, well we`ve won virtually nothing under FSG.

We’ve progressed on and off the pitch. Blaming owners for the loss of finals we have been in and not quite making it over the line in a premier league challenge? surely the players and managers faults no? There’s no doubt in my mind we’ve progressed. not sure why there’s so much bashing of the owners?? What is it people want? A sugar daddy?

[clinical]

We’ve progressed on and off the pitch. Blaming owners for the loss of finals we have been in and not quite making it over the line in a premier league challenge? surely the players and managers faults no? There’s no doubt in my mind we’ve progressed. not sure why there’s so much bashing of the owners?? What is it people want? A sugar daddy?

If that means winning, yes. Well we don't need Man City level. Just someone who may invest some of their own money into the anfield expansion etc, rather than club paying it off to only increase the end value for them. I don't even mind that we live within our means but things like that It would be nice to have an owner who would pay for it knowing they'd get there money back and more when they come to sell. Instead the club are paying back the loans not them. So again the fans are paying off their debt to make them more money.

We've progressed. but we've only progressed from when the cancers were here. Not really from before their time. I wonder if Klopp was at city and De Bruyne left I reckon he'd replace him. He's working under a budget here. I'd be amazed if either the VVD or Keita deals haven't used some of the Coutinho money. We don't spend big unless we sell big.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

I could be wrong mate but half of this thread has been deleted in the last few days - I know a few of mine and the ones I replied to have gone.

The discussion was more one of demanding success, and the counter was as I put above - that I don't think success can be demanded but being in with a chance of success should be.

I agree with that. The owners cannot win finals, but the worrying trend is that we often used to find a way to win, and gradually we've become frequent runners-up. Whether that's just a gradual weakening of our old winning mentality or simply a run of bad luck against better opponents in finals, I'm not sure.

If that means winning, yes. Well we don't need Man City level. Just someone who may invest some of their own money into the anfield expansion etc, rather than club paying it off to only increase the end value for them. I don't even mind that we live within our means but things like that It would be nice to have an owner who would pay for it knowing they'd get there money back and more when they come to sell. Instead the club are paying back the loans not them. So again the fans are paying off their debt to make them more money.

We've progressed. but we've only progressed from when the cancers were here. Not really from before their time. I wonder if Klopp was at city and De Bruyne left I reckon he'd replace him. He's working under a budget here. I'd be amazed if either the VVD or Keita deals haven't used some of the Coutinho money. We don't spend big unless we sell big.

I think that the next couple of years will be important on that score. The owners have always said that they won't deficit spend, and even up until recently the club's financial results have not been great, apart from years when we've sold big. Now that the club is on a better financial footing, we should be capable of using revenues to buy players in addition to windfalls such as the Coutinho money.

[clinical]

I agree with that. The owners cannot win finals, but the worrying trend is that we often used to find a way to win, and gradually we've become frequent runners-up. Whether that's just a gradual weakening of our old winning mentality or simply a run of bad luck against better opponents in finals, I'm not sure.
I think that the next couple of years will be important on that score. The owners have always said that they won't deficit spend, and even up until recently the club's financial results have not been great, apart from years when we've sold big. Now that the club is on a better financial footing, we should be capable of using revenues to buy players in addition to windfalls such as the Coutinho money.

They got us on the cheap. Make the fans pay for the stadium expansion. Sell for huge profit. It was genius business plan that I can't even fault them for it. Why do they care if we win or not. Yes we could make even more money but at what cost. We would have to invest a lot of £ to catch city. It's not worth it to them. They are more than happy to keep us top 6 with top 4 a bonus.

[CraigDS]

They got us on the cheap. Make the fans pay for the stadium expansion. Sell for huge profit. It was genius business plan. I can't even fault them for it. Why do they care if we win or not. Yes we could make even more money but at what cost. We would have to invest a lot of £ to catch city. It's not worth it to them. They are more than happy to keep us top 6. With top 4 a bonus.

There are so many cliches with little evidence to back this up that this type of post has become a bit of a parody of itself.

[clinical]

There are so many cliches with little evidence to back this up that this type of post has become a bit of a parody of itself.

You don't think that was their plan? They are business people and it's a great business plan. Have you got evidence to suggest that this wasn't their plan?

[CraigDS]

You don't think that was their plan? They are business people and it's a great business plan. Have you got evidence to suggest that this wasn't their plan?

No no no, if you're going to make claims then the idea is you back them up with the evidence you've used to formulate these - I mean otherwise you've simply made something up. It's not that it then falls on someone saying their is no evidence to provide evidence to the contrary.

