When are we likely to get definitive stadium news?

[Delmar]

When Arsenal built their new stadium, their idea was (according to Wikipedia) that the "revenue from premium seating and corporate boxes is nearly as high as the revenue from the entire stadium at Highbury".

 

Now that would probably not be the case with us, however, the new Main Stand will have corporate boxes in there, and they will not be cheap.  Coupled with "premium seating" the whole thing might make sense for the owners.

[Trumo]

Just saw this on Skyscrapercity:

 

http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/documents/s130486/Appendix%201%20SRF.pdf

 

 

[robbiefowler9]

Ignoring for a second season tickets: in terms of the general sale, I've always found it impossible to get tickets; in my experience they sell out almost immediately. Granted I lived in Ireland and was trying to do it online but the fact remains that there is huge demand for tickets in the general sale, and that's where you get the money from OOTs and OOCs, who are also more likely to buy merchandise, etc.

 

So even if the ST waiting list is an inaccurate indication of demand, it's only one source of demand. Liverpool is a hugely popular club worldwide, particularly in Ireland and Scandinavia, with increasing brand awareness in North America and Asia. If increasing the capacity can satisfy the demand for both season tickets and foreign fans, then it's a financial no-brainer.

 

Throw into the mix the fact that champions league means more fixtures per season, that's further matchday revenue, and an increased number of corporate facilities should really enhance our income.

 

I'd be very curious to see FSG's income projections for an Anfield redevelopment.

 

 

[johnsusername]

Even before I had a season ticket, and ever since I gave it up, I've always found it pretty easy to get tickets for most matches. I honestly don't think there's as much demand as people think there is. You can only squeeze people's bank accounts so much before they make the decision to spend their money on something else (like I did).

 

Ignoring for a second season tickets: in terms of the general sale, I've always found it impossible to get tickets; in my experience they sell out almost immediately. Granted I lived in Ireland and was trying to do it online but the fact remains that there is huge demand for tickets in the general sale, and that's where you get the money from OOTs and OOCs, who are also more likely to buy merchandise, etc.

 

Funny - I honestly always thought preference was given to overseas buyers for tickets as they'd spend more money at the match than local fans. The club doesn't need local fans, they don't spend enough at the ground.

[Russ Atmosphere]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-26168685

Manchester City's Etihad Stadium expansion approved

[xerxes]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-26168685

Manchester City's Etihad Stadium expansion approved

To quote Nike- "just do it"

[xerxes]

When Arsenal built their new stadium, their idea was (according to Wikipedia) that the "revenue from [/size]premium seating and [/size]corporate boxes is nearly as high as the revenue from the entire stadium at Highbury".[/size]

 

Now that would probably not be the case with us, however, the new Main Stand will have corporate boxes in there, and they will not be cheap.  Coupled with "premium seating" the whole thing might make sense for the owners.[/size]

A new stadium/ significant redevelopment has always been in the long term interests of LFC. To date we have ben plagued by owners whose short term interests have prevented that.

 

Arsenal and Man U take around 40% of matchday revenue from their 9,900 and 10,700 premium seats respectively.

 

The demand for premium seating from corporate clients has been squandered for many years, and in recent years we have lost our to Man and now Man City, the corporate money goes to where the big Euro games and winners are.As we emerge from the wilderness I await FSG's response.

[ZonkoVille77]

Don't await too long xerxes, we'll all be worried about you.

[Ginny]

Just build a massive stadium like the emirates. How hard can it be like?

[FanchesterCity]

City are in a far more advantageous position than Liverpool when it comes to stadium expansion... there's effectively sod all in the way of it, other than a minority of objectors worried about increased traffic etc, so it's not a like for like comparison...

 

However, City put their plans to the public for consultation and everything was made clear to the fans too... we say the plans and the 'options' they were thinking of (one end, then the other, or both at the same time). We knew the ticket prices, and they've already been selling season tickets based on the new seats, in that sense 'just do it' is correct.

