What's the most important decision for you this summer..

I felt this was worthy of a new topic but apologies to the Mods if they feel it doesn't and want to merge with another one.

I have been thinking over the last few days and wondered what you other people thought regarding what is the most important decision to move us forward this summer.
Now I will give utterly hypothetical figures in these possibilities.

1. We are given a decision on the stadium which ever way they go either in terms of redevelopment or a new build...
Now for arguments sake we get half the money from a naming rights deal would leave us with a big figure still to find for the rest of the cost.. Say. £100 million..
Now let's face it that would come out of a potential transfer pot, from the money from Warrior and SC etc..
This would probably mean a very limited transfer fund this summer of any sales and say a token few million.
This would probably mean 1 or at a stretch 2 players coming into the squad on what we have got now and therefore expecting and needing the current squad to improve and some very smart scouting and signings.
Plus the kids supplementing and adding to the squad.

Or

2. No stadium decision and a big throw at the transfer market.. Not much point really guessing at figures but say the Warrior money, SC money, player sales and a bit extra from the owners.. So say 75 million to have a real go at making the CL and then looking at the stadium with that potential extra income..


And I'll throw this one in here as I'm sure a few think it's viable 

3. A change of manager.


I personally would go with option 1.
We need that to move forward and I would be happy to challenge the squad and manager to improve us on the pitch plus having a season together. And challenging DC and Kenny to find some gems in the market to improve us.
I'd be happy with a slow build up to get us moving forward solidly.

Because lets face it we are not going to get both of the options together, we won't get a new stadium and 75 million to fund the squad. The owners rightly do are trying to run us correctly.


Thoughts?

Option 1.

I'd be happy with a new stadium and say 1 signing ready for the first team.

Clearly a decision on the stadium has the most impact on our club so option one is the clear winner and therefore I would put this massively ahead of all player transfers. A new stadium is guaranteed income the rest is a gamble so this is an easy choice for any rational thinker.

Stadium is the most important decision for in the summer as it will help generate the funds for team strengthening and attract better investment & players.

4 quality players at a decent price too to help launch the reclaiming of the Title.

Stadium.
But then I don't think they should be mutually exclusive either.

If they were the only options then it's option one for me being as it is the only one with a definitive, long-term, objective. Option two, whilst it may give short-term satisfaction, would hold no guarantees and the money 'earned' by C.L. football would be, by far, negated by the cost of a huge spending spree. F**k option three.

We need to be challenging for top 4 next season, Option 2 for me. The bigger players we have, the more we can get from marketing deals.

Definitely option 1 for me and I would imagine that would be the same for most as the long term well being of the club is much more important than any shot term success gained from a big transfer spend this summer.

I very much doubt the costs of a new stadium will come out of the general income of the club.

The financing of a new stadium is far more likely to be as close to a 50/50 mix of sponsorship and a bank loan.

I'm still very much of the opinion that we don't need too many new players.  Just need that little bit of strengthening in the final third.

It would be easy to say option 2 and want a sizeable pot for strengthening the team/sqjad with 3 or 4 new signings, but the stadium issue has dragged on for a while now, so I'll go for option 1.

Although I do agree with JD that the stadium funding will come from a bank loan and a naming rights deal.

Having said that, I'm still hopeful that Anfield can be extended rather than moving to a new site, but I realise that this debate is all hypothetical.

you think we will put some debt back on the club rather than use current sponsorship money etc to find our side of the money?

I do too mate. The proper naming partner cuts down the debt. A portion or all of extra revenue, from increased capacity, pays down the debt at a long-term fixed rate. To be honest, short of a filthy rich, half-mental, multi-billionaire that can be the only way to fund such a project.

That would have been the 'option' which I would have voted for had it been shown.

If we're getting a new stadium then it'll probably cost around 400 or 500 million. We'll probably need to loan half of that. Nothing wrong with debt in this case, it's an investment and should be payed off within a set time. I think though, at least this is what I would do, is set getting back in the top 4 as a bigger priority for now, while researching the stadium. We'll need that CL money to pay off that loan without it affecting our budget too much.

So do people think its reasonable to expect both this summer then?

A good transfer spend and a stadium announcement? Am I being to pessimistic only setting myself for one of the two?

