Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

New Liverpool Stadium Is Likely To Be Off

2456

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    I agree. They have debt but its very manageable and they are after making huge profits since they moved. Match day turnover is supposed to be the highest in the world!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    gixerfixer wrote: »
    Two words. Stadium boycott

    too many plastic, once a year daytripping fans for that to work at a club like liverpool

    short of boycotters buying tickets and not going, anfield would still get a crowd

    but doing that would still be giving them your money


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,250 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dub13


    The Echo
    Liverpool FC stadium crisis: Well it finally comes down to the crunch

    Aug 30 2008 by Tony Barrett, Liverpool Echo

    INFLUENTIAL thinker Carl Jung is well known in these parts for once describing Liverpool as “the pool of life”, a quote which would later become a PR man’s dream.

    There is another quotation from the Swiss physician which resonates just as greatly when discussing the current goings on at the football club which bears this city’s name.

    According to Jung “The man who promises everything is sure to fulfil nothing,” and with Liverpool’s stadium plans having been delayed yet again it is easy to build a case for this particular reflection to be applied to Messrs Hicks and Gillett.

    It is now a mind boggling 571 days since George Gillett told Liverpool’s fans that a spade would go into Stanley Park within 60 days of he and his fellow American taking over the club in February 2007.

    There have been workmen on site doing “preparatory work” but the only digging that has been done was performed by members of fans group the Spirit of Shankly who took their own spades along to the Victorian park in April in protest at the lack of progress.

    Since then, Tom Hicks and his inner circle have constantly rejected suggestions that he and his co-owner lacked the necessary finance to go ahead with the construction of a stadium which will cost in excess of £300m.

    Hicks has also been at pains to point out that the stadium dream would not be derailed by the credit crunch even though the cost of borrowing and the price of steel have both become much more prohibitive during the current economic downturn.

    Even when his Dallas Glorypark went belly up because of the crunch four months ago, Hicks still stuck to his guns telling anyone who dared ask questions about what the economic cycle would mean to the Stanley Park plans that it made no difference whatsoever.

    You didn’t need a degree in economics or pure mathematics to realise that this just didn’t add up and yesterday the worst fears of Liverpool’s fans were confirmed when Liverpool released a statement confirming that building work would be delayed after all.

    “Global market conditions”, the very same ones which Hicks was adamant would not curtail work, were mentioned of course as he tried to portray himself as the innocent victim of a seemingly unstoppable international downturn.

    Texan businessmen have a reputation for talking tough and cutting through the bull****, so surely Tom won’t mind the fact that SOS have cut to the chase and said what everyone else is thinking, namely that the two current owners of Liverpool FC do not have either the dough or the ability to run one of the world’s greatest clubs.

    Like many other people close to what is going on at Anfield, SOS had been expecting yesterday’s announcement for some time.

    The decision to delay the stadium was not taken this week, rumours first began circulating that this would happen several weeks ago when a key member of the design team was recalled to the US.

    Hicks is currently taking PR advice from London based Freud Communications in another clear sign that there are currently two clubs at Liverpool – one at Anfield and Melwood and one in the US which uses satellite companies for its own ends.

    The best bit of advice that Hicks could currently be given is that unless he turned up at the Shankly Gates with a fistful of dollars to fund the proposed new stadium and to provide Rafa Benitez with his first choice signings then there is virtually no chance of winning over the Liverpool fans.

    Promises have been made and promises have been broken and football fans by their very nature have the longest of memories. So it is highly unlikely that there is any way that the Liverpool supporters will alter their feelings about the duo.

    Hicks and Gillett are currently the only people in the world who could claim to be less popular on the Kop than Gary Neville and that is an incredible achievement after just 18 months in control.

    Perhaps the only way they could boost their popularity would be to walk away before they can do any more damage. Anything else will only add to the current incessant pain that everyone who holds Liverpool Football Club dear is currently feeling.

    tonybarrett@liverpoolecho.co.uk


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    CALLING HELIX!!!!!!!

    now didnt you swear blind to me that Hicks and Gillette told Tony Barrett in the Echo wat to write? How that was Liverpools mouth piece?

    How that a source of yours in the echo office assured you of this? (notably the same source seems to have been wrong about a few calls you've made)

    what are the yanks reasons for wanting that article above in the paper?

