Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

whatawaster

Happy Monday wrote: »

These warnings are very much the exception - tell me how many other of the free spending British football clubs have had their auditors publish such a statement - Man Utd, Sunderland, Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal - don't think so - I'm amazed :eek: that as an auditor you would undermine the very object of your role.

I've never read the report of another football club so i don't know to be honest.
I do know that as long as we continue to qualify to the CL we'll be ok i think.

MementoMori

Dossena - From the reports it sounds like he handed in a transfer request, which is to Liverpool's advantage in terms of the amount of money we will recoup from his sale. Given it's the World Cup next year, I'd imagine his main aim would be a move to a team where he is likely to be playing week-in week-out. Always seemed to be more suited to a LW position in a 3-5-2. Thanks for the goals in against Utd and Madrid. Will be interesting to see how much of the £6m fee is recouped. The change in the exchange rate should help us out here, so I'm going to predict £5m as the most likely amount we will recoup.

Someone asked about Leto - Havent heard anything yet. Wait-and-see situation. Really can't see him getting a work permit on what I've read about his performances in Greece. I would say he could well be sold, maybe to Olympiakos.

Also the whole Paul Anderson going to Swansea situation appears to be on hold given the situation with Martinez and Wigan. Notts Forrest were meant to be interested as well. I wonder could Martinez be interested in taking him to Wigan given all the rumours about Valencia moving on this summer? - Wait-and-see

Also of note the sub keeper in the Bulgaria squad is Nikolay Mihaylov who is a Liverpool player - been on loan to FC Twente this season but hasn't gotten that many games. The loan agreement was meant to be two years but that might be changed given how few games he has got. Reason he is in the Bulgaria squad is down to his appearances underage with the team. Thought to be highly promising. Only 21.

MementoMori

Happy Monday wrote: »

KPMG have real concerns that this debt cannot be serviced - that's my point - about there being a huge over reliance on this debt.

These warnings are very much the exception - tell me how many other of the free spending British football clubs have had their auditors publish such a statement - Man Utd, Sunderland, Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal - don't think so - I'm amazed :eek: that as an auditor you would undermine the very object of your role.

I would be pretty certain that it's a case of KPMG's concern is down to the fact that the current loan is due to expire on the 24th of July of this year, not that they think the club cannot afford to service the debt.

If it was the case that the auditors were concerned about the fact that the ownership structure is heavily loaded in the direction of debt as opposed to equity, would it not be the case that the other clubs in the PL who have more debt that Liverpool would also have similar warnings in their accounts?

KPMG are merely covering themselves from a legal stand-point in case that RBS say to G&H that they are not extending the loans in July. They are saying that "To anyone reading these accounts - as it stands the loan which is underwriting G&H's ownership of the club is due to expire in a few weeks. Unless they extend that loan/get a new loan/change the ownership structure by investing equity, we cannot guarantee that the club will continue to be able to carry on in existence"

This is a long long long long way away from the club going out of existence.

copacetic

Happy Monday wrote: »

KPMG have real concerns that this debt cannot be serviced - that's my point - about there being a huge over reliance on this debt.

These warnings are very much the exception - tell me how many other of the free spending British football clubs have had their auditors publish such a statement - Man Utd, Sunderland, Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal - don't think so - I'm amazed :eek: that as an auditor you would undermine the very object of your role.

I think you are misunderstanding the role of auditors. Their role is to point out any and all potential problems. They owe nothing to the subject of the audit. The 'very object of their role' is to verify the books are valid and point out risk not to do anyone any favours.

Loans are due for repayment, if they aren't refinanced then it is a disaster. That is obvious to everyone and is well known. Of course they have to point out that it is a possibility, which it is right up until they are refinanced.

I also saw absolutely nothing about concerns that the debt can be serviced, where did you read about these 'real concerns'?

jesus_thats_gre

Smegball wrote: »

More chance of Anderson winning golden boot

Genius!

Happy Monday

MementoMori wrote: »

I would be pretty certain that it's a case of KPMG's concern is down to the fact that the current loan is due to expire on the 24th of July of this year, not that they think the club cannot afford to service the debt.

If it was the case that the auditors were concerned about the fact that the ownership structure is heavily loaded in the direction of debt as opposed to equity, would it not be the case that the other clubs in the PL who have more debt that Liverpool would also have similar warnings in their accounts?