Think the Stadium is the most important thing for us regardless of who we buy we. We have to look after the long term future of the club even if it hurts us in the near future

In reality it wont hurt the transfer budge at all xBooniex, they're completely independant things on a business model. Profits and revenue go towards player investment, funds for a stadium will be generated through a naming partner, investor capital and debt and these will be repaid through the increase in revenue some time in the future.

So do people think its reasonable to expect both this summer then?

A good transfer spend and a stadium announcement? Am I being to pessimistic only setting myself for one of the two?

The finance factored in to facilitate the refurbishment of Anfield or construction of a new stadium falls outside the remit of
the Financial Fair Play restrictrions. Therefor if we can secure and long term loan along with a sponsor, with 50/50 split of
cost, then it is entirely reasonable to expect us to have a few quality signings in the summer.

Given our Warrior and SC deals a minimum expenditure of 50 million wouldn't be far fetched or knee jerking,
but rather an expectation that our increased revenue gets reinvested in the club.
Seeing that we have trimmed the wage bill last summer there should be a good opportunity to challenge
for a few top quality signings in the summer and then adjust the squad based on who wants to leave.

Profits and revenue go towards player investment

Whilst that much is true Luke, so far anyway, it may also be the case that a 'deposit' may be required to secure funding. It's possible (although it may not be the case) that this 'deposit' may be funded from 'profits' rather than further debt.

I can see the 'legitimacy' and rationale of stadium debt but not the rationale behind borrowing £100m plus for players in the chance that we may recoup a portion of it with C.L. qualification. Having said that... we really don't need to go spending 'serious' amounts of money anyhow in my opinion.

'deposit' may be funded from 'profits' rather than further debt.

Or we could get a sponsor to make a large upfront payment.

The finance factored in to facilitate the refurbishment of Anfield or construction of a new stadium falls outside the remit of
the Financial Fair Play restrictrions. Therefor if we can secure and long term loan along with a sponsor, with 50/50 split of
cost, then it is entirely reasonable to expect us to have a few quality signings in the summer.

Given our Warrior and SC deals a minimum expenditure of 50 million wouldn't be far fetched or knee jerking,
but rather an expectation that our increased revenue gets reinvested in the club.
Seeing that we have trimmed the wage bill last summer there should be a good opportunity to challenge
for a few top quality signings in the summer and then adjust the squad based on who wants to leave.

Saying all this then regarding the financing of a new stadium.. Which to be honest I'm very happy to be educated on.. What is the major aspect holding back a decision? I assumed and still do that they are fully researching the true demand of a week in week out bums on seats..
So what's holding back beyond that? Finding the naming partner? I may sound naive but I would still think right now there would be companies out there that would want to be linked with us.. Or is the recession meaning companies are potentially not offering the figure we would like? The banks not willing to lend?

Do people expect a decision this summer or ...

So do people think its reasonable to expect both this summer then?

It's not beyond the realms of possibility P_diddy. The problem only rises when folk expect F.S.G. to borrow huge amounts of money for transfers AND a stadium.

These are huge amounts we're talking here; a fraction of 1% either way, over X amount of time, would cost big time. They have to get it right. The time it's taking would indicate that they're certainly trying to do just that.

Having said that... we really don't need to go spending 'serious' amounts of money anyhow in my opinion.

I'm of the same opinion Bub..

Team first and ....and then back regularly into the CL

Other wise the stadium may not fill if we become another mid table non entity.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility P_diddy. The problem only rises when folk expect F.S.G. to borrow huge amounts of money for transfers AND a stadium.

In my original post that's kind of a point I was trying to make mate which you have nailed..

I was only trying to suggest that the stadium in the short term may affect the spending power in the market and people should maybe prepare for that. You and others have swerved me slightly on that but nailed it on the head there.

In my original post that's kind of a point I was trying to make mate which you have nailed..

I was only trying to suggest that the stadium in the short term may affect the spending power in the market and people should maybe prepare for that. You and others have swerved me slightly on that but nailed it on the head there.

I think though most people here, with some exceptions, don't expect the owners to loan money for transfers anyway. Transfer budget would always come from the profit and player sales. And a new stadium does not have to affect that budget, it can be self sufficient as far as financing goes.

In my original post that's kind of a point I was trying to make mate which you have nailed..

