John Henry tells star players to commit to the Liverpool cause or be sold.

John Henry tells star players to commit to the Liverpool cause or they will be sold

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8114023/John-Henry-tells-star-players-to-commit-to-the-Liverpool-cause-or-they-will-be-sold.html

Liverpool's new owner, New England Sports Ventures, has issued a warning to any players not fully committed to the club that they will be sold.

John W Henry, the club's principal owner, has been angered by reports that Fernando Torres and Pepe Reina would be leaving and has met the club's top players to reassure them of NESV's ambitions.

"It is a completely different system here to what we are used to," Henry said. "If a player has a contract in the United States they fulfil the contract. Over here, it seems players have much more say-so about where they are. Frankly, where we are, we don't want a player at the club who doesn't want to be at the club. It's really up to us to provide the kind of leadership, on and off the field, that any player at the club or who is coming to the club wants to be here."

Henry and Tom Werner, Liverpool's new chairman, are open to recruiting the right talent in January, following the appointment of Damien Comolli as director of football strategy. They are, however, determined to hang on to their best players, despite reports that Torres and Reina have contractual clauses that would facilitate their departure.

"I was upset about the assertion that they were leaving," Henry said. "There was one day when I read reports that we were not going to be involved in the transfer window because we do not have the funds. The next day I read that Torres and Reina were leaving.

"I have spoken with a number of our top players and was really heartened by the response. I was heartened by the intelligence of these players, who understand more about Liverpool than we do. They were good discussions."

Henry, who has been at Liverpool all week, was not as heartened by some of the discoveries he has made since taking over the club. "There were a number of unpleasant surprises when we did our due diligence because the wage bill is high and it's going to be higher next year – and we're not a young team," he said. "That was disappointing."

Comolli has been brought in to bring the age of the squad down, to identify the best talent by building up the scouting network and to help bring through academy players.

Henry was insistent that Roy Hodgson was "delighted" by Comolli's appointment despite only telling the manager it was going to happen a "couple of days" before it was announced and revealing that it was baseball maverick Billy Beane who had made the recommendation.

"When I first met with Roy it was obvious to me that he really wanted someone in that position," he said. "We are building a team. In Boston we have a team with an incredible collegial atmosphere. We build consensus. [Hodgson and Comolli] share the same agent. We needed to find someone who shared the same philosophy as us. That's why Billy Beane recommended Damien. I spent three weeks talking with Damien."

Werner conceded that Hodgson had not been consulted on Comolli's appointment but said they knew the two had a good relationship. "Roy said he felt he needed to bolster his staff. He was not asked about specific recommendations but we set about trying to find the best person we could find. I was aware they had a healthy respect for each other.

"We feel we can bring in more players that are home-grown. What we are used to is that the manager and the general manager work together. It's a big job analysing which players to bring in. We are trying to bolster Roy's operation and I think Damien is the first step."

Werner reinforced the message that the club are to target the Asian market to try to boost revenue and suggested they could play competitive games abroad, even though the Premier League has given up on its 39th game proposal.

"Pre-season matches are great but why not have an actual match in season," Werner said. "The Premier League is the strongest league in the world and its reach is global. It's been very impressive to me, the number of people globally who watch and we hope to expand that imprint. I think the more important the game, the more excitement."

Werner has also met Liverpool Council to discuss options for redeveloping Anfield or building a new stadium. As part of any new development, Henry said they will have to take on debt, but stressed the fact that they would emulate the way Arsenal built their stadium.

"How did Arsenal build the Emirates? I have never heard of a privately funded stadium of magnitude that was not funded by debt," Henry said. "It is such a big issue. It is a big issue with Manchester United. But the New York Yankees have $3.5 billion of debt and I've never heard a Yankee fan complain about it because they built a $1.5 billion stadium. The difference to be made is between stadium and acquisition debt.

Good read.
I totally agree with the headline sentiment that players not totally committed to the cause can do one, I think pretty much all of us would agree with that.

39th game? No thanks! I'm glad that the EPL has such huge global appeal but it should never be played outside of England (unless the likes of Cardiff get promoted, ).

Debt has become a swear word to LFC fans but common sense would suggest that the massive outlay required to build a new stadium means that you HAVE to take on debt. Properly managed, it wouldn't be a crippling burden like the acquisition debt we've just shaken off.

