I think it is a fair response from the club. They are including the fans in the decision. They can increase the size of the ground but there is a price to pay. If you are happy to pay it then we will do it. If you aren't then we wont.
Supposedly the Road end, I'll show my arse in woolies window if that happens.
I think it is a fair response from the club. They are including the fans in the decision. They can increase the size of the ground but there is a price to pay. If you are happy to pay it then we will do it. If you aren't then we wont.
I thought that they would be over subscribed and have a waiting list for season tickets. Is that not the case?
Can't be all that well supported after all ;-) Build it and they will come surely?
Looking like I won't have to travel to find a woollies, with a massive window.
A lot of conclusions being made from a one off sentence
Can't see again what it is they have said that's wrong
They will include the fans in any further descions about ground extension
It'd take 15 yrs for them to get their ROI if they just sold general ST's. They want Corporates in their and the demand isn't high enough.
If they backed the managers properly and the team was successful then I think the corporate demand might be there.
Yes it is the case, but if you read it properly (and between the lines), it is more or less saying if we could charge £60.00 per ticket instead of, say £45 it is a more profitable investment.
Dont worry, we would fill it.:thup:
BTW - nowhere in that article does it say that they will consult the fans.
I also don't agree with the new market pool system, introduced by UEFA. Why should Liverpool/Man U earn more money for winning it than say Arsenal/City/leicester? Not right.
Didn't they back BR properly? Easy to say that but if the gamble doesn't pay off you would be in the mire very quickly.
Did they?
Did they?
More like got rid of his best players and top earners.
Example: Pepe Reina was sold and Mingolet brought in on less money and half the keeper Reina was.
Sorry but you can't blame the owner for the players the manager signs - BR was the one that got rid of Pepe and bought Ming not the owners
Come on Stu we have spent plenty of money
Come on Phil you're not that niave.
Reina was a much better keeper in every single department than Mignolet and he suited BRs style perfectly,why else was he pushed out?
You're like what sawtooth is with wenger to our investors, you defend everything they say.
IDK it was a question. Seemed to spend a bit from what I remember. Lallana, Lovren, Ballotelli.
Using your own logic would it have been wise for Liverpool to have really really backed him with say £500M ? You might be in trouble now if BR was as bad as you all make out. It's a good job the board were cautious then?
Mignolent was fantastic before he joined Liverpool. Reina was always vastly overrated by Liverpool fans and he was certainly on the decline by the time he went.
At the time it seemed a good swap - hindsight is 20/20.
It'd take 15 yrs for them to get their ROI if they just sold general ST's. They want Corporates in their and the demand isn't high enough.
If they backed the managers properly and the team was successful then I think the corporate demand might be there.
Yes it is the case, but if you read it properly (and between the lines), it is more or less saying if we could charge £60.00 per ticket instead of, say £45 it is a more profitable investment.
Dont worry, we would fill it.:thup:
BTW - nowhere in that article does it say that they will consult the fans.
I also don't agree with the new market pool system, introduced by UEFA. Why should Liverpool/Man U earn more money for winning it than say Arsenal/City/leicester? Not right.