John Henry hints at Anfield stay.

[Trucker Paddy]

I honestly don't know what would be best for the locals, and I think that must be considered when making decision

My own preference is the romantic 1 and stay at Anfield, if we can get the capacity up to 60,000 which I believe we can, and build a shit load of executive box's even if that means dropping the capacity to 57-58000, that will be more than sufficent moving forward.

Anyway i hope the decision is soon and we start this summer with a view to completion in 2014, optimistic I know

[redsoxs]

Have a fucking word with yourself.

 

JWH is a far better owner than the last two twats. And for your info, we didnt get rid of them because they didnt build a new stadium. If you think that's the reason, you dont know what you're talking about.

 

sorry, NO NO NO.

 

One of the main reason was the broken promises about the ground, the 60 days spade shyte, the millions on the redesigning of plans building the fans dreams of the new stadium, only to be broken. And if you think differently then you need to have a word with yourself.

 

JWH, so far as been given the benefit of the doubt (by me too), but if you think me or most fans are going to bend over think everything is rosy... your far from it; once bitten twice shy.

 

now don't please start saying what JWH as done because so far not a lot, the Suarez deal wasn't done until Thursday afternoon, yet the club new Torres was going Wednesday night, hence the sudden increase in the Suarez offer. As of yet he not spent a penny, only to buy a club that was heavily under valued... what great investment for the long term knowing he won't lose in value, also if think he not going to take a dividend X millions for the investment then your real do need to have a word.

Edited February 4, 2011 by redsoxs

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

It's an option that always seemed obvious which, for whatever reason, was not properly explored: to expand the Anny Road, and possibly also the Main Stand. IF that is an option - and I, like you, am oblivious to the intricacies - by which the capacity could be raised to 55,000 approx. then the financial incentives of building a new stadium from scratch become interesting.

 

Firstly, you're entirely wrong to say that it wasn't properly explored. It was. I'm sure you could still find a feasibility study from pre-2002 if you searched hard enough. The reason why it's deemed obvious is because it is so clear, so much a truth, that it's ridiculous to suggest that a new ground, with almost limitless capacity options, vastly improved facilities to make the ground profitable all week and all year, has corporate facilities, restaurant, swimming pool/leisure centre, the possibility of massive naming rights and sponsorship deals etc., wouldn't be a financial improvement over redevelopment, at least in the long run.

 

I'm not completely against redevelopment, but I do take exception to being told, in no uncertain terms, that I'm oblivious to the intricacies. I'm not. I've tracked the project extremely closely since before the 2002 announcement of the old 'new stadium'. Back then 'anfield4ever' were arguing the case to redevelop Anfield. It's not something that has just happened. They were arguing for a total capacity of 55k. They even submitted formal proposals to the club.

 

The spokesman for anfield4ever, Alan Edge, admitted that it wasn't realistic at the time. He said "We sincerely believed when we embarked on our campaign that an expanded Anfield would work given an exhaustive effort to make it work. Clearly, that effort has been made but has been found not to be adequate having regard to all the criteria required to be fulfiled.” and "The decision is the outcome of exhaustive feasibility studies carried out by both Liverpool FC and the City Council to determine what they consider to be the optimum way forward for LFC, the Anfield area and the city as a whole." and, most importantly, "The bitter reality of the feasibility designs was that the expanded Anfield, whilst certainly achievable as a possible solution, was quite manifestly NOT the most viable solution. Despite strong desires within many of those involved in the decision making at Anfield, there was unanimous concensus that the new stadium was the only way forward." - that's from the people campaigning against it.

 

Rebuilding the main stand would cause significant problems - all the changing room and other facilities are there. Then you've got to talk about moving houses and other factors like gate receipts. Even then, we only end up with the same stadium with just a few thousands more seats. No real betterment from a commercial perspective. I mean, of course you could redo it to the same level as a new stadium, but you'd be effectively building a new stadium in the same spot to do it. That's not what redevelopment is or has ever been about.

