Anfield or New Anfield

[Anubis]

John Henry tweeting Redasever's article? Xerxes' head will explode in a fit of envy.

[Guest ShoePiss]

It crossed my mind that Henry has either had conversations with Peter or been following his blog after his last interview regarding the stadium. Some of the answers Henry gave instantly reminded me of him.

[Code]

It crossed my mind that Henry has either had conversations with Peter or been following his blog after his last interview regarding the stadium. Some of the answers Henry gave instantly reminded me of him.

 

God help us.

[WaltonRed]

Burying bad news on Gylfi by tweeting this bollocks

[xerxes]

John Henry tweeting Redasever's article? Xerxes' head will explode in a fit of envy.

Despair more like.

 

I can always forgive Peter's numeracy and commercial shortcomings, it's not his job. If others want to celebrate a half new/half old stadium, feel free.

 

The article is so deeply flawed it is hard to take it seriously. Suffice to say this. If FSG want to redevelop - do it. there is nothing stopping them other than their unpreparedness to pay a fair price to landowners. If they want to give discounted tickets to families - go ahead, they can do it now.

[Antynwa]

Doesn't some of his plans include keeping the main stand and building upon it?

[Whelan]

Despair more like.

 

I can always forgive Peter's numeracy and commercial shortcomings, it's not his job. If others want to celebrate a half new/half old stadium, feel free.

 

The article is so deeply flawed it is hard to take it seriously. Suffice to say this. If FSG want to redevelop - do it. there is nothing stopping them other than their unpreparedness to pay a fair price to landowners. If they want to give discounted tickets to families - go ahead, they can do it now.

 

What do you think we have now? And what do you think Old Trafford is? Strange and quite frankly, silly turn of phrase to use for a ground that is being developed.

 

I get the impression you are an accountant/financial planner of some sort, but then again you speak with authority on coaching, the FA, media, law, scouting, other premier league clubs, the social construct of a fan, and yet you are dismissive of people who state their claims and state what they are.

 

I want to stay in Anfield, I don't much care for a new shinny stadium, and I certainly don't see 70,000 fans attending on a weekly basis. And there is absolutely no need to spend upwards of £400m on a new stadium for an extra 15,000 seats.

[TheHitman]

.

 

I want to stay in Anfield, I don't much care for a new shinny stadium

 

Agree totally, I go to watch the team kick a ball around and not really arsed to see us try and make some people a small fortune when they try and sell us in the future.

[aws]

1-0 (redasever).

 

Great result (if it happens).

[Babb'sBurstNad]

I want to stay in Anfield, I don't much care for a new shinny stadium

 

Yep, it would be a financial leg-up, but ultimately someone has to foot the bill.

[Whelan]

Agree totally, I go to watch the team kick a ball around and not really arsed to see us try and make some people a small fortune when they try and sell us in the future.

 

Yep' date=' it would be a financial leg-up, but ultimately someone has to foot the bill.[/quote']

 

How much were we paying to service the parasites debt? I think it was £40m (ish), now I know that they had shit terms, but that was for about £300m, so I dread to think what a new stadium would cost in interest alone. I would think 20,000 extra fans would have to bring in a minimum of £40-60m extra per year.

 

It doesn't make financial sense, the original design would hve cost about £100-150m, but that opportunity has gone.

[LFC64]

How much were we paying to service the parasites debt? I think it was £40m (ish), now I know that they had shit terms, but that was for about £300m, so I dread to think what a new stadium would cost in interest alone. I would think 20,000 extra fans would have to bring in a minimum of £40-60m extra per year.

 

It doesn't make financial sense, the original design would hve cost about £100-150m, but that opportunity has gone.

 

Suppose JWH's tweet is a nod of approval for the principles of the article. FSG may well have very different ideas on how to go about it as they are the ones taking the financial risks not architects but the article echoes Henry's own comments regarding the looking at the overall financial picture and not just focusing on the stadium as a make or break factor;

 

...."Even if the stadium had worked it wouldn’t have made the difference. It is not the be all and end all. It’s not the whole deal. Chasing Arsenal’s money is not it. Doubling the money from the stadium is not it. A total turnover (tv, commercial, matchday) ahead of Bayern, Barca and Real Madrid. That’s it."

