Anfield or New Anfield

[redasever]

So the emirates stadium has no corporate \ hospitality boxes behind the goals, eh?

 

Virtual Tour | Emirates Stadium | Arsenal.com

 

I guess the arse must have doctored this virtual tour of their stadium then to fool everyone!

 

What a dullard.

 

No point discussing the rest of your dullard inspired drivel if you cant get this basic part correct.

 

Well, yes - it is a ring of silence :whistle:.

 

FSG have to re-think the sort of 'standard' model that the Emirates has become. John Henry has already acknowledged the obvious that the disposable income in the Liverpool doesn't compare with London. The clear conclusion is that that model cannot be sustained here.

 

Arsenal in particular benefits from a very healthy corporate market. Whereas the German clubs have a completely different attitude to matchday revenue - they rely a lot more on commercial revenues (as much as £160m in Bayern's case). The answer to Liverpool's situation is somewhere in between.

 

Old Trafford has 150 boxes and 10,000 premium seats. The advantage of boxes is the upfront commitment (if you can sell them). But boxes don't make as much money as some premium seats and are a lot more expensive to build. The advantage of premium seats is not only that they can earn more but they can work at different price levels. As said, Anfield’s premium seats range from £3,000 to £8,500 a head.

 

Premium seats are also more flexible. If you can’t sell the hospitality package for a particular game, there is the option to just sell the seat. Nevertheless it is possible to nick the advantage that boxes have by forward selling groups of premium seats together with hospitality packages. This has been done very effectively at Wembley. Tables in the hospitality suites have been sold in conjunction with premium seats in the lower tier for ten or fifteen years in advance.

 

At the end of the day 7,200 premium seats at various prices within the current range at Anfield, without boxes, together with the balance as standard seats with the same average price as today (possibly with a larger range of prices to make some seats more affordable), makes as much revenue as a 'ring of silence' stadium and at a cheaper cost.

 

And, the ring of silence breaks up the crowd up into smaller sections. Losing the boxes and executive tier that goes with them will improve atmosphere and make the stadium more like a proper football ground. We don’t need more boxes.

.

[xerxes]

So the emirates stadium has no corporate \ hospitality boxes behind the goals, eh?I guess the arse must have doctored this virtual tour of their stadium then to fool everyone!What a dullard.No point discussing the rest of your dullard inspired drivel if you cant get this basic part correct.

You will be embarrassed when you eventually realise that the Emirates has no box stands behind the goals - its a bowl..........................................

 

I never said that the Emirates had no boxes behind the goals.At the Emirates, beyond the boxes, there is no substantial hospitality provision, they are provided pitchside - which was my point.

 

Bowls offer significant advantages when it comes to hospitality provision - which a redveloped Anfield cannot be (for better or worse) which was the point.

 

Dullard? Best if you moved on, eh;)

[Guest ShoePiss]

Tedium

[xerxes]

FSG have to re-think the sort of 'standard' model that the Emirates has become............etc ..................

I wouldn't take issue with any of that.

 

I agree that premium seating AND facilities are where the money, and flexibility is. The issue that should be added is that they require significant banqueting facilities.

 

The ARE is unable to offer significant additional capacity (4,500) AND significant extra hospitality provision- it will be a trade off.You can't have both.

 

Which returns me to the key problem of redevelopment, and that is that the demands that will be placed upon a new main stand are way beyond what it will be able to offer.

 

The result? A half stadium redevelopment,the old half already a quarter of a century out of date, and counting, with the new half hamstrung by the compromises that a restricted site offers. The building equivalent of buying Adam and Downing.

[redasever]

You will be embarrassed when you eventually realise that the Emirates has no box stands behind the goals - its a bowl..........................................

 

I never said that the Emirates had no boxes behind the goals.At the Emirates, beyond the boxes, there is no substantial hospitality provision, they are provided pitchside - which was my point.

 

Bowls offer significant advantages when it comes to hospitality provision - which a redveloped Anfield cannot be (for better or worse) which was the point.

