• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Football Thread 2011/2012 | OT11 | Roll on the Euros and transfer muppetry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zabojnik

Member
Bonucci <3

Italien.jpg


1333657330.jpg
 
C

Clegg

Member
Vivalaraza said:
I think it'd be a last resort tbh. If the IPO is successful for example, there would be no real need. Especially when we have renewals coming up soon with Nike. Can imagine we will be earning £35m+/year when the next kit deal is signed, whether it's with Nike or a switch to Adidas. Will probably switch sponsors in 2 years to when the Aon deal expires and earn an extra £5m/£10m a year there too.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced the IPO will ever get approved.

The global financial markets are too unstable.

If the IPO happens then we shouldn't need to consider naming rights.

But it's still a possibility.
 
K

Keio

For a Finer World
I think we need some great goals in this thread again. The Finnish Cup is being played at the moment and this is from the semi's; Honka dumping last year's champion HJK (Helsinki) in penalties (5-4).

But this one is just ridiculous to make it 1-0 in the 1st half, a 40 yard free kick off the bar. Magical.

BOOM! Youtube.
 
M

Meier

Member
Feorax said:
If it's true, we'll find out tomorrow the exact figure and over how many years. Still just twitter bollocks at the moment, but twitter bollocks has been extremely reliable recently.

FWIW, £350 million is far more than I was expecting to hear.
Click to expand...

I find it a bit surprising that they're expected to announce naming rights for Anfield given the fact they've kept Fenway Park so close to its historic nature and refused to sell its naming rights. I wonder if they'll go ahead and do that at some point in the near future as well.
 
V

Vivalaraza

Member
Clegg said:
I'm not convinced the IPO will ever get approved.

The global financial markets are too unstable.

If the IPO happens then we shouldn't need to consider naming rights.

But it's still a possibility.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm doubtful too but still, living in hope. £300m/£350m @ 25% is a possibility I think, just doubt the Glazer's would accept such a "low" valuation. Thing with a stadium rights deal is that even though it would help it wouldn't really bring the debt down, even earning say £20m a year. A big inflow from the IPO would allow the club to more than half it's debt and make the club much much more competitive in the immediate short term.

Anyway...depressing.
 
F

Feorax

Member
Meier said:
I find it a bit surprising that they're expected to announce naming rights for Anfield given the fact they've kept Fenway Park so close to its historic nature and refused to sell its naming rights. I wonder if they'll go ahead and do that at some point in the near future as well.
Click to expand...

I think they're a bit paranoid about the FFP rules to be honest. They're probably looking at every income stream possible, hence Ian Ayre making an ass of himself regarding selling our own viewing rights at the beginning of last season.

I don't follow baseball, but I would imagine they would have considered it with Fenway Park if they had to justify the expenditure there too.
 
V

Vivalaraza

Member
Feorax said:
I think they're a bit paranoid about the FFP rules to be honest. They're probably looking at every income stream possible, hence Ian Ayre making an ass of himself regarding selling our own viewing rights at the beginning of last season.

I don't follow baseball, but I would imagine they would have considered it with Fenway Park if they had to justify the expenditure there too.
Click to expand...
I imagine the main reason they want a naming rights deal is to help with the payment of the redevelopment. That's the crucial aspect, the spend required to redevelop/build the ground. Unless the club wants to burden itself with debt or FSG want to pay out of their own pocket, they need a naming rights deal. Revenue needs to be boosted and without CL football and a larger ground, it's pretty much the only possible way. A new ground could cost something like...£400-£500m, almost impossible to fund without some financial backing. They can take out a loan to build the ground snd then use the naming rights deal to steadily pay it back meaning the revenue stream from elsewhere isn't lost.

I don't think stadium expansion is considered under FFP guidelines.
 
E

elseanio

Member
Happy to stay at Anfield. Don't care what the stadium is called for sponsor reasons, LFC should just get as much money as possible.
 
P

PaulLFC

Member
The Guardian story about redeveloping Anfield:

The Guardian said:
Liverpool poised to ditch new stadium in favour of Anfield expansion
• Residents shown proposals to demolish nearby houses
• Liverpool council hopes to begin work on plan this summer

David Conn
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 31 May 2012 22.29 BST


Liverpool, having decided on Brendan Rodgers as their manager, are expected to announce within weeks they intend to stay at Anfield, not build their long-planned new stadium on Stanley Park. Under plans drawn up by Liverpool city council and revealed to local residents, houses would be demolished to enable the club to expand Anfield's main stand.

