You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dipper Takeover? [Merged]
- Thread starter bluemonkey71
- Start date
Blue Haze
Well-Known Member
This deal is looking shadier and less likely by the day. lol
RAWK is hilarious now that they have blindly put their faith in good ol' "Kenny"
RAWK is hilarious now that they have blindly put their faith in good ol' "Kenny"
So what's in it for anyone who buys Liverpool?
Close to a billion(debt, the Yanks cut and a new stadium) and then what?
At least our owners could see a longterm profit in buying City after an initial outlay.
Anyone care to answer the original question?
Close to a billion(debt, the Yanks cut and a new stadium) and then what?
At least our owners could see a longterm profit in buying City after an initial outlay.
Anyone care to answer the original question?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Even as a (former) member of the "Big 4" their revenue was much less than the other 3. Off the top of my head it was about £170m compared to over £220m for the others. Virtually all of that difference was matchday revenue so a new stadium could put £40-50m a year into the coffers.jrb said:So what's in it for anyone who buys Liverpool?
Close to a billion(debt, the Yanks cut and a new stadium) and then what?
At least our owners could see a longterm profit in buying City after an initial outlay.
Anyone care to answer the original question?
A 5 or 6 year payback period on a new stadium would be quite good I reckon.
Prestwich_Blue said:Even as a (former) member of the "Big 4" their revenue was much less than the other 3. Off the top of my head it was about £170m compared to over £220m for the others. Virtually all of that difference was matchday revenue so a new stadium could put £40-50m a year into the coffers.jrb said:So what's in it for anyone who buys Liverpool?
Close to a billion(debt, the Yanks cut and a new stadium) and then what?
At least our owners could see a longterm profit in buying City after an initial outlay.
Anyone care to answer the original question?
A 5 or 6 year payback period on a new stadium would be quite good I reckon.
Cheers PB.
Prestwich_Blue said:Even as a (former) member of the "Big 4" their revenue was much less than the other 3. Off the top of my head it was about £170m compared to over £220m for the others. Virtually all of that difference was matchday revenue so a new stadium could put £40-50m a year into the coffers.jrb said:So what's in it for anyone who buys Liverpool?
Close to a billion(debt, the Yanks cut and a new stadium) and then what?
At least our owners could see a longterm profit in buying City after an initial outlay.
Anyone care to answer the original question?
A 5 or 6 year payback period on a new stadium would be quite good I reckon.
Yes it would be amazing but I don't think its possible.
A few things to remember - £170m included Champions League. Without it (and it could never be guaranteed again) its £100m to £110m. You can't ignore the fact that Arsenal and Chelsea are London clubs with the associated ability to generate much much higher stadium revenues (the customer base is simply much wealthier). And United are simply a much bigger club than Liverpool on a financial basis. ie the £50-60m wasn't simply a difference in number of seats (Chelsea's capacity is roughly the same as Liverpool) its also about what a club can charge for its tickets/its corporate revenues.
Lets say they build a £200m stadium with 60,000 seats. Even if they fill it (and again this can't be guaranteed in a recessionary economy (5 more years for Liverpool??) and a poor city) the incremental additional revenue is £1m tops per game (22,000 at £45 (inc VAT) average ticket price (probably less in Liverpool but adjusted for increased corporate revenues)). Lets say they play 30 homes games (a stretch without Europe) thats £30m additional income per annum. Take out VAT and admittedly limited additional costs and the net pre-tax profit is probably less than £15m. Even ignoring financing costs on the stadium the payback on a stadium would be a lot longer than 5 or 6 years. And all the time they would need to fund a team outside of the Champions League.
Unless Liverpool can fluke the Champions League every year with its current spending, pocket the upside of the new stadium and get someone to pay for the new stadium there is no upside from this deal in the medium term. Obviously the less paid for the business today the better the chance of generating upside but anything over £250m leaves no room for such upside in my mind.
Much like the City deal for our guys, neither deal would be about financial return. Be under no illusions btw, our deal was never about financial return.
City Raider
Well-Known Member
The blatant hypocracy of these twats and the media makes me piss my sides and winds me up at the same time.
It's as if it's a birth right, they are due it, with the media fully behind this 'new money' coming into the game. Twats, all of em.
The facts are they are in no better or worse position than any club to beleive they deserve to be bought out. They made their name in the 70's and 80's when they were regularly spending more money than anyone on players. They bought success as much as anyone has and since the Prem, when the financial stakes have been raised and they've not been able to keep up - what's happened? They've done fuck all, despite wasting fortunes.
It's as if it's a birth right, they are due it, with the media fully behind this 'new money' coming into the game. Twats, all of em.
The facts are they are in no better or worse position than any club to beleive they deserve to be bought out. They made their name in the 70's and 80's when they were regularly spending more money than anyone on players. They bought success as much as anyone has and since the Prem, when the financial stakes have been raised and they've not been able to keep up - what's happened? They've done fuck all, despite wasting fortunes.