 

Dullard? Best if you moved on, eh;)

 

There is a hospitality suite under the four 'stands' at the Emirates. They are:

 

Royal Oak, Woolwich, Dial Square and Highbury

The four spacious main suites enjoy floor-to-ceiling glass façades providing natural daylight with panoramic views of London and the immaculate Arsenal pitch. Each suite has its own entrance and space for...

 

In between those there are four bars:

 

Legends Bar, Champions Bar, Centurions Bar and 49ers Bar

Each bar offers a range of delicious hot and cold snacks, available pre-match, half-time and post-match, whilst providing the perfect surroundings to enjoy...

 

In other words a more or less continuous ring of hospitality around the ground. You do have Google right?

 

http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/documents/nov_10/gun__1289907159_clublevel_map.pdf

.

Edited May 27, 2012 by redasever

[redasever]

I wouldn't take issue with any of that...

 

...The ARE is unable to offer significant additional capacity (4,500) AND significant extra hospitality provision- it will be a trade off.You can't have both.

 

 

I'm sorry. You are actually unwell. You can get help you know.

.

[xerxes]

There is a hospitality suite under the four 'stands' at the Emirates. They are:

 

Royal Oak, Woolwich, Dial Square and Highbury

The four spacious main suites enjoy floor-to-ceiling glass façades providing natural daylight with panoramic views of London and the immaculate Arsenal pitch. Each suite has its own entrance and space for...

 

In between those there are four bars:

 

Legends Bar, Champions Bar, Centurions Bar and 49ers Bar

Each bar offers a range of delicious hot and cold snacks, available pre-match, half-time and post-match, whilst providing the perfect surroundings to enjoy...

 

In other words a more or less continuous ring of hospitality around the ground. You do have Google right?

 

http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/documents/nov_10/gun__1289907159_clublevel_map.pdf

.

I can do better than that,I have toured them all and been a guest in the Diamond suite.

 

I made the point that bowls offer superior hospitality provision.

 

The major provision at the Emirates is pitchside.

 

Neither stand behind the goal seats in excess of 13,500. QED.

[xerxes]

I'm sorry. You are actually unwell. You can get help you know.

Proof once again of why the only people who will work with you are your family.

 

No new ARE will have a capacity in excess of 13,500 (quadrant with the Main Stand excluded).Mark my words, bookmark it. You can hallucinate any figure you wish, you can produce any drawing you like which no-one with any knowledge of stadium design will pay any attention to. That is what the detail dictates, and in your own words you say that detail is not your strong point, you have to leave it to others. You are fortunate I am here to tidy up for you;)

 

A half stadium redevelopment is a bodged job.

[redasever]

I can do better than that,I have toured them all and been a guest in the Diamond suite.

 

I made the point that bowls offer superior hospitality provision.

 

The major provision at the Emirates is pitchside.

 

Neither stand behind the goal seats in excess of 13,500. QED.

 

Superficial claptrap. I thought you were crazy. Perhaps you are blind. Or dazzled by plush leatherette and mock cheetah skin.

 

There's hospitality there and that's for sure. If it didn't make good money it wouldn't be there.

 

If you think there'll be queues around the block for membership of a Diamond Club at Anfield (£25,000 last time I looked) perhaps you're crazy after all. Yes, that would be it. I'm surprised you're allowed access to the internet.

.

[redasever]

Proof once again of why the only people who will work with you are your family.

 

No new ARE will have a capacity in excess of 13,500 (quadrant with the Main Stand excluded).Mark my words, bookmark it. You can hallucinate any figure you wish, you can produce any drawing you like which no-one with any knowledge of stadium design will pay any attention to. That is what the detail dictates, and in your own words you say that detail is not your strong point, you have to leave it to others. You are fortunate I am here to tidy up for you;)

 

A half stadium redevelopment is a bodged job.

 

The reason you're beloved Holte End is restricted to 13,500 is because it is constrained by two roads and the maximum viewing distance. If built over the road that cuts across the corner (no, it's not the Holte Stand that's built over the road - it's the other one) and the footprint thus extended, it could accommodate considerably more - as could a redeveloped Anfield Road End.

 

That said, I understand there a bit of hospitality in the Holte End and there is no reason why the same cannot be done on several levels above ground in an extended Anfield Road End. Currently pre-match hospitality packages in the ARE work out at £4,500 for the premier league fixture list - not bad at all.