All in all, NESV are continuing to make the right noises (except for the 39th game nonsense).

I'm not going to rule the 39th game proposition out just yet, in a marketing sense and opening up other income streams it's not so much a bad idea, imagine Liverpool playing a game in Boston and the fan base that could be gained there through our obvious connections to NESV and the Boston Red Sox, the same applies if we were to play a game in Asia, the income that could be generated from such games in terms of TV money and merchandising could be like opening up the proverbial pandora's box as I don't believe you could really put a figure on it, but the more popularity such games would generate would inevitably help swell the clubs revenue and if teh financial fair play rules do come in about living within your own means, clubs such as Liverpool and Manchester United given their already world wide fan bases are going to do a hell of a lot better out of the 39th game commercially than say a club of Blackburns and Boltons stature, if it was ever implemented.

What he said ^^^  we can't play competative league games outside of the U.K, think about our regular, loyal fans rather than recruiting others !

Very informative read Daz nice one.
Let's hope JWH can differentiate between the likes of Sir Alcho's wind up bullshit and the real world with regard to player loyalty, the last sentence is particularly encourageing and indicates a definite agenda with the proposed stadium.

Good read.
I totally agree with the headline sentiment that players not totally committed to the cause can do one, I think pretty much all of us would agree with that.

39th game? No thanks! I'm glad that the EPL has such huge global appeal but it should never be played outside of England (unless the likes of Cardiff get promoted, ).

Debt has become a swear word to LFC fans but common sense would suggest that the massive outlay required to build a new stadium means that you HAVE to take on debt. Properly managed, it wouldn't be a crippling burden like the acquisition debt we've just shaken off.

All in all, NESV are continuing to make the right noises (except for the 39th game nonsense).

I'll echo these sentiments.

interesting

really looking forward to January and its a massive relief RH isn't in charge of transfers.

Don't agree with the 39th game proposal but the owners are making the right noises so far, and totally agree that no one player is bigger than the club, and to arm twist a player into staying -Torres included- is not the answer.
But i look back to this time last month when the massive tumour that we had to lance was still owning the club and i feel a whole lot happier

I really don't understand how any one can rule out the 39th game, if that 39th game played on shores other than our own could open up say an extra £20-£30m per year in terms of revenue, thats another £20-£30m that could be added to our transfer budgets.

Imagine if that 39th game was done a bit like teh F.A Cup randomly with balls like a lottery darw at the end of the season, the 08/09 season we finished second had it already been in force that 39th game could have won us the league. Obviously there is alsorts of variables to look at, but to just discount it is just daft in my opinion.

The 39th game is pointless, we can already access fans via an off season tour. All an extra game would do is fill a foreign stadium to capacity. TV revenue would increase but a tour would do the same.

As regards the article, John boy really can talk the talk can't he? I love the very slight but effective enough for me swipe at man u's financial situation in the last paragraph. I like Mr H. I hope I can continue to do so.

great read and he continues to please , keep it up Mr Henry and YNWA

 I hope he is not making an excuse to sell are best players ?

I really don't understand how any one can rule out the 39th game, if that 39th game played on shores other than our own could open up say an extra £20-£30m per year in terms of revenue, thats another £20-£30m that could be added to our transfer budgets.

Imagine if that 39th game was done a bit like teh F.A Cup randomly with balls like a lottery darw at the end of the season, the 08/09 season we finished second had it already been in force that 39th game could have won us the league. Obviously there is alsorts of variables to look at, but to just discount it is just daft in my opinion.

The problem is, that would become little more than a friendly game at the end of the season rather than the beginning. I suppose there would be more chance of first team players appearing but they'd be unlikely to go hell for leather as they would in a 'proper' match. I'm about to log off so don't have time to check but if I remember correctly, the proposal was for an EPL game to be played abroad. It even says in that article, 'competitive games'. Great for LFC fans based in the host country but terrible for us.

You used the example of the 08/09 season. Imagine if we were winning the league by 1 point and the team had to go to the US or Asia for the final match and lost it, losing the league in the process. Works both ways!

