Anfield or New Anfield

[aws]

I think the person using Simon's account should actually say who they are.

 

Translator? Yeah ok.

 

Agreed.

 

Repeatedly using redasever's real name on a public forum while hiding behind someone else is a bit cowardly.

[Guest simon]

Agreed.

 

Repeatedly using redasever's real name on a public forum while hiding behind someone else is a bit cowardly.

 

Like I said I have done a lot of research, there was a lot of talk of all of this when The Kop Faithful was still going, Ask any of the lads. They will tell you. A have pretty much everything on my Dictaphone.

 

Redasever as apparently being called by his name is Cowardly, has said we cant afford to wait 5 years before we start to make some progress on matchday revenue. well how long will it take to get planning permission for redevelopment. buy up the properties pay compensation to residents local businesses etc. resolve right of light issues & then start a piece meal redevelopment of 2 stands during the season? It could take 5 years for redevelopment to be completed.

[Code]

Just a few,

 

Northampton, 22,577

Villa, 39,079

Wolves, 41,614

Bolton, 35,400

 

Villa, Monday night game on the 6th of December, we were 12th in the league at the time and people had lost completely faith in Hodgson.

 

Wolves, Wednesday 29th of December, two of our previous games had been cancelled, Christmas/Weather/Hodgson.

 

Bolton, Saturday 1st of January, again Christmas/Weather/Hodgson.

 

This was the attendance, what about tickets sold?

 

I went to the Fulham game, was stuck for 34 hours in Amsterdam, arrived in Liverpool 1 hour after the game was supposed to be but it was cancelled due to 10 cm of snow outside the ground.

 

Would I talke my chance again for ewither the Wolves and Bolton game when our Newcastle game was cancelled as well, obviously not and its no secret a big part of our fans travel to Liverpool for the game from abroad and other parts of the UK and the things mentioned would obviously play its part in the attendence, not tickets sold though even if we were as shite as I can ever remember us be in my 30 years supporting the club.

 

Are we planning on being this shite again in the coming years, I hope not and if we are by all means build a 60.000 seater, it will easily sell out though even if we are struggling.

 

You need to come up with some better arguments than these mate, seriously.

[Trumo]

Simon, I've no wish to take away from the point you're trying to make, and I like the fact you've kept a record of the discussions with KF etc. Things like that make it easier to form a coherent viewpoint, and it's clear that the stadium debate is something you've given a lot of thought towards. However, you've pulled someone up for committing to a "pie-in-the-sky" venture by saying we can't afford to wait 5 years before we start making progress, yet at the same time you've implied that if we follow that same pie-in-the-sky venture and tackle all the roadblocks listed above, we could have completed development within 5 years. Peter's plans may have their flaws, but they also have a lot of merit and that should be acknowledged rather than derided.

 

---

 

For the record, I would like to make it clear that, whether we go down the new stadium route or choose to redevelop Anfield, I absolutely DO NOT want the club to be restricted in terms of future expansion later down the line if needs must. That would put us back to where we stand today, at considerable expense, regardless of how much revenue we bring in in the meantime or how much it costs to get to that stage. I don't want us to go for a "60,000 and that's yer lot" expansion of Anfield, and I would hate for such a restriction to be placed on a new stadium. This fighting with the council and local residents absolutely HAS to stop sometime.

[Saucepan]

Loving this ignore function!, if only I could get it to ignore quotes aswell.

[Whelan]

 

You need to come up with some better arguments than these mate, seriously.

 

Better arguments than what?

 

The suggestion that an attendance at a champions league final will transfer itself to a leage match?

 

I realise I should not be discussing anything with you, as it is totally and utteraly a pointless pursuit, counter arguments dismised with complete ignorance, well put it this way. I go home and away, like lots on here do, I go to all the matches at home, UEFA Cup, League cup, FA Cup, like lots on here do, and that is the basis for my argument that we do not (yet) need a 70'000 seater stadium, there is absolutely no proof whatsover that we need it.

 

You come over for the odd match on pre planned trips, that is your basis and your experience!

 

And it is not arrogance or obnoxious to suggest that my research/experience is a lot more substantial and relevant to this situation than yours is.

 

Go back to last season and look at the figures and pick out those matches which where sell outs! We do not sell out on a number of occassions, so that suggest this 'demand' is for specific matches.

