Trending Topics

      Next match: LFC v Brighton [Premier League] Sun 31st Mar @ 2:00 pm
      Anfield

      Today is the 29th of March and on this date LFC's match record is P24 W11 D6 L7

      John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely

      Read 17094 times
      0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
      Del Boca Vista
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 3,006 posts | 208 
      • do do do
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #115: Oct 04, 2016 12:54:15 am
      Ok, let's be honest with a few facts shall we?

      Rodgers spent lots of cash. And recouped lots for them too.
      Kenny spent lots of cash. And recouped lots too.
      Klopp has spent a few quid. And recouped a fair bit too.
      These are owners that regularly oversee a Net Spend of 0 in transfer windows.
      These are owners who overseen the exits of Torres, Gerrard, Suarez, and Sterling, to name a few.
      Owners who refused to stand up for Suarez in "probably"-gate, and refused to appeal the punishment handed down.
      Owners who don't attend home games.
      Owners who sack coaches over phone calls.
      Owners who sacked Kenny Dalglish.

      With that record, they deserve the response they get tbh.

      i don't understand this post or why you're purposefully trying to be negative. perhaps you don't see the long term view of the situation. it's all too easy to sit on surface level and whine about players sold and legends sacked and claim "they're sh*t! they don't get us!" but we as LFC supporters should be the ones understanding where the club has been for so long and what it takes to get back to the top - it's no easy fix.

      who cares what our net spend is when we have a team full of stars? who cares what the owners attend? what is the point of bringing up 4 players that were sold in their tenure, should we have kept them all? the reality is we had a dog of a team when the owners came in and we were in a terrible situation. for years and years we had been bogged down by this 'star' mentality that ran it's course, it was detrimental to our ethos as a club to continually heap pressure on the shoulders of few and demand they deliver the biggest of titles. Gerrard, Torres, Suarez, Sturridge - for at least 5 years they've been seen as demi-Gods to 'save' us from this 'nightmare' and 'take us back' to 'where we belong'.. automatically, somehow. for years we've moaned about wanting a 'world class' manager and 'world class' signings and i think in that time the owners have been working through setting the club up best to get back to the top. who really gives a sh*t what they 'put in' in terms of extra cash so you can say "our net spend was massive we won the sky sports net spend table", we still brought a starting mid in for 25 mil, a winger in for 35 mil, centre halves for nothing, a good young keeper for nothing, we have strikers, attacking midfielders, central midfielders, defenders, why exactly do people want the 'net spend' to be a big figure, what does that even achieve? Champions League qualification?

      i think some people just want to complain about stuff, everything's going too well right now and it makes them uncomfortable!
      lfc across the water
      • Needs a Klopp hug...Rafa's Number 1 fan...VAR has no faults Promoter
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 3,833 posts | 701 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #116: Oct 06, 2016 08:46:16 am
      Quote from Swab
      And just how do you propose that those players were kept?
      Torres, Suarez and Sterling all wanted to leave, and Gerrard was past it for the prem, his legs were gone.

      How? You refuse to sell, that's how.

      I said before that you need three things for a transfer. A club willing to buy, a club willing to sell, and a player deciding to go. Without one of them, a transfer cannot happen. We decided to grant Torres' request to go. We refused Suarez first request to go. They both wanted to leave, so why the difference?

      We didn't have to sell either of them. We decided to and unsurprisingly, there were willing takers. FSG washed their hands of Suarez after the WC, and so accepted the first concrete offer for him. They gave us Balotelli as a replacement. Why? Because he was cheap.
      Gerrard was let go to free up the wage bill. Yes he made the final decision, but FSG didn't exactly bust a gut to keep him on.
      We could have told Sterling to pfo with his transfer request. Instead we sold him to a major rival. We're not any obligation to sell players, no matter how much they want to go.

      On Net Spend, in 2011, we let Torres leave, and bought two players with the cash. Net Spend: 0
      In Winter 2016. Klopp bought no players, and sold no players. Net Spend: 0
      In Summer 2014: We paid 120 million on new players. We sold 80 million worth. Net Spend: 40 million. What does 40 million buy you in this league? Barely a Carroll.
      In Summer 2015: We paid out 80 million on new players. We recouped 50 million from Sterling. Net Spend from that: 30 million. What does 30 million buy you in this league? Not even a Mané these days. It does get you the sack by October though.