 

With Anfield, there always seems to be smoke and mirrors at play, with vague nods to regeneration projects, but not absolute 'this is what will happen, this is what it will cost, and this is when it will happen'.

 

It's a shame, and it's hard to blame FSG for being at the tail end of an already long overdue expansion.

 

Like I said, it's nowhere near a like for like comparison, but the lack of genuine clarity on the way forward for Anfield doesn't help.

[Killjoy]

So a new stadium and later an expansion then for City before we even have a spade in the ground.

 

Fuck my life.

[Trumo]

So a new stadium and later an expansion then for City before we even have a spade in the ground.

 

Fuck my life.

 

[Tony Moanero]

So a new stadium and later an expansion then for City before we even have a spade in the ground.

 

Fuck my life.

Balls to you, Killjoy.

[xerxes]

It's a shame, and it's hard to blame FSG for being at the tail end of an already long overdue expansion.

It is the lack of transparency, facts and debate which grates.

 

If FSG had approved a New Anfield on arrival it would have been open by now, and contributing, conservatively, around £30m a season to the coffers under FFP.

 

IF, a redeveloped Anfield goes ahead, by the time it is built, the lost revenue would have covered the money "saved" with a half new/half old stadium the likely result, rather than a new one.

 

Rodgers has done all that could have been asked of him on the field, FSG have not matched that off it.

[redasever]

It is the lack of transparency, facts and debate which grates.

 

If FSG had approved a New Anfield on arrival it would have been open by now, and contributing, conservatively, around £30m a season to the coffers under FFP.

 

IF, a redeveloped Anfield goes ahead, by the time it is built, the lost revenue would have covered the money "saved" with a half new/half old stadium the likely result, rather than a new one.

 

Rodgers has done all that could have been asked of him on the field, FSG have not matched that off it.

 

Because under FFP, you don't have to find the money, you don't have to pay back loans and you don't have to pay back interest on loans?

 

Complete nonsense.  

 

A new stadium never made money - it was either a dying administration clutching at straws or a paper exercise to increase the value of the club to sell it on the turn.  Still, there's one born every minute.

[Trumo]

Get a room you two!

[spider-neil]

Wah! Wah! I wanted a new shiny stadium! Wah!

 

More power to FSG for expanding arguably the greatest football temple rather than tearing it down for a soulless bowl.

[xerxes]

Because under FFP, you don't have to find the money, you don't have to pay back loans and you don't have to pay back interest on loans?

 

Complete nonsense.

 

 

A new stadium never made money - it was either a dying administration clutching at straws or a paper exercise to increase the value of the club to sell it on the turn.  Still, there's one born every minute.

 

It is your post which is complete nonsense.

 

 

Under FFP revenue counts, expenditure on loans doesn’t. That is where the advantage lies.

 

Your claim that “A new stadium never made money” is demonstrably untrue. Our current matchday revenue is around £45m a season. Man U and Arsenal from a 76k and 60k stadium respectively are grossing around £105m. Let us conservatively assume that we would do only half as well as the aforementioned for reasons of larger capacity and ticket prices respectively. That equals an extra £30m a season. Over 20 years that is £600m, more than enough to pay off a new stadium, with something to spare, and of course as the years go on, the more you make, until it is paid down, and it is all bunce. ( The above does not allow for ticket price inflation or the opportunity to offset increased tv revenues against loan payments)

 

You have swallowed Ayre’s PR whole- which is quite an achievement.

[Harry Squatter]

Where's the CPO money Joe?

[redasever]

It is your post which is complete nonsense.

 

 

Under FFP revenue counts, expenditure on loans doesn’t. That is where the advantage lies.

