Anfield or New Anfield

[coop]

Thanks

 

.

 

What did you model it in, looks at an inital glance like Sketchup.

[George Costanza]

Land value.

 

.

 

It was rhetorical but thanks for answering

[redasever]

It was rhetorical but thanks for answering

 

oops. sorry

 

.

[redasever]

What did you model it in, looks at an inital glance like Sketchup.

 

 

Sketchup

 

.

[RedKnight]

Tell you one thing the club can do, stick a couple of ATMs outside the ground. They're missing a trick there. When it happens, think of me.

[Durango]

Interesting piece in today's Post/Echo about the Council are now trying to attract investors to renovate boarded up houses that where due to be demolished

[Beantown Red]

Liverpool managing director Ian Ayre admits the failure of former owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett to build a new stadium "set the club back several years".

 

And Ayre, promoted from commercial director late last season by new owners Fenway Sports Group, said had it not been for huge strides made in off-field business during that time the finances would have been in a bigger mess than they were just before FSG assumed control.

 

Hicks and Gillett were eventually ousted last October when, with creditors Royal Bank of Scotland wanting repayment of a £230million acquisition loan, a sale to FSG was pushed through against their wishes.

 

They departed with work on the promised stadium in Stanley Park no nearer starting than it was when Gillett pledged "the shovel needs to be in the ground in the next 60 days" at his first press conference having bought the club in February 2007.

 

"When you look at what we have done in growing the business, if we had started building a stadium in 2007 we would be in it by now," said Ayre.

 

"It could have been brilliant but we have probably set ourselves back several years."

 

The Reds managing director admitted there could not be a greater difference between the previous regime and the current one.

 

"There was a great opportunity to maximise the value of the club and they (Hicks and Gillett) were right, it needed a new stadium and new people," Ayre told the Liverpool Daily Post's Business Magazine.

 

"What they got fundamentally wrong was using leveraged finance to run the business and try to develop the business.

 

"Without the significant increase in revenues God knows how much of a mess we would have been in.

 

"What we have now is people who really understand how to own, operate and run a sports business.

 

"They are very honest about their objectives; they listen - that's quite fundamental."

 

The stadium issue is one which still needs resolving but Ayre said they would not repeat past mistakes and rush their deliberations.

 

"Nobody is going to force ourselves or the owners to make a decision until we know what's right for the club, because that was what partly went wrong before," he added.

 

"Sometimes people won't like that it takes a long time. That's unfortunate but it's the way we do it.

 

"Once a week someone will ask me what is happening with the stadium and the answer is 'We don't know'.

 

"The reason we don't know is there are still the two solutions. They are a new stadium in Stanley Park or a refurbished Anfield - that obviously comes with all sorts of issues - and there are a million questions to answer.

 

"The new stadium in the park comes down to the economics; how do we pay it back? It needs a big naming partner.

 

"Until you get the answer to those questions it would be wrong and unprofessional for us to make a statement about what we are doing."

 

Yesterday principal owner John Henry reiterated his belief that rebuilding the club - both on the field and off it - was a long-term project with no quick fixes.

 

Despite the progress made under FSG and manager Kenny Dalglish, who revitalised the team when he took over from Roy Hodgson in January, there is still plenty of work to be done to restore Liverpool to former glories.

 

And Ayre echoed the views of Henry by saying: "There's nobody getting carried away with what can be achieved in what timescale.

 

"The owners have said they want to win. That means a lot of things.

 

"We don't want to win once, we want to build consistency."

 

Independent

[Beantown Red]

That Independent story uses quotes from a piece on Ian Ayre in some business magazine: A Change in the Ayre

[WaltonRed]

any chance we can make a decision?

[Guest ShoePiss]

Still have the same question, at what point will they believe they've exhausted their search of naming rights?

 

We may well be in negotiations with sponsors but reading that it sounds like we're not even that close.

[Guest San Don]

Interesting piece in today's Post/Echo about the Council are now trying to attract investors to renovate boarded up houses that where due to be demolished

 

Thought the boarded up houses were owned by LFC? If that is the case, I dont see how the council can invite anyone to renovate what isnt theirs.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Thought the boarded up houses were owned by LFC? If that is the case, I dont see how the council can invite anyone to renovate what isnt theirs.

 

Some of them are, some of them are not. A few pages back there's a youtube video someone did identifying the club owned ones...

[Antynwa]

Interesting piece in today's Post/Echo about the Council are now trying to attract investors to renovate boarded up houses that where due to be demolished

 

I posted this months ago

 

itk

[TonyBellew_BUM!]