 

And lets get one thing straight, under no circumstances do you build a 70'000 seater stadium based on reaching that number 4 or 5 times per season. You build that stadium when, and only when you can fill it week in week out. Because a 70'000 seater stadium will pretty much have to be financed by 70'000 attendees, not 60'000. You do not build a 70'000 seater stadium so that day trippers can be guaranteed a ticket for the big matches, which I suspect is motivation for your point of view!

 

Manchester United sell out 70'000 9 times out of 10, that is why they have that capacity. Manchester is also a business city, with huge support, we are a cultural city with huge support. There is a huge difference between the population, demographic and economic situations which people arguing for a 70'000 stadium are either ignorant off or just choosing to ignore.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Whelan

[Guest San Don]

Once again we have someone pedalling the myth that we 'dont sell out' because the official capacity is rarely achieved.

 

FFS, when are people going to realise you dont have to reach this magical figure for a game to be sold out?

 

There are numerous reasons why the official capacity is reached. In fact, can anyone tell me since the official capacity was declared at 45362 when we last had that exact figure in the ground? I mean it's only sold out if we have 45362 paying customers in according to some, isnt it?

 

You may not build a stadium of 70k seats based on selling out a couple of times a season but, when you are at your stadium's capacity 90% of times, have a huge waiting list and demand for tickets, then you do look to build a stadium that gives you room to take up any slack.

 

For example, if you can fill a 60k stadium, it makes sense to build to 65k or thereabouts for the times you will get more than 60k.

 

My preference is we build to around 65k with possible future expansion to 70 - 72k in mind.

[Whelan]

Once again we have someone pedalling the myth that we 'dont sell out' because the official capacity is rarely achieved.

 

FFS, when are people going to realise you dont have to reach this magical figure for a game to be sold out?

 

There are numerous reasons why the official capacity is reached. In fact, can anyone tell me since the official capacity was declared at 45362 when we last had that exact figure in the ground? I mean it's only sold out if we have 45362 paying customers in according to some, isnt it?

 

You may not build a stadium of 70k seats based on selling out a couple of times a season but, when you are at your stadium's capacity 90% of times, have a huge waiting list and demand for tickets, then you do look to build a stadium that gives you room to take up any slack.

 

For example, if you can fill a 60k stadium, it makes sense to build to 65k or thereabouts for the times you will get more than 60k.

 

My preference is we build to around 65k with possible future expansion to 70 - 72k in mind.

 

For starters I am not talking about those matches with 42'689, I am talking about those matches with 30'000, those matches that are considerably under the maximum attendance, there was 7 last season, that would be 7 matches in a 70'000 seater stadium. So that isn't a myth, unless you are suggesting that 7 thousdan didn't turn up against Bolton, or 21 Thousand didn't turn up against Northampton. In other words, that isn't a myth, it is a fact.

 

 

Find me a match that United have had where they have got less than 30'000! We are not United, Liverpool is not Manchester so the only 'Myth that is being peddled' is the one that suggest that we have 100'000 fans all waiting to turn up week in week out and pay for a 70'000 stadium.

 

We haven't. We have no basis for believing this is the case. Therefor build a 60'000 seater stadium and when you can feel confident that you will be filling up an extra 10'000 week in week out, then you expand.

[Trumo]

I remember reading a while back how some clubs stated their official match attendance by number of tickets sold, and that others (such as ourselves) stated match attendance as the actual number of people through the turnstiles. Not sure where I read it or if those differences still apply today.

 

Also, you never get an occasion where all the seats at a stadium are sold out. A sizeable number have to be kept back to provide segregation areas between home and away fans. The away side is given an allocation, from which they return any unsold tickets which the home side can then put on general sale. I don't know what Wolves' average attendances were last season, but segregation at Molyneux is perhaps easier than many other grounds because Molyneux has 4 entirely separate stands. Stoke's Britannia Stadium also has a layout that makes it easier to house and segregate away fans and minimise the number of unused seats.

 

Of course none of this answers why we got 30,000-ish attendances a few times last year. More relevant is fan apathy with the performance of the team, the quality of the opposition not being an enticing proposition, the cost of tickets, the cost of travel, the ease with which fans could travel to Anfield for certain games, and the inclination of fans to turn up when they've paid for tickets already. A team that is successful on the pitch will entice fans to come along in droves, and suddenly the only negative factor will be the price of tickets.

