Trending Topics

      Next match: v [] Thu 1st Jan @ 1:00 am

      Today is the 5th of June and on this date LFC's match record is P3 W2 D1 L0

      John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.

      Read 5126 times
      0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
      lfc_ynwa
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****
      • Started Topic

      • 9,109 posts | 233 
      • In Kenny we trust. YNWA. Tits!!
      John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Aug 27, 2011 09:18:17 am
      In before mac_red ;D

      Liverpool owner John W Henry admits top players wanted to leave the club before his overhaul at Anfield



      Exclusive: In an exclusive interview with Telegraph Sport, Liverpool owner John W Henry reflects on his first 10 months in English football and reveals the plans for Liverpool’s future.

      Corresponding over email, Henry defends the club’s investment in expensive British talent, makes clear that his expectation is for a return to the Champions League and asks if anything will be done about Chelsea and Manchester City not appearing to take Uefa’s Financial Fair play rules seriously.

      He has damning words for the lack of discipline with which the club was previously run and makes it clear that players who were not committed have been sold.

      Perhaps most excitingly for Liverpool fans, he reveals that he is looking for a naming rights partner that could make a much-needed new stadium viable.

      What is clear is that he is not a hands-off owner but someone who has immersed himself in the project of taking Liverpool from its debt-laden stagnant state back to the summit of European football.

      You attended the opening game against Sunderland last weekend. Could you talk us through your day?

      I had spent the previous day in Munich studying the Allianz Arena - a truly magnificent accomplishment by Bayern Munich. I flew in late Friday night and Tom, Ian and I met with our supporters committee on Saturday morning. We were amazed at the strength and depth of the committee. It was an important meeting covering a number of technical issues.

      Richard Scudamore of the Premier League and David Bernstein of the FA were there prior to and during the match so it was an opportunity to speak with them. I’ve got to know Mr Scudamore, but it was my first time meeting Mr Bernstein. Both are very impressive and seem to be extraordinarily well-suited for their roles.

      Did you go down to the dressing room?

      Yes.

      What did it feel like watching this team you had helped build?

      Tom and I spoke as the match began about how many players in the starting line-up had arrived after we had. The fact that Luis Suarez was there despite such a limited period of rest after the Copa America is representative of just how determined everyone in the dressing room is this year.

      As you know this is a club with a tremendous history and you want players who understand how important every match is to millions around the world. Our fans don’t even take friendlies in a friendly way. They have expectations. So do all of us inside the club.

      This year those expectations are matched by every player. Not every player wanted to be here when we arrived. Kenny, Steve, Damian and Ian have turned that completely around. And you have to give Kenny the lion’s share of the credit.

      What are your targets for this season? Is there a minimum requirement for Kenny Dalglish and his team?

      Manchester United has done an incredible job of building a young, talented, deep squad. I watched a number of their pre-season matches and they seemed in top form even then. We’ve just begun to build and are years behind them so we don’t expect this to be our year to win the Premier League.

      Manchester City seems to have unlimited spending restraint and are attempting to have all-star quality at each position - two deep. That will be hard to beat. This year our goal is to get back to Champions League.
      This is a club with a history in European competition and people throughout the world - at least our supporters - yearn for European nights. That’s our first goal. But it won’t be at all easy as there are 6 big clubs - among the best in Europe - fighting for 4 spots.

      In your first 10 months in English football, what has impressed you?

      The referees impress me. Football officiating is so subjective - much more subjective than any other sport. But the more I watch - and I watch too many matches - the more impressed I am with referees.
      It’s impossible to get every call correct because so many of the calls are highly subjective. We have slow motion cameras looking from various angles but a referee is on the move and only has one angle. The most amazing thing to me is how accurate linesmen are on offsides.

      I don’t see how they can see when the ball is struck and at the same time determine from their angle if someone is offside. It’s frustrating when they don’t get it right, but it’s so difficult and they are right 95% of the time despite all of the complaining. There are so many things I’m impressed with - that would take a full article.

      What has surprised you? Shocked you?

      Well, the transfer system and how it works is a shock if you’ve come from American sports. The fact that a guaranteed contract means very little when another club decides that they want your player is surprising. The player suddenly “has to go.”

      This is an advantage for big clubs such as ours and I’m getting used to it, but it was a shock to find out that the guarantee only works one way. And of course the sums of money that are spent on buying and selling players is remarkable.

      When you first arrived in English football you made it clear you supported Uefa’s Financial Fair Play concept, which begins to be applied this summer. Are Liverpool on track to conform to the rules?

      For a club to be sustainable for the long-term it is essential to live within those rules. What happens when large deficit spending for a club suddenly stops? The record isn’t very good in that regard.

      Quoting Gordon Taylor on billionaires, “History tells you that sometimes, like butterflies, they land on one attractive resting place then move on to another. I’m asking: when it’s time for these people to move, is there a structure in place to enable their clubs to survive?" What about other clubs? You recently raised doubts about Manchester City’s sponsorship deal on your twitter site….

      The question remains as to how serious EUFA is regarding this. It appears that there are a couple of large English clubs that are sending a strong message that they aren’t taking them seriously, yet large clubs in Italy are - or are at least taking steps to do so.

      Maybe it’s necessary for other associations to act. I believe the Football League has adopted these protocols. They have to be congratulated on that.

      Do Liverpool need FFP to be properly applied if they are to compete at the very top level?

      We need time to build the football operation and we need to build our revenues. We did that in Boston and we still cannot come close to matching the revenues of the New York Yankees. But we match them competitively.

      They are the two clubs that have won the most games over the past ten years in major league baseball. We won’t be near the top of Europe for a while. But we will get there in both regards.

      You have made it clear in the past that you would be looking at introducing a more coherent policy went came to transfers, trying to make more objective judgements on players that included statistics, potential development and re-sale values.

      Could you talk me through how you have applied this policy? Are you still using some of the principles gleaned from Moneyball/sabermetrics?

