Anfield or New Anfield

[dirk grout]

If we do redevelop two new stands I am certain that they would be sponsored.

 

There has been a trend abroad to sell stand AND stadium naming rights.

 

Unless we received an overwhelming offer, I cannot see Anfield being rebranded - but if it hapened in Newcastle it can happen anwwhere.

 

What an odd thing to say.

[xerxes]

What an odd thing to say(but if it hapened in Newcastle it can happen anywhere.).

 

Why do you think that?

 

I have been to around 2/3rds of the league grounds and, for me, and I think many others, St James' Park has always been one of the great English football grounds. Steeped in history , grand in stature, and with a tradition of loyal working class support.

 

If SJP can be rebranded,sadly, any ground can.

[dirk grout]

Why do you think that?

 

I have been to around 2/3rds of the league grounds and, for me, and I think many others, St James' Park has always been one of the great English football grounds. Steeped in history , grand in stature, and with a tradition of loyal working class support.

 

If SJP can be rebranded,sadly, any ground can.

 

Again, this is nonsense.

[Guest ShoePiss]

St.James Park and Anfield are not comparable at all, I bet if you asked football fans outside of the uk where St.James Park was they'd be more likely to say London than anything related to a footy ground in Newcastle. Anfield on the other hand has worldwide appeal and exposure.

 

Not the same thing at all.

[Unrighteous]

a revamped Anfield will be called Anfield by everyone but commentators/journalists.

[Ne Moe Imya]

Yes, without seeing the detail its hard to tell, I accept.

 

The naming rights aspect is the unknown. The significance of 55k is that is my guess as to what it will be if we build up, rather than out.

 

Like you I would love to see a 60/65k capacity. I just hope the answer is what we want, not a bodged job.

 

I think you're ignoring the fact that the real increase in revenue will come not from the increased numbers of seats, but from the increased corporate boxes, etc.

 

Sure, an extra 5k seats would make us more money, but if we add 100 corporate boxes it will make us just as much. Not sure of the precise maths on that, but the redevelopment of the two stands will surely incorporate more corporate facilities, which is where a stadium makes a huge percentage of its matchday revenue.

[Guest San Don]

People keep on putting pictures up of the Main Stand when it's redeveloped and simply building on top of it.

 

It needs fucking knocking down FFS

 

Calm down. By redevelop, they do mean knock down. The Main Stand is part of the original structure. Its foundations wont take a new tier on top. It'll be a complete rebuild.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Calm down. By redevelop, they do mean knock down. The Main Stand is part of the original structure. Its foundations wont take a new tier on top. It'll be a complete rebuild.

 

No idea what they're planning to do but I'm sure McGurk has an option to build over the mainstand with a second tier having it's own supporting structure. I'm sure he's said it's possible.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

I think you're ignoring the fact that the real increase in revenue will come not from the increased numbers of seats, but from the increased corporate boxes, etc.

 

Sure, an extra 5k seats would make us more money, but if we add 100 corporate boxes it will make us just as much. Not sure of the precise maths on that, but the redevelopment of the two stands will surely incorporate more corporate facilities, which is where a stadium makes a huge percentage of its matchday revenue.

 

The corporate boxes would bring more revenue in,but a 100 would be overkill imo. If we where based down sarf then it wouldnt be a problem leasing them. Maybe adding a few boxes and the rest becoming seats would be better idea.

[Guest San Don]

People are missing an important point here about money from 5, 10 or 15,000 extra seats. The club knows it's not just money for those seats that'll be income, there's also the extra money pulled in by those people spending as much as £150 in the club shop in addition to their ticket money.

 

I'd still expect a corporate box to pull in more money though.

[xerxes]

Again, this is nonsense.

Your arguments are as weak as your vitriol.You simply do not know what you are talking about.

[dirk grout]

Your arguments are as weak as your vitriol.You simply do not know what you are talking about.

 

I have no idea why you think that newcastle are setting the example for others to follow. I can guarantee you this, the nou camp will never be renamed, the fact that you think it might be is just another indicator of your cluelessness.

[xerxes]

I think you're ignoring the fact that the real increase in revenue will come not from the increased numbers of seats, but from the increased corporate boxes, etc.

 

Sure, an extra 5k seats would make us more money, but if we add 100 corporate boxes it will make us just as much. Not sure of the precise maths on that, but the redevelopment of the two stands will surely incorporate more corporate facilities, which is where a stadium makes a huge percentage of its matchday revenue.

 

Far from ignoring it, it is key to any expansion.

 

At Man U and Arsenal 40% of matchday revenue comes from the 10,700, and 9,800 premium seats respectively.

 

My point is that an additional 10,500 (55k capacity) seats would probably comprise some 5000 premium seats (including boxes) taking premium provision up to 9000.

 

The problem is that the ARE may not contribute much to that total with the pressure being on a redeveloped Main Stand.

[xerxes]

I have no idea why you think that newcastle are setting the example for others to follow. I can guarantee you this, the nou camp will never be renamed, the fact that you think it might be is just another indicator of your cluelessness.

 

Cluelessness defines your contributions. 2011 income for Barcelona was e450.7m, for us e203.3m. Frankly, with double the income they do not need to sell naming rights.

 

I have not said that Newcastle are setting an example for others to follow. What I said was that when, in this country, a ground with as iconic a name as St James' Park can be rebranded - no-one is safe.

 

Now if you feel that St James' Park is not one of the most iconic grounds and names in English football, good for you, and for your judgement to be assessed accordingly.;)

[dirk grout]

Cluelessness defines your contributions. 2011 income for Barcelona was e450.7m, for us e203.3m. Frankly, with double the income they do not need to sell naming rights.

 

I have not said that Newcastle are setting an example for others to follow. What I said was that when, in this country, a ground with as iconic a name as St James' Park can be rebranded - no-one is safe.

 

Now if you feel that St James' Park is not one of the most iconic grounds and names in English football, good for you, and for your judgement to be assessed accordingly.;)

 

You said that as newcastle have renamed their stadium ANY other stadium could face the same fate. This is obviously false. You are now wittering on about barcelona not needing to sell naming rights, a well made point but one that completely disproves your original point. You have actually managed to lose an argument against yourself. Well done.

[xerxes]

You said that as newcastle have renamed their stadium ANY other stadium could face the same fate.

 

What I said, in full, was "I have been to around 2/3rds of the league grounds and, for me, and I think many others, St James' Park has always been one of the great English football grounds. Steeped in history , grand in stature, and with a tradition of loyal working class support.If SJP can be rebranded,sadly, any ground can. "

 

You note the word "English." (Although the principle is pan-European,Barcelona are an exception)

 

Take more care in the detail, and less haste in pointless cheap backfiring jibes, and your credibility will improve.The point is that if St James' Park is not safe from rebranding, neither is Anfield.

[Guest ShoePiss]

No, what you said you fucking tool is that if SJP can be rebranded, sadly, any ground can be.

 

St.James' Park doesn't have anywhere near the level of prestige that Anfield does. It's not a very good comparison, at all. People haven't heard of St.James Park outside of British football circles and as I said earlier they're more likely to think you're talking about a fucking park in London than they are Newcastle Utd.

 

Another thing is it doesn't matter what they're doing in Newcastle, it will come down to money and what the owners believe will be the fall out from ripping up over 100 years of history and whether it's a good enough trade off.

 

There isn't even a deal with the sports direct thing, it's Ashley putting their hardly known stadium in the shop window. They'd initially said they would keep SJP as part of the name and then realised that there wasn't any value in it.

 

Anfield, San Siro, Nou Camp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

St.James' Park

Plough Lane

The Baseball Ground.

[dirk grout]

If we do redevelop two new stands I am certain that they would be sponsored.

 

There has been a trend abroad to sell stand AND stadium naming rights.

 

Unless we received an overwhelming offer, I cannot see Anfield being rebranded - but if it hapened in Newcastle it can happen anwwhere.

 

What I said, in full, was "I have been to around 2/3rds of the league grounds and, for me, and I think many others, St James' Park has always been one of the great English football grounds. Steeped in history , grand in stature, and with a tradition of loyal working class support.If SJP can be rebranded,sadly, any ground can. "

 

You note the word "English." (Although the principle is pan-European,Barcelona are an exception)

 

Take more care in the detail, and less haste in pointless cheap backfiring jibes, and your credibility will improve.The point is that if St James' Park is not safe from rebranding, neither is Anfield.

 

This is what you said you utter mentalist. You quite clearly stated in your first post that if st. james park can be renamed then it can happen anywhere. You mentioned nothing about your idiotic claim reffering to english clubs only, which is why I pulled you up on it as it is total nonsense. Now fuck off.

[xerxes]

This is what you said you utter mentalist. You quite clearly stated in your first post that if st. james park can be renamed then it can happen anywhere. You mentioned nothing about your idiotic claim reffering to english clubs only, which is why I pulled you up on it as it is total nonsense. Now fuck off.

Like a bamboozled bar room drunk who does not understand what's going on you stagger, uncertainly, into the night............................

[xerxes]

No, what you said you fucking tool is that if SJP can be rebranded, sadly, any ground can be.

 

St.James' Park doesn't have anywhere near the level of prestige that Anfield does. It's not a very good comparison, at all. People haven't heard of St.James Park outside of British football circles and as I said earlier they're more likely to think you're talking about a fucking park in London than they are Newcastle Utd.

 

Another thing is it doesn't matter what they're doing in Newcastle, it will come down to money and what the owners believe will be the fall out from ripping up over 100 years of history and whether it's a good enough trade off.

 

There isn't even a deal with the sports direct thing, it's Ashley putting their hardly known stadium in the shop window. They'd initially said they would keep SJP as part of the name and then realised that there wasn't any value in it.Anfield, San Siro, Nou Camp,St.James' Park,Plough Lane,The Baseball Ground.

Your eagerness to bicker is matched only by your vague grasp of detail.

 

I think that St James Park is one of the great English grounds - you don't, fair enough.

 

You are right to quote and understand that the rebranding of SJP is an example of how no ground is sacred, I gave the example here, but it is also true abroad.As FFP bites, rebranding is free money.

 

The real money howver lies in virgin naming rights.

[Sangria]

A lot of bickering on this thread over fuck all.

 

How much did the Geordies get for naming rights and for how long, it is a big name stadium in the UK, outside of that, not a lot of people would know about it. With us it is our European success - plus history - that makes ours one of the most iconic grounds int the world. Not exaggerating in the top ten, in Europe, without a doubt.

So fill me in on what the deal was for St James Park and not need to argue lads, people think different end off.

[Rambo]

No, what you said you fucking tool is that if SJP can be rebranded, sadly, any ground can be.

 

St.James' Park doesn't have anywhere near the level of prestige that Anfield does. It's not a very good comparison, at all. People haven't heard of St.James Park outside of British football circles and as I said earlier they're more likely to think you're talking about a fucking park in London than they are Newcastle Utd.

 

Another thing is it doesn't matter what they're doing in Newcastle, it will come down to money and what the owners believe will be the fall out from ripping up over 100 years of history and whether it's a good enough trade off.

 

There isn't even a deal with the sports direct thing, it's Ashley putting their hardly known stadium in the shop window. They'd initially said they would keep SJP as part of the name and then realised that there wasn't any value in it.

 

Anfield, San Siro, Nou Camp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

St.James' Park

Plough Lane

The Baseball Ground.

Not joining in the arguments, you kids seem to be enjoying yourselves. Just curious why you've added the 3 ground names at the bottom? 2 of which have been demolished?

[Guest San Don]

Not joining in the arguments, you kids seem to be enjoying yourselves. Just curious why you've added the 3 ground names at the bottom? 2 of which have been demolished?

 

Has Plough Lane been demolished? I thought AFCW were in talks with merton council to tidy the place up and re start playing there?

 

Sure there was an article in the torygraph sports pages about this within the last few months.

[Barrington Womble]

 

Has Plough Lane been demolished? I thought AFCW were in talks with merton council to tidy the place up and re start playing there?

 

Sure there was an article in the torygraph sports pages about this within the last few months.

 

http://m.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/news/9711365.Shock_plans_to_bring_Dons_to_Colliers_Wood/

[kalasoma]

Not joining in the arguments, you kids seem to be enjoying yourselves. Just curious why you've added the 3 ground names at the bottom? 2 of which have been demolished?

 

I think the grounds mentioned at the bottom of the post are supposed to represent stadiums that are either not as renowned as the likes of the Camp Nou or have long been forgotten/demolished and therefore unable to achieve any type of standing in football history.