JWH has already told us.
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=265701.0
4. How have NESV funded the £300m acquisition?
This simple answer is that we paid cash for LFC and left £37 million of stadium debt in place – even though there is no stadium in place – just a lot of expensive plans etc. We view stadiums as separate from clubs. They are separate entities.
So according to JWH, Stadiums and Clubs are separate entities. Therefore FSG own Anfield and not the Club so surely FSG should be paying for any Stadium developments. They invest in their Stadium and the value of their investment goes up.
Seperate entities as in the stadiums income pays for stadium work. Not revenue from elsewhere, say player sales, pays for stadium work.
Anfield is, and always has been (certainly under this and the last two owners) fully owned by the club and is it's asset directly.
It's has never been its own 'entity' as you're trying to define it.
As for investing in their stadium, surely you could make a similar argument for investing in players, or a training pitch, or a top manager, or, well anything to do with the club. It's all going to (if done right) going to make the value of the investment go up.
That makes far more sense than existing fans paying more for seats and facilities that they do not directly benefit from. Why should someone in another part of the ground pay more so that FSG can extend their Stadium. Surely we support the Football Club and not the Stadium.
The stadium is part of the club, and the club is part of the stadium. It's ridiculous to try and seperate the two as you're doing.
I can agree about the other fans paying for facilities they may not benefit from, but then I guess so do the club as that's why the tickets in the Main are now higher priced than a similarly positioned ticket in the Centenary.