      First of all let me warn you, there are fictional elements to film Moneyball. It wasn’t a young geek who came up with all of those principles. They initially came from Bill James over a number of years. Bill was one of the first people we brought aboard when we bought the Boston Red Sox 10 years ago.

      Billy Beane and his staff in Oakland weren’t the first to use these methods, but they were extremely effective at it. The only reason they didn’t win multiple World Series was that the playoffs in MLB are so much of a toss up in comparison to [English] football. We have been effective because those principles are only one aspect of our baseball operation. We spend a lot of money on amateur scouting and player development.

      The nature of markets, and that includes player acquisition markets, is such that sooner or later any set of successful formulae that provide an excess return above investment are discounted.

      By that I mean that eventually what was undervalued becomes more valued - sometimes to the point of being over-valued. It’s just a matter of how stubborn executives are with regard to preferring subjectivity over objectivity. At one point only Boston, Oakland and the Yankees placed a very high value on On Base Percentage and we were heavily criticised as stat geeks.

      Then we won two World Series and now virtually all 30 clubs believe in the power of baseball’s hidden statistics. So with a limited payroll it’s become very difficult for Oakland to compete despite having some of the most brilliant people in baseball there.
      Have you achieved your goals in terms of recruitment and sales this summer? Has the high expenditure of this window been a one-off investment to get you up to speed?
      For a number of years players of quality were being sold and players of lesser quality were being purchased. The club wasn’t being run by people with the kind of discipline it takes to be successful over the long-term. It’s odd to be criticised by some who think we are over-spending.
      The worry seemed to be that we wouldn’t spend. But we’ve been consistent, we intend to strengthen this club annually but that doesn’t mean we will deficit spend. It’s up to us to strengthen revenues. Only then will the club be strong enough to compete in Europe.
      How important is it, again with FFP in mind, for you to lower the wage bill before this window closes?
      Not an issue.

      A large share of the money you have spent on recruitment has gone on British players (Henderson/Downing/Adam). Was this a determined strategy? If you compare the fees spent on any British, and specifically English, player with those spent on foreign counterparts there appears to be a market premium for buying British talent. Do you believe this is the case? And if so why were you prepared to pay those premiums?

      Everyone seemed to think that Liverpool was over-valuing British players this summer. But when the Premier League has the whole world to choose players from and there is a substantial homegrown rule, British players are going to be highly valued.

      Look at the prices paid this year for Conor Wickham and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain. At Liverpool we have purchased each player for a different reason. It doesn’t mean we are going to solve all of our issues in one season, but we are headed in the right direction.

      Could you describe your personal involvement in the recruitment process this summer?

      This first year I have tried to be as involved as I could so as to learn as much as possible in a short period of time. Tom and I are always questioning everything in Boston. Always. And that is done in a very positive way because we have very talented people in the key positions.

      It is now working the same way in Liverpool. I want to know why we are doing what we are doing on the pitch and with regard to player acquisition. I wouldn’t be doing my job in allocating resources if I wasn’t able to make sense of the individual steps we are taking within the context of our overall philosophy.

      Consequently there is no doubt that Kenny, Steve, Damian, Ian, Tom and I share a long-term, disciplined philosophy that encompasses all aspects of the operation. It’s an exciting time to be a part of this rebuilding effort.

      Has there been any progress on the prospects of a new stadium? Is building a new stadium a viable option in the current climate? Your group has indicated in the past that a ground-share with Everton is off the agenda — is this still the case?

      I’ve seen a lot of talk recently about ground-sharing, but our position hasn’t changed. There’s no doubt that if a new stadium were to be built in Liverpool from a financial perspective - which is the major issue - a ground-share would be helpful for both clubs. But there doesn’t seem to be any support for that from Red or Blue fans - at all. So how could that ever happen?

      We would love to expand Anfield, but there are enough local and regulatory issues to keep that avenue stalled for years with no assurances that once begun it would bear any fruit.
      If Anfield cannot be expanded a new stadium is wonderful choice. But the fact is we already have 45,000 seats. If a new stadium is constructed with 60,000 seats you’ve spent an incredible sum of money to add just 15,000 seats.

      If the cost is £300m for an extra 15,000 seats, that doesn’t make any sense at all. Liverpool isn’t London, you can’t charge £1 million for a long-term club seat. And concession revenues per seat aren’t that much different at Emirates from Anfield.
      That’s why the search is on currently for a naming-rights partner. And that could very well happen.

      Telegraph


      Best sentence of them all - "I’ve seen a lot of talk recently about ground-sharing, but our position hasn’t changed"
      « Last Edit: Aug 27, 2011 09:28:42 am by lfc_ynwa »
      Redangel
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 8,391 posts | 1025 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #1: Aug 27, 2011 09:49:22 am
      You beat me to it !!

      We really are very fortunate to have him onboard.
      Talks so much sense and comes across as one of the good guys.

      gazza31
      • Banned
      • *****

      • 2,751 posts | 35 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #2: Aug 27, 2011 09:52:21 am
      When he speaks he speaks sense, a great businessman I think we are in good hands.
      OoLiaaaaaMoO
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,813 posts | 11 
      • In King Kenny WE Trust!
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #3: Aug 27, 2011 10:00:41 am
      ORCHARD RED
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 8,526 posts | 1457 
      • 6 Times!
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #4: Aug 27, 2011 10:31:17 am
      I love the way he never try's to bullshit us, like the previous owners, we always know where we are with him.
      Dannylfc
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 5,010 posts | 174 
      • Always in our shadow.
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #5: Aug 27, 2011 10:55:41 am
      Very impressive interview.

      Surprised how much interest he has undertaken in the transfer market and such.

      However the stadium issue does seem to be a difficult obstacle to navigate. Have to admit hes right, building a new stadium for an extra 15,000 seats just doesn't seem logical, however the naming rights could play an absolutely massive part in that. Be interesting to see any developments in the future regarding that issue.

      Very lucky to of landed these owners.
      Bpatel
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 9,902 posts | 158 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #6: Aug 27, 2011 11:00:31 am
      He speaks so much sense. He's picked up on things so quickly having only been here 10 months and that's the thing that really impresses me.

