Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12-Jan 2012 onwards

tommyhaas · 18-01-2012 5:43pm

Sasquatch76 wrote: »

So does anyone know what the original Parry design was like inside? As generic as the outside, or does it have a "new" Kop for example?

That's the link http://aflarch.demonweb.co.uk/projects.php?action=showProject&catID=43&projectID=169

When I initially saw it, I though the new Kop was two tiered from the picture as its not a close up, but it is a single tier

5starpool · 18-01-2012 5:43pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

In Europe it works. With our wage bill I'd be suprised if we had tickets that cheap. Hope I'm wrong.

It was a half price offer tbf, and it was Everton

You'd need to pay me a decent sum of money to go to Everton Stoke.

Also, Everton haven't been selling out games, so it's easier to price yourself lower if you know that you might get someone at £20, but definitely won't get them at £35.

daithijjj · 18-01-2012 5:45pm

The last i read on the stadium was that we were going ahead with the 'parrybowl', however, the designers of that one (AFL?) would be making some adjustments to those designs that would not affect the planning permission already given.

Another point is, that any new design would not be guaranteed planning permission and it could take up to 3 years more. FK DAT.

Bobeagleburger · 18-01-2012 5:47pm

Stadium should have built 20 years ago in fairness.

tommyhaas · 18-01-2012 5:48pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

In Europe it works. With our wage bill I'd be suprised if we had tickets that cheap. Hope I'm wrong.

It was a half price offer tbf, and it was Everton

Tickets to Goodison are substantially less then Anfield in general though even for the derby, though I'd agree you get what you pay for

Obviously at present the wage bill and lower prices couldn't be balanced, my point is though that a 72,000 seat ground could have 60,000 at full price (generating what would be expected from a 60k ground) and the other 12,000 at a price to cover the additional cost of construction over a period of 20 years

K-9 · 18-01-2012 5:49pm

tommyhaas wrote: »

£20 per ticket, for a limited number of tickets isn't an act of charity, its a reasonable price in most top leagues. My ticket to the Everton Stoke game cost me that, albeit as part of Everton's half price offer

Obviously a lot depends upon how much finance the club need, and what's affordable. My point earlier showed that over a period of twenty years, its reasonable to assume that the additional seats would generate sufficient revenue to cover the repayments and interest incurred directly as a result of this additional cost

Again, I'm not suggesting anything charitable, what I'm suggesting is what would appear to be a viable investment while doing something positive for the people in the community

I don't see how this appears naive, given its a suggestion rather then an expectation and is at least financially possible

Going on your logic, they should build a 75,000 seater stadium as they'll get a bigger sale price when they sell the club. You seem to be suggesting it's some type of selfish decision on their part. Their aim is to be as successful as possible as it drives up the selling price when it comes to that. If that happens a 75k stadium would be factored into the selling price through increased revenues and a bigger asset. I think it's aimed at making a new stadium as viable as possible and making sure it doesn't become a noose around the clubs neck. There was a time Arsenal was struggling with its debt. I don't want that situation at all, or minimised as much as possible.

Bobeagleburger · 18-01-2012 5:52pm

tommyhaas wrote: »

Tickets to Goodison are substantially less then Anfield in general though even for the derby, though I'd agree you get what you pay for

Obviously at present the wage bill and lower prices couldn't be balanced, my point is though that a 72,000 seat ground could have 60,000 at full price (generating what would be expected from a 60k ground) and the other 12,000 at a price to cover the additional cost of construction over a period of 20 years

I see your point and it's a good one but would we sell out 72k even taking into account the 12k discounted tickets?

I'm not so sure we would.

daithijjj · 18-01-2012 5:55pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

Stadium should have built 20 years ago in fairness.

David Moores took over 20 years and 4 months ago, never left the 80's mindset, and we will still be paying for that 10 years after he has gone due to to various fk ups and incompetence.

stumpypeeps · 18-01-2012 5:59pm

My reading of the situation is that if they can stay at Anfield, they will.

£300,000,000 for 15,000 extra seats. I'm not sure of the maths but I'd imagine that would take a long time to recoup the investment.

dougal · 18-01-2012 6:01pm

From the Guardian - Fiver.

Liverpool will continue their proud record of signing promising foreign youngsters and then leaving them to rot in the reserves after agreeing a £1m deal for Sporting Lisbon's João Carlos.

We do seem to have a problem in bridging the gap between the youth setup - reserve team and the first team for the foreign players especially.