[Scott_M]

For games that are sold out, only the club know how many applications they receive and how many seats they could have potentially filled and surely analysis will have been done on this to determine what capacity we eventually go for.

 

Personally, if the analysis points to it, I think we should aim higher but there are some good counter arguments for 60,000.

[Whelan]

It is also worth pointing out that the comparisons abroad are not really relevant! Germany is twice the size of England, the population is 82 million, compared to about 50 million for England. Yet they have 40 odd teams, whereas we have over 100!

 

If you take out, Burnley, Bolton, Blackburn, Preston, Bury, Tranmere, Wigan, Stockport, Rochdale, Accrington, Blackpool, Morecombe then Liverpool, Everton, Manchester United and City would probably be able to attract far more, as they do in Germany, and Europe unfortunately our supporters are not concentrated on a small amount of clubs they are spread far accross (in the NW case) are far greater number of teams.

[Guest San Don]

For starters I am not talking about those matches with 42'689, I am talking about those matches with 30'000, those matches that are considerably under the maximum attendance, there was 7 last season, that would be 7 matches in a 70'000 seater stadium. So that isn't a myth, unless you are suggesting that 7 thousdan didn't turn up against Bolton, or 21 Thousand didn't turn up against Northampton. In other words, that isn't a myth, it is a fact.

 

 

Find me a match that United have had where they have got less than 30'000! We are not United, Liverpool is not Manchester so the only 'Myth that is being peddled' is the one that suggest that we have 100'000 fans all waiting to turn up week in week out and pay for a 70'000 stadium.

 

We haven't. We have no basis for believing this is the case. Therefor build a 60'000 seater stadium and when you can feel confident that you will be filling up an extra 10'000 week in week out, then you expand.

 

7 matches is fuck all in a season. I dont know why people get hung up on so few games with low attendances.

 

The myth is being pedalled that we dont sell out.

 

You seem frightened by the odd low attendance instead of focusing on the the remaining 90% of games when we are at capacity.

 

I have said, we should build a 65k seat stadium as Im convinced we'll get 60k more often than not with all the pricing options and 'deals' we'll be able to offer. You build above your target capacity, in this case by less than 10%, on account of expansion.

 

Then, if you are reaching this capacity regularly, you could expand to 70 - 72k as I said.

 

it still amazes me people are so conservative in their outlook that they'll let 7 games no doubt including league cup games against the likes of northampton, determine the club's strategy for he future.

 

It's extremely short sighted imo.

[Guest San Don]

It is also worth pointing out that the comparisons abroad are not really relevant! Germany is twice the size of England, the population is 82 million, compared to about 50 million for England. Yet they have 40 odd teams, whereas we have over 100!

 

If you take out, Burnley, Bolton, Blackburn, Preston, Bury, Tranmere, Wigan, Stockport, Rochdale, Accrington, Blackpool, Morecombe then Liverpool, Everton, Manchester United and City would probably be able to attract far more, as they do in Germany, and Europe unfortunately our supporters are not concentrated on a small amount of clubs they are spread far accross (in the NW case) are far greater number of teams.

 

Wrong on so many levels. Germany is a collection of federal states. If you're going to compare like with like, you need to compare Germany with the UK not just England (we dont just draw our support from England).

 

Comparative population for UK is nearer 65 million.

[Whelan]

Wrong on so many levels. Germany is a collection of federal states. If you're going to compare like with like, you need to compare Germany with the UK not just England (we dont just draw our support from England).

 

Comparative population for UK is nearer 65 million.

 

I am talking about the leagues, which is why I have specifically spoken about the English population, and the English Leagues.

 

So it is not wrong on so many levels, it is actually a fair point. You have just missed it.

[Whelan]

7 matches is fuck all in a season. I dont know why people get hung up on so few games with low attendances.

 

The myth is being pedalled that we dont sell out.

 

You seem frightened by the odd low attendance instead of focusing on the the remaining 90% of games when we are at capacity.

 

I have said, we should build a 65k seat stadium as Im convinced we'll get 60k more often than not with all the pricing options and 'deals' we'll be able to offer. You build above your target capacity, in this case by less than 10%, on account of expansion.