      Couldn't have asked for a better owner really.
      waltonl4
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 37,735 posts | 7168 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #7: Aug 27, 2011 02:07:10 pm
      I agree entirely with the point that 15000 extra seats costing £300 mil and only bring in £1mil (approx) per game isnt viable thats why redevelopment is so attractive an extra 15000 seats at Anfield will not cost £300 mil.
      stephenmc9
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 2,822 posts | 39 
      • 'Liverpool was made for me and I was made for Live
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #8: Aug 27, 2011 03:08:22 pm
      Very good read,good point regarding the stadium situation.
      Its great to have owners that are interested in our club.Not pissing money into the banks.
      Burdogcallingbat21
      • Banned
      • ****

      • 692 posts | 38 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #9: Aug 27, 2011 03:17:25 pm
      Chalk and cheese in comparison to H&G.  Very impressive man as is Werner.  Broughton done a mighty job in bringing Henry and co to Anfield. 
      Semple
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 7,854 posts | 149 
      • Ireland's Finest Scouser. Henderson supporter.
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #10: Aug 27, 2011 03:32:24 pm
      The guy F***ing knows his stuff. He is so smart. Much love for him!
      tezmac
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 11,289 posts | 937 
      • F**k the Sun F**k Murdoch F**k the press
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #11: Aug 27, 2011 04:31:35 pm
      Impressed with JH, onward and upward
      TKIDLLTK
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 8,362 posts | 158 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #12: Aug 27, 2011 04:32:41 pm
      Great interview, class guy, great owner thus far! No complaints whatsoever!
      Billy1
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 10,638 posts | 1966 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #13: Aug 27, 2011 08:51:51 pm
      I agree entirely with the point that 15000 extra seats costing £300 mil and only bring in £1mil (approx) per game isnt viable thats why redevelopment is so attractive an extra 15000 seats at Anfield will not cost £300 mil.
      That is my line of thought as well walton.
      AussieRed
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 20,899 posts | 6824 
      • You'll Never Walk Alone
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #14: Aug 27, 2011 10:51:59 pm
      Take us to the summit JWH.
      MIRO
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 12,989 posts | 3124 
      • Trust The Universe
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #15: Aug 27, 2011 11:31:27 pm
      Still talking defo on naming rights though and the "obstacles" in developing Anfield.

      We would love to expand Anfield, but there are enough local and regulatory issues to keep that avenue stalled for years with no assurances that once begun it would bear any fruit.
      AZPatriot
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 9,944 posts | 1759 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #16: Aug 27, 2011 11:40:23 pm
      I agree entirely with the point that 15000 extra seats costing £300 mil and only bring in £1mil (approx) per game isnt viable thats why redevelopment is so attractive an extra 15000 seats at Anfield will not cost £300 mil.
      That is my line of thought as well walton.


      I agree with this, but JH's statements make it sound like the city council are doing nothing but shoving roadblocks at them and offering no type of assurances.

      We would love to expand Anfield, but there are enough local and regulatory issues to keep that avenue stalled for years with no assurances that once begun it would bear any fruit.

      Don't have a clue on the politics in Liverpool but almost sounds like they want a new shiny stadia and are making issues getting Anfield re-done.
      Frankly, Mr Shankly
      • Guest
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #17: Aug 27, 2011 11:51:30 pm
      FSG have just thrown themselves at the challenge and pleasure of owning Liverpool FC. It's so refreshing to hear and I genuinely do believe we found the best owners we could have. Supporting the team with money and incredibly astute business brains trying to milk as much of the commercial revenue available to Liverpool. Opening new wells and an ambition for the future. It's been as perfect a start by these guys as any sports club ownership could make.
      KennyIsKing
      • Banned
      • *****

      • 4,628 posts | 129 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #18: Aug 27, 2011 11:54:41 pm
      Great interview.

      And I have little doubt he'll put his money where his mouth is.

      The 5% doubt I had just became 3%    ;)
      RedRoy
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 3,483 posts | 88 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #19: Aug 28, 2011 12:13:30 am
      Still talking defo on naming rights though and the "obstacles" in developing Anfield.

      We would love to expand Anfield, but there are enough local and regulatory issues to keep that avenue stalled for years with no assurances that once begun it would bear any fruit.
      We cannot afford to wait,"for years",to redevelop Anfield,so why not go for an ambitious new build 80,000 seater stadium in Stanley Park,with the right Manager and squad,(which we have),we can fill this,to generate sufficient income under the new rules,to compete with the gobshites currently buying success.
      wallbanger
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,181 posts |
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #20: Aug 30, 2011 01:43:03 am
      He is very intelligent individual, is very committed to the reds.He has the passion and drive to move this team forward. Our chance of a new stadium are very slim indeed.
      But john explains things very well and he points out some negatives about british football. We have to get to point when we have two quality players for every positon if we want champions league football. This way we avoid the injury curse which happens so many times in the past.
      LFC Viking
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 3,112 posts | 38 
      • LFC: Europe's finest 5 star establishment
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #21: Aug 30, 2011 02:11:38 am
      Great read. Love John more and more every time I read/hear an interview.
      ozi_wozzy
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 2,552 posts | 304 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #22: Aug 30, 2011 02:29:19 pm

      We would love to expand Anfield, but there are enough local and regulatory issues to keep that avenue stalled for years with no assurances that once begun it would bear any fruit.

      Don't have a clue on the politics in Liverpool but almost sounds like they want a new shiny stadia and are making issues getting Anfield re-done.


      Ian Ayre referred to the local politics too. I don't know for sure, but I got the impression that the council would prefer a new stadium to help redevelop the area and are pushing for that direction. Whilst it would definitely help, that run down part of Liverpool will not suddenly start attracting businesses and developers because of a shiny new stadium.

      So I can see both sides of the argument. What is refreshing is that JWH is looking at things both from a commercial perspective to build a sustainable business, and from a fans' perspective of building a successful club for the future.

