Topic: NESV leaning towards a 'new stadium' and facilities

[Mackeroo]

What is significant currently is how little FSG appear to have done to come to a balanced decision.

The key word in that sentence is "appear". Just because they haven't been airing all our linen in public doesn't mean that they haven't addressed the situation at all. They may have been working on a stadium solution since the takeover, they may not have been. But just because you aren't hearing about it through the media doesn't mean that nothing is happening. Lots of people were harking on about a return to "The Liverpool Way" of doing everything in-house and not running the club through the media, well we can't have it both ways.

That makes sense.  There is scope for very large expansion - question is, is it needed?  Truth is, no body knows how big the stadium should be and the club will plan accordingly without burdening us with a best guess...

Thanks for answering, I was keen to hear your opinion on whether there is scope for a reasonable sized expansion, as I'm aware you have put plenty of time and effort into studies and models on this subject.

Whether it's needed is not is another matter. I realise we weren't selling out earlier in the season but there were mitigating circumstances. I just hope we don't sell ourseves too short and we end up in the same boat in 20 year's time.

[Paddock77]

Ascertaining the level of demand from the existing ST database (sic) will not be completed until after the existing consents have expired.

Demand is the startpoint for any balanced decision on redevelopment v new stadium.

No application for a detailed consent on Anfield Plaza has been made.Without such a consent it is an unquantifiable asset and cannot be offset against a new stadium costs.

Any redevelopment of Anfield would require planning permission, no application has been made, or public consultation  taken place.

Of course it is possible that estimates have been prepared, but without the guide of what scale of project is required, and what prospect of success such a project might have, it amounts to very little.

Agree that the level of demand will be a key factor in any decision making. However I think it is a fair assumption that with a greater degree of success on the pitch the level of demand can be conservatively estimated at around 55 - 60K (current capacity plus a proportion of the ST waiting list and as you quite correctly stated elsewhere an allowance for those that have 'given up trying to get tickets'). If we can guestimate this level of demand then I am sure FSG have already done this exercise.

To me one of the major factors (if not the key element) will be the feasibility/costing of either option. No point in forking out an additional say £350 -400m for a shiny new stadium if the same capacity can be achieved for less in a refurbished Anfield.
It is not inconceivable that a large part of the time since FSG have taken over has been spent on the conceptual design of both options with a follow on costing exercise being undertaken. If this has been happening then there is no reason why we would be privy to this information.

Just because we have not heard anything officially does not mean  efforts are not being made to arrive at a decision. Having said that I would still recommend an optimistically cautious approach to FSG until their actions lead us to alter our view one way or another.

[xerxes1]

That’s so funny.  I had to have a little giggle.Just because you haven’t seen it, it doesn’t mean the info is not known or can’t be assessed (including an assessment of the value of Anfield Plaza with or without consent)

Obviously understanding it helps, but if it entertains so be it.Your guesses are legendary.

If you cannot see it- it may also mean it is not there.And certain actions leave a footprint which are not there because those cations have not been taken. An outline consent is insufficent to ascertain value to borrow against the full projected value - in itself it is quite modest.

[xerxes1]

Agree that the level of demand will be a key factor in any decision making. However I think it is a fair assumption that with a greater degree of success on the pitch the level of demand can be conservatively estimated at around 55 - 60K (current capacity plus a proportion of the ST waiting list and as you quite correctly stated elsewhere an allowance for those that have 'given up trying to get tickets'). If we can guestimate this level of demand then I am sure FSG have already done this exercise.

To me one of the major factors (if not the key element) will be the feasibility/costing of either option. No point in forking out an additional say £350 -400m for a shiny new stadium if the same capacity can be achieved for less in a refurbished Anfield.
It is not inconceivable that a large part of the time since FSG have taken over has been spent on the conceptual design of both options with a follow on costing exercise being undertaken. If this has been happening then there is no reason why we would be privy to this information.

Just because we have not heard anything officially does not mean  efforts are not being made to arrive at a decision.

All fair comment.

My riposte is that the very first thing you do, before commissioning anything, is to take reasonable steps to determine demand.That is only happening now with the ST rationalisation. To do much before  that is substantive/costly is possible- but unlikley, as it is a waste of time and money.

The start position is: "we think we can comfortably sell an extra 5000/10,000/15,000/20,000/25,000 (whatever the figure is seats. Now determine the most economic way of delivering that."

