Anfield or New Anfield

[Guest San Don]

What I read from that is that they're not going to do either. While I accept that if H&G were still in charge things would be substantially worse, it looks like this crowd are happy to just thread water.

 

Sounds like he'd rather do nothing and sell shirts instead.

 

Fuck knows why you think that. Perhaps he's looking for a raft of things rather than looking for the one single magic bullet you think is going to make us competitive? You know, things such as not spending stupid money on transfer fees and wages, looking to get more sponsors on board, looking to get more global fans, particularly in asia to spend their money on club internet sites etc, etc.

[silverlining]

What I read from that is that they're not going to do either. While I accept that if H&G were still in charge things would be substantially worse, it looks like this crowd are happy to just thread water.

 

And knit a very wet jumper

[Guest ShoePiss]

It's actually hard to spend money inside Anfield on match day, I have a feeling in a new stadium we'd see more than the 50p increase that was apparently seen at Arsenal.

 

I don't like his American comparisons, I haven't checked but virtually all new build stadiums have come with significant public money invested and I'd guess ticket increases there where more to do with greed than financial necessity.

 

All he's talked about is hurdles and roadblocks, Old Trafford appears to be doing quite well though.

[WaltonRed]

Yeh cos United get backed left right and centre by the board plus because they can guarentee champions league year in year out they can loan on that

 

I think we'll redevlop, I also think people read Henry's words then translate it from there stand point

[xerxes]

That is a sensible, well argued, piece from JW. I don’t agree with it all, but it is coherent.

 

The odd section was this: “There are homes behind the main stand. Expansion of the main stand would have to be a priority for the city, community and immediate neighbourhood in order for that to occur. And there are many people who feel this expansion should be welcomed. This issue is vital to the neighbourhood’s future, but we cannot and will not act unilaterally.An expansion of the Main Stand is NOT vital to the neighbourhood’s future. It will physically adversely dominate the immediate landscape from the perspective of home owners. What benefit does a bigger stand offer the community, city and neighbourhood? By contrast it offers the maximum short term return for the minimum outlay for FSG.

 

Stadium’s, and their capacities, always have represented status, sometimes they have represented folly. What we are being presented with is second class stadium status, I do accept that over the past few years we have needed no more, but that does not mean we are not capable of more.

 

I continue to believe that FSG bought us for windfall growth underpinned by sound management and secure finance. The £30m extra TV money per annum we are likely to get as a result of the new TV deal matches almost exactly the uplift that a new stadium would have delivered - at zero cost.

[LFC64]

Thought his response was quite impressive.

 

It certainly explains the background to the 55 main stand seasies being moved for the corporates.

 

In the short term we can make up ground on our rivals quicker by increasing corporate facilities than we can by adding standard seats either by redevelopment or a new stadium.

 

In the meantime the search for naming rights continues. The area which remains unclear is exactly how negociations are going between club, council, residents and property owners.

My guess is a few compromises need to be made by all parties.

[xerxes]

The area which remains unclear is exactly how negociations are going between club, council, residents and property owners.

My guess is a few compromises need to be made by all parties.

The Club just needs to pay the commercial rate to buy the properties and land that is all,and with an extra £30m in TV cash pa can afford to do so.

[Wembley74]

Given what J Henry is saying on Sky Text I think we can forget a new ground or Anfield getting redeveloped.

[andyj]

so what JH is saying is why build a new stadium or improve anfield when all the extra capacity will be doing is servicing the debt taken on to do it.....now thats good business sence

there are other ways to make money and not have to service a debt to do it

 

just a question i know we have a deal with sky but why cant we make all our other home games PPV on the LFCTV channel? i would have thought that in itself would raise revenue hugely in the worldwide fanbase this club has

[Steve]

I think this is a way of keeping all options open, he did say something along the lines very soon after buying the club though that having experienced the atmosphere of Anfield he'd be very sad to knock it down. Looking at the way things were towards the end of last season tickets were quite easy to come by, derby tickets went down to all members who'd attended one game in the end so its not as if an immediate increase in capacity is needed right away.

What he seems to be saying is, let the worldwide commercial revenues and success on the pitch generate income, allowing either for a phased expansion within our means that will involve other sections of the community, or a naming rights partnership when we are a more attrative partner. I'd rather it be that way than shifting a load of debt onto a stadium on an assumption that it will be full every week for 20 years or will host Champions League footy constantly and see us subsequently freefall if that doesnt happen. Not that its on the same scale, but grandoise stadium ideas at Coventry and Darlington have fucked them up completely.