 

 

Different perspectives then, because I don't think you do build above your capacity, I think you build what you will fill and then adapt according to demand, pent up demand is good as that is what ensures that those '7 30'000' matches will be full.

 

And can you stop stating that it is a 'myth' about not meeting our capacity, it isn't a myth it is a fact. An obvious fact.

 

Your confusing matches where we are considerably lower *(again I could not have been clearer about this, but you seem to just choose to ignore this), to where we have a slightly lower attendance, but from a sold out match. I am perfectly aware of this.

 

60'000 is a good starting point, so I am not sure why you are being so pedantic on this 'myth'. We both agree that 70'000 on the back a sustained period of success will be attainable.

[TheHitman]

Just playing devils advocate, has anyone considered the option that it is actually beneficial financially for the club to have fans who can’t actually get tickets. At first it seems bizarre but when you look deeper, it does seem to be quite a money spinner.

 

Take a family of four, 2 adults 2 kids who at present may only attend 3 games a season, before they have even bought a ticket they have to buy 4 memberships, that is probably a lot of families with a lot of Liverpool pens and books around the house. It would be fair to say the demand for tickets is driving membership.

 

Initially it was a fancard, now membership, you can see where this is going, next a 100 pound membership. With guaranteed attendance at either a cup or a league game (assuming there is a home game drawn) and throw in a couple of matches to see the kids play in this mini c/l tournament.

 

If you are lucky they may even throw in a free twitter/facebook message from one of the club players or management for your birthday. Incidentally Benfica have over 200,000 club members paying dues. No doubt some at the club will be well aware of this.

 

 

What if the club have come to the conclusion, they can get the same money from fans via membership and Thomas Crook sponsorship than they can get having an additional 10k attendance.

 

The clubs decision to allow fans to buy blocks of tickets could be seen as a trial for how receptive fans are to such a scheme perhaps!. What if the club have a 60k capacity and instead of offering outright season tickets offer half season tickets for 9 or 10 home games to 20k of those on the waiting list.

 

The club could argue we have given a chance for fans to attend games and still have a certain amount of tickets in circulation. Oh and guess what you still have to buy the basic membership at a cost of….

 

Whilst it is impossible to accurately gauge the potential attendance. The prime reason Ian Ayre has talked about moving is to generate additional revenue(profitable revenue). As fans we tend to see it as solving the ticket crisis problem. I would say any decision the club makes will be based on generating additional revenue rather than making sure the fans have affordable and easy access to tickets. The two do not go hand in hand as some seem to be suggesting.

[redasever]

He was talking only about the seats, and even then he was talking without naming options. Again 60k in a new stadium is entirely different to 60k renovation. Financially speaking, a new stadium makes better financial sense, when you take naming rights, grants and sponsorships into account.

 

 

That's not what he said. He said redevelopment was a better deal ("more economically viable") full stop.

 

He then went on to say they are searching for naming rights to make a bad do better as a plan B if we can't get around the obstacles (I am paraphrasing but it is what he said) because (he said) the revenues between new and redevelopment were 'roughly the same' and a new stadium "made very little indeed" in the medium term ie., while we are paying it back.

 

So how long would it take??? 15 years? (we don't have 2000 homes to sell like the Arsenal). That's not going to solve any problems and Ayres knows it.

[redasever]

Really enjoyed your input on this thread, Redas. I disagree with it but it's still good getting cogent answers.

My feelings on the matter is that it is a massive risk us building a brand new stadium and redevelopment of Anfield gives a maximum return on a minimum investment. I don't think our owners are in it for the long term so building a new stadium would be foolish, risky and an unnecesary drain on available capital.

If they were thinking 20 years into the future then a new stadium is the only way forward but as they're not then redevelopment is the option to go for.

I want a brand spanking new 70 000 stadium that will be fit for purpose in 2060... i don't think the necessary capital is available for it and i think that this is going to kill us a world power

 

 

A pleasure to hear from someone who disagrees so nicely!! The problem is a new stadium doesn't work in the short or medium term. It is a massive risk as you say and if we don't get sorted right now, maybe we won't need any kind of big stadium in 2060.

[redasever]

I thought he said short term rather than medium.

 

Anyway, the 15k extra seating will also include more corporate facilities which seat per seat, will bring in more money than probably7000 or 8000 of that 15k extra seating.

 

But, the plain fact is a new stadium isnt financed over the short or even medium term. Its financed over a long term so even Ayre was being a little disingenious there.

