Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016/2017

5starpool

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Source?

Given the general acceptance that FSG are profit driven business people what possible motivation would they have not to build a new stand if they were confident of making an attractive return on investment?

Source is that revenue is expected to be 25m bigger with the new stand than before, and it cost just under 120m.

Here is the first link for those figures, although 'only' 20m of that is from the new main stand. Sponsors are still being sought for naming rights which will make up the extra few million.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2909725/Liverpool-set-revenue-surge-25m-year-Anfield-expansion.html

MD1990

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

A few things:-

1. If the cost of adding additional capacity isn't commercially viable ie it won't pay for itself and generate a profit why should the investment be made?

2. This summers transfer dealings are a once off, the "profit" made this summer won't cover the losses incurred over the 50 year life of a new stand which doesnt generate enough revenue to pay for itself.

3. If FSG did build a loss making stand the losses incurred each year would reduce funds available for wages and transfers.

4. Are you really actually surprised that strangers from Boston are profit motivated business people? Did you somehow think they were benefactors who decided to spunk all their money on a football club they had no prior connection to? Seriously???

I said in my post that FSG likely want to make profit not sure what this is all about.
FSg have shown they are Liverpool to make money I know that.
I was just surprised that not having a rise in ticket price would mean there would not further expansion. Surely selling naming rights for the stand could raise money for it.

NukaCola

The unique and sacred relationship between Liverpool Football Club and its supporters has always been foremost in our minds. It represents the heartbeat of this extraordinary football club.

More than any other factor by far, that bond is what drives us to work tirelessly on behalf of the club and its future. We have great conviction in our world-class manager and our young, talented squad and know that in time the on-pitch success we all crave will be realised.

We look forward to sharing in that success with you.

John W Henry, Tom Werner, Mike Gordon

Its hard to imagine that "John Henry says fan protests against ticket prices are causing the club to reassess plans to further redevelop Anfield" can be true after what was said above unless they are completely disingenuous, which may be true I suppose.

If people were complaining about redeveloping Anfield more maybe it would make sense but this would seem like an unprovoked statement.

54and56

NukaCola wrote: »

Why do some people leap to the defence of the owners for almost everything?

Because it's easy to make unfounded or unsubstantiated allegations and when they are made they should be refuted.

Also, FSG have taken the club from being a highly leveraged financially distressed and poorly run club and put it on a solid sustainable footing whilst at the same time securing one of the worlds best managers on a 6 year contract and are giving him the time, space and resources to work his magic. They deserve credit not constant sniping at.

NukaCola wrote: »

To insinuate that the fans are to blame for stopping the redevelopment of Anfield is a pretty low dig IMO

How can you possibly say state they are insinuating anything? FSG are very transparent and don't need to insinuate anything. They are business people. If the price of tickets doesn't support a return on investment why should they redevelop the Anfield Road stand?

NukaCola wrote: »

Basically price people out from watching Liverpool play or we wont redevelop Anfield is a pretty awful choice to ask fans to make.

LOL, can I have whatever you're smoking?

I love the way people seem to think they have some right to watch elite sports week in and week out for a pittance. It's a business. If FSG build a new stand and over price the tickets (thus pricing people out) they'll have an empty stand and will quickly drop the price to a rate people are prepared to pay. It's called supply and demand and is a very simple concept to grasp.

The problem then of course is that the people filling the stand may not be the right type of people according to some who like to drape themselves in the flag of being "real" fans :rolleyes:

Of course all of this would be easily solved if all the "real" Liverpool fans followed through on the Share Liverpool FC initiative and bought the club but guess what????? All talk, no action. Fans had the chance to own the club and to redevelop it with cheap seats for all (might be tricky to finance) and turn the club into some kind of happy clappy fan Nirvana but that ship has sailed.

Now it's a business and FSG are an easy target for hurlers on the ditch who snipe away but did SFA when they got the opportunity to do something about it.

54and56

MD1990 wrote: »

I was just surprised that not having a rise in ticket price would mean there would not further expansion. Surely selling naming rights for the stand could raise money for it.

How much? Would the once off income from naming rights cover annual losses if the cost of operating and maintaining the new stand exceeded the income from low ticket prices?

NukaCola

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

LOL, can I have whatever you're smoking?

