Topic: New Kop

[L666KOP]

At sale time? Better put that Reus transfer on hold.

Come on Peter, I know you're cleverer than an answer like that would lead us to believe.

FSG will make their money at the back end, why wouldn't they grasp the opportunity to increase the profit on their capital investment if they can do it at no risk to the potential transfer revenue of each summer ?

[Peter McGurk]

we have had £3.1bn windfall from television rights, do you think this should have resulted in a drop in ticket prices for supporters. yes or no.

Everyone else at our level got the same or more. It's a competition. Keep up.

[Peter McGurk]

Come on Peter, I know you're cleverer than an answer like that would lead us to believe.

FSG will make their money at the back end, why wouldn't they grasp the opportunity to increase the profit on their capital investment if they can do it at no risk to the potential transfer revenue of each summer ?

You clearly don't understand what value is. It's not what you spend on something, it's what you get from it.

What would you get for your mythical £20m? And how much would it cost to give it? (Clue: it's not £20m)

In other words, the value would go DOWN not up. Meanwhile Reus is away to Madrid.

[L666KOP]

we have had £3.1bn windfall from television rights, do you think this should have resulted in a drop in ticket prices for supporters. yes or no.

Difficult question.

Do you think it should be spent on improving the team on the pitch ?

Yes or no.

[L666KOP]

You clearly don't understand what value is. It's not what you spend on something, it's what you get from it.

Of course I do.

And like I said, if it costs them 'nothing' to increase the stadium capacity but increases their back end profit why wouldn't the do it.

10k extra seats can be provided for no upfront profit, other than the extras made by way of merchandise/pies/programs. But it may add x million extra when they sell up.

It's basic business Peter.

They spend whatever we make, FFP proves that. They're in it playing the long game. Increase value at minimal/no cost, then cash in when you've reached maximum potential.

[Rome-77]

Difficult question.

Do you think it should be spent on improving the team on the pitch ?

Yes or no.

its additional money, what's wrong with you, Jesus we don't stand a chance with the likes of you.

[CraigDS]

Mr Case, why haven't you attempted to answer any of these questions yet? What is up with you?

Where do you fit these kids in? Who gets cut?

The tourists and corporates who you want to squeeze every last penny out of? They're the best to cut, but then who subsidises these lower priced £20 tickets?

Or do we build a stadium which satisfies demand at £20 ticket prices? Where does the money come from?

How do you cover this huge cost whilst remaining competitive and therefore keeping demand for both the corporates and tourists you want to squeeze high, and also the demand to keep filling this huge stadium every single game?

[L666KOP]

its additional money, what's wrong with you, Jesus we don't stand a chance with the likes of you.

And would you rather we had an extra 20 million to spend every summer, or made the Kop tickets £20 a game ?

I've engaged with you longer than most on here, because I genuinely thought you didn't understand. But now I'm having my own doubts.

We're stuck at 60k seats unless we make City scale contributions towards the surrounding infrastructure.
We spend every penny we can on the squad, FFP/Accounts tells us this.

Our finances are what they are, if we knock x amount off our income then we know x amount off our recruitment.

What bit don't you understand ?

[Peter McGurk]

Of course I do.

And like I said, if it costs them 'nothing' to increase the stadium capacity but increases their back end profit why wouldn't the do it.

10k extra seats can be provided for no upfront profit, other than the extras made by way of merchandise/pies/programs. But it may add x million extra when they sell up.

It's basic business Peter.

They spend whatever we make, FFP proves that. They're in it playing the long game. Increase value at minimal/no cost, then cash in when you've reached maximum potential.

It's not me who needs the lectures on basic business.

[Rome-77]

And would you rather we had an extra 20 million to spend every summer, or made the Kop tickets £20 a game ?

I've engaged with you longer than most on here, because I genuinely thought you didn't understand. But now I'm having my own doubts.

We're stuck at 60k seats unless we make City scale contributions towards the surrounding infrastructure.
We spend every penny we can on the squad, FFP/Accounts tells us this.