[xerxes1]

Xerxes, if you can't understand that you can do a feasibility and establish a value before even applying for a consent, you really don't understand very much at all.Do you imagine the entire industry spends millions on applications and then works it out later? Come on!!!!!

And in that question lies the difference between us. Of course you can guess- which is your specialist subject, and you are quite entitled to do so.

The fact is that an outline consent for a mixed use development gives LFC no sensible fix on value. The mix is unknown.The demand for that mix is unknown.The value of the component units is unknow. The tenants/freeholders are unknown.What deatiled consent will be given is unknown.The tenure under which the units will be occupied is unknown. The rents cannot be established. Crucially whether we wish to retain the freehold, or sell the completed project off to a pension fund for capital not income is unknown. Whether we wish to retain the freehold and do a JV is unknown. All of this is key to a new stadium decision- and how it is funded.

Your feasibility study is what we call a guess.Having delivered on acquiring, funding and completing  projects larger than this over the past ten years I can tell the difference.

Architects, at risk, will be delighted to play around with the site curtilage and existing footprints. The existing stadium can be recosted. But redevelopment will be subject to cost and planning permission, that will depend upon scale and massing, and until there is a brief as to what physically is needed not much can be done. And until that exercise is bottomed out, no comparison can be made with the economics of new Anfield.

I accept that FSG may have incurred substantial fees on detailed proposals for renovating Anfield and reassessing the viability of New Anfield whilst having no idea of what the demand for increased capacity is from our existing data base- unlike you, I do not believe it.
 

[xerxes1]

Try this:  "What is the best way of maximising the return from matchday revenue and ensuring continuity of that business for the foreseeable future?"

The wrong question - will get you the wrong answer.

However once demand has been established it will be interesting to see which option delivers on your question.

[Paddock77]

Wrong question - will get you the wrong answer. 

Try this:  "What is the best way of maximising the return from matchday revenue and ensuring continuity of that business for the foreseeable future?"

Could also be the wrong question!

How about " We have to develop our revenue streams but we can only afford to do that within certain investment parameters. How do we achieve it"?

The point being we don't know what it is FSG want to achieve from their ownership of LFC. I would suggest we will get a very good indication within the next 6 - 9 months

[Paddock77]

Yes it could be... but it’s not a bad one!

The viability of a deal stands apart from the ability of the deliverer to deliver.  But that’s not to confuse the two. 

I think we’ve heard and seen enough from FSG to understand where they’re coming from.  Evil be to him who evil thinks and all that but unfortunately some are so keen on a new stadium (or ousting the owners) that they prefer to see inability or unwillingness in a decision not to deliver it rather than good judgement in a decision for the alternative (I don’t mean you!).

Fair play but no matter how good the deal if it cannot be delivered then there is no deal.

With regard to the owners "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" (still prefer George W. Bush's attempt). Not saying we should be storming the gates but neither should we be sitting back expecting everything to be rosy.

I would agree that the signs (words) from FSG have been promising to date but it is their deeds that will truly tell us what their aiming to achieve.

Personnally I am happy that no decision has yet to be taken on the Stadium. I want a considered approach to the decision making. But the key to any demand / revenue increase will always be what is presented to us on the pitch. I am more interested in what FSG do to improve that before any Stadium decision.

[LiverBirdKop]

I think we’ve heard and seen enough from FSG to understand where they’re coming from.  Evil be to him who evil thinks and all that but unfortunately some are so keen on a new stadium (or ousting the owners) that they prefer to see inability or unwillingness in a decision not to deliver it rather than good judgement in a decision for the alternative (I don’t mean you!).

I have not yet come across anyone posting about ousting the owners.    Where have you seen that??

[xerxes1]

The difference between us is more than that.

Feasibility studies are not guesses.  Billions are committed on the basis of them. Proposals for funding depend on them.  Their validity is hugely dependent on the experience of those who work on them.  FSG have more than enough. They don't need signed leases and window colours.
I really don’t know where you work but I will make a legendary guess that it’s a long way away from decision making (particularly on 'new' projects).

I am afraid that your understanding of feasibility studies needs to be filed alongside the cost of windfalls and the value of naming rights.

Any feasability study is only as good as its raw naterials. Your error is not in the validity of feasibilty studies, it is in over representing what information you believe is sufficient to make an informed decision.