Good on Mr Henry. I agree totally that if the players dont want to be here they should be sold. I also agree that there will be wholesale changes come the summer. I think they will talk the majority of players into not leaving in january, with maybe Torres as an exception, he does look like he does,nt want to be here but that could all change by January if we can turn things around and start climbing the table. We do need to strengthen in january though and if the right players come around that meet Mr Henrys critirier then i think they will dig deep. Theres so many players in our squad that are not good enough if we are to challenge for anything this season. We need wingers with pace who can get down the line and deliver quality balls into the box. That, i would say is one of our main prioritys. We need to have a choice of at least 4 quality strikers, something that we are seriously lacking at the moment. Our back line is not to bad but we do have some people who are ageing and we are in desperate need of a qualty left back. So i do think that some players should go if they are not committed to the cause but there are some players who are just not of the quality that is befitting to a red shirt. Change is comming but it will take time and we will soon see who wants to wear the shirt and who thinks that the grass maybe greener on the other side.

I hope he is not making an excuse to sell are best players ?

What do you mean by best players?

I wouldn't mind if we sell people aged 27+ as long as the cash is spent on young talent.

Plus Babel ofcourse.

Good read...

I like the noises NESV are making, however they seem to like Roy, which is dissapointing! I also like the idea of a 39th game.

I know lots of people will piss and moan about having a league game abroad because we cannot attend. This is something that the American Football teams have had when playing in London. However if it opened up a massive revinue source, gained new fans and bolstered the clubs finances then anyone who is against it must be crazy. 1 game less at anfield per season = 1 world class signing (Torres esk) - sounds like a fair deal to me.

Hopefully this 39th game is just pie in the sky and doesn't come to fruition as I'm not in favour of it, we don't need to razamataz the league up anymore, next thing we'll see will be cheer leaders and quarter time proposed so it can fit in with American television.

As for Henry talking about players commiting good on him, Torres really needs to make it known one way or the other now. Not being controversial for the sake of it, but if an offer worth listening to came in for him I think it'd be worth us seriously considering it. I think his injuries are partially taking their toll up on him and he looks to have lost a yard of pace which is a fundamental part of his game. Also if he is unhappy here then they'd be no point in stopping him from leaving. Reina on the other hand is a Scouser and he won't go anywhere yet IMO.

next thing we'll see will be cheer leaders

Yes please.     

A couple of thing,

I hope he is not making an excuse to sell are best players ?

I understand your fears, but I disagree. I would hate to see Nando and, especially Pepe, leave, but I always have and always will agree with their logic, if a player doesnt want to be here, even if they are the best in the world, get rid of them. Let them go somewhere else if they think the grass is greener [Micheal Judas Owen] they will soon regret it. We get good money for a replacement that does want to be here. Thats assuming that we get the money they are worth, case in point Masca, fcking reduculous price.

The 39th game is worrying though. They draw the name out of the hat.?
OK, so then Liverpool V Man Utd in Singapore....Liverpool V Everton In Dubai...bullshit. I think this is the first really worrying thing that the new owners have come up with and proves one thing to me. They only have the best interest of the club if it involves an increase in revenue, everything they talk about is 'increasing the revenue'. I am fine with that, I understand the game is all about money now, but they dont seem to realise there are limits, and 39th game is the limit.

I am starting to worry already that the new owners know as much about football as the last owners and understand as much about football fans as the last owners. I am not really saying they are as bad as the last 2, but I cant be the only one that has concerns about this. I dont want to be sitting here in a few years time, sending emails all over the world, boycotting merchandise and shouting at my wife cause I am so stressed. I wont mention the ulcers.

Cheerleaders on the Kop. Can't go wrong!

Cheerleaders on the Kop. Can't go wrong!

We get enough sh*t about the Norwegians on the KOP

I know lots of people will piss and moan about having a league game abroad because we cannot attend. This is something that the American Football teams have had when playing in London. However if it opened up a massive revinue source, gained new fans and bolstered the clubs finances then anyone who is against it must be crazy. 1 game less at anfield per season = 1 world class signing (Torres esk) - sounds like a fair deal to me.

Let me be the first to piss and moan mate..