 

There you go. No drawings. Just sweet reason in the face of pigheadedness.

.

[KopOut]

If FSG can find the money, building new is much more practical. If they start with a strong foundation of say 55,000, they can build up without disruption later on, and not sacrifice existing season ticket holder seats along the way.

 

We mustn't forget that the Council have wanted to redevelop the Anfield area when the ground is gone, for some time. That particular part of Liverpool has been waiting for a make over since WW2.

[xerxes]

There you go. No drawings. Just sweet reason in the face of pigheadedness.

You peddle flawed designs, and are surprised that you have never designed a stadium.

 

You come up with flawed detail, and are surprised that, like a madcap inventor, you never get past the girl on reception.

 

You return simply to provoke and argue- as that is all that you have left, and maybe that is all there ever was.

[FanchesterCity]

If FSG can find the money, building new is much more practical. If they start with a strong foundation of say 55,000, they can build up without disruption later on, and not sacrifice existing season ticket holder seats along the way.

 

We mustn't forget that the Council have wanted to redevelop the Anfield area when the ground is gone, for some time. That particular part of Liverpool has been waiting for a make over since WW2.

 

Isn't that the whole crux of the problem though? the money required to build from new is substantial and in order for it to really reap benefits, it has to be coupled with success on the pitch (regular CL presence).

 

Of course, there's the split between fans too, but that's normal for any potential move. Some will welcome it, some won't.

 

A 55K stadium sounds about right, with potential to expand depending on success, and, as much as corporate facilities and premium packages boost revenue significantly (if done well), it's hard to just bolt them onto an older stadium even if it's technically possible. A lot of those packages succeed on the whole 'experience' - safe, convenient parking, fairly easy transport access etc. Admittedly older stadiums like Old Trafford do it very well, but they've been more fortunate and able to acquire a huge area of surrounding land for car parks etc and it's arguably more accessible than Anfield.

 

Anfield's very similar to Maine Road (in terms of positioning and valiant attempts to stay modern).

 

I don't mean to sound glib, but the entire local area could be massively rejuvenated if the triangle from Blessington Rd to Dacy Rd could be compulsory purchased and started over as an Anfield Complex, then you'd be back in the same ballpark as other modern developments. Sadly that's not realistic, which is a true shame, as it could transform Anfield.

 

Another issue is that on any given day, it's always going to look like a good option to extend Anfield in whatever way possible. Just like fixing up your home. But sooner or later, 10 years down the line, 20 years? you know it's still looming... Can it be fixed up indefinitely and will it start to cost you dearly when competing with others? Or is biting the bullet with a new stadium the pain you have to go through now to reap the dividends 5-10 years from now?

[Guest ShoePiss]

If the people involved were looking at a 20 year ownership they'd build a new stadium, they're not here for the long haul though. They will be looking for a return much sooner than that.

[FanchesterCity]

I don't disagree.

But who's there to try and see things are done for the long term interests? I'm guessing nobody.

 

Even if the owners are relatively short term say 5-10 years, they'll have to start implementing changes to the ground pretty soon (assuming they even think money could be made that way).

 

Matchday revenues (as far as I know are roughly):

 

Arsenal 42%

Manchester United 35%

Chelsea 32%

Tottenham Hotspur 31%

Aston Villa 27%

Liverpool 23%

 

The top 3 have their own special reasons for such high revenues, but Liverpool surely must be able to pull in as much as Spuds and Villa without too much effort?

[xerxes]

I don't disagree.

But who's there to try and see things are done for the long term interests? I'm guessing nobody.

 

Even if the owners are relatively short term say 5-10 years, they'll have to start implementing changes to the ground pretty soon (assuming they even think money could be made that way).

 

Matchday revenues (as far as I know are roughly):

 

Arsenal 42%

Manchester United 35%

Chelsea 32%

Tottenham Hotspur 31%

Aston Villa 27%

Liverpool 23%

 

The top 3 have their own special reasons for such high revenues, but Liverpool surely must be able to pull in as much as Spuds and Villa without too much effort?