I would like to see the likes of Suso, Sterling etc in matchday squads for the remainder of the season to shake things up a bit.

5starpool · 18-01-2012 6:01pm

We would not fill a 70k stadium for most games, even with 10k of those seats at reduced prices. Even at 60k, I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to get tickets late on for most games.

daRobot · 18-01-2012 6:01pm

Very disappointed with Sow going to Fenerbahce. Think he would have done well in the premier league.

I know he'll get Champions league and all, but c'mon, Turkey?

stick-dan · 18-01-2012 6:03pm

If David Texeira joins and we then have two Texeira's or close enough in spelling we'll just call David Texeira "Torres" instead. I'm not still pining for him i swear :P

Bobeagleburger · 18-01-2012 6:03pm

daithijjj wrote: »

David Moores took over 20 years and 4 months ago, never left the 80's mindset, and we will still be paying for that 10 years after he has gone due to to various fk ups and incompetence.

At the same time united were extending old trafford, thinking ahead.

Hope to fcuk we finally get moving on this.

Bobeagleburger · 18-01-2012 6:05pm

5starpool wrote: »

We would not fill a 70k stadium for most games, even with 10k of those seats at reduced prices. Even at 60k, I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to get tickets late on for most games.

It's been quite easy to get tickets this season and last.

daithijjj · 18-01-2012 6:08pm

stumpypeeps wrote: »

My reading of the situation is that if they can stay at Anfield, they will.

£300,000,000 for 15,000 extra seats. I'm not sure of the maths but I'd imagine that would take a long time to recoup the investment.

Arses on seats isnt really the money spinner, its the corporate side. Think its something like 10k for a corporate 'box' for a matchday. I have infinitely more faith in who we have running the show now than i have ever had in the past anyway.

5starpool · 18-01-2012 6:08pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

It's been quite easy to get tickets this season and last.

It has, especially last season. I'm just saying it would be very compounded with an extra 15k seats.

mike65 · 18-01-2012 6:08pm

If the team are winning and winning at home and in Europe 70k would sell out. FSG have to build with that hope in mind.

tommyhaas · 18-01-2012 6:14pm

5starpool wrote: »

You'd need to pay me a decent sum of money to go to Everton Stoke.

Also, Everton haven't been selling out games, so it's easier to price yourself lower if you know that you might get someone at £20, but definitely won't get them at £35.

It was a poor game tbf, but I go over mainly to see friends over there, and we'll always go to a game, just depends who's playing at home on any particular weekend, though most of my friends do support Everton

rarnes1 wrote: »

I see your point and it's a good one but would we sell out 72k even taking into account the 12k discounted tickets?

I'm not so sure we would.

I honestly don't know. If its assumed that 60k would sell out, I think its a reasonable assumption that substantial inroads could be made towards attracting the extra 12k at reduced prices, with those cheaper tickets being sold at full price for games that could sell the 72k tickets at that price, such as Everton, Utd, European games etc to make up any shortfall

Also given the size of the season ticket list, I think its reasonable to assume it could be filled

What I would see as the biggest issue is the possibility that those who would have ordinarily paid full price will buy the reduced price tickets, hence any unsold tickets would be the expensive ones as oppose to the cheaper ones. I'm sure though this could be overcome in some way by a particular sales strategy

manual_man · 18-01-2012 6:14pm

dougal wrote: »

From the Guardian - Fiver.

Liverpool will continue their proud record of signing promising foreign youngsters and then leaving them to rot in the reserves after agreeing a £1m deal for Sporting Lisbon's João Carlos.

We do seem to have a problem in bridging the gap between the youth setup - reserve team and the first team for the foreign players especially.

I would like to see the likes of Suso, Sterling etc in matchday squads for the remainder of the season to shake things up a bit.

We're not showing much faith in our own young talent imo, especially if Texeira no. 2 comes in. Even the young lads that have made the breakthrough to the first team are only bein used when another firsty is injured, or as late subs here and there, maybe the odd Carling Cup or FA Cup game. Not good enough imo

Knex* · 18-01-2012 6:20pm

I've been reading a lot over recent months posters on here clamoring for the likes of Suso, Sterling and Coady to be brought into the first team.

TBH I think its a premature call, the lads aren't ready yet for first team Premier League action, especially at Liverpool. I honestly can't think of any reserve/under age player that I would be happy seeing start in a Liverpool shirt at the moment. Maybe Flanno or Robinson but I think they are better served on loan at the moment.

