• Hey Guest!
    Enjoy the This Is Anfield Forums but want to remove the adverts? Now you can do so by clicking here.
    Thanks for your support!

The Owners



lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,207
Wow, really?
LFC is set to review how the event was run immediately afterwards - and hold meetings with councillors and residents before Bon Jovi performs almost two weeks later.

Ms Harkness said meetings with neighbours in recent months had brought up complaints about noise, parking and disturbances on matchdays.
Now I know they can't move away as they've bought their homes, but staying near a huge sporting stadium should expect things like this to happen. I've stayed near a football stadium once when I was in college, and I know during the season it is going to be crazy noise. I expected nothing less than bad traffic, loads of crazies running around my neighbourhood and extreme high noise level coming out of the stadium.
 

JustHitMyHead

TIA Reserve Team
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
2,038
Wow, really?


Now I know they can't move away as they've bought their homes, but staying near a huge sporting stadium should expect things like this to happen. I've stayed near a football stadium once when I was in college, and I know during the season it is going to be crazy noise. I expected nothing less than bad traffic, loads of crazies running around my neighbourhood and extreme high noise level coming out of the stadium.
But that's not the point... is it? The point is: How much are they asking for? And how much are they able to extract from the club for the so called inconvenience...
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,207
But that's not the point... is it? The point is: How much are they asking for? And how much are they able to extract from the club for the so called inconvenience...
If they get huge compensation, I be looking to buy a property near Anfield soonish...
 



NMBRSK5991

New Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
16
I remember when United started to overtake us both on the pitch and off the pitch, whilst we remained stagnant and unable to make much progress. They also 'became good' when money started to flow into football.

It feels like that's occurring again, but it's us in the ascendency this time. Considering the state of the club in 2010, its remarkable we're in such a healthy position and it's all credit to FSG for putting in a great structure for the right people to do their jobs efficiently. If we can keep this stability at the club for the best part of five years at least, I'm confident that we'll be "back" for good.

We really couldn't ask for better owners, in my opinion. Whilst I get why people initially had reservations, I don't understand half the stick they get at times.
 

Medjool

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
200
I remember when United started to overtake us both on the pitch and off the pitch, whilst we remained stagnant and unable to make much progress. They also 'became good' when money started to flow into football.

It feels like that's occurring again, but it's us in the ascendency this time. Considering the state of the club in 2010, its remarkable we're in such a healthy position and it's all credit to FSG for putting in a great structure for the right people to do their jobs efficiently. If we can keep this stability at the club for the best part of five years at least, I'm confident that we'll be "back" for good.

We really couldn't ask for better owners, in my opinion. Whilst I get why people initially had reservations, I don't understand half the stick they get at times.
I'll be the first to hold my hands up, I was sceptical at first. I had them down as pure money men who would do enough to keep us bumping along top four and flog us when they made enough
Couldn't have been more wrong I'm happy to say and after a dodgy start to their tenure I wouldn't swap 'em.
 

EdWood

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
5,794
I have been a major critic of FSG in the past, not unfairly on occasion, but I have to give them a huge thumbs up for the way that they salvaged a sinking ship of a football club, albeit one with a magnificent tradition of success, and turned it into one of the best run in world football, both in commercial and in sporting terms.

I suppose that my main beef with them was caused by frustration and impatience. I couldn't see the bigger picture. I had great difficulty in accepting that the project was going to take time. It was galling to see the plastic clubs achieve success from nothing almost overnight by throwing vast amounts of cash around. 99% of professional football clubs actually have to live in the real world, are not fuelled by limitless supplies of petro-dollars or mafia money, and can only spend what they commercially generate. That was the reality and I didn't like it. My bad.

My point is that we are in a great position and we have got there CLEANLY. I'd much rather be us than citeh or the chavs or PSG. It's great being an LFC supporter. It's life-enriching and that's thanks in no small way to Fenway Sports Group. Respect.

PS. Thanks very much for getting us Jurgen. He's been quite good!
 
Last edited:



Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
23,718
I have been a major critic of FSG in the past, not unfairly on occasion, but I have to give them a huge thumbs up for the way that they salvaged a sinking ship of a football club, albeit one with a magnificent tradition of success, and turned it into one of the best run in world football, both in commercial and in sporting terms.

I suppose that my main beef with them was caused by frustration and impatience. I couldn't see the bigger picture. I had great difficulty in accepting that the project was going to take time. It was galling to see the plastic clubs achieve success from nothing almost overnight by throwing vast amounts of cash around. 99% of professional football clubs actually have to live in the real world, are not fuelled by limitless supplies of petro-dollars or mafia money, and can only spend what they commercially generate. That was the reality and I didn't like it. My bad.

My point is that we are in a great position and we have got there CLEANLY. I'd much rather be us than citeh or the chavs or PSG. It's great being an LFC supporter. It's life-enriching and that's thanks in no small way to Fenway Sports Group. Respect.

