DIC or Share Liverpool?

[Kenneth]

What's the latest on the Share Liverpool front what sort of level is the interest at? Have enough people registered there interest yet or is it still way short of the target?

I think I heard an update last week that said sbout 90 million had been pledged.

[MARTINOZ]

If you'd have had a vote though every year - wouldn't you have booted Moores off the board about 15/16 years ago when his lack of nouse was obvious, and replace him with someone who had genuine commercial experience?

I can understand people's doubts about the money side of things and whether it can be raised in sufficient quantities to compete.

I really didn't expect that people would have so much contempt for themselves and each other to be opposed to democracy - surely one of the least controversial ideas around?

I don't think anybody is opposed to democracy Al or have contempt for themselves, it's just a very unstable idea. Nobody has shown us business plans, no statements about finances, mid to long term plans, people that might represent us on the board, nothing. We can't wait 5 years for this to become a reality. The club needs a fix and it needs it pretty fast. Summer at the latest one way or another. This summer is not about us getting players in that can help us challenge for the title, we need players in that can ensure we finish top four every season first. Unfortunately that is the sad reality right now. When we stabilise then we can start talking about "next season" again.

[Exiled_red]

I think I heard an update last week that said sbout 90 million had been pledged.

So we're still not a fifth of the way there yet, it doesn't look too promising at this stage then

[alunevans]

I see your point and for sure there are no guarantees but i think the reason people believe in 'good intentions' from DIC (and the yanks initially) is that lfc has can be the best very quickly and relatively easily. the right investor will look to realise this and if this wasn't dic's intention, then why are they after us again now? of all the clubs to take to the top, we're best placed due to both our history, current standing (europe in particular) and current (relatively low) value. nobody has maximised anything about us yet on the pitch or off it. we're just a push away - upgrade each aspect of the club (marketing & merchandising, stadium, team) and we're at the top and raking it in.

keeping us where we are (4th) will not get any serious investor any return on their investment worth bothering with. certainly nothing worth risking 400mill on. Plenty of better options out there. None of which comes with the prestige of a world beating LFC tho. Asset stripping (assume you mean players) will just put us into a downward spiral, bankrupt us and lose whichever owners money, waste their time and reputation. what's the benefit in that? godolphin shows that these investors know about the risks in sport.

I don't think anyone is expecting them to be the abramovich of the sand dunes but they at least have the resources to pull off running lfc successfully. the yanks clealy lack the money and the expertise. what we expect is the new owners to revamp us commercially and run us as a viable and successful business. if this means debt then it means debt but not at the expense of taking the team forward which is the engine behind any football investment. if dic then want to sell up and realise a 100-300mill or so profit gained by turning us into a proper, top level, global footballing business then fair enough (and where we could buy in). that was what we signed up for when 'selling the family silver' was it not? If they decide to keep us and enjoy it then again, fair enough.

asset stripping was the wrong term really so i expressed that clumsily. i guess what i was saying is, lfc will make good profits for an investor once we have a stadium so long as we finish in the top 4 and keep putting in good champions league runs.

i'm curious as to the difference in revenue between 1st and 4th is. is it enough to chuck tons of money at? would that turn a comfortable relatively low risk profit into a high risk profit.

would the bottom line mean that they don't need us to win the league. it may be what WE want, but how do we know that they wouldn't be happy with turning us securely into a top 3 team capable of good progress in the CL each year?

are those extra 2 places *really* worth the risk given the returns it would bring financially?

[alunevans]

I disagree with this point Alun. I think that you have reached this opinion based on hindsight. Obviously knowing what I know now I would 100%. Was he lack of nouse so obvious?

In 1992 nobody knew that football would mushroom in the way it did. Maybe Michael Knighton had an idea when he offered £20 Million for Man U in 1989?

personally it was obvious to me. whether or not football mushroomed we were clearly not making the most of what we had, and it was fairly clear to me that Moores lacked bottle when we had the fiasco of apparently getting rid of Souness only to find out that he'd promoted Roy Evans instead, and so kept him on for longer.

I think it was pretty apparent that he didn't cut the mustard very very early on, and I recall saying so at the time.

Seems a nice bloke and that but I'd have voted him off the board personally.

[alunevans]

I don't think anybody is opposed to democracy Al or have contempt for themselves, it's just a very unstable idea. Nobody has shown us business plans, no statements about finances, mid to long term plans, people that might represent us on the board, nothing. We can't wait 5 years for this to become a reality. The club needs a fix and it needs it pretty fast. Summer at the latest one way or another. This summer is not about us getting players in that can help us challenge for the title, we need players in that can ensure we finish top four every season first. Unfortunately that is the sad reality right now. When we stabilise then we can start talking about "next season" again.

i accept your points here. but to be fair people are saying that even if all that was in place, even if the money added up, that they'd be opposed to it because you can't trust the likes of us, which really does show a certain contempt for ourselves in my view.

i can accept that the issue of timing and money and all that being a problem, and its clearly a test any new owner would need to pass including Share LFC, but even with all that in place people have been opposed to the idea of democracy itself. have a read up and you'll see what i mean.

