Great post.
On the stadium, is there an example of a club at the top end of the UK game that have financed and built a brand new stadium themselves that has increased their competitiveness? Closest is Arsenal who had the benefit of some prime north London real estate to ease the pain.
On the basis that such a club doesn't exist, I'm not sure that we can be having a go at FSG for not doing so. Don't forget there were huge swathes of our supporters that didn't want to leave Anfield either.
I love the Arsenal myth about prime real estate.
Top right in Highbury and on the left is the Emirates. They are a stones throw away from each other. Given that the footprint of the Emirates dwarfs Highbury could you please explain how they have benefited from land prices especially considering the other things Arsenal had to pay for in the surrounding area to get planning permission.
As for a new Stadium the likes of Leicester, Southampton, Huddersfield, Brighton and Swansea don't seem to have had their progress hampered by new stadiums.
Then we have Spurs who are probably the best run Club in the Country who are quite happy to spend big money on a new ground.
As it goes I think the expansion of the Main Stand spelled the end of a new ground under FSG but that doesn't mean we shouldn't extend Anfield to get as many fans in as we possibly can.
Maybe we should look at what our competitors are doing.
In Spain Real and Barca are both embarking on 400m euro redevelopments of their existing stadiums whilst Atletico have just moved into a stunning new 67,000 capacity stadium.
Bayern have the stunning Allianz arena. In England Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea and West Ham have or will have new Stadiums. United have Old Trafford which holds 75,000 and generates £100m+ in match day income. Whilst City are currently expanding the Etihad to 61,000 with long term plans to rival United's capacity.
FSG made it clear what their plans were right from the start. Henry's email to other members of FSG that was released as part of the New York court case outlined their plans. To mimic Fenway Park, to spend around £100m on the Stadium to massively increase the corporate take and then to look to cash in on the TV revenue.
So maybe we should look at what they did at Fenway they inherited a Stadium that held 33,993 and have extended it to 37,731. What they have done is to massively increase the number of expensive seats and lounges. Out of 30 MLB teams they have the Ball park with the 26th biggest capacity.
So without an extended ARE we will be going the same way. United, Arsenal, West Ham and City already have bigger Stadiums and Spurs, Chelsea and even Everton could all have bigger Stadiums than us.
You look at our income and our fanbase and how can that possibly be right, even Celtic have a Stadium that holds north of 60k.
Over and over again it has been stated in this thread that we have a problem of demand massively outstripping supply. To us as fans that is a problem but for the owners is it a problem or is it just away to force up prices without spending further on Stadium infrastructure.
For me it is immoral for a business to 'leverage fan affinity' as Fenway Sports Management call it. To hike prices because they operate a monopoly and we have no alternative.
Ticket prices are getting more and more ridiculous and all it is doing is funding ever more obscene wages and agents fees. So why not squabbling and looking to turn this into debates about the ownership or OOters and stick together back the likes of SOS and the FSF and look to make the authorities intervene.
Governments wouldn't allow utilities, TV companies or retailers to create a monopoly and then bleed their customers dry so why should Football be any different ?