You cant make a point without being condescending no?

Your view on football is different to mine and no FSG aren't being transparent when they come out with statement like "The unique and sacred relationship between Liverpool Football Club and its supporters has always been foremost in our minds".

8-10

Big win for Henry and co at Yankee Stadium overnight. Red Sox clinched the American League East division title (despite losing the game) and should be a strong team in the playoffs.

Aside, looking at Celtic's highlights last night (and also the performance v Rangers in the last month), would anybody think that Dembele would be a good squad addition for us? He already looks too good for that league.

54and56

NukaCola wrote: »

You cant make a point without being condescending no?

It's a joke, take a chill pill. No offence meant.

NukaCola wrote: »

FSG aren't being transparent when they come out with statement like "The unique and sacred relationship between Liverpool Football Club and its supporters has always been foremost in our minds".

That's pure PR. Fan's love to hear that stuff (like players kissing the badge BS) and I'm sure there's some truth to the fact that FSG do have LFC supporters "foremost in our minds" but what they mean by that and what fans take from that may be very different things.

FSG might mean that because paying customers come from the population of people who label themselves as "supporters" (many of whom contribute nothing financially to the club e.g. buying no official merchandise, not attending games, not subscribing to the club TV channel etc) they are paying attention to what their paying customers and potential customers want or what their customers and potential customers are prepared to pay for.

What do you think the statement means?

NukaCola

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

It's a joke, take a chill pill. No offence meant.

I made a comment that its not a nice thing for some fans to hear, lads who probably cant afford to pay increased prices for tickets, whether the statement is right or wrong.

I'm not saying FSG are wrong in maximising profits, or I'm not saying they are bad owners. I just dont like the idea of people being priced out of watching games. Yes its a business etc etc and it might seem old fashioned or ridiculous to you but if thats the way football is going its not great for the supporters IMO. People who have gone to games long before FSG bought the club.

The quote is a purely PR statement which is why I find the "John Henry says fan protests against ticket prices are causing the club to reassess plans to further redevelop Anfield" oddly crude and they come across really two faced. Something that doesn't need to be defended IMO.

8-10

8-10 wrote: »

........... would anybody think that Dembele would be a good squad addition for us? He already looks too good for that league.

We'll rarely see more than 1 of Sturridge, Origi or Ings on the pitch at the same time. I don't know if he's better than Ings or Origi but he's 20 and just signed a 4 year contract, 12 goals in 16 appearances.

If he leaves Celtic over the next 12/18 months he'll cost the guts of £20m I'd expect.

Can't see it happening.

NukaCola

NukaCola wrote: »

..............

The quote is a purely PR statement which is why I find the "John Henry says fan protests against ticket prices are causing the club to reassess plans to further redevelop Anfield" oddly crude and they come across really two faced. Something that doesn't need to be defended IMO.

I suppose it makes them sit down and look at the figures again.

It's be great to see them do another expansion and have 5/10k £20 seats and make football more affordable but in doing so they might well be lining the pockets of touts etc unless stringent control accompanies such a measure.

Conceptually, other revenue streams "subsidising" cheaper seats in a bigger stadium would sit well with the bulk of supporters and the overall cost would be minimal.

FSG are ice cold financially it seems.

54and56

Augeo wrote: »

FSG are ice cold financially it seems.

And long may it last.

NukaCola

5starpool wrote: »

it would have amounted to only 2m a year difference.

Augeo wrote: »

FSG are ice cold financially it seems.

The actual quote from Henry about the Anfield road stand "I don't know if there is a next step because ticket prices are an issue in England" "That may foreclose further expansion. We'll have to see."

Basically no redevelopment because of ticket prices.

Are we being told that they wont build a stand because they cant make an extra couple of million a season from tickets? Are the ticket prices really a huge drawback in redevelopment? You'd imagine they would eventually make their money back on construction long term?

Surely when they flip Liverpool for a huge profit, things like this add value to the overall product? Seems like theres a bit more to this than being ice cold financially.

5starpool

Of course it is. To some people, Liverpool FC is something that exists on telly and the media and has no connection with their every day life and never even consider those who go to games as an integral part of that. i think that is a pretty sad viewpoint to have.

Agent Coulson

Grujic has been shortlisted for the Golden Boy Award.