 

Your claim that “A new stadium never made money” is demonstrably untrue. Our current matchday revenue is around £45m a season. Man U and Arsenal from a 76k and 60k stadium respectively are grossing around £105m. Let us conservatively assume that we would do only half as well as the aforementioned for reasons of larger capacity and ticket prices respectively. That equals an extra £30m a season. Over 20 years that is £600m, more than enough to pay off a new stadium, with something to spare, and of course as the years go on, the more you make, until it is paid down, and it is all bunce. ( The above does not allow for ticket price inflation or the opportunity to offset increased tv revenues against loan payments)

 

You have swallowed Ayre’s PR whole- which is quite an achievement.

 

Oh dear... doesn't matter whether it's material to FFP or not, expenditure always counts for those who pay for it.

[xerxes]

doesn't matter whether it's material to FFP or not, expenditure always counts for those who pay for it.

Of course a new stadium has to be paid for, The New Anfield offered short, medium and long term profits, as I have demonstrated. The Club has opted for squeezing more cash, for no expenditure, from a capacity deliberately kept low to keep demand high. The archetypal capitalist, FSG ,model. Why spend for more when you can get more for no spend?

 

As for the significance of FFP, the impact of a £30m signing EVERY SEASON would clearly be considerable upon our fortunes, and revenue, on the pitch.That DOES matter.

 

There is a sentimental case for remaining at Anfield, and it is a valid one. Beyond that the Club has signally failed to present any measurable plans, or make a financial case for them. The so-called “saving” of developing in situ may already have been wiped out by the delay in building versus the extra income we would have had, and will continue to receive, from a New Anfield. Meanwhile we wait, and wait, and wait...

 

A redeveloped Anfield, in situ, could be fantastic. So let’s see the plans. A half new/half old stadium, putting off the day when two stands have to be upgraded, for a capacity which still falls short of what we are capable of, would be a fudge, and a missed opportunity.

 

I understand how FSG will see the ticket price squeeze which they have effected over the past few years as the most profitable, low risk route. I also understand how managing a large construction project in the UK is beyond the capabilities of the current team. But in order to replicate our success of the late 20th century into the 21st century we need a Board with vision, and modern facilities which maximise our potential are essential.

 

Recent regimes have drawn down on the success and goodwill of the past for a long time now. That does not last forever as our modest, but significant, slip in the Deloitte money list shows. In the PL era, we have done pretty much nothing save seat the Kop, whilst Chelsea have rebuilt three sides of Stamford Bridge, Man U have increased the capacity of OT by around 50%, Man City have moved AND are increasing capacity, and Arsenal have moved increasing capacity by 50% - whilst our share of increased home attendance is the worst in the NW, and amongst the worst anywhere.To date there is no evidence of when that will change, or what that change will be.

[redasever]

Of course a new stadium has to be paid for, The New Anfield offered short, medium and long term profits, as I have demonstrated. The Club has opted for squeezing more cash, for no expenditure, from a capacity deliberately kept low to keep demand high. The archetypal capitalist, FSG ,model. Why spend for more when you can get more for no spend?

 

As for the significance of FFP, the impact of a £30m signing EVERY SEASON would clearly be considerable upon our fortunes, and revenue, on the pitch.That DOES matter.

 

There is a sentimental case for remaining at Anfield, and it is a valid one. Beyond that the Club has signally failed to present any measurable plans, or make a financial case for them. The so-called “saving” of developing in situ may already have been wiped out by the delay in building versus the extra income we would have had, and will continue to receive, from a New Anfield. Meanwhile we wait, and wait, and wait...

 

A redeveloped Anfield, in situ, could be fantastic. So let’s see the plans. A half new/half old stadium, putting off the day when two stands have to be upgraded, for a capacity which still falls short of what we are capable of, would be a fudge, and a missed opportunity.

 

I understand how FSG will see the ticket price squeeze which they have effected over the past few years as the most profitable, low risk route. I also understand how managing a large construction project in the UK is beyond the capabilities of the current team. But in order to replicate our success of the late 20th century into the 21st century we need a Board with vision, and modern facilities which maximise our potential are essential.