Your guess on my expertise is as close as your guess on Anfield site capacity, naming rights values and finance deals. As a Director of a Commercial and Residential development company I identify, acquire, fund, develop and dispose of such sites, (Anfield Plaza is relatively modest for us) , hence my interest.

As usual, you overstate your case. Stick to "I don't want a new stadium" and " I am confident that when the studies are complete redevelopment will be the better option (which may be right)" and you will be fine.

[xerxes1]

I think we've heard and seen enough from FSG to understand where they’re coming from.  Evil be to him who evil thinks and all that but unfortunately some are so keen on a new stadium (or ousting the owners) that they prefer to see inability or unwillingness in a decision not to deliver it rather than good judgement in a decision for the alternative (I don’t mean you!).

The only substantive thing that we have heard from FSG on the stadium issue is that they are regularising the ST waiting list, a by-product of which will be a scientific fix on ascertaining future season ticket demand. That's not enough for me to understand where they are coming from.

I have not seen a single post, or heard a comment from anyone, suggesting that FSG should be ousted.

I have not seen a single post, or heard a comment from anyone, suggesting that a new stadium should be built if it does not represent the best financial answer for the long term future and success of LFC.

I have read your inability/unwillingness to acknowledge the case for all options to be judged on their own merit, and your constant adverse  prejudgement of anything which involves a stadium move.

[martinkelly]

We can't live on our history forever, I understand the stadium holds history and atmosphere that other clubs can merely dream of, but, surely we should be looking at making new history, a new era.

If we got Anfield re-developed, how soon would it be after that we'd have to be looking at building a new stadium again? How long will it be until Arsenal start looking at a new stadium again, I reckon we'd be looking for a new stadium before they would.

The more history we gain at Anfield, the sadder it's going to be to let go, and the less history we would have at our new stadium (however far away in the future that it is).

[martinkelly]

I think that's at the heart of the debate.  We've all been done told forever that a redevelopment either can't be done or makes less money for the club (we've also conned ourselves that a big stadium equals cheap tickets).  This is untrue.

If we re-developed, how far into the future would that be sufficient for?

[martinkelly]

I really don't see a practical limit but there is a 'market' limit - how much we could fill.  We might need 50k or 60k or 80k who knows? but they're all achievable - as for the durability of the existing structures - look at Fenway, they re-did it for another 60years (before significant refurb) - as least as long as a new-build.  Most buildings are 30 or 60 years, sometimes 70.

I see, and, sorry, which side of the argument are you on? What's your opinion on it? (Genuinely interested).

[DutchRed]

If we build a new stadium, I’d go for a huge loan and a big capacity, I’d go for about 75,000 seats instead of the proposed 60.000. Kopites are an ever-present set of supporters and I think we’d have a stadium sell-out every game. I’m no financial expert but I think the club would make about 50M quid extra a year with a new ground. That’s enough money to get two class acts extra every summer.

[martinkelly]

If we build a new stadium, I’d go for a huge loan and a big capacity, I’d go for about 75,000 seats instead of the proposed 60.000. Kopites are an ever-present set of supporters and I think we’d have a stadium sell-out every game. I’m no financial expert but I think the club would make about 50M quid extra a year with a new ground. That’s enough money to get two class acts extra every summer.

I agree with you about the 75,000, if we're going to re-locate, we might as well build big! I think we could fill it too, look how many people want season tickets, I mean obviously we wouldn't sell out every game, but... Does anybody know Arsenal's average attendance, and have they had many more new customers being attracted?

[xerxes1]

We've all been done told forever that a redevelopment either can't be done or makes less money for the club (we've also conned ourselves that a big stadium equals cheap tickets).  This is untrue.

No-one has said that a redevelopment cannot be done. A limited redevelopment may make less money than a new stadium, it depends on the detail of the respective projects.

A new stadium does not equal cheap tickets, no-one has claimed that. The larger the stadium the greater the downward pressure on prices. The quantum of sold out premium seats disproportionately increases income. In this respect the financial optimistion of stadium return is different for the onwers to the fans, how they balance that out will be interesting.

[LiverBirdKop]

The owners’ and fans’ interests are the ends of the same stick.  They want to win and sell a product at an affordable price to their customers (the fans), who want to win and to be able to afford to go to the match.

