Liverpool

H

Haruko The Goon

Guest
It would take time to pay it off, but once paid off, you'll be in the "A" category again. Or at least there abouts. What happens when Gerrard retires and Suarez leaves? How will you entice the top players to join you?

I don't think Liverpool will have that much of a pull as they do at this moment in time.

Players join clubs for a few select reasons: They win titles/They use them as a stepping stone to a bigger club/Money.

It's near enough these three reasons alone.
 
Last edited:
AnfieldEd

AnfieldEd

I am Leg End
The cost of building it compared to renovating Anfield is enormous and the benefits of a new stadium will not outweigh the cost. Whereas the new stand(s) going to to 58,000 then in the 60,000's makes more financial sense and gets us more benefits.

This debate has been done since FSG took over and you have to trust me on this having look at it from both sides we'll financial benefit more from renovating Anfield rather than building a new stadium.

At every facet of debating a new stand(s) over a new stadium or vice versa then the new stadium loses the debate and each and every level you can think of. Even the 12,000 more seats (58,000 compared to 70,000) we'd still lose out financially because of the cost to build it.

The name and stadium Anfield is a bigger marketing brand $$$ wise than any sponsor of a new stadium would be as well. No brand would want to sponsor the new stadium because the name Anfield would over power it. Those aren't my words my from experts in the marketing world.

However marketing/sponsoring stands is a different issue altogether and much more viable to them.
 
Last edited:
H

Haruko The Goon

Guest
AnfieldEd said:
The cost of building it compared to renovating Anfield is enormous and the benefits of a new stadium will not outweigh the cost. Whereas the new stand(s) going to to 58,000 then in the 60,000's makes more financial sense and gets us more benefits.

This debate has been done since FSG took over and you have to trust me on this having look at it from both sides we'll financial benefit more from renovating Anfield rather than building a new stadium.

At every facet of debating a new stand(s) over a new stadium or vice versa then the new stadium loses the debate and each and every level you can think of. Even the 12,000 more seats (58,000 compared to 70,000) we'd still lose out financially because of the cost to build it.

The name and stadium Anfield is a bigger marketing brand $$$ wise than any sponsor of a new stadium would be as well. No brand would want to sponsor the new stadium because the name Anfield would over power it. Those aren't my words my from experts in the marketing world.

However marketing/sponsoring stands is a different issue altogether and much more viable to them.
Click to expand...

I guess so... I was thinking of how big Liverpools fan base are, and how easily you could fill it weekly without struggling... I know you could fill a 90,000 stadium no problem.

For the short term, an increase is better than a new stadium. But that increase needs to generate enough to be able to get the best players playing for you.

And when you got United/Arsenal/Chelsea/City all operating on a huge scale, it'll only get more difficult if you don't pass FFP and if you don't get CL consistently.
 
H

Haruko The Goon

Guest
Just pay the £6m... You're in the CL now, you need numbers and you need quality.
 
SwiftGuyver

SwiftGuyver

New member
yes i agree! great move!

as you say Shaqiri is a superior talent and will cost about £10m less. no brainer.

i hope the Moreno saga gets resolved as well though. be such a shame to lose out on one of the top 3 LB talents in world football over £6m...
 
Raed

Raed

Dr. Raed St. Claire
I hate to break it to yall but Shaqiri had potential but seems to me like a total dickhead now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Home of Barca Fans

Top