KPMG are merely covering themselves from a legal stand-point in case that RBS say to G&H that they are not extending the loans in July. They are saying that "To anyone reading these accounts - as it stands the loan which is underwriting G&H's ownership of the club is due to expire in a few weeks. Unless they extend that loan/get a new loan/change the ownership structure by investing equity, we cannot guarantee that the club will continue to be able to carry on in existence"

This is a long long long long way away from the club going out of existence.

Not saying the club will go out of existence - it won't.
All companies have debt - the issue here is the extent of the debt.
And the fact that the owners have only given verbal assurances at this point of their ability to meet the next repayment date.
The owners will get the cash from somewhere - the real issue is how much will that cost in future servicing as it will be given at punitive rates and what impact will that have on transfer budgets, salaries and so on.
It's just not good news and anyone who says otherwise has their head in the sand.

~Rebel~

Happy Monday wrote: »

If only Moores had sold to the Arabs we'd be top heavy with quality players.

Happy Monday wrote: »

Hopefully these mugs see sense and cut their losses and sell to DIC.

I'm afraid being owned by Dubai wouldn't be any better. Could be much worse tbh. Just a hint of the trouble they're facing http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/02/23/dubai-is-in-deep-financial-trouble/

Highsider

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I'm afraid being owned by Dubai wouldn't be any better. Could be much worse tbh. Just a hint of the trouble they're facing http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/02/23/dubai-is-in-deep-financial-trouble/

Yeah. We actually avoided one hell of a bullet with DIC.

mike65

It wouldn'nt be DIC anyway as Sheikh Mo had decided it would his toy or no at all./

~Rebel~

mike65 wrote: »

It wouldn'nt be DIC anyway as Sheikh Mo had decided it would his toy or no at all./

True, but i still couldn't imagine a scenario of this happening anyway. Though the outcry in Dubai would be pretty hilarious - developments at a standstill, industry needing massive bailouts, and the Sheikh driving around with Liverpool flags on his car and You'll Never Walk Alone blaring from his palace windows!

joe123

Im very worried. Alonso could be sold to madrid out of necessity now.

Id rather us keep Alonso and not bring in anyone than sell him for 25 million and bring in two three more good but not great players.

Surely Benitez would be in the loop about all this ahead of him signing a new contract aswell as Torres and co signing extensions.

If funds are low this summer Id look to the likes of Martins,Downing,Tuncay or even owen.

From these reports theres not a chance in hell were going to be able to afford tevez/Villa/Glen Johnson/Silva etc etc.

Thank God Agger has signed a new deal aswel.

Headshot

joe123 wrote: »

Im very worried. Alonso could be sold to madrid out of necessity now.

Id rather us keep Alonso and not bring in anyone than sell him for 25 million and bring in two three more good but not great players.

Surely Benitez would be in the loop about all this ahead of him signing a new contract aswell as Torres and co signing extensions.

If funds are low this summer Id look to the likes of Martins,Downing,Tuncay or even owen.

From these reports theres not a chance in hell were going to be able to afford tevez/Villa/Glen Johnson/Silva etc etc.

Thank God Agger has signed a new deal aswel.

just to say mate Downing is suppose to be out until christmas

Tuncay would be a good buy for ye

joe123

Headshot wrote: »

just to say mate Downing is suppose to be out until christmas

Ah thats right forgot about that.

Lads I wouldnt wory too much about it.

Obviously they are not the ideal owners but they are not as bad as they are being made out.
I am studying economics/accounting and I looked through the accounts and things are being unbelievably inflated,ignore the media.
They are clowns,LFC are in not the best position but they are not about to colapse as the papers would suggest.

If they can refinance the loan properly,which they have not been allowed to do then we will still be in a better position than utd,but then you dont hear anything about them or other clubs!!!!!

Highsider

Davis Proud Pea wrote: »

Lads I wouldnt wory too much about it.

Obviously they are not the ideal owners but they are not as bad as they are being made out.
I am studying economics/accounting and I looked through the accounts and things are being unbelievably inflated,ignore the media.
They are clowns,LFC are in not the best position but they are not about to colapse as the papers would suggest.

If they can refinance the loan properly,which they have not been allowed to do then we will still be in a better position than utd,but then you dont hear anything about them or other clubs!!!!!