 

I don’t understand your figures .

 

The latest D&T figures for match day revenue are 10/11, in Euros:

Man U 122.4m

Arsenal 114.7m

Chelsea 82.1m

Liverpool 52.4m

Spurs 44.9m

Villa 29.8m

Man City 29.8m

 

Football Finance - 2011 Football Money League | Deloitte UK

Obviously City’s revenues will have increased in a title winning season. The problem for us is that our match day income is about as good as it gets. Pushing tickets above £50 and £45 at Anfield for a team in league reverse is not going to work.

 

FSG are not prepared to finance the long term solution- a new stadium to bring Anfield into the 21st century – and keep us there for around fifty years.

 

Already the newest parts of the ground are a quarter of a century old, and the Main Stand is much older than that. Any redevelopment, for practical reasons, is only likely to be possible on two sides of the ground (Main Stand and ARE). So the best result is that after redevelopment half the ground is new, but compromised by existing structures, the other half will be thirty years old.That is unacceptable for LFC.

 

The irony is that ostensibly, FSG believe that FFP will level the playing field. But expenditure on ground improvements is outside FFP. So a new stadium/ substantially redeveloped one offers all the upsides – increased cash receipts, with no FFP penalty on the money spent. Yet still they prevaricate.

 

Ayre rightly worries about the cost of adding just 15,000 seats. Ironically, an inevitably more modest redevelopment has its own financial drawbacks. Is redeveloping half the ground for say 10,000 extra seats ( a realistic scenario), when you consider the reduced capacity during build , compromised design and facilities caused by an in situ redevelopment, and an end result which may still fall short financially of what is required worth doing? Ends do not generate as much income as side stands, and the new main stand has to carry almost all the improved facilities itself. It will be a bodge job.

[redasever]

You peddle flawed designs, and are surprised that you have never designed a stadium.

 

You come up with flawed detail, and are surprised that, like a madcap inventor, you never get past the girl on reception.

 

You return simply to provoke and argue- as that is all that you have left, and maybe that is all there ever was.

 

Oh dear. Now you're upset... just to make you feel better, here's the footprint of Villa Park overlaid with the maximum viewing distances (the Holte End is transposed at top right). Note the acres of empty available space outside the Holte End footprint. Empty space that could have had greater capacity and/or reduced the cost of the same capacity.

 

All for the want of looking for opportunities rather than hiding behind constraints. A thought process I'm sure you're familiar with. And all the more perplexing because the solution (building over the road) is right there and used for the adjacent stand.

 

Some people never will learn because they cannot ever see.

 

avarcs by Peter McGurk, on Flickr

[FanchesterCity]

I don’t understand your figures .

 

The latest D&T figures for match day revenue are 10/11, in Euros:

Man U 122.4m

Arsenal 114.7m

Chelsea 82.1m

Liverpool 52.4m

Spurs 44.9m

Villa 29.8m

Man City 29.8m

 

Football Finance - 2011 Football Money League | Deloitte UK

Obviously City’s revenues will have increased in a title winning season. The problem for us is that our match day income is about as good as it gets. Pushing tickets above £50 and £45 at Anfield for a team in league reverse is not going to work.

 

FSG are not prepared to finance the long term solution- a new stadium to bring Anfield into the 21st century – and keep us there for around fifty years.

 

Already the newest parts of the ground are a quarter of a century old, and the Main Stand is much older than that. Any redevelopment, for practical reasons, is only likely to be possible on two sides of the ground (Main Stand and ARE). So the best result is that after redevelopment half the ground is new, but compromised by existing structures, the other half will be thirty years old.That is unacceptable for LFC.

 

The irony is that ostensibly, FSG believe that FFP will level the playing field. But expenditure on ground improvements is outside FFP. So a new stadium/ substantially redeveloped one offers all the upsides – increased cash receipts, with no FFP penalty on the money spent. Yet still they prevaricate.

 

Ayre rightly worries about the cost of adding just 15,000 seats. Ironically, an inevitably more modest redevelopment has its own financial drawbacks. Is redeveloping half the ground for say 10,000 extra seats ( a realistic scenario), when you consider the reduced capacity during build , compromised design and facilities caused by an in situ redevelopment, and an end result which may still fall short financially of what is required worth doing? Ends do not generate as much income as side stands, and the new main stand has to carry almost all the improved facilities itself. It will be a bodge job.