It wont be an increase in fanbase, the reason they want the 39th game is BECAUSE we have such a big fan base in places like the far east etc. I imagine the revenue increase will be for just the one game, when did you last buy a Broncos shirt, there is no more intrest in American football here in the UK than there has ever been before, and no descernable increase in merchandise revenue either.

 It will mean travelling time the players dont need, imagine a trip to Kiev fir Euro, then back to Anfiled for the Spurs game, then a trip to Singapore, then back to London for the Arsenal game, for example. We already have the 'European hangover' how bad will this be with 24 hour flights.

Let me be the first to piss and moan mate..

It wont be an increase in fanbase, the reason they want the 39th game is BECAUSE we have such a big fan base in places like the far east etc. I imagine the revenue increase will be for just the one game, when did you last buy a Broncos shirt, there is no more intrest in American football here in the UK than there has ever been before, and no descernable increase in merchandise revenue either.

 It will mean travelling time the players dont need, imagine a trip to Kiev fir Euro, then back to Anfiled for the Spurs game, then a trip to Singapore, then back to London for the Arsenal game, for example. We already have the 'European hangover' how bad will this be with 24 hour flights.

Agreed, I'm pissing and moaning with ya.

I suppose there are certain players that are very worried at the moment.

If it means we start going for quality rather than quantity of players i am all for that. The 39th game didnt go down well before and i dont see it going down well now.For instance supposing we have to play in the swealtering heat of Singapore and get beat but Utd play in Sweden just a few hours in the plane and a nice pleasant temp to play in. I just dont see how it would work unless all the games were played in the same country and would it count as an away game or a home game . would it mean that we play 1 team 3 times?

You used the example of the 08/09 season. Imagine if we were winning the league by 1 point and the team had to go to the US or Asia for the final match and lost it, losing the league in the process. Works both ways!

Obviously mate like I said there is lots of variable or pro and cons if you wish, but to dismiss it out of hand without weighing up the pro's and cons is a tad naive, for all we havent got a stadium to match our rivals (yet), this sort of proposition could help us make up the difference if we cracked into an untapped market commercialy, bearing in mind clubs like Chelsea and Arsenal do not have the fan base of Liverpool.

Did someone say cheerleaders?

F**k yes.

Didnt Sky have something like that years ago.

Did someone say cheerleaders?

F**k yes.

You listening John H? A little bit of Americanism we can accept. 

If the girls are anything like the Girl on the pitch in the very hot woman thread then I'm all for it !

If the girls are anything like the Girl on the pitch in the very hot woman thread then I'm all for it !

Whats not to like, red and white gooood.

As I'm a foreigner Scouse ( if you accept me ) it will be nice to play 39th game but for our player it will be more difficult physicly.

The owners are saying the right word, hope they keep their promise ( honestly I thin they do but we had bad experience once so no fairytale anymore ).

We are a broad church clint all our welcome to our cause.I can understand how much a lot of overseas supporters would love to see a game in their home country but dont expect it to happen soon if at all.

Thanks mate, I'm feel part of you.

No player is irreplaceable neither Torres nor Gerrard ( doubt it).

I really don't understand how any one can rule out the 39th game, if that 39th game played on shores other than our own could open up say an extra £20-£30m per year in terms of revenue, thats another £20-£30m that could be added to our transfer budgets.

Imagine if that 39th game was done a bit like teh F.A Cup randomly with balls like a lottery darw at the end of the season, the 08/09 season we finished second had it already been in force that 39th game could have won us the league. Obviously there is alsorts of variables to look at, but to just discount it is just daft in my opinion.

Problem is by introducing a 39th game it fucks the league up. What someone said in the other thread on the General Football forum about one of the other 38 games being played abroad is more likely.

Did someone say cheerleaders?

F**k yes.

F**k no

"Gooooooooooo Liverpool"

nah!!

Problem is by introducing a 39th game it fucks the league up. What someone said in the other thread on the General Football forum about one of the other 38 games being played abroad is more likely.

Thats what I said in another comment in this thread mate, if the game is played abroad, commercially it gives us a chance to crack untapped markets which would only be good for our revenue, thats why I'm rfeluctant to dismiss it at the moment.

Thats what I said in another comment in this thread mate, if the game is played abroad, commercially it gives us a chance to crack untapped markets which would only be good for our revenue, thats why I'm rfeluctant to dismiss it at the moment.