At a meeting on 15 May attended by Ian Ayre, the Liverpool managing director, residents living in neighbouring streets to Anfield were presented with three worked-up options involving knocking down rows of houses. The council's assistant director for regeneration, Mark Kitts, told the Guardian that Liverpool have confirmed, in discussions with the council, that the demolitions would meet the club's requirements.

"We have been working with the club very closely," Kitts said, "and they have said this will accommodate their needs if they stay at Anfield and refurbish the current stadium."

Kitts said homes would be given "an open market valuation" – which he suggested could be upgraded to reflect an area in better condition – plus a 10% "home loss payment" and removal costs. Liverpool will not have to negotiate directly with residents or buy their houses. Kitts said the council has the option of applying for compulsory purchase powers, to force residents to sell, if necessary. Some home-owning residents are fearful that they will not receive enough to pay for a similar home elsewhere.

Liverpool's principal physical obstacle is not enlarging Anfield's footprint – their plan is understood to involve adding an extra tier, plus corporate facilities, to the Anfield Road and main stands. Doing so, however, would block the "right to light" of those neighbouring houses. Kitts said he believed the demolitions would "solve the right to light issues".

The plans, presented to a neighbourhood "stakeholders meeting", including the Rockfield Residents Association, all propose knocking down the row of terraces closest to the main stand, on Lothair Road. The second two options, more favoured, involve demolishing two additional rows of houses – both rows on Lothair Road, and the first on the next street, Alroy. The remaining houses are planned to be refurbished: one option suggests replacing the demolished houses with a commercial development, possibly a hotel.

Liverpool are still maintaining they are keeping open both their options – to expand Anfield or proceed with the new stadium on Stanley Park. However, the demolition plan, on which Kitts said the council hopes to begin work as soon as this summer, has convinced many local people that this is to facilitate Liverpool staying at Anfield. The council still favours the new stadium but Liverpool's owners, John W Henry's Fenway Sports Group, has made it clear since it bought the club that it would prefer to enlarge Anfield, mainly because it is cheaper.

Liverpool declined to comment on the revelation of the housing demolition blueprint, saying: "The private discussions and plans that Liverpool Football Club has or may have with residents or other stakeholders are, in our opinion, exactly that: 'private'."

Last week Ayre said Liverpool would "need to convince" residents if the club were to stay at Anfield, and said: "We're having some great dialogue with them."

However, Ros Groves, chair of the neighbouring Salisbury Residents Association, said she "hit the roof" when she read that. Her group has also been presented with demolition plans, for a corner opposite the main stand and Kop, which the club could develop commercially. But she said Liverpool have held no meaningful discussions with residents.

"I cannot see how it can be called 'great dialogue' when Ian Ayre has been to one meeting with one residents group," Groves said. "Everybody can see which way this is going now. We just want Liverpool football club to be open with us." Many houses around Anfield have been blighted for years – a significant number bought by the football club and left empty, a source of great resentment among residents left coping with the area's decline.

Some who own their homes, Groves said, fear were worried that that the money they would be paid by the council who will demolish them, will would not be enough to buy a similar home elsewhere.

"Everybody wants a solution to this area's problems," Groves said. "But people who have paid off their mortgages, and long-term tenants, are very concerned about the impact on them."

Liverpool was sold in 2007, to the Americans Tom Hicks and George Gillett, specifically so that finance would be found to build the new stadium on Stanley Park. After they failed to progress the new stadium, Martin Broughton, the chairman conducting the Liverpool sale, said any buyer would "have to accept" building a new stadium. But after FSG bought Liverpool, Henry always made it clear he favoured remaining at Anfield.
Click to expand...

Please let this happen.
 
A

ATF487

Member
Feorax said:
I think they're a bit paranoid about the FFP rules to be honest. They're probably looking at every income stream possible, hence Ian Ayre making an ass of himself regarding selling our own viewing rights at the beginning of last season.

I don't follow baseball, but I would imagine they would have considered it with Fenway Park if they had to justify the expenditure there too.
Click to expand...

