Quantcast
Shared stadium meeting. - Page 4 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content

Recommended Posts

When you share a stadium, you share the revenues. This is a major factor in the Italian clubs now deciding to move away from sharing and build their own.

 

From the cunts perspective, there is no way they can make enough money from half a stadium. In fact, Inter came out recently and bemoaned the revenues they are losing out whilst sharing facilities with AC.

 

It's corporate facilities that create the highest percentage revenue per bum on seat/prawn sandwich, and that's where the business plan of sharing fails.

 

Unfortnately, for the bitters, this would automatically increase their revenues, and the council will get a lovely new landmark to put on their tourist brochures.

 

Once we're in with them, there's no escape. Seriously, do people considering this really think it will pull both clubs up to the top table or keep both clubs plateud below (where we are now)?

 

Unless the cunts leave, then we will always be financially fucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we should just jack it all in and turn Liverpool FC into a chain of restaurants.

 

I think your on to something here RiS, we already ahve a head waiter and a DJ for afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't suit Everton either. If they share with Liverpool it will be exactly that, them sharing our ground. No one will know it as Everton's ground. They'll be the 1860 of English football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To get Anfield up to 55,000 would not be hard to do and a hell of a lot less than forking out £450m for a new one.

 

That's were I would like to see the club go.

 

me too.

 

We simply do not need anything bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are skint. Everton are skint. The council are skint. Who is going to pay for it?

Plus who is going to stay in a hotel in Walton midweek. It would be full of Scandis and Welsh on match weekends but business people and tourists will want to stay in the city centre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco
me too.

 

We simply do not need anything bigger.

 

That depends on whether we want to match the other clubs in terms of revenue (both matchday and otherwise) or not. If we don't, then we could put a few thousand more seats in so more people could get a ticket. Reasonable suggestion.

 

However, I doubt they'll be watching us fight it out for the league.

 

I'll be pretty disappointed if we go with a few more thousand seats at the current stadium. I'm tired of seeing this club be stuck in first gear over the last 15-20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are skint. Everton are skint. The council are skint. Who is going to pay for it?

Plus who is going to stay in a hotel in Walton midweek. It would be full of Scandis and Welsh on match weekends but business people and tourists will want to stay in the city centre.

 

The fans. Always the fans. We are the center of whichever tornado trying to suck us clean. Players, investors, banks, TV-companies, councils, federations, etc. It doesn't matter, the bill stays with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with making one change i.e. the Main stand and seeing whether or not 50 thousand is enough, we will be doubling the Executive boxes for one thing, and as I say if we do need more then we can either fill in the corners or build the Anfield Road, its certainly worth considering.

 

I am not aruging that we stay cos it is Anfield, but rather than whore ourselves all over the world to build the stadium, see if we can find an alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco
We fought for the League last season, its not just about how much you have in the bank mate, or how much revenue you bring in.

 

I'd still like to think there are players out there who would still come to Liverpool before City and Chelsea regardless of wages.

 

I know, but I'm thinking long term here. How many more years can we take a negative spend, plus costs of redevelopment (which won't be covered in the same way that a new stadium cost would be), plus losing players and only able to buy from clubs that owe us money?

 

It isn't going to last for long, in my opinion. We have seen how far we've fallen from where we were 20 years ago. If anybody showed a little bit of vision back then, we would still be the club we were then. It wouldn't be 18 leagues each, it would be about 35:8.

 

I'm just frustrated that we are in a position where a few thousands extra seats at Anfield are being seriously discussed. How long will it take for that redevelopment to pay for itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That depends on whether we want to match the other clubs in terms of revenue (both matchday and otherwise) or not. If we don't, then we could put a few thousand more seats in so more people could get a ticket. Reasonable suggestion.

 

However, I doubt they'll be watching us fight it out for the league.

 

I'll be pretty disappointed if we go with a few more thousand seats at the current stadium. I'm tired of seeing this club be stuck in first gear over the last 15-20 years.

 

if Anfield held 70,000 it would be an utterly moot point, as only very rarely would we ever fill it. It would still have to be paid for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco
if Anfield held 70,000 it would be an utterly moot point, as only very rarely would we ever fill it. It would still have to be paid for.

 

Well, that's nothing more than conjecture. Plus, Anfield holding 70k and a new stadium holding 70k would be totally different amounts of revenue. It isn't just bums on seats anymore.

 

We are living in the past already, mate. I don't want to see plans for a new stadium binned for a few more seats at Anfield - as much as I love her - because we'll only be standing still as the rate others are moving is greater than ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco
I see your point, but If I am thinking long term mate, I see football going backwards in the next few years(money wise).

 

One last big sponsorship deal left I think.

 

Yeah, maybe. Although, once this financial 'crisis' is completely over and the markets are completely normalised then I don't see too much changing. They'll still have massive stadiums with huge cooperate incomes. Arsenal are now sitting on a gold mine and have money in the bank. United, despite being in mass amounts of debt, are very lucrative and will no doubt be bought. Chelsea are looking at new stadium sites and have a billionaire owner. City can by all of those teams and turn them all into ballet clubs. It isn't going to change to the point where we are anywhere close to being level.

 

I'm just frustrated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, maybe. Although, once this financial 'crisis' is completely over and the markets are completely normalised then I don't see too much changing. They'll still have massive stadiums with huge cooperate incomes. Arsenal are now sitting on a gold mine and have money in the bank. United, despite being in mass amounts of debt, are very lucrative and will no doubt be bought. Chelsea are looking at new stadium sites and have a billionaire owner. City can by all of those teams and turn them all into ballet clubs. It isn't going to change to the point where we are anywhere close to being level.