      Really like the guy, think the club is in good hands long term.
      Reprobate
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 11,055 posts | 436 
      • Avatar by Kitster29@Deviantart.com
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #23: Aug 30, 2011 06:40:08 pm
      I agree entirely with the point that 15000 extra seats costing £300 mil and only bring in £1mil (approx) per game isnt viable thats why redevelopment is so attractive an extra 15000 seats at Anfield will not cost £300 mil.
      Or acquire a naming rights partner and build one with 80,000 seats instead  :f_whistle:
      AZPatriot
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 9,944 posts | 1759 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #24: Aug 30, 2011 10:27:35 pm
      Found this article while the site was down...thought it an excellent read and pretty much spot on.  http://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2011/08/the-great-net-spend-rope-trick-and-more-moneyballs/

      THE GREAT NET SPEND ROPE TRICK (AND MORE MONEYBALLS)

      by Rob Gutmann // 28 August 2011 // 26 Comments

      BACK in the dark days, when a Texan tyrant roamed free in the 2nd city of Empire, debt was the new black, and Liverpool football club was hurtling towards a never imagined abyss, its chief financier and ultimate unlikely knight in shining armour, the Royal Bank of Scotland, imposed upon the club the first in a series of double agents.

      Christian ‘Cecil’ Purslow was the initial appointment the bank charged with unofficially watching their backs, as they, like Liverpool’s by then bereft supporters, began to have more than serious concerns about the errant decision making of evil capitalist caricatures, Tom Hicks and George Gilette.

      To cut a confused and long story short, ‘Cecil’ Purslow came, saw, and tried vainly to financially restructure the club to the bank’s order. He shed his pinstripes for a tracksuit, deluded himself he was as much director of football as hired gun accountant, and made himself Gary Neville level popular on the Kop, before ultimately allying himself to the small band of corporate assassins who contrived the legendary ‘epic swindle’ that finally rid Liverpool football club of the two headed behemoth from across the Atlantic.

      Cecil slayed the dragon(s), his epitaph will read. When he gets round to writing it.

      Christian Purslow finally, and quietly, exited the scene of his crimes, misdemeanours, and perhaps grudging redemption, last winter. Gone from a club and a community that would forever associate him with their darkest hours rather than the glory of their resurrection.

      Tough luck Cecil. You came, you saw. You merited a banner depicting a big cock with your name on it, courtesy of the Kop. You got very well paid , and you got to pump your fist outside the big court house in that London. The end. The people, have now retired your memory.

      So why bring Purslow back out of his box again ? Simply, because of something the man once said. Something, one of many things, he got it in the neck for. It seemed rightly so at the time, and thus far it’s been cast into the dustbin of Hicks/Gillett era soundbite history (along with ‘a spade in the ground in 60 days’ and ‘blow me F**k face’). Consigned to dust, until  now. Watch out. Here comes the revival of Cecil Purslow’s much derided ‘player account’ world view.

      Before the summer of 2009 we, as humble football folk, had satisfied ourselves with the neat lay accountancy analysis that concluded that seeking to improve your team by investing in it, meant that you had to be spending more in transfer fees for new players than you were recouping from the proceeds of the sales of those players no longer required.

      When pressed by fans and journalists to account for Liverpool FC’s nil net transfer fee spend in the summer of ’09, Purslow directed inquisitors in the direction of that maligned ‘player account’section of the club’s published accounts. He argued that although the club had spent ‘fanny all’ (I’m paraphrasing) on transfer fees that close season it had heavily invested in new contracts for star players, including Gerard, Alonso, Kuyt and Torres.

      As ever more weary and cynical fans, we were having none of it. Wages are wages, and transfer spend is quite another thing. Equating the two, seemed on the surface, to be quite frankly a piss take. You judged a club’s commitment to its manager, its team and its future by how much it was prepared to fork out for fees on new players.

      The problem is, that that simple and neat correlation has become ever increasingly obsolete as top level wages have begun, in relative terms, to outstrip transfer fees.

      Now, it is becoming apparent in a changing economic climate in professional football, that as supporters and judges of managers and players, We’ve got to get our heads around what ‘net spend’ truly means. It has become clear that, as a quick label,  this traditional short hand measure is increasingly irrelevant, without regard to wages.

      The most obvious recent example of the folly of looking only to the net fees yardstick has been in the cases of the Andy Carroll and Kun Aguero headline making transfers. Much of the media and many fans noted the parity in the respective £35m prices on these players heads, and rushed to the judgement that Aguero, as the proven world star, was clearly the better buy.

      It was implicit that Liverpool (Dalglish/Comolli/FSG) had ‘dropped one’ in spending so much on the relatively raw potential of Carroll when for the same price they could have had the likes of the proven Aguero. The truth is, though, that whilst the fees for these two strikers were the same, the Argentinian Kun picks up around £10m a year in salary, whilst our Geordie Andy sees something closer to a much more modest £3m per annum.

      Therefore, after the fees have been paid, Aguero will cost Manchester City around a further £50m over the life of his contract, compared to the c.£15m Carroll will cost Liverpool. No comparison then in the scale of the wage deals.

      Successive managers at the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal and Man united may point to their modest net transfer spends in recent years, whilst studiously ignoring the growth in investment in their wage bills.

      Home grown talent such as Steven Gerrard or Ryan Giggs may pleasingly show up as a nil net transfer fee cost, but the growth in the size of their pay packets down the years tells a different story. Let’s guestimate that Stevie G’s new 5 year contract of 2009 cost the club a further £60k a week, to bring him into line with his well paid England colleagues at clubs like Chelsea. The cost of that deal, then, is akin to LFC paying a transfer fee of £15m (£3m per year x 5 years) just to retain one of their own players.

      Of course, the wage cost factor cuts in both directions, and we are seeing a clear manifestation of that at LFC this summer. When FSG took power at Anfield last autumn, John Henry and co. were at pains to make an observation that became somewhat lost in the clamour to ascertain ‘how much’ they were preparing to spend on a ‘transfer war chest’.