Instead of renaming the stadium, they just have lots of internal product placement. If you go there before a game, there's all this gimmicky stuff like "Dunkin Donuts fan of the game" and other sponsored stuff. I got there an hour early and was advertised to until the game started
 
R

Regulus Tera

Romanes Eunt Domus
Apparently Televisa offered Mourinho and Guardiola 1.5 million euros each to commentate during the Euros. Guardiola refused though. :(

I love Televisa during big events though. They had Zidane and Figo during the last World Cup and it was funny as fuck.
 
F

Fady K

Member
Empire UK gave Prometheus a 3? :(???? I usually don't care for reviews but this is PROMETHEUS :'(! Even IGN gave it a 7! Shucks! I really was hoping that this would be Scott's best film in ages. I hope I end up loving it far more than they did. It just looks too good!
 
D

dc89

Member
Fady K said:
Empire UK gave Prometheus a 3? :(???? I usually don't care for reviews but this is PROMETHEUS :'(! Even IGN gave it a 7! Shucks! I really was hoping that this would be Scott's best film in ages. I hope I end up loving it far more than they did. It just looks too good!
Click to expand...

Keep the faith, I'm sure it will be good.

Fady have you ever been to the Marina Mall in Abu Dhabi?
 
M

MarshMellow96

Member
dc89 said:
Damn, thats more assuring.

63 on Metacritic at the moment, but only off 5 reviews. So maybe it's too soon to tell.

Empire UK gave it 3/5 I think.
Click to expand...

The Empire reviewer clearly had a massive hard on for Alien and was disappointed when Prometheus wasn't quite what he wanted.

Go and see it!
 
D

dc89

Member
Fady K said:
How are you doing my friend?

That's actually where I bumped into Gerrard! Very decent mall! That's where the City store is as well :)
Click to expand...

I'm good thanks Fady, how are you?

Haha! Nice! Yeah, you are right. The Premier League trophy is there at the moment. I'm going to have to go see it when it gets back to Manchester.

Also, do you like Xenosaga?
 
W

Wilbur

Banned
Fady K said:
Empire UK gave Prometheus a 3? :(???? I usually don't care for reviews but this is PROMETHEUS :'(! Even IGN gave it a 7! Shucks! I really was hoping that this would be Scott's best film in ages. I hope I end up loving it far more than they did. It just looks too good!
Click to expand...

Alien got lukewarm reviews. Empire guy wrote the book called the Alien Vault, he wanted it to be Alien.

Be positive Fady!

And fuck me at the Hulk fee.
 
R

Regulus Tera

Romanes Eunt Domus
Clegg said:
His buyout clause was never really £100m.

Guardian are saying it was around £60m and that Porto wanted around £40m for him. Chelsea were to only team willing to spend that amount for Hulk.
Click to expand...
My comment was tongue-in-cheek. Hopefully the bubble bursts soon.
 
D

dc89

Member
elseanio said:
Same way City do.. they just wont
Click to expand...

Of course I'm going to say this but I think City have more of a chance.

But if not, maybe City & Chelsea can team up and take UEFA to court. It's already been said by a legal expert in the field that City could have a case against UEFA if they imposed sanctions against them.

Clegg said:
His buyout clause was never really £100m.

Guardian are saying it was around £60m and that Porto wanted around £40m for him. Chelsea were to only team willing to spend that amount for Hulk.
Click to expand...

Not meaning to hate on Chelsea but I'm not surprised. The guy lodged an official complaint with UEFA for City fans chanting "You're not incredible" to him when he failed to show up in the 2 legs last season.
 
F

Fintan

Member
I'm excited about Hulk and Hazard. The front 4 is looking strong now. I'd like to see a CM come in and a right back to replace Bosingwa.
 
L

LegoArmo

Member
Chelsea are probably a lot more confident that UEFA wouldn't dare ban them from Europe. UEFA want the big teams in their competitions, that's one of the many problems with these rules.
 
W

Wilbur

Banned
dc89 said:
Not meaning to hate on Chelsea but I'm not surprised. The guy lodged an official complaint with UEFA for City fans chanting "You're not incredible" to him when he failed to show up in the 2 legs last season.
Click to expand...

What's that got to do with his quality?
 
