Anfield or New Anfield

[redasever]

Kit Deal + Kit Sponsor + Stadium Naming Rights.

 

Surely building a new stadium is more economically viable than what people are making out?

 

 

We're £70m a year short of matchday revenue on the money leaders (who also have kit deals and sponsors) .

 

Let’s dream a little (well, a lot) and say our market is much more valuable than the current world record and we blew Farmers’ Insurance out of the water at £25m a year for naming rights, we’d be up to speed on revenue BUT we’d be paying OT prices and losing £30-£40m a year to pay for the construction of the stadium.

 

 

p

[coop]

Do people honestly think that if building a new stadium would make financial sense to the owners that they would not build it.

 

At the moment FSG have absorbed the purchase cost within the company but the cost of the stadium will be a different proposition.

 

We are currently scouring the world for someone willing to pay a huge amount for the naming rights but so far have failed to find anyone willing to meet whatever our valuation is.

 

At the moment the club are behind clubs like Man United not only off the pitch but on it as well which we also need to rectify.

 

It would be no good building a new 70,000 stadium yet becoming a mid table team because we couldn't also afford to improve the team.

 

Redeveloping Anfield and allowing each individual stand to be sponsored is the way i think we will go and will be done in stages to allow us to also strengthen the squad at the same time.

[WaltonRed]

I think we'll go new ground personally, with the naming rights being sold.

 

two points, Lothair road was scum central so that website needs to put that on it and two, 90000 on the waiting list? That sounds ridiculous to me.

[redasever]

...90000 on the waiting list? That sounds ridiculous to me.

 

Would be right. I can't see how you can ask 25,000 people whether they want to be on the waiting list and come back with an answer of 90,000

[Sangria]

Would be right. I can't see how you can ask 25,000 people whether they want to be on the waiting list and come back with an answer of 90,000

 

 

Not sure of the total number on the waiting list but they have only contacted the first 25k.

The obvious thing is the owners are still not sure which way to go and are doing their sums before making any decision, the way it should be done.

[WaltonRed]

Yeh first 25k which is before 2004 I think, and then you have Istanbul which would of added thousands so it could be quite high when you think of it like that.

[redasever]

Yeh first 25k which is before 2004 I think, and then you have Istanbul which would of added thousands so it could be quite high when you think of it like that.

 

So far the club have only written to the first 25,000.

[WaltonRed]

Yeh, with I suspect most saying they want to stay on which takes us to what 70000?

 

add in the rest saying yes and you've the opportunity to go 80000 plus which is pie in the sky but one can dream

[redasever]

Yeh, with I suspect most saying they want to stay on which takes us to what 70000?

 

add in the rest saying yes and you've the opportunity to go 80000 plus which is pie in the sky but one can dream

 

 

Not so easy. There's plenty who share and are on the list. Who knows how many??

 

-

[WaltonRed]

We'll soon see once its completed.

 

There's defo room for bigger than 60k though, I think thats clear.

[redasever]

Do people honestly think that if building a new stadium would make financial sense to the owners that they would not build it.

 

At the moment FSG have absorbed the purchase cost within the company but the cost of the stadium will be a different proposition.

 

We are currently scouring the world for someone willing to pay a huge amount for the naming rights but so far have failed to find anyone willing to meet whatever our valuation is.

 

At the moment the club are behind clubs like Man United not only off the pitch but on it as well which we also need to rectify.

 

It would be no good building a new 70,000 stadium yet becoming a mid table team because we couldn't also afford to improve the team.

 

Redeveloping Anfield and allowing each individual stand to be sponsored is the way i think we will go and will be done in stages to allow us to also strengthen the squad at the same time.

 

Simplistically put (possibly too simplistic) - the finances are finely balanced. The cost of a new stadium less naming rights on one side and the cost of a redevelopment on the other. Whichever is the greater wins; but to swing the balance, naming rights would have to be very huge indeed - bigger than anything we've seen.

 

-

[coop]

Simplistically put (possibly too simplistic) - the finances are finely balanced. The cost of a new stadium less naming rights on one side and the cost of a redevelopment on the other. Whichever is the greater wins; but to swing the balance, naming rights would have to be very huge indeed - bigger than anything we've seen.

 

-

 

Exactly which is why (unless Ayre pulls out another great piece of marketing) i think we will be going down the redevelopment route.

 

People talk about building 70-80k new stadium but the reality is we would only fill it probably 2-3 a season and especially if building it meant the squad had not been strengthened.

 

Redeveloping and allowing sponsorship per stand makes more financial sense at the moment unless like posted above Ayre finds a company willing to give us a huge naming rights.

[Antynwa]

If you have a fair ticket policy the club will sell out at 70k seater stadium, week in week out.

 

Disc: Not Europa League Fixtures and League Cup obviously

[Antynwa]

Let's say best case scenario. We're boss again, winning trophies and we redeveloped Anfield to around 60k. But there is still more demand for tickets.

 

Then what?

[coop]

Let's say best case scenario. We're boss again, winning trophies and we redeveloped Anfield to around 60k. But there is still more demand for tickets.

 

Then what?

 

I can counter that Ant with worse case scenario we borrow the money to build a 70,000 stadium but only half fill it if we are lucky because we can not afford to build the team to match the stadium.

 

We then have a large loan to keep paying back.

 

Then what?.

[Sangria]

That is and always was going to be the clincher, if he does pull a massive deal out of the bag we will move.

You have to give it to him, who saw Standard Charter or Warrior so he has it in him.

[coop]

That is and always was going to be the clincher, if he does pull a massive deal out of the bag we will move.

You have to give it to him, who saw Standard Charter or Warrior so he has it in him.

 

For me that is the whole situation we are currently in.

 

Ian Ayre will have been given a certain amount of time to get a company willing to sponsor the 'new' stadium for a pre-determined amount.

 

If he achieves this then i would imagine FSG unlike the previous owners would start work asap.

 

If he doesn't then they will go down the re-development route.

[Durango]

If you have a fair ticket policy the club will sell out at 70k seater stadium, week in week out.

 

Disc: Not Europa League Fixtures and League Cup obviously

 

And to think............

 

some soft Cunts on here,

 

actually believe you!!!

 

You count on the fingers of one hand how many times we'd sell out 70k for games,

 

and that's including being in the latter stages of the Champions league

[andrew78]

For me that is the whole situation we are currently in.

 

Ian Ayre will have been given a certain amount of time to get a company willing to sponsor the 'new' stadium for a pre-determined amount.

 

If he achieves this then i would imagine FSG unlike the previous owners would start work asap.

 

If he doesn't then they will go down the re-development route.

 

I want to know how people think that no one wants to sponsor our new stadium,how would they know only people that would are in the club.I trust fsg to get the right sponsor and to build a new stadium

[Antynwa]

And to think............

 

some soft Cunts on here,

 

actually believe you!!!

 

You count on the fingers of one hand how many times we'd sell out 70k for games,

 

and that's including being in the latter stages of the Champions league

 

Everton

 

United

 

Arsenal

 

Chelsea

 

Later Stages of the Champions League

 

FA Cup Ties

 

Tottentham

 

City

 

Fuck yeah it's going to be hard we WON'T sell out the stadium charging stupid prices. But as long as there is a structures, fair ticketing policy we'll be sound.

 

Yer mad head

[coop]

I want to know how people think that no one wants to sponsor our new stadium,how would they know only people that would are in the club.I trust fsg to get the right sponsor and to build a new stadium

 

Of course companies will be willing to sponsor the stadium but will they be willing to pay the amount we would need to make building a new stadium possible.

[coop]

Ant, we would probably sell out the home games against Man United, Everton, Chelsea and maybe at a push Arsenal.

 

So would you be prepared to spend up to a possible £350-400m to potentially sell out 4 games a season with probably a maximum 6 matches and that is being kind.

 

You can not take Champions League games into account but we are not playing in that competition.

 

You also can not take latter stages of the FA Cup/Carling Cup into account because of the possibllity of being drawn against one of the big teams in the opening tie away from home.

 

To build a stadium and expect to near enough fill it most home games then you need to build a successful team first.

 

Regardless of the pricing structure of the tickets you will not fill the stadium if you are a midtable team.

