Liverpool Rumours And General Discussion 2007/2008

~Rebel~

To be honest if someone were to be loaned i'd much prefer it be Momo! A half season away to play week in week out and to try and relearn how to pass the ball might do him the world of good. I much rather the idea of Lucas as a stand in for Gerrard, Masch or Alonso.

dc69

~Rebel~ wrote: »

To be honest if someone were to be loaned i'd much prefer it be Momo! A half season away to play week in week out and to try and relearn how to pass the ball might do him the world of good. I much rather the idea of Lucas as a stand in for Gerrard, Masch or Alonso.

thats prob a better idea cause that way lucas can come into liverpool games where momo would have come in and momo can relearn how to play football before his mistakes end up costing big

Tusky

I think momo has been awful this year but I thought he was ok tonight. Made two mistakes that stand out (falling over the ball in their box & booting the ball back down the pitch toward our goal to a chelsea player turning attack into defense) and maybe he faded a bit as the game went on. I thought he did ok though, much better than recent games.

leninbenjamin

Tusky wrote: »

Hmm - surely rotating would give new and younger players more of a chance in the team ?

I suppose so, to an extent. but once they've gained some form of consistency you really should look to play them regularly, it's as much for the ego as it is for the experience.

Tusky wrote: »

Anyway, we have Gerrard, Mascherano and Alonso in CM, Lucas was never going to walk into the team no matter how good he is.

I'd Strongly disagree with that sentiment. look toward Fabregas to be honest. If you're that convinced he's gonna be that good then you've got to take the gamble on it at some stage, like Wenger did with getting rid of Vieira, and now their team is playing much better for it. A spot on the team should be based on merit. to do it tomorrow would be jumping the gun i know that, but still i think we should be seeing more positive signs from Rafa.

Tusky

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I suppose so, to an extent. but once they've gained some form of consistency you really should look to play them regularly, it's as much for the ego as it is for the experience.


I'd Strongly disagree with that sentiment. look toward Fabregas to be honest. If you're that convinced he's gonna be that good then you've got to take the gamble on it at some stage, like Wenger did with getting rid of Vieira, and now their team is playing much better for it. A spot on the team should be based on merit. to do it tomorrow would be jumping the gun i know that, but still i think we should be seeing more positive signs from Rafa.

Fair enough. So theres 2 CM spots. Who gets them from - Gerrard, Mascherano, Alonso, Sissoko, Lucas ?

Its really not as simple as just playing him week in week out.

An Citeog

dc69 wrote: »

although a few posts back i said

I watched the match for a secong time there,concentrating mostly on lucas,he is very similar to gerrard as in he likes to pass and then run accepting the ball back and create chances,if he was more selfish he would have done better.sissoko stopped him from doing anything good as he ruined the whole tempo.

anderson and lucas both started at gremio but you have to realise that anderson played with porto for a couple of seasons,the brazilian league is hugely differant to the premiership and him playing in the portugese league would have helped him adapt to the premiership.lucas has come straight from brazil,he has yet to understand how little time you get on the ball.He was also the main man at gremio,much like torres was at athletico and i think he is nervous about making a mistake and probably does better when he takes it upon himself to score.

hopefully we will see him improove becuase he came with an unbelievable reputation from brazil.from reading other boards apperantly gremio didnt care about selling anderson(andershow as they call him) becuase they thought lucas would be better and they seem to believe that he is a better player.albeit they are differant players.

The Bola de Ouro (Golden Ball)
winners

# 2007 : Thiago Neves (Fluminense)
# 2006 : Lucas (Grêmio)
# 2005 : Carlos Tévez (Corinthians)
# 2004 : Robinho (Santos FC)
# 2003 : Alex (Cruzeiro)
# 2002 : Kaká (São Paulo FC)
# 2001 : Alex Mineiro (Atlético Paranaense)
# 2000 : Romario (Vasco da Gama)

if he is anywhere near as good as kaka or tevez or robinho we are onto a winner,notice anderson's name isnt on the list:)

this was on bbc uk's website,phil vickery their south american foorball expert answered this question

Who is Lucas Leiva? What is his true position? And based on a previous article about South American youngsters leaving too early, eg. Gabriel Paletta, is Lucas ready to come to the Premiership just yet?
Mark Williams, Leamington Spa (and many others)

These moves are always a gamble, but I think this is a good one.

