And, we're off.....2016/17

[Lord Tyrion]

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.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Supposedly the Road end, I'll show my arse in woolies window if that happens.

Looking like I won't have to travel to find a woolies..

 

[Deleted member 1740]

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.

No they're not, they're protecting themselves and making sure that any monies they put in they get it back quickly plus more. Ive questioned their motives re ownership of us and it's decisions like this I'm right to.

They bought us for below market value, they've put very little of their own money in and its market value today is circa £1bn.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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

 

[Liverbirdie]

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?

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.

 

[Liverbirdie]

Looking like I won't have to travel to find a woollies, with a massive window.

:thup:

 

[Deleted member 1740]

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

The fact that JW Henry rarely speaks is a clue in itself, if he'd had said nothing nobody would've been surprised.
'

 

[sawtooth]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

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.

At £60 per ticket it still wouldn't return enough in the 5yr framework they currently work under.itd probably cost £60-80m to rebuild that Stand. They're not interested in getting more real fans in. Dont forget the famous sweetspot quote from Sure.

They want corporates.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

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?

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.

 

[sawtooth]

Did they?

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?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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

 

[Deleted member 1740]

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

Sorry Stu but you have nothing to back up that Pepe was forced out by the owners -

Right now I can't complain about the owners because I don't see what they are doing wrong - they are doing everything they said they would and have backed the managers

I'm not exactly sure what sort of owners you want

 

[Kellfire]

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.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Mignolet was a cracking shot stopper at Sunderland. They way they defended gave him plenty of chance to show off those skills and he saved them many a point. I think his weaknesses at Liverpool is on crosses, something Sunderland dealt better with. Liverpool didn't do their homework on him well enough to see if he would suit their style of defending.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

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?

Good old hindsight Eh.

He was given money yes but we failed to replace Suarez etc

 

[Deleted member 1740]

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.

No he wasn't. Might've been the armchair talksport phone in fans who were saying that but people who I went the match with and around always rated Pepe.

12 months prior Arsenal bid £20m for him and he was lined up to replace Valdes at Barça so he couldn't have been that bad.

 

[pbrown7582]

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.

most places have excess corporate seats to meet demand every week yes they can sell out for half a dozen games a season.

 

[pbrown7582]

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.

shouldn't worry that's not to happen