Anfield or New Anfield

[Brownie]

Not per season obviously but I thought that was the "going rate" to take over someone's season permanently.

 

That's the first i've heard of that. And if it's true, the club wouldn't get away with charging a imilar one off-fee, no way.

 

No other clubs do that do they?

[xerxes]

With regard to 'right to light', doesn't it depend on the aspect of the houses affected? So (for example) if the houses are south-facing and residents' main living rooms face that way, if Anfield is to the rear of them, then the issue doesn't arise?

 

No. It affects all windows.The higher the stand, the greater the shadow.

 

http://www.rics.org/site/download_feed.aspx?fileID=186&fileExtension=PDF

[Roger Hunt]

You don't need to be on the season ticket waiting list if you know a certain currupt individual in the ticket office and we all know this person will be happy with new additional seats at the club whether at Anfield or a new home.

 

As discussed before in other threads good old George in the ticket office will be doing his back handers, it's season ticket time again so he will probably have a few quid to spare again this summer.... Anyone after a season ticket, get in touch with him and if you flash the cash am sure you will find a season ticket coming your way.

 

Nuff said and Mr Ayre let's this continue.

[satmann]

The hospitality season tickets have nothing to do with the season ticket waiting list though do they?

 

Nothing to do with the waiting list. But they still count as season tickets so that's 27000 season tickets holders we have.

[Dougie Do'ins]

The Main Stand needs knocking down, no refurbishment plan is feasible to worthwhile IMO if we don't knock it down.

 

It's crumbling, it's overcrowded, it's just quite frankly. Shit.

The Main Stand is far from ideal Ant, but it's also a long way from 'crumbling' The amenities may be shite but it's got more leg room than any of the newer stands.

[Brownie]

You don't need to be on the season ticket waiting list if you know a certain currupt individual in the ticket office and we all know this person will be happy with new additional seats at the club whether at Anfield or a new home.

 

As discussed before in other threads good old George in the ticket office will be doing his back handers, it's season ticket time again so he will probably have a few quid to spare again this summer.... Anyone after a season ticket, get in touch with him and if you flash the cash am sure you will find a season ticket coming your way.

 

Nuff said and Mr Ayre let's this continue.

 

Seriously?! Something needs to be done if that's true.

[WaltonRed]

Yeh whats this all about?!

[Guest San Don]

You don't need to be on the season ticket waiting list if you know a certain currupt individual in the ticket office and we all know this person will be happy with new additional seats at the club whether at Anfield or a new home.

 

As discussed before in other threads good old George in the ticket office will be doing his back handers, it's season ticket time again so he will probably have a few quid to spare again this summer.... Anyone after a season ticket, get in touch with him and if you flash the cash am sure you will find a season ticket coming your way.

 

Nuff said and Mr Ayre let's this continue.

 

Say what!?

 

That's pretty damning accusing the club and Ayre of turning a blind eye to one of its employees acting fraudulantly!

[xerxes]

Nothing to do with the waiting list. But they still count as season tickets so that's 27000 season tickets holders we have.

Ayre said that we had around 4000 premium seats.

 

Add that to the 24,900 ST on the OS and that is 29,000 seats not avialable at match day prices. It is a bit incongruous to describe them as season tickets though.

 

Intriguingly Ayre had also previously given our ST figure at a fans forum as 26,000.

 

It suits the club to supress ST numbers and increase premium seat numbers as the price elasticity is far greater.

[Unrighteous]

Ayre said that we had around 4000 premium seats.

 

Add that to the 24,900 ST on the OS and that is 29,000 seats not avialable at match day prices. It is a bit incongruous to describe them as season tickets though.

 

Intriguingly Ayre had also previously given our ST figure at a fans forum as 26,000.

 

It suits the club to supress ST numbers and increase premium seat numbers as the price elasticity is far greater.

 

Except FSG operate the Red Sox on a different principle. They renovated, and increased seating at Fenway, to VASTLY increase ST availability.