He's an exciting player of a type that Brazilian football hasn't produced too many of recently. Of late their central midfielders have tended to be 'holders' who sit and allow the full-backs to push forward.

Lucas is different. He's a big, blonde figure whose power and physical strength comes with attacking ability.

He can pass well and loves to rumble forward. He gets on the scoresheet both with blistering shots from range and from bursting beyond the strikers.

You can certainly imagine him playing alongside Javier Mascherano, for example.

I don't have the same fears for him as I did with Paletta. He's had two full seasons behind him - one helping Gremio win promotion from the second division, and then last year's success when he was chosen as the player of the championship.

In a perfect world you might want him to stay another year before moving on, but (a) Gremio need to sell to balance the books and (b) with Liverpool's strength in depth in central midfield it looks as if his first campaign will be a bedding in season.

I haven't seen much of Lucas but it seems as if Liverpool have a very decent prospect on their hands. Like most young players, there are a whole load of variables that come into play when they move to a new country/league. Anderson seems to have hit the ground running and he seems to have both the ability and attitude/mentality of a top class footballer.

Btw, lol at you mentioning Anderson's name not being on the list! :rolleyes: He played a grand total of 5 games for Gremio and only managed 18 games for Porto, with a broken leg hampering his progress. He's also more than a year younger than Lucas!

leninbenjamin

Tusky wrote: »

Fair enough. So theres 2 CM spots. Who gets them from - Gerrard, Mascherano, Alonso, Sissoko, Lucas ?

Its really not as simple as just playing him week in week out.

you're right it isn't. But neither is it as simple as just playing him for 20 mins here and a friendly there... he can't turn from prospect into the real deal like that? at some stage he has to be thrown into the deep end. that's pretty much how every player is made.

event

Mr Alan wrote: »

Crouch was stupid to do wat he did and deserved a red. BUT he barely touched the bloke so i have no idea why he was rolling around like he had just been shot.

diving wee ****e, thats why

he deserved to go, but you'd swear he hit mikel with a hatchet. Id hate to see if he'd have caught him

zing

leninbenjamin wrote: »

to the casual observer his rotation policy seems to really hamper players development.

Seen as how Rafa made the exact same number of rotations in the league as Ferguson last year I wouldn't hold out much hope for the likes of Anderson either then.

kida

zing wrote: »

Seen as how Rafa made the exact same number of rotations in the league as Ferguson last year I wouldn't hold out much hope for the likes of Anderson either then.

I keep hearing this but find it hard to believe it. Have you some proof. Would also be nice to see a breakdown of forced by injuries/suspensions vs elective.

I know from 2 seasons ago a similar stat was claimed and when you actually took out the last 2 matches when utd made 11 changes in each match the results were very different.

dardoz

This doess not bode well if its true:

From football365

AMERICANS CHANGE PLANS TO FUND POOL STADIUM



The global credit crunch has reportedly forced Liverpool's American owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, to radically alter their plans for funding the development of Liverpool's new stadium and 'plunged the project into fresh uncertainty.'

The Daily Telegraph reports that, having originally planned to borrow £300m to pay for the new stadium, Hicks and Gillett now have 'a separate plan to borrow £350m from the Royal Bank of Scotland and American bank Wachovia' which will be used to 'refinance the loans used to acquire the club in a £220 million takeover deal last February and to pay for the initial development costs of the stadium project.'

In turn, a 'significant percentage of the new debt is to be covered by the club's income'.

With £25m required to cover the 'credit notes used to finance the summer purchases of Fernando Torres and Ryan Babel', only around £60m will be set aside for the development of a new stadium at Stanley Park - the plans for which were 'downgraded' last week.

According to the Telegraph, 'there are serious concerns over how they will raise the remaining £300m needed to complete the stadium.