[Babb'sBurstNad]

How much were we paying to service the parasites debt? I think it was £40m (ish), now I know that they had shit terms, but that was for about £300m, so I dread to think what a new stadium would cost in interest alone. I would think 20,000 extra fans would have to bring in a minimum of £40-60m extra per year.

 

It doesn't make financial sense, the original design would hve cost about £100-150m, but that opportunity has gone.

 

Oh i agree. My previous post was just a pun.

[WaltonRed]

Feel sorry for those at the top end of the waiting list, if you're 15000 plus on it i'd say its safe to say you'll never be getting one now!

[Whelan]

Feel sorry for those at the top end of the waiting list, if you're 15000 plus on it i'd say its safe to say you'll never be getting one now!

 

It is tough, but you have to draw the line somewhere, they need to look at making it more accessible throughout the year, and need to seriously look at the allocation of kids tickets.

 

But, just because the capacity is increased by 15,000 that doesn't mean it will be 15,000 season tickets, in fact I would guess it would just be 5,000.

[WaltonRed]

It is tough, but you have to draw the line somewhere, they need to look at making it more accessible throughout the year, and need to seriously look at the allocation of kids tickets.

 

But, just because the capacity is increased by 15,000 that doesn't mean it will be 15,000 season tickets, in fact I would guess it would just be 5,000.

 

I'm in the 3000's so hopefully i'd be sound but I still think we should be going much bigger and having well more STH's but thats just me

[LFC64]

It is tough, but you have to draw the line somewhere, they need to look at making it more accessible throughout the year, and need to seriously look at the allocation of kids tickets.

 

But, just because the capacity is increased by 15,000 that doesn't mean it will be 15,000 season tickets, in fact I would guess it would just be 5,000.

 

If we're to take this article as a reliable guide to the envisaged blueprint then this would be the first stage of an incremental redevelpoment so likely season tickets would increase at each stage?

 

In order to be able to offer graded prices and cheaper entry for kids/families you'd imagine this would have to be off-set by increases in quantity of the 'premium seats' so I agree you are probably looking at 5,000 season tickets for the punters and the rest in hospitality/premium seats ( only going on the information in this article and from Henry's interview because I am no expert in this).

 

If we can take the following at face value though it sounds encouraging...

 

We know we have to bring more money into the ground. We know we can’t wring any more money from hard-pressed pockets. The club can’t ask much more of us individually but the club can sell more of what we’ve got to more like us.

Not especially boxes. Liverpool is not that kind of place. Not especially that kind of fan. Premium seats yes - plenty of them. With great hospitality packages. Not more expensive. More of them.

Better standard seats yes, with better bars and sports bars and tv bars and, and... and cheaper seats for families and kids - with their own cafes. Their own comings and goings. Their place in a wider pricing structure. A multitude of ‘price entry points’. Something for everyone.

[Whelan]

I'm in the 3000's so hopefully i'd be sound but I still think we should be going much bigger and having well more STH's but thats just me

 

The problem is, say you take 10% of our season ticket holders, each year it is same to assume they have children who want their own season tickets, so I woudl guess you are always adding a few thousand here and there, which is why I think you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

I think you will be fine, but I would rather we looked at getting more kids in the ground and developed a childrens section.

[FanchesterCity]

The problem is, say you take 10% of our season ticket holders, each year it is same to assume they have children who want their own season tickets, so I woudl guess you are always adding a few thousand here and there, which is why I think you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

I think you will be fine, but I would rather we looked at getting more kids in the ground and developed a childrens section.

 

Just an observation on the changes at City in recent years (not saying it's right or wrong, just 'change')...