True but Utd bring in 3m quid more than us each and every single home game. They do not have to spend 300m+ on a new stadium. Also i don't believe anything i read in the papers anyway's so am in no way buying into this "LFC on the brink" rubbish. Let's not forget these are the same newspapers who said Rafa was about to walk within 24hrs last season.:rolleyes:

Karmafaerie

Fu€king closed season!:mad:

Thanx 4 The Fish

Well they have to say something

Chardee MacDennis

good (as in informative) few articles on the clubs financial position in the Guardian today. basically says Wachovia and RBS will definitely extend the loan as we are paying 30m interest a year which they love as it doesnt look like we will default on it. also the 313m loan may be increased to 350m to give us some money for transfers but at the moment we have 20m to spend. G&H will have to put 100m or so into the club to extend the loan though.

there is no way the club will fall into administration but we need new investors for the stadium, which Hicks is on the look out for, but interest in buying the club has dried up and we'll probably be stuck with G&H until the world economy picks up. Hicks seems to have dug his heels in and wants to stay at the club and wants to be there when the stadium is eventually built while Gillette cant sell his stake as it's over valued...

anyway was grim reading but it's not as bad as some here think...

mike65

Interest has not dried up, interest in being fleesed by Hicks (and Gillett) has. At the right price LFC will have a buyer no question.

Chardee MacDennis

semantics Mike...

missingtime

Its not as bad as its being made out, it usually never is but i'm a sad panda nonetheless.

My question at the moment is, how did they get to keep Rafa?

Highsider

missingtime wrote: »

Its not as bad as its being made out, it usually never is but i'm a sad panda nonetheless.

My question at the moment is, how did they get to keep Rafa?

They lied to him

Chardee MacDennis

about what?

missingtime

BastardPrince wrote: »

about what?

Budget, maybe, I'm not sure.

I honestly have so much respect for Rafa if he new the club was in this situation but still wanted to stay*

I don't know how he does it to be honest, he must have the missus driven mental :pac:

*Touch wood Real Madrid don't come a knocking

Chardee MacDennis

he has a budget of around 20m potentially increasing to 40m and he'll be allowed have the majority of any money from sales apparently.

i dont see where you're all getting we have no money to spend?

mike65

missingtime,

Manuel Pellegrini is the Real manager.

opr

BastardPrince wrote: »

he has a budget of around 20m potentially increasing to 40m and he'll be allowed have the majority of any money from sales apparently.

i dont see where you're all getting we have no money to spend?

Maybe they are getting it the same place your getting how much we have to spend ?

Opr

missingtime

mike65 wrote: »

missingtime,

Manuel Pellegrini is the Real manager.

Still, that club is a law unto its own.

I just want the league to start again...my ticker can't take this.

Chardee MacDennis

opr wrote: »

Maybe they are getting it the same place your getting how much we have to spend ?

Opr

the same place everyone else is getting that we have nothing to spend or that the board lied to Rafa? thats quite a conclusion to jump to when there is no evidence we have nothing to spend...

it's all speculation, only a handful of people know the real answer but time will tell.

MementoMori

First signing of the summer Not a player but still I think we'll take anything at this stage.

New reserve manager is John McMahon (brother of Steve)

Shame Shrewsbury didn't get promotion to League One this season (lost on the play-offs) as it sounds like he's leaving on pretty good terms and you'd imagine that there might be a possibility of some of the fringe reserve players going on loan to them. Don't know how useful a loan to a League Two team would be for the development of even young/fringe reserve players would be though.

Assistant manager John McMahon will be leaving Town's coaching staff to take up a new post with Liverpool Football Club as reserve team manager

Macca has been with the club for nearly four years after joining from Tranmere Rovers to join Gary Peters coaching staff.

ShrewsWeb spoke to Macca this morning and suggested that it was a move that he couldn't turn down: "If any Premier League club comes knock at your door it something that you have to consider and with it being Liverpool it was a job that I couldn't refuse.

"I think it's a great progression for me and I would like to think that I've got experience right through from the youth and reserves sides at Tranmere to the first team at Shrewsbury."

The job is a position which will see Macca work to develop the young players between the reserves side and into the first team: "It is a development role and they see the role for me working with the pros who are in-between the reserves and first team and developing and fine tuning them with a view for them going into the first team.

"It is a very hands on coaching role and it gives the opportunity to work with some of the best coaches in the certainly Europe if not the world.

"To work with a manager of the quality of Rafa Benitez and an assistant manager like Sammy Lee is brilliant and it's a place where I can and continue to learn and develop as a coach and hopefully give them something back."