I'm sure the owners want to win, we just don't know what their approach is going to be to get there. They just spent $490 million for the team.
-How did they pay for the team? Did they have the cash on hand? Did they borrow it? What are the terms?

-What are the reasons NESV opted for a 10 year plan to bring Fenway to more modern standards when the baseball offseasons are quite long (compared to football). To avoid debt?

-Can FSG afford to spend on the squad AND start redevelopment work simultaneously?

I think how they paid for the club may tell us a lot about the future. Can the way they went about Fenway -all neighborhood differences aside- be taken as an indication of how long the Anfield redevelopment plan could last? 

[LiverBirdKop]

They have said they aren’t going to answer those questions and JWH being the kind of man he seems to be - that would be the end of the discussion.

That's what peaked my curiosity even further. I know I'm not the only one who'd like an answer to that question. Why? Because we were heavily indebted just a few months ago and half a billion dollars is a lot of money for any corporation(or group of investors) that is not a multi-billion dollar business to have on hand AND spend on a sports team.

If that money was borrowed or came from benefactors investors, we're indirectly on the hook for it and if we're going to be self sustaining, it's my opinion that our current revenue is not enough to sustain squad investment (which is desperately needed) and the cost of redevelopment.

Makes me feel uneasy thb.

[TopChed]

That's what peaked my curiosity even further. I know I'm not the only one who'd like an answer to that question. Why? Because we were heavily indebted just a few months ago and half a billion dollars is a lot of money for any corporation(or group of investors) that is not a multi-billion dollar business to have on hand AND spend on a sports team.

If that money was borrowed or came from benefactors investors, we're indirectly on the hook for it and if we're going to be self sustaining, it's my opinion that our current revenue is not enough to sustain squad investment (which is desperately needed) and the cost of redevelopment.

Makes me feel uneasy thb.

I would almost guarantee the club was purchased with some measure of debt. Why? Because it makes sense. Even if someone has $500 million lying around, they aren't likely to pay cash to buy a team. There are advantages to financing with debt. "Debt" is not inherently evil, as long as it's sustainable in the long term. From all the information about John Henry and FSG, none of it points to them being reckless with their finances. They're a private company and there's no reason any of us should have a right to audit their books and ask intrusive questions.

[xerxes1]

The ball is in FSG's court to make their case, isn't it?

It is easy to forget that this summer, they will have been in charge for less than a year, in a sport, country and businss climate of which they have no previous experience. It may take them another season before they really get to grips with what is going on.

This summer will provide an opportunity for reflection. Will Reina stay? Will we be playing CL, Europa, or domestic Cup only competition next season? Have Man City made the top 4? Will Carroll have been a success?

The failure to appoint a CEO after over four months, and the presence of only one UK domicile Director suggests that FSG are happy to run LFC by remote control from the States. How that plays out will be interesting.

There are three pointers which we should look out for in the coming months - what the brief/experience is of a new CEO, what happens subsequent to the "first 25,000" trawl of the 70,000 strong ST waiting list, and what response there is to the imminent expiry of the consents for New Anfield and Anfield Plaza.

[scouse29]

The ball is in FSG's court to make their case, isn't it?

It is easy to forget that this summer, they will have been in charge for less than a year, in a sport, country and businss climate of which they have no previous experience. It may take them another season before they really get to grips with what is going on.

This summer will provide an opportunity for reflection. Will Reina stay? Will we be playing CL, Europa, or domestic Cup only competition next season? Have Man City made the top 4? Will Carroll have been a success?

The failure to appoint a CEO after over four months, and the presence of only one UK domicile Director suggests that FSG are happy to run LFC by remote control from the States. How that plays out will be interesting.

There are three pointers which we should look out for in the coming months - what the brief/experience is of a new CEO, what happens subsequent to the "first 25,000" trawl of the 70,000 strong ST waiting list, and what response there is to the imminent expiry of the consents for New Anfield and Anfield Plaza.

Some interesting points in here.

Interested on the 75,000 on the waiting list. I see spurs have 26,000. I think people seriously under estimate how big our supports is.

Put up or shut up for me. I would be happy for more communication between fans and board and i personally would be happy to stump up £100 deposit if i were to be guaranteed ST.

[LiverBirdKop]

"Debt" is not inherently evil, as long as it's sustainable in the long term. From all the information about John Henry and FSG, none of it points to them being reckless with their finances. They're a private company and there's no reason any of us should have a right to audit their books and ask intrusive questions.