[clinical]

No no no, if you're going to make claims then the idea is you back them up with the evidence you've used to formulate these - I mean otherwise you've simply made something up. It's not that it then falls on someone saying their is no evidence to provide evidence to the contrary.

I'll take that as a no you don't and leave it there.

The evidence is that it makes perfect sense. That's the way they can maximise their end profit. Isn't that what they've stated before? They'll make their money when they sell? Looking it at the busniess side of things, I can't fault them. If I was part of FSG with no love for LFC i'd want them to do that. Get something at the lowest cost possible and sell for maximum profit.

[CraigDS]

I'll take that as a no you don't and leave it there.

How about you take it for what it was, as a request to post the evidence you have to make such claims in the first place?

Or is it because you really don't have the knowledge or ability to find and interpret such evidence and are quickly scrambling to hide the fact you just made up some baseless claims?


edit...

The evidence is that it makes perfect sense. That's the way they can maximise their end profit. Isn't that what they've stated before? They'll make their money when they sell?

'It makes perfect sense' is not evidence, no. That's opinion. Opinion based on nothing.

And maximise end profit and make a profit when they sell are two different things.

[clinical]

How about you take it for what it was, as a request to post the evidence you have to make such claims in the first place?

Or is it because you really don't have the knowledge or ability to find and interpret such evidence and are quickly scrambling to hide the fact you just made up some baseless claims?


edit...

'It makes perfect sense' is not evidence, no. That's opinion. Opinion based on nothing.

And maximise end profit and make a profit when they sell are two different things.

I've not seen their exact business plan so of course i can't point to real evidence. I can only go on what I and many others have seen. Yes that is my opinion of what they are doing.

What's your opinion? You defend them like there's no tomorrow without actually offering your opinion on what their end goal is.

[jepovic]

If that means winning, yes. Well we don't need Man City level. Just someone who may invest some of their own money into the anfield expansion etc, rather than club paying it off to only increase the end value for them. I don't even mind that we live within our means but things like that It would be nice to have an owner who would pay for it knowing they'd get there money back and more when they come to sell. Instead the club are paying back the loans not them. So again the fans are paying off their debt to make them more money.

We've progressed. but we've only progressed from when the cancers were here. Not really from before their time. I wonder if Klopp was at city and De Bruyne left I reckon he'd replace him. He's working under a budget here. I'd be amazed if either the VVD or Keita deals haven't used some of the Coutinho money. We don't spend big unless we sell big.

To make a meaningful difference, this owner would have to spend at least 100M per year, for many years, out of his pocket. That's a lot of money even for rich people. Practically speaking, only oil money could finance that.

Personally I would loathe if Liverpool became the new ManC or Chelsea, spending blood/oil money to make footballers even richer. Winning titles is nice, but it's not that important. I'd rather finish fourth with owners that aren't a disgrace to humankind.

[CraigDS]

I've not seen their exact business plan so of course i can't point to real evidence. I can only go on what I and many others have seen. Yes that is my opinion of what they are doing.

Right. So rather than make bold claims based on no evidence, it's probably best to just stick to offering an opinion. Although if this is based on no evidence then I'd probably assess that too.

What's your opinion? You defend them like there's no tomorrow without actually offering your opinion on what their end goal is.

I've given it many times on here.

They want a successful club because a. it promotes their other sports investments better and allows them to bring in an income in the short term that way (FSM, NESN, etc) and b. ultimately a successful club is worth more.

Sports ownership is not really something to invest in to make a quick buck. People rarely do. These are people who could invest their money elsewhere quite easily and make more money, quicker, and with less earache than they constantly get from fans.

They said from day one they aren't a sugar daddy owner and the club will stand on its own two feet, and they've stuck to that. Now you mean cry for a sugar daddy to pump hundreds of millions into the club, and I won't have a go at you if that's what you're after, but some of us would rather this not be the case.

Plus if they just wanted a top 6 club to maximise profit then they'd not need the club to be spending anywhere near what it is on wages and fee's. They could easily do what United's owners have and take out their initial investment from the club's profits, they could not look at investing in infrastructure (inc the likes of Melwood), they'd not need to have someone like Klopp in charge on the huge money he is on, etc. etc.

[clinical]

To make a meaningful difference, this owner would have to spend at least 100M per year, for many years, out of his pocket. That's a lot of money even for rich people. Practically speaking, only oil money could finance that.