'The Americans are confident of raising the money for the stadium once the project is under way, when it will be easier to secure contracts with future sponsors for naming rights and to predict income from the sale of seats and executive boxes.

'But, contrary to promises made at their takeover earlier this year, the owners are now preparing to load at least half of the new £350m debt on to the club. The refinancing of the club's debts means that from next season Liverpool will have to shoulder around £30m in annual interest repayments.'

No wonder Gillett and Hicks are understood to have rejected Rafa Benitez's plea for substantial funds to spend next month when the transfer window reopens.

PDN

kida wrote: »

I know from 2 seasons ago a similar stat was claimed and when you actually took out the last 2 matches when utd made 11 changes in each match the results were very different.

Yes, those 2 matches skew the results because the last 2 matches of United's season were meaningless games since United had won the title & had nothing to lose. So it would be fair to discount those 2 games from any survey or comparison.

However, by the same logic you would have to discount the last third of Liverpool's season since by that stage all hope of winning the Premiership had evaporated so they were playing meaningless games also. It looks like the same will be true of this season.

zing

kida wrote: »

I keep hearing this but find it hard to believe it. Have you some proof. Would also be nice to see a breakdown of forced by injuries/suspensions vs elective.

I know from 2 seasons ago a similar stat was claimed and when you actually took out the last 2 matches when utd made 11 changes in each match the results were very different.

I'm basing it off last season where the opposite is true - Rafa had given up on the league (or had the league given up on him ?) and he rotated heavily in the last game. Otherwise Ferguson would actually have clocked up more rotations.

IIRC two seasons ago when Chelsea won Rafa had something like 1 or 2 more rotations than Mourinho but there was little between them.

Source is here:
http://www.thefootballreview.co.uk/articles/article.aspx?id=23

I know I've seen more detailed articles too but can't remember where atm.

redspider

Chelsea 2-0 Liverpool

Both Liverpool and Chelsea rested some of their key players, although Liverpool more so it has to be said. Good to see Lucas play okay in midfield. Sissoko alas, he wont be able to solve his lack of ball control skills overnight or probably ever, if you ask me! I definitely counted more than 2 mistakes Tusky (more like nearly 2 per minute). Good also to see Alonso back and being able to get off some good sweet passes. He is a real midfield player. Yes, he wasnt match fit and was a bit rusty but he will be better in time.

Liverpool were unfortunate to go a goal down as the shot from Lamps was deflected high over Itandje after that partial block from Carra. Liverpool had a few chances and should have scored, most notably perhaps from Lucas. I'm sure that if Stevie G was on the field and a Torres, then Liverpool could have won that game.

Crouch deserved his sending off for his two footed rush-of-blood-to-the-head-lunge. It didnt hurt the player and he may have got some of the ball but you just cant do that these days and the ref was right. What was he thinking of, hmmm .... only he will know. After that the game was more Chelsea as our game plan struggled with only 10-men and the target removed. Shevcenko polished it off, but Itandje shouldnt have let a near post shot go in like that.

So, that's one cup Liverpool cant win now. Will Rafa try hard in the FA Cup? I hope so. Probably the best chance for silverware ironically is the CL. Its two-legged format means that less luck in the draw is required. I wont say anything about the league, I have said my piece on that.

Wenger did with getting rid of Vieira

Vieira wanted to leave Arsenal, it wasnt a case of Wenger getting rid of him, so it is a different thing completely. Wenger was more than happy to keep him but Arsenal financially wanted to capitalise on his value while it was still there. The deal from Real Madrid for 23m broke down the season before so the board snapped at the offer of nearly 14m (20m euro!) from Juventus.


New Stadium
There are going to be difficulties with this project, as it is geared, so it wont be plain sailing and it was never going to be, either with new owners or old owners or different owners. What finances such deals is the ensuring that the fans can keep coming through the doors, and that Liverpool can merchandise as much as possible. Its all about revenue, football these days. Money markets do have a credit crunch for large projects but there is still loans being made available. The next few years for Liverpool will be tricky times. Arsenal are ahead of Liverpool on a very similar path. They have debt, but are paying it off.