 

The figures I quoted where the percentage of total revenue ending 2011 season.

[redasever]

Isn't that the whole crux of the problem though? the money required to build from new is substantial and in order for it to really reap benefits, it has to be coupled with success on the pitch (regular CL presence).

 

Of course, there's the split between fans too, but that's normal for any potential move. Some will welcome it, some won't.

 

A 55K stadium sounds about right, with potential to expand depending on success, and, as much as corporate facilities and premium packages boost revenue significantly (if done well), it's hard to just bolt them onto an older stadium even if it's technically possible. A lot of those packages succeed on the whole 'experience' - safe, convenient parking, fairly easy transport access etc. Admittedly older stadiums like Old Trafford do it very well, but they've been more fortunate and able to acquire a huge area of surrounding land for car parks etc and it's arguably more accessible than Anfield.

 

Anfield's very similar to Maine Road (in terms of positioning and valiant attempts to stay modern).

 

I don't mean to sound glib, but the entire local area could be massively rejuvenated if the triangle from Blessington Rd to Dacy Rd could be compulsory purchased and started over as an Anfield Complex, then you'd be back in the same ballpark as other modern developments. Sadly that's not realistic, which is a true shame, as it could transform Anfield.

 

Another issue is that on any given day, it's always going to look like a good option to extend Anfield in whatever way possible. Just like fixing up your home. But sooner or later, 10 years down the line, 20 years? you know it's still looming... Can it be fixed up indefinitely and will it start to cost you dearly when competing with others? Or is biting the bullet with a new stadium the pain you have to go through now to reap the dividends 5-10 years from now?

 

Old Trafford is a good example. Thirty years ago, there were a lot more surrounding buildings, a road (Union Road) cramping one stand and a railway cramping the other.

 

Union Road has been bridged to dramatically extend one stand and the railway is still there of course but if the final expansion ever happens it is technically feasible to bridge it.

 

However and this is the point that our club makes, the cost of doing so is not worth it. Not only is too expensive for the number of seats gained but United are not sure they can fill them at the prices require to pay for it.

 

It really is as clear as day that £300m to build a new stadium for us to gain an extra 15,000 seats (or whatever hundreds of millions to build more) is simply not worth it.

 

As I say, United have been on a thirty year road and are now enjoying the benefit of thinking for now and of thinking ahead. No one would say that Old Trafford is in danger of coming to the end of its life any time soon.

 

City was different. they had a once in a lifetime opportunity dropped in their laps when the Commonwealth Stadium came along. As it happens the housing going up on Maine Road is looking ok and no doubt will save the area but the area was going downhill fast even before City moved off.

 

Certainly a new stadium in Stanley Park does nothing for the direct benefit of the community. The anfield Plaza has always been described as of 'uncertain benefit'. It certainly doesn't build any houses.

 

There is however still scope for a redevelopment to work with the existing Walton Breck Road in terms of its reconstitution as a high street and engendering a shift in housing priorities immediately behind the ground.

 

You could say it's already happening and the recent presentation of area regeneration proposals by council is encouraging.

.

[FanchesterCity]

Agree that pushing Liverpool's matchday figures ain't easy. There's only a handful of ways to do it

 

1) Reduce matchday costs (although this technically won't increase revenue) it'll boost margin

2) Increase ticket prices (not easy in the current climate and poor performances)

3) Increase capacity

4) Better utilise areas of the ground e.g. more corporate, speciality packages, dining, etc etc which is a real challenge to get right.

 

Really it's getting the biggest bang for their buck per cubic ft. when you get down to the nitty gritty.

 

I agree also that ends don't generate as much income, but disagree (in theory) that they can't, it's just never been done (to my knowledge).

 

Simple maths tells us that the cubic feet available down the sides is greater than the ends (in a stadium that's uniformly built), and to add to matters, the view is better (obviously). You COULD make more money at the ends than the sides if the designers were morons and chose to badly utilise the sides and do a good job at the ends, but you're quite right - if you're sane and there's no structural issue, the sides will always return more profit than the ends.