Wow, since when is asking a simple question that could potentially tell us a lot about FSG's short/long/ term plans for LFC equal having a right to audit their books. Excellent example of hyperbole. Brilliant.
"Ask intrusive" questions. 

[LiverBirdKop]

The ball is in FSG's court to make their case, isn't it?

There are three pointers which we should look out for in the coming months - what the brief/experience is of a new CEO, what happens subsequent to the "first 25,000" trawl of the 70,000 strong ST waiting list, and what response there is to the imminent expiry of the consents for New Anfield and Anfield Plaza.

I wouldn't put too much weight on the current 70,000 waiting list. There's got to be many duplicates, people who may have passed, moved out of the area or lost interest. That said, there's probably a lot of people who are interested and now will get a chance to be on an updated list. Can't wait to see what the level of interest is at the mo.
The bolded part could be most revealing. We'll now soon enough.

[xerxes1]

I wouldn't put too much weight on the current 70,000 waiting list. There's got to be many duplicates, people who may have passed, moved out of the area or lost interest. That said, there's probably a lot of people who are interested and now will get a chance to be on an updated list. Can't wait to see what the level of interest is at the mo.
The bolded part could be most revealing. We'll now soon enough.

On the waiting list I have no idea what the outcome will be. Like you I suspect that the live active interest is significantly less than 70,000. Equally, I think that several thousand people not on the list would apply for season tickets if they were available. Given that we only need an extra 15,500 extra to fill a 60k capacity stadium including additional premium seating (probably around 4000), I think the prospects of filling the stadium are encouraging.

The prospect of the current consents for New Anfield and Anfield Plaza lapsing is becoming most likely (not in itself a significant problem). Whether that prompts a statement ( which is not required) remains to be seen.

[TopChed]

Wow, since when is asking a simple question that could potentially tell us a lot about FSG's short/long/ term plans for LFC equal having a right to audit their books. Excellent example of hyperbole. Brilliant.
"Ask intrusive" questions. 

As soon as you ask about financials, you will get a generic response (like the ones that JWH has already given). If FSG say that their financials are in order (as they have), then people want to know more. If you want a detailed response, then yes, that is intrusive, regardless of what you say.

Bottom line is a private corporation has no responsibility to answer the financial inquiries of any fan, so don't expect them to.

[mercury]

As soon as you ask about financials, you will get a generic response (like the ones that JWH has already given). If FSG say that their financials are in order (as they have), then people want to know more. If you want a detailed response, then yes, that is intrusive, regardless of what you say.

Bottom line is a private corporation has no responsibility to answer the financial inquiries of any fan, so don't expect them to.

So far there is little of substance coming from the owners on their future plans for the Club, may it be short, medium or long term. 

I don't expect them to answer the financial questions on the upper tier companies but do expect them to be more open on key LFC matters  especially on something as crucial and emotional as the stadium.  We the fanbase would demand the owners to carry us on the stadium issue.  Rightly so.

[xerxes1]

So far there is little of substance coming from the owners on their future plans for the Club, may it be short, medium or long term. 

I don't expect them to answer the financial questions on the upper tier companies but do expect them to be more open on key LFC matters  especially on something as crucial and emotional as the stadium.  We the fanbase would demand the owners to carry us on the stadium issue.  Rightly so.

Fair comment.

As fans we are going to be around for a lot longer thsn FSG. I just want to know the basis on which any  (in) decision is made.

If FSG cannot afford the capital commitment of a new stadium I would like to know that and am alert to a short term fudge of what they might allege as being good for the club in fact simply being good for them. The last 7000 seats added to OT some five years ago cost them under £1m. It paid for itself in four games. You can't argue with those numbers.

Several posters are content that FSG are doing, and will do, the right thing behind the scenes. I am not. It is fair and reasonable to start with the ST waiting list. But why not say so? A simple statement saying that determining demand via established interest is the first step in the stadium decision making process and that the existing consents will be allowed to lapse until they have sufficient raw data to make the right decision is all that is required.

[owens_2k]

Cant we dig down? Ala Barca?

[xerxes1]

Cant we dig down? Ala Barca?

That is very expensive, and combined with the reconfigiration of the stands, probably result in the project being more expensive than new build.

