Would you accept this?

[Craig_H]

If we could start work on building the new stadium this summer (eg NOW) and it'd be built in time for the start of the 2012-2013 season...but it meant no transfer funds until the summer of 2012 - would you accept that?

And this also means any money raised by player sales, would NOT be available for transfers either.

[PTP]

no not at all - are current sqaud is good but not tha good that we don't need to add to it!! in my eyes every team regardless of how good should always be looking to improve year on year - without 'yearly' additions or tweaks here and there we would fall behind

[Tee]

Of course not. And I would be surprised, no shocked, if anyone thinks that would be a good idea.

[Reece]

It would be no point getting a new stadium if by the time we actually get it we have fallen behind the other top teams on the pitch, which is what would surely happen in this scenario.

[Craig_H]

no not at all - are current sqaud is good but not tha good that we don't need to add to it!! in my eyes every team regardless of how good should always be looking to improve year on year

Are you of the opinion that we would be able to spend remotely decent money on players, while the stadium is under construction? Because i'm emphatically not.

IMO, during the time the stadium is being built, we'll have **** all to spend and will have to accept that for 3-5 years (or however long it is), we'll be stood still, in terms of player/squad development.

Some might say we're skint and at that stage now, which is a point that can be debated, but in the circumstances that building work starts, we'll be absolutely stuck until it's finished and ready to generate good revenues.

[Craig_H]

It would be no point getting a new stadium if by the time we actually get it we have fallen behind the other top teams on the pitch, which is what would surely happen in this scenario.

But it's a long term project isnt it? That's how the owners must see it.

We already dont have the money to build the ground - if we found it (via more loans), the interest payments alone would insure that we've got to tighten up every aspect of financial management, including spending on players. Our interest payments are already screwing us, it'd only be much worse in the event of building the ground.

Eventually, once it's built, it generates the funds to repay the loans and eventually, it'll bring in a massive turnover, from which the transfer budgets would come. It'd pay for itself in the long term, but i think it's unrealistic to expect any of that to happen without upto a decade of financial impotence (if you'll pardon the expression).

[Tee]

For a start the Hicks/Gillett stadium will NEVER happen. Of that I am totally and utterly convinced. If we want a new stadium the first thing we are going to need is a new owner IMO.

A club like Liverpool cannot afford to stand still in the transfer market and the team will and should always take priority over everything else, stadium included.

[Craig_H]

Of course not. And I would be surprised, no shocked, if anyone thinks that would be a good idea.

I dont think it's a good idea.

I do, however, think it's the only way it'll happen under G&H who, let's face it, still show no signs of wanting out.

[Reece]

Thing is Craig we are the closest we've been for donkeys years to actually winning the league. I do not want to put that chance on hold to build the new stadium, because if we couldn't buy any new players for the next three years then that's what we'd be doing. I'd rather stick at Anfield whilst we are this close.

[PTP]

Are you of the opinion that we would be able to spend remotely decent money on players, while the stadium is under construction? Because i'm emphatically not.

IMO, during the time the stadium is being built, we'll have **** all to spend and will have to accept that for 3-5 years (or however long it is), we'll be stood still, in terms of player/squad development.

Some might say we're skint and at that stage now, which is a point that can be debated, but in the circumstances that building work starts, we'll be absolutely stuck until it's finished and ready to generate good revenues.

wether we are skint or not, or whether we can buy players and fund a stadium or not is not really the way i was looking at it! - u said that, basically we couldn't sign ANY players between now and 2012!!! No chance i would be happy with that! NO PLAYERS ADDED TO THE SQUAD EVEN IF WE SELL! ****ing hell we'd be ****ed - so what happens if come next summer we sell alonso, mascherano, arbeloa, agger and benayoun! - we'd be ****ed!

If the question was, work would start on the building the stadium, and the only transfer funds available would come from player sales - hmm well thats a bit more difficult to answer - but as I said, regardless of whatever is going on off the pitch! - on the pitch every single team be it Barcelona or my sunday league team, should look to add too/improve their squads each season, be it poaching a player from another sunday league team, signing a untried £1m french striker, or going out and spending £80m on Ronaldo! -

[Craig_H]

For a start the Hicks/Gillett stadium will NEVER happen. Of that I am totally and utterly convinced. If we want a new stadium the first thing we are going to need is a new owner IMO.