[FanchesterCity]

Old Trafford is a good example. Thirty years ago, there were a lot more surrounding buildings, a road (Union Road) cramping one stand and a railway cramping the other.

 

Union Road has been bridged to dramatically extend one stand and the railway is still there of course but if the final expansion ever happens it is technically feasible to bridge it.

 

However and this is the point that our club makes, the cost of doing so is not worth it. Not only is too expensive for the number of seats gained but United are not sure they can fill them at the prices require to pay for it.

 

It really is as clear as day that £300m to build a new stadium for us to gain an extra 15,000 seats (or whatever hundreds of millions to build more) is simply not worth it.

 

As I say, United have been on a thirty year road and are now enjoying the benefit of thinking for now and of thinking ahead. No one would say that Old Trafford is in danger of coming to the end of its life any time soon.

 

City was different. they had a once in a lifetime opportunity dropped in their laps when the Commonwealth Stadium came along. As it happens the housing going up on Maine Road is looking ok and no doubt will save the area but the area was going downhill fast even before City moved off.

 

Certainly a new stadium in Stanley Park does nothing for the direct benefit of the community. The anfield Plaza has always been described as of 'uncertain benefit'. It certainly doesn't build any houses.

 

There is however still scope for a redevelopment to work with the existing Walton Breck Road in terms of its reconstitution as a high street and engendering a shift in housing priorities immediately behind the ground.

 

You could say it's already happening and the recent presentation of area regeneration proposals by council is encouraging.

.

 

Agree on virtually everything there.

United planned ahead and what they have now is the result of 25 years of expansion and land grab!

City is a total anomaly and should be discounted.

 

The only area I would question, and it's not disagreement - is the 300 million for 15K seats.

When it's presented like that - then no, it doesn't sound worth it.

 

15K seats * £30 * 30 games a season = £13.5 million per season. Just not worth it.

 

But it's less tangible benefits of a new stadium... more facilities (food, drink etc), fans spending longer at the stadium and thus spending more, using the stadium for other events (concerts), potential stadium naming rights (tricky subject that one esp for Liverpool, or United), and then there's the age old corporate stuff. If you can grab the corporates and milk them well... you could arguably boost revenue to 20 million or more.

Also, in an 'Anfield complex' scenario, some of the cost can be shared with retailers, or other ventures (swimming stadium / cycling / whatever) so a little can be shaved off the 300 million to (say) 250 million.

 

That's 15 years to pay off (if the 300 million is interest free).

 

Do FSG have 15 years in them? possibly not (unless Liverpool gets turned around significantly).

 

Not saying anything's right or wrong, but the straight 300 million for 15K seats isn't the entire picture (which I'm sure you'll agree).

[xerxes]

Agree that pushing Liverpool's matchday figures ain't easy. There's only a handful of ways to do it

 

1) Reduce matchday costs (although this technically won't increase revenue) it'll boost margin

2) Increase ticket prices (not easy in the current climate and poor performances)

3) Increase capacity

4) Better utilise areas of the ground e.g. more corporate, speciality packages, dining, etc etc which is a real challenge to get right.

 

Really it's getting the biggest bang for their buck per cubic ft. when you get down to the nitty gritty.

 

I agree also that ends don't generate as much income, but disagree (in theory) that they can't, it's just never been done (to my knowledge).

 

Simple maths tells us that the cubic feet available down the sides is greater than the ends (in a stadium that's uniformly built), and to add to matters, the view is better (obviously). You COULD make more money at the ends than the sides if the designers were morons and chose to badly utilise the sides and do a good job at the ends, but you're quite right - if you're sane and there's no structural issue, the sides will always return more profit than the ends.

 

1.I am not sure that there is much that can be done that would make a difference.

 

2. Our ticket prices are already high, driving them higher against the backdrop of a declining league performance with no CL football has little upside potential.

 

3.That’s the big one. A 70k ST waiting list where the residual interest was so great that they stopped the trawl after 25,000, and those on it have seen modest upward moves.