PS. Thanks very much for getting us Jurgen. He's been quite good!
Last conversion I can think of as dramatic as this was when Paul was struck blind on the road to Damascus!
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
733
Spurs spent £1 billion on a new stadium that has only added 26,0000 seats to what they already had at white hart lane. FSG spent £144m on the main stand at Anfield and that has added about 20, 000 seats. Shows our guys are a lot more savvy than Danny Levi. Every architect and builder in London saw him coming a mile off. It will be a long time before you see spurs spend any money in the transfer market.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,746
Spurs spent £1 billion on a new stadium that has only added 26,0000 seats to what they already had at white hart lane. FSG spent £144m on the main stand at Anfield and that has added about 9,000 seats. Shows our guys are a lot more savvy than Danny Levi. Every architect and builder in London saw him coming a mile off. It will be a long time before you see spurs spend any money in the transfer market.
FIFY
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,207
Spurs spent £1 billion on a new stadium that has only added 26,0000 seats to what they already had at white hart lane. FSG spent £144m on the main stand at Anfield and that has added about 20, 000 seats. Shows our guys are a lot more savvy than Danny Levi.
If only that was true....
 



Speckydodge

TIA Squad Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
2,579
Spurs spent £1 billion on a new stadium that has only added 26,0000 seats to what they already had at white hart lane. FSG spent £144m on the main stand at Anfield and that has added about 20, 000 seats. Shows our guys are a lot more savvy than Danny Levi. Every architect and builder in London saw him coming a mile off. It will be a long time before you see spurs spend any money in the transfer market.
There's not many people in the whole world more savvy then Daniel Levy and even less that see him coming a mile off.
You also might want to do some revision on what we actually did with the main stand.
 

[email protected]

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
2,970
He might have the specifics a little wrong but you can't argue that we did indeed get a better 'price per seat'. If the Anfield Road End materialises we'll have got to 60k capacity and only 2k short of theirs for roughly a third of the cost. Direct analysis and comparison might be futile given the differing circumstances of the clubs, room to expand etc but we did, and will have worked out far cheaper while staying put at where we belong. Pretty cool, in my view.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Ad-free Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
13,746
He might have the specifics a little wrong but you can't argue that we did indeed get a better 'price per seat'. If the Anfield Road End materialises we'll have got to 60k capacity and only 2k short of theirs for roughly a third of the cost. Direct analysis and comparison might be futile given the differing circumstances of the clubs, room to expand etc but we did, and will have worked out far cheaper while staying put at where we belong. Pretty cool, in my view.
Yeah, I definitely think ours is better economically but I don't think the gap is necessarily that large. Tottenham have sold 42,000 season tickets compared to our 26,000 (I think) with their cheapest of £795 coming in quite a lot higher than even our average season ticket cost. Their most expensive season ticket is just under £2,000. Their general sale prices are also higher even allowing for the different categories of games that they apply (that we abandoned).

I also wonder at how much they benefited from playing at Wembley for nearly two years. It's noticeable that they made more of a profit than we did last season (partly because they didn't buy anyone) and an element of that was their significantly increased matchday income. It seems wrong that Spurs should take home any greater income (after paying for the use of Wembley) than they would have received over the course of a season at the old White Hart Lane. Surely any excess should have gone into the FA/PL's coffers and, you'd hope, put directly towards grass-roots football and/or equality initiatives and/or PFA/player welfare issues?
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,092
Spurs spent £1 billion on a new stadium that has only added 26,0000 seats to what they already had at white hart lane. FSG spent £144m on the main stand at Anfield and that has added about 20, 000 seats. Shows our guys are a lot more savvy than Danny Levi. Every architect and builder in London saw him coming a mile off. It will be a long time before you see spurs spend any money in the transfer market.
The expansion of the Main Stand cost £109.9 million, not £144 million. Capacity increased by approximately 8,500.
 

Hope in your heart

Loyalty and patience, two undervalued concepts.
Admin
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
22,777
He might have the specifics a little wrong but you can't argue that we did indeed get a better 'price per seat'. If the Anfield Road End materialises we'll have got to 60k capacity and only 2k short of theirs for roughly a third of the cost. Direct analysis and comparison might be futile given the differing circumstances of the clubs, room to expand etc but we did, and will have worked out far cheaper while staying put at where we belong. Pretty cool, in my view.
It doesn't exactly work out like that. A new stadium provides a lot more opportunity to add VIP boxes, rooms for meetings and other commercial surfaces. In the long run, the new stadium might provide more revenue than an expanded WHL.

That being said, I'm grateful to fsg for having decided to stay at Anfield and expand it. In my book, it's their biggest achievement as this club's owners, while appointing Klopp comes close second. Both have been absolute key moves. Football isn't all about revenue streams, but much more about building and consolidating a club's atmosphere and identity. That's what Shankly and his board did at the time, and that's what Klopp and fsg are doing too now. It will pay dividends for years to come, more so than additional commercial surfaces.