 

They know that selling STs is a lot more stable, than selling single games/packaged games.

 

Of course, as you're a big, condescending, bullshit artist... I'm sure you'll try to refute this...

[Captain]

Remember Unrighteous, you're talking to someone who doesn't even understand the concept of the manager having last say on transfers.

[Roger Hunt]

Say what!?

 

That's pretty damning accusing the club and Ayre of turning a blind eye to one of its employees acting fraudulantly!

 

It is damming, it's been discussed on here and other forums several times. And I have seen first hand this taking place, as have other people who have contacted the club to complain, but nothing has been done about it and still this George bloke is making his ££££££ from backhanded payments.

 

Makes me physically sick this, when genuine fans are are just being treated like dogs.

[No2]

The club should explore sites outside the city boundaries. Not for the purpose of actually following them through but floating an idea such as a move too Warrington or Southport would destroy so many people it may actually make the powers that be stand up and starting helping 1 of the greatest income streams the city has.

 

An extreme example I know, but for the Beijing Olympics the authorities jailed anyone living within the Olympic campus that didn't agree to get to the fuck out (they probably killed them but just told the world they jailed them to look good). Madrid council cancelled Real Madrid's debts to benefit the club and the city in 2001. I'm sure there are numerous examples of other cities appreciating what they have and actually working to help them out. Compulsory purchase orders should be granted to LFC no questions asked, I know some people will be traumatized by this but every major construction upsets somebody.

[Brownie]

It is damming, it's been discussed on here and other forums several times. And I have seen first hand this taking place, as have other people who have contacted the club to complain, but nothing has been done about it and still this George bloke is making his ££££££ from backhanded payments.

 

Makes me physically sick this, when genuine fans are are just being treated like dogs.

 

This is shocking and the first time i've ever heard of it. I don't even know what to do?!

[Guest ShoePiss]

The club should explore sites outside the city boundaries. Not for the purpose of actually following them through but floating an idea such as a move too Warrington or Southport would destroy so many people it may actually make the powers that be stand up and starting helping 1 of the greatest income streams the city has.

 

An extreme example I know, but for the Beijing Olympics the authorities jailed anyone living within the Olympic campus that didn't agree to get to the fuck out (they probably killed them but just told the world they jailed them to look good). Madrid council cancelled Real Madrid's debts to benefit the club and the city in 2001. I'm sure there are numerous examples of other cities appreciating what they have and actually working to help them out. Compulsory purchase orders should be granted to LFC no questions asked, I know some people will be traumatized by this but every major construction upsets somebody.

 

Ah yes, let's hold the city to ransom. The city are hardly the problem here, they've already opened up a public park to be used for a private enterprise.

[xerxes]

The club should explore sites outside the city boundaries. Not for the purpose of actually following them through but floating an idea such as a move too Warrington or Southport would destroy so many people it may actually make the powers that be stand up and starting helping 1 of the greatest income streams the city has.

 

An extreme example I know, but for the Beijing Olympics the authorities jailed anyone living within the Olympic campus that didn't agree to get to the fuck out (they probably killed them but just told the world they jailed them to look good). Madrid council cancelled Real Madrid's debts to benefit the club and the city in 2001. I'm sure there are numerous examples of other cities appreciating what they have and actually working to help them out. Compulsory purchase orders should be granted to LFC no questions asked, I know some people will be traumatized by this but every major construction upsets somebody.

 

What extra help are you looking for from the Council?

 

They have granted two planning permissions on Stanley Park ,and a third one for Anfield Plaza. No planning application has been refused.

 

How can compulsory purchase orders be granted ,“no questions asked?” Firstly should public money be used to make non-domicile foreign businessmen rich? An extra 10,000 seats will offer around 5000 premium seats for the suits, and another 5000 “ordinary” seats – where is the community benefit in that?

 

Secondly, the Council does not have the power to secure CPO’s like a feudal Baron. It is arguable whether for redevelopment only there is a statutory case for them. Even if the Council did ride roughshod over the residents they can appeal against the granting of such an order – that appeal would be out of the Council’s hands.

 

Thirdly, the club has paid the best part of £30m paying compensation for and too managers alone over the past two years. Why does it not pay what the commercial rate is to buy the houses/land? Some of the land is in Housing Association and Council ownership. They have a legal obligation to secure the best possible price for their holding on behalf of the taxpayer – and almost certainly they ransom the development. So the council may well be in the curious position of being asked to help on the one hand, and being legally obliged to secure their pound of flesh on the other.

 

The CPO route would be assisted if it were part of a broader regeneration. But to date FSG have shown no interest whatsoever in residential and commercial investment outside the stadium .If they are not prepared to assist the community, the community is not going to lie down and be ripped off, is it?

 

The scheme that WOULD benefit the community, a brand new stadium and a redeveloped Anfield plaza with houses, and retail which would help regenerate the area and invest more money into the community the club seem loathe to support.

 

I am astonished that a Liverpool supporter should advocate scamming local people so that foreign investors, most of whom have never even been to the city, let alone see a game, can line their pockets when those same investors refuse to help the people of Liverpool themselves by not financing a new stadium and Anfield Plaza.

[WaltonRed]

I'd stomach town but fuck moving to Warrington or Southport!

[dirk grout]

The club should explore sites outside the city boundaries. Not for the purpose of actually following them through but floating an idea such as a move too Warrington or Southport would destroy so many people it may actually make the powers that be stand up and starting helping 1 of the greatest income streams the city has.

 

An extreme example I know, but for the Beijing Olympics the authorities jailed anyone living within the Olympic campus that didn't agree to get to the fuck out (they probably killed them but just told the world they jailed them to look good). Madrid council cancelled Real Madrid's debts to benefit the club and the city in 2001. I'm sure there are numerous examples of other cities appreciating what they have and actually working to help them out. Compulsory purchase orders should be granted to LFC no questions asked, I know some people will be traumatized by this but every major construction upsets somebody.

 

That is possibly the most ridiculous thing i've ever read. Get a fucking grip.

[moof]

That is possibly the most ridiculous thing i've ever read. Get a fucking grip.

 

Grout, you're always so angry! What's the deal, man?

[WaltonRed]

I do agree with him on one level, most places would grant the complusory purchase orders and just get on with it

 

what was on the land before the emirates?

[xerxes]

Except FSG operate the Red Sox on a different principle. They renovated, and increased seating at Fenway, to VASTLY increase ST availability.They know that selling STs is a lot more stable, than selling single games/packaged games.I'm sure you'll try to refute this...

 

There is no conflict between your post and mine- they are both right. Your error is to look for conflict between them.

 

I support a larger capacity new or redeveloped stadium of at least 60,000. We wholly agree that ST revenue provides vital close season funding, and guarantees capacity and income, having as many as possible in theory is a good idea – up to a point.

 

That point is when you consistently more or less sell out league games – as we do, and demand is high. The maths are easy. A Centenary Season is around £800 ,£44.45, a game, match day tickets average around £45. Hospitality packages typically start from £125. So when demand outstrips supply you are better off selling hospitality seats, as you get three times as much revenue minimum. Obviously that is part of a balanced package of which ST revenue will always be the most important part.

 

Hospitality packages invariably sell out at Anfield, and when they don’t, every one sale covers a minimum three ordinary seat sales. That’s the way it works.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

 

THE ANFIELD WRAP was recently invited to put some questions on an email to owner John W Henry. Of course we asked the stadium question – here’s his answer:

 

Q: Does refurbishing and renovating Anfield remain the favoured option on the future of the stadium? When do you expect to make a final decision on the club’s future home?

 

 

JOHN W HENRY: “A long-term myth has existed about the financial impact of a new stadium for Liverpool. Maybe it became a good reason for selling the club at one point.