Best Wishes one and all for Xmas, yes, even to he mods !! ;-)

Redspider

PHB

lol, they are now just the Glazers in Liverpool. Pretty much identical situations, except less debt.

As for the game, I think it's unfair to say that Liverpool played a second string while Chelsea played a first string. Chelsea had so many injuries, that while they were playing their best available team, they were still missing lots of key players, indeed, in terms of first choice, they played 5 top 11 players, while Liverpool played 4. This game just showed that Chelseas depth is much stronger than Liverpools. Then again, Chelsea's depth is pretty strong compared to everyone imo

leninbenjamin

zing wrote: »

Seen as how Rafa made the exact same number of rotations in the league as Ferguson last year I wouldn't hold out much hope for the likes of Anderson either then.

it's not the quantity of changes, it's when he makes the changes. Rafa just seems to always pull players just when they look like they are starting to find their feet. his messing with Torres has practically ended their season... he did the same with Gonzalez.

and dardoz, every major business is having some serious problems getting credit. it looked for a while like Liverpool weren't going to be able to borrow at all. that's the cost of the new stadium, like it or lump it.

prendy

fergusen might change all 11 for a lesser game but he doesnt change from his best 11 week in week out like rafa does.

that article about the stadium is worrying, the sheer size of the debt being put on the club will mean dam all funds for a few years.
hopefully they still find the money for a stadium to be proud of not something thrown together coz it costs less.

kida

leninbenjamin wrote: »

it's not the quantity of changes, it's when he makes the changes. Rafa just seems to always pull players just when they look like they are starting to find their feet. his messing with Torres has practically ended their season... he did the same with Gonzalez.

and dardoz, every major business is having some serious problems getting credit. it looked for a while like Liverpool weren't going to be able to borrow at all. that's the cost of the new stadium, like it or lump it.

and also forced vs elective - Utd had a lot of injuries last season

Tusky

leninbenjamin wrote: »

it's not the quantity of changes, it's when he makes the changes. Rafa just seems to always pull players just when they look like they are starting to find their feet. his messing with Torres has practically ended their season... he did the same with Gonzalez.

What are you talking about ? Gonzalez never looked like finding his feet, he was always awful and the only thing he showed was blistering pace. Benitez gave him plenty of chances. (He featured in 37 games).

Messing with Torres ended the season for Liverpool ? Last time I checked, it was December and Liverpool are still in the fa cup, champions league and are 9 points off utd with a game in hand. Obviously, our position in the league could be better but the season is far from over.

leninbenjamin

Tusky wrote: »

What are you talking about ? Gonzalez never looked like finding his feet, he was always awful and the only thing he showed was blistering pace. Benitez gave him plenty of chances. (He featured in 37 games).

I disagree, i think he showed he had a bit more than just pace. He was never going to be a Figo, but jaysus he had a lot more to offer than Zenden.

Tusky wrote: »

Messing with Torres ended the season for Liverpool ? Last time I checked, it was December and Liverpool are still in the fa cup, champions league and are 9 points off utd with a game in hand. Obviously, our position in the league could be better but the season is far from over.

Sorry i phrased that badly. i'm not writing ye off yet, but Pool threw a fair few points away that would have made things a lot easier in my book. the Premiership will be a lot more difficult than it could have been.

Tusky

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I disagree, i think he showed he had a bit more than just pace. He was never going to be a Figo, but jaysus he had a lot more to offer than Zenden.

We will have to agree to disagree then. I thought Gonzalez always looked completely out of his depth. All he ever did was boot the ball down the wing and race after it, usually bring the ball off the pitch for a goal kick...

He is currently playing for Real Betis who are 3rd from bottom of La Liga and hes not getting his game. He has started only 6 games this year.

zing

Tusky wrote: »

Messing with Torres ended the season for Liverpool ?