To move to a club like Liverpool is a dream move but Macca revealed that it is tough to be leaving Shrewsbury: "It is tough to leave but I would like to think that I have done my part for Shrewsbury. I signed a 3 year contract and would like to think that I've honoured that contract.

"I've never taken a day off sick and during my time we've had two, all be it disappointing, visits to Wembley.

"Ultimately I would have liked to have left the club with them being promoted but it wasn't the case to be.

"I've really enjoyed my time with Shrewsbury and the chairmen, manager, the staff, players and spectators have been fantastic to me.

"I'd like to think I've helped with the resurgence of Shrewsbury and think I leave the club in a better position than when I joined."

Macca now closes his chapter at Shrewsbury Town and looks ahead to the new challenge of developing the next set of Liverpool superstars: "It is certainly an interesting job and when you are working at that level with international player's day in and day out it is great challenge.

"The facilities and resources that they can draw on help to make this a challenge that I am certainly looking forward too.

"It's one that I am really looking to get my teeth into and hopefully I can reproduce the goods there as well."

When Paul Simpson took over he kept faith with Macca and subsequently promoted his to his assistant manager.

It's a blow for Simmo but it's a move that he knows Macca couldn't turn down: "John's been offered a fantastic position at Liverpool Football Cub as a coach of a development group that they are trying to form next year.

"It's something that was in one of the Sunday papers a few weeks ago but I didn't know anything concrete about it until last Tuesday when I got a call from Owen Brown at Liverpool asking for permission to speak to Macca.

"When you get a phone call like that there is no way that anybody can stand in the way of someone who has been loyal to a football club. To give them the opportunity to work at club like Liverpool is a great chance for him that he has accepted."

At Tranmere Macca came through as the youth manager but also took charge of the reserves and had a couple of spells in charge of the first team. When Simmo took over at Town he stuck with Macca and has been grateful for his input and honesty in that time: "John has been great since I've come into the football club to be honest, he's a fella who I didn't really know a hell of a lot about but I decided to give it a shot and see how we got on and he's been very good for me.

"He is someone who is prepared to pass an opinion and will question things which I think you have to have as a manager. You need to have staff who are prepared to have their own opinions and John has been very good for that.

"He's been a good coach to the players and they all enjoyed the sessions that he put on and he was a great help to them.

"All we can do now is thank him for what he's done and wish Macca all the best in what should be a fantastic chance for him."

http://www.shrewsburytown.com/page/NewsDetail/0,,10443~1686571,00.html

Chardee MacDennis

Real Madrid president Florentino Perez has told club sporting director Jorge Valdano to negotiate with Valencia for star duo David Silva and David Villa, but not to pay over €20m and €25m for the pair respectively. Silva is also wanted by Liverpool, whilst Villa is a reported target for Chelsea. (Marca)

interesting if true! i'd be surprised if we werent willing to pay 20m euro for Silva.

Headshot

BastardPrince wrote: »

Real Madrid president Florentino Perez has told club sporting director Jorge Valdano to negotiate with Valencia for star duo David Silva and David Villa, but not to pay over €20m and €25m for the pair respectively. Silva is also wanted by Liverpool, whilst Villa is a reported target for Chelsea. (Marca)

interesting if true! i'd be surprised if we werent willing to pay 20m euro for Silva.

total bull****

city were taken back from the price Valencia wanted for villa

missingtime

Yea man, reports that Chelsea are building a 40m bid.

Silly season...whoop whoop whoop whoop whooooo

We can outspend United, claim Liverpool
Despite their recently published levels of debts, the Merseyside club say that only Chelsea have more cash to splash

LIVERPOOL have reacted bullishly to claims that they are on the point of financial meltdown by insisting they expect to be able to outspend both Manchester United and Arsenal in the transfer market this summer.

A senior Liverpool source told The Sunday Times last night: “We have more spare cash to spend than any club except Chelsea.”

The source, who has detailed knowledge of the 2007 takeover at Anfield by the American businessmen Tom Hicks and George Gillett and insight into how they have run the club since, also says:

€ the transfer budget will be a minimum of £20m plus sales this summer and that manager Rafael Benitez “is free to exceed it” if he can “make a convincing case”
Related Links

* Red alert at Liverpool's soaring debt

* Players the winners as football bucks trend

€ Liverpool are not subject to some of the financial constraints on transfer dealings that limit Manchester United and Arsenal, who are more indebted to outsiders including banks and institutions

€ Benitez is “an amazing guy who knows he has a healthy transfer budget to augment one of the world’s strongest squads”.