 

Recent regimes have drawn down on the success and goodwill of the past for a long time now. That does not last forever as our modest, but significant, slip in the Deloitte money list shows. In the PL era, we have done pretty much nothing save seat the Kop, whilst Chelsea have rebuilt three sides of Stamford Bridge, Man U have increased the capacity of OT by around 50%, Man City have moved AND are increasing capacity, and Arsenal have moved increasing capacity by 50% - whilst our share of increased home attendance is the worst in the NW, and amongst the worst anywhere.To date there is no evidence of when that will change, or what that change will be.

 

Nothing new of substance other than the rather silly and wholly unsubstantiated slur on the owners' development expertise. Have you thought about the stage?

[Razoray]

Of course a new stadium has to be paid for, The New Anfield offered short, medium and long term profits, as I have demonstrated. The Club has opted for squeezing more cash, for no expenditure, from a capacity deliberately kept low to keep demand high. The archetypal capitalist, FSG ,model. Why spend for more when you can get more for no spend?As for the significance of FFP, the impact of a £30m signing EVERY SEASON would clearly be considerable upon our fortunes, and revenue, on the pitch.That DOES matter.There is a sentimental case for remaining at Anfield, and it is a valid one. Beyond that the Club has signally failed to present any measurable plans, or make a financial case for them. The so-called “saving” of developing in situ may already have been wiped out by the delay in building versus the extra income we would have had, and will continue to receive, from a New Anfield. Meanwhile we wait, and wait, and wait...A redeveloped Anfield, in situ, could be fantastic. So let’s see the plans. A half new/half old stadium, putting off the day when two stands have to be upgraded, for a capacity which still falls short of what we are capable of, would be a fudge, and a missed opportunity.I understand how FSG will see the ticket price squeeze which they have effected over the past few years as the most profitable, low risk route. I also understand how managing a large construction project in the UK is beyond the capabilities of the current team. But in order to replicate our success of the late 20th century into the 21st century we need a Board with vision, and modern facilities which maximise our potential are essential.Recent regimes have drawn down on the success and goodwill of the past for a long time now. That does not last forever as our modest, but significant, slip in the Deloitte money list shows. In the PL era, we have done pretty much nothing save seat the Kop, whilst Chelsea have rebuilt three sides of Stamford Bridge, Man U have increased the capacity of OT by around 50%, Man City have moved AND are increasing capacity, and Arsenal have moved increasing capacity by 50% - whilst our share of increased home attendance is the worst in the NW, and amongst the worst anywhere.To date there is no evidence of when that will change, or what that change will be.

So you state that the £30m extra revenue over 20 years would pay off the £600m debt of the new stadium, but also buy a £30m signing every season. How does that work?

Arsenal paid off their debt in 10 years and they spent virtually nil net (sorry!!) in that time on players. If zero is spent on the current Liverpool squad we'll have a shiny new stadium with a load of muppets playing inside it every 2nd week

[Razoray]

It is your post which is complete nonsense.Under FFP revenue counts, expenditure on loans doesn’t. That is where the advantage lies.Your claim that “A new stadium never made money” is demonstrably untrue. Our current matchday revenue is around £45m a season. Man U and Arsenal from a 76k and 60k stadium respectively are grossing around £105m. Let us conservatively assume that we would do only half as well as the aforementioned for reasons of larger capacity and ticket prices respectively. That equals an extra £30m a season. Over 20 years that is £600m, more than enough to pay off a new stadium, with something to spare, and of course as the years go on, the more you make, until it is paid down, and it is all bunce. ( The above does not allow for ticket price inflation or the opportunity to offset increased tv revenues against loan payments)You have swallowed Ayre’s PR whole- which is quite an achievement.

Using Old Trafford to prove a point about building a "new" stadium. WTF????

[xerxes]

Nothing new of substance other than the rather silly and wholly unsubstantiated slur on the owners' development expertise. Have you thought about the stage?

I concentrate on the facts. Substance is signally absent from your contribution, not mine..

 

When you have something substantive to offer the debate, please do so. As for the stage, I could use you as a stooge,you're good at it.