      American owners have shown throughout the EPL, that they can't run football clubs. Look at the amount of clubs they've destroyed. Our owners expertise is baseball, and we are merely seen and run as an overseas "Soccer Franchise", rather than as one of the most famous football clubs in one of the most competitive and lucrative sports leagues in the world.
      Swab
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 13,361 posts | 3462 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #117: Oct 06, 2016 01:58:05 pm
      How? You refuse to sell, that's how.

      I said before that you need three things for a transfer. A club willing to buy, a club willing to sell, and a player deciding to go. Without one of them, a transfer cannot happen. We decided to grant Torres' request to go. We refused Suarez first request to go. They both wanted to leave, so why the difference?

      We didn't have to sell either of them. We decided to and unsurprisingly, there were willing takers. FSG washed their hands of Suarez after the WC, and so accepted the first concrete offer for him. They gave us Balotelli as a replacement. Why? Because he was cheap.
      Gerrard was let go to free up the wage bill. Yes he made the final decision, but FSG didn't exactly bust a gut to keep him on.
      We could have told Sterling to pfo with his transfer request. Instead we sold him to a major rival. We're not any obligation to sell players, no matter how much they want to go.

      On Net Spend, in 2011, we let Torres leave, and bought two players with the cash. Net Spend: 0
      In Winter 2016. Klopp bought no players, and sold no players. Net Spend: 0
      In Summer 2014: We paid 120 million on new players. We sold 80 million worth. Net Spend: 40 million. What does 40 million buy you in this league? Barely a Carroll.
      In Summer 2015: We paid out 80 million on new players. We recouped 50 million from Sterling. Net Spend from that: 30 million. What does 30 million buy you in this league? Not even a Mané these days. It does get you the sack by October though.

      American owners have shown throughout the EPL, that they can't run football clubs. Look at the amount of clubs they've destroyed. Our owners expertise is baseball, and we are merely seen and run as an overseas "Soccer Franchise", rather than as one of the most famous football clubs in one of the most competitive and lucrative sports leagues in the world.

      Right, so you keep unhappy players who want to be elsewhere, then they put in a transfer request and the price drops accordingly.

      I'm not sure if you know how this sh*t works, but keeping hold of a player who doesn't want to be here is a non starter.
      In fact it's F***ing idiotic.
      andylfcynwa
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 9,318 posts | 1611 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #118: Oct 12, 2016 07:24:48 pm
      Their attitude to the fans fckin stinks of corporate greed , 60/70 million is fck all compared to what they will make when they fck off .
       And yet there is not enough in it for them to build it and allow more fans in  , as for getting the fans to pay fckin he'll along with sponsors were already paying for this fcker but that's OK  because there's a few jolly boys on a picnic day out contributing

      One things for sure these fckers have no intention of spending a brass razoo on the club that much is fckin evident .
      JD
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 39,529 posts | 6887 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #119: Oct 12, 2016 11:58:38 pm
      I'll give Ian Ayre some credit (unlike John Henry a few weeks back) at least he came out and admitted the cold hard truth that we all said in the opening pages of this thread.

      Liverpool FC look at the cost of £60M needing 15 years to pay back whereas I look upon the £60M as potentially allowing 1.5M+ people extra to attend Anfield over those 15 years.

      The money we've wasted on players, players wages, managerial golden handshakes I think the club are being extremely short-sighted.  In the grand scheme of things, for a football club over 15 years it's a minor amount. 

      Shame on them in my opinion.  I thought their ambitions were limitless but I guess it is limited after all at around 10,000 hospitality seats.
      andylfcynwa
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 9,318 posts | 1611 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #120: Oct 13, 2016 07:23:40 am
      I'll give Ian Ayre some credit (unlike John Henry a few weeks back) at least he came out and admitted the cold hard truth that we all said in the opening pages of this thread.

      Liverpool FC look at the cost of £60M needing 15 years to pay back whereas I look upon the £60M as potentially allowing 1.5M+ people extra to attend Anfield over those 15 years.