    If you dont give any, i presume you will man enough to admit just how wrong you were.

    heres another anti-G&H article from Tony by the way. who incidently was also involved in the foundation of the Spirit of Shankly organisation. you're just so wrong about most things that its funny.

    http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/08/30/mp-liverpool-fc-sale-to-americans-a-major-blunder-100252-21636886/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭bohsman


    Helix wrote: »
    too many plastic, once a year daytripping fans for that to work at a club like liverpool

    An el fan wouldnt get away with saying that.

    Could a ground share with Everton not work? Especially seeing as its a fairly friendly rivalry compared to most. I mean if it can work in Milan...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    bohsman wrote: »

    Could a ground share with Everton not work? Especially seeing as its a fairly friendly rivalry compared to most. I mean if it can work in Milan...

    Could all the Dublin clubs not join together for the good of the EL and form one club with loads of support?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭Hero Of College


    Listen, you lot, the British Economy is facing into the worst period it has seen for 60 years. Stop blaming the Yanks for the mess the stadium plans are in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 697 ✭✭✭oobydooby


    Eircom league rivals do share grounds when they must. I don't think anyone was advocating merging Liverpool and Everton football clubs.

    I'd like to hear the hard-core Liverpool fans' views on the idea of a stadium merger. It seems it would make sense if the Liverpool county council built a great stadium for both teams (and for concerts etc.) which Everton and Liverpool could rent at a favourable rate (avoiding heaping debt on the clubs) and which would not add to the "asset base" of the clubs thus repelling potential "investors".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭Hero Of College


    The sooner the arse falls out of the market the better, players should be prepared to bargain over 2 things only: the man they play for, and the club they play for.

    All this need to sell more and more tickets via bigger stadia and sell jerseys to billions of nameless faceless Asians to pay the wages and transfer fees of players is not football.

    Arsenal and Chelsea were able to win titles in their old tin pot stadia. Did United up sticks and leave? No.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭bohsman


    Stekelly wrote: »
    Could all the Dublin clubs not join together for the good of the EL and form one club with loads of support?

    If your suggestion was for all the Dublin clubs to come together and buy Croke park and play all games there I might go for it.

    Seriously, has a groundshare been suggested at all? Oobydooby makes most of the points I would have made.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    bohsman wrote: »
    An el fan wouldnt get away with saying that.

    im an el fan as well as an epl fan tho

    fact is its true. united, liverpool, celtic and perhaps to a lesser extent arsenal and chelsea fans wouldnt be able to pull off stadium boycotts. theres too many people whod simply take it as an opportunity to get easy tickets for a game


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭bohsman


    it wouldnt work either way, whatever about the billions of faceless irish/asians there are plenty of locals who would be delighted to get a chance to get tickets even if there was a boycott on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 697 ✭✭✭oobydooby


    Helix wrote: »
    fact is its true. united, liverpool, celtic and perhaps to a lesser extent arsenal and chelsea fans wouldnt be able to pull off stadium boycotts. theres too many people whod simply take it as an opportunity to get easy tickets for a game

    You do have a point there. And it's expressed in a more reasonable manner in this post than in your other post.

    There would probably also be a number of regular fans who would support the team no matter what and would not agree with the boycott.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,228 ✭✭✭Chardee MacDennis


    according to the boys on gilette soccer Saturday arsenal and united are earning about 2.5 - 3m more than Liverpool per home game, I am not sure how accurate those figures are but they are probably in the ball park. A shared stadium owned by the coco will not produce that kind of turnover and I know that for a fact. Plus lfc want an anfield mark 2 with a new kop and our own trophy room and club shop with no blue noses in sight! We will never go for a stadium share for financial reasons and out of pride!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    A shared stadium can produce the same reason, no reason why it can't.

    Pride is for the silly if it hurts you. Groundshare with Everton resulting in a 70k+ with loads of corporate boxs is something that is essential for Liverpool, and if a ground share is the only way to get that, then suck it up. It works for the 2 Milans, don't see why it can't work for Liverpool and Everton.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭Hero Of College


    PHB wrote: »
    A shared stadium can produce the same reason, no reason why it can't.

    Pride is for the silly if it hurts you. Groundshare with Everton resulting in a 70k+ with loads of corporate boxs is something that is essential for Liverpool, and if a ground share is the only way to get that, then suck it up. It works for the 2 Milans, don't see why it can't work for Liverpool and Everton.


    Thanks, but no thanks. You keep your prawn sandwich brigade.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Thanks, but no thanks. You keep your prawn sandwich brigade.

    they pay the bills


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭bohsman


    Thanks, but no thanks. You keep your prawn sandwich brigade.

    Go support FC United then, prawn sandwich brigade is vital for success.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    Thanks, but no thanks. You keep your prawn sandwich brigade.