 

 

As I've just said above - our problem is now, right now. The point he was making is we won't see any benefit for the medium term (maybe 15 years) - do we really want to wait till 2026 before the new stadium income starts to kick in???

[redasever]

Interesting reading some people advocate building a 70'000 seater stadium! Sorry but Manchester United sell 70'000 per match, but bar the big 6 or 7 matches we won't (Obviously I can't back this up, just my opinion based on the past 37 years watching football) ! In fact I would be suprised to see us reach 60'000 more often than not.

 

Manchester Uniteds expansion has been built steadily over 20 years on the back of domestic domination and financial growth. We may be a huge brand worldwide but that doesn't translate into ticket sales, when was the last time United got 30'000 for a home game? We have on a few occassions, that suggest that there is some way to go to match them.

 

Why not take the first step and build the Main Stand? Take us to 50'000 as a first step, and see where we are in five years. Or alternatively build the stadium for 60'000 with a provision to expand if needed. I also don't think that you can base your projections of income on current ticketing arrangments, I would suggest that the range of ticket prices would be much greater in a new stadium, with cheaper tickets available, and more expensive tickets available also.

 

 

I agree with all but the last sentence of that. A new stadium is more expensive to build per seat (quite obviously - 60k v 15k new seats to get done) and it gets proportionately more expensive the bigger it gets. Prices for every seat will have to be higher to match.

[lifetime fan]

You can see the point though that every game we fill a 60,000 seat stadia, be it Anfield or a new build that is a wasted opportunity to make more money?

[redasever]

How many reds travelled to Athens to watch us there, not even mentioning those who did not travel but go to the match more than 3 times a year or those who cant go at all because of the hassle getting tickets.

 

Thats just a part of our potential matchday attendance, how many people went to the streets of Liverpool to celebrate our homecoming, thats more from the same potential.

 

The clubs biggest problem over the last 10+ years have been the supply, with such a small demand compared to the demand over a long period people will give up getting the tickets cause they know they wont get it without paying over the odds and thats a chance to take as well as nothing is guaranteed.

 

Build the 70.000 seater and we will easily fill it for the majority of our games and those we dont sell out we will probably only be a couple of thousand short of selling out.

 

 

Trumo to answer your question, I dont know anything, its just a feeling I have got because of this stadium debacle and to be honest its got me on my toes.

 

That's chalk and cheese. More people will always be attracted to a CL final on a one-off (or six times!) basis and no one paid to watch them come home. You've got to include affordability in the thinking. There's plenty of season ticket holders struggling to pay now/ half-sharing/ farming out.

[redasever]

You can see the point though that every game we fill a 60,000 seat stadia, be it Anfield or a new build that is a wasted opportunity to make more money?

 

Sure, but the penalty is the cost of building a big stadium for the few games you fill it .

 

It's the club's job and responsibility to get the pricing and capacity right but you have to say, given we have a stadium that already earns £42m and is paid for, the figures don't favour a new stadium of any size.

[redasever]

Like I said I have done a lot of research, there was a lot of talk of all of this when The Kop Faithful was still going, Ask any of the lads. They will tell you. A have pretty much everything on my Dictaphone.

 

Redasever as apparently being called by his name is Cowardly, has said we cant afford to wait 5 years before we start to make some progress on matchday revenue. well how long will it take to get planning permission for redevelopment. buy up the properties pay compensation to residents local businesses etc. resolve right of light issues & then start a piece meal redevelopment of 2 stands during the season? It could take 5 years for redevelopment to be completed.

 

I'm not trying to hide - everyone knows who I am. TBH I didn't even notice.

 

It's going to take four years to build new, so there's a marker for that.

 

There's a quick win to be had at Anfield. There'd be a relative straight forward applicaiton for developing the first stages within the existing building 'envelope'. You could put boxes, better corporate facilities and premium seats in the Main Stand pretty sharpish.

[lifetime fan]

Sure, but the penalty is the cost of building a big stadium for the few games you fill it .

 

It's the club's job and responsibility to get the pricing and capacity right but you have to say, given we have a stadium that already earns £42m and is paid for, the figures don't favour a new stadium of any size.

 

Could an expanded 60,000 be upgraded again to 70,000?

 

If the answer is no then we need to move in my opinion.