[redasever]

That is and always was going to be the clincher, if he does pull a massive deal out of the bag we will move.

You have to give it to him, who saw Standard Charter or Warrior so he has it in him.

 

Warrior was a deal via Red Sox not Ayre. It's too much to ask him to beat the world record naming rights of £15m a year into a cocked-hat with £25m...

 

 

...say our market is much more valuable than the current world record and we blew Farmers’ Insurance out of the water at £25m a year for naming rights, we’d be up to speed on revenue BUT ...

 

...even if he did, we'd still be paying for a new stadium that we would have to fill every game - yes, every game, win, lose, draw, Saturday at 3pm v Man U or Monday at 8 v Stoke.

 

-

[RJ Fan club]

RJ might be able to shed more light on this but the expected forthcoming changes to the planning system, the Localism Bill and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could have major impacts on the development of the stadium and surrounding area.

 

The Localism Bill will give more power to local authorities but also to neighbourhoods (through Neighbourhood Orders) to veto schemes and also make demands of projects. Now, whilst I have no doubt that the local authority will insist on some sort of local consultation under the current system and will make Section 106 demands (which are a legally-binding agreement that the applicant/developer will provide money for local developments, infrastructure, etc.) its often no more than lip-service. The new system will allow neighbourhood groups to lobby and petition against or for developments which, if I'm being cynical, the owners could do without the hassle of and could avoid by agreeing to the council's demands now and pushing on with it. On the other hand, again being cynical, the CIL (which will replace Section 106 for most matters) may be less onerous and much more negotiable than and the owners may be aware that they could spend less under the new system. From the local authority's perspective, S106 would allow them to directly benefit the Anfield area whilst CIL funds aren't ring-fenced so the money could go elsewhere in the city; the local planning officers certainly wouldn't want to see that money taken out of their control.

 

It may be that these are not even having any affect on the owners thinking but its just another thing that they have to consider. Things are currently up in the air on the planning front, they're under-resourced and over-worked with a mismatch of national guidance to work with which could all change. The owners need to consider all of this and I can tell you from experience that its not a quick process to even come to agreements about the nature of development.

 

As for whether I agree with whether the club should be funding regeneration in the area, not living in Anfield doesn't mean you can't understand the problems that it has. I used to live near Hillsborough so I've seen directly what it's like to live in the shadow of a football stadium, never mind the opinions and judgements I've formed in my fledgling career. An institution of any sort that has so big an impact on an area has an obligation to directly benefit its neighbourhood, be that through infrastructure improvements, funding local sport groups or creating jobs, etc, etc. I know what WR is getting at by saying that it isn't 100% the fault of the club that Anfield is what it is but that doesn't absolve it of its duty to improve the lives of the people that help build that club to the international brand that it now is.

 

I could be here all afternoon talking about this, there are huge social and political factors which could be holding this project back and its incredibly difficult to put a time-frame on how long it may take. The owners have had 8 months so far, I'm confident they'll come good either way but we could be waiting a while yet.

 

I'll give your post the time it deserves and hopefully sober attention tomorrow, Karlos.

 

But in summary, its confusing to say the least what Localism actually is from a planning context.

[redasever]

I'll give your post the time it deserves and hopefully sober attention tomorrow, Karlos.

 

But in summary, its confusing to say the least what Localism actually is from a planning context.

 

Try this: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1818597.pdf

 

or in summary this:

 

The planning and regeneration provisions will

 

• abolish Regional Spatial Strategies
  
• abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and return to a position where the Secretary of State takes the final decision on major infrastructure proposals of national importance
  
• amend the Community Infrastructure Levy, which allows councils to charge developers to pay for infrastructure. Some of the revenue will be available for the local community
  
• provide for neighbourhood plans, which would be approved if they received 50% of the votes cast in a referendum
  
• provide for neighbourhood development orders to allow communities to approve development without requiring normal planning consent
  
• give new housing and regeneration powers to the Greater London Authority, while abolishing the London Development Agency.
  

 

Not a lot of scope for screwing more money from developers there and the bill isn't law yet. It's on its second reading in the House of Lords.

 

-