      Henry noted that the club’s wages were far too high. Well, he qualified that, by noting that they were high (and this is the key bit) relative to value. This was a marker to a fundamental FSG (Moneyball influenced) maxim – it ain’t about what you pay, but that the value attained ultimately exceeds cost.

      This approach has governed LFC transfer policy all summer long. It’s why there was a preparedness to apparently ‘overpay’ for the likes of Carroll, Henderson and Downing, why the likes of Wickham and Clichy appeared to price themselves out of moves to Anfield, and ultimately why LFC have been patient in waiting until the pricing is ‘just so’ before closing a deal on players like Adam and Enrique.

      The FSG/Moneyball war cry appears to be that ‘it will not be the market that will tell us what a player’s worth, we will dictate to it!’.Your average punter or media ‘expert’ will tell anyone and everyone that Stewart Downing was worth no more than £14-15m, tops. The Comolli computer, however, says ‘no’. In fact it says that the market, the fans and the media are all looking at players through distorted lenses and that only by looking to the correct performance statistics can true value be assessed.

      So in FSG/LFC eyes, Downing may well be so effective a player that he’d be a good buy at, say, £25m. Therefore at £18-20m he’s a great buy. Get it ?

      The critics of Liverpool’s transfer policy have indeed made a cause celebre of the Downing transfer and demanded to know ‘why buy Downing when rising Spanish star Juan Mata is available for similar money ?’.

      Bargain?

      Setting aside the obvious answer that those that truly matter and know best may well have concluded that Downing is simply the better player, or at least, the better ‘fit’ for LFC requirements, there is also the simple fact that the deals for the two players are highly unlikely to be financially comparable.

      Downing wil cost LFC about £18m (plus add ons) and about £17m in wages over the life of his 5 year contract – a total package cost of £35m then. Mata is on the verge of joining Chelsea for about £25m we hear. If his wages attract the premium that big inter European deals seem to these days we could safely estimate that a 5 year wage deal for Mata could set Chelsea back about £25m. Therefore whilst Mata is costing a total of about £50m (transfer fee and wages added together), Downing looks a lot cheaper option at £35m all in.

      Back at the old fashioned net-spend-ometer, fans and pressmen alike are looking at FSG’s gross spend of £105m since January, with about £58m recouped in sales, and concluding that they are entitled to heap big pressure on the Liverpool manager and team to deliver the improvement to match the boldness of that investment.

      Yet, if we apply the correct measure of net investment that includes the wage factor, just how bold has this summer’s LFC transfer activity actually been ?

      Here follows some broad brush stoke sums, and apologies to all implicated and to accountants everywhere for the crudeness of this analysis :

       

      LFC players signed since Jan 2011

      Andy Carroll, Luis Suarez, Doni, Charlie Adam, Jose Enrique, Jordan Henderson, Stewart Downing, Coates

      Total Gross fees(approx): £112m

      Estimated total annual wages for new signings : £23m per annum

      If we assume each player contract is for 5 years, we can then amortise the cost of their transfer fees by dividing them by 5, to give us an annual gross cost for the new signings : –

      Annual cost of transfer fees (£112m over 5 years) = £22m

      Annual cost of new player wages               = £23m

      Therefore gross total annual cost of this summer’s transfer activity = £45m

      LFC players departed since Jan 2011 and likely to be gone by 31st August

      Fernando Torres, Ryan Babel, Jovanovic, Alberto Aquilani, Paul Konchesky, David Ngog, Nabil El Zahr, Danny Pacheco, Ayala, Philip Degen, Joe Cole, Christian Poulsen, Brad Jones

      Total estimated gross fees recouped :   £72m

      Estimated annual wage savings :       £32m

      Again, if we amortise the fees by the 5 year average contract length, the annual fee recouped figure   = c.£14m

      Annual wages saved (as above) = £32m

      Therefore gross total annual cost of monies recouped this summer = £46m

       

      So, and here’s the big reveal, our true, as near-as-dammit, estimated crudely, yet probably not miles out, best approximation for net spend by LFC this summer is…….wait for it…….(drum roll) …. minus £1m.

      One whole million pounds (give or take a million or two)in credit. That’s the real likely ‘price’ of what in actuality will have been a nigh-on revolutionary turning over of the Liverpool squad.

      By August 31st, of the players we will have released, only one contributed to the first team squad in any significant way last season (Fernando Torres). The rest will not have amassed enough premiership starts between them to be equivakent to more than one more player’s worth of loss (Babel, Jovanovic, Konchesky, Ngog, Cole and Poulsen).

      Yet on the other side of the assessment, we’ve added arguably 6 players, who are all very likely to fill first 11 positions. That’s half a dozen new first teamers in, with effectively two going the other way, and all for the princely sum of one million pounds.

      A trick of the light ? Smoke and mirrors ? Sleight of hand ? Nope, just solid good old fashioned  smartness. It’s an astute business turn

      Smoke & Mirrors?

      around and needs to be seen as that in itself, regardless of the vagaries of the fickle hand of fate as yet to be revealed (like, all the new players may ‘turn out to be sh*t’).

      Come next May, be we 1st, 4th or 14th , praise or criticism will be apportioned, but let no man deem that the measure against which judgement may fall, be measured against the context that Liverpool FC have been profligate ‘spenders’ this summer. They simply haven’t been.

      John Henry vowed last year that his Liverpool would live within their means, and only spend the revenue the club self generated. Damaged by the absence of that valuable commodity ‘the truth’ during the Hicks/Gillett years, some LFC fans feared that Henry’s proclamation was a short hand for ‘we ain’t putting any of our own money in’. In fact, he’s been more faithful to his other oft quoted mantra of autumn 2010, ‘we will under promise and over deliver’.

      Henry and FSG have clearly delivered this summer. Although it is reasonable to assert that they will have engineered an effective ‘nil’ net spend, in a book balancing sense, by the time the transfer window shuts, there is no doubt that they have also provided the short term cash required to allow LFC to move swiftly and decisively in securing the key new recruits.