[Timão]

What he said made perfect sense.

 

If we were to build a new stadium, it would be at an enormous cost for the gain of 15,000 seats. I am not saying we def. should not do it, but it needs careful consideration.

 

Lots of people (including Moores and Parry at the time) looked at Utd and thought, in a rather simplistic way, 'they have a bigger ground, they are successful = we need to do the same'.

 

What has always been forgotten about this is the fact that Utd expanded their ground (not moved) on the BACK of success and not as a pre-condition to it. They started expanding in 1995, after they had won two titles and a couple of FA Cups in the previous 5 years.

 

Arsenal's situation was similar: Wneger won them 3 titles and 4 FA Cups in ground smaller than ours, they have won nothing since.

 

The big factor in City's success was not the new ground but 'free' money from the owner.

 

If Henry's statement is seriously the beginning of a return to common sense within the club (i.e. recognition that success depends on the fundamentals being right and not on just on the number of seats you have in the ground) it is a welcome step.

 

I am not holding my breath yet but it is a start.

[Code]

Sounds like he'd rather do nothing and sell shirts instead.

 

Sound like they should sell and just fuck off to me.

 

I could pick so many holes in his arguments there but why bother.

[BringbackBiscan]

Meh, I've long accepted this lot will be doing nothing regarding the stadium. That involves them spending some money you see.

 

They're lucky they've replaced possibly the worst owners in history. If they came first, straight after Moores, no one would be accepting the shabby way they've run the club.

[xerxes]

The new TV deal is worth an extra £30m a year - enough on its own to pay for a new stadium in ten years, and provide an enhanced legacy for decades after.

[FanchesterCity]

What he said made perfect sense.

 

If we were to build a new stadium, it would be at an enormous cost for the gain of 15,000 seats. I am not saying we def. should not do it, but it needs careful consideration.

 

Lots of people (including Moores and Parry at the time) looked at Utd and thought, in a rather simplistic way, 'they have a bigger ground, they are successful = we need to do the same'.

 

What has always been forgotten about this is the fact that Utd expanded their ground (not moved) on the BACK of success and not as a pre-condition to it. They started expanding in 1995, after they had won two titles and a couple of FA Cups in the previous 5 years.

 

Arsenal's situation was similar: Wneger won them 3 titles and 4 FA Cups in ground smaller than ours, they have won nothing since.

 

The big factor in City's success was not the new ground but 'free' money from the owner.

 

If Henry's statement is seriously the beginning of a return to common sense within the club (i.e. recognition that success depends on the fundamentals being right and not on just on the number of seats you have in the ground) it is a welcome step.

 

I am not holding my breath yet but it is a start.

 

 

Some truth to that BUT...

 

it's like moving house...

 

On any given day, you can readily reel off a bunch of reasons why it's a bad idea, or 'risky' and hard to be assured of any gain.

But when you look at those who have done well (financially), the move was clearly a factor. That's not to say that some moves don't work out poorly, but the old adage 'speculate to accumulate' still holds true.

 

City's ground move WAS a part of their good luck... it's part of what made them an attractive proposition to invest in - but City's fortune in getting that stadium was a one off (and plenty of fans were unsure if it was the right thing to do - which it was).

 

I think United is also a tricky one to compare with - they're a bit of an anomaly in terms of brand and very hard to compete with on that front, and they had the good fortune of being able to expand around the ground (albeit hindered by the canal).

 

A new stadium isn't really about the 15,000 seats. It's easy to say 'only 15,000 extra' and make it sound unattractive, but it's all part of the image / corporate experience.

 

I'm not trying to say "oh how good are City" - I'm just using them as an example I know well... but the whole matchday experience is a million miles from the Maine Road days... when you'd turn up, watch the game and go home. Now, fans are turning up a couple of hours before, having food, watching live bands in the fan zone, mixing with away fans, having a beer etc etc... spending more money at the club ultimately... even staying after game for a few more beers and food!

 

The club are grabbing more ground to earning from the car parking too, and having other activities around the stadium - velodrome, athletics etc etc all brings in young kids who start wanting to come to matches.