Our finances are what they are, if we knock x amount off our income then we know x amount off our recruitment.

What bit don't you understand ?

we are adding 4,500 corporate ,
 so the tv money should go on reducing ticket prices to all clubs, why dont you give a fuck about this 

[L666KOP]

It's not me who needs the lectures on basic business.

Go on then Peter.

Educate me.
 

[Peter McGurk]

Go on then Peter.

Educate me.
 

I'm sorry. I already have.

[L666KOP]

we are adding 4,500 corporate ,
 so the tv money should go on reducing ticket prices to all clubsshould go on improving the quality of the squad, why dont you give a fuck about this

Different opinons mate.

Are yours right, or are mine right ?

For everyone that gets behind you saying cheaper tickets, I'd get someone behind me saying I'm right and we'd rather have an extra 20m a year towards players ?

Nobody is right/wrong. It's all about knowing how much money we make, and then deciding how best to spend it.

[L666KOP]

I'm sorry. I already have.

No, come on Peter.

You may not agree with the model, but in what way have I not described a sound business plan ?

Improve the asset at no cost to the asset or yourself. Not take ongoing profit but benefitting when you realise the asset.

I'd rather the FSG way than someone taking the profits as we make them.

[Peter McGurk]

Different opinons mate.

Are yours right, or are mine right ?

For everyone that gets behind you saying cheaper tickets, I'd get someone behind me saying I'm right and we'd rather have an extra 20m a year towards players ?

Nobody is right/wrong. It's all about knowing how much money we make, and then deciding how best to spend it.

When you've decided. Don't forget to let the salivating agents know or the sheiks suddenly liberated from FFP by all that juicy income to spend on players in a dog eat dog transfer market.

.

[Peter McGurk]

No, come on Peter.

You may not agree with the model, but in what way have I not described a sound business plan ?

Improve the asset at no cost to the asset or yourself. Not take ongoing profit but benefitting when you realise the asset.

I'd rather the FSG way than someone taking the profits as we make them.

How is it no cost? What is the cost?

Do you imagine an interest-free loan has no cost?

And where would these 10,000 people go. In the front? (displace a lower tier)? At the back? (maximum cost)?

Let's be generous. Let's say half the cost of what it's costing us now per seat. Let's say £50m then. How long are we paying back this 'no-cost' loan? 10 years is it? Or 12 (with loss of use of capital thrown in)?

Then start thinking about how to get to, into and away from the ground.

Q. What is the internal rate of return on an expenditure of £50m plus and an annual income of £4m?

A. Three parts of a badger's armpit.

You can work it out while Reus' agent does his thing.

[L666KOP]

When you've decided. Don't forget to let the salivating agents know or the sheiks suddenly liberated from FFP by all that juicy income to spend on players in a dog eat dog transfer market.

.

See, now you've deviated mate.
That's a different thread/topic altogether.

I'm basing my debate on existing 'known' limitations.

I'm as big an advocate as anyone of removing the cheats, and bemoaning the external draining influences. But I'm debating the basic principles of how we make money, and how we chose to spend it.

There's a fixed limit, it's the council driven ceiling on our maximum permitted capacity. That's fixed. No arguments unless we go down the Sheikh sponsored route and thrown hundreds of millions at the problem.

I'll always defer to yourself, and Alan as regards to the intricasies of design, sight lines, etc. Because I've no idea whatsoever of the rules/limitations, and I'm eager to learn. But I know business plans, I know how models work. I know what makes money given a fixed secure income.

[John C]

This hasn't got much to do with the Kop has it, at all? Its pointless anyway as the Anny Rd is next to be developed.

[Peter McGurk]

See, now you've deviated mate.
That's a different thread/topic altogether.

I'm basing my debate on existing 'known' limitations.

I'm as big an advocate as anyone of removing the cheats, and bemoaning the external draining influences. But I'm debating the basic principles of how we make money, and how we chose to spend it.

