redasever

Lower construction costs. Safe standing (more people per square foot). Local government subsidy on infrastructure....

Ah mate you'll have to look it up, there's a graph somewhere - I think it's on RAWK and a whole thread, but it's never reach 50k. And yes, the world has moved on but yes, we have a lot of other interests these days but no we've still never cracked as high a percentage of capacity and price paid as other 'top' clubs.

Give me a break, I'm typing as fast as I can. I won't give you figures but I can tell you generally that... ...we need to build about 18,000 seats to get to 60k (some will be removed). Currently pricing indicates about £3,500 per seat for a 'regional' stadium and £5,000 per seat for a national stadium (Davis Langdon, QS). So you could say it's 90k on the basis of the upper figure or roughly 25% of what we are hearing for new. Personally, I've always been happy to say between 50% and 70% of a new stadium.

That's a really good point. How many people come to visit Anfield, make the pilgrimage, do the tour, buy the shirt and more intangibly perhaps, attach themselves to the history - the thing that makes us different? How much is Anfield worth to the club? Is it more than naming rights?

)))

Don’t follow that. The Main Stand would have private boxes, corporate dining, sports bars, bars, snack bars and a sky bar - potentially a place for every person in the stand. The four corners would have all that (like OT) and the Annie Road would have that but no private boxes. The Centenary currently holds our premium seats with boxes and some hospitality (it could be made better but frankly I don’t see it happening). The Kop is the kop and (in my view) doesn’t need or want any of that stuff. So, I don’t think we’ll lag behind. Again, as our MD says, the difference in potential revenue between redevelopment and new is minimal. The space behind the AR is flat and empty (and effectively part of the site). The area behind the Kop is due for complete ‘clearance’ under council plans (1800 homes). The area behind the Main Stand is ‘under review’ for the same purpose. Between the club and council, they own all but 8 of the houses in Lothair Road. So with a slightly more helpful attitude from council, you are looking at ‘acquiring’ 8 houses to make it work - certainly to 60k, perhaps even 70k. I understand that local residents have rejected £68,000 for each house. There was some talk of Crosby being a suitable area for relocation..... with a bit more realism all round there has to be a deal in there somewhere.

i hope you've noticed I try not to talk daft. There is plenty of info around to base projections on (a lot of it from DeLoitte, as someone else has mentioned). This stuff is checked and evaluated all the time - no one is guessing here. There is a Sports Business industry out there, after all.

That’s nice. The source is credible and they’ve done a great deal in sport and the premiership in particular but it’s entirely relevant only for the club’s concerned and each and every one of has different circumstances as much as ours is different to each and every one of theirs. Also, it doesn’t go on to mention that prices have stalled at the Emirates (and Stamford Bridge) or that Old Trafford has cancelled further expansion because they “don’t think we’ll fill it”.

Yeah that would be great but the club would go bust...

And pigs might fly. FSG have already said they will spend from revenue only (vide transfer situation). Capital growth from a football club??? Come back H&G all is forgiven! £15m a year on naming rights???? Yes, I will believe that but only when I see it.

As I suspect you well know, their circumstances are entirely different. Arsenal for example had a 2,000 home development to sell and the nucleus of the fourth largest world economy on its doorstep.

The largest attendances are in Madrid and Barcelona, the largest SPEND in the UK is in London. The largest attendance is Manchester. Greater Manchester has a population of 2.5m and a greater “GVA” (ie. economy) than Merseyside which has a population of 1.5m and let’s be honest, is not doing as well. Yes, there’s a massive global fanbase but how many of them get to the match? If United were based in Cornwall, they’d still be in the Tin Miners Premiership with all the other Cornish clubs (are there any???)

You might be surprised but how can you back it up? Our attendance has never reached 50,000 even when it was two rabbits and a No.6 to get in and we had a capacity of over 60,000 and we’ve never paid the prices or bought the boxes that other clubs achieve. People talk like concrete and steel comes for free or ‘someone else will pay’ - fact is we will pay. You and me. It’s very simple - a new stadium of any size will cost more than the extra money it generates. Listen to the man - a new stadium doesn’t make money (and a bigger one would make less). It’s called over-capitalisation and it would be disastrous.

