Date: 8th August 2011 at 3:00pm
Written by:

Former Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry has said that when he was incharge at Liverpool, there first plan was to redevelop Anfield instead of building a new stadium but it became to complicated to do so and building a new stadium turned out to be the better option.

If Liverpool, lead by Parry, had decided to go ahead and build a new stadium in 2008, we could be in our new home by now and life would be better from a financial perspective.

FSG are also find themselves in the same quandary of redeveloping or building a new stadium, but it seems most likely that building a new stadium in Stanley Park will be the final move.

“The new owners have been very smart in not making any false promises or predictions,” Parry told Sportsweek on BBC Radio Five Live.

“They have taken their time to study the options with great care.

“For them the main thing is to ensure the stadium does what it is supposed to do, which is to secure the financial future of club and not become a millstone.

“Full marks to them for taking their time to make sure they come up with the right answer. I think we will have to see that answer sooner rather than later.

“Initially we wanted to develop Anfield, that was always the hope, but there were too many complications. The idea of building new actually became increasingly attractive the more we studied the options.

“I can’t imagine what has changed radically that would lead you easily to a different conclusion but I am not privy to the latest information that the owners have got.”


10 responses to “Rick Parry should have built a new stadium in 2008”

  1. rolando says:

    Parry is the main reason Liverpool are miles behind United. short sighted selfish moron!

  2. Don says:

    Parry wanted to build a new stadium as did Moores, Hicks & Gillett. Its not their fault there was a banking crisis and credit crunch which killed their financing. We’re in a deep recession which has lasted three years. While the markets have mostly recovered, main street hasn’t. The latest financial and economic figures show we’re headed into a double dip recession. Much of the middle class lost their wealth with the real estate crash. In many cities homes have lost half their value. Government tax revenues are down across the board.

    It does appear FSG have studied the stadium matter and they are leaning towards a new Stanley Park Stadium. But a new stadium won’t be built until the all important matter of financing is solved, not to mention selling its naming rights in a long term marketing deal. None of the FSG partners are oil sheiks, and neither are their brothers.

  3. stan howard says:

    how he has got the nerve to comment i do not know.

  4. dixie222 says:

    FSG are in a total different league to parry and moores. they know how to sell the club to gain investment. they give funds for players and value the fans. He and moores sold liverpool to H&G for extra profit, enough said!!

  5. barney walsh says:

    cue the two bob accountants & blurts who bang on about funding streams, revenue & investment. Coco was a liar & mooch. We stay in Anfield.

    • Don says:

      Unfortunately, LFC fans are unfamiliar what stadium revenues streams are. They should google the new stadiums being built in the US to understand new terms such as seating option rights and/or buying vip club seats with ten or more years commitments for season tickets. Don’t underestimate the importance of these revenues streams for paying off new stadium mortgages. There are reasons why new stadiums are built…

  6. Alan says:

    Parry may as well have worked for Man Utd because all he did was make poor decisions for Liverpool time and again.

    He had no ambition or vision for Liverpool FC, he was just a run-of-the-mill chief executive more worried about his own pay package and enjoying the lifestyle of a footballer.

    Rick Pary = LOSER

  7. Punch In The Mouth 4 U says:

    Woulda coulda shoulda bullshit to sell cheap dirty tabloid rags .
    If we are gonna look back & coulda woulda shoulda , ?

    We shoulda spent like blue fuck & moved heaven & earth to get Kenny back when we sacked Souness .
    Where do ya draw tha line with yer woulda coulda shoulda bullshit .
    If you move outa Anfield you are opening the door to building a stadium in the isle of Mann or wherever the business suits can make most profit from their portable sports franchise while you idiots allow us to continue to get ripped off by having second rate squads only capable of getting top 4 for 20 more fucking years .

  8. martin says:

    he has some cheek to mouth on about FSG,he left some heap of shite behind with hicks,gilett moores,one word spring to mind .Gobshite.under FSG we are slowly re mapping the club and its values,one hopes CL football will help finances come back to strenght to fund any new stadium plans,ynwa.

  9. Don says:

    ManU earn revenues from 25k more seats a game. Multiply by an average of 40 pounds per seat ManU earns one million more per game with just stadium revenues. Not per year, per game. During the 1990s when the stadiums were forced to be all seaters, the only club which didn’t lose attendance numbers have been able to use this financial advantage to maintain being king of the hill since. Not only did ManU have an advantage they proceeded to increase their advantage.

    They were able to get planning consents to expand their stadium because their location in an industrial area was chosen by a previous owner over a hundred years ago adjacent to rail links. Unfortunately Anfield is surrounded by residential homes and streets, and Stanley Park isn’t anywhere as near to a rail link.