Page 4 of 8
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:27 pmby hawkmoon269
So we are all of the opinion that this would be a good move - nobody buying the club, just putting investment into the club. So what would the Kraft's get back in return?
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:33 pmby Sabre
I know little clubs in the world that have no deficit, "investment" is diffficult when most of the clubs won't generate any profit. If they put the money, I don't bloody care if they are jewish, christian nor muslims, or if they want to wash their dirty money. But I don't see how it will be a economic profit for them, unless they're interested on improving their image among the scousers.
Sabre
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:39 pmby hawkmoon269
That's what I was thinking - it's a very expensive way to advertise!
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:45 pmby columbia
Rick Parry today spoke to Liverpoolfc.tv about his recent visit to the United States which has been widely reported in today's English newspapers.
"It certainly wasn't a secret visit, having attended two games with a combined attendance of over 100,000 people," said the Liverpool Chief Executive.
"I've actually known the Kraft family since meeting them in Boston back in 2001 and have had a longstanding invitation to visit the Gillette stadium, which is one of the very few privately funded stadia in the USA.
"They were keen for me to see at close hand how the matchday operation ran and I watched both the New England Revolution v Chicago Fire MLS game on Sunday and the New England Patriots v Indianapolis Colts NFL fixture a day later.
"It also gave us the opportunity to discuss at length the way in which they had funded the construction of the ground."
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:49 pmby wrighty (not mark!)
I went to see the New England Revolution play back in 2000 when I was in the states with my relatives when John Harkes was playing for them. Nice little stadium.They sell popcorn! popcorn at a football match!
If we can have popcorn at Anfield then I'm sold!
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:59 pmby drummerphil
As long as it isnt the "Toffee" variety
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:03 pmby wrighty (not mark!)
Salted for me! Please........! No gay jokes!
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:23 pmby Effes
cisses_gona_get_ya wrote:We are rumoured to be in 60 million pounds worth of debt, cause of the new stadium mainly.
Dont get it - how can we be so much in debt for something not built for/paid for yet?
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:34 pmby stmichael
Good thread Lynds. I was going to post something along the same lines today, mainly asking whether this Kraft issue is exposing our hypocrasy with regards to Chelsea.
I'm sure i'd have been slated for such a suggestion
But i think it's true. With Chelsea, it's 'unfair', 'wrong', 'not ethical' etc etc....
But if Kraft comes on board and we 'buy' the title, no one here will complain. It's two-faced in the extreme.
My take on it is that i'd rather it didnt happen. Actually, i'll rephrase that. I'd rather it wasn't necessary.
But if it's a case of 'do it or be left behind', then i'd reluctantly support the idea of Kraft.
In an ideal world though, it wouldnt be about having some billionaire climb aboard and buy titles. But IF it has become like that, (and it has), then better to jump on the bandwagon than be left at the station empty handed...
Shame though.
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:41 pmby Judge
Sabre wrote:I know little clubs in the world that have no deficit, "investment" is diffficult when most of the clubs won't generate any profit. If they put the money, I don't bloody care if they are jewish, christian nor muslims, or if they want to wash their dirty money. But I don't see how it will be a economic profit for them, unless they're interested on improving their image among the scousers.
Sabre
whats the definition of a little club?
judge
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:49 pmby Sabre
whats the definition of a little club?
Worcester city.
I meant "few", and you understood, but you couldn't help being nitpicky with my inaccuracies in english 
See if I care
Sabre
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:00 pmby A.B.
I think that Kraft will be funding our stadium rather than taking over the club, nontheless it's still a good move by Parry.
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:05 pmby greenred
A.B. wrote:I think that Kraft will be funding our stadium rather than taking over the club, nontheless it's still a good move by Parry.
What would he achieve by funding the stadium?Naming rights maybe 
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:06 pmby stmichael
I think the major difference between this and Chelsea is that most of us believe that if we were to receive massive investment from Kraft, we wouldn't then turn around and flaunt it in the faces of everyone else like some nouveau riche nightmarish amalgamation of 'loadsamoney' and 'considerably richer than yow' (apologies to overseas reds with no knowledge of Harry Enfield and chums).
Chelsea have a seemingly bottomless pit of cash, which naturally is cause for envy amongst rival clubs and supporters. However, it is more their borish attitude and lack of grace that inspires such resentment; other than the huge pile of money and the merest hint of success (historically speaking) what exactly have they got to boast about? Yet they lord it up like they're soooo special. I'm sure that if we did become mega-rich and win everything we'd still have the humility to acknowledge the fortuitous situation rather than treat it like some god-given right, despite being *the* most successful and best supported club this country has ever produced. I've always been a believer that anyone that feels the need to shout about themselves or 'big themselves up' as Chelsea are so fond of doing at the minute, is obviously lacking in any real substance or quality and feels the need to make up for their shortcomings in this shallow, superficial and frankly vulgar manner. We're better than that, and to put it bluntly (without any bias at all ) we're better than them, they just happen to have better resources.
If Kraft wants to invest without trying to meddle, I'm all for it so long as we don't get dancing cheese strings as half-time entertainment.
Yes, it does seem a shame that modern football is the way that it is, but as long as we retain our integrity and sense of heritage then surely being able to afford a new stadium, better players etc is a good thing, no?
Posted:
Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:10 pmby A.B.
What would he achieve by funding the stadium?Naming rights maybe
Possibly, it would help our finances because as of now the stadium price is rising