 

There's a LOT more emphasis on 'family' - trying to get whole families along, and some quite good prices for youths (right up to 21 years old). There's a distinct move away from the old 'die hard fan' type marketing. There's a lot more interaction from the club too - Online questionnaires, newsletters (to home) etc asking about the facilities etc...

 

Stuff like this...

 

- Would you prefer to move the away fans from their current location, and combine the two singing sections into one?

- Would you prefer a wider choice of foods, or reduced prices with less choice?

- Would you consider car sharing with other fans if the car parking fees were reduced for cars with 4 or more occupants?

 

etc etc.

 

 

The whole feel has changed - some for good (safer, miles better conditions and facilities) and some for bad (Families are great, but it's still football, not a day trip out, so I want some proper atmosphere, not 'which team is ours mummy?')

 

But when all is said and done, the whole experience is better, and you spend longer at the ground and spend more as a result.

The ground gets used a lot more than just matchdays, and (for instance) they've been showing England games on large screens in the fanzone etc.

 

To get the families, the price point is critical. Most families can't afford £120.00 a game for a family of 4, even £80-100 is pushing at (just for the gate price), let alone the parking, food + drink, programme etc.

 

Liverpool COULD abandon the chase for families, and decide to milk the corporate / premium seats, which might (in the short term) provide the greatest returns, but in the long term, I still can't help but feel you have to persuade the average fan to bring along their kids at a decent price... if Liverpool don't grab them, someone else will.

[FanchesterCity]

Suppose JWH's tweet is a nod of approval for the principles of the article. FSG may well have very different ideas on how to go about it as they are the ones taking the financial risks not architects but the article echoes Henry's own comments regarding the looking at the overall financial picture and not just focusing on the stadium as a make or break factor;

 

...."Even if the stadium had worked it wouldn’t have made the difference. It is not the be all and end all. It’s not the whole deal. Chasing Arsenal’s money is not it. Doubling the money from the stadium is not it. A total turnover (tv, commercial, matchday) ahead of Bayern, Barca and Real Madrid. That’s it."

 

I think it's correct to say it's not all about the stadium - it's clearly not BUT....

 

The whole move from the old world of football to the new (where image and 'experience' are key components of progression) means the stadium plays a pivotal role.

 

I liken it to a car... a Porsche isn't a great car simply because the engine is well engineered, it's about every aspect of the car coming together to create a stylish, classy, but modern capable piece of engineering from start to finish... but the engine is still core.

 

In the same way, the 'core' of Liverpool (apart of the personnel) is the stadium. To bring in those other revenues, you need increased sponsorship, improved capacities, more matchday spend, better matchday experience, improved image, greater utilisation of the stadium etc...

 

The total turnover (or more importantly, profit) is more likely to improve with an improved stadium (the only question is how that improvement should manifest itself).

 

Anfield is like a classic Jag - you can keep tweaking and maintaining the engine to still get incredible performance from it, and it can still outperform a lot of modern engines...

But at some point, there IS an inevitability - that the newer models start to match you, then surpass you, and your own engine starts to cost more and more to just keep running, and improvement ceases to be possible).

 

He's right - it's NOT about the stadium alone. But the long term improvement of Liverpool cannot happen without a stadium solution in place.

[WaltonRed]

The thing is though, local people who can walk the ground wont go and spend all day there and then the night there in the pubs/bars because they can just go home!

[LFC64]

The thing is though, local people who can walk the ground wont go and spend all day there and then the night there in the pubs/bars because they can just go home!

 

I wish they'd refurbish the Flat Iron toilets or at least clean them a bit more often!

[xerxes]

A balanced response is required, and follows.

 

I have no preference for a new, or redeveloped, stadium. As a club we have underperformed in growing our home attendance compared to the market place over the past twenty years, and thus have underperformed in maximising potential gate revenues. That is statistical fact.

 

I do passionately believe that LFC, in order to compete in the 21st Century global football arena, need a capacity which reflects our support, and facilities which are commensurate to the 21st century for players and fans alike. Whether that is provided where we are, or elsewhere ( so long as the alternative location is acceptable) I don’t think matters.

 

Some wish to stay at Anfield out of sentimentality. Some doubt that our future needs us to invest for it as they think we are already out of the elite forever. Others think that we can compete at Anfield.

 

We simply do not have the facts to make a balanced judgement at the moment. The Club has never made public a scheme for redevelopment. It is crass to play on the understandable sentimentality alone that all of us have for Anfield without revealing what the “it” is that redevelopment represents. It is apparent however that the preparedness of some sections of our support to “swallow whole” whatever they are fed remains undiminished. As the hypnotist swings his coin and recites “Anfield/Dalglish/Benitez/ Shankly/The Liverpool Way” so some are lulled into a soporific stupor by sentimentality.

 

What is the scheme? When can it be built? What land is required? What are we going to do to acquire it? What is it going to cost? What is the capacity going to be? What potential for further growth is there? These are the questions which demand an answer. In theory we could do anything. In practise life does not work out like that, as the past twenty years, and the current impasse have demonstrated.

 

It is not true that a new stadium does not pay dividends. It is true that the payback is longer.

 

In the absence of any substantive redevelopment proposal ,the FSG case appears to be that they are somehow looking after the club by a bit of make do and mend and that we should rejoice at the prospect of a half new/half old stadium. But then again getting a World Class CEO, and a DOF , and buying players shrewdly all sounded great once, but already it seems like a long time ago. Most people don’t even know, or care, that the lower decks, and facilities, of the ARE and Kemlyn predate the newer upper decks by decades. Like your 80 year old gran defiantly proclaiming that there is nothing wrong with her 1970’s kitchen and avocado coloured bathroom suite. Only it’s not the young relatives who are smiling behind her back, it’s our competitors.

 

Five years ago we had plans for a 60k stadium, a world class manager, and at least four world class players with title challenges and European Cups in our sights – but with shit owners. Now we are being told that we might get round to an extension (one day, no plans mind you), we have a manager with one year’s PL experience and a side stripped of its jewels, and some are lapping it up. Somewhere in Boston, the bourbon is being passed, and Larry Lucchino is chortling to Jeffrey Vinik – “and the suckers never even ask about the £50m provision and the extra £30m per annum TV money”...................................................

[FanchesterCity]

The thing is though, local people who can walk the ground wont go and spend all day there and then the night there in the pubs/bars because they can just go home!

 

And that's an issue...

 

Clubs trying to make more money on matchday don't want fans walking right in and right out again, or even spending their money at the pubs around the ground - they want you arriving 2 hours before kick-off, and staying maybe 1 hour after, and buying food and drink from them, and spending in the shop etc.

 

That's a really tricky aspect when you pubs and shops near by... many of whom would actually go under if not for the club. But money in the pub pocket, is money LFC are losing out on.

 

But, if you're a family, chances are, you aren't going to be spending as long at Anfield as the club would like... and if fans are walking in, that's a fair bit of car park money lost too.

[Whelan]

A balanced response is required, and follows.

 

Okay, i'm prepared to listen to your 'balanced response'

 

It is not true that a new stadium does not pay dividends. It is true that the payback is longer.

 

Oh I see? The thing is, you don't have any relevant examples at all to back up this theory. Arsenal is the only club to have built their own stadium and they did so from a basis of raising £150m through selling Highbury, a luxury we will never get.

 

If you can show me the figures that 15,000 extra fans can add £50m plus, then please show me.

 

Five years ago we had plans for a 60k stadium, a world class manager, and at least four world class players with title challenges and European Cups in our sights – but with shit owners.

 

And there you have it. That is the crux, under two crooks who did not give a flying fuck about the consequences of the stadium because they would have long since cleared off, we would have had a world class stadium that would have been ruined the club. Because we do not have the means, or the immediate fan base to get the required money from those extra 15,000 fans.

 

The boat has been missed, the only option available for the club now are what it can do, and the only affordable option (outside ground share) is to re develop in the first instance.