doncopey1
Posts: 4982
Joined: 29/11/2005
From: Liverpool: Age 25
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HIM
I'm afraid I have to stand up for FSG here. Rodgers didn't have to let Carroll go out on loan, that was his choice before he'd even met Andy Carroll. He was also given money to buy Joe Allen and Fabio Borini. Yes he had to balance the books but that's just common sense. Let's not forget that when FSG took over we were literally days away from administration. Look at what's happened to Pompey and Rangers. That could have conceivably happened to us. They came in, cleared our debts and secured us some very lucrative sponsorship deals. In less than two years they've managed to successfully tap into our global brand's true worth in a way that clubs like United, Real Madrid and Barcelona have been doing for the past two decades.
They never came in on white horses throwing money around like an Russian or Arab sugar daddy. They always said they wanted to get Liverpool back to the top but not by mortgaging the very existence of the club in the process. The amount of money spent during the ill fated Commolli regime was a mistake which FSG via John W Henry have admitted to. They're new to football and mistakes are bound to happen. But in my opinion they've got a hell of a lot more right than they have wrong.
On the subject of the stadium, yes they promised to build a new stadium or regenerate Anfield but it's not as easy as that. Firstly, a new stadium seating 60,000 fans would cost at least £300m to build. After getting rid of our existing debts it's not realistic to assume FSG have a spare £300m lying around to finance it. Even if they did it's not as though it would be financially viable. FSG wouldn't be spending £300m on 60,000 seats. They'd actually be spending £300m to buy an extra 14,478 seats only, as Anfield currently holds 45,522. That works out as just over £20,700 per seat. Assuming an average ticket price of £40 (for argument's sake) it would take 518 home matches to pay off that £300m. Let's then assume that we'd play 30 home matches a season (19 league guaranteed and then 11 for cups). It would take over 17 years for those extra seats to pay for themselves. Of course that's an extremely simplified view and doesn't take into account such things as naming rights, extra corporate boxes and so on and so forth but it does show that it's a hell of a lot of money to spend on an extra 14,478 seats.
So, the logical option is to do what FSG did with Fenway Park in Boston and renovate the existing stadium, which is their favoured option, and mine as well actually. This has several advantages. For one, it keeps us at Anfield and keeps the world famous atmosphere and history in tact. Secondly, it's much cheaper. Thirdly, the resultant stadium will be, in my opinion, more interesting than a modern, purpose built stadium. For me, stadiums like The Reebok, The Riverside, St Mary's, The DW, The Emirates, The City of Manchester Stadium and even Wembley lack a certain sense of character. They're all very similar symmetrical bowls. I love the fact that every stand at Anfield is different. It's much more organic and interesting. However, the problem with this solution is the surrounding residential area. We need to buy the houses to knock them down to make room for the new, larger stands. However, many people are unwilling to sell.
So, although it all seems to have gone quiet on the stadium front from the outside, behind the scenes people are working on solutions to the problems. It's not as simple as coming up with £300m or simply expanding Anfield. Ask most Arsenal fans if they'd rather be where they are now and not have any trophies to show for the last 7 years or stay at Highbury and not have to sell the likes of Nasri, Fabregas, Van Persie and Song. I know which I'd pick.
With all due respect how do you know what goes on behind the scenes? I agree with what your saying but you make FSG sound like saints. So they rescued us from iminent administration which I'll always be grateful for but does that mean they're immune from criticism? No, for me last January they didn't spend anything when we needed something, the summer we needed more and didn't get it. It was a clear disaster from what happened on deadline day, for a start we need a Liverpool based CEO which has been well documented and why we always seem to wait till the last day of the market to buy is again a joke. That suggests to me we look for the cheapest option everytime. I'm all for investing for the future but we aint Man Utd I think something needs to happen in the present. I've got faith in Rodgers and I support his decision to move Carroll on, but it only backfired because the club were inept in not replacing on what Rodgers was told a guarenteed replacement.
_____________________________
"Fake is as old as the Eden tree." Orson Welles
|
Printable Version
RE: Liverpool - 2005/06 - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread