Anfield or New Anfield

[redasever]

The only area I would question, and it's not disagreement - is the 300 million for 15K seats.

When it's presented like that - then no, it doesn't sound worth it.

 

...but the straight 300 million for 15K seats isn't the entire picture (which I'm sure you'll agree).

 

£300m for 15k seats is such a big deal as everything is monthly and annual. Everything gets spread out over the term of the feasibility. As I said everything is for now and for the long term. It must work now and ‘forever’ (the life of the stadium).

 

But I know that’s not what you were asking... the ‘intangible’ matchday spend, the add-ons and goodies are all already in the package. All wrapped up in the ‘revenue per seat’ - it’s not just ticket prices.

 

The conference and concert market is pretty much sewn up at the Echo Arena for the bigger stuff although the occasional Paul McCartney does happen. There’s not a huge smaller event market and plenty of cheap competition. There will always be weddings. Arsenal make a lot of it, maybe there’s some for LFC but in comparing new v redevelopment you take it as even stevens (but concerts on the pitch are not allowed in a new stadium).

 

I can see a whole football quarter thing going on with training pitches, soccer school, academies, sports science etc etc (rather than a general sports, pool, cycling thing) but they all have their own costs and their own feasibilities. It’s just a sense, but for me it’s not priority and another group of risks, rewards and benefit. I wouldn’t call any of it ‘supporting development’ to help a stadium out.

 

The stadium must work as as a stadium, stand alone. I think it was the second thing JWH said when he came.

.

[redasever]

As ever, I'm likely to upset a few but still:

 

My son works at United (he's City, but there's loads of Liverpool there too)... anway, one thing that just stands out about them.... they are a machine, they really are.

All the dolly birds are dressed in Virgin Atlantic style outfits, 90% are stunning. It's almost as if the football doesn't matter, it's purely corporate experience etc.

According to my son, they have a deal on matchdays... 1500 quid... yep 1.5K per person for a decent meal and free drinks thereafter. Of course, nobody drinks 1.5K worth.

 

The entire suite he works in is full of businessmen taking clients and there's about 500 at a time. 500 * 1.5K = 750K per game just in his suite alone.

They turn up about 2 hours before the game, and leave about 3 hours after and spend all their time trying to impress their clients, some don't even watch the match at all!

 

I expect Arsenal is similar.

I've only been to Arsenal 3-4 times since they moved to the Emirates, and didn't experience any corporate stuff, but I'd imagine they've got that side highly polished.

 

Whilst I loathe the whole aspect of that, it's all part of the United machine, and it's something Liverpool and every other club are having to face.

Of course, they are massively helped by this hype about the club... people that have zero interest in football want to go to United.

 

There's definitely money to be made from it all, but it takes a serious amount of work to get that slick.

 

City are a good 10 years behind them and there's been a lot of improvements of late.

I suspect Liverpool are the same - a fair bit behind.

 

And they got the stadium for three parts swagger and a thank you... it's all happening for sure but I'm not sure so much in Liverpool. The top premium seat at Anfield currently works out at £8,500 per season. Not exactly £1500 a pop...

.

[redasever]

What we have needed for a long time, and still need desperately, is a long-term plan that will allow the club to achieve the sort of growth ManU's plans have allowed them to achieve over however many years it's been; on the field, in terms of commercial growth and also infrastructure development. Evidently their plans have worked out extremely well for them. The problems for us in terms of attempting that are

 

1 - we still don't know what plans FSG and the club have in place to achieve this growth because everything stills revolves around rumour and counter-rumour;

 

2 - we still don't know if FSG are capable (or indeed willing?) to deliver this growth;

 

3 - we don't know if there is enough scope for growth left in football. Are we already close to saturation point and maxing out real opportunities for growth?

 

I would assume that FSG clearly feel there is opportunity there as per point 3 because why would they have taken on as hefty an undertaking as Liverpool otherwise? Even accounting for the fact they got the club at a knockdown price, they'd still have to feel the venture to be a worthwhile pursuit.

 

If the scope for growth at the rate the Mancs have achieved is no longer possible, then any planning and expenditure on infrastructure and club development will only enable us to keep up with the Joneses. It won't enable us to pull ahead of the pack in the way the Mancs have managed over the past 20-odd years. Even if we do have significant scope for growth, that still leaves room for the likes of the Mancs to continue pushing ahead. We're spending to catch up only for them to spend slightly less just to move ahead again. Therein lies the gamble.

 

The standard of decision making at this club over the past 20-30 years beggars belief at times, it really does.

 

Well, the best that can be said is that there’s been a lot of change... but essentialy I agree. It hasn't been top of the top drawer has it? But despite whatever football issues might be had with FSG, I have no reason to doubt their attention to detail and careful progress.

 

But you’re absolutely right to ask has the (matchday) bubble burst already. I’m sure FSG have considered the same issue (and will plan accordingly ie., for steady progress without over-stretching the club). And there's other things to look at...

 

Bayern earns £160m a year from commercial revenues. Madrid and Barca, £155m and £140m. United £100m (from memory). Ours is £77m (?). Plenty of room for growth there but saying it’s so don’t make it so. You have to get out there and get it. ‘Global revenue is the priority’ - the first thing JWH said when he came.

.

[FanchesterCity]

£300m for 15k seats is such a big deal as everything is monthly and annual. Everything gets spread out over the term of the feasibility. As I said everything is for now and for the long term. It must work now and ‘forever’ (the life of the stadium).

 

But I know that’s not what you were asking... the ‘intangible’ matchday spend, the add-ons and goodies are all already in the package. All wrapped up in the ‘revenue per seat’ - it’s not just ticket prices.

 

The conference and concert market is pretty much sewn up at the Echo Arena for the bigger stuff although the occasional Paul McCartney does happen. There’s not a huge smaller event market and plenty of cheap competition. There will always be weddings. Arsenal make a lot of it, maybe there’s some for LFC but in comparing new v redevelopment you take it as even stevens (but concerts on the pitch are not allowed in a new stadium).

 

I can see a whole football quarter thing going on with training pitches, soccer school, academies, sports science etc etc (rather than a general sports, pool, cycling thing) but they all have their own costs and their own feasibilities. It’s just a sense, but for me it’s not priority and another group of risks, rewards and benefit. I wouldn’t call any of it ‘supporting development’ to help a stadium out.

 

The stadium must work as as a stadium, stand alone. I think it was the second thing JWH said when he came.

.

 

Agreed.

 

But a stadium standing as a stadium is more of a soundbite than necessary reality. Any stadium's success is typically influenced by factors beyond the stadium itself - transport, hotels, non stadium parking etc.

I think it's very hard to make a stand alone new stadium (particularly of the 50-60K size) viable without a larger ecosystem around it - be that shopping (like Bolton Wanderers) or a sports complex (City), or housing (bought up by Arsenal).

 

The revenue per seat figure can be misleading too. A high revenue per seat isn't particularly difficult to achieve, but it has to be measure by the number of seats too. Otherwise, in the extreme, you fit 1 seat and change 10K for it. 10K per seat revenue! it means nothing unless the capacity is included too.

 

My gut feeling is "revamping Anfield = short term, and ultimately digging a deeper hole" whilst "new stadium = initial hit, but long term winner"

 

But gut feelings are no way to conduct business.

 

I've mentioned an idea to Everton fans before now, needless to say, they couldn't see it working.... but it was an attempt to actually make a play of a stadium being older. Call it a heritage stadium, where the entire experience was around vintage looks and feel. Modern grounds are dull and cold and there's simply no sense of history there at all, so if you have a ground that has some - use it.

Sadly, most of the older stadiums have been bodged up to look modern and ruined any old architectural aspects in the process.

 

The best ground I can think of like this is maybe Craven Cottage. Hardly Anfield I know, but that whole concept of a stadium that's old and maintains character could be right for Liverpool.

 

I believe it's something FSG actually did with RedSox? made a bit of a play of the old stadium.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

I don't disagree.

