New stadium update...

[Dhav]

I agree, we are in a worse position in a way. But again, the money they spent on us was always going to be recouped. They weren't going to wipe it off their business plan. Only Abramovich does that.

Before selling Moores got a huge amount of stick from us Liverpool fans for not being able to invest enough in the club to make us competitive with the other big three. So he sold us to G&H on the basis that they would invest in a stadium and the team, thereby leading us on to more success and revenue. That's the day we sold our soul. Now we have to hope that we get something in return for that. I personally thought it was a bad idea, but only just. We lost a benevolent and well off chairman for two very well off businessmen. I hope they succeed in their plan which means that we have too. The debt was always on us though from the minute they took over.

I agree that we should have expected them to take money out of the club to pay their personal loans, but only when the club could afford it. Doing the refinance now and encumbering the club with the cost of buying the shares on top of the stadium debt places an undue burden on the club IMO.

Assuming Moores could have secured funding for the stadium via loans and sponsorship, I dont see how we are better off now under the yanks, as the club will now be burdened with the additional £240m debt that it cost the yanks to buy the shares and wipeout the debt, whereas under Moores we'd have only had the £80m debt and the stadium costs.

[brightred]

It's been a depressing time lately with the Rafa/Yanks fallout, the rumours of lack of transfer funds, the stadium downgrade and of course yesterday.

I'm off to top myself.

Night

[AFII]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhG-9FsU83k&feature=related

[Venton]

I agree that we should have expected them to take money out of the club to pay their personal loans, but only when the club could afford it. Doing the refinance now and encumbering the club with the cost of buying the shares on top of the stadium debt places an undue burden on the club IMO.

Assuming Moores could have secured funding for the stadium via loans and sponsorship, I dont see how we are better off now under the yanks, as the club will now be burdened with the additional £240m debt that it cost the yanks to buy the shares and wipeout the debt, whereas under Moores we'd have only had the £80m debt and the stadium costs.

We'll end up paying the same amount on the debt whether it is on them or us. They will still build it into the equation. They've just parcelled it differently. Businesses section off their assets in case it all goes pear-shaped - they have limited their losses to the section that loses it.

Look at it like this - if the unthinkable happens and it all goes tits up, we get relegated get no cash for years what happens? If G&H cut their losses they sell the players and the stadium to pay for it. If they put the debt on us and they cut their losses, the banks sell the players and the stadium to pay for it. Same difference. It was always this way from the start.

If Moores had borrowed to pay for the stadium then we would still have owed the 80M and whatever the stadium cost. The debt is all the same. Only Chelsea got something for nothing (although we still haven't seen the end-game of the Abramovich experiment at Chelsea).

The reason G&H came in is because they have built big stadiums and franchises in sport and thought they could do a better job than Moores and secure more money. They have an eye to linking up with the States etc. Moores, god bless him, was just a local businessman really.

[AFII]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip8jPZr9k54&feature=related

[Venton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhG-9...eature=related

I know that the sentiment suggests it mate but it doesn't mention anything about unlimited transfer funds at all, in face he hedged the question significantly.

You may find something somewhere about them saying they wouldn't burden the club with debt, or that they would spend ****loads on transfers but I would be shocked if they made any stupid comments like that.

[Dhav]

We'll end up paying the same amount on the debt whether it is on them or us. They will still build it into the equation. They've just parcelled it differently. Businesses section off their assets in case it all goes pear-shaped - they have limited their losses to the section that loses it.

Look at it like this - if the unthinkable happens and it all goes tits up, we get relegated get no cash for years what happens? If G&H cut their losses they sell the players and the stadium to pay for it. If they put the debt on us and they cut their losses, the banks sell the players and the stadium to pay for it. Same difference. It was always this way from the start.

If Moores had borrowed to pay for the stadium then we would still have owed the 80M and whatever the stadium cost. The debt is all the same. Only Chelsea got something for nothing (although we still haven't seen the end-game of the Abramovich experiment at Chelsea).

The reason G&H came in is because they have built big stadiums and franchises in sport and thought they could do a better job than Moores and secure more money. They have an eye to linking up with the States etc. Moores, god bless him, was just a local businessman really.

Well the yanks are going to have to exploit the revenue earning potential of the club to its fullest, otherwise we might as well have stuck with Moores.

[Fiddy]

We'll end up paying the same amount on the debt whether it is on them or us. They will still build it into the equation. They've just parcelled it differently. Businesses section off their assets in case it all goes pear-shaped - they have limited their losses to the section that loses it.

Look at it like this - if the unthinkable happens and it all goes tits up, we get relegated get no cash for years what happens? If G&H cut their losses they sell the players and the stadium to pay for it. If they put the debt on us and they cut their losses, the banks sell the players and the stadium to pay for it. Same difference. It was always this way from the start.

If Moores had borrowed to pay for the stadium then we would still have owed the 80M and whatever the stadium cost. The debt is all the same. Only Chelsea got something for nothing (although we still haven't seen the end-game of the Abramovich experiment at Chelsea).

The reason G&H came in is because they have built big stadiums and franchises in sport and thought they could do a better job than Moores and secure more money. They have an eye to linking up with the States etc. Moores, god bless him, was just a local businessman really.

Mate you're posting far too much sense on this thread, please stop being so rational and eloquent

[AFII]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rep7u1XD7IQ&feature=related

[Venton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip8jP...eature=related

"going to be a better business over the years". Nothing here to change my mind mate.

I seriously don't see what the issue is with all the doom and gloom that is any different from the start of the season.

The way I see it (I don't have any insider info, just gut feel) G&H are absent owners and a lack of communications led to them and Benitez falling out in the press in the absence of any other lines. They pull him up, Benitez backs down, they all make up. Teething problems. These guys have spent a lot just to pull the investment now.
We should have been dooming back at the start. We should be used to it now and looking forward.

[desertscouser]

We'll end up paying the same amount on the debt whether it is on them or us. They will still build it into the equation. They've just parcelled it differently. Businesses section off their assets in case it all goes pear-shaped - they have limited their losses to the section that loses it.

Look at it like this - if the unthinkable happens and it all goes tits up, we get relegated get no cash for years what happens? If G&H cut their losses they sell the players and the stadium to pay for it. If they put the debt on us and they cut their losses, the banks sell the players and the stadium to pay for it. Same difference. It was always this way from the start.

If Moores had borrowed to pay for the stadium then we would still have owed the 80M and whatever the stadium cost. The debt is all the same. Only Chelsea got something for nothing (although we still haven't seen the end-game of the Abramovich experiment at Chelsea).

The reason G&H came in is because they have built big stadiums and franchises in sport and thought they could do a better job than Moores and secure more money. They have an eye to linking up with the States etc. Moores, god bless him, was just a local businessman really.

[Venton]

Well the yanks are going to have to exploit the revenue earning potential of the club to its fullest, otherwise we might as well have stuck with Moores.

That's why they've come in - they are good at making cash from sport. Same as the Glazers - how we laughed at United and they have just spent ****loads.

[Venton]

Mate you're posting far too much sense on this thread, please stop being so rational and eloquent

I've been lurking for years mate. A work night out, cheap brandy and a snog at the station has brought out the beast in me. I'm back into the depths after this...

[AFII]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHJHUxRV0ic&feature=related

[Venton]

I respect you mate but your last videos have all backed up my point on this. I don't know why you keep posting them. They all talk about the business aspect of the club.
What point are you making?