Like Tusky I don't buy this messing with Torres line at all. At the start of the season I think he was being over protective of the player and trying to allow him adapt to the english game. As it turns out that has proven unnecessary as Torres adapted far quicker than many of us thought he would and now seems to be an automatic starter - or as near as there is such a thing with Rafa.

Rafa doesn't rotate too much per se but sometimes he analyses a bit too much though. His teams are always based on what he feels is the best available 11 players capable of exploiting the weaknesses of the opposition and beating them. I think that's his main problem as factors like current form, flair, creativity and skill don't always seem to get accounted for in his little mental formula (and yes we've all seen it before so no need to post it again).

Tusky

zing wrote: »

Like Tusky I don't buy this messing with Torres line at all. At the start of the season I think he was being over protective of the player and trying to allow him adapt to the english game. As it turns out that has proven unnecessary as Torres adapted far quicker than many of us thought he would and now seems to be an automatic starter - or as near as there is such a thing with Rafa.

Rafa doesn't rotate too much per se but sometimes he analyses a bit too much though. His teams are always based on what he feels is the best available 11 players capable of exploiting the weaknesses of the opposition and beating them. I think that's his main problem as factors like current form, flair, creativity and skill don't always seem to get accounted for in his little mental formula (and yes we've all seen it before so no need to post it again).

Exactly. Torres was playing when we lost to Utd & Reading. Its an easy argument to say that 'messing' with him has 'ended' the season. Its simply untrue in my opinion.

Torres has started 16 games for Liverpool this season and been used as a substitute 4 times. Thats a total of 20 apperances. Considering Reina has only played 24 games and Torres was injured for a while, that indicates that hasnt exactly been heavily rotated.

PHB

To be honest, I think his decision to rest him at Portsmouth and Birmingham had huge huge effects on your season. Winning titles is all about getting runs of wins going, and he certainly would have made the difference that day.

zing

PHB wrote: »

To be honest, I think his decision to rest him at Portsmouth and Birmingham had huge huge effects on your season.

Quite possibly but isn't hindsight such a wonderful thing.. Also bear in mind that Torres got about half an hour in both of those games which can be enough time to make the difference.

PHB

Quite possibly but isn't hindsight such a wonderful thing..

It is. But the reason they are managers and we are just posting on an internet forum is because they can see these things before we do.

prendy

i think rafa realised that torres had to play regularly to maintain form...he's not gonna score every game but if he keeps goin like he has been we'll be in good shape.

_blank_

PHB wrote: »

It is. But the reason they are managers and we are just posting on an internet forum is because they can see these things before we do.

:eek:

speak for yourself...

Chardee MacDennis

rafa wants a new deal apparently..

http://football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_2994386,00.html

emc2

they did the test draw for the next stage of the champions league this afternoon and we got AC Milan.

kryogen

dc69 wrote: »

although a few posts back i said



I watched the match for a secong time there,concentrating mostly on lucas,he is very similar to gerrard as in he likes to pass and then run accepting the ball back and create chances,if he was more selfish he would have done better.sissoko stopped him from doing anything good as he ruined the whole tempo.

anderson and lucas both started at gremio but you have to realise that anderson played with porto for a couple of seasons,the brazilian league is hugely differant to the premiership and him playing in the portugese league would have helped him adapt to the premiership.lucas has come straight from brazil,he has yet to understand how little time you get on the ball.He was also the main man at gremio,much like torres was at athletico and i think he is nervous about making a mistake and probably does better when he takes it upon himself to score.

just for arguements sake i would like to point out that you are incorrect, Anderson made his debut for porto in march 06, and signed for united in may 07, after missing 5 months with a broken leg and making 18 appearances for porto, hardly 2 years experience playing at a better level is it.

pedantic? maybe

machiavellianme

emc2 wrote: »

they did the test draw for the next stage of the champions league this afternoon and we got AC Milan.

Test draw?

dc69

kryogen wrote: »

just for arguements sake i would like to point out that you are incorrect, Anderson made his debut for porto in march 06, and signed for united in may 07, after missing 5 months with a broken leg and making 18 appearances for porto, hardly 2 years experience playing at a better level is it.

pedantic? maybe

someone already pointed that out!

shotamoose

PHB wrote: »

he certainly would have made the difference that day.