Also João Carlos is 19 which would put him closer to Shelvey in terms of development rather than Suso or Sterling. You need to give these kids time to develop rather than throwing them straight into the deep end.

It will be two years before the bulk of Borrell's group are ready for first team football, or until we know if they're ready for that matter.

K-9 · 18-01-2012 6:20pm

stumpypeeps wrote: »

My reading of the situation is that if they can stay at Anfield, they will.

£300,000,000 for 15,000 extra seats. I'm not sure of the maths but I'd imagine that would take a long time to recoup the investment.

That would be the ideal but we'd have no hope of a 70,000 stadium then AFAIK.

Not sure how much extra a 72k stadium would bring in with naming rights either. If it isn't much then the increased cost of those extra 72,000 seats would largely have to come from tickets.

Really, I'm sure they'd love to big it as big as possible as well.

tommyhaas · 18-01-2012 6:21pm

daithijjj wrote: »

Arses on seats isnt really the money spinner, its the corporate side. Think its something like 10k for a corporate 'box' for a matchday. I have infinitely more faith in who we have running the show now than i have ever had in the past anyway.

IIRC its about £60k per season for a box, and there's something like 25 of them in Anfield. As you say, the new ground isn't about the extra capacity, its more about the extra boxes

5starpool wrote: »

We would not fill a 70k stadium for most games, even with 10k of those seats at reduced prices. Even at 60k, I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to get tickets late on for most games.

I think its reasonable to assume that at present we could sell around 60k. Couple that with the cheaper tickets, and given the reported length of the season ticket waiting list, I'd imagine it wouldn't be too far off

murpho999 · 18-01-2012 6:22pm

stumpypeeps wrote: »

My reading of the situation is that if they can stay at Anfield, they will.

£300,000,000 for 15,000 extra seats. I'm not sure of the maths but I'd imagine that would take a long time to recoup the investment.

Don't forget with a new stadium they can get naming rights which they would be unlikely to get from a refurbished Anfield is it would be too controversial.

Just want a decision made now and progress as it's been dragging on for years.

Chucky the tree · 18-01-2012 6:24pm

dougal wrote: »

From the Guardian - Fiver.

We do seem to have a problem in bridging the gap between the youth setup - reserve team and the first team for the foreign players especially.

I would like to see the likes of Suso, Sterling etc in matchday squads for the remainder of the season to shake things up a bit.

They should be there because they merit a place in the match day squad and not just to "shake things up".

tommyhaas · 18-01-2012 6:27pm

murpho999 wrote: »

Don't forget with a new stadium they can get naming rights which they would be unlikely to get from a refurbished Anfield is it would be too controversial.

Just want a decision made now and progress as it's been dragging on for years.

From what I understand, they were considering which would be cheaper, the cost of a new stadium minus what they'd get for naming rights, or the cost of redeveloping Anfield. If redeveloping Anfield was possible at a lower cost to the club, but including selling the naming rights, what would people think of that?

Personally I wouldn't be in favour of renaming Anfield, but given a choice of knocking it down or renaming it, I could certainly see justification for doing it

stumpypeeps · 18-01-2012 6:30pm

murpho999 wrote: »

Don't forget with a new stadium they can get naming rights which they would be unlikely to get from a refurbished Anfield is it would be too controversial.

Just want a decision made now and progress as it's been dragging on for years.

I'd prefer to stay at Anfield, Its the spititual home of the club.

AFAIK Liverpool turned over £180 million pounds in 2010. Of which approximately £40 million was from gate receipts. So an extra 15,000 seats - massive debt = not a huge amount in my opinion.

Bobeagleburger · 18-01-2012 6:43pm

I'd prefer to stay at Anfield but afaik and someone correct me if I'm wrong but, Anfield can only be extended so much because of its location.

5starpool · 18-01-2012 6:45pm

If they did come out and commit to redeveloping Anfield though, it would be a nightmare in terms of red tape though, although given how many of the houses around the area are boarded up though, I can't see how buying those houses would be prohibitively costly.

If we do move though, I can't imagine getting a huge price for the existing stadium though as it's not really a trendy/desirable area to live in at present, so no apartment thing like with Highbury would be possible.

The Chessplayer · 18-01-2012 6:46pm

This Esteban Granero lad any good? A lot of talk linking him with us

mike65 · 18-01-2012 6:52pm

The plot is restricted but there is also the business of the wider L4 regeneration programme which LCC are very big on, if LFC move next door then the regeneration goes ahead. The club have been bullied a bit by the council for years on this issue. Oh and there is the whole Football Quarter notion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2011/dec/29/liverpool-everton-anfield-footballquarter

tommyhaas · 18-01-2012 6:58pm

rarnes1 wrote: »

I'd prefer to stay at Anfield but afaik and someone correct me if I'm wrong but, Anfield can only be extended so much because of its location.