I was only trying to suggest that the stadium in the short term may affect the spending power in the market and people should maybe prepare for that. You and others have swerved me slightly on that but nailed it on the head there.

It's slightly complicated though.
Arsenal have delicately balanced it for years and should see it pay off when the repayments finish.
If we don't invest in the playing staff then how beneficial is a half empty stadium.
As much as we all hate glory hunters, you need to be successful/entertaining to attract the masses.
Investment in the stadium without investment in players would be a bit like building a motorway without having any cars.

Like I said. The FFP won't factor stadium debt so we should be able to have some good investment if we continue to expand our revenues.

Stadium is a must, but i am more inclined to look at investment in players, and when I say investment I mean just that. Our scouting needs looking at because we need to find players like Alonso, Torres, who, when they did move on we made a profit, other clubs do it regularly.

Does that not fall into becoming a "selling club" though? Ideally you want to build on your stars not sell them on and start again..

Does that not fall into becoming a "selling club" though? Ideally you want to build on your stars not sell them on and start again..

You don't have to sell them all. But you could be smart about your incoming transfers and youth development, make sure that if you do sell it's for a healthy profit. Arsenal is often criticised on here, and ofcourse their policy isn't perfect. But if you look at our club, with our prestige, worldwide support, sponsorship deals and commercial attractivity. Combine that with smart scouting and youth development, kind of like Arsenal do. Then we're able to achieve alot more than Arsenal, dare I say win things. Especially when you do spend some more money, unlike Arsenal who have like over 100 million cash reserve. But, that's just how I see it.

You don't have to sell them all. But you could be smart about your incoming transfers and youth development, make sure that if you do sell it's for a healthy profit. Arsenal is often criticised on here, and ofcourse their policy isn't perfect. But if you look at our club, with our prestige, worldwide support, sponsorship deals and commercial attractivity. Combine that with smart scouting and youth development, kind of like Arsenal do. Then we're able to achieve alot more than Arsenal, dare I say win things. Especially when you do spend some more money, unlike Arsenal who have like over 100 million cash reserve. But, that's just how I see it.

Yes your right, I was just pointing ( possibly the obvious) that selling too many of the likes of Alonso and Torres won't get you moving forward very quickly.
No matter how much I respect Arsenal's policy, possibly the reason they haven't kicked on is that they have sold too many Fabregas and Nasri types..

By the rules you set forth, I pick #2. Because we don't need a stadium decision this summer -- it can be delayed till the fall or winter. But we NEED two excellent attacking players added this summer, it can't wait -- players of the Lucas/Agger/Suarez/Reina quality. Hopefully it's a striker and a winger.

seriously need a decision soon on the stadium, think this should be number 1 priority as for transfers i think if we only had a limited amount then it has to be spent on a striker, sorry andy, dirk, stuart & luis, but the glaring downside of the team has been number of goals scored so if we had cash for only maybe 1 player it would have to be spent on a striker.

Yes your right, I was just pointing ( possibly the obvious) that selling too many of the likes of Alonso and Torres won't get you moving forward very quickly.
No matter how much I respect Arsenal's policy, possibly the reason they haven't kicked on is that they have sold too many Fabregas and Nasri types..

Selling the likes of Alonso and Torres wasn't the killing part of our transfer activity.
For two very different reasons we didn't replace them adequately.
If we can get the recruitment right at youth and first team level then by all means,
buying a player in their teens/early twenties and selling them (At a profit) when the peak
is a very shrewd policy.

The big problem with that is if the player moves on before you have some more lined up
to replace them down the line and end up panic buying or failing to reinvest the funds.

Yes your right, I was just pointing ( possibly the obvious) that selling too many of the likes of Alonso and Torres won't get you moving forward very quickly.
No matter how much I respect Arsenal's policy, possibly the reason they haven't kicked on is that they have sold too many Fabregas and Nasri types..

I don't think that's the reason why Arsenal haven't kicked on. Arsenal have the 4th highest total wages in the Premier League. You can't expect them to pay more than United, Chelsea or City. They could've been a bit wiser with incoming transfers, defensively especially. And maybe spend a bit more, instead of saving up. But besides that they're just about performing to their capabilities without putting themself at financial risk. But our revenue potential is much higher than Arsenal's, so we should be able to compete more with those other clubs. We're already paying similar wages in total now, while not having performed as well as they have the last years, and not having played CL.