 

It's those extra benefits that a new stadium brings... way and above the extra seating that really start making a difference.

 

For me, I think it would be fantastic for Liverpool (the City) to make the whole Stanley Park area a football quarter - keeping much of the park, and losing a fair bit of the housing.

 

The tragedy is that 'the housing' is some people's homes, not just some industrial wasteland (like City or United).

 

But, the more I think about it... the more I come to the conclusion that every stadium has a finite lifetime. And no matter how much you maintain it, and keep it's heritage (like an old classic car) - sooner or later it will cease to be truly functional and more of an emotional indulgence (or even burden).

 

Sadly, the state of football these days means everything comes down to a balance sheet... and decisions made are based on what's best for the owners, not on the long term best for the club.

[Whelan]

Main Road wouldn't have had a finite lifetime had the Comonwealth Stadium not been built! And due to the financial stability of United, sharing was never a factor either, which it would be should we build a stadium using any public money.

 

You have fuck all that surrounds the Etihad stadium, it is essentially a working industrial estate that is surrounded by space, so you can obviously start developing amenities to keep the fans in and around the ground spending money. Our amenities are the shops, pubs and cafes within the area so the question isn't about the football club it is about the economic benefits of having Liverpool Football club based in Anfield, because if the club was to move there would be an awful lot of business that would suffer, and that seems an awful lot for the sake of houses (of which most are unoccupied. The fact is that if development of the surrounding houses was included in any development then residents would not have to move to far would they?

 

There is no difference in location between City's stadium and Liverpool's neither of which any sane man could argue are in a 'nice' area of either City. Redeveloping Anfield will enable an incremental build, that would pay for itself. Arsenal were able to sell Highbury for £150m if memory serves, and with selling the naming rights they had pretty much raised £250m towards the payment, we won't get £25m for Anfield. Our time for a new build has passed, we missed our chance when the cost was £90m at the turn of the Century, our owners were incapable of making it happen.

 

The sad economics are that a new build will cost £350-450m, and we simply cannot afford that.

[xerxes]

Main Road wouldn't have had a finite lifetime .......etc.

I agree with much of that – but not its conclusion.

 

The new TV deal produces around £30m extra per PL club. What that will do is to generate wage and fee inflation – no-one is better off apart from the players and their agents. Andy Carroll will command £150k a week, Henderson’s value would have inflated to £30m. Neither are better footballers as a result.We can spend an extra £30m a season on a player - but so can Spurs and Arsenal.

 

The ONE thing we can do to steal a march on our rivals in the medium to long term however is to improve the financial generating capacity of our ground.

 

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the £30m a season extra TV revenue would pay for a new stadium, after naming rights, in ten years – with pay back in enhanced revenues from day one.

 

The sad truth though is that this is not about the future of LFC, or a legacy, for FSG. It is about the fact that the enhanced TV revenue alone covers their purchase stake in seven years, exactly the sort of windfall they had been banking on. Couple that with the scandalous £50m provision for a new stadium that has never been built, with no explanation on how it has/is to be spent, and who benefits, and you see the clubs' pocket's being picked with a smile.

 

As Johnny Rotten memorably sneered to a crowd of Texas rednecks:” Ever had the feeling you’ve been cheated?”

[coop]

What makes more financial sense for the club, build a new ground or redevelop Anfield and build a hotel/complex on the grounds.

 

Obviously the latter is determined by buying lad around the stadium.

[Whelan]

The new TV deal isn't ten years long though!

 

And that still leaves £150m to find. We have missed our boat I think, if we can increase our revenue by £30m then that needs to be invested back into the team. Any venture that we undertake needs to pay for itself, and by that I don't mean taking money from non dependent sources such as TV money or Merchandising as that will undermine a team, that quite frankly needs investment.

[xerxes]

The new TV deal isn't ten years long though!

 

And that still leaves £150m to find. We have missed our boat I think, if we can increase our revenue by £30m then that needs to be invested back into the team. Any venture that we undertake needs to pay for itself, and by that I don't mean taking money from non dependent sources such as TV money or Merchandising as that will undermine a team, that quite frankly needs investment.

The uplift from now will continue though, with an additional uplift from increased stadium income.

 

I accept that in practise it will be swallowed up by mysterious FSG provisions, wages and fees.