5starpool wrote: »

If they did come out and commit to redeveloping Anfield though, it would be a nightmare in terms of red tape though, although given how many of the houses around the area are boarded up though, I can't see how buying those houses would be prohibitively costly.

If we do move though, I can't imagine getting a huge price for the existing stadium though as it's not really a trendy/desirable area to live in at present, so no apartment thing like with Highbury would be possible.

The last I heard was that the club already own a good few houses around the ground, but would have to buy a huge amount more to redevelop properly (cant remember the number though). The houses aren't necessarily all in the way, but a redevelopment would be infringing on their sunlight, and so unless they bought the houses they couldn't get permission. Most of these houses I think are owned by a housing agency, as oppose to privately or by the council which would at least make any deal more straightforward

As much as I'd like to stay in Anfield though, I'd be against the redevelopment if meant people being forced from their homes

The Chessplayer · 18-01-2012 7:04pm

tommyhaas wrote: »

The last I heard was that the club already own a good few houses around the ground, but would have to buy a huge amount more to redevelop properly (cant remember the number though). The houses aren't necessarily all in the way, but a redevelopment would be infringing on their sunlight, and so unless they bought the houses they couldn't get permission. Most of these houses I think are owned by a housing agency, as oppose to privately or by the council which would at least make any deal more straightforward

As much as I'd like to stay in Anfield though, I'd be against the redevelopment if meant people being forced from their homes

Just bring in the bulldozers. Same ridiculous carry on in Dublin when they were redeveloping Lansdowne. One of the goal ends is tiny because of a few pissy residents complaining about sunlight. They should be happy enough with free season tickets.

Blatter · 18-01-2012 7:05pm

5starpool wrote: »

If they did come out and commit to redeveloping Anfield though, it would be a nightmare in terms of red tape though, although given how many of the houses around the area are boarded up though, I can't see how buying those houses would be prohibitively costly.

If we do move though, I can't imagine getting a huge price for the existing stadium though as it's not really a trendy/desirable area to live in at present, so no apartment thing like with Highbury would be possible.

I've never seen the word though appear so many times in one post, that must be some sort of record!:pac:

Anyway, nevermind me. Carry on:p

The Chessplayer · 18-01-2012 7:06pm

tommyhaas wrote: »

As much as I'd like to stay in Anfield though, I'd be against the redevelopment if meant people being forced from their homes

I'd like to put it on record that I am all for staying in Anfield and couldn't care less if people are relocated. You'd swear we were talking about a humanitarian disaster in Darfur. Get them out of there... THIS IS ANFIELD!

opr · 18-01-2012 7:10pm

The Chessplayer wrote: »

This Esteban Granero lad any good? A lot of talk linking him with us

Ballbag had a look at the link yesterday. Doesn't seem to much in it on our side - http://www.guillembalague.com/rumores_desp.php?id=303&titulo=On

Talk he might play tonight.

Opr

manual_man · 18-01-2012 7:10pm

The Chessplayer wrote: »

tommyhaas wrote: »

As much as I'd like to stay in Anfield though, I'd be against the redevelopment if meant people being forced from their homes

I'd like to put it on record that I am all for staying in Anfield and couldn't care less if people are relocated. You'd swear we were talking about a humanitarian disaster in Darfur. Get them out of there... THIS IS ANFIELD!

I think if they were offered a fancier new pad, and maybe a season ticket to sweeten the deal, they wouldn't be too against it when push comes to shove

Kess73 · 18-01-2012 7:23pm

The Chessplayer wrote: »

This Esteban Granero lad any good? A lot of talk linking him with us

Would not see the point in signing him to be honest. Whether he was played out wide or in the centre I would not see him as a big step up on what is already in the squad.

Knex* · 18-01-2012 7:23pm

The Chessplayer wrote: »

Just bring in the bulldozers. Same ridiculous carry on in Dublin when they were redeveloping Lansdowne. One of the goal ends is tiny because of a few pissy residents complaining about sunlight. They should be happy enough with free season tickets.

The Chessplayer wrote: »

I'd like to put it on record that I am all for staying in Anfield and couldn't care less if people are relocated. You'd swear we were talking about a humanitarian disaster in Darfur. Get them out of there... THIS IS ANFIELD!