The short list is 40 names but still.

NukaCola

NukaCola wrote: »

.............

Surely when they flip Liverpool for a huge profit, things like this add value to the overall product? Seems like theres a bit more to this than being ice cold financially.

That might not be their intention.
They've a steady revenue stream from an asset that now worth 3 times ish what they paid for it. They're in a good place, the club's current value might well be realistic and not an inflated bubble valuation so they might see no need or reason to cash in now or in the short term.

They've provided an interest free loan to the club that enabled the current expansion. They than see fans protest about ticket prices.

All considered if another interest free loan was part of their plans to fund the next expansion they might well be thinking feck that after the protest.

Protesters don't always look at the bigger picture, nor do FSG of course

.............. just to add, I don't think FSG are whiter than white but overall they're certainly not too bad from what I can gather. The ole spending shackles do seem to be on though to an extent.

martyos121

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Grujic has been shortlisted for the Golden Boy Award.

The short list is 40 names but still.

He's destined to win it, Grujic means "Boy of Gold" in Serbian.

Probably.

He's class though.

brevity

"The Golden Boy"

Ugh...would they ever change the name...it's weird.

niallo27

brevity wrote: »

"The Golden Boy"

Ugh...would they ever change the name...it's weird.

Sounds like something the Christian brothers would come up with.

Knex*

brevity wrote: »

"The Golden Boy"

Ugh...would they ever change the name...it's weird.

Presented by Brendan Rodgers.

J Mysterio

NukaCola wrote: »

Why do some people leap to the defence of the owners for almost everything?

Because they have done a terrific job is why.

Also, we know what happens when you have a Hicks and Gillet, a Cellino, an Ashley or any random Saudi Prince.

You should be happy with them too imo, and stop looking for reasons to whine about them.

J Mysterio

NukaCola wrote: »

I made a comment that its not a nice thing for some fans to hear, lads who probably cant afford to pay increased prices for tickets, whether the statement is right or wrong.

I'm not saying FSG are wrong in maximising profits, or I'm not saying they are bad owners. I just dont like the idea of people being priced out of watching games. Yes its a business etc etc and it might seem old fashioned or ridiculous to you but if thats the way football is going its not great for the supporters IMO. People who have gone to games long before FSG bought the club.

The quote is a purely PR statement which is why I find the "John Henry says fan protests against ticket prices are causing the club to reassess plans to further redevelop Anfield" oddly crude and they come across really two faced. Something that doesn't need to be defended IMO.

FSG changed the ticket prices at the start of the season already because people protested. They listen to the fans.

J Mysterio

Augeo wrote: »

That might not be their intention.
They've a steady revenue stream from an asset that now worth 3 times ish what they paid for it. They're in a good place, the club's current value might well be realistic and not an inflated bubble valuation so they might see no need or reason to cash in now or in the short term.

They've provided an interest free loan to the club that enabled the current expansion. They than see fans protest about ticket prices.

All considered if another interest free loan was part of their plans to fund the next expansion they might well be thinking feck that after the protest.

Protesters don't always look at the bigger picture, nor do FSG of course

.............. just to add, I don't think FSG are whiter than white but overall they're certainly not too bad from what I can gather. The ole spending shackles do seem to be on though to an extent.

Theyve had the Red Sox for years too and have done great by them.

They now own the most storied clubs in the respective biggest sports (ok baseball is 2nd) on both sides of the Atlantic.

NukaCola

J Mysterio wrote: »

NukaCola wrote: »

Why do some people leap to the defence of the owners for almost everything?

Because they have done a terrific job is why.

Also, we know what happens when you have a Hicks and Gillet, a Cellino, an Ashley or any random Saudi Prince.

You should be happy with them too imo, and stop looking for reasons to whine about them.

And you've just decided that I'm not happy with them because I don't like something they said?

I look for stuff to whine about do I? Someone posted a quote, I gave my opinion on it. I don't whine about the owners for no reason.

NukaCola

J Mysterio wrote: »

FSG changed the ticket prices at the start of the season already because people protested. They listen to the fans.

And because of that they say the redevelopment may not go ahead.

J Mysterio

NukaCola wrote: »

And because of that they say the redevelopment may not go ahead.