Personally I would loathe if Liverpool became the new ManC or Chelsea, spending blood/oil money to make footballers even richer. Winning titles is nice, but it's not that important. I'd rather finish fourth with owners that aren't a disgrace to humankind.

I get that, and can understand people not wanting someone like that. I'd rather we could win doing it the right way. But that's what I was saying why would they put themselves under financial risk to match clubs like City they won't, they will be happy with where we are now.

Craig will no doubt ask for evidence of that. But they evidence is our net outlay since they have been here.  I don't expect them to go and spend £100m of their own money each year, all I said was it would have been nice if they paid for the expansion themselves knowing they'd get that money back and more when they sold. Rather than getting the money back through fans. I'm not sure if that's too much to ask personally.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

They got us on the cheap. Make the fans pay for the stadium expansion. Sell for huge profit. It was genius business plan that I can't even fault them for it. Why do they care if we win or not. Yes we could make even more money but at what cost. We would have to invest a lot of £ to catch city. It's not worth it to them. They are more than happy to keep us top 6 with top 4 a bonus.

They got us for the market rate at the time.
Every time we've redeveloped the ground over the years, the fans have paid for it using your definition. It's not like they raised the £ through debentures.
Overall I'm pretty neutral on FSG. They've made some mistakes, but off the pitch we are arguably in the best nick since John Smith and Peter Robinson were  running the show. If there's evidence that we're not spending what we earn on players then I may reconsider, but we need to be careful because developments like Kirkby need to be financed, which is different from the main stand in that it won't directly produce revenue.

Anyway this is drifting off the point, which is how we get more youth into the ground.
I've posted before that stretching the Corporates is the way to achieve this in the short term.
We're already selling more packages than the club's initial target which was 10-12% of the new capacity. Despite the new main stand, we are still flogging quite a few offsite packages that come with seats in the upper Anny (As an aside, a client of mine took one of his customers to Anfield on an upper Anny "Corporate" package, and as they were queuing outside he was moaning to my client that "this isn't hospitality" as my client was shoving him through the turnstile  ) My view is that the 1892 lounge which wasn't in the original main stand brochure was the late addition to the offering which compensated for the backtracking on the £77 tickets - happy to be put right on that by the way,but it just felt a bit last minute.
So lets rebuild the Anny, have some corporates if that helps the numbers, and lets try and engage the club so that they see that there is a business benefit in getting the next generation inside the ground and generating a better atmosphere in the meantime.

We wont achieve what most of us want by asking for unrealistic targets and slagging the owners off, but we have a chance if we can help them see the business benefits of what we are asking for.

[clinical]

Right. So rather than make bold claims based on no evidence, it's probably best to just stick to offering an opinion. Although if this is based on no evidence then I'd probably assess that too.


I've given it many times on here.

They want a successful club because a. it promotes their other sports investments better and allows them to bring in an income in the short term that way (FSM, NESN, etc) and b. ultimately a successful club is worth more.

Sports ownership is not really something to invest in to make a quick buck. People rarely do. These are people who could invest their money elsewhere quite easily and make more money, quicker, and with less earache than they constantly get from fans.

They said from day one they aren't a sugar daddy owner and the club will stand on its own two feet, and they've stuck to that. Now you mean cry for a sugar daddy to pump hundreds of millions into the club, and I won't have a go at you if that's what you're after, but some of us would rather this not be the case.

Plus if they just wanted a top 6 club to maximise profit then they'd not need the club to be spending anywhere near what it is on wages and fee's. They could easily do what United's owners have and take out their initial investment from the club's profits, they could not look at investing in infrastructure (inc the likes of Melwood), they'd not need to have someone like Klopp in charge on the huge money he is on, etc. etc.

Okay thanks, I understand what you're saying on the whole. I disagree with the last bit though. I think they realise they have to spend a decent amount to remain in the top 6. Only takes a couple years of not spending to drop out like we had done with previous owners.

Regarding the infrastructure, aren't they selling Melwood and then getting another loan to pay for it? (which again the money from fans would pay for?) I might be wrong there, but sure that's what I read. What I'm getting at is they won't go out their way to make us win.

Do i expect them to? Not really but I think they can improve and use their own money on things like the stadium, training ground improvments etc.

[TheTeflonJohn]

We’ve progressed on and off the pitch. Blaming owners for the loss of finals we have been in and not quite making it over the line in a premier league challenge? surely the players and managers faults no? There’s no doubt in my mind we’ve progressed. not sure why there’s so much bashing of the owners?? What is it people want? A sugar daddy?