There's a fixed limit, it's the council driven ceiling on our maximum permitted capacity. That's fixed. No arguments unless we go down the Sheikh sponsored route and thrown hundreds of millions at the problem.

I'll always defer to yourself, and Alan as regards to the intricasies of design, sight lines, etc. Because I've no idea whatsoever of the rules/limitations, and I'm eager to learn. But I know business plans, I know how models work. I know what makes money given a fixed secure income.

Then you can answer all of the above questions. While you're at it, you can say how it increases value.

And by the way. Secure income??

[L666KOP]

How is it no cost? What is the cost?

Do you imagine an interest-free loan has no cost?No, but as long as the upcost is gleaned from the seat revenues as opposed to recruitment pot it has no detrimental effect.


And where would these 10,000 people go. In the front? (demolish a lower tier)? At the back? (maximum cost)?Safe standing? It's hypothetical. I'm saying the model works. We'll not see SS in my lifetime I imagine.

Let's be generous. Let's say the cost of what it's costing us now per seat. Let's say £50m then. How long are we paying back this 'no-cost' loan? 10 years is it? Or 12 (with loss of use of capital thrown in)? The figures are simple mate, if we sell the seats at cost then they'll invariably be cheaper than they are currently.

Then start thinking about how to get to, into and away from the ground.I'm trying to educate ROME77 on exactly the same thing? It's the foundation of my debate with him as to why we're stuck at 60k ?

Q. What is the internal rate of return on an expenditure of £50m plus and an annual income of £4m?Again Peter, if the figures work then I've no doubt whatsoever FSG would steam ahead.

A. Three parts of a badger's armpit.

You can work it out while Reus' agent does his thing.

Has Reus signed yet ?

[Peter McGurk]

Has Reus signed yet ?

So, if it works it works eh? Thank you for your input.

.

[L666KOP]

So, if it works it works eh? Thank you for your input.

.

Take to PM Peter.

[Peter McGurk]

Take to PM Peter.

Tak it where you like. I'll answer you here.

[Alan_X]

we have had £3.1bn windfall from television rights, do you think this should have resulted in a drop in ticket prices for supporters. yes or no.

What the fuck has that got to do with discussions about a new Kop? You really are incapable of following simple arguments and it's fucking up every thread on here - I think it's best to give you a bit of a holiday from all this.

[Alan_X]

But I know business plans, I know how models work. I know what makes money given a fixed secure income.

Ah yes - using the guaranteed future ticket sales to finance a stadium development. How could that possibly go wrong:

Money to burn

Brian Cathcart

They were the most exciting team in Europe, serious challengers to Manchester United - and even to Real Madrid. Then the implosion began. Now, one question remains - just how did Leeds United fall so far, so quickly? With unprecedented access, award-winning journalist Brian Cathcart follows the labyrinthine money trail and gives the definitive account of what went wrong.

Sunday 7 March 2004 12.19 GMT

Clubs like Newcastle and Leeds may experience ups and downs, they may even dip out of the Premiership for short periods, but they have one asset that is as solid as their stadiums: the loyalty of their fans.

Leeds is the biggest city in England with only one professional club and the fans are unusually dedicated. Even at their lowest footballing ebb Leeds United can probably count on 20,000 to 25,000 people clicking through the turnstiles every time the senior team is at work.

It was this security that Schechter offered to lenders in London and New York. The arrangement worked as follows. The loan would be over 25 years and the once-a-year repayments were guaranteed through a special 'locked box' account. Every summer, when Leeds put season tickets and corporate hospitality boxes up for sale, all the revenue would be paid into the locked box, so that a substantial sum had built up by 1 September. On that date the lenders would withdraw the payments due to them from the locked box and only then was the club allowed access to the residue.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2004/mar/07/sport.features1

[Peter McGurk]

Take to PM Peter.

Thanks for the PM but this is a bit more complicated than a few houses to rent for little income and banking on the market going ever upwards.