Look at the heart- and soulless Emirates stadium for instance, and compare it with the former Highbury. It's night and day really, Arsenal aren't the same anymore than what they were before. In my book, Tottenham's new stadium is exactly as soulless as the Emirates, and Tottenham have lost a big part of their identity too with WHL's destruction.
 



[email protected]

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
2,970
Yeah, I definitely think ours is better economically but I don't think the gap is necessarily that large. Tottenham have sold 42,000 season tickets compared to our 26,000 (I think) with their cheapest of £795 coming in quite a lot higher than even our average season ticket cost. Their most expensive season ticket is just under £2,000. Their general sale prices are also higher even allowing for the different categories of games that they apply (that we abandoned).

I also wonder at how much they benefited from playing at Wembley for nearly two years. It's noticeable that they made more of a profit than we did last season (partly because they didn't buy anyone) and an element of that was their significantly increased matchday income. It seems wrong that Spurs should take home any greater income (after paying for the use of Wembley) than they would have received over the course of a season at the old White Hart Lane. Surely any excess should have gone into the FA/PL's coffers and, you'd hope, put directly towards grass-roots football and/or equality initiatives and/or PFA/player welfare issues?
Good point although I suppose having paid to use Wembley they could reasonably expect to, and did, have full usage and benefit of the increased capacity unless expressly stated in what their agreement was. The FA fucked that one up and Spurs joyfully benefitted. Bastards.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
23,718
There's not many people in the whole world more savvy then Daniel Levy and even less that see him coming a mile off.
You also might want to do some revision on what we actually did with the main stand.
Not convinced of that. He lost control of the stadium project, and his club will be carrying a significant debt for years as a result. He has done so right as his club had the most promising concentration of talent it has had in at least a generation. You could easily argue that they are 1-2 players away from being able to compete for league and Europe at the highest level. Instead, they are running 3rd well back in the league, look spent playing in a CL semi-final, and are very likely to lose more talent than they bring in this summer.

Undoubtedly a very intelligent man, but seems either to have a poor sense of the big picture, or overconfidence in the ability of the improved stadium revenue to create a chance like this for his club again. Had FSG done to LFC what Levy has done to Spurs, SoS would be in full activist mode demanding they sell the club.
 

Irishanfield

Internet Terrorist
Joined
May 5, 2017
Messages
4,800
Spurs spent £1 billion on a new stadium that has only added 26,0000 seats to what they already had at white hart lane. FSG spent £144m on the main stand at Anfield and that has added about 20, 000 seats. Shows our guys are a lot more savvy than Danny Levi. Every architect and builder in London saw him coming a mile off. It will be a long time before you see spurs spend any money in the transfer market.
Ah but the sours have a lovely American football pitch for their one game a year
 



Irishanfield

Internet Terrorist
Joined
May 5, 2017
Messages
4,800
Two. Plus they might have a cheese room.
a cheese room eh , had heard that pochettino had had some input into the stadium . trying to add a bit of class to a classless bunch of supporters.
It'd be much like putting rubbish bins and showers in a halting site. Nobody there knows what they are or how to use them
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
733
Sorry I got the facts re our new stand slightly out but I think my wider point survives. This very old article (2004) suggests building costs of £5k per seat for an iconic stadium including hospitality etc.

If we allow for inflation in the intervening period to say double the costs then we are still only looking at £10k per seat. Spurs seem to have paid £16k per seat which seems massively over the top. I don’t think Levi is a stupid man but builders are brilliant at exploiting contractual loopholes and every tradesmen in London knew that the construction was running late and spurs were desperate. Anecdotally I heard that at one point the electricians on the site were being paid over £1000 per day and sitting around reading their phones because the other tradesmen weren’t ready for them. Only pub talk obviously but I heard it more than once. Anyway it’s their problem but thank the lord our project seemed to go a lot more smoothly.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
23,718
Sorry I got the facts re our new stand slightly out but I think my wider point survives. This very old article (2004) suggests building costs of £5k per seat for an iconic stadium including hospitality etc.

If we allow for inflation in the intervening period to say double the costs then we are still only looking at £10k per seat. Spurs seem to have paid £16k per seat which seems massively over the top. I don’t think Levi is a stupid man but builders are brilliant at exploiting contractual loopholes and every tradesmen in London knew that the construction was running late and spurs were desperate. Anecdotally I heard that at one point the electricians on the site were being paid over £1000 per day and sitting around reading their phones because the other tradesmen weren’t ready for them. Only pub talk obviously but I heard it more than once. Anyway it’s their problem but thank the lord our project seemed to go a lot more smoothly.
You don't get an original budget of around £450M growing to £850 by the time the final phase of construction began and coming in somewhere between £1-1.2B without a few stories like that being true.