Read my last couple of posts again.

I was not bashing the owners, I was pointing out that losing finals should not be used as a measure of success.

[Groundskeeper Willie]

Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but no-one has the right to his own facts.

[Eeyore]

There are so many cliches with little evidence to back this up that this type of post has become a bit of a parody of itself.

Really Craig you want some quotes and facts.

JWH" If we could acquire this for the debt, I really feel like we would be stealing this franchise. “

The Club has funded the Main Stand expansion not FSG.

6.  How does NESV intend to extract money to make a profit on this transaction?
JWH "That’s a good question.  With the club struggling, money I can’t foresee any profits being “extracted.”  Hopefully someday LFC will be worth more than it is today."

Given that they paid 300 invested another 100m and that Arsenal a club of a similar stature is worth around 1.8bn then I think it is rare to say the Club is worth around 4 times their investment.

So Craig please outline the far easier safe investments that have quadrupled in value in just over 7 years.

[Eeyore]

To make a meaningful difference, this owner would have to spend at least 100M per year, for many years, out of his pocket. That's a lot of money even for rich people. Practically speaking, only oil money could finance that.

Personally I would loathe if Liverpool became the new ManC or Chelsea, spending blood/oil money to make footballers even richer. Winning titles is nice, but it's not that important. I'd rather finish fourth with owners that aren't a disgrace to humankind.

If making a difference would cost a 100m a year then why are they continuing with exorbitant ticket prices then when more reasonable ticket prices would cost a fraction of that.

As for being the next City or Chelsea you seem to be quite happy for them to be the next Arsenal to see their investment soar whilst we have brought in 40m more in sales under Klopp than player purchases. At a time were we are in the CL, raking in record amounts from TV and have the increased revenue of the main stand we are still selling players for around twice what we pay for them.

[clinical]

Really Craig you want some quotes and facts.

JWH" If we could acquire this for the debt, I really feel like we would be stealing this franchise. “

The Club has funded the Main Stand expansion not FSG.

6.  How does NESV intend to extract money to make a profit on this transaction?
JWH "That’s a good question.  With the club struggling, money I can’t foresee any profits being “extracted.”  Hopefully someday LFC will be worth more than it is today."

Given that they paid 300 invested another 100m and that Arsenal a club of a similar stature is worth around 1.8bn then I think it is rare to say the Club is worth around 4 times their investment.

So Craig please outline the far easier safe investments that have quadrupled in value in just over 7 years.

That is my main issue with FSG right there. The stadium improvements should be funded by them. It's like paying for an expansion of your house. It's worth it as when you come to sell it more than pays for itself. They got a loan which us fans are paying.

And that is a fact. The money generated should be being invested into the team from day 1. Not when it's been paid off.

Hicks and Gillette got a loan to pay for the whole club that they wanted the fans to basically pay back. Well FSG have done exactly that with the main stand. Okay it could be worse like Hicks and Gillette but still not great imo.

They could have easily funded that themselves knowing full well it will be repaid when they sell.

[Xabi Gerrard]

Given that they paid 300 invested another 100m and that Arsenal a club of a similar stature is worth around 1.8bn then I think it is rare to say the Club is worth around 4 times their investment.

Just curious, would Ashburton Grove be worth significantly more than Anfield? Owning several hectares of land in Islington is surely worth hundreds of millions more than owning several hectares of land in Anfield?

So is it really fair to say we're worth about as much as Arsenal, even though we're similar sized clubs?

(Not to detract from the fact we're worth a lot more now than we were when FSG bought us)

[Eeyore]

That is my main issue with FSG right there. The stadium improvements should be funded by them. It's like paying for an expansion of your house. It's worth it as when you come to sell it more than pays for itself. They got a loan which us fans are paying.

And that is a fact. The money generated should be being invested into the team from day 1. Not when it's been paid off.

Hicks and Gillette got a loan to pay for the whole club that they wanted the fans to basically pay back. Well FSG have done exactly that with the main stand. Okay it could be worse like Hicks and Gillette but still not great imo.

They could have easily funded that themselves knowing full well it will be repaid when they sell.

This is the exact point that confuses me. I haven't heard anyone come up with a convincing argument why they shouldn't.

There seems to be this crazy argument about not being able to compete with the petroleum funded Clubs such as Chelsea, City and PSG. For me is it is a nonsense argument especially when you consider that the four top clubs in the Deloitte Money League aren't petroleum funded.