Think TDandseveralotherkletter s made the point yesterday after Werner had made the comments, personally don't agree myself but can see it coming, juts hope it's never Man U or Everton games that get moved. But then if they can move games then pretty soon any fixture will be fair game.

Cos it's all in the interest of money.

Would the 39th game be home or away and it would mean playing just one team 3 times and that would crazy.If we are joint top and Play Utd and Everton play West ham ( humour me) that wouldnt be fair would it. Maybe some kind of playoff for the top 4 pre season for a title might work but just one game  dosent make sense to  me other than from a commercial point.
Going back to the thread who isnt going to commit whilst they are on big salaries and contracts. I think they will find dealing with agents very frustrating dont we all.

Did someone say cheerleaders?

F**k yes.

If they're anything like the bird in the pic all F***ing day, long as they don't jump around and sing the stupid F***ing songs.

Think TDandseveralotherkletter s made the point yesterday after Werner had made the comments, personally don't agree myself but can see it coming, juts hope it's never Man U or Everton games that get moved. But then if they can move games then pretty soon any fixture will be fair game.

Cos it's all in the interest of money.

If it happens I get the feeling many things would probably change evenetually, I'd imagine something like play offs for European and relegation places would surely follow, so the 39th game would become somewhat of a mini Tornament probably hosted in a different country and beamed all around the world.

Think TDandseveralotherkletter s made the point yesterday after Werner had made the comments, personally don't agree myself but can see it coming, juts hope it's never Man U or Everton games that get moved. But then if they can move games then pretty soon any fixture will be fair game.

Cos it's all in the interest of money.

Yeah, not something I would be enthusiastic about, but something I could see happening with each team losing one home game a year, or every other year - but I'm not sure that many people around the world want to see Blackpool v WBA... Another problem is fitting it in, considering they'd have to travel, there could be no mid-week game.

As for the 39th idea, that will never happen, it makes a mockery of the league format if we are a point ahead of Utd and we have to play Chelsea in Dubai heat and they play Bolton in New York, we draw, they win, we draw, they win the league? F**k that.

play offs for European and relegation places

actually, that would be amazing, very exciting imagine the team coming 4th and getting relegated... or the 18th team going to the CL

Good read.
I totally agree with the headline sentiment that players not totally committed to the cause can do one, I think pretty much all of us would agree with that.

39th game? No thanks! I'm glad that the EPL has such huge global appeal but it should never be played outside of England (unless the likes of Cardiff get promoted, ).

Debt has become a swear word to LFC fans but common sense would suggest that the massive outlay required to build a new stadium means that you HAVE to take on debt. Properly managed, it wouldn't be a crippling burden like the acquisition debt we've just shaken off.

All in all, NESV are continuing to make the right noises (except for the 39th game nonsense).

Couldn't of said better myself

Is right on the committing or F**k off. Not for the 39th Prem game though, If we actually got any games in Perth it would be something lame like Bolton vs Stoke or some crap like that.

Whats not to like, red and white gooood.

Strictly speaking that's not red...


What...

Strictly speaking that's not red...


What...

Pedant.

Pedant.

Don't ask me how long I was looking at her "bra" before I spotted that

Don't ask me how long I was looking at her "bra" before I spotted that

You was looking at her bra 

Encouraging comments from Henry there. It's exactly the approach we would like our manager to have so why not the owner?

I've heard that NESV are very keen on players seeing out contracts, although it is obviously worth a lot more money to us if players who don't want to stay are shipped out sooner rather than later.

The way I see it, we're not a seller club. We're Liverpool Football Club. We are no longer in the precarious position where we should be held hostage as much as we used to, with regards to money. If any players don't see playing for LFC as enough of a selling point then they aren't the type of players we want.

With regards to the 39th league game, while I see that particular idea as a bad one, I think that our owners being keen on new avenues of revenue as a good thing. The Fair Play rules are going to be coming in soon and a boost in revenue overseas and in stadium plans, on top of an already successful revenue stream, will see us in potentially the best position out of all the football clubs in the country.

http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-fc-nesv-plan-for-the-future/60588/

Interesting article. Not exactly glowing for our new DOF. Although the author seems to favour our new owners

 I agree with the thread title,we only want players who are 100% committed to the Liverpool cause and that cause has to be the best team in the world.I will not name names but( some) of the players on the payroll do not deserve to get paid for the miserable effort they have put in when called on to play.