Have I ever been rude to you?? Have I ever upset you??? So less of the retard thanks.

Not really, I’ve got a pretty good idea. The figures are based on only a reasonable expansion of pricing option from the current £940 per seat to £1200 per seat all inclusive of corporates etc etc. You could say it should be £1430 (the same as Old Trafford) but from Ayre’s comments (“a new stadium makes very little money indeed...”), you have to think they are being as conservative. As for Wigan on a wet Monday, be careful what you wish for. If a new stadium makes so little and council are not so helpful, staying in a 45k Anfield might be just what we get or worse.

A lot of people have signed up again for the waiting list and paid a fiver. But that's not sales. No one has signed up to the list on the basis of price. The numbers would be more credible if they were advance sales - price agreed and money paid.

I am an Architect. I do it for a job. I would love to design the stadium of the club I love. What would be better than that??? But it isn't going to happen. Architects don't rock up to clients and say I'm a fan, gizajob. I'm sorry if the message you're getting from me disappoints you but I care for the club and I care for us, the fans. I don't want it and us shackled to a white elephant. I find your allegations hugely insulting. You're not the first to make them and not only here. You know who I am. I'm not hiding. If I knew who you were I'd let you know all about it, thanks. .

The real evidence is there and has been discussed elsewhere. I could find it for you again if you haven't seen it but in short, look at the populations and relative wealth of all the areas that have big attendances. I would never say anything is self-evident but it's already pretty convincing when you look at the relative populations of Madrid and Barcelona, London and Manchester and compare prices and attendances. Compared to where we are now, no it would not be feasible - no way at all. As Ian Ayres has pointed out, we're only getting an extra 15000 seats at a huge cost (or for the purposes of this discussion, an extra 25000 extra seats at an enormous cost. .

It's not hard to work out. A 70k stadium might earn filled 80% of the time and to 60,000 20% of the time could earn just short of £82m a year. Since we already get £42m a year, that £40m a year more. The capital and interests payments on a 70k stadium would be about just over £40m - so it loses money. Not bollocks, just maths. It’s the H&G spend, spend, spend mentality that’s got us in this mess, not the real economics of the situation. And I'm with the guy with big socks on the actual likely attendance. Perhaps we could talk about on a rainy Monday night against Wigan. .

You might think it's bogus but you're not telling us why. You're just saying you think it's bogus. Not so convincing. Presumably you also think that JWH is bogus when he has said pretty much the same thing. And presumably you think that the research and the real correlation of all those factors at clubs such as Real Madrid, Barcelona, Arsenal, Chelsea and Man United are also bogus?? You have to understand that the difference between opinion ("this works or doesn't work") and assessment ("this works or doesn't work because...") is pretty fundamental to any decent decision-making. .

The owners know that at £940 per seat, our revenue per seat looks a bit sad next to even OT at £1430. They also know we don't have as big a corporate market to subsidise 'ordinary' fans. To grow revenue they have to increase numbers and increase numbers who will pay more. In a 60k stadium, the balance might be about 7,200 premium seats including boxes and 52,800 standard seats in a range of prices starting from current prices and going up. Out of the additional 7,800 'standard' seats, there might be room for investment in cheaper seats to secure the future, but it's likely to be either one-off cheap nights or a relatively modest number of family seats particularly if a good part of it goes to full-on season ticket prices. The number of premium seats is probably about maxed at 7,200, so there's no more help or 'subsidy' to add another 10,000 seats which are going to be proportionately more expensive to build anyway. .

I don't how you can say that; particularly when all the 'evidence' (population, affordability, economic, activity, accessibility, previous attendance record) is to the contrary but nevertheless - if we filled a new 70,000 seater 80% of the time, it wouldn't make money - even at quite high prices. Offering cheap seats to kids and families would kill it stone dead. A redeveloped 70k stadium would do better but still, the bigger it gets the more costly it gets proportionately and then the infrastructure costs.... .

We wouldn't. The bigger the stadium, the higher the average prices. Generally most of us aren't as affluent as some and there aren't as many of us that are. There's no huge corporate market that