      This provision of necessary cash resources at a crucial phase in the club’s development is a key marker to the future. It demonstrates that the new ownership is well resourced and will be primed and able to make the big decisions in the next phase of ‘drafting’ in that will surely follow next summer.

      LFC have astutely re-aligned and remodelled a defective squad using the guile and methodology of a financially sound approach – the ‘Financially fair’ way. There is a real sense that this is only the beginning. Something special is stirring at Anfield.
      FL Red
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 31,433 posts | 6423 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #25: Aug 30, 2011 10:35:09 pm
      We cannot afford to wait,"for years",to redevelop Anfield,so why not go for an ambitious new build 80,000 seater stadium in Stanley Park,with the right Manager and squad,(which we have),we can fill this,to generate sufficient income under the new rules,to compete with the gobshites currently buying success.

      I keep seeing 80,000 thrown around as a number for a new stadium in Stanley Park...is there a possibility that a larger stadium could be supported? Maybe with the combination of a naming rights partner and say a 90-95,000 seat venue it would make the new stadium an even more attractive option?
      stephenmc9
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 2,822 posts | 39 
      • 'Liverpool was made for me and I was made for Live
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #26: Aug 30, 2011 11:24:06 pm
      We just get the sense that everything is perfect at Liverpool, like it used to be. amazing Manager, fantastic players, great owners, and high expectations! COME ON LIVERPOOL!
      RedDownUnder
      • Forum Youth Player

      • 18 posts |
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #27: Aug 30, 2011 11:47:06 pm
      It would be good to see some type of banner at Anfield thanking John Henry and FSG for rescuing our mighty club. Maybe at the next home game that they attend?
      BLEED_RED
      • Forum Billy Liddell
      • ****

      • 604 posts | 22 
      • American Kopite
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #28: Aug 31, 2011 07:27:38 am
      I keep seeing 80,000 thrown around as a number for a new stadium in Stanley Park...is there a possibility that a larger stadium could be supported? Maybe with the combination of a naming rights partner and say a 90-95,000 seat venue it would make the new stadium an even more attractive option?

      The problem with expanding to such a large venue is you have to find the perfect balance between demand and game experience. With a stadium that size the game day experience would diminish exponentially as the tickets get cheaper and the better seats inflate in price to bear the burden of providing seats below the cost of having them there in the first place.

      Also while the demand for tickets for a Liverpool game is always high you have to balance the demand for larger games with that of the games against smaller teams. There are hundreds of factors that go into these decisions and that is why the decision on Anfield is taking so much time.
      Chico Banderas
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 2,072 posts | 150 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #29: Aug 31, 2011 09:09:33 am
      The problem with expanding to such a large venue is you have to find the perfect balance between demand and game experience. With a stadium that size the game day experience would diminish exponentially as the tickets get cheaper and the better seats inflate in price to bear the burden of providing seats below the cost of having them there in the first place.

      Also while the demand for tickets for a Liverpool game is always high you have to balance the demand for larger games with that of the games against smaller teams. There are hundreds of factors that go into these decisions and that is why the decision on Anfield is taking so much time.


      Very very true.. So many variables to consider.. I'm just grateful we have such a transparent owner for a change..
      redkop63
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 6,890 posts | 455 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #30: Aug 31, 2011 11:03:24 am
      We just get the sense that everything is perfect at Liverpool, like it used to be. amazing Manager, fantastic players, great owners, and high expectations! COME ON LIVERPOOL!

      I like the idea of a 90,000 seater stadium. 60,000 and 70,000 seater stadium means nothing nowadays in the modern game. Ok, we will have to bring in twice the number of supporters. Why not, if we can make the tickets more affordable while modern technology could easily give us the same Anfield roar. Not forgetting with a bigger stadium gives us more advertisement revenue.
      Dannylfc
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 5,010 posts | 174 
      • Always in our shadow.
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #31: Aug 31, 2011 11:12:07 am
      I understand the lure of a 90,000 seater stadium, but I honestly don't see us filling it, and thats no disrespect to the football club.

      We had less than 35,000 on against Bolton last season for a Saturday Premier league game. Albeit that was when the Owl was in charge & it was close to X mas season. But I just can't see us doubling the current matchday attendance by building another stadium.

      Would prefer 60,000-70,000 with the option to extend personally.
      Madscouser
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,814 posts | 67 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #32: Aug 31, 2011 12:45:13 pm
      Found this article while the site was down...thought it an excellent read and pretty much spot on.  http://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2011/08/the-great-net-spend-rope-trick-and-more-moneyballs/

      THE GREAT NET SPEND ROPE TRICK (AND MORE MONEYBALLS)

      by Rob Gutmann // 28 August 2011 // 26 Comments

      BACK in the dark days, when a Texan tyrant roamed free in the 2nd city of Empire, debt was the new black, and Liverpool football club was hurtling towards a never imagined abyss, its chief financier and ultimate unlikely knight in shining armour, the Royal Bank of Scotland, imposed upon the club the first in a series of double agents.

      Christian ‘Cecil’ Purslow was the initial appointment the bank charged with unofficially watching their backs, as they, like Liverpool’s by then bereft supporters, began to have more than serious concerns about the errant decision making of evil capitalist caricatures, Tom Hicks and George Gilette.

      To cut a confused and long story short, ‘Cecil’ Purslow came, saw, and tried vainly to financially restructure the club to the bank’s order. He shed his pinstripes for a tracksuit, deluded himself he was as much director of football as hired gun accountant, and made himself Gary Neville level popular on the Kop, before ultimately allying himself to the small band of corporate assassins who contrived the legendary ‘epic swindle’ that finally rid Liverpool football club of the two headed behemoth from across the Atlantic.

      Cecil slayed the dragon(s), his epitaph will read. When he gets round to writing it.

      Christian Purslow finally, and quietly, exited the scene of his crimes, misdemeanours, and perhaps grudging redemption, last winter. Gone from a club and a community that would forever associate him with their darkest hours rather than the glory of their resurrection.

