Qatari company seek to Sponsor LFC and rename Anfield (?)

Like I said, given the choice, I'd rather stay 7th - I can still support the team regardless

So there's no real point in FSG seeking sponsorship, increasing revenue or building/refurbishing the stadium then. Not if they are going to waste it on new, top quality, top dollar, players. Hmm, not so sure I can buy into that. 

It's a new take on things but If that's your opinion then fair enough mate; each to their own. 

         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side issue (and just a thought): FSG did say that, because they aren't in this for profit, they would put any and all profits back into the club (no problems there) but should this exclude them from investing some of their own money in addition? Footing the bill for a refurb, for example. Thoughts?

So there's no real point in FSG seeking sponsorship, increasing revenue or building/refurbishing the stadium then.

Why do you say that? Of course there is - I'm just saying that ploughing it all into one playing is a daft idea in long term

Not if they are going to waste it on new, top quality, top dollar, players. Hmm, not so sure I can buy into that.

I can't see how you can 'waste' money on 'top quality players', unless they are demanding obscene amounts of money, for that, I've expressed my concern.

It's a new take on things but If that's your opinion then fair enough mate; each to their own. 

My opinion is that paying £331,000 a week for one player is ridiculous, is unsustainable, and simply not worth it in the bigger picture

So there's no real point in FSG seeking sponsorship, increasing revenue or building/refurbishing the stadium then. Not if they are going to waste it on new, top quality, top dollar, players. Hmm, not so sure I can buy into that. 

It's a new take on things but If that's your opinion then fair enough mate; each to their own. 

         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side issue (and just a thought): FSG did say that, because they aren't in this for profit, they would put any and all profits back into the club (no problems there) but should this exclude them from investing some of their own money in addition? Footing the bill for a refurb, for example. Thoughts?

Shouldn't exclude them but with the recent doldrums in the US economy (and the rest of the world for that matter), I would bet they are a bit gun shy to invest 100m (just pulled that number out of the air) of their own money into the stadium with worries about what happens if the economy takes a bigger dump.

Not to mention, this business about the supporters group trying to gain a controlling interest in what happens with the stadium....how would that play with the owners...I doubt they'd be willing to invest money in something that they didn't have the controlling interest over? (and that's not just FSG mind you, I'd assume most owners would be gun shy at that prospect).

My opinion is that paying £331,000 a week for one player is ridiculous, is unsustainable, and simply not worth it in the bigger picture

Good point you are making, still it is up to the free market to decide what is sensible and what is not. Nowadays the stakes are high, the teams earn enormous amounts from sponsorships, TV rights, tickets and more, so if there is a player who can make the difference for them, they are willing to pay. This works well until some owners start pouring money out of their own pockets, and that is what the fair play rules are supposed to prevent, I hope they do.

Btw did not Barca and Real have some sort of fan based ownership? That is the best possible in my eyes.

Why do you say that? Of course there is - I'm just saying that ploughing it all into one playing is a daft idea in long term
I can't see how you can 'waste' money on 'top quality players', unless they are demanding obscene amounts of money, for that, I've expressed my concern.
My opinion is that paying £331,000 a week for one player is ridiculous, is unsustainable, and simply not worth it in the bigger picture

Mate it's as clear as day what you first wrote; don't be coming the aul, soft, man. You said "if that's what money can get you" you would "rather stay in 7th".

When pushed, on your initial 'speak' and asked -"... if, for arguments sake, we were to fall into £250m/£350m "sponsorship" (from all arts and parts); would you not want the money spent on big money, quality, players... as a matter of "principle"? Would you really prefer us "to stay 7th"?" You wrote - "given the choice, I'd rather stay 7th". That's a totally unambiguous question and answer mate and either left little room for doubt. 

You've since, after some thought, I assume, decided to revise your initial statements. I've no problem with that Rush; like I said to you, in another thread, that's what debate can lead to. A wee wriggle here, a bit of a squirm there and hey presto!... We're off the hook.