By the rules you set forth, I pick #2. Because we don't need a stadium decision this summer -- it can be delayed till the fall or winter. But we NEED two excellent attacking players added this summer, it can't wait -- players of the Lucas/Agger/Suarez/Reina quality. Hopefully it's a striker and a winger.

Agree with this 100%.  If we have another poor showing in the league next year, we may see some of our better players like Reina and Suarez in particular looking for a move away to a club they can win titles and trophies with. 

I would rather see us invest heavily into the squad this summer and build a top side with a lower average age.  Then, we would just need to try to maintain our status as a top team for around 5 years until the debt from the new stadium was close to being paid off.  When you are a top side, it is easier to sign quality players on Bosman transfers, and we already have a good youth setup in place so I think this would be achievable.  We might require a little bit of money here and there, but maintaining a top side is easier than building one. 

Not whinging and moaning every time a result go our way.

Grab the torch and pitchforks.

Not whinging and moaning every time a result go our way.

Grab the torch and pitchforks.

You better row in with the popular opinion or we'll hunt you down.

Didn't want this to appear negative by the way, just thought it was an interesting talking point.

And I'm not putting down rules or anything. If anyone wants to open up the debate and give other ways they would like to go or think we will go then throw it in the pot.

Didn't want this to appear negative by the way, just thought it was an interesting talking point.

It is an interesting talking point, specifically as one of our directors (Ian Ayre maybe) just mentioned the other day that the new/renovated stadium is a delicate subject because the owners have to decide if it is better to invest into that, or directly into the squad.  I don't remember everything from the article, but the basic point was that an additional 20,000 ticket sales per game will only raise an extra 8-13M in revenues per year.  However, when you think that it will cost 300-600M to build a brand new stadium, then you realize that it could take between 25-40 years for a new stadium to really start to pay off.  So, when you think of it that way, the 20M bonus you get from competing in the Champions League seems to be a more realistic and attainable short term goal. 

Edit:  Here is the link to the Ayre interview for anyone interested:  http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/no-simple-stadium-decision-for-liverpool-admits-ian-ayre-7575163.html

To add to the debate on the stadium I agree with JD.  Funding will come from both naming rights (if it's Stanley Park), sponsors (if it's redevelopment) and some sort of loan.

The main issue is getting the decision right.  The cost of redevelopment could end up more than Stanley Park, as we will lose a naming rights partner plus the additional funds from not selling Anfield and the land owned around it for development.

That's how Arsenal have managed to pay back their loan so quickly.  Although not as quickly as they wanted due to the housing markets crashing.

It wouldn't surprise me if NESV have been waiting to see what happens in the City, with the Peel Holdings development, as this could have a massive impact on their plans

The lack of serious match day revenue over the last 20 years has cost us far more than being out of the CL for the last couple of seasons.

There will be money available for transfers in the summer regardless of the Stadium issue as there is still cash in the bank from last summers sales, less outgoings in wages for a season, sponsor money and player sales from this summer. 

I don't remember everything from the article, but the basic point was that an additional 20,000 ticket sales per game will only raise an extra 8-13M in revenues per year.

Interesting figures harry.

Going on what little I know - with a £2m matchday revenue for 45k attendance; a 25% increase in attendance (15k) would work out @ an increase of £9.5m per year - based on only 19 league games and no increase in ticket prices or corporate boxes. A 5% increase in ticket cost would see increase in revenue rise to around £17.5m - again with no corporate boxes. @ 20k extra the upper figure would rise to around £22m additional per annum.

Of course this is 'gross' not net.

Increased matchday revenue is really more to do with long term strategy - I guess it all depends how far-sighted one wants to be. It'll be an interesting Summer.

Interesting figures harry.

Going on what little I know - with a £2m matchday revenue for 45k attendance; a 25% increase in attendance (15k) would work out @ an increase of £9.5m per year - based on only 19 league games and no increase in ticket prices or corporate boxes. A 5% increase in ticket cost would see increase in revenue rise to around £17.5m - again with no corporate boxes. @ 20k extra the upper figure would rise to around £22m additional per annum.