 

We are often compared against the match-day revenues of Arsenal and United, but even with a new stadium it's likely that we'd be far from matching the two. Arsenal, as well as already having a capacity probably equal to any new stadium, will always be able to charge more on a per ticket basis. Truthfully we can't compete with United's capacity which, again charging more on a per ticket basis, is 10,000 or 15,000 over the capacities mooted for us.

 

I'm not all that interested in that at the moment, I'm interested in new stadium vs redevelopment. Only the percentage difference between Highbury and Ashburton Grove's turnover are relevant. Their "first season at the Emirates, show that Arsenal's turnover has increased to £200.8m, compared to £137.2m the previous year and that group operating profits increased to £51.2m." - The turnover for 2010 was 313m, although some property was sold in that time. The profits of that go to pay down the debt.

 

The long-run has to be put into context of the short term. Arsenal are extremely fortunate to have had Wenger at the helm during the period of transition. Plainly they've had little to spend on fees; had they fallen out of the top 4, given the debt amassed from the stadium transition they may have started to have seen the short term impact hugely upon the long. There are several stories of sides (Leicester, Southampton among them) who have suffered from the illusion that mass investment into their stadium provides long-term stability. For those sides, quite the opposite.

 

If the capacity of the current Anfield could be brought up, then the only financial questions would linger over naming rights etc.

 

I simply don't agree. There's many other financial questions. Naming rights and sponsorship is just one aspect.

 

New Years Day 2011

 

Liverpool vs Bolton: Capacity 35,400

 

Drop several hundred million on a stadium. 70,000 capacity. And all the cash that brings

 

Wow. That's a great argument. One game, the day after the biggest piss-up of the year and at a moment that we are at our lowest ebb for many years. Terrific. Backwards and sidewards.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I honestly don't know what would be best for the locals, and I think that must be considered when making decision

 

I guess they could redevelop the stadium to increase capacity, but also look into regeneration in the area, but that doesn't sound like something a well run business would do without a new stadium.

 

I'm all for regeneration, it's part of the reason I want a new stadium. if they can regenerate the surrounding area and improve the local economy, it'll have positive benefits in the long run, both for the club and the people who use and support it.

[Kopite Pete]

I honestly don't know what would be best for the locals, and I think that must be considered when making decision

My own preference is the romantic 1 and stay at Anfield, if we can get the capacity up to 60,000 which I believe we can, and build a shit load of executive box's even if that means dropping the capacity to 57-58000, that will be more than sufficent moving forward.

Anyway i hope the decision is soon and we start this summer with a view to completion in 2014, optimistic I know

 

Very optimistic mate. We need to go through the whole planning again. It could take years to get a yes. Let alone build.

[Jonny83]

If naming rights are a must, I'd rather see it on a new-build stadium with (obviously) no prior iconic name to be displaced, rather than seeing Anfield renamed.

 

I realise this has fuck all relevance compared to the financial pros and cons of moving/redeveloping though, which I don't have enough knowledge to weigh into the debate on.

 

EDIT: Just a thought, Fenway Park isn't a sponsors name, or is it? Seems to be greatly against the trend in US sports (from what little I know) to have a traditionally named stadium.

[ctkeepercoach]

Going to a football game should cost no more than going to the cinema, £10 tops

 

if they had 70k stadium and an anticipated 35k attendance, they would have to flog the tickets at a tenner or less

 

This is great news for fans, locals and kids.

 

Indeed, the more they try and charge 40-50 quid a ticket the more empty seats they're going to see anyway but presently the club prefer to cut their nose off to spite their face by maintaining unsustainable pricing levels. A bigger capacity would force them to get creative which can only benefit the fans

 

If you want to sit in a large, comfortable air conditioned box and dine with a legend then it should cost £100+

 

No chance...

40,000 (less than a sell out) @ $50 per ticket (avg) = $2 million per game

70,000 at $25 per ticket (more than your 'tenner') = $1.75 million per game

 

THAT is cutting their nose off despite their face.

 

*pardon the $, I don't have a pound symbol, being american...