S'all good tho'... no point in clogging up a thread with daft sh*t like this; eh? 

Good point you are making, still it is up to the free market to decide what is sensible and what is not. Nowadays the stakes are high, the teams earn enormous amounts from sponsorships, TV rights, tickets and more, so if there is a player who can make the difference for them, they are willing to pay. This works well until some owners start pouring money out of their own pockets, and that is what the fair play rules are supposed to prevent, I hope they do.

Btw did not Barca and Real have some sort of fan based ownership? That is the best possible in my eyes.

I thought the big Spanish clubs were subsidized in part by the government. Maybe I'm wrong on that, could have sworn I read it somewhere.

Next step - sorting out the stadium.

Ain't no stadium. Sorted.

On a side issue (and just a thought): FSG did say that, because they aren't in this for profit, they would put any and all profits back into the club (no problems there) but should this exclude them from investing some of their own money in addition? Footing the bill for a refurb, for example. Thoughts?

Is that why FSG remain in Boston 90% of the time, is that why they seem unconcerned with our league status, is that why they refuse to back up the squad to a satisfactory number - because they do not want to make a profit.
Those measures will certainly help in their quest to avoid profit.
What confounds me is the fact that they are businessmen, entrepeneurs who have managed a very comfortable life style with exactly the opposite objectives to those adopted with LFC.
Why do they abandon a modus operandi that has made them extremely wealthy men?

Could their platitudes be just that and worthless rhetoric in general.

Mate it's as clear as day what you first wrote; don't be coming the aul, soft, man. You said "if that's what money can get you" you would "rather stay in 7th".

So what's the problem? There's no contradiction, I'm still maintaining that paying 331k for one player is stupid, and I'd rather we stayed in 7th. Principles.

When pushed, on your initial 'speak' and asked -"... if, for arguments sake, we were to fall into £250m/£350m "sponsorship" (from all arts and parts); would you not want the money spent on big money, quality, players... as a matter of "principle"? Would you really prefer us "to stay 7th"?" You wrote - "given the choice, I'd rather stay 7th". That's a totally unambiguous question and answer mate and either left little room for doubt.

I would not pay 331k for one player - I'd rather us stay 7th if that's the way things are going to go.

I cannot say it any clearer than that.

You've since, after some thought, I assume, decided to revise your initial statements. I've no problem with that Rush; like I said to you, in another thread, that's what debate can lead to. A wee wriggle here, a bit of a squirm there and hey presto!... We're off the hook.

I've revised nothing. Perhaps if you could clearly and concisely show me where I've revised my initial thoughts

S'all good tho'... no point in clogging up a thread with daft sh*t like this; eh? 

The problem is that you are seeing an issue where there isn't one.

To clarify, paying 331k for one player is stupid, it's a terrible idea long term. If that means we stay 7th because we cannot afford those kinds of ludicrous wages, then I'll be happy to stay 7th

As for the return statement that there's no point FSG looking out for sponsors, I never said that at all. In fact, I'd welcome a £350m sponsor, but if it mean throwing it all at one player, then that to me is a total waste of income.

Now where's the wiggling on my behalf? I know what I'm saying and I've said it as clear as I possibly can.

Big money sponsor is great, but how you spend that, is a completely different subject. That is my point

Looking at it I think this link for a stadia sponsor could be the club putting it out there maybe to put pressure on current sponsors to do a deal.

What company commercial wise would put a name against a brand that won't be participating in European football & no longer is a top 4 club? Yes the PL is big draw but the CL is where all sponsors want their name in bright lights.

Why the owners won't put in their own cash to make us more attractive to investment is very surprising being these are clever business men or are they expecting someone else to pay for the privilege of owning LFC.

I was going to write a long meaningful message about Anfield, then I talked to my Father about renaming Anfield for the buck.

 Me Dad said " tell um to F**k off, bas**rds, its Anfield"   

So what's the problem? There's no contradiction, I'm still maintaining that paying 331k for one player is stupid... 