What will happen is a decision will be made and made public during next season some time. The decision will be made in enough time for the club to start whatever work needs to be started at the end of next season.

[tea]

Kenny would prefer redevelopment:-

 

He said: "We are going to win either way. They have decided we need a bigger attendance and to make that worthwhile we've got to get results on the pitch. The nostalgic one would be to stay at Anfield and extend it. The other option is to build a new one. If it's possible I'd slightly favour Anfield because of the tradition that is there.

 

"If they can redevelop and it extend it then I would have no problem staying whatsoever. I'm sure John (Henry) and Tom (Werner) are having a good look at the stadium situation and will decide what they think is best. I would think they will take the fans opinion into consideration. They've certainly listened to them so far."

[Barrington Womble]

Still have the same question, at what point will they believe they've exhausted their search of naming rights?

 

We may well be in negotiations with sponsors but reading that it sounds like we're not even that close.

 

The search goes on as long as they want it to. If it suits them not to rush into a decision right now, seeking the right sponsor can buy them as much time as they want. I would guess after a large number of games failing to sell out last season, they are currently assessing what demand for tickets we really have.

[Durango]

Thought the boarded up houses were owned by LFC? If that is the case, I dont see how the council can invite anyone to renovate what isnt theirs.

 

You can count on the fingers of 1 hand,

 

the number of houses the club own around the area

[shanks69]

Thought the boarded up houses were owned by LFC? If that is the case, I dont see how the council can invite anyone to renovate what isnt theirs.

 

maybe the council could get that pissed off and do a compulsory purchase on the property lfc own.afterall a devlopment firm could come in and say to the council we have the money in place to do up lothair street.

[Guest San Don]

You can count on the fingers of 1 hand,

 

the number of houses the club own around the area

 

That's news to me. I understood the club owned most of the houses immediately backing on to the ground.

 

maybe the council could get that pissed off and do a compulsory purchase on the property lfc own.afterall a devlopment firm could come in and say to the council we have the money in place to do up lothair street.

 

Yes, that is possible I guess.

[Durango]

That's news to me. I understood the club owned most of the houses immediately backing on to the ground.

 

The probably do in terms of the houses that back on to the Main stand car park,

 

but that's about it,there's close to 1000 properties in the vicinity of the ground that the club don't own, but were/are due for demolition.

 

There's zero chance of the Council CPO any of the Clubs properties

[WaltonRed]

Liverpool pick up extension for new Stanley Park stadium from council | Football | The Guardian

[Trumo]

Sooner or later the council will realise that a redevelopment or new stadium will be a positive for the Anfield area. I can't believe for one minute that they are happy to leave the area festering. Then again I gather the council is still full of Bluenoses who cannot see their own club making progress if Liverpool are allowed to proceed with their plans, so they keep leaking hints about groundshare.

[Antynwa]

Sooner or later the council will realise that a redevelopment or new stadium will be a positive for the Anfield area. I can't believe for one minute that they are happy to leave the area festering. Then again I gather the council is still full of Bluenoses who cannot see their own club making progress if Liverpool are allowed to proceed with their plans, so they keep leaking hints about groundshare.

 

To be fair.

 

If it wasn't for Everton not being such biffs, and us having lying shithouse owners. Everton would be on the Kings Dock, and we would be in Stanley Park by now.

 

If it was any other company the council would have told us to fuck off by now. I feel if a new stadium isn't built in the area by the next decade the council will probably tell us to fuck off. Things can't be left the way they are, there needs to progress. If the club need to relocate from Anfield so be it, but as long as the club is there they have a duty of care to the community.

 

A prosperous Anfield is mutually beneficial.

[ritchie]

I'd be happy to move across to Stanley Park now. Anfield isn't what it used to be and there's no atmosphere anymore. If they could build a decent new stadium with a bit of character - rather than an Emirates clone - then I wouldn't mind moving.

 

If we end up staying and rebuilding Anfield then that's fine as well. Hopefully we'll know soon one way or the other and can get started.

[xerxes]

The raw data on attendance performance trends over the past two decades demonstrates that as a club we have underperformed. So the good news is that there is some slack in the system simply to catch up to where we should be:

 

 

Where we have suffered since 1990 is that whilst every other club has outperformed us in growing their attendance, we have stood still in terms of capacity. The only way therefore to improve gate income is by increasing ticket prices.