The source also suggested Hicks and Gillett had two regrets over their takeover. First, they reneged on an initial promise not to put some of their buyout debt directly onto Liverpool; and second, they are unable to start work on the new Stanley Park stadium “because the world’s fallen apart financially”.

They both want to remain at Liverpool, ideally in partnership with a new investor — yet to be found — with deep pockets to help fund the stadium. However, more than £58m channelled into Kop Football Ltd (Liverpool’s UK holding company) from an arm of the Hicks-Gillett operations based in the Cayman Islands is “evidence in cash” of the owners’ commitment. That money is part of £421.6m owed by KFL to all creditors combined at the end of July 2008.

Premier League debt is back in the spotlight after Deloitte’s annual review of football finance showed top-flight clubs owe in total £3.1bn, two-thirds by the “Big Four”. Chelsea owe Roman Abramovich £701m. Manchester United owe banks and hedge funds £649m and other creditors about £50m more. Arsenal owe £416m, spent largely on the Emirates Stadium and on property development at Highbury.

Kop Football Ltd posted losses of £42.6m for the year to July 2008, mainly down to interest payments of £36.5m on loans taken out by Hicks and Gillett to buy Liverpool.

Guy:Incognito

Headshot wrote: »

just to say mate Downing is suppose to be out until christmas

We can rebuild him, we have the technology.

daithijjj

Headshot wrote: »

total bull****

city were taken back from the price Valencia wanted for villa

The sheik cashed in a few shares he had in barclays bank last wednesday, he made a modest :cool: profit of 1.5 billion.......yes, you read correctly, billion. I dont really think he will squabble over the loose change if he really wants a player.

mike65

Keith Harris (but not Orville) was on Fivelive this morning and echoed what was said here yesterday, namely that the warning statement issued was in itself of no great concern and that LFC was not going to go bust.

Thanx 4 The Fish

A guy from PWC was on TV there this morning and said that it was not a warning per sé but they said that it would be remiss of them not to mention it as a possibility.

PiE

Groundswell guys!

Liverpool and Everton 'must' share new ground, council says
Liverpool and Everton must share a new stadium if they are to thrive in future, the leader of Liverpool City Council has said. If they do not, the city will not be included within England's 2018 World Cup bid because "Anfield and Goodison Park do not fit Fifa's criteria".

Warren Bradley, also head of the city's 2018 bid committee, has brought the groundshare debate to the fore again after Liverpool's accounts showed the club lost £42.6m last year. Bradley, who says he has "seen the books of both clubs", told The Observer: "We've got to do something if we are serious about being a bidding city for the World Cup. I don't want to see everything migrate down the M62 to Manchester where there are two fabulous stadiums," he said, refering to Old Trafford and *Eastlands.

"There is a need for a 60,000 fit-for-purpose, 21st-century stadium in *Liverpool. It would cost around £300m. Sure, we still have the tribalistic *supporters in the city who would say, 'I won't sit in it after a Liverpudlian or Evertonian has.' But that's not the argument, is it? I don't see any reason why it can't work – it does so across the southern hemisphere, and in Germany, Italy and America."

The prospective stadium would be situated between the two clubs on Stanley Park, where Liverpool have said they would like to build their own new ground. Both clubs are dismissive of Bradley's claims, but Bradley is confident he has support across Liverpool.

"What I've said is absolutely right and is now being amplified in the city in business, at the clubs privately, and with the supporters. When you speak privately to different people at the clubs – at director level – they tell you what they think, but will never publicly go on record.

"There is a groundswell of support now that it is the only way forward for both football clubs."

Bradley's views are backed by the Northwest Regional Development Agency, a major stakeholder in the city's bid, which said: "The Agency was supportive of the idea of a groundshare between Liverpool and Everton due to the economic sense this made. However, we accept that any decision has always been a matter for the two clubs."

Bradley accepts that they must be on board, but believes that there is now no other choice. "We recognise the Fifa criteria that both clubs must have 40,000-plus seats available to the paying public that doesn't include VIPs. I don't believe either club is in a position to satisfy that criteria, so therefore something needs to be done quickly." Goodison Park is definitely too small, while Anfield's capacity of 45,000-plus may also fall short of requirements.