... I would not pay 331k for one player - I'd rather us stay 7th if that's the way things are going to go.

I cannot say it any clearer than that.

And who would argue with that... except that wasn't the question I asked. 

Maybe that's where you are still getting yourself confused mate? Read the question I actually asked again...

"So if, for arguments sake, we were to fall into £250m/£350m "sponsorship" (from all arts and parts); would you not want the money spent on big money, quality, players... as a matter of "principle"?"

You will note that I made no reference, whatsoever, to £331k per week wages or just a single player. [I've even taken the liberty of underlining the relevant part.].

Your answer was "Like I said, given the choice, [spending the money on big money, quality, players or staying 7th] I'd rather stay 7th": which, given the actual question, I found strange but did remark "fair enough".

You then started posting (and re-posting) your stance on a single player earning £331k; which would have been fine if I  asked the question: "would you not want the money spent on one, player earning £331k per week?"... but I didn't. 

The problem is that you are seeing an issue where there isn't one.

Nah, it's not. In fact I've no problem (this end) at all mate and I've said as much a couple of times now but just to reassure you... If you would rather, (as you said, very clearly), we finished 7th than spent any sponsorship money "on big money, quality, players" then that's fine by me.

Personally speaking tho' they are the only thing I'd spend the money on. Including the whoopeedoo sponsorship money  (should it materialise) by the way.  *slippy tits back on topic.

To those of you who would consider renaming Anfield I would pose two questions: -

1) Is that because on the whole that sounds like a good idea OR because you believe we need investment to move forward and compete?

2) If the answer to the above is the latter - then by default is that not more a reflection on your faith in the owners ability to drive this club forward?

My supposition is simple - if anybody really thought we were on the right journey they'd say "f#ck off - this is Anfield! we'll get there without this".

It's like a religious man walking round with "The Bible....by Dyno-Rod"

Fowler wept.

"So if, for arguments sake, we were to fall into £250m/£350m "sponsorship" (from all arts and parts); would you not want the money spent on big money, quality, players... as a matter of "principle"?"

You will note that I made no reference, whatsoever, to £331k per week wages or just a single player. [I've even taken the liberty of underlining the relevant part.].

Your answer was "Like I said, given the choice, [spending the money on big money, quality, players or staying 7th] I'd rather stay 7th": which, given the actual question, I found strange but did remark "fair enough".

You then started posting (and re-posting) your stance on a single player earning £331k; which would have been fine if I  asked the question: "would you not want the money spent on one, player earning £331k per week?"... but I didn't. 
Nah, it's not. In fact I've no problem (this end) at all mate and I've said as much a couple of times now but just to reassure you... If you would rather, (as you said, very clearly), we finished 7th than spent any sponsorship money "on big money, quality, players" then that's fine by me.

Personally speaking tho' they are the only thing I'd spend the money on. Including the whoopeedoo sponsorship money  (should it materialise) by the way.  *slippy tits back on topic.

I'm all for having millions, but if it came to spending it all on one player - I'd rather stay 7th.

My post, was all to do with the 331k, that's why I posted that tweet about 331k.

"So if, for arguments sake, we were to fall into £250m/£350m "sponsorship" (from all arts and parts); would you not want the money spent on big money, quality, players... as a matter of "principle"?"

In response to your post, I thought I was clear in highlighting the money being spent on one player. I have no qualms about it being spent on, say, 4 or 5 quality player(s). I assumed that was obvious from the context of my posts - I was wrong. No harm done.


Here it is:

raphael honigstein ‏@honigstein 2h

. @SPORTBILD report that Götze turned down a €20m per year offer from Man City last month. that's GBP 331k per week...

If that's what money can get you - I'm more than happy to stay 7th

Principles

I see what's happened, I or you mentioned 'player(s)', one extra letter, I didn't catch that, but my whole point was the ludicrous money being bandied about for one player.

Players, no probs, player, big probs. That's not wriggling out of anything though, my initial post/tweet is evident I was badgering on about the amount for one player.