 

You might find the following interesting:

We have underperformed our North West Competition over the past twenty years and have a fair bit of ground to make up - irrespective of prevailing economic conditions:

 

 

When we last won the title in 1990 our average attendance was 36,875, in 2009 it was 43,611, an improvement of 6736.The comparative figures:

 

1990 v 2009 av gate plus increase

Man U :39,331.... 75,304........35,973

Wigan: 2,769 .... 18350........ 15,581

Bolton 7292 ...... 22,486 .......15,194

Man City :27,975.. 42,899,.... 14,924

Blackburn 9,607.... 23,479..... 13,872

Everton: 26,353.. 35710..... 9357

LFC 36875......... 43611..... 6736

Blackpool 4,077.. 7,843 ..... 3,766

Total: 154279...... 269 682... 115,403

Av attendances rose by 75%

 

Share of North West Attendance 1990v 2009 and % change

Man U 25% ..28%.. +3%

LFC 24%.. 16% .. -9%

Man City 18% .. 16%.. -2%

Everton 17%.. 13% ..-4%

Blackburn 6% .. 9%.... +3%

Bolton 5% .. 9% .....+4%

Blackpool 3%... 3% ..... =

Wigan 2% ...3% ....+1%

 

 

 

Total increase in PL attendance in North West:115,403

LFC’s share of that increase: 6%

 

League Table of Increased Gate ( increase in average per club as a % of the overall increase in the period):

Man U 31%

Wigan 13%

Bolton 13%

Man City13%

Blackburn 12%

Everton 8%

LFC 6%

Blackpool 3%

 

League Table of percentage Increase in Gate:

Wigan 462%

Bolton 208%

Blackpool 183%

Blackburn 144%

Man U 91%

Man City 53%

Everton 36%

LFC 18%

 

 

Some may find these figures useful in discussing stadium capacity issues. The killer stats for me are that 1990 v 2009 our attendances have grown by 18% whilst attendances in the North West have grown by 75%. And that our percentage share of the NW gate has fallen by 9%, the highest of any of the “member” clubs.

 

The dynamics of a redevelopment are fascinating.

 

 

The capacity of the Annie Rd is 9,074, the main stand 12,277. They are the obvious soft targets for a redevelopment ( new space to expand and age respectively). So with a current capacity of 45,276, you lose capacity down to 23,925, but have to add 31,100 to get to 55,000 ( I really cannot see the point of redeveloping for a lower capacity, with 4000 extra premium seats that only adds 6000 ordinary seats).

 

 

The biggest "end" in the country is currently the Holte End at 13,500. If we didn't beat that , it would mean that the new main stand would need to offer 17,600 seats. Without signifcant land acquisition it is difficult to see how we will top 55,000 where we are.

 

 

A “New Annie Rd” End of that scale itself has some interesting issues. Firstly, it would be bigger than the Kop which inverts the symmetry of the ground. Secondly, if it bridges the Annie Rd the void underneath means considerable lost amenity space. At Villa Park that void houses the Holte Suite, a 500 capacity banqueting hall which generates vital income on non-match days as well as providing matchday hospitality. If it does not it will require the closure of the road, an uncertain and time-consuming process.

 

 

The ten year old Trinity Rd stand at Villa Park houses the dressing rooms, press facilities and main hospitality facilities, it occupies similar space to that available around the existing Main Stand, it is also taller, yet it only houses 12,954, - 4,600 short of what we would need at Anfield to hit 55,000.

 

 

If we do go the redevelopment route, the solution may be as controversial as a new stadium.

 

 

I am fortunate that I have seen some fantastic football in a fantastic arena – and want future generations to benefit from the forward decisions that we make, as I have benefitted from those made in the past. Time moves on. No Liverpool fan treats the likes of Wigan at the DW, capacity25,100, Bolton at the Reebok28,700, or Stoke at the Britannia,28,000 as serious competitors – we know that they cannot compete with us. Yet we are c loser in capacity to them, than we are to the Euro Elite in the next para.

 

 

We are fast approaching a stage where the Euro Elite of Bayern at the Allianz,69,901 Real Madrid at the Bernabeu,80,354, Barcelona at the Nou camp 99,354, Man U at Ot, 76,000, Arsenal at the Emirates, 60,500 feel the same about us. Like most Reds, I feel that we belong in the Euro elite. With a stadium the 63rd largest in Europe, and the 23rd best average attendance, we clearly are not. A 55,000 seater would move us to 34th in the stadia rankings ...........

 

 

A redeveloped Anfield which enabled us to compete in capacity, revenue and facility terms with our peers would be great, if possible. But it would not offer the economic benefits of a new stadium plus Anfield Plaza to the Community and Council – not that it is the job of a private company to do so.No-one should underestimate how significant the deliberations that FSG are making are to the future if our club for decades to come.