 

4.The Centenary has excellent upper tier hospitality facilities and abysmal, embarrassing lower tier hospitality facilities. There is no physical scope for expansion. There is always an over demand ( our premium seating is only 4000)and under supply. The stand was poorly designed internally when the demand for hospitality was not anticipated or appreciated. The Kop similarly has no scope for redesign for similar reasons. Of course there is a caveat for both – improve premium seat amenity and reduce ordinary seats, but that is politically explosive.

 

Ends do not generate as much money as side stands for two reasons. Firstly, physically their width is less . Secondly, the views are less popular and people pay more to sit in side stands – always have. If you try to get around that by building up and back you encounter a secondary problem- the circulation and concourse space swallows up the hospitality space. That is exactly what happened at Villa Park with the Holte End which holds more than the Trinity Road stand, but the latter generates far more income because of the increased prices and hospitality space.

 

If you can demonstrate how to make more money from ends than sides you will be a VERY wealthy man!

[Trumo]

What we have needed for a long time, and still need desperately, is a long-term plan that will allow the club to achieve the sort of growth ManU's plans have allowed them to achieve over however many years it's been; on the field, in terms of commercial growth and also infrastructure development. Evidently their plans have worked out extremely well for them. The problems for us in terms of attempting that are

 

1 - we still don't know what plans FSG and the club have in place to achieve this growth because everything stills revolves around rumour and counter-rumour;

 

2 - we still don't know if FSG are capable (or indeed willing?) to deliver this growth;

 

3 - we don't know if there is enough scope for growth left in football. Are we already close to saturation point and maxing out real opportunities for growth?

 

I would assume that FSG clearly feel there is opportunity there as per point 3 because why would they have taken on as hefty an undertaking as Liverpool otherwise? Even accounting for the fact they got the club at a knockdown price, they'd still have to feel the venture to be a worthwhile pursuit.

 

If the scope for growth at the rate the Mancs have achieved is no longer possible, then any planning and expenditure on infrastructure and club development will only enable us to keep up with the Joneses. It won't enable us to pull ahead of the pack in the way the Mancs have managed over the past 20-odd years. Even if we do have significant scope for growth, that still leaves room for the likes of the Mancs to continue pushing ahead. We're spending to catch up only for them to spend slightly less just to move ahead again. Therein lies the gamble.

 

The standard of decision making at this club over the past 20-30 years beggars belief at times, it really does.

[redasever]

 

The problem for us is that our match day income is about as good as it gets. Pushing tickets above £50 and £45 at Anfield for a team in league reverse is not going to work.

 

......It will be a bodge job.

 

There is no identified cap on revenue. There is we trust, un-met demand. If there were a cap or no un-met demand, there would no increase in capacity, new or redeveloped.

 

The solution is not to increase prices either.

 

Rather the solution is to increase the numbers of higher earning seats and to increase general attendances and overall spend in the stadium - more hospitality packages, longer core experience, other revenue opportunities. Again, nothing will happen either way without any of that.

 

The other thing to do is to dispense with the flat standard seat pricing. It outprices the young and the less well-of and it doesn’t maximise revenue from those who can spend a bit more but not an arm and a leg. There should be a multiplicity of ‘price entry points’ ie something for everyone - the ends of the stadium do not need to generate as much as the sides as any ticket plan of any stadium will tell you.

 

But the revenue per seat as is - again Deloittes, is comparative low (about £940). Old Trafford is about £1450. Arsenal and Chelsea, out of sight.

 

Given that RPS is driven by price, attendance and number of games and given static affordability (and in a recession), the drive will be to increase higher corporate income to a level the club believes is achievable in Liverpool.

 

That is, to meet pent up demand for higher earning seats and for standard seats. Based on about 12% of capacity (a rule of thumb) as premium seats and the balance as standard, that might be about £1200 revenue per seat.

 

It’s important to base that all at today’s prices as well as to make a call as to what a ‘standard season’ is. Obviously 19 league home games are ordinarily a given and that is the most conservative and should properly be the baseline.

 

Anything above that risks the roll of the ball in a domestic cup fixture draw and anything above that says you must be in Europe ie., you are gambling on success.