Maybe it's just loose wording, but it looks to me like you're saying Liverpool would definitely have won both those matches if Torres had started. Which is silly. He's good, but not that good - he couldn't even score against Newcastle FFS

Tusky

He may have made the difference, who knows. Its easy to say something like that in retrospect. If he had played 90 mins in both of those games maybe he wouldn't be as sharp as he was in the games that followed and maybe he wouldn't be on 12 goals now ? Again, who knows.

What I do know is that Torres started both of the games that we have lost in the league this season and scored in neither of them.

kryogen

dc69 wrote: »

someone already pointed that out!

lol sorry, i replied straight after i read!

Brando_ie

I have been wondering, ever since it was announced that the stadium plans were under further review, what other Liverpool fans think of the options on the table.

Namely, the bespoke circa 76,000 seater stadium briefly dangled in front of us by our American benefactors, along with the £700m price tag that seems to come along with it or the scaled down (albeit revised upwards) run of the mill 70,000ish seater bowl one more recently with the benefit of less expenditure and presumably with it the ability to perhaps compete better on the field in terms of transfers or revenue coming back into the club.

As an architect I was very excited at the prospect of the landmark design but as a recent mortgage holder I am certainly feeling the credit pinch underway. I think I am now leaning towards a clever business decision and not overly burden the club with debt.

Furthermore one of the limitations of the bowl type stadia is the apparent inability to expand them once completed. But having been involved in the design of some of the stadiums used in the Sydney Olympics I think some clever architecture and engineering could allow enough redundancy to be built into the structure to effectively 'raise the roof' should the need to expand the stadium further down the line?

dc69

Brando_ie wrote: »

I have been wondering, ever since it was announced that the stadium plans were under further review, what other Liverpool fans think of the options on the table.

Namely, the bespoke circa 76,000 seater stadium briefly dangled in front of us by our American benefactors, along with the £700m price tag that seems to come along with it or the scaled down (albeit revised upwards) run of the mill 70,000ish seater bowl one more recently with the benefit of less expenditure and presumably with it the ability to perhaps compete better on the field in terms of transfers or revenue coming back into the club.

As an architect I was very excited at the prospect of the landmark design but as a recent mortgage holder I am certainly feeling the credit pinch underway. I think I am now leaning towards a clever business decision and not overly burden the club with debt.

Furthermore one of the limitations of the bowl type stadia is the apparent inability to expand them once completed. But having been involved in the design of some of the stadiums used in the Sydney Olympics I think some clever architecture and engineering could allow enough redundancy to be built into the structure to effectively 'raise the roof' should the need to expand the stadium further down the line?

im pretty pissed about it.but from giller and hicks perspective,they will still gain more revenue as more money via ticket prices every week 70000 compared to 40000,without having to shell out 300 million extra.
I reckon they have ****ed up big time dont have money for transferes or the original stadium and god knows where the club will end up.although in saying that i know one of them forked out 250 million dollars on a baseball player,so maybe they have one set of funds for america and another "smaller" set for england.

~Rebel~

Brando_ie wrote:

I have been wondering, ever since it was announced that the stadium plans were under further review, what other Liverpool fans think of the options on the table.

Namely, the bespoke circa 76,000 seater stadium briefly dangled in front of us by our American benefactors, along with the £700m price tag that seems to come along with it or the scaled down (albeit revised upwards) run of the mill 70,000ish seater bowl one more recently with the benefit of less expenditure and presumably with it the ability to perhaps compete better on the field in terms of transfers or revenue coming back into the club.

As an architect I was very excited at the prospect of the landmark design but as a recent mortgage holder I am certainly feeling the credit pinch underway. I think I am now leaning towards a clever business decision and not overly burden the club with debt.

Furthermore one of the limitations of the bowl type stadia is the apparent inability to expand them once completed. But having been involved in the design of some of the stadiums used in the Sydney Olympics I think some clever architecture and engineering could allow enough redundancy to be built into the structure to effectively 'raise the roof' should the need to expand the stadium further down the line?