 

I'm just frustrated.

 

City will be finished within the next four years! Totally unworkable business plan. The others, United excepted won't be too far ahead regarding actual income, I don't think Chelsea have that many fans.

 

As Tom has said, there are no guarantees we will, bar the odd occassion, fill a 70'000 stadium, 60'000 is much more realistic, 50'000 a more realistic starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco
City will be finished within the next four years! Totally unworkable business plan.

 

As Tom has said, there are no guarantees we will, bar the odd occassion, fill a 70'000 stadium, 60'000 is much more realistic, 50'000 a more realistic starting point.

 

It doesn't really matter, mate. whether we can fill 60k or 70k, it's beside the point. We need corporate income. According to that article in the other thread on finances, 40% of clubs matchday revenue can be down to

 

From the same report "In England, while the Reds have stood still, other clubs have invested £2.4bn in stadia from 1993-2007".

 

I see a new stadium as the single most important issue, even above the current ownership situation - that's going to sort itself out in time - and the current debt level, for a prosperous future of the football club. Redeveloping Anfield makes very little sense.

 

I'd still like to know where SoS stand on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't fill a 70,000 seater stadium at £40 a pop. We need a pricing structure. We need tickets sold for a cut price, numerous concessions and different schemes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's wrong with making one change i.e. the Main stand and seeing whether or not 50 thousand is enough, we will be doubling the Executive boxes for one thing, and as I say if we do need more then we can either fill in the corners or build the Anfield Road, its certainly worth considering.

 

I am not aruging that we stay cos it is Anfield, but rather than whore ourselves all over the world to build the stadium, see if we can find an alternative.

 

I think this really needs to be hit on the head once and for all to be honest.

 

1. We can't afford to

2. We would have reduced attendences

3. Would we even get planning permission after all the shite we've put up with over the past 10 years?

4. Money is tied up with the current development

5. See above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco

From the same article, it shows that we are punching well below out weight in only one area. The stadium.

 

Shirt/Merch rev.

 

United: 70m

Us: 67m

Chelsea: 52m

Arsenal: 48m

 

TV:

 

United: 100m

Chelsea: 79m

Arsenal: 75m

Us: 75m

 

Now the real bitch, the Stadium:

 

United: 108m

Arsenal's new stadium: 100m

Chelsea: 74m

Us: 42m

 

We can't fill a 70,000 seater stadium at £40 a pop. We need a pricing structure. We need tickets sold for a cut price, numerous concessions and different schemes.

 

Exactly. There is definitely a way of filling seats for smaller games and getting big bucks for bigger games. As we can see, we sell as many shirts as United, we know we can rival their fan base but we can't match their 90k seater stadium. Arsenal are the stand out here. They get 100m just from their stadium's matchday revenue. A new stadium could see us get some real cash that would pay for the stadium in the short term (along with sponsorship) and lead us to be very well off and totally self sufficient in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't really matter, mate. whether we can fill 60k or 70k, it's beside the point. We need corporate income. According to that article in the other thread on finances, 40% of clubs matchday revenue can be down to

 

From the same report "In England, while the Reds have stood still, other clubs have invested £2.4bn in stadia from 1993-2007".

 

.

 

I agree with the corporate side, but that doesn't necessarily need executive boxes, a new main stand could cater for that.

 

Plus, do you want a situation at Arsenal where the middle tier is empty ten minutes either side of half time!

 

I am quite confident we could compete with a 55'000 stadium, with an option for 60' if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this really needs to be hit on the head once and for all to be honest.

 

1. We can't afford to

2. We would have reduced attendences

3. Would we even get planning permission after all the shite we've put up with over the past 10 years?

4. Money is tied up with the current development

5. See above.

 

1. We can't afford the stadium, so whacha gonna do!

2. We would have reduced attendances for one year maxium, how much would we lose, has anybody done a costing?

3. Try asking.

4. What money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. We can't afford the stadium, so whacha gonna do!

2. We would have reduced attendances for one year maxium, how much would we lose, has anybody done a costing?

3. Try asking.

4. What money?

 

1 Touche

2. It's the structure as well, connections pipelines, we could be in the same position we are now in about 10 years time. Out grown the stadium

3. Seriously, we won't get it.

4. European Funding NWDA for the Anfield regeneration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco
1. We can't afford the stadium, so whacha gonna do!

 

You borrow it against the massive rise in revenue that a new stadium offers, plus the sponsorship it would bring it. Do I like the idea of the playing in the 'chartered standard stadium'? No, but if it brings in 100-150m off the cost of a 300-350m stadium, then yeah.

 

It wouldn't be forever, anyway. Not that any of us would ever call it anything other than Anfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco

 

Its about time this football club realised how big it is

 

This is true for many different areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
City will be finished within the next four years! Totally unworkable business plan. The others, United excepted won't be too far ahead regarding actual income, I don't think Chelsea have that many fans.

 

As Tom has said, there are no guarantees we will, bar the odd occassion, fill a 70'000 stadium, 60'000 is much more realistic, 50'000 a more realistic starting point.

 

Errr, Newcastle can fill 63,000!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You borrow it against the massive rise in revenue that a new stadium offers, plus the sponsorship it would bring it. Do I like the idea of the playing in the 'chartered standard stadium'? No, but if it brings in 100-150m off the cost of a 300-350m stadium, then yeah.

 

It wouldn't be forever, anyway. Not that any of us would ever call it anything other than Anfield.

 

Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me a chartered standard stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×