[LiverBirdKop]

FSG have made it really pretty clear that we will not know the detail and, I wonder why they would want to present their reasoning for public scrutiny.  We have to look at outcomes.

Then maybe they shouldn't have been telling us time after time that they would listen to the fans. And I don't know how correct that is, not knowing the detail. It's a community matter after all. Maybe if we had some facts, new stadium versus redevelopment they could actually hire someone to conduct an actual scientific poll. Internet polls are meaningless.
Buying LFC was not a "romantically influenced" decision. Except for the guy within NESV that follows LFC that alerted them that the club was for sale, Henry/Werner and benefactors investors had zero or little knowledge of us. It was a business one(Captain Obvious I know) and should things not work out that well, they're not locally based which makes them a lot more "heat proof".
For me, the days of trusting owners and execs disappeared when Parry came on board.

[xerxes1]

You seem very keen to present a decision against a new stadium as being some kind of failure on the owner’s part.  You pretend to be balanced but you prejudge the decision, question their motivation and criticise the outcome!  As a pressure point it’s a bit lacking.

Nevertheless you put forward figures that appear to favour a redevelopment. But I would be grateful if you could provide details of the so-called £950,000 for 7,000 seats at OT.  At about £135 a seat, that’s pretty good going or are you just talking about the plastic itself?  Whilst it wouldn’t support an argument for redevelopment so well, the figures I have are about £35m (from memory), not so good.

At no time have I suggested that a decision against a new stadium would be a failure on the owners part. I have said that a decision not to build a stadium might refelct two scenarios.

The first, one where the economics were in favour of an alternative, which if demonstrated we all would accept.

The second is one whereby secrecy and an outcome determined by lack of finance or by short term owner gain meant that those factors superseded the best interests of LFC would not be acceptable to me - or our support.

I have amply sourced the costs for the OT quadrant development in previous posts. Your interpretation of it favouring redevelopment reflects an incomplete understanding of the economics. All that it demonstrates is that it was the right solution for OT to raise their capacity by 7000 seats. Even if capacity could be increased at Anfield by 7000 for £1m, that would not vindicate the redevelopment  v new stadium argument.

[mercury]

FSG have made it really pretty clear that we will not know the detail and, I wonder why they would want to present their reasoning for public scrutiny.  We have to look at outcomes.  You have to accept that because that is what is going to happen and we are not going to change it.  It’s their business. They run it.  We support it - or not.  If you’re looking for comfort, you can take it that it is in their interests to see that we continue to support the club.  We have a mutual interest in the success of the club and in that we are one and the same.

You seem very keen to present a decision against a new stadium as being some kind of failure on the owner’s part.  You pretend to be balanced but you prejudge the decision, question their motivation and criticise the outcome!  As a pressure point it’s a bit lacking.

I summarily reject this viewm which is so condescending.  That the fanbase is only required to feel blissful and pay for the tickets, tv, merchandise and should contentedly trust and let the management get on.   I do not agree that the mutual interest in the Club's success between the owners, fanbase or even the Club itself are the same.  It depends on how each defines success.  This is precisely the point xerxes is on about.

There is a well researched, consulted & debated decision on building a stadium instead of re-development.  This is the whole reason many shareholders - who had treasured the shares for generations and were convinced of the need of a new stadium and hence additional equity - sold out. 

If the owners change course, they absolutely have to justify it.  Failing to do so is, yes, a failure. 

Note:  I am not saying redevelopment is out of question but that why it is a better option FOR THE CLUB than a new stadium.

[LiverBirdKop]

I’m sorry if you thought I said that.  I said we will have to look at outcomes (not deliberations or processes). I am encouraged by what they say (and what they’ve done in the past) but I’m more interested in what they do.

If you don’t think we have mutual interest than you are at war again with our owners.  You should say so and you should get them out. I am wary, but for now, I would disagree with you.

Maybe, just maybe.  Moores and Parry went the wrong way.  I have my doubts about 'mogul' owners - it is inherently less democratic but it does offer better leadership, maybe - but leaders can only lead where followers will go - we are where we are.  We have to deal with that reality but that give us influence if not power.

 
I don't really get that "with us or against them" tone that I sense from you sometimes.  Now your reply to a fair comment  - the bolded part- is a lot of overreacting. "You're at war again with our owners. You should say so and you should get them out". 