:: 1 Manchester United £581.2m
:: 2 Real Madrid 579.7m
:: 3 FC Barcelona £557.1m
:: 4 Bayern Munich £505.1m
:: 5 Manchester City £453.5m
:: 6 Arsenal £419m
:: 7 Paris Saint-Germain £417.8m
:: 8 Chelsea £367.8m
:: 9 Liverpool £364.5m
:: 10 Juventus £348.6m

Indeed City are the only 'oil' Club in the top 6 and the Petroleum 3 have only one Champions League trophy between them.

The four richest Clubs are based on Match day revenue and commercial income. You look at the top 4 and they have grounds with Capacities of 75,463, 81,064, 99,354 and 75,000 respectively ( according to google Craig 

So if you ignore 'oil' clubs then the question is how we close the gap on the big 4. For me the answer is pretty clear we increase our capacity which will allow our match day income to grow, a combination of more supporters and tiered pricing can do that and keep everyone happy.

Then you look at how you increase commercial revenues. You do that by improving your profile and above all by being successful. Clearly for me a bigger stadium funded by the owners, either by extending what we have or moving will give our profile a lift and will increase our chances of winning things.

So for me an investment by the owners now can propel us into the kind of revenue streams that the big four take for granted. The only thing it would require for me is for the owners to literally put their money where their mouth is.

Over to you FSG.

[Eeyore]

Just curious, would Ashburton Grove be worth significantly more than Anfield? Owning several hectares of land in Islington is surely worth hundreds of millions more than owning several hectares of land in Anfield?

So is it really fair to say we're worth about as much as Arsenal, even though we're similar sized clubs?

(Not to detract from the fact we're worth a lot more now than we were when FSG bought us)

Possibly mate.

The only way though would be if they moved again though because that would be the only way they could cash in on the land value.

[El Lobo]

Al how much do Bayern Munich make on match day revenue compared to Liverpool?

[Eeyore]

Al how much do Bayern Munich make on match day revenue compared to Liverpool?

In the last report their matchday income was £83.9m and ours was £68.8m

[El Lobo]

In the last report their matchday income was £83.9m and ours was £68.8m

So their 20,000 odd extra seats bring in an extra £15 million, compared to the commercial gap of over £100 million, and your solution is to spend the thick end of a billion pounds to build a new stadium....?

[Eeyore]

So their 20,000 odd extra seats bring in an extra £15 million, compared to the commercial gap of over £100 million, and your solution is to spend the thick end of a billion pounds to build a new stadium....?

You are not comparing like with like though Eel. Germany traditionally has cheaper ticket prices than us. A better comparison would be the 137 million euros United had in match day income in 2015-16 or the 134m euros in matchday income Arsenal had that season.

As for building a Stadium for a £1bn who has suggested that ? For me the chances of a new stadium went when we redeveloped the Main stand but we could easily extend the ARE into the park and make a huge dent in our need for extra capacity.

[SP]

If you want to have a discussion about the econ9mics of building a new stadium / expanding to a squillion seats, we have a whole sub board devoted to nothing but that. Someone may just have discussed this point on there.

[Peter McGurk]

That is my main issue with FSG right there. The stadium improvements should be funded by them. It's like paying for an expansion of your house. It's worth it as when you come to sell it more than pays for itself. They got a loan which us fans are paying.

And that is a fact. The money generated should be being invested into the team from day 1. Not when it's been paid off.

Hicks and Gillette got a loan to pay for the whole club that they wanted the fans to basically pay back. Well FSG have done exactly that with the main stand. Okay it could be worse like Hicks and Gillette but still not great imo.

They could have easily funded that themselves knowing full well it will be repaid when they sell.

The argument that FSG should 'pay' for the stadium without a return because they'll get it back when they sell is ludicrous.

If FSG funded (ie., paid, without return) for the stadium, the value of the club would not increase by one penny, so it will not be 'repaid when they sell'. And FSG will not be able to leverage the value of what they pay for a stadium elsewhere either, as there would be no increase in value. The only way that the club will increase in value (from the stadium) is to sell more tickets at a sufficient price to both pay for the stadium and more. And a bigger capacity makes it worse. As the stadium gets bigger and bigger that is harder to do (as the cost per seat goes up and the expectation of price goes down).

So what you are calling for is a straight gift. From owners to fans. Hundreds of millions. For the privilege of owning the club. I suspect it's not even legal. It's certainly spectacularly stupid and it's not going to happen.