 

My point is that we are unlikely to progress as a result because our competitors will have at least as much more.

 

Now it is true that you can argue that failure to put that money into the team when others do means that we will regress still further - that is a possibility. Or you may take the Villa/Newcastle/Everton approach of saying that we dont need to match Chelsea/Man City on fees/wages, we just need to spend more than the bottom 16 or so.

 

A new stadium will pay for itself - over time.What is unlikely is that FSG want to be around long enough to see the dividend.

[FanchesterCity]

Main Road wouldn't have had a finite lifetime had the Comonwealth Stadium not been built! And due to the financial stability of United, sharing was never a factor either, which it would be should we build a stadium using any public money.

 

You have fuck all that surrounds the Etihad stadium, it is essentially a working industrial estate that is surrounded by space, so you can obviously start developing amenities to keep the fans in and around the ground spending money. Our amenities are the shops, pubs and cafes within the area so the question isn't about the football club it is about the economic benefits of having Liverpool Football club based in Anfield, because if the club was to move there would be an awful lot of business that would suffer, and that seems an awful lot for the sake of houses (of which most are unoccupied. The fact is that if development of the surrounding houses was included in any development then residents would not have to move to far would they?

 

There is no difference in location between City's stadium and Liverpool's neither of which any sane man could argue are in a 'nice' area of either City. Redeveloping Anfield will enable an incremental build, that would pay for itself. Arsenal were able to sell Highbury for £150m if memory serves, and with selling the naming rights they had pretty much raised £250m towards the payment, we won't get £25m for Anfield. Our time for a new build has passed, we missed our chance when the cost was £90m at the turn of the Century, our owners were incapable of making it happen.

 

The sad economics are that a new build will cost £350-450m, and we simply cannot afford that.

 

Course it would have had a finite lifetime...

It was already on its last legs and constantly being revamped.

 

What would have happened is that we'd have stayed. Stayed in a stadium well past it, and suffered as a result. Maine Road was almost a carbon copy of Anfield in terms of area / surroundings. The perfect location 60 years ago, the worst possible location 20 years ago.

 

But I do agree that the ideal solution would be to remain where you are (even with a new stadium) - hence why I said the football quarter at Stanley Park, in my opinion fits best)... because it results in regeneration of the area, albeit at the cost of some folks losing their homes (which is a huge factor to those home owners). All of that said, I do believe with regeneration, they'd not have to move far at all, and would end up with better homes and an improved future (in theory).

 

The way I see it (and not all will agree) is that BOTH clubs (Liverpool and Everton) are a key component of regeneration. If the clubs moved out, the areas would be in a worse state, not better, and like it or lump it, the entire local economy should be fuelled on the presence of both clubs. But to get that WILL cost some housing and some pubs.... only for new ones to rise.

 

Even if you're no fan of football, it's clear as day that so much COULD be done around the stadium.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

The uplift from now will continue though, with an additional uplift from increased stadium income.

 

I accept that in practise it will be swallowed up by mysterious FSG provisions, wages and fees.

 

My point is that we are unlikely to progress as a result because our competitors will have at least as much more.

 

Now it is true that you can argue that failure to put that money into the team when others do means that we will regress still further - that is a possibility. Or you may take the Villa/Newcastle/Everton approach of saying that we dont need to match Chelsea/Man City on fees/wages, we just need to spend more than the bottom 16 or so.

 

A new stadium will pay for itself - over time.What is unlikely is that FSG want to be around long enough to see the dividend.

If as you makeout that FSG are just on the take,then it makes zero sense them not using that extra tv revenue to fund a new stadium.

 

They would make far far more money with a stadium.

 

I agree with whelan on this and we missed the chance with the stadium way back.

[WaltonRed]

But had Moores and Parry built their original 'bolton' design we'd of fucking moaned it down anyway

[shanks69]

But had Moores and Parry built their original 'bolton' design we'd of fucking moaned it down anyway

do you remember when moors and parry 1st came up with the stadium move it was actually a 70-75000 capacity ground.i remember getting the echo at deysbrook shops and the picture was on the front page,since that echo was printed those shops have gone,deysbrook barracks has gone and been replaced by a new estate and a tescos talk about depressing :wallbutt::wallbutt::wallbutt::wallbutt::(:(:(:(

[WaltonRed]

Thanks DM!