      The money we've wasted on players, players wages, managerial golden handshakes I think the club are being extremely short-sighted.  In the grand scheme of things, for a football club over 15 years it's a minor amount. 

      Shame on them in my opinion.  I thought their ambitions were limitless but I guess it is limited after all at around 10,000 hospitality seats.
      Sadly JD for all their posturing it is quite evident by this statement that it is no longer about the common fan and his kids , you know the ones the next generation , a very sad indictment into where football has headed , I thought that statement was a very poor advert for the way they see the common man .
      The Real Donavan Ried
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 5,120 posts | 949 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #121: Oct 13, 2016 10:41:48 am
      Due to the transport infrastructure, ANFIELD CAN NOT BE DEVELOPED BEYOND 60,000, or just for the point neither can Goodison.

      The area can not accommodate any more until there are better roads, a new railway station, a tram, or even a monorail, or airport.
      Sorry RedPuppy, anwser is a bit late... Then why do Liverpool FC and owners not invest in a new Stadium elsewhere??... Stanley Park??... Arsenal moved a couple miles up the road....

      Just spotted this today...

      Liverpool chief says further Anfield expansion 'not a smart investment'

      The cost of redeveloping the Anfield Road end of Liverpool's stadium "is not a smart investment", says chief executive Ian Ayre.

      Liverpool opened the redeveloped Main Stand last month, raising capacity to 54,074, and have planning permission to extend Anfield Road by a further 4,800.

      But Ayre said: "A stand behind a goal doesn't have the benefit of hospitality that would go a long way to meet the redevelopment costs."

      The upgrade would cost about £60-70m.

      Club owner John Henry has previously played down the prospect of the work going ahead on the basis ticket prices would have to rise to cover the cost.

      Ayre told a meeting of the Liverpool Supporters' Committee (LSC) that the club needed to find "the right economic model" and a "rounded solution" before moving forward with any Anfield Road plans.

      Liverpool are worried how fans would react after thousands of protested against plans to charge £77 for some tickets in the club's new Main Stand back in February.

      The £100m expansion of the Main Stand is expected to be paid off in six years because of the lucrative income generated by hospitality seating - but that is not the case with the Anfield Road end.

      "From a purely general admission perspective, building, say, 6,000 extra seats to take the capacity up to 60,000 would cost somewhere between £60m and £70m," said Ayre.

      "At £12,000 to £13,000 per seat, it would take approximately 15 years to pay back, which is not a smart investment for the business."

      Ayre told the meeting the club was open to fan investment to help fund further redevelopment of the ground and said conversations should take place.

      Without a new stadium LFC will find it hard to compete unless we find new owners with bottomless pockets and the will to spend that money. If not maybe some way down the line LFC will died the death of a thousand cuts and end up playing our football in League one
      friedeggden
      • Forum Ian Callaghan
      • ****

      • 987 posts | 258 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #122: Oct 13, 2016 10:50:42 am
      This talk of 15 years to pay back each seat is bollocks though surely? It would take 15 years to pay back the seat if you're only income was from ticket sales and match day revenue but obviously that isn't where all the money comes from.

      The money from TV and broadcasting and commercial revenue would cover the cost of the expansion and then some not to mention tournament prize money.
      fckmediocrity
      • Forum Billy Liddell
      • ****

      • 604 posts | 213 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #123: Oct 13, 2016 11:24:53 am
      This talk of 15 years to pay back each seat is bollocks though surely? It would take 15 years to pay back the seat if you're only income was from ticket sales and match day revenue but obviously that isn't where all the money comes from.

      The money from TV and broadcasting and commercial revenue would cover the cost of the expansion and then some not to mention tournament prize money.

      Yeah but they will receive that broadcasting and commercial revenue even if they don`t spend 60mil for the expansion so they basically want the fans to pay for it as they will claim ownership...they are businessmen after all:)
      stuey
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 35,965 posts | 3944 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #124: Oct 13, 2016 11:50:06 am
      Yet more evidence that defies JWH&Co's statement about them looking out for the club 'in the long term', they have neither the honesty or commitment to achieve such a thing.
      srslfc
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 32,111 posts | 4877 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #125: Oct 13, 2016 02:03:12 pm
      It's staggering that Ayre had the balls to mention the fans paying for the investment.