[barnes10]

champions is the thing to be in order to maximise a global fanbase and further the merchandising and sales income off the pitch. sponsorship deals etc etc.

my point is that i think they will be looking to boost every income stream and because we're a football club, the key to that is always going to be through winning. that i'm sure they understand. that's the key to maximising everything else.

[alunevans]

lets hope.

however, lets go back to my earlier question.

what if they don't. what if they're a bunch of ****bags happy with CL qualification and milking profits and little much else.

what then? what do we do?

[alunevans]

Fair point, but I don't trust fans to base their opinions on impartial facts as opposed to tabloid fed hysteria etc, even Liverpool fans. Democracy isn't perfect and probably isn't a good way to run a business. FOr example, ticket prices; they should be as high as possibly while still filling the stands for us to maximise revenue. Supply and demand etc. Would 'fans' accept this?

To be honest, this point is pretty fundamental to why I think the AFC Liverpool project is important too, even though I know you're not keen.

Because what you've said there is that the only way LFC can be successful is to charge the highest ticket prices that the laws of supply and demand allow. Which means that the proposal being put to fans in that instance is "back DIC because they are the people who are most likely to get us success by pricing you out of the stadium."

Really speaking though, would I rather us win the league and never be allowed to get to the games, or would I rather us be 4th and be able to go.

Being honest, I'd rather go the game than not.

But if I am priced out of the game like many already are, and many more are likely to be in the near future, what do we do to remain part of the LFC community AND go to a meaningful match week in week out?

[dww]

i accept your points here. but to be fair people are saying that even if all that was in place, even if the money added up, that they'd be opposed to it because you can't trust the likes of us, which really does show a certain contempt for ourselves in my view.

i can accept that the issue of timing and money and all that being a problem, and its clearly a test any new owner would need to pass including Share LFC, but even with all that in place people have been opposed to the idea of democracy itself. have a read up and you'll see what i mean.

I think the problem is partly that noone is sure of what checks balances and institutions would be best to make it work. For example you talk of a vote every year but I think that sort of instability is potentially a real problem. Factors like terms of office and ability to make changes are fundamental to how well a ShareLFC scheme would work.

Intrinsically the problem is that we would be doing something innovative at a time of huge challenges anyway. I like the idea in principle but it would be IMO nearly as big a risk as DIC although for different reasons.

[alunevans]

i think rogan taylor has mentioned something about terms of office if i remember rightly.

[Craig_H]

Can you imagine us owned by the posters on here DJS and CMS would have the manager fired every second week. SG would be sold to chelsea and we wouldn't sign El Jefecito because he is "too expensive".

No thanks!

:whatever:

[barnes10]

i'd personally rather the team was successful than being able to afford to attend the matches. at the end of the day, rich or poor, lfc are my team. So if I'm too poor to watch them live, I'll be sad and it'd become a treat rather than a regular event but I'd accept it as long as we were at the top. if we weren't at the top but many were still priced out, there'd be trouble I think. And we'd be seeing a half-empty brand new stadium...

[alunevans]

i'd personally rather the team was successful than being able to afford to attend the matches. at the end of the day, rich or poor, lfc are my team. So if I'm too poor to watch them live, I'll be sad and it'd become a treat rather than a regular event but I'd accept it as long as we were at the top. if we weren't at the top but many were still priced out, there'd be trouble I think. And we'd be seeing a half-empty brand new stadium...

hard to use the word "we" when something has been taken from you though. for me anyhow.

at what point would LFC become "they" in such circumstances. what if they could fill the ground at £150 a ticket for instance. surely you couldn't enjoy the success properly with your face pressed against the glass having followed them for over 30 odd years.

wouldn't a big part of you be sneering and going "cunts". wouldn't part of you be resenting that you sat there week in week out through souness, through uncle roy's defence, through ged's long ball, only to be priced out at the moment we finally won the league you'd been waiting to witness?

being blunt, i would. a HUGE part of me would be resenting it massively.

[barnes10]

i just think that its the way the game of football has gone and its hard to blame anyone for that. do we or do we not want to compete? even when it was a working class game, there were plenty pressed against the glass not able to pay for a ticket to see the team they love beating all before them. its all relative isnt it.

does the same side of you resent Gerrard and Carragher for signing 100k + a week contracts? cos thats what it all boils down to in the end.