Because a commercial operation like a football ground (or a shop or a business park or a retail scheme) has no intrinsic value. Its value is entirely dependent on how much money it makes now and on an ongoing basis. To use your model, without a profit in rent it's worth zip. Not now, not ever. To use the Leeds example, if that revenue falters or is inaccessible, you're in the dwang pretty sharpish.

Thus and to use your model again, there is no appreciation in capital value and no big pay off in the sky. There is a value in the future revenue but only if it does better than the cost of borrowing or more likely in this case, better than the benefit of a distribution of tax credits to the shareholders. After all they are the ones taking the hit (loss of earnings) on an interest-free loan.

So it's hard to see any well-run club putting money into a Kop (or any other part of the ground) in a way that doesn't make money. That doesn't make money for the club and there is no pay-off for the owners anyway (if that was what they were looking for).

I wish people would listen to what FSG say because there may not be a lot but it's always informative of their true intentions.

[todda]

Peter Robinson once said (before SAF had ANY success) "if Man Utd get it right off the pitch, we're in trouble", turned out he was right as they had the space around their ground to build a massive stadium, where LFC in the late 80's, early 90's didn't. Fact is we have always been slow on the uptake which is why we are where we are.  Utd had a megastore in the mid 90's we had a 'souvenir shop' in the corner at the back of the Main Stand car park.

My point is had we taken the TV money early when the Premiership started and increased capacity when they (Utd) were and increased our off field revenue when they were, maybe we would't be s far behind them now.

Yes they have a bigger footprint, but in a lot of books I've read about LFC in the 90's, players and staff could see what was happening, no one was big or bold enough to speak out against formula that had worked for 20 years earlier.

The building of the Main Stand is great and also the ARE if that goes ahead, will bring us closer to our rivals, but the KOP needs to stay as it is unless Safe Standing comes in (which will not go down well, especially at LFC) as it creates some great atmospheres, especially in Europe (CL) and I for one wouldn't like to go further away from the pitch than is currently possible in 304, 305 and 306.

[SP]

That is revisionism. The mistakes in the 90s were not revenue driven. The fall from winning leagues was entirely an on-field phenomena. We had entirely the wrong manager who destroyed the squad. Once the playing side collapsed, the Mancs consolidated their financial advantages. We could have made more money earlier, but it is a subplot in the fall of the club, not the main driver.

[mark2311]

The building of the Main Stand is great and also the ARE if that goes ahead, will bring us closer to our rivals, but the KOP needs to stay as it is unless Safe Standing comes in (which will not go down well, especially at LFC) as it creates some great atmospheres, especially in Europe (CL) and I for one wouldn't like to go further away from the pitch than is currently possible in 304, 305 and 306.

Standing can't used in European fixtures. The seats then get locked down

[Alan_X]

That is revisionism. The mistakes in the 90s were not revenue driven. The fall from winning leagues was entirely an on-field phenomena. We had entirely the wrong manager who destroyed the squad. Once the playing side collapsed, the Mancs consolidated their financial advantages. We could have made more money earlier, but it is a subplot in the fall of the club, not the main driver.

All good points but it's not strictly true that their success wasn't financially based. Their strategy was financially based but not on TV money. They were one of the first clubs to take advantage of the relaxation of the financial constraints on football clubs, allowing them to make a profit and have professional directors.

United's ground development strategy was put in place after WW2, long before the Sky money, and was based on meeting demand gradually as it was increased by success on the pitch.

[Giovanni]

Difficult question.

Do you think it should be spent on improving the team on the pitch ?

Yes or no.

we will receive over a million pound in unbudgeted TV revenue this season as a result of Norwich coming back up, this is on top of a new multi billion pound TV deal.

That is an splash in the ocean where wages and transfer fees are concerned but would make a huge difference to supporters.