You was looking at her bra  

Not for a long time, hence the sarcy brackets.

Oh and good news...

After extensive "research" to find suitable cheerleaders for our new owners to bring to Anfield, it would appear the Red Sox don't have any.
Guess that knocks that idea on the head

Edit:

I did however find this...
http://www.sexysoxgirls.com/
Now if only their was a scouse version

Frankly, where we are, we don't want a player at the club who doesn't want to be at the club.


If you run a business and an employee says to you that they are "thinking" of leaving then f**k them off.
P45 a months money and a reference.
Ferguson lost twenty years of what credibility (he thought he had) by crawling after Shrek.
To me it did proves they don't have the money for big signings.

It always was a downward step to leave Liverpool.
Lets hope those days will return.


Stadium.
The Arsenal business model is to be admired and it proved to me that he knows very quickly what  is going on.
Not only was the financing done correctly on the Emirates (and that name will revert after the naming period expires) but the Highbury plaza and apartment development seriously underwrote the cost of the new stadium.

Costs.
I think the quote that came out was a "fourth place wage bill for a non CL team".
The more that the fat contracts are weaned off the more cash flow there will be.

I like what I hear from Werner and Henry.

Frankly, where we are, we don't want a player at the club who doesn't want to be at the club.


If you run a business and an employee says to you that they are "thinking" of leaving then f**k them off.
P45 a months money and a reference.
Ferguson lost twenty years of what credibility (he thought he had) by crawling after Shrek.
To me it did proves they don't have the money for big signings.

It always was a downward step to leave Liverpool.
Lets hope those days will return.


Stadium.
The Arsenal business model is to be admired and it proved to me that he knows very quickly what  is going on.
Not only was the financing done correctly on the Emirates (and that name will revert after the naming period expires) but the Highbury plaza and apartment development seriously underwrote the cost of the new stadium.

Costs.
I think the quote that came out was a "fourth place wage bill for a non CL team".
The more that the fat contracts are weaned off the more cash flow there will be.

I like what I hear from Werner and Henry.

Well said Euro. Agree 100%

Frankly, where we are, we don't want a player at the club who doesn't want to be at the club.


If you run a business and an employee says to you that they are "thinking" of leaving then f**k them off.
P45 a months money and a reference.
Ferguson lost twenty years of what credibility (he thought he had) by crawling after Shrek.
To me it did proves they don't have the money for big signings.

It always was a downward step to leave Liverpool.
Lets hope those days will return.


Stadium.
The Arsenal business model is to be admired and it proved to me that he knows very quickly what  is going on.
Not only was the financing done correctly on the Emirates (and that name will revert after the naming period expires) but the Highbury plaza and apartment development seriously underwrote the cost of the new stadium.

Costs.
I think the quote that came out was a "fourth place wage bill for a non CL team".
The more that the fat contracts are weaned off the more cash flow there will be.

I like what I hear from Werner and Henry.

Brought back on topic with a bang.
Some very good points.

I do think that we would be better served to follow the Arsenal model of solid investment with long term prospects. Would much rather we invested soundly in players and infrastructure rather than just throwing money at players without any plan in place to ensure the future of our club in the long run.

Well said Euro. Agree 100%

F**k Me Davey.

Ta La.

Somebody loves me!

F**k Me Davey.

Ta La.

Somebody loves me!

No bother.Your point made sense(for a change)

F**k Me Davey.

Ta La.

Somebody loves me!

I see you followed the link.

This topic is evidence of the the problem within our club.If the new owner has to comment about the dressing room,in such stark terms,then the Manager,has to be removed.

The only aspect that has worried me was the support for Roy, basically being cited as 'We don't understand much about football yet.'

They do need a football man as a Chief Executive.  Clearly, Roy's signings (the opposite of NESV's strategy) have been poor.  The performances across the first 19 games have been below expectations compared to the level of the squad.

Maybe instead of suggesting that some of the players have been unhappy, JWH should have said that he and millions of fans have been unhappy with the players efforts so far?