      Tough luck Cecil. You came, you saw. You merited a banner depicting a big cock with your name on it, courtesy of the Kop. You got very well paid , and you got to pump your fist outside the big court house in that London. The end. The people, have now retired your memory.

      So why bring Purslow back out of his box again ? Simply, because of something the man once said. Something, one of many things, he got it in the neck for. It seemed rightly so at the time, and thus far it’s been cast into the dustbin of Hicks/Gillett era soundbite history (along with ‘a spade in the ground in 60 days’ and ‘blow me f**k face’). Consigned to dust, until  now. Watch out. Here comes the revival of Cecil Purslow’s much derided ‘player account’ world view.

      Before the summer of 2009 we, as humble football folk, had satisfied ourselves with the neat lay accountancy analysis that concluded that seeking to improve your team by investing in it, meant that you had to be spending more in transfer fees for new players than you were recouping from the proceeds of the sales of those players no longer required.

      When pressed by fans and journalists to account for Liverpool FC’s nil net transfer fee spend in the summer of ’09, Purslow directed inquisitors in the direction of that maligned ‘player account’section of the club’s published accounts. He argued that although the club had spent ‘fanny all’ (I’m paraphrasing) on transfer fees that close season it had heavily invested in new contracts for star players, including Gerard, Alonso, Kuyt and Torres.

      As ever more weary and cynical fans, we were having none of it. Wages are wages, and transfer spend is quite another thing. Equating the two, seemed on the surface, to be quite frankly a piss take. You judged a club’s commitment to its manager, its team and its future by how much it was prepared to fork out for fees on new players.

      The problem is, that that simple and neat correlation has become ever increasingly obsolete as top level wages have begun, in relative terms, to outstrip transfer fees.

      Now, it is becoming apparent in a changing economic climate in professional football, that as supporters and judges of managers and players, We’ve got to get our heads around what ‘net spend’ truly means. It has become clear that, as a quick label,  this traditional short hand measure is increasingly irrelevant, without regard to wages.

      The most obvious recent example of the folly of looking only to the net fees yardstick has been in the cases of the Andy Carroll and Kun Aguero headline making transfers. Much of the media and many fans noted the parity in the respective £35m prices on these players heads, and rushed to the judgement that Aguero, as the proven world star, was clearly the better buy.

      It was implicit that Liverpool (Dalglish/Comolli/FSG) had ‘dropped one’ in spending so much on the relatively raw potential of Carroll when for the same price they could have had the likes of the proven Aguero. The truth is, though, that whilst the fees for these two strikers were the same, the Argentinian Kun picks up around £10m a year in salary, whilst our Geordie Andy sees something closer to a much more modest £3m per annum.

      Therefore, after the fees have been paid, Aguero will cost Manchester City around a further £50m over the life of his contract, compared to the c.£15m Carroll will cost Liverpool. No comparison then in the scale of the wage deals.

      Successive managers at the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal and Man united may point to their modest net transfer spends in recent years, whilst studiously ignoring the growth in investment in their wage bills.

      Home grown talent such as Steven Gerrard or Ryan Giggs may pleasingly show up as a nil net transfer fee cost, but the growth in the size of their pay packets down the years tells a different story. Let’s guestimate that Stevie G’s new 5 year contract of 2009 cost the club a further £60k a week, to bring him into line with his well paid England colleagues at clubs like Chelsea. The cost of that deal, then, is akin to LFC paying a transfer fee of £15m (£3m per year x 5 years) just to retain one of their own players.

      Of course, the wage cost factor cuts in both directions, and we are seeing a clear manifestation of that at LFC this summer. When FSG took power at Anfield last autumn, John Henry and co. were at pains to make an observation that became somewhat lost in the clamour to ascertain ‘how much’ they were preparing to spend on a ‘transfer war chest’.

      Henry noted that the club’s wages were far too high. Well, he qualified that, by noting that they were high (and this is the key bit) relative to value. This was a marker to a fundamental FSG (Moneyball influenced) maxim – it ain’t about what you pay, but that the value attained ultimately exceeds cost.

      This approach has governed LFC transfer policy all summer long. It’s why there was a preparedness to apparently ‘overpay’ for the likes of Carroll, Henderson and Downing, why the likes of Wickham and Clichy appeared to price themselves out of moves to Anfield, and ultimately why LFC have been patient in waiting until the pricing is ‘just so’ before closing a deal on players like Adam and Enrique.

      The FSG/Moneyball war cry appears to be that ‘it will not be the market that will tell us what a player’s worth, we will dictate to it!’.Your average punter or media ‘expert’ will tell anyone and everyone that Stewart Downing was worth no more than £14-15m, tops. The Comolli computer, however, says ‘no’. In fact it says that the market, the fans and the media are all looking at players through distorted lenses and that only by looking to the correct performance statistics can true value be assessed.

      So in FSG/LFC eyes, Downing may well be so effective a player that he’d be a good buy at, say, £25m. Therefore at £18-20m he’s a great buy. Get it ?

      The critics of Liverpool’s transfer policy have indeed made a cause celebre of the Downing transfer and demanded to know ‘why buy Downing when rising Spanish star Juan Mata is available for similar money ?’.

      Bargain?

      Setting aside the obvious answer that those that truly matter and know best may well have concluded that Downing is simply the better player, or at least, the better ‘fit’ for LFC requirements, there is also the simple fact that the deals for the two players are highly unlikely to be financially comparable.

      Downing wil cost LFC about £18m (plus add ons) and about £17m in wages over the life of his 5 year contract – a total package cost of £35m then. Mata is on the verge of joining Chelsea for about £25m we hear. If his wages attract the premium that big inter European deals seem to these days we could safely estimate that a 5 year wage deal for Mata could set Chelsea back about £25m. Therefore whilst Mata is costing a total of about £50m (transfer fee and wages added together), Downing looks a lot cheaper option at £35m all in.

      Back at the old fashioned net-spend-ometer, fans and pressmen alike are looking at FSG’s gross spend of £105m since January, with about £58m recouped in sales, and concluding that they are entitled to heap big pressure on the Liverpool manager and team to deliver the improvement to match the boldness of that investment.