Of course this is 'gross' not net.

Increased matchday revenue is really more to do with long term strategy - I guess it all depends how far-sighted one wants to be. It'll be an interesting Summer.

It all adds up. I think if we went to a new stadium instead of redeloping anfield we would see a shitload money come in.

I think we only need one or two players if we are going to do option 1.

And I'm not putting down rules or anything. If anyone wants to open up the debate and give other ways they would like to go or think we will go then throw it in the pot.

As you wish mate.

The most important decision made in the summer could be if Kenny decides to buy someone to put the ball in the net and more importantly who that player is.

It might seem too simplistic to boil it down to this but I guarantee if we had a player who scores for fun and we converted many of the chances we created this season we wouldn't be having half the debate and arguments we have had over the last month or so.

STADIUM!

As you wish mate.

The most important decision made in the summer could be if Kenny decides to buy someone to put the ball in the net and more importantly who that player is.

It might seem too simplistic to boil it down to this but I guarantee if we had a player who scores for fun and we converted many of the chances we created this season we wouldn't be having half the debate and arguments we have had over the last month or so.

Sad but true.  I truly believe that if we had a finisher of the likes of Benzema, Van Persie, Aguero, Villa, Ibra, etc we would be sitting in the top 4 right now, and possibly even battling it out for the title.  Shame we didn't take a gamble on Ibra when he left Barca for 20M to go to Milan....

For me, it's gotta be the transfer market. Having the revenues from a new stadium or a redeveloped Anfield will be nice, but I'd much rather see the team winning for fun, and challenge for titles and CL spots - and more!. Without going into debt, of course.   

I would like us to sort out the squad firstly but theres no reason why they can't work on both this summer. Personally I don't think we're going to here anything regarding the stadium for quite some time yet. It's extremely important we start getting results in the league and getting back on our perch as soon as possible.

Personally I would like to sort out the squad first. I think there is a lot that needs sorting. I think however there is a lot that can be sold to generate some revenue to assist with this.
The ideal situation would be 1+2. Would be nice to think that stadium has been planned separately and would not directly effect transfers.
There is talk of naming rights etc as well as usual finance deals to fund this so it may not overly effect the transfer policy but who knows.

I very much doubt the costs of a new stadium will come out of the general income of the club.

The financing of a new stadium is far more likely to be as close to a 50/50 mix of sponsorship and a bank loan.

I'm still very much of the opinion that we don't need too many new players.  Just need that little bit of strengthening in the final third.

Anfield was set up if I remember correctly as a separate entity much like FSG did with Fenway. As such the club itself will lease the stadium and in turn take a % of the gate receipts and merchandise sales where Anfield itself will take the rest.

It would be easy to say stadium if our summer signings had paid off but....

It would be easy to say stadium if our summer signings had paid off but....

.......... Then what would people moan about?

.......... Then what would people moan about?

Getting a stadium done.

Do I shoot myself if the Bitters were to finish above us !

Do I shoot myself if the Bitters were to finish above us !

No unless they beat us in the FA cup semi.

For me,the most important decision is the response from NESV to our season's performance.I would personally prefer them not to throw silly money at "reputation" players.They need to remove under-performing,so called "star" players,re-vamp the squad,and basically do what Shanks did 47 years ago,find the right players from whatever background,to fit our system,not change the system to pander to player's ego's.Reputations are sustained by what you do every week,not what you've done or might do in the future.As Confucious once said,"put up or f&ck off".

Make a move for some world class players!!! We need a stronger squad to compete in the league and so on.Here is a little article i read ........

When Liverpool won their first trophy for six years last month, beating Cardiff on penalties in the Carling Cup final, the club's co-owners John W Henry and Tom Werner were photographed flanking Kenny Dalglish in celebration.

It was the Liverpool manager who placed his arms around them, to bring the three most important men at the club closer together - a picture of unity.

But one month on, with Champions League football for next season now a faded prospect after five defeats in their last six Premier League games, just how long will that triumvirate remain united?

In some respects Henry and Werner might see their first full season in charge as a rerun of their revival of the Boston Red Sox. After all, they won the World Series in 2004, just two years after a takeover.