Love his attitude regarding selling players that are not totally committed to the LFC cause. However, i can't, and never will, agree with the 39th game idea.

I fail to see how one extra game is a problem for the players, it's only an extra 90 Min's! (i worked 11 hours on Tuesday). I do think it's ridiculous to play the final game of the season over sea's. That is a bit unfair to the fans who followed their teams all season, but wont be their to see their team win the league (or narrowly avoid relegation in our case).

I fail to see how one extra game is a problem for the players, it's only an extra 90 Min's! (i worked 11 hours on Tuesday).

Puts it into perspective really, there's doctors & nurses doing 24 hour shifts in A&E and then you've got totally detached from reality footballers like Robbie Savage saying they are worth the money they get paid. There's a difference between grabbing what you can and being worth it.

Love his attitude regarding selling players that are not totally committed to the LFC cause. However, i can't, and never will, agree with the 39th game idea.

Why semple I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Obviously there is pro and cons to everything, but I honestly feel there is more pro's to the 39th game than there is cons, I just want whats best for LFC and anything that can generate revenue and open up new income streams can only be good for the club in my opinion.

Maybe its just I never want to see the club in a position where we are struggling, selling our better players and replacing them with inferior players so the more money the club has at its disposal then the less chance there is of that happening.

The extra revenue would do no harm, but how about playing the extra game in mid season, so the Loyal fans don't miss out on a crucial game?

The extra revenue would do no harm, but how about playing the extra game in mid season, so the Loyal fans don't miss out on a crucial game?

Yeh Mid season would be probably be best some time around teh winter schedule when some games tend to get abandonded anyway due to snow etc, would be nice for teh players to have a game in sunnier climates.

Yeh the extra income would be great, lets say for a moment you gain an extra million fans of Liverpool F.C through a 39th game say in China, then a quarter of that 1 million buy a replica shirt and a quarter buy a season long e-season ticket from lfc tv, that generates around another £2.5m not taking into consideration other merchandise they could possibly buy, games they could possibly attend and stadium tours etc.

Actually, it could be the opening match in August. It certainly shouldn't be at the end of the season. I believe both the NBA (Basket  ) and NHL (Ice Hockey  ) have tried this earlier playing their first matches in Europe. I'm not sure how successful it's been though.

 and a quarter buy a season long e-season ticket from lfc tv,

They would probably just stream the matches illegally like the rest of us!

They would probably just stream the matches illegally like the rest of us!

Thats why I said a quarter mate

For me its just fantastic to have owners who communicate their thoughts and ideas and we know a little about what their plans are.
Its great to be talking about a bright future and the focus is on the team and the ground.
Love the fact they are working on improving the youth system - this is the key to our club. No matter how many imported players we have , we will always need the connection with the city to inspire the team when we need it.
Just nice to be talking about football again.

Who is he referring to?

Torres?

Who is he referring to?

Torres?

Without a shadow of doubt IMO.

I hate the idea of playing a competitive game abroad. It's english football so keep it in england.

Who is he referring to?

Torres?

I think this statement from Mr Henry was as a result of the newspaper article that Pepe and Nando were considering leaving if Liverpool didnt improve

Thats what I said in another comment in this thread mate, if the game is played abroad, commercially it gives us a chance to crack untapped markets which would only be good for our revenue, thats why I'm rfeluctant to dismiss it at the moment.

Scenario then Blud:

* Liverpool, after 38 games (we've played everyone twice), are two points clear of the Scum who have a superior goal difference.

* Game-week 39 Liverpool 'draw' Chelsea who are third, on goal difference but have beaten us twice that season 4-0.  

* The Scum 'draw' an already relegated Bitters team who they have beaten twice, that season, 4-0.

Still rfeluctant?  

Put it this way, if they relocate to America, Asia or even Australia, they will make millions upon millions. Who wouldn't want to see Liverpool play? I'm a foreigner so of course i'm more for it than others but i fail to see how anything outweighs the financial gain here.