But who's there to try and see things are done for the long term interests? I'm guessing nobody.

 

Even if the owners are relatively short term say 5-10 years, they'll have to start implementing changes to the ground pretty soon (assuming they even think money could be made that way).

 

Matchday revenues (as far as I know are roughly):

 

Arsenal 42%

Manchester United 35%

Chelsea 32%

Tottenham Hotspur 31%

Aston Villa 27%

Liverpool 23%

 

The top 3 have their own special reasons for such high revenues, but Liverpool surely must be able to pull in as much as Spuds and Villa without too much effort?

The 5-10 years your saying about seems way short of what I seen and that was with a huge naming rights of the ground, it would be a minimum of 15 years before the club benefits.

 

If you say for instance it cost £300 million to build and somehow which is unlikely a £100 million naming rights.

 

Theres still £200 million + interest to be paid off.

 

So even over 10 years that is over £20 million a year we pay and were does that come from?

 

It s totally unrealistic amount to pay over ten years even with the extra revenue we would make from it.

 

The only realistic route in building a new stadium is building one from plywood and getting bob the builder to build it.

 

Thats the major problem and not has been mentioned the owners staying around that long,because they would get more money for us with a stadium, even one not fully paid for.

 

Upgrading the ground the cost is minimal and paid for out of the first seasons increased revenue and we also reap the benefits straight away instead of xx amount of years down the line.

[xerxes]

The 5-10 years your saying about seems way short of what I seen and that was with a huge naming rights of the ground, it would be a minimum of 15 years before the club benefits.

 

If you say for instance it cost £300 million to build and somehow which is unlikely a £100 million naming rights.

 

Theres still £200 million + interest to be paid off.

 

So even over 10 years that is over £20 million a year we pay and were does that come from?

 

It s totally unrealistic amount to pay over ten years even with the extra revenue we would make from it.

 

The only realistic route in building a new stadium is building one from plywood and getting bob the builder to build it.

 

Thats the major problem and not has been mentioned the owners staying around that long,because they would get more money for us with a stadium, even one not fully paid for.

 

Upgrading the ground the cost is minimal and paid for out of the first seasons increased revenue and we also reap the benefits straight away instead of xx amount of years down the line.

Our current match day revenue is around £45m a season. Man U and Arsenal are over£100m. Call ours at £80m a year at a new stadium , that is £35m a year more.

 

On your figures of £300m less £100m naming rights that is £200m to pay, over 25 years that is £8m a season.

 

That leaves a surplus of £27m a season.

 

The advantage of stretching out the term is the longer you spin it out, the more that ticket price and other revenue streams inflate.

 

The problem with a half new stadium is that you do not get half of the increased banqueting/hospitality income, you get less. A new stadium gives you two side stands enhancement, a half new stadium only gives you one. But at Anfield it is worse than that because the new stand also has to accommodate new Directors, media, medical and player facilities too, reducing the money making space still further.

 

If a new stadium is £300m, half a new stadium might cost £150m. Those 10,000 extra seats, at £50 a seat (say) generate £500k extra a game, or £12.5m a season. There will be additional premium seating, but not as much as a new ground, the ARE would cost less than the new Main stand.

 

You say “Upgrading the ground the cost is minimal and paid for out of the first seasons increased revenue and we also reap the benefits straight away”. In fact it would take 12 years to pay it off, at which point half the ground would be 40 years old.

 

With a £100m naming rights deal the difference would only be £50m between a half new and an all new stadium. Over 25 years that is £2m a season. That difference would be more than made up by the extra 5000 seats alone, with a surplus of £4.25m a season (25 games @ £50) before the full hospitality provision is loaded in.

 

Fortunately large project delivery is my job, and detail is what I enjoy.

[Megadrive Man]

One of the key things we keep hearing is that 300 million is too expensive for an extra 15,000 seats. So why don't they add an extra 20,000?

 

Sure It's a big leap going from 45,000 to 65,000 but they should be able to make up the extra 20,000 through season tickets alone.

 

We must be able to find an organisation for naming rights that would be prepared to pay 100 million too, even if it was over a long period of time.

 

A new stadium has to be the way to go, I agree with those who have previously stated that redeveloping Anfield show's that FSG are only here for the short term, despite the fact that I think this would put many prospective buyers off. They may well end up shooting themselves in the foot.

[xerxes]

But a stadium standing as a stadium is more of a soundbite than necessary reality. Any stadium's success is typically influenced by factors beyond the stadium itself - transport, hotels, non stadium parking etc.

I think it's very hard to make a stand alone new stadium (particularly of the 50-60K size) viable without a larger ecosystem around it - be that shopping (like Bolton Wanderers) or a sports complex (City), or housing (bought up by Arsenal).

 

The revenue per seat figure can be misleading too. A high revenue per seat isn't particularly difficult to achieve, but it has to be measure by the number of seats too. Otherwise, in the extreme, you fit 1 seat and change 10K for it. 10K per seat revenue! it means nothing unless the capacity is included too.

 

My gut feeling is "revamping Anfield = short term, and ultimately digging a deeper hole" whilst "new stadium = initial hit, but long term winner"

 

But gut feelings are no way to conduct business.

 

I've mentioned an idea to Everton fans before now, needless to say, they couldn't see it working.... but it was an attempt to actually make a play of a stadium being older. Call it a heritage stadium, where the entire experience was around vintage looks and feel.

No football stadium on the planet makes money by football alone, it has to pay its way 365 days a year. Mansour understood that with the COM complex and the exciting proposals for the surrounding site.

 

Stanley Park /Anfield Plaza went some way to recognising that, an in situ half new/half old stadium does nothing to recognise the realities of 21st Century football stadium economics.

 

You are right to be sceptical about revenue per seat comparisons. A new stadium offers the opportunity of greater elasticity of price.

 

At a 70k capacity ground the cheapest price might be £25 – the most expensive £100. Range is more important than average.

 

As for the idea of a “Vintage stadium” experience – that is what we have now!

 

The problem is that FSG are disingenuous about the stadium. “We want to redevelop – but oops we can’t because we don’t own the land.” The new stadium? They are not prepared to invest in it, even though it is oven ready and can be costed now. By contrast they have no idea how much it will take them to buy the land they need to redevelop, or how long it will take, they cannot plan what to build until they are certain that they will own the developable land, as a consequence they have no idea what it will cost, nor if the scheme will be consented. And even if you get to the end of all that, you end up with half a new stadium. A bodge job.

[FanchesterCity]

The 5-10 years your saying about seems way short of what I seen and that was with a huge naming rights of the ground, it would be a minimum of 15 years before the club benefits.

 

If you say for instance it cost £300 million to build and somehow which is unlikely a £100 million naming rights.

 

Theres still £200 million + interest to be paid off.

 

So even over 10 years that is over £20 million a year we pay and were does that come from?

 

It s totally unrealistic amount to pay over ten years even with the extra revenue we would make from it.

 

The only realistic route in building a new stadium is building one from plywood and getting bob the builder to build it.

 

Thats the major problem and not has been mentioned the owners staying around that long,because they would get more money for us with a stadium, even one not fully paid for.

 

Upgrading the ground the cost is minimal and paid for out of the first seasons increased revenue and we also reap the benefits straight away instead of xx amount of years down the line.

 

Think you might have missed a post along the line... I was touting 15 years min, but shoepiss questioned if the owners would ever be in it for such a long haul - which is where my 5-10 year came in.

 

I'm absolutely in agreement it's a 15 - 20 year term (although that flies by).

 

But I also agree with shoepiss on the subject of the owners unlikely to be looking that far ahead (could be wrong of course). They'll certainly be wanting a return before then I'd expect.

[redasever]

Agreed.

 

But a stadium standing as a stadium is more of a soundbite than necessary reality....

 

I believe it's something FSG actually did with RedSox? made a bit of a play of the old stadium.

 

As you say, gut feelings are no way to run a business. They’ve got all our own prejudgements built into them. As someone said, the greatest hindrance to progress is experience...

 

But it never is just one seat or anything like it. Revenue per seat is extremely useful in context particularly since this exercise is more or less nailing the comparison to quite a small range (60k to 65k) or at its extreme 45000 to 65000.

 

Agreed, a stadium needs infrastructure (road, rail etc etc). There is a problem with the length of the ‘core experience’ in football (5mins before, a quick wazz at half time and off to town from the kick off). So you might also consider ‘associated retail’ ie., the Yawkey Way idea in Boston but there are other and less risky ‘financially supporting’ developments (sponsorships, advertising and to a degree, events) which have a greater return on investment.

 

But you’re right, the value of Anfield as a brand (together with a bit of heritage brand) is in the assessment of options I’m sure. Someone, somewhere, has put a number on that because some people travel to Anfield to experience the vibe of the place as much as to watch the football (if there’s any on at the time). Call it what you like - brand, mystique, heritage - it’s got value. I’m sure it hasn’t escaped the owners of Fenway.

 

I’m not sure I can say the same thing about the architecture of stadia. The Allianz Arena is a great signboard for Allianz but it completely wipes any other income generation (including Bayern as a brand) off the map. For me, the building should add to the brand of the club, not be anonymous (a wasted opportunity), not devalue the brand (be cheap and nasty) and not fight the brand (the Allianz Arena). The outside look of the ground should represent the values of the club. Straightforward, honest, awesome.

.

[xerxes]

They'll certainly be wanting a return before then I'd expect.

 

 

Over a 25 year term I demonstrated in an earlier post how a new stadium can deliver good returns early on. And an asset which is delivering those returns (and crucially FFP “free money”) will have grown significantly.

 

The problem is that there is no evidence that FSG want to invest (guarantee) funds. They are men who on average have put in £10m and want to see a return on that – not put more money in to make more money.

 

Slowly the realisation is dawning that FSG do not know what they are doing. Ayre has no competence or expertise in delivering a major stadium project. FSG can barely find Liverpool let alone have a detailed understanding of the construction and planning issues in the UK. If they wanted to they could recruit in that expertise – David Dein. But they haven’t.

 

To date no current cost for the consented scheme at SP and Anfield Plaza has been made public. No cost for and proposals for ( and costs for)a redeveloped Anfield have been made public. No viability study for a shared stadium has ever been made public. Incredibly, it is G&H who got us the farthest.

[redasever]

...A new stadium offers the opportunity of greater elasticity of price.

 

Your dogma is showing again.

 

For any given range that a market can support (currently £45 to £456 at Anfield), the ceiling that either stadium option can offer is the same but the floor is higher for a new stadium because of the very much larger cost ie., its lowest prices are higher than a redevelopment can offer and therefore has less elasticity of price.

 

You cannot increase scope for lower prices by upping capacity to 70k. That’s bollocks. There’s only so many upmarket seats you can sell. Adding on more, more expensive to build seats won’t help you offer cheaper seats to anyone. It’s going the wrong way.

 

In short, there really is more scope for some cheaper seats for families etc at Anfield because the club doesn’t have to pay so much to build them.

.

[redasever]

One of the key things we keep hearing is that 300 million is too expensive for an extra 15,000 seats. So why don't they add an extra 20,000?

 

Because it would cost even more and even more per seat

 

 

Think you might have missed a post along the line... I was touting 15 years min, but shoepiss questioned if the owners would ever be in it for such a long haul - which is where my 5-10 year came in.

 

I'm absolutely in agreement it's a 15 - 20 year term (although that flies by).

 

But I also agree with shoepiss on the subject of the owners unlikely to be looking that far ahead (could be wrong of course). They'll certainly be wanting a return before then I'd expect.

 

It has to work today and it has to work in thirty years time. Nobody is going to wait any length of time for a return on the investment - for the surplus for re-investment in the club.

 

The value of the proposal is effectively evened out over the whole life of the asset. So if it’s a billion pounds over thirty years, it’s money in the bank now, not wait 15 years for a pay day.

 

It doesn’t matter if FSG stay or go, the viability of the stadium rumbles on.

.

[Captain]

I've consigned myself to there not being a new stadium. The more I think about it, the more I think we had a window of opportunity a few years back to get it built and we blew it.

[James Dean]

After Peter Robinson have we had anyone worth his salt in the higher ups?

[xerxes]

The general rule of thumb with Redasever is that if it involves sums, or commerciality he is either wrong, confused, or both, and has lost the detail.

 

A half new/half old Anfield is likely to offer a revised capacity of around 55,000. Of those, half are likely to be premium seats. The idea that the remaining 5000 extra seats will offer “scope for some cheaper seats for families etc” is wrong. (sums)

 

The argument that capacity should be artificially reduced “Because it would cost even more and even more per seat” is incomplete economics. If taken to its logical conclusion every stadium would be one step with a capacity of around 500.Each stand and stadium has its own tipping point. There is no reason whatsoever why a 70,000 seater stadium cannot deliver financially. Ask Borussia Dortmund, Hertha Berlin,Bayern Muncich (Commerciality).

 

A 60,000 seater stadium offers greater elasticity of price than a 45,000 seater,( Basic detail)

 

I like the look of the current Anfield, it feels right and has some fantastic memories – but accept that it cannot deliver what we need for the 21st century. A half new/half old stadium will be a compromise, all in situ redevelopments are ( site and existing structures), so you not only are left with half an old stadium, but the new bit will not be exactly what you want either.

 

The aesthetics of other stadia is a matter of personal taste. My own view is that the Allianz is a fantastic bold statement, a 21st century stadium for a 21st century club.

 

Any new stadium project is a risk and a commitment. But it is a risk that can be managed. The deception that FSG offer is that it cannot be afforded, what they mean is that they are not prepared to invest to back it. The opportunity that a cleared site offers to do EXACTLY what you want, against a half new/half old compromise is stark.

 

A half new/half old stadium offers minimal new jobs- SP and Anfield Plaza offer hundreds more. But FSG care not for Anfield as a district or for the long term future of the club, only for how much can be squeezed whilst investing nothing.

 

The upshot, unless a stunning naming rights deal is struck, is likely to be a 55,000 seater half new/half old stadium, plans which I saw in the Morgan/Parry era. A cobbled together concoction which satisfies the premium seat capacity, merely offers more expensive remaining seats, and fails to deliver on improved conference and banqueting facilities for the area, business and local community.

 

The final irony? Allowing for naming rights, a new stadium would offer a better longer financial return than a half new/half old one, if you are prepared to invest first. It's called "spoiling the ship for a ha'pworth of tar".

[redasever]

The general rule of thumb with Redasever is that if it involves sums, or commerciality he is either wrong, confused, or both, and has lost the detail.

 

A half new/half old Anfield is likely to offer a revised capacity of around 55,000. Of those, half are likely to be premium seats. The idea that the remaining 5000 extra seats will offer “scope for some cheaper seats for families etc” is wrong. (sums)

 

The argument that capacity should be artificially reduced “Because it would cost even more and even more per seat” is incomplete economics. If taken to its logical conclusion every stadium would be one step with a capacity of around 500.Each stand and stadium has its own tipping point. There is no reason whatsoever why a 70,000 seater stadium cannot deliver financially. Ask Borussia Dortmund, Hertha Berlin,Bayern Muncich (Commerciality).

 

A 60,000 seater stadium offers greater elasticity of price than a 45,000 seater,( Basic detail)

 

I like the look of the current Anfield, it feels right and has some fantastic memories – but accept that it cannot deliver what we need for the 21st century. A half new/half old stadium will be a compromise, all in situ redevelopments are ( site and existing structures), so you not only are left with half an old stadium, but the new bit will not be exactly what you want either.

 

The aesthetics of other stadia is a matter of personal taste. My own view is that the Allianz is a fantastic bold statement, a 21st century stadium for a 21st century club.

 

Any new stadium project is a risk and a commitment. But it is a risk that can be managed. The deception that FSG offer is that it cannot be afforded, what they mean is that they are not prepared to invest to back it. The opportunity that a cleared site offers to do EXACTLY what you want, against a half new/half old compromise is stark.