What is the source of the supposed comments?

I would be surprised if any redevelopment is/ was being planned for the near future. We just expanded the stadium and, as you say, match attendance is peanuts in terms of overall revenue.

NukaCola

J Mysterio wrote: »

What is the source of the supposed comments?

I would be surprised if any redevelopment is/ was being planned for the near future. We just expanded the stadium and, as you say, match attendance is peanuts in terms of overall revenue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/09/29/liverpool-owner-john-w-henry-says-ticket-pricing-may-put-further/

Anfield road end was phase two in the redevelopment as far as I know.

NukaCola

Augeo wrote: »

That might not be their intention.

Yea, absolutely. They may not want to sell up, but an expanded state of the art stadium should not be viewed as money wasted as it just adds more value to the club should FSG want to sell up, or sell a portion etc I would have thought anyway.

I'll just state that I'm quite happy with FSG for the record, I'm sure I've said it before but just to be clear to others thinking I'm bashing them for no reason. Not directed at you either btw.

54and56

NukaCola wrote: »

Are we being told that they wont build a stand because they cant make an extra couple of million a season from tickets? Are the ticket prices really a huge drawback in redevelopment? You'd imagine they would eventually make their money back on construction long term?

the decision process ref investing in a new stand is really no different to Michael O'Leary deciding to invest in X number of new aircraft. He'll only buy aircraft for routes he has confidence they'll make money on. Why put an aircraft on a loss making route? Why build additional capacity if it'll be loss making?

Does anyone thing FSG would forego the opportunity to make profit or add value to their investment if the opportunity actually existed or does anyone here think they have a way of making it work that FSG can't figure out?

NukaCola

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Why build additional capacity if it'll be loss making?

Does anyone thing FSG would forego the opportunity to make profit or add value to their investment if the opportunity actually existed?

There must be more to it than ticket prices. Which is why the quote seems a bit simplistic to me.

I'm not saying they should definitely expand no matter what, just that the reason “I don't know if there is a next step because ticket prices are an issue in England” seems to me a bit weak. Then again, you'd hardly expect them to go into great detail about it either. They only stood to make a few million more per year with the ticket increases anyway afaik.

54and56

NukaCola wrote: »

Yea, absolutely. They may not want to sell up, but an expanded state of the art stadium should not be viewed as money wasted as it just adds more value to the club should FSG want to sell up

You seriously need to join the dots in relation to what creates business value and what doesn't. A "state of the art stadium" will only add value if it is generating significantly more revenue and profit than the existing stadium setup is.

Pouring money into [name your pet project] if the net result is less profit can only be justified on a vanity basis and that's not FSG.

NukaCola

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

You seriously need to join the dots in relation to what creates business value and what doesn't. A "state of the art stadium" will only add value if it is generating significantly more revenue and profit than the existing stadium setup is.

Pouring money into [name your pet project] if the net result is less profit can only be justified on a vanity basis and that's not FSG.

If your buying Liverpool and the stadium is 60,000 not 54,000 without the need of upgrading facilities I would have thought that would add value to the asset and cost you more?

54and56

NukaCola wrote: »

If your buying Liverpool and the stadium is 60,000 not 54,000 without the need of upgrading facilities I would have thought that would add value to the asset and cost you more?

Yes but it might add less value than it cost to build the stadium.

If you own a piece of land worth €1m and you spend €250,000 digging a deep hole in the middle of it the net result may be that it it now actually be worth only €900,000 as it's going to cost a new owner €100,000 to fill in the hole just to get it back to it's original condition.

Look at us talking all economics and $h1t in the LFC thread.

Best supporters ever!!

NukaCola

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Look at us talking all economics and $h1t in the LFC thread.

I think I'll leave it at that. :pac:

I just think its a bit strange that John Henry said that ticket prices are a main reason that redevelopment may not go ahead. You raised some good points that would make more sense to have said instead ie "we'll have to see if it makes financial sense to continue with redevelopment".....then again it may have been an on the spot remark and not exactly a reason for no redevelopment.

All in all I think most agree we are in safe hands with FSG for now anyway.

Talisman

Bandana boy wrote: »

Not the Arabs who now own them but the Thai lad who bought them and sold it on to the Arabs

That said I think DIC bid more than H&G too.