I was going to write a long meaningful message about Anfield, then I talked to my Father about renaming Anfield for the buck.

 Me Dad said " tell um to f**k off, bas**rds, its Anfield"   

Wise man your Dad.

Wise man your Dad.

I will tell him you said that, it will make his day

 What I was hoping to say (not sure if I did) Anfield is emotive, it is above the balance sheet. I wish I could put into words what it means, I cant.

 It is Anfield

I will tell him you said that, it will make his day

 What I was hoping to say (not sure if I did) Anfield is emotive, it is above the balance sheet. I wish I could put into words what it means, I cant.

 It is Anfield

You just did 

I will tell him you said that, it will make his day

 What I was hoping to say (not sure if I did) Anfield is emotive, it is above the balance sheet. I wish I could put into words what it means, I cant.

 It is Anfield

Makes sense to me, that's why it shouldn't get renamed. You would hope that FSG would understand this with Fenway Park being the same type of place for Red Sox fans. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

Makes sense to me, that's why it shouldn't get renamed. You would hope that FSG would understand this with Fenway Park being the same type of place for Red Sox fans. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

I was thinking earlier FL and i was after your opinion as a sensible lad..

A fair few of our American reds seem less upset by the thought of re-naming Anfield, now i understand the world has changed and the game has followd suit but in my opinion some things should be sacred, Anfield being one no matter the price.. If we moved grounds then they could call it what they want..
Do the reds across the pond not see our distain at the prospect because sport is different over there to an extent? I mean some teams/franchises have moved states in the past in different sports right? So naming of a stadium isnt seen as a big deal in the grand sceme? Or am i way off base?

Genuinely interested is all

I was thinking earlier FL and i was after your opinion as a sensible lad..

A fair few of our American reds seem less upset by the thought of re-naming Anfield, now i understand the world has changed and the game has followd suit but in my opinion some things should be sacred, Anfield being one no matter the price.. If we moved grounds then they could call it what they want..
Do the reds across the pond not see our distain at the prospect because sport is different over there to an extent? I mean some teams/franchises have moved states in the past in different sports right? So naming of a stadium isnt seen as a big deal in the grand sceme? Or am i way off base?

Genuinely interested is all

I don't think it should be renamed at any cost, I thought I'd forwarded my opinion earlier in the thread but maybe I'm mis-remembering.

Either way, any time a sports club/franchise owns an iconic stadium, I'm never in favor of sponsorship naming. I suppose it has worked out in some instances but when you are talking about an historic field such as Anfield it makes no sense to me.

The trends in American sports are that the venues are getting bigger and more technologically advanced and to pay for that the owners get sponsors. I'm a huge NFL fan and it's definitely the norm in the league. One of the only stadiums that doesn't have a sponsorship name is Lambeau Field in Green Bay. Probably the most iconic of all of the NFL stadiums. Off the top of my head I can't think of too many others.

The Cowboys (my "other" team) built a new stadium a few years back and it's something to behold technologically.....but no history whatsoever like old Texas Stadium where they use to play. For now it's just called Cowboys Stadium...no sponsorship but it's coming and I suppose it won't matter to me because like I said, there's no history there.

Interesting note about Green Bay....that club is technically publically owned, with the fans able to buy "shares" in the club and have a piece of ownership. Their season tickets are also impossible to get. Basically locals put their kids names on a list so that when they are older they might have a chance to get a season ticket. 

@AnfieldMole 10s
Some news on the ooredoo deal I can't say much but interest is real and its about to step up a level next week #lfc

We may be getting somewhere with this.

@AnfieldMole 10s
Some news on the ooredoo deal I can't say much but interest is real and its about to step up a level next week #lfc

We may be getting somewhere with this.

Let's hope

Specifically, let's hope for about, oh I dunno, £500m and keeping Anfield's name

Let's hope

Specifically, let's hope for about, oh I dunno, £500m and keeping Anfield's name

That guys second tweet was stating that it's only a sponsorship deal. I hope that rules out renaming then.