 

A half new/half old stadium offers minimal new jobs- SP and Anfield Plaza offer hundreds more. But FSG care not for Anfield as a district or for the long term future of the club, only for how much can be squeezed whilst investing nothing.

 

The upshot, unless a stunning naming rights deal is struck, is likely to be a 55,000 seater half new/half old stadium, plans which I saw in the Morgan/Parry era. A cobbled together concoction which satisfies the premium seat capacity, merely offers more expensive remaining seats, and fails to deliver on improved conference and banqueting facilities for the area, business and local community.

 

The final irony? Allowing for naming rights, a new stadium would offer a better longer financial return than a half new/half old one, if you are prepared to invest first. It's called "spoiling the ship for a ha'pworth of tar".

 

That’s so wrong, it’s funny...

 

27500 premium seats at Anfield... more than double Old Trafford (10,000 - er, about 13%)... more than the Emirates... Anfield (which costs nothing to build) has less scope for cheap prices... a new stadium is twice the cost but can have cheaper prices... the Anfield Plaza is of ‘certain’ economic benefit and will create significant numbers of jobs... You need more people to work in a new stadium with the same facilities... German stadia deliver financially (and at that, without government aid)... you can read FSG’s mind...

 

All crackers. Great stuff - it’s how you tell ‘em.

.

Edited May 28, 2012 by redasever

[redasever]

I've consigned myself to there not being a new stadium. The more I think about it, the more I think we had a window of opportunity a few years back to get it built and we blew it.

 

More 'luck' than management true but it may be a bullet dodged rather than a missed opportunity. Imagine - out there to the tune of £300m and along comes a credit crunch...

.

[FanchesterCity]

More 'luck' than management true but it may be a bullet dodged rather than a missed opportunity. Imagine - out there to the tune of £300m and along comes a credit crunch...

.

 

Agree with this. At the moment, it looks like those who didn't build new have missed out... but it's only the few that first built like Bolton that look to have probably done the right thing, come what may.

 

As for others - like Arsenal, it LOOKS a very good move, but the future still lies waiting, and they could (in theory) still come a cropper. Quite possibly why they are hell bent on making sure it's all paid for in double quick time!

 

Again, City's an anomaly so has to be discounted.

 

Who is to say that something won't go tits up with Murdoch's little empire and Sky have to pull out? The next guys might be offering only half the TV money... or there's a serious recession where folks simply can't afford the prices, and the corporates look to reign in their 'perks' - resulting in a serious drop in matchday revenue and sponsorship. It can happen very quickly.

 

Even Man United's debt is risky, when it really depends on them maintaining their status as part of the elite. If that changes - they're in trouble.

 

There could well be a time when those who stuck with their stadia are the ones left smiling. Probably unlikely, but it's still possible.

[xerxes]

As for others - like Arsenal, it LOOKS a very good move, but the future still lies waiting, and they could (in theory) still come a cropper. Quite possibly why they are hell bent on making sure it's all paid for in double quick time!

 

Again, City's an anomaly so has to be discounted.

 

Who is to say that something won't go tits up with Murdoch's little empire and Sky have to pull out? .

 

Arsenal's move is bomb proof, the big dividends yet to come. Paying down your debt ahead of schdule is prudent business. There is always a limit to the parallels you can draw between diverse schemes, there are few possible between a superbly scheduled JV programme in North London, and our own situation.

 

The potential volatility of televison revenues in the future is a reason for monetising support by providing capacity equal to potential, not for not doing it.

[redasever]

Agree with this. At the moment, it looks like those who didn't build new have missed out... but it's only the few that first built like Bolton that look to have probably done the right thing, come what may.

 

As for others - like Arsenal, it LOOKS a very good move, but the future still lies waiting, and they could (in theory) still come a cropper. Quite possibly why they are hell bent on making sure it's all paid for in double quick time!

 

Again, City's an anomaly so has to be discounted.

 

Who is to say that something won't go tits up with Murdoch's little empire and Sky have to pull out? The next guys might be offering only half the TV money... or there's a serious recession where folks simply can't afford the prices, and the corporates look to reign in their 'perks' - resulting in a serious drop in matchday revenue and sponsorship. It can happen very quickly.

 

Even Man United's debt is risky, when it really depends on them maintaining their status as part of the elite. If that changes - they're in trouble.

 

There could well be a time when those who stuck with their stadia are the ones left smiling. Probably unlikely, but it's still possible.

 

Indeed. In purely commercial terms, the Emirates hasn't done Arsenal a lot of favours. They may have done better to stay and develop Highbury (on which they had already invested quite a lot) and to buy Ashburton Grove and develop the 2000 homes there instead. That might have been a supporting development worth its salt.

 

But looking at it that way, emphasises the risks. Not unnaturally, residential sales had slowed since the recession started to bite. I haven't checked for a bit but they may have picked up since. Nevertheless it will have left a worrying hole in the cash-flow. That together will a stall in ticket prices and static at best hospitality take... heaven forbid there's no pot of gold at the end of their rainbow.

 

Great businesses make the right leaps of faith at the right time but FSG are wise to be cautious.

.

[redasever]

Arsenal's move is bomb proof, the big dividends yet to come. Paying down your debt ahead of schdule is prudent business. There is always a limit to the parallels you can draw between diverse schemes, there are few possible between a superbly scheduled JV programme in North London, and our own situation.

 

The potential volatility of televison revenues in the future is a reason for monetising support by providing capacity equal to potential, not for not doing it.

 

Jam tomorrow.

 

Paying down debt early smacks of throwing money at it to save it. I wonder what the return on investment is now (having shovelled all that lovely money from apartment sales into it instead of spending a few bob on the team)??

 

And... not so long ago it was you who argued for greater capacities based on increased exposure of the EPL on television!

.

[xerxes]

27500 premium seats at Anfield... more than double Old Trafford (10,000 - er, about 13%)... more than the Emirates... Anfield (which costs nothing to build) has less scope for cheap prices... a new stadium is twice the cost but can have cheaper prices... the Anfield Plaza is of ‘certain’ economic benefit and will create significant numbers of jobs... You need more people to work in a new stadium with the same facilities... German stadia deliver financially (and at that, without government aid)... you can read FSG’s mind...

 

All crackers. Great stuff - it’s how you tell ‘em.

.

 

 

Basic maths as always lets you down. We currently have 4000 premium seats, an extra 5000 at a half new/half old stadium equals 9,000, not 27,500.

 

And Man U have 10,700 premium seats.

 

A half new/half old stadium will not be built for free.

 

A half new /half old stadium does not have the same facilities as an all new stadium.

 

An all new Anfield and Anfield Plaza will employ more than a half new/half old stadium.

 

Where is Nat when she is needed?

 

Great stuff is an exaggeration, basic stuff I prefer. And yes, cogent accuracy has always been my forte, as is exposing charlatans.;)

[xerxes]

Jam tomorrow.

 

Paying down debt early smacks of throwing money at it to save it. I wonder what the return on investment is now (having shovelled all that lovely money from apartment sales into it instead of spending a few bob on the team)??

 

And... not so long ago it was you who argued for greater capacities based on increased exposure of the EPL on television!

.

 

I am not surprised that you do not understand the fiscal benefits of paying down debt early.

 

The reason why we should have a greater capacity is that we are underperforming the marketplace. You don't understand your own arguments - I do not expect you to understand others.................

[FanchesterCity]

Blimey you two!...

 

You can both be right on this one....

 

Of course, this is extremely primitive economics, but you pay off your debts as soon as you can (unless you really believe you can invest that money elsewhere to gain a return higher than your interest rate). But still, the general principle is - if you can invest or pay off debt, pay off!

 

And, paying it off early can also be a sign of concern or at least uncertainty.

 

 

As for the Allianz Arena - I like it, I think it's distinctive and to be frank, impressive.

It might look very dated in 20 years time though. Only time will tell.

Each unto their own of course!