Thaksin Shinawatra was looking to buy 30% of the club for £65M. As part of the deal he also wanted all commercial rights for Asia. He wasn't going to invest any money of his own, he proposed to create a lottery system in Thailand to fund the deal. Liverpool backed away from the deal when it became clear that the people of Thailand were going to provide the funding.

Shinawatra later returned with the funds being provided by a consortium of Thai companies. There were some ridiculous proposals from elements of the consortium in return for their financial support for the deal. For instance, a Thai media company wanted to have a reality tv show in Thailand where the winner would win a contract with Liverpool and play in the Premier League for a season.

Shinawatra was a total crook and thankfully the Liverpool board didn't make a deal with him.

BullBlackNova

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Grujic has been shortlisted for the Golden Boy Award.

The short list is 40 names but still.

http://www.tuttosport.com/sondaggi/calcio/2016/09/29-15876453/vota_il_golden_boy_2016_scegli_il_tuo_preferito/

If anyone wants to see the full shortlist (or commandeer the vote...), here's the link.

Some great players on there.

martyos121

I see we've just been linked with "the next Zlatan", Alexander Isak.

Just need bornetobywilde to look into his eyes now to see if he's got what it takes.

dogbert27

Aresnal's max season ticket price is £2039
Spurs max season ticket price is £1895
Man City's max season ticket price is £1750
Chelsea's max season ticket price is £1250
United's max season ticket price is £950
Bournemouth's max season ticket price is £950
West Ham's max season ticket price is £899


Liverpool's max season ticket price is £869

Match day ticket prices (most expensive)

Arsenal £97
Burnley £40
Bournemouth £32 (lowest price, can't find a max)
Chelsea £75
Crystal Palace £30
Everton £49
Hull £33
Liverpool £59
Leicester £48 (for cat B, can't find a cat A price)
Man City £58
Man Utd £53
Middlesboro £39
Sunderland £40
Stoke £35
Swansea £45
Tottenham £81
Watford £36
West Brom £39
West Ham £70

What FSG would see in these figures is that there is scope there against teams that are considered our rivals, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs.

Man City were given a free stadium so there prices are not as excessive and United had their Stadium expanded in the 90's and now paid for so there ticket prices are not excessive yet both are around the same price as ours.

These prices are the top end, you can get tickets in the 30 pound bracket for these teams too. Football isn't about 11 versus 11 anymore. It's a global product and if you don't keep pace financially you get left behind like Liverpool in the 90's under Moores. It took him about 15 years to realise he couldn't keep up and we suffered for it. You can argue that we've lined up other revenue streams with sponsorships but so have our rivals.

The average industrial wage in England is £517 a week. You can buy a match day ticket for Liverpool on the Kop for £37. Even if you pay the full whack of £59 for the main stand it's not that bad.

TitianGerm

dogbert27 wrote: »

Aresnal's max season ticket price is £2039
Spurs max season ticket price is £1895
Man City's max season ticket price is £1750
Chelsea's max season ticket price is £1250
United's max season ticket price is £950
Bournemouth's max season ticket price is £950
West Ham's max season ticket price is £899


Liverpool's max season ticket price is £869

Match day ticket prices (most expensive)

Arsenal £97
Burnley £40
Bournemouth £32 (lowest price, can't find a max)
Chelsea £75
Crystal Palace £30
Everton £49
Hull £33
Liverpool £59
Leicester £48 (for cat B, can't find a cat A price)
Man City £58
Man Utd £53
Middlesboro £39
Sunderland £40
Stoke £35
Swansea £45
Tottenham £81
Watford £36
West Brom £39
West Ham £70

What FSG would see in these figures is that there is scope there against teams that are considered our rivals, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs.

Man City were given a free stadium so there prices are not as excessive and United had their Stadium expanded in the 90's and now paid for so there ticket prices are not excessive yet both are around the same price as ours.

These prices are the top end, you can get tickets in the 30 pound bracket for these teams too. Football isn't about 11 versus 11 anymore. It's a global product and if you don't keep pace financially you get left behind like Liverpool in the 90's under Moores. It took him about 15 years to realise he couldn't keep up and we suffered for it. You can argue that we've lined up other revenue streams with sponsorships but so have our rivals.