I can only compare this to Australia because i don't know the attitudes and such of other countries, but if they came to Australia and played (any team, not just Liverpool), they will fill the MCG or ANZ Stadium to the hilt. That's 100,000 or 80,000 people respectively. If we get revenue for say, only 30,000 of the people who go to the game, then that is already a healthy chunk of money considering the prices of tickets will be higher than the cost over there in England. Add to that the promotion, extra stuff they'd do for public etc. and it could easily clear the revenue made for a game at Anfield.

I understand reservations of some but extra money can't be a bad thing?

Thats what I said in another comment in this thread mate, if the game is played abroad, commercially it gives us a chance to crack untapped markets which would only be good for our revenue, thats why I'm rfeluctant to dismiss it at the moment.

I don't understand this at all, you seem to be a sensible bloke... yet can suggest that a 39th game is a good idea?

Playing a game abroad is one thing, from a commercial point of view it makes sense, but adding a ridiculous 39th game is a joke for the reasons I mentioned somewhere and bbb outlined above - what if we are a point ahead of Utd, we play Chelsea in Dubai, Utd play Blackpool in New York, they win we draw, they win the league.  Sod that.

Put it this way, if they relocate to America, Asia or even Australia, they will make millions upon millions. Who wouldn't want to see Liverpool play? I'm a foreigner so of course I'm more for it than others but I fail to see how anything outweighs the financial gain here.

I can only compare this to Australia because I don't know the attitudes and such of other countries, but if they came to Australia and played (any team, not just Liverpool), they will fill the MCG or ANZ Stadium to the hilt. That's 100,000 or 80,000 people respectively. If we get revenue for say, only 30,000 of the people who go to the game, then that is already a healthy chunk of money considering the prices of tickets will be higher than the cost over there in England. Add to that the promotion, extra stuff they'd do for public etc. and it could easily clear the revenue made for a game at Anfield.

I understand reservations of some but extra money can't be a bad thing?

Don't forget that 30,000 revenue would have to be converted back from the Aussie dollar to the pound; that would barely cover the cost in getting the whole squad out their in the first place. Then would Aussie's be willing to pay $80 dollars a ticket, when it is much cheaper usually than that to watch the cowboys or Broncos at $12-15 a pop (or however cheap it is) as that is one of their top sports and 'soccer' has less interest in Aus.

I live abroad but wouldn't welcome the game being played abroad, firstly as someone said the game is English and should be played in England IMO. Secondly the 'scenarios' given like Bad Boy Buddy's would only make the game  a farce. Thirdly it would be like the world club championships IMO, where the game(s) is just in the way of fixtures but would have far more serious consequences.

Put it this way, if they relocate to America, Asia or even Australia, they will make millions upon millions. Who wouldn't want to see Liverpool play? I'm a foreigner so of course I'm more for it than others but I fail to see how anything outweighs the financial gain here.

A regular season game, I agree.

A 39th game? No way.

If people want to continue the 39th game discussion, maybe a new topic in the Football forum may be better.  Because this thread has gone a bit off target from the title.

Play some cup games abroad but not the league
Playes who dont want to play for the club only for themselves ought to go

If people want to continue the 39th game discussion, maybe a new topic in the Football forum may be better.  Because this thread has gone a bit off target from the title.

It's a focal point in which something Henry suggested.

There is already a thread on the 39th game. Would be nice if I was coming in here to read about the topic title

It's a focal point in which something Henry suggested.

Admittedly i joined in the conversation but it's bleeds-ing obvious this is about about telling the players to suit up or do one.

I'm certain there is a thread going around on the board about the 39th game.

Re 39th game:

i don't think that is what mr. henry is suggesting. i think he means that we might agree with chelsea or man utd for example to play a regular fixture at some overseas location.

if i am correct then i think that would be an interesting experiment. a big game in new york or tokyo or seoul could be a huge thing for the clubs playing and the league in general.

of course, we could all opt for the "good old days" scenario and ban every social development (internet, cell phones, etc etc) of the last 25 years and try to recreate the Football League as it was!

I love this kind of attitude, about time we got some stability, people's true colours will come through now. You don't wanna play for Liverpool then gladly F**k off, we don't want half-hearted players. This is the motto I have when playing Football Manager haha

think its starting to work now going by torres display today

yes yes yes yes no (to 39th game) and some more yes. cheers mr henry.

So we are still talking about the 39th game then in here?

Topic Locked.