      Yet, if we apply the correct measure of net investment that includes the wage factor, just how bold has this summer’s LFC transfer activity actually been ?

      Here follows some broad brush stoke sums, and apologies to all implicated and to accountants everywhere for the crudeness of this analysis :

       

      LFC players signed since Jan 2011

      Andy Carroll, Luis Suarez, Doni, Charlie Adam, Jose Enrique, Jordan Henderson, Stewart Downing, Coates

      Total Gross fees(approx): £112m

      Estimated total annual wages for new signings : £23m per annum

      If we assume each player contract is for 5 years, we can then amortise the cost of their transfer fees by dividing them by 5, to give us an annual gross cost for the new signings : –

      Annual cost of transfer fees (£112m over 5 years) = £22m

      Annual cost of new player wages               = £23m

      Therefore gross total annual cost of this summer’s transfer activity = £45m

      LFC players departed since Jan 2011 and likely to be gone by 31st August

      Fernando Torres, Ryan Babel, Jovanovic, Alberto Aquilani, Paul Konchesky, David Ngog, Nabil El Zahr, Danny Pacheco, Ayala, Philip Degen, Joe Cole, Christian Poulsen, Brad Jones

      Total estimated gross fees recouped :   £72m

      Estimated annual wage savings :       £32m

      Again, if we amortise the fees by the 5 year average contract length, the annual fee recouped figure   = c.£14m

      Annual wages saved (as above) = £32m

      Therefore gross total annual cost of monies recouped this summer = £46m

       

      So, and here’s the big reveal, our true, as near-as-dammit, estimated crudely, yet probably not miles out, best approximation for net spend by LFC this summer is…….wait for it…….(drum roll) …. minus £1m.

      One whole million pounds (give or take a million or two)in credit. That’s the real likely ‘price’ of what in actuality will have been a nigh-on revolutionary turning over of the Liverpool squad.

      By August 31st, of the players we will have released, only one contributed to the first team squad in any significant way last season (Fernando Torres). The rest will not have amassed enough premiership starts between them to be equivakent to more than one more player’s worth of loss (Babel, Jovanovic, Konchesky, Ngog, Cole and Poulsen).

      Yet on the other side of the assessment, we’ve added arguably 6 players, who are all very likely to fill first 11 positions. That’s half a dozen new first teamers in, with effectively two going the other way, and all for the princely sum of one million pounds.

      A trick of the light ? Smoke and mirrors ? Sleight of hand ? Nope, just solid good old fashioned  smartness. It’s an astute business turn

      Smoke & Mirrors?

      around and needs to be seen as that in itself, regardless of the vagaries of the fickle hand of fate as yet to be revealed (like, all the new players may ‘turn out to be sh*t’).

      Come next May, be we 1st, 4th or 14th , praise or criticism will be apportioned, but let no man deem that the measure against which judgement may fall, be measured against the context that Liverpool FC have been profligate ‘spenders’ this summer. They simply haven’t been.

      John Henry vowed last year that his Liverpool would live within their means, and only spend the revenue the club self generated. Damaged by the absence of that valuable commodity ‘the truth’ during the Hicks/Gillett years, some LFC fans feared that Henry’s proclamation was a short hand for ‘we ain’t putting any of our own money in’. In fact, he’s been more faithful to his other oft quoted mantra of autumn 2010, ‘we will under promise and over deliver’.

      Henry and FSG have clearly delivered this summer. Although it is reasonable to assert that they will have engineered an effective ‘nil’ net spend, in a book balancing sense, by the time the transfer window shuts, there is no doubt that they have also provided the short term cash required to allow LFC to move swiftly and decisively in securing the key new recruits.

      This provision of necessary cash resources at a crucial phase in the club’s development is a key marker to the future. It demonstrates that the new ownership is well resourced and will be primed and able to make the big decisions in the next phase of ‘drafting’ in that will surely follow next summer.

      LFC have astutely re-aligned and remodelled a defective squad using the guile and methodology of a financially sound approach – the ‘Financially fair’ way. There is a real sense that this is only the beginning. Something special is stirring at Anfield.

      Very interesting read that
      FL Red
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 31,433 posts | 6423 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #33: Aug 31, 2011 01:46:01 pm
      I understand the lure of a 90,000 seater stadium, but I honestly don't see us filling it, and thats no disrespect to the football club.

      We had less than 35,000 on against Bolton last season for a Saturday Premier league game. Albeit that was when the Owl was in charge & it was close to X mas season. But I just can't see us doubling the current matchday attendance by building another stadium.

      Would prefer 60,000-70,000 with the option to extend personally.

      Expansion is a good point. I'm a huge Dallas Cowboys fan and if anyone knows anything about the team they recently completed a huge new stadium. The nice thing about it is that it will hold around 80,000 people in standard configuration but for special games (rivalry games, special events like college football games or the Super Bowl) it can be expanded to approximately 110,000 with standing room only added in. With some engineering know-how a stadium could be built to seat 70,000 on normal match days but be expanded to seat more for the bigger matches. Just a thought.
      HUYTON RED
      • Forum Legend - Shankly
      • ******

      • 40,493 posts | 8676 
      Re: John Henry's interview on the last 10 months as Liverpool's owner.
      Reply #34: Aug 31, 2011 03:44:49 pm
      Expansion is a good point. I'm a huge Dallas Cowboys fan and if anyone knows anything about the team they recently completed a huge new stadium. The nice thing about it is that it will hold around 80,000 people in standard configuration but for special games (rivalry games, special events like college football games or the Super Bowl) it can be expanded to approximately 110,000 with standing room only added in. With some engineering know-how a stadium could be built to seat 70,000 on normal match days but be expanded to seat more for the bigger matches. Just a thought.

      The problem is not whether we will fill or not, the whole problem is the transport issue and level of match traffic in the area.
      There was an idea to build a tramline that would lead to the city centre, but that was knocked back and under the current climate won't be okayed anytime soon.

      Quick Reply