The average industrial wage in England is £517 a week. You can buy a match day ticket for Liverpool on the Kop for £37. Even if you pay the full whack of £59 for the main stand it's not that bad.

Man City could do with reducing their prices. They couldn't even fill the stadium for Peps first home game in the league.

dogbert27

emmetkenny wrote: »

Man City could do with reducing their prices. They couldn't even fill the stadium for Peps first home game in the league.

I think it shows that for all their recent success and money they still don't have a global fan base. You know, the "not real" supporters who travel 100's of kilometers and pay a sxxt load of money just to get the chance to see the team they support play.

Talisman

NukaCola wrote: »

The actual quote from Henry about the Anfield road stand "I don't know if there is a next step because ticket prices are an issue in England" "That may foreclose further expansion. We'll have to see."

Basically no redevelopment because of ticket prices.

Are we being told that they wont build a stand because they cant make an extra couple of million a season from tickets? Are the ticket prices really a huge drawback in redevelopment? You'd imagine they would eventually make their money back on construction long term?

Surely when they flip Liverpool for a huge profit, things like this add value to the overall product? Seems like theres a bit more to this than being ice cold financially.

It isn't simply ticket prices. John Henry isn't going to get into a public spat with the Liverpool City council when their support will be required for the future development of the stadium.

If Anfield is expanded closer to 60,000 capacity there is an issue with transport links to the stadium. In the past, the council wanted the club to fund the re-establishment of a rail link as a condition for supporting the expansion of the stadium capacity to 60,000. This has been a major planning issue in the past and partly the reason why the redevelopment is in staged planning proposals.

Liverpool City council will want the club to fund the development of the transport links and services in the area, so the additional 6,000 seats will have to finance this additional cost also. In effect, the additional capacity will cost a hell of a lot more than it is financially worth to the club.

A smarter move would be to sit tight for now and see how Everton's plans for Goodison Park play out. The council reneged on the plan for their proposed move to Walton Hall Park last year and with the money in the Premier League at the moment Everton should be more than capable of affording their share of the redevelopment of the area.

x43r0

Improved transport links to the stadium are badly needed IMO

Cabs/Buses are your only options back into the city after a game and they are very hit and miss. Most times I just make the half hour walk into town

BorneTobyWilde

Why hit fans for cost of stadium. The 90 million tv money should all go on next stand.
Fans are easy pickings. Few new commercial deals and some tv money. Sell naming rights to next stand for cost of stand. Apple Stand . They have billions in reserve cash.
Do they deal.

Agent Coulson

Just sell Moreno, Sakho & Mignolet and any other player the fans don't want or like with the going rate for players these days that should cover the cost of a new stand.

54and56

x43r0 wrote: »

Improved transport links to the stadium are badly needed IMO

Cabs/Buses are your only options back into the city after a game and they are very hit and miss. Most times I just make the half hour walk into town

Had to do it a few times with my 10/11 year old and once in the lashing rain when he had just started to get a bad dose of the trots after eating something dodgy (funny that on a boys trip away!!) so anything which would make the trip in and out of the city centre would be very welcomed and would also be a bonus to local residents who wouldn't have to put up with as much road traffic congestion plus they'd have access to the new transport 365 days a year.

NukaCola

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Just sell Moreno, Sakho & Mignolet and any other player the fans don't want or like with the going rate for players these days that should cover the cost of a new stand.

With Sakho shipped out who will paint it?

martyos121

NukaCola wrote: »

With Sakho shipped out who will paint it?

Know a lad called Sam will get the job done well, but some crowd of Malaysians will have ownership of 10% of the first coat of paint and a further 5% of subsequent coats.

NukaCola

martyos121 wrote: »

Know a lad called Sam will get the job done well, but some crowd of Malaysians will have ownership of 10% of the first coat of paint and a further 5% of subsequent coats.

We can get around that :pac:

martyos121

NukaCola wrote: »

We can get around that :pac:

Around Sam? Doubt it mate, he's bloody huge. Built like a Sherman tank filled with gravy and cod.

Je_suis_Jean

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Had to do it a few times with my 10/11 year old and once in the lashing rain when he had just started to get a bad dose of the trots after eating something dodgy............

:eek:

Christ, sounds fairly grim alright.