The struggle of Liverpool owners Bill Hicks and George Gillet to refinance their £350m debt facility by the end of next month would seem to threaten the club's plans to build its own stadium on Stanley Park. Liverpool declined to comment, but it is understood they maintain it is business as usual.

Everton, meanwhile, will find out by the autumn if their proposed *controversial move outside the city to a new stadium at Kirkby – in partnership with Tesco – will be agreed by the government.

Bradley is sceptical. "The longer it goes on the less likelihood it can be delivered financially by the club. I firmly believe Everton is taking the wrong step by moving out of the city," he said. "This is raw economics. I've had a season ticket at Everton for 30 years, so this is not about which way the wind is blowing.

"I firmly believe the economic viability of both clubs, not only in the present climate, but, in the future, has got to be the ability to invest on the field, not in hard infrastructure. Having looked at the books of both clubs, at the moment about 70% of the bottom line goes to hard infrastructure. If they shared a stadium they could cut that down to about 30 to 35 per cent and the rest could go on footballers."

While Liverpool would not comment on the record, Everton spokesman Ian Ross was explicit in voicing the club's anger at Bradley. "Yes, the Everton directors have one view and that view is that we should push ahead with the destination project. For Warren Bradley to suggest that the directors have one view and that is [to have] a shared stadium is the usual utter nonsense.

"We have spent nearly three years working on destination Kirkby and are giving absolutely no consideration to any other scheme. Perhaps *councillor Bradley should have fought somewhat harder to keep Everton inside the Liverpool city boundary if he is that intent on a joint stadium.

"We would have welcomed more help from our city council – that never *happened, which is why we pursued Kirkby. For councillor Bradley to now claim there is a weight of opinion to suggest we should now have a joint *stadium would appear to be opportunism of the first order."

Bradley said he will chair a meeting over the coming fortnight of the stakeholders involved in the city's bid to be part of England 2018. It will include the directors of Liverpool and Everton and the idea of a joint stadium is bound to be discussed ahead of the first visit to the city by the 2018 committee next month.

By then Liverpool's financial situation may also be clearer. If RBS, one of the two main creditors, does not wish to refinance its part of the debt the bank could countenance actually running the club itself. As the credit crisis has made the government and taxpayer a sizeable owner of RBS this would be unprecedented in English football and would have major implications for the Premier League as a global brand.

The Premier League was unavailable for comment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/07/liverpool-everton-stadium-share

Groooundsweeell!

Headshot

would ye share with Everton

imo it makes alot of sense

mike65

Hang on 2018? The year thats 9 years away? By which point neither Anfield or Goodison will probably exist?

Headshot - no surrender!

PHB

I don't understand the argument against the ground share. I understand personal pride and all that, but if you are in a situation, which both Everton and Liverpool are in, where they can't each afford to build a new stadium, and if working together will get them it, I really can't see why not.

AC Milan and Inter do it and nobody thinks any less of them.

mike65

There is no need, anyone who thinks Anfield will still be Liverpools home by 2018 is nuts. The club will change hands at some point and a stadium will be built.

Waster

R.e. groundshare, I thought Everton were getting a free stadium from Tesco? The planning application for the stanley park stadium was made on a SINGLE USE basis. If it were to be a groundshare then the application would have to be submitted again from the start, costing the club massively in time and money. Can't see it happening.

Boggles

Waster wrote: »

R.e. groundshare, I thought Everton were getting a free stadium from Tesco?

Jaysus, how many club card points is that?

Chardee MacDennis

no chance of a gorundshare. fans would lose their minds...

spockety

Warren Bradley pops up with this every few months, it is his personal crusade. Everyone has told him to go and do one, yet he still comes back time and time again with it.

It's very easy for fans of other clubs with 70k+ seater stadia of their own to come and ask why would we have a problem with a groundshare. Wonder if they'd find the question so easy if roles were reversed. They will say yes, but I would wonder.

whatawaster

PiE wrote: »

Liverpool and Everton 'must' share new ground, council says
Liverpool and Everton must share a new stadium if they are to thrive in future, the leader of Liverpool City Council has said. If they do not, the city will not be included within England's 2018 World Cup bid because "Anfield and Goodison Park do not fit Fifa's criteria".

Warren Bradley, also head of the city's 2018 bid committee, has brought the groundshare debate to the fore again after Liverpool's accounts showed the club lost £42.6m last year. Bradley, who says he has "seen the books of both clubs", told The Observer: "We've got to do something if we are serious about being a bidding city for the World Cup. I don't want to see everything migrate down the M62 to Manchester where there are two fabulous stadiums," he said, refering to Old Trafford and *Eastlands.