I'd much prefer to see the club make a stand against exploiting supporters than it go to another overpaid footballer - alas this will never happen as the only thing thy want to stand for is milking us dry of every penny we have.

[SP]

All good points but it's not strictly true that their success wasn't financially based. Their strategy was financially based but not on TV money. They were one of the first clubs to take advantage of the relaxation of the financial constraints on football clubs, allowing them to make a profit and have professional directors.

United's ground development strategy was put in place after WW2, long before the Sky money, and was based on meeting demand gradually as it was increased by success on the pitch.

Of course it was to an extent financially based, but they did not overtake us by pulling a Chelsea and changing the financial landscape. The signings that they made in the early 90s, we could have afforded. We were not beaten by spending power, just by spending badly. Once they had the ascendancy the screw the fans for everything they can kicked in and consolidated the advantage.

[todda]

Standing can't used in European fixtures. The seats then get locked down

read the whole piece, don't just take a piece out of it.  I know standing (safe) can't be used in European Competition.  Think you took what I said the wrong way.

[Mr Mingebag Squid]

read the whole piece, don't just take a piece out of it.  I know standing (safe) can't be used in European Competition.  Think you took what I said the wrong way.

But your post reads as if you mean standing in European matches creates a better atmosphere. I thought the same as Mark when I read it.

[Peter McGurk]

we will receive over a million pound in unbudgeted TV revenue this season as a result of Norwich coming back up, this is on top of a new multi billion pound TV deal.

That is an splash in the ocean where wages and transfer fees are concerned but would make a huge difference to supporters.

I'd much prefer to see the club make a stand against exploiting supporters than it go to another overpaid footballer - alas this will never happen as the only thing thy want to stand for is milking us dry of every penny we have.

This is pretty unfair.

On the one hand everyone wants the best players and the greatest success while this would tie the other hand behind the owners back by reducing the club's competitiveness with reduced income from attendance.

Everyone else that matters will benefit from TV, some already do better on merchandise. We maybe do better than others on lesser resources. The club has to do as well on all fronts to compete.

If you want to bitch, have a crack at those driving up player costs.

[Max999]

But your post reads as if you mean standing in European matches creates a better atmosphere. I thought the same as Mark when I read it.

That is what he's saying, but he doesn't mean if we had safe standing for European games. He's using the example of European games in the current stadium where the Kop is standing as an example of how standing helps atmosphere, to illustrate a benefit of safe standing.

[Mr Mingebag Squid]

Ah - got it now. Perhaps worded better it would have made more sense...

"The KOP needs to stay as it is as it creates a better atmosphere, especially in European nights. However, should safe standing be introduced....."

That reads better and takes away any confusion

[Giovanni]

This is pretty unfair.

On the one hand everyone wants the best players and the greatest success while this would tie the other hand behind the owners back by reducing the club's competitiveness with reduced income from attendance.

Everyone else that matters will benefit from TV, some already do better on merchandise. We maybe do better than others on lesser resources. The club has to do as well on all fronts to compete.

If you want to bitch, have a crack at those driving up player costs.

This is unbudgeted money. LFC and other clubs routinely hide behind the fact they budget in '3 year cycles' when refusing to entertain price reductions.

All clubs should be using it to help lift the financial stress supporters are under.

I'd like to see LFC take a stand against this kind of stuff - like they should have with the living wage instead of it taking a PL meeting to resolve.

[CraigDS]

This is unbudgeted money. LFC and other clubs routinely hide behind the fact they budget in '3 year cycles' when refusing to entertain price reductions.

Do they? I don't think I've ever seen this mentioned, specifically not by anyone connected to Liverpool.

[Giovanni]

Do they? I don't think I've ever seen this mentioned, specifically not by anyone connected to Liverpool.

It's the cycle of TV deals.

It's not mentioned in public. Ayre referenced it when speaking to SOS, and FSF referenced it this month.

Regardless - this is unbudgeted money and I think it would do a lot for goodwill if it was invested accordingly for supporter projects. You disagree I assume.