 

That’s said, a 19 game season with 7,200 premium seats out of a 60,000 capacity ought to gross about £72m a year at today’s prices. And that means filling the stadium every game (actually about 97%). Domestic Cup home games and a place in Europe means that that percentage attendance can drop for the same revenue per seat. Conversely if the good times roll and high attendances are sustained in a lot of home games we could match United’s RPS over say a 25 or 27 game season.

 

This judgement that the club must make has no special bearing on the longevity of the redevelopment. That must be factored into cost of the construction and belongs to a consideration of return rather than revenue. There is no incentive to bodge.

 

There is no incentive to build small either. Although adding corporate seats and nothing else would dramatically increase RPS, it does not maximise total revenue. Serious mistake in any business. There’s no reason to doubt the club’s assessment that the best balance of demand, price and capacity (the ‘sweet-spot’) is 60k to 65k. There we are. That’s the number.

 

FFP is not a license to spend money rashly just because the rules say you can . The club has every right and responsibility to take the necessary time to get this right.

 

There is no evidence that they are prevaricating nor is there any that they're not in for the long term nor does it actually affect the outcome of the feasibility whether they are or not. It is for now and for the future (just like United’s thirty year plan).

 

If you can manage a rational response let’s have it, otherwise leave it to others if that’s ok.

.

[FanchesterCity]

What we have needed for a long time, and still need desperately, is a long-term plan that will allow the club to achieve the sort of growth ManU's plans have allowed them to achieve over however many years it's been; on the field, in terms of commercial growth and also infrastructure development. Evidently their plans have worked out extremely well for them. The problems for us in terms of attempting that are

 

1 - we still don't know what plans FSG and the club have in place to achieve this growth because everything stills revolves around rumour and counter-rumour;

 

2 - we still don't know if FSG are capable (or indeed willing?) to deliver this growth;

 

3 - we don't know if there is enough scope for growth left in football. Are we already close to saturation point and maxing out real opportunities for growth?

 

I would assume that FSG clearly feel there is opportunity there as per point 3 because why would they have taken on as hefty an undertaking as Liverpool otherwise? Even accounting for the fact they got the club at a knockdown price, they'd still have to feel the venture to be a worthwhile pursuit.

 

If the scope for growth at the rate the Mancs have achieved is no longer possible, then any planning and expenditure on infrastructure and club development will only enable us to keep up with the Joneses. It won't enable us to pull ahead of the pack in the way the Mancs have managed over the past 20-odd years. Even if we do have significant scope for growth, that still leaves room for the likes of the Mancs to continue pushing ahead. We're spending to catch up only for them to spend slightly less just to move ahead again. Therein lies the gamble.

 

The standard of decision making at this club over the past 20-30 years beggars belief at times, it really does.

 

As ever, I'm likely to upset a few but still:

 

My son works at United (he's City, but there's loads of Liverpool there too)... anway, one thing that just stands out about them.... they are a machine, they really are.

All the dolly birds are dressed in Virgin Atlantic style outfits, 90% are stunning. It's almost as if the football doesn't matter, it's purely corporate experience etc.

According to my son, they have a deal on matchdays... 1500 quid... yep 1.5K per person for a decent meal and free drinks thereafter. Of course, nobody drinks 1.5K worth.

 

The entire suite he works in is full of businessmen taking clients and there's about 500 at a time. 500 * 1.5K = 750K per game just in his suite alone.

They turn up about 2 hours before the game, and leave about 3 hours after and spend all their time trying to impress their clients, some don't even watch the match at all!

 

I expect Arsenal is similar.

I've only been to Arsenal 3-4 times since they moved to the Emirates, and didn't experience any corporate stuff, but I'd imagine they've got that side highly polished.

 

Whilst I loathe the whole aspect of that, it's all part of the United machine, and it's something Liverpool and every other club are having to face.

Of course, they are massively helped by this hype about the club... people that have zero interest in football want to go to United.

 

There's definitely money to be made from it all, but it takes a serious amount of work to get that slick.

 

City are a good 10 years behind them and there's been a lot of improvements of late.

I suspect Liverpool are the same - a fair bit behind.