"There is a need for a 60,000 fit-for-purpose, 21st-century stadium in *Liverpool. It would cost around £300m. Sure, we still have the tribalistic *supporters in the city who would say, 'I won't sit in it after a Liverpudlian or Evertonian has.' But that's not the argument, is it? I don't see any reason why it can't work – it does so across the southern hemisphere, and in Germany, Italy and America."

The prospective stadium would be situated between the two clubs on Stanley Park, where Liverpool have said they would like to build their own new ground. Both clubs are dismissive of Bradley's claims, but Bradley is confident he has support across Liverpool.

"What I've said is absolutely right and is now being amplified in the city in business, at the clubs privately, and with the supporters. When you speak privately to different people at the clubs – at director level – they tell you what they think, but will never publicly go on record.

"There is a groundswell of support now that it is the only way forward for both football clubs."

Bradley's views are backed by the Northwest Regional Development Agency, a major stakeholder in the city's bid, which said: "The Agency was supportive of the idea of a groundshare between Liverpool and Everton due to the economic sense this made. However, we accept that any decision has always been a matter for the two clubs."

Bradley accepts that they must be on board, but believes that there is now no other choice. "We recognise the Fifa criteria that both clubs must have 40,000-plus seats available to the paying public that doesn't include VIPs. I don't believe either club is in a position to satisfy that criteria, so therefore something needs to be done quickly." Goodison Park is definitely too small, while Anfield's capacity of 45,000-plus may also fall short of requirements.

The struggle of Liverpool owners Bill Hicks and George Gillet to refinance their £350m debt facility by the end of next month would seem to threaten the club's plans to build its own stadium on Stanley Park. Liverpool declined to comment, but it is understood they maintain it is business as usual.

Everton, meanwhile, will find out by the autumn if their proposed *controversial move outside the city to a new stadium at Kirkby – in partnership with Tesco – will be agreed by the government.

Bradley is sceptical. "The longer it goes on the less likelihood it can be delivered financially by the club. I firmly believe Everton is taking the wrong step by moving out of the city," he said. "This is raw economics. I've had a season ticket at Everton for 30 years, so this is not about which way the wind is blowing.

"I firmly believe the economic viability of both clubs, not only in the present climate, but, in the future, has got to be the ability to invest on the field, not in hard infrastructure. Having looked at the books of both clubs, at the moment about 70% of the bottom line goes to hard infrastructure. If they shared a stadium they could cut that down to about 30 to 35 per cent and the rest could go on footballers."

While Liverpool would not comment on the record, Everton spokesman Ian Ross was explicit in voicing the club's anger at Bradley. "Yes, the Everton directors have one view and that view is that we should push ahead with the destination project. For Warren Bradley to suggest that the directors have one view and that is [to have] a shared stadium is the usual utter nonsense.

"We have spent nearly three years working on destination Kirkby and are giving absolutely no consideration to any other scheme. Perhaps *councillor Bradley should have fought somewhat harder to keep Everton inside the Liverpool city boundary if he is that intent on a joint stadium.

"We would have welcomed more help from our city council – that never *happened, which is why we pursued Kirkby. For councillor Bradley to now claim there is a weight of opinion to suggest we should now have a joint *stadium would appear to be opportunism of the first order."

Bradley said he will chair a meeting over the coming fortnight of the stakeholders involved in the city's bid to be part of England 2018. It will include the directors of Liverpool and Everton and the idea of a joint stadium is bound to be discussed ahead of the first visit to the city by the 2018 committee next month.

By then Liverpool's financial situation may also be clearer. If RBS, one of the two main creditors, does not wish to refinance its part of the debt the bank could countenance actually running the club itself. As the credit crisis has made the government and taxpayer a sizeable owner of RBS this would be unprecedented in English football and would have major implications for the Premier League as a global brand.

The Premier League was unavailable for comment.

We wish

~Rebel~

apologies, im an idiot.

mike65

Eh, Rebel pay attention!

~Rebel~

mike65 wrote: »

Eh, Rebel pay attention!

erm, just in case anyone missed the result from several months ago is all...



was flicking through the results here; http://www.livescore.com/default.dll?page=worldcup
didnt notice the massive shift in date..