The Owners

EdWood

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
5,972
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
26,369
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
2,027
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

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,707
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
53,286
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
2,706
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
3,857
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

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,707
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
2,511
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
23,853
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
3,857
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
26,369
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
4,737
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
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
2,027
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
26,369
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.
 

epsomred

Give yourselves the chance to be heros
Ad-free Member
Joined
May 16, 2018
Messages
2,027
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.
Yes a major fuck up on their part which I think will hold them back as a club for years. No point in having a 60,000 stadium if you can only fill it once a year for the north London derby and can’t compete on the pitch because of a lack of funds. When you see how other owners fuck up like this it makes you grateful for the yanks.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,707
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.
£850m is roughly what it should have cost. I think Multiplex quoted a build cost roughly in that ball-park (fixed price) and also stated that there was no chance it would be completed by December 2018.

Mace low-balled (not a fixed price quote though) and claimed they could have the stadium ready for the start of the 18/19 season. Levy went with the cheap (but not fixed price) option that also gave the earlier completion timetable. Mace seem to have over-promised and under-delivered.

There will be plenty of people at Multiplex muttering "told you so" in the direction of Levy and Lewis.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
Yes a major fuck up on their part which I think will hold them back as a club for years. No point in having a 60,000 stadium if you can only fill it once a year for the north London derby and can’t compete on the pitch because of a lack of funds. When you see how other owners fuck up like this it makes you grateful for the yanks.
They have always been a club that spent fuck all for their players, which is why Pochettino is very essential for them in the next 5 years, if he stays that long. To remain competitive they need to secure this manager’s future with them and hope he can keep them chugging along like now. They didn’t spend a penny last summer and they are still in the semis after beating a club that spent £150m per season.

For me, I too hope our owners can convince our manager to keep going until he truly retires from football, with a very, very good succession planning. While we didn’t burnt £1b on a stadium rebuild, we are also very dependent on the man who pace around the touch line at game day.
 

Redsi73

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2015
Messages
3,949
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.
£1000 a day was a myth, i work in the same industry for a competitor of the builders Mace, however There were electricians being paid £450 a day for a 12hr day, which is about double that of what they usually can expect for a project in London. This put a massive labour strain on resources for labour in London, as every tradesman wanted to work on that stadium, was impossible to recruit for other projects.

The original budget £450m budget was banded about at least 10 years ago and construction costs have moved on massively since then ( particularly in London ) . £850m then dont forget a massive part of that increase included the NFL pitch ( which wasnt in the original budget ) is probably more realistic than the £1.2b number.

No doubt there were additional costs for delays and such like, and losses Spurs would have been looking to recover from the builder Mace for not completing on time, but its unlikely Mace agreed a fixed sum with Spurs for the construction as in projects like this it's near on impossible to mitigate the risk of such a massive scheme.

We appear to have got a very good deal on our stadium, at the right time as well, as the builder Carillion have now gone to the dogs.
 

Redsi73

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2015
Messages
3,949
£850m is roughly what it should have cost. I think Multiplex quoted a build cost roughly in that ball-park (fixed price) and also stated that there was no chance it would be completed by December 2018.

Mace low-balled (not a fixed price quote though) and claimed they could have the stadium ready for the start of the 18/19 season. Levy went with the cheap (but not fixed price) option that also gave the earlier completion timetable. Mace seem to have over-promised and under-delivered.

There will be plenty of people at Multiplex muttering "told you so" in the direction of Levy and Lewis.
Multiplex built Wembley on a fixed price and paid massively for it ( i think they priced it about £400m and it cost £750m )
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,369
Yes a major fuck up on their part which I think will hold them back as a club for years. No point in having a 60,000 stadium if you can only fill it once a year for the north London derby and can’t compete on the pitch because of a lack of funds. When you see how other owners fuck up like this it makes you grateful for the yanks.
Even if they are filling it reliably, what is the payback on the additional 400M? Simple payback is 10 years even in the unlikely event that matchday revenue is increased by 40 million.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,369
£1000 a day was a myth, i work in the same industry for a competitor of the builders Mace, however There were electricians being paid £450 a day for a 12hr day, which is about double that of what they usually can expect for a project in London. This put a massive labour strain on resources for labour in London, as every tradesman wanted to work on that stadium, was impossible to recruit for other projects.

The original budget £450m budget was banded about at least 10 years ago and construction costs have moved on massively since then ( particularly in London ) . £850m then dont forget a massive part of that increase included the NFL pitch ( which wasnt in the original budget ) is probably more realistic than the £1.2b number.

No doubt there were additional costs for delays and such like, and losses Spurs would have been looking to recover from the builder Mace for not completing on time, but its unlikely Mace agreed a fixed sum with Spurs for the construction as in projects like this it's near on impossible to mitigate the risk of such a massive scheme.

We appear to have got a very good deal on our stadium, at the right time as well, as the builder Carillion have now gone to the dogs.
You can bet that if the electricians were seeing £450/day, by the time it arrived at the high level billing, it would not have been far off £1000 per day. Two layers applying a markup of around 40% gets you close.