You have such an eloquent way with words. LFC should see to it that you are on the stadium development panel and personally in charge of dealing with local residents

Phoenix Park · 18-01-2012 7:31pm

Knex. wrote: »

You have such an eloquent way with words. LFC should see to it that you are on the stadium development panel and personally in charge of dealing with local residents

Indeed.

"Look, the stadium's being redeveloped and if you don't like it you can foook right off, there's the door.
Now would anyone care for a game of chess and a glass of port perhaps?" :pac:

K-9 · 18-01-2012 7:34pm

The Chessplayer wrote: »

Just bring in the bulldozers. Same ridiculous carry on in Dublin when they were redeveloping Lansdowne. One of the goal ends is tiny because of a few pissy residents complaining about sunlight. They should be happy enough with free season tickets.

The Chessplayer wrote: »

I'd like to put it on record that I am all for staying in Anfield and couldn't care less if people are relocated. You'd swear we were talking about a humanitarian disaster in Darfur. Get them out of there... THIS IS ANFIELD!

You needed to put it on record after the first post?

tommyhaas · 18-01-2012 7:43pm

The Chessplayer wrote: »

I'd like to put it on record that I am all for staying in Anfield and couldn't care less if people are relocated. You'd swear we were talking about a humanitarian disaster in Darfur. Get them out of there... THIS IS ANFIELD!

And Anfield is an area in Liverpool, not just the name of the ground. Why should be people be thrown out of their homes because a private business wants to expand?

manual_man wrote: »

I think if they were offered a fancier new pad, and maybe a season ticket to sweeten the deal, they wouldn't be too against it when push comes to shove

I'd be inclined to agree, once they were relocated and compensated fairly

Nuri Sahin · 18-01-2012 8:00pm

The Chessplayer wrote: »

This Esteban Granero lad any good? A lot of talk linking him with us

Not top class, but very good when he's been given a chance which has been rare since he returned to Real. He showed what he is capable of when he went on loan to Getafe a few seasons back, played in a few different positions including a defensive and attacking midfielder. Think he covered right mid and center back every now and again too. I really liked the look of him at Getafe but that was some time ago now, think it's at least two seasons. If we can get him on loan with a view to buying him after that would be ideal.

Sir Gallagher · 18-01-2012 8:15pm

The Chessplayer wrote: »

I'd like to put it on record that I am all for staying in Anfield and couldn't care less if people are relocated. You'd swear we were talking about a humanitarian disaster in Darfur. Get them out of there... THIS IS ANFIELD!

Yes throw the people out of their homes so we can continue to watch Liverpool play at Anfield... on sopcast. :pac:

dougal · 18-01-2012 8:39pm

Knex. wrote: »

I've been reading a lot over recent months posters on here clamoring for the likes of Suso, Sterling and Coady to be brought into the first team.

TBH I think its a premature call, the lads aren't ready yet for first team Premier League action, especially at Liverpool. I honestly can't think of any reserve/under age player that I would be happy seeing start in a Liverpool shirt at the moment.

It probably is premature but we definitely could use some creativity coming off the bench in the last 15 minutes. Someone of the likes of Suso or Sterling could add something different.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

They should be there because they merit a place in the match day squad and not just to "shake things up".

I would assume that being there on merit is a given! The shake things up comment was more to do with the current match day squad more or less picking itself.

Chucky the tree · 18-01-2012 8:43pm

dougal wrote: »

I would assume that being there on merit is a given! The shake things up comment was more to do with the current match day squad more or less picking itself.

If it was based on merit they would probably be in the match day squads.

amiable · 18-01-2012 9:05pm

Fernando Llorente scored a bullet header for Bilboa earlier

Ganymede Glow · 18-01-2012 9:45pm

amiable wrote: »

Fernando Llorente scored a bullet header for Bilboa earlier

Rocky will be happy with that

seanwhite20 · 18-01-2012 9:56pm

Ganymede Glow wrote: »

Rocky will be happy with that

Hahaha Llorente is goin around loafing people on behalf of Rocky eh!??

ilovelamp2000 · 18-01-2012 9:58pm

daithijjj wrote: »

Arses on seats isnt really the money spinner, its the corporate side. Think its something like 10k for a corporate 'box' for a matchday. I have infinitely more faith in who we have running the show now than i have ever had in the past anyway.

And what Liverpool based businesses are going to fork out that kind of money ?

Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12-Jan 2012 onwards

Comments