[Red Nick]

The Council want a new stadium and regeneration

 

Be interesting to see how helpful they would be regarding planning permission for a redevelopment

[piscinin]

Man I wish we had owners who weren't so obscenely stoopid that they would even consider redeveloping Anfield. You should get on the phone to them NN and set them straight.

[CWD82]

THAT is cutting their nose off despite their face.

 

...

 

to spite

[ctkeepercoach]

to spite

 

Should know that... mum's an english teacher....:whistle:

[ctkeepercoach]

If naming rights are a must, I'd rather see it on a new-build stadium with (obviously) no prior iconic name to be displaced, rather than seeing Anfield renamed.

 

I realise this has fuck all relevance compared to the financial pros and cons of moving/redeveloping though, which I don't have enough knowledge to weigh into the debate on.

 

EDIT: Just a thought, Fenway Park isn't a sponsors name, or is it? Seems to be greatly against the trend in US sports (from what little I know) to have a traditionally named stadium.

 

They get around this by naming parts of the stadium (Coca-Cola Club, Budweiser Roof Deck, EMC Club, State St. Pavilion) all sponsored so as to preserve the name Fenway Park but give sponsors the chance to get into the picture. Can't see them doing anything with The Kop, but could see them rename other parts of Anfield to keep it Anfield and preserve The Kop.

[INTORRESTING]

What's the local argument here? Everyone has a phone so it doesnt matter if you are in Australia or leaning against Shanks' statue when applying for tickets.

 

There is no way tickets will be slashed so I am not following this argument at all.

 

Regeneration around the ground will occur as it did at Boston.

[ReDeus]

Heart says to stay at Anfield but head says to move to a new stadium. 'New Anfield' is only going to a few mins away, hardly a world away. If we could re-develop Anfield to bring it up to scratch the way the mancs have done with their pit, that would be great.

But logistically it's almost impossible. Easier and better to build a brand new state-of-the-art stadium.

[Cunny]

If we decide to move we should go the whole hog and move to somewhere with decent transport links and space to build other leisure facilities like shops, bars, restaurants, cinemas hotel etc...

 

In the long term the club must maximise it's revenue streams. It's losing out to the London clubs in ticket price terms and losing to mancs in terms of capacity. That must bridged and I don't think a redeveloped Anfield can do that.

 

We may as well move a few miles as move a few yards over the road. A stadium in Stanley Park would not be Anfield, just as a stadium in Sefton park would not be Anfield.

 

Since when is it LFC's responsibility to do the job of local and national government with regards to the regeneration of L4?

[Arl arse]

Get it right on the field first & then build a new one. In the meantime redevelop Anfield to up our revenue in the short term. (10 - 15 years)

[TheHowieLama]

Cinema offers in excess of 90 mins of entertainment for dramatically less than it costs for a football game.

 

 

I do not consider a football game good value so refuse to attend

 

Heh..

 

So when you hit that seat in your Hogwarts jersey with Potter on the back do you feel the hairs on your arm stand up?

[aws]

There used to be an overwhelming financial case in favour of moving. It was a no-brainer.

 

I think that disappeared as the cost pushed up to £400m. Now the financial case is in the balance which is why I think we'll see a redevelopment.

[Guest ShoePiss]

If we decide to move we should go the whole hog and move to somewhere with decent transport links and space to build other leisure facilities like shops, bars, restaurants, cinemas hotel etc...

 

In the long term the club must maximise it's revenue streams. It's losing out to the London clubs in ticket price terms and losing to mancs in terms of capacity. That must bridged and I don't think a redeveloped Anfield can do that.

 

We may as well move a few miles as move a few yards over the road. A stadium in Stanley Park would not be Anfield, just as a stadium in Sefton park would not be Anfield.

 

Since when is it LFC's responsibility to do the job of local and national government with regards to the regeneration of L4?

 

I understand what you're saying about the move but I'd still call it Anfield if it was at Stanley Park, why not? Of course it wouldn't be the original Anfield Road but it would be a stadium in Anfield.