From what i hear, its not just the bowl as the new option. The contract has been offered to the UK firm who did the bowl, as well as the american firm who did the savage Hicks-Arena. Both aparantly have the KOP as a single tier centerpiece, but one is an improvement on the bowl, while the other is a scaled down version of what we saw unveiled in August. Both are also around the 70,000 mark. From what i've seen, I think i'd prefer the scaled down August venue as there was something very different and spectacular about it.

Kanney

Hey has anyone got GIF (animated pics) of Liverpool players, preferably Torres, I see Ronaldinho ones around but no Torres... Any help would be appreciated.

zing

As ~Rebel~ said it's a two horse race now. Revised & scaled up version of the original bowl shaped stadium or scaled back version of the HKS design which was unveiled a few months back. It's rather embarrassing for Gillet & Hicks (Hicks in particular) to have had to do a u-turn on that design but given the spiraling costs associated with it they have made the right decision - proceeding with it would have been a very dangerous move for the club.

I seriously hope the revised HKS design does not compromise on the original design too much as it was magnificent and very unique looking. Decision on which to proceed with is to be made in early January afaik.

redspider

Brando_ie wrote: »

I think I am now leaning towards a clever business decision and not overly burden the club with debt.

I think some clever architecture and engineering could allow enough redundancy to be built into the structure to effectively 'raise the roof' should the need to expand the stadium further down the line

And there was me thinking it was the Liverpool fans that raise the roof !! ;-)

Yeah, lets hope canny business decisions are made (and architectural ones) so that debt is kept as low as possible for maximum return, and that expandibility is as much as possible for future expansion of need be. Think Camp Nou.

Here's a zany revenue idea but workable nonetheless once it would become an accepted 'norm'. When Liverpool are playing away, why not open up Anfield and use large giant screens and get some paying fans in. On big match nights the stadium could be filled and it would be a good atmosphere, and much better than 100,000 plus fans going to watch in pubs etc or at home. Imagine what the CL final would have been like there, or the FA Cup Final, or indeed many matches. Start by charging quite low, as atmosphere and bodies are needed.

Or am I having too much mulled wine ? ;-)

Redspider

mike65

I've wondered in the past why that was'nt done on a regular basis charge say 10 quid for a big-screen experience in the rain.....er. Maybe not, but some games would be worth experimenting with.

Mike.

leninbenjamin

redspider wrote: »

Here's a zany revenue idea but workable nonetheless once it would become an accepted 'norm'. When Liverpool are playing away, why not open up Anfield and use large giant screens and get some paying fans in. On big match nights the stadium could be filled and it would be a good atmosphere, and much better than 100,000 plus fans going to watch in pubs etc or at home. Imagine what the CL final would have been like there, or the FA Cup Final, or indeed many matches. Start by charging quite low, as atmosphere and bodies are needed.

the local authorities would be one potential stumbling block. aren't most sstadia in England limited in the number of events they can hold for local residents and the like? you'd also have to get the local police on board, which might be difficult as it does take a lot of resources to police large crowds. then there's the costs... could it bring in enough revenue to offset the cost of opening it up, employing staff, then cleaning up? it's a nice idea but i'd be surprised if it's workable.

mike65

todays stupid rumour

Mike.

mike65

Liverpool v Inter in the CL

Mike.

copacetic

happy enough, they will suit us I think and hopefully can take them. prefer them to ac, barca or real..

oobydooby

mike65 wrote: »

todays stupid rumour

Mike.

A source close to Klinsmann told SunSport:

Say no more...

prendy

decent draw...pity were away in the 2nd leg tho.
id much rather get a big team than a small one..we always tend to raise it against big teams.
arsenal v milan should be very interesting.

PHB

I've often wondered about why teams don't do that redspider, and as far as I can discern, the costs just aren't worth it. The police don't want to do it, and you'll have to pay them obviously. The local residents will object, and those agreements they have are very very delicate. Also people would prefer to watch away games with some alcohol