Only one cup has been handed out so far this season and Liverpool have it. But the Carling Cup is not the World Series. And nor, for all its greater glory, is the FA Cup. And 18 months on from that much-vaunted takeover, after £113million of spending, are Liverpool actually any closer to building a team that might qualify for the Champions League?
 

Are they anywhere nearer building the new stadium the club so desperately need? That is the £65m question that confronts any Liverpool owner, the gap between the £43m Liverpool make each season from matches and the £108m Manchester United make.

In fact, the graph of Liverpool's decline and United's rise correlates almost exactly to the inertia at Anfield over the last 20 years and energy that has been invested in expanding Old Trafford, a 10-year project that started in 1996.

Sources within Liverpool would argue that progress has been made on the stadium since Henry and Werner took over. Two options are being considered: the redevelopment of Anfield or a complete rebuild with a naming rights deal on Stanley Park, for which planning permission has been obtained.


It is said plenty of work is progressing behind the scenes, not least on a naming rights deal. And it is not that the owners are not engaged, despite being in the USA.

Indeed, one of the accusations Henry and Werner face in Boston is that they are spending too much time and money on Liverpool to the detriment of the Red Sox. However, on the day that Liverpool take on Newcastle, there are uncomfortable comparisons they might wish to make with their opponents.

Henry and Werner bought Liverpool evangelising about Moneyball, their baseball philosophy of recognising undervalued talent and using it to bolster both the balance sheet and the trophy cabinet.

They hired a French talent scout in Damien Comolli as director of football to assist Dalglish in spotting such sporting gems and then promptly spent £113m on Andy Carroll, Luis Suarez, Jordan Henderson, Stewart Downing, Charlie Adam, Jose Enrique and Sebastian Coates, as well as obtaining Alexander Doni and Craig Bellamy on free transfers.


Although they have sold players for £69m, Dalglish and Comolli's net spend has been £44m, with only Suarez, Enrique and Bellamy rated successes.

In the same time, Newcastle have spent £22.5m on Demba Ba, Yohan Cabaye, Papiss Cisse, Gabriel Obertan, Davide Santon, Mehdi Abeid and Sylvain Marveaux and have sold players for a total of £48m.

While Liverpool's wage bill was £121m at the last count in 2010, Newcastle's was £53.6m in 2011. And Newcastle are eight points clear of Liverpool. Henry and Werner might be entitled to ask who exactly are the Premier League's Moneyball experts.
 

Observers in Boston say that Henry and Werner are cautious owners, not intemperate hirers and firers in the mould of Roman Abramovich. They did sack Red Sox manager Terry Francona last October but that was after a spectacular end-of-season collapse and after eight years in charge which had elicited two World Series titles.

Dalglish is barely a year into his reign and has already won a cup so it is hardly the time to panic. But after the shambolic 3-2 capitulation at QPR, even Alan Hansen, Dalglish's friend and golf partner, was moved to suggest that Liverpool were becoming little more than a cup team.

Since they last won the title in 1989-90, Liverpool could be said to have challenged in only four title races. And if you are to be a cup team, it does help if one of the cups you win is the Champions League, as Liverpool did in 2005.

Henry and Werner have certainly bought into a famous global brand. But they do not seem much closer to getting the team and stadium to go with it.

great post but i hate all the cup team stuff, why are we "now a cup team", because we won a cup?

it's a long process that will continue this summer. i'd imagine the wage bill will be trimmed down as it was when the new regime came in and we got rid of so many players on obscene wages - although we still have a bunch of them, we're still paying a lot for joe cole aren't we? but if we continue our rebuilding ways it will only get better and we'll only get stronger.

By that reckoning we have been a cup team for some time and not only recently. We have won cups on and off still despite our lack of premier league success. Whilst I am desperate to win the league I would be happy to see us pick up a league and FA Cup win as a consolation, especially during the first full season of a rebuild job.
At the end of the day if we can complete a double then we have still won more than anyone bar whoever wins the league unless Chelsea were to win the CL.....unlikely.
My only concern about no CL football is for attracting players. The likes of Spurs in recent years and Newcastle more recently however have shown that even when you are a team not in the Champions League that you can pick up the players that can improve you and usher you back towards those heights if your scouting team are up to the task.
Im hoping that given this years poor league form that Kenny has learned lessons, be that his own transfers or the fact he has trusted in others making the signings too much.