 

Any major business should be looking to support their local community, it's good for the business as well as the surrounding area.

 

The club has a huge influence on the day to day lives of people in the surrounding area so they absolutely have a responsibility to be supportive of it.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Get it right on the field first & then build a new one. In the meantime redevelop Anfield to up our revenue in the short term. (10 - 15 years)

 

Without the income we won't be able to compete. I assume by getting it right you mean winning the league...to sustain a title challenging team we need to be bringing in more money.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

There used to be an overwhelming financial case in favour of moving. It was a no-brainer.

 

I think that disappeared as the cost pushed up to £400m. Now the financial case is in the balance which is why I think we'll see a redevelopment.

 

I don't agree that it's in the balance. I also think the debt will be far, far less than that.

[old skool tom]

id on be happy with redevelopment if he kept the kop (but extended it) and knock the other three stands down and rebuild them all from scratch.

 

if he sat in the lower centeenary hed understand why! haha

 

tbh we need to move into the park because we need the exec boxes/seats and a wider fucking pitch too....its too easy to get men behind the ball and shut us out in the modern 'five man midfield' tactical game it is now.i know we need wingers but were could they even go if they had the ball at there feet? the main stand car park is out of play!

 

me thinks mr henry is doing things short term and saving himself some money

[1892-LFCWasBorn]

I can't see why we can't recreate The Kop when designing a new stadium.

 

It's not only the football side of things we need to consider in terms of revenue.

[Haan'sThunderbolt]

If we decide to move we should go the whole hog and move to somewhere with decent transport links and space to build other leisure facilities like shops, bars, restaurants, cinemas hotel etc...

 

In the long term the club must maximise it's revenue streams. It's losing out to the London clubs in ticket price terms and losing to mancs in terms of capacity. That must bridged and I don't think a redeveloped Anfield can do that.

 

We may as well move a few miles as move a few yards over the road. A stadium in Stanley Park would not be Anfield, just as a stadium in Sefton park would not be Anfield.

 

Since when is it LFC's responsibility to do the job of local and national government with regards to the regeneration of L4?

 

Think you're spot on there - football/sports grounds need to open 24/7 - and have all kinds of entertainment, shops, etc

Can't see that being possible with the current set up. But I'll respect whatever FSG do, they've impressed me greatly - as their track record shows.

[James Dean]

Has this been posted? Apologies if it has. Saw it just now.

 

 

Big interview: Liverpool's owner, John W Henry | Sport | The Guardian

 

John W Henry: Newcastle made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way

 

Liverpool's owner questions Chelsea's commitment to financial fair-play rules and explains his desire to self-generate funds

 

*

o

o Share264

o Reddit

o Buzz up

 

* David Conn

* guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 February 2011 17.31 GMT

* Article history

 

John W Henry John W Henry believes clubs such as Chelsea may be planning to 'evade' Uefa's financial fair-play rules. Photograph: Michael Regan/Getty Images

 

Liverpool's American owner, John Henry, has criticised Chelsea for their extravagant transfer window spending, questioning the commitment of Roman Abramovich's club to Uefa's financial fair-play rules. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Henry suggested Chelsea may be planning to "evade" the rules and called on the governing body to ensure they are strictly followed by all clubs. The fair-play rules, which require clubs to spend only the income they make and not rely on subsidies from owners, come into effect from next season to 2014.

 

"I was surprised Monday morning to receive an offer [from Chelsea for Fernando Torres] in that amount [£50m] at the same time they were announcing such large losses [£71m for 2009-10]," Henry said. "The big question is just how effective the financial fair-play rules are going to be. Perhaps some clubs support the concept in order to limit the spending of other clubs, while implementing activities specifically designed to evade the rules they publicly support. We can only hope that Uefa has the ability and determination to enforce what they have proposed."

 

Chelsea have insisted since signing Torres and David Luiz that they firmly intend to comply with financial fair play and that the £71m outlay was within overall progress towards cutting costs.