C

Clegg

Member
dc89 said:
Not meaning to hate on Chelsea but I'm not surprised. The guy lodged an official complaint with UEFA for City fans chanting "You're not incredible" to him when he failed to show up in the 2 legs last season.
Click to expand...

This makes absolutely zero sense.
 
W

Wilbur

Banned
dc89 said:
Well I think it's got a bit to say about his attitude and character which makes up qualities of players.
Click to expand...

Not really, no. Tevez is a cunt but he's a great player. Milan were prepared to spend 25m on him, and he's older and with a track record of being more of a wanker than Hulk. Chelsea being one of the only teams willing to meet the asking price isn't indicative of his attitude, it's because it's £38m.
 
D

dc89

Member
Wilbury said:
Not really, no. Tevez is a cunt but he's a great player. Milan were prepared to spend 25m on him, and he's older and with a track record of being more of a wanker than Hulk. Chelsea being one of the only teams willing to meet the asking price isn't indicative of his attitude, it's because it's £38m.
Click to expand...

I see your point of view and I agree with it, but I still stand by what I said. I wish him the best of luck with Chelsea.
 
C

Clegg

Member
How are Porto financially?

They sold Falcao for £40m last Summer and Hulk looks like he'll go for a similar amount.

They must be rolling in cash.
 
V

Vivalaraza

Member
Clegg said:
How are Porto financially?

They sold Falcao for £40m last Summer and Hulk looks like he'll go for a similar amount.

They must be rolling in cash.
Click to expand...
I think I'm right in saying they have to sell big every summer to break even. Need to take in over £30m net per summer to afford all their costs etc.

It's truly amazing what they do, buy players for cheap and they're good enough to win them titles and see them compete in the CL and they then sell them at a very high price and use a small portion of the fee to find new players who just as well, and then sell them on two.

Just shows that Fergie is talking absolute shit when he says there's no value in the market.

Here's a chart of all the player's they've sold over the last few years, add Falcao and Hulk to that now.

Porto%2BTransfers%2Bv2.jpg
 
C

Clegg

Member
Vivalaraza said:
I think I'm right in saying they have to sell big every summer to break even. Need to take in over £30m net per summer to afford all their costs etc.

It's truly amazing what they do, buy players for cheap and they're good enough to win them titles and see them compete in the CL and they then sell them at a very high price and use a small portion of the fee to find new players who just as well, and then sell them on two.

Just shows that Fergie is talking absolute shit when he says there's no value in the market.
Click to expand...

Porto must have one of the best scouting systems in the world. They bought Falcao for £3m ffs.

They also have James Rodriguez who will probably be sold for huge money too. You have to wonder why United is such a massive club yet they can't find these talents like other clubs can.

Edit: Anderson really sticks out there. But did we really buy him for 30m?

I thought the figure was closer to 20m.

Porto have sold 320m worth of players in 8 seasons.

Fuck. Me.
 
S

Steverulez

Member
Excited for the Hulk deal although I'm concerned about our spending, apparently we're still interested in other players. Get a right back in and then focus on shifting players out.

We've gotten rid of: Drogba (It still burns to write it), Kalou, Bosingwa now we need to shift: Malouda, Essien, Ferreira. Meireles was linked with a move a few months ago and whilst I don't want him to go we have Romeu/Mikel Lampard/Ramires to go behind Mata/Hazard/Hulk (plus Marin) I don't know if theres room for him.

Lukaku needs to go out on loan, read today we want Fellaini in exchange for cash plus a 2-year loan for Lukaku which I would be happy with although I'm not sure we need Fellaini (as good as he is, I'd also rather have Rodwell off them personally).

Mikel has shown he can step up and Romeu should be the future of that position...

If we can get Van Der Wiel for £8m as has been said then hopefully we'll focus on... a manager.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Calling out rumors, insiders and "sources"
2 3 4 5
245
22K
Varteras replied
NBA 2019/20 Regular Season |OT| Warriors......come out to play
Sports 2 3 4 5
204
25K
bender replied
Share your 2019 gaming recap.
2
52
5K
synchronicity replied
Inside FIFA's "dodging Discord" scandal
Drama
8
2K
KURDISTAN YPG replied
MLB Post Season |OT| BYOB
2 3 4
178
11K
Musky_Cheese replied
Top Bottom