[LiverBirdKop]

No, I don't think you think that we have no mutual interest whatsoever. But if you did, that's what you would have to do, which is just bizarre - nothing is ever that black and white (unless the name is Hicks)!

Bizarre is what your post is. Makes absolutely no sense. It wasn't me who posted that to which you replied to. 

But you know what? Nothing could be more black and white than your "you're with them or against them" overblown attitude. Keep that up and you may end up being as "popular" here as you are on that other forum. 

[LiverBirdKop]

Calm down.  I’m saying that so far NESV can be trusted. What’s wrong with that?

I'm very calm. I'm not the one saying someone's at war with the owners for asking a simple question. My world is not as black and white mate.

[LiamG]

Peter do you feel a redevelopment would be better if the main stand and annie road were both demolished and re-built rather than built on?

[mercury]

I’m sorry if you thought I said that.  I said we will have to look at outcomes (not deliberations or processes). I am encouraged by what they say (and what they’ve done in the past) but I’m more interested in what they do.

If you don’t think we have mutual interest than you are at war again with our owners.  You should say so and you should get them out. I am wary, but for now, I would disagree with you.

Maybe, just maybe.  Moores and Parry went the wrong way.  I have my doubts about 'mogul' owners - it is inherently less democratic but it does offer better leadership, maybe - but leaders can only lead where followers will go - we are where we are.  We have to deal with that reality but that give us influence if not power.

Let me clarify that:

1.  I am not saying that there is no mutual interest between the Club, owners, and the fans.  There is, significantly.  I am saying that there can be - is - critical deviation as well.  To think or imitate otherwise is naive.

2.  I am not saying the owners need to consult the fans on every issue .  However on some critical issues and one as emotional as the stadium, they should.  Indeed - here's our difference - for the stadium, the process is as important as the outcome.  They should at least handle the fans as a director without a seat or vote on the board - if you know what I mean.

Yes, let's agree to disagree.  A fundamental difference between us, I suspect, is how we view the nature of the Club.  I view it as a social institution run on business principles. 

On the other hand, I do agree that "we are where we are" cos in reality the Club is registered as a commercial enterprise. It means both the fans and the owners have to balance our expectation / interaction with reality and respect.  (Yes, respect.  Such an old fashioned word.....)

Also from everything heard and read, I have quiet confidence that the current owners is the real deal.  But as you said, outcome is most important.  Words are cheap.  Building trust is delicate - and a higher degree of transparency than at present will help some way for us.   

 

[LiverBirdKop]

Also from everything heard and read, I have quiet confidence that the current owners is the real deal.  But as you said, outcome is most important.  Words are cheap.  Building trust is delicate - and a higher degree of transparency than at present will help some way for us.   

Nicely put. But does that mean that you won't be waging war at the new owners then? 

[xerxes1]

As fans we share some interests with FSG  - but our objectives are quite different. FSG have bought us to sell us for as much money as they can, as fans we want to win as much as possible. Rarely in football is there an equation between title winning sides and profit. FSG want to win too- so long as margins are not damaged...................

FSG haven't put a foor wrong since they bought us. But they did so virtually unopposed, and for a knockdown price. How? Because everyone else feared for the capital investment that was required in a new stadium and the team. To date FSG have laid out £200m to buy us, the balance of debt was absorbed. That is a smaller cash outlay than for Man City.

FSG have been incredibly lucky so far (a good thing, lucky owners!). sacking a manager after a few months was popular.An in house, cheap solution without commitment was on the doorstep. That has come off. Our star striker is sold ( which would have provoked riots under G&H/Roy) we buy two players with the money one of whom is an instant hit, the other is a record signing AND Torres flops so far at Chelsea! No CEO is in place - but things work out just fine. That's called a lucky streak. It also begs an interesting question.

Just maybe, you sit tight, enjoy inflation over time, a new TV deal/ new rights etc, risk no capital - and say thank you very much.

The financial drivers at FSG are a mystery. Henry/Werner are 50/50 owners as G&H were. The suggestion is that the Board (apart from Ayres) comprises men with a stake in H&W. What they expect from that stake we do not know.

The idea that we are "all in this together" is an illusion. Now it is true that we are better off then we were under G&H, and that FSG have done nothing wrong to date. When we have s stament from them on the future of Anfield/New Anfield, and the reasons behind the decision and we see what nett investment there is in the team, i think we will have a clearer idea of how this will play out. I make no prediction either way.