A club like Liverpool cannot afford to stand still in the transfer market and the team will and should always take priority over everything else, stadium included.

I agree with you, i cant see them ever building it. But if they're intent on seeing this project out in the long term, they must surely still be planning on building the new ground, it's the major reason they bought the club and it's the only way they could ever make money out of us.

The idea of remaining competitive in the market (if we are still even competitive, i dont know, let alone 'remaining') is going to be dependent on the massive revenues that a new big stadium would generate. We wont be able to compete in the transfer market without building a new ground, so they tie in with each other. It's basically short term pain for long term gain and i cant see any other way of competing in the future, without a big stadium.

The problem is, we'd only be able to do it by standing still for a few years, while the stadium starts bringing in the cash to pay the loans off and then eventually starts creating tangible 'use-able' turnover. Arsenal is the obvious example.

So in short, if we stay at Anfield, we're ****ed. If we DO somehow build the new stadium, we're ****ed for a good 5 years until it starts making us money that doesnt go back to creditors.

The only way out of this mess is new owners, which looks even more unlikely with H&G refinancing their loans.

[Craig_H]

Thing is Craig we are the closest we've been for donkeys years to actually winning the league. I do not want to put that chance on hold to build the new stadium, because if we couldn't buy any new players for the next three years then that's what we'd be doing. I'd rather stick at Anfield whilst we are this close.

I'm with you on that one mate.

I dont think the owners are though. Their main priority isnt winning the PL, it's getting the stadium built and making money off it. It'll already take ages to achieve (if it's achievable at all) and they will want to take as little time as possible to do this.

When i posted this thread, i wasnt saying i'd accept the initial proposal, but it's what i think will happen.

We're firmly between a rock and a hard place, with these two ****ers.

We cant dominate football with the current revenue generating setup and if we somehow manage to get a new ground, we'll be paying the price for it (in terms of squad development) for years.

[Kenneth]

u said that, basically we couldn't sign ANY players between now and 2012!!! No chance i would be happy with that! NO PLAYERS ADDED TO THE SQUAD EVEN IF WE SELL! ****ing hell we'd be ****ed

And there would be player wanting to leave becasue of the lack of ambition. We couldn't replace them, we'd nose dive.

This is obviously not a realistic scenario, it wouldn't get to that stage even if funds were tight.

[PTP]

For a start the Hicks/Gillett stadium will NEVER happen. Of that I am totally and utterly convinced. If we want a new stadium the first thing we are going to need is a new owner IMO.

A club like Liverpool cannot afford to stand still in the transfer market and the team will and should always take priority over everything else, stadium included.

totally agree! whilst i see the long term benefits and the need for a new stadium, the priority always has to be the players in the squad! otherwise, **** it lets sell gerrard for £100m, Torres £75m, Reina £20m, Agger £10m, Skrtel £10m, Kuyt £15m, and the rest of the squad for a combined say £100m - and build the best ****ing stadium now! - use whoever is left in the ressies/squad to keep us going and once the stadium is built we can start again!

[Craig_H]

wether we are skint or not, or whether we can buy players and fund a stadium or not is not really the way i was looking at it! - u said that, basically we couldn't sign ANY players between now and 2012!!! No chance i would be happy with that! NO PLAYERS ADDED TO THE SQUAD EVEN IF WE SELL! ****ing hell we'd be ****ed - so what happens if come next summer we sell alonso, mascherano, arbeloa, agger and benayoun! - we'd be ****ed!

If the question was, work would start on the building the stadium, and the only transfer funds available would come from player sales - hmm well thats a bit more difficult to answer - but as I said, regardless of whatever is going on off the pitch! - on the pitch every single team be it Barcelona or my sunday league team, should look to add too/improve their squads each season, be it poaching a player from another sunday league team, signing a untried £1m french striker, or going out and spending £80m on Ronaldo! -

I know it's an extreme case scenario, but unfortunately, i dont think it's completely beyond the realms of any possibility as some may imagine (and i'd like to imagine). We'd basically have to not sell first team squad members and we'd only be able to add bosmans and free signings.

I dont want it to be like that in any way, shape or form, but from the owners point of view, i could see them arguing that it'd be just about possible to operate in that manner and therefore, their first choice plan of action.