      Fans pay fortune each and every week to follow their team yet a club that is worth millions and has huge income year on year won't pay to allow more fans to have the chance to watch the club.
      TheleftpegofRayKennedy
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,028 posts | 332 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #126: Oct 13, 2016 07:25:07 pm

      It's tragic for this club.  Tragic.

      Liverpool supporters are the heart and soul of LFC, more so than any other club in the context of its history.

      The owners and Ayre are basically admitting 'Fans in the ground? We don't need you. You're irrelevant.'

      Because financially, the only yardstick they care about, they ARE. 

      15 years?  Is that really considered too 'long term' in the eyes of big business?  What the F*ck is the world coming to?  I would hope that in 15 years time we would have a stadium (one way or another) seating nearer 100,000 with our fanbase and (supposed) ambition.

      By the way, 70 million is two Andy Carrolls.  In other words, it's NOTHING to the club.
      RedWilly
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 9,146 posts | 1619 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #127: Oct 13, 2016 07:31:52 pm
      15 years really isn't that long in the scheme of things.

      Money money money!
      RedPuppy
      • Still European.
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 19,251 posts | 2854 
      • Parum Rutilus Canis: Illegitimi non carborundum
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #128: Oct 13, 2016 07:42:36 pm
      Sorry RedPuppy, answer is a bit late... Then why do Liverpool FC and owners not invest in a new Stadium elsewhere??... Stanley Park??... Arsenal moved a couple miles up the road....


      Stanley Park is over the road from Anfield, literally over the road, Anfield Road, the same logistics still exist, the transport infrastructure can not accommodate more than 60,000.

      Aresnal were a different kettle of fish, Highbury could not be developed as it is a listed building, grade 2 I think. Where they moved to has an excellent travel infrastructure, thus there was no problem.

      There are 3 train stations around the ground, plus buses and roads.

      « Last Edit: Oct 13, 2016 07:54:47 pm by RedPuppy »
      HUYTON RED
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 39,948 posts | 8458 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #129: Oct 14, 2016 03:53:14 am
      It's staggering that Ayre had the balls to mention the fans paying for the investment.

      So basically they're H & G with just better PR!!

      Hicks once said the same thing and referred to the deal he had done with Weetabix to how it works.

      The Real Donavan Ried
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 5,120 posts | 949 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #130: Oct 15, 2016 03:54:25 pm
      Sorry RedPuppy, anwser is a bit late... Then why do Liverpool FC and owners not invest in a new Stadium elsewhere??... Stanley Park??... Arsenal moved a couple miles up the road....

      Just spotted this today...

      Liverpool chief says further Anfield expansion 'not a smart investment'

      The cost of redeveloping the Anfield Road end of Liverpool's stadium "is not a smart investment", says chief executive Ian Ayre.

      Liverpool opened the redeveloped Main Stand last month, raising capacity to 54,074, and have planning permission to extend Anfield Road by a further 4,800.

      But Ayre said: "A stand behind a goal doesn't have the benefit of hospitality that would go a long way to meet the redevelopment costs."

      The upgrade would cost about £60-70m.

      Club owner John Henry has previously played down the prospect of the work going ahead on the basis ticket prices would have to rise to cover the cost.

      Ayre told a meeting of the Liverpool Supporters' Committee (LSC) that the club needed to find "the right economic model" and a "rounded solution" before moving forward with any Anfield Road plans.

      Liverpool are worried how fans would react after thousands of protested against plans to charge £77 for some tickets in the club's new Main Stand back in February.

      The £100m expansion of the Main Stand is expected to be paid off in six years because of the lucrative income generated by hospitality seating - but that is not the case with the Anfield Road end.

      "From a purely general admission perspective, building, say, 6,000 extra seats to take the capacity up to 60,000 would cost somewhere between £60m and £70m," said Ayre.

      "At £12,000 to £13,000 per seat, it would take approximately 15 years to pay back, which is not a smart investment for the business."