 

Henry, setting out his thoughts on Liverpool's direction almost four months since his Fenway Sports Group bought the club by paying off the £200m debts Tom Hicks's and George Gillett's "leveraged" takeover had loaded on to Liverpool, said he is committed to the club living within its income. "We've always spent money we've generated rather than deficit-spending and that will be the case in Liverpool," he said, referring to the group's ownership of the Boston Red Sox baseball team. "It's up to us to generate enough revenue to be successful over the long term. We have not and will not deviate from that."

 

That commitment to sound financial management was followed, not breached, Henry asserted, in the £35m Liverpool paid Newcastle United for Andy Carroll, a fee that astonished English football. Henry said the £35m made financial sense because Liverpool were only paying to Newcastle what they were to receive from Chelsea by selling Torres, whom they allowed to leave because he had become too evidently unhappy at Anfield.

 

"The fee for Torres was dependent on what Newcastle asked for Carroll," Henry said, explaining that Liverpool wanted Carroll, plus £15m, to replace Torres. Together with the £6m sale of Ryan Babel to Hoffenheim, that effectively financed Liverpool's £22.8m signing of Luis Suárez, meaning the club bought two strikers but net, spent almost nothing. "The negotiation for us was simply the difference in prices paid by Chelsea and to Newcastle," Henry said. "Those prices could have been £35m [from Chelsea for Torres] and £20m [to Newcastle for Carroll], 40 and 25 or 50 and 35. It was ultimately up to Newcastle how much this was all going to cost. They [Newcastle] made a hell of a deal. We felt the same way."

 

Saying Kenny Dalglish has "exceeded our expectations" as the club's caretaker manager, Henry explained that Liverpool retain ambitions to qualify for European competition this season, so insisted they had to sign a replacement striker, preferably Carroll, if Torres was to go. "We weren't going to write off Champions League and Europa League for the sake of someone's happiness," Henry said of Torres. "The striker position had to be filled, by someone who made sense for the long term. With about 24 hours remaining, the possibility of Andy, who was No1 on our list of possibilities for the summer, emerged."

 

Henry explained how Carroll, even at £35m, fits into FSG's philosophy, which famously learns from the strategy honed by Billy Beane, the general manager at baseball's Oakland Athletics. As described in the book Moneyball, by Michael Lewis, players are assessed from performance statistics, not solely by scouts rating how good they look. Henry, however, said this did not mean they were not prepared to spend big fees on the right players, as the group has done when turning the Red Sox into a World Series-winning baseball team again.

 

"The Moneyball approach is about poor decision-making in baseball, based on anecdotal evidence [about players' qualities] as opposed to hard, statistical evidence. If the Red Sox are a Moneyball team it has to be noted that we are second in spending over the last decade within Major League Baseball. We have been successful through spending and through securing and developing young players."

 

That, he said, will be Liverpool's two-pronged approach to rebuilding the squad, which will be financed only out of its income; he and his fellow investors in Fenway will not be pouring cash in. "We intend to get younger, deeper and play positive football. Adding two top players [Carroll and Suárez] who have just turned 22 and 24 is a good first step."

 

Henry lavished praise on Dalglish, although he declined to say whether Dalglish is likely to be offered the job permanently. "We didn't know Kenny well prior to him coming aboard as manager," Henry said. "But he has exceeded our expectations on all fronts. It would be inappropriate to comment publicly on what happens beyond the end of this season."

 

FSG is, Henry confirmed, studying the possibility of expanding Anfield rather than building the long-mooted new stadium on Stanley Park, a plan which he criticised. "It's not a coincidence that the last two ownership groups could not get a new stadium built," he argued pointedly. "What they proposed or hoped for just didn't make any economic sense or they would have been built. A lot of time and effort is being put into study and creatively looking at all options."

 

With his first, extraordinary, transfer window done, in which Liverpool managed to part with English football's most astonishing fee ever while spending nothing overall, Henry argued the new American owners' strategy, to refashion Liverpool as a major club, is on course. "Our goal in Liverpool is to create the kind of stability that the Red Sox enjoy," he said. "We are committed to building for the long term."