    Yeh. Well then you can keep buying the likes of Torres once every 5 years, because thats where all the money comes from.
    Corporate boxes pay the bills, anyone who can't realise that needs their head checked.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,906 ✭✭✭DeadSkin


    Thanks, but no thanks. You keep your prawn sandwich brigade.

    There will always be a prawn sandwich brigade, no matter who you support, like it or not.

    On the new stadium being held up yet again, can't say that I'm surprised.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 930 ✭✭✭Hero Of College


    PHB wrote: »
    Yeh. Well then you can keep buying the likes of Torres once every 5 years, because thats where all the money comes from.
    Corporate boxes pay the bills, anyone who can't realise that needs their head checked.

    Players like Torres only come around once every 15 years.;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    Everton wouldnt be able to fill a 70k stadium.

    Liverpool fans dont even nearly want a shared stadium.

    We just need owners who can afford to do wat they promise.


    The groundshare wont happen.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,602 Mod ✭✭✭✭spockety


    Phb - not sure you would be so logical or detached if there was talk of utd doing a groundshare


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,692 ✭✭✭✭OPENROAD


    PHB wrote: »
    Corporate boxes pay the bills, anyone who can't realise that needs their head checked.


    Indeed one only has to look at the Emirates and club level and the extra amount this brings in each game alone and vast majority of these supoorters are just ordinary supporters. That said I'm not too sure Liverpool would do it on quite the scale Arsenal did.

    Can't see the ground share between Liverpool and Everton, just won't happen.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,604 ✭✭✭herbieflowers


    an English groundshare would be pretty unprecedented, Selhurst Park is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, and that wasn't even a true ground share. I just don't think England has that continental...tradition (?) of sharing grounds. Football is, arguably, more tribal and definitely more complex now than it was when the Meazza, Olympic Stadium were being built.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭Mayo Exile


    Would the pitch stand up to a groundshare, with the winter you get in the Northwest of England? You could relay it a few times in the season, but would the surface be up to scratch?

    The pitch at Selhurst Park was in an awful state a few months into a season during its groundshare days.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Mayo Exile wrote: »
    Would the pitch stand up to a groundshare,.

    It'll never have to.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,867 ✭✭✭Third_Echelon


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    Everton wouldnt be able to fill a 70k stadium.

    Liverpool fans dont even nearly want a shared stadium.

    We just need owners who can afford to do wat they promise.


    The groundshare wont happen.

    Of course Everton would be able to fill a 70,000 seater... Have you ever been to the city???? There are up to 1,000,000 people in the greater liverpool area. I'm going to put my neck on the line and say there are quite a few Evertonians among the 1,000,000 as well as the Irish and Scandinavian contingent that make their way over every week...

    Building a stadium on their own back (Everton) they were looking at 50,000 as a target number due to costs. We mightn't fill 70,000 seats playing Wigan or Hull or someone like that, but I'm pretty confident for a lot of the big fixture we could fill it.

    Even if we didn't it wouldn't really be relying on filling it for revenue as either we would only have to cough up half the funds to build it or pay a long term lease, which no doubt would be cheaper than the cost of a self-build option.

    I have been saying from Day 1 that a ground-share is the best option for both clubs and it makes sense.

    Both can't afford to go it alone. Pool resources and build a kick-ass stadium...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭gixerfixer


    This is a laugh. If anyone thinks the groundshare is going to go ahead they need to stop take a deep breath and think for a minute. Does anyone really think Everton will fill a 70,000 seater stadium on match days? Twice a season at the most. Everton may be "the peoples club" but they aint got the peoples to go and watch them. For god's sake they cant even fill the stadium they have now.:pac: Groundshare. Will ya ever stop.
    Goodison Park Capacity: 40,552
    Average attendance figures: 2007-2008 36,955
    2006-2007 36,739
    2005-2006 36,860


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 48,453 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    gixerfixer wrote: »
    This is a laugh. If anyone thinks the groundshare is going to go ahead they need to stop take a deep breath and think for a minute. Does anyone really think Everton will fill a 70,000 seater stadium on match days? Twice a season at the most. Everton may be "the peoples club" but they aint got the peoples to go and watch them. For god's sake they cant even fill the stadium they have now.:pac: Groundshare. Will ya ever stop.
    Goodison Park Capacity: 40,552
    Average attendance figures: 2007-2008 36,955
    2006-2007 36,739
    2005-2006 36,860

    what is the capacity of Goodison?


Advertisement