      Ayre told the meeting the club was open to fan investment to help fund further redevelopment of the ground and said conversations should take place.


      (Review my post and it looked like what I posted below is part of Ayre's comments)

      Without a new stadium LFC will find it hard to compete unless we find new owners with bottomless pockets and the will to spend that money. If not maybe some way down the line LFC will died the death of a thousand cuts and end up playing our football in League one
      The Real Donavan Ried
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 5,120 posts | 949 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #131: Oct 15, 2016 04:19:12 pm
      Stanley Park is over the road from Anfield, literally over the road, Anfield Road, the same logistics still exist, the transport infrastructure can not accommodate more than 60,000.

      Aresnal were a different kettle of fish, Highbury could not be developed as it is a listed building, grade 2 I think. Where they moved to has an excellent travel infrastructure, thus there was no problem.

      There are 3 train stations around the ground, plus buses and roads.



      Redpuppy, I'll bow to your knowledge of the lay out in regards to the City of Liverpool, and Anfield, but I have a question for you or anyone else that maybe able to anwser it...

      Why was it then that H&G were proposing that a 70-80,000 seater stadium be built in Stanley Park if the transport infrastructure could not accommodate more than 60,000 ?...seems strange thing to do, going as far as drawing up plans for the stadium if it was not possible to do?
      RedPuppy
      • Still European.
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 19,251 posts | 2854 
      • Parum Rutilus Canis: Illegitimi non carborundum
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #132: Oct 15, 2016 04:24:50 pm
      Redpuppy, I'll bow to your knowledge of the lay out in regards to the City of Liverpool, and Anfield, but I have a question for you or anyone else that maybe able to anwser it...

      Why was it then that H&G were proposing that a 70-80,000 seater stadium be built in Stanley Park if the transport infrastructure could not accommodate more than 60,000 ?...seems strange thing to do, going as far as drawing up plans for the stadium if it was not possible to do?

      Good question, one that I can not answer, but I think there subsequent designs were re-modeled for a reduced capacity.

      I'll get back.
      RedPuppy
      • Still European.
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 19,251 posts | 2854 
      • Parum Rutilus Canis: Illegitimi non carborundum
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #133: Oct 15, 2016 08:04:26 pm
      Redpuppy, I'll bow to your knowledge of the lay out in regards to the City of Liverpool, and Anfield, but I have a question for you or anyone else that maybe able to anwser it...

      Why was it then that H&G were proposing that a 70-80,000 seater stadium be built in Stanley Park if the transport infrastructure could not accommodate more than 60,000 ?...seems strange thing to do, going as far as drawing up plans for the stadium if it was not possible to do?

      I've had a quick look around, and all of the official plans that I can find, have a capacity of 60,000.

      If H&G have said they would build a ground of 70-80,000, then I presume that is their usual bull sh*t.
      -LFC-
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 4,138 posts | 1194 
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #134: Oct 15, 2016 08:21:47 pm
      It's staggering that Ayre had the balls to mention the fans paying for the investment.

      Fans pay fortune each and every week to follow their team yet a club that is worth millions and has huge income year on year won't pay to allow more fans to have the chance to watch the club.

      And make money from those fans as well, and benefit from having more supporters cheer on the team.

      They can piss money up the wall on transfer fees and wages, but they can't spare the money to maximise Anfield's potential.
      billythered
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 10,821 posts | 4920 
      • From Doubters to Champions of the World
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #135: Oct 17, 2016 06:32:13 am
      To me it's simple, if our owners cannot match the ambitions of the fans then they are not on the same page and therefore should move on and sell to those who have,
      What's the point in doing something half arsed,
      They will no doubt want to make as much as they can with their current plan, but that's simply not good enough,

      Perhaps the Chinese takeaway will eventually be to good a offer to refuse, but it needs to happen if it's going to happen at all,  fairly soon.


      YNWA
      RedPuppy
      • Still European.
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 19,251 posts | 2854 
      • Parum Rutilus Canis: Illegitimi non carborundum
      Re: John Henry: Further Anfield expansion unlikely
      Reply #136: Oct 18, 2016 03:16:48 pm

      Quick Reply