 

“Whatever the reason, a belief has grown that Liverpool FC must have a new stadium to compete with United, Arsenal and others. No one has ever addressed whether or not a new stadium is rational.

 

“New stadiums that are publicly financed make sense for clubs. I’ve never heard of a club turning down a publicly financed stadium.

 

“But privately carrying new stadiums is an enormous challenge. Arsenal is centered in a very wealthy city with a metropolitan population of approximately 14 million people.

 

“They did a tremendous job of carrying it off on a number of levels. But how many new football stadiums with more than 30,000 seats have been built in the UK over the past decade or so? I’m sure every club would like to move to a new facility.

 

“We’ve been exploring a new stadium for the past 18 months. At one point we made it clear that if a naming rights deal could be secured of sufficient size, we would make every effort to build a new facility.

 

“Liverpool FC has an advantage in being a global club and a naming rights deal could make a new stadium a reality. It is something we are working on. There has been interest.

 

“Going in the other direction, many football clubs have successfully enlarged their seating capacity. LFC has had plans to expand the main stand at Anfield. But this avenue has been very difficult for the club over the past couple of decades.

 

“There are homes behind the main stand. Expansion of the main stand would have to be a priority for the city, community and immediate neighborhood in order for that to occur. And there are many people who feel this expansion should be welcomed. This issue is vital to the neighborhood’s future, but we cannot and will not act unilaterally.

 

“While a new stadium or an expansion of Anfield is beneficial over the long-term for the club, the financial impact of adding seats and amenities should be put into perspective. That’s why I say that it is a myth that stadium issues are going to magically transform LFC’s fortunes. Here is a chart based on 10/11 match-day revenue.

 

 

 

 

“It is often said that for Liverpool to compete in match-day revenue with United, Arsenal and Chelsea, we need a new stadium. But you can see that the £50 or £60 million differences stem as much from revenue per seat as from the number of seats. Even if Liverpool were able to get to 60,000 seats, there would have to be an increase from £900 to £1550 in revenue per seat as well to catch Arsenal.

 

“Can Liverpool as a community afford Chelsea or Arsenal prices? No.

 

“If Anfield yielded £1550 per seat, without adding seats, LFC match-day revenue would rise from £41M to £71M. That would be the same as building a new stadium with 60,000 seats or increasing seating at Anfield and increasing revenue per seat to £1170.

 

“There also is this feeling that if you add concessions and amenities such as Arsenal did at Emirates, your “per-cap” (how much is spent on concessions per person) goes way up, but the last time we checked the per-cap at Emirates was only £0.50 higher.

 

“The allure of a new stadium and/or refurbishment is no different at Anfield then it is anywhere in the world. New stadiums increase revenues primarily by raising ticket prices – especially premium seating.

 

“In America, as an example, 3 NFL (American football) clubs have moved into new stadiums over the past 3 years. The New York Jets average ticket price rose by 32% when they moved into their new stadium. The New York Giants rose by 26% and the Dallas Cowboys rose by 31%. In baseball, ticket prices rose 76% when the New York Yankees moved into their new stadium 3 years ago.

 

“At Emirates Stadium match-day revenues rose 96% the first year while seats had increased 57%.

 

“Building new or refurbishing Anfield is going to lead to an increase from £40M of match-day revenue to perhaps £60-70M if you don’t factor in debt service.

“That would certainly help, but it’s just one component of LFC long-term fortunes. Our future is based not on a stadium issue but on building a strong football club that can compete with anyone in Europe.

 

“This will be principally driven financially by our commercial strengths globally.”

 

 

Source: The Anfield Wrap

[FidelMurphy]

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.

[piscinin]

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

[Whelan]

Reads like he is pushing for redevelopment, which would enable incremental stadium growth, as and when necessary.

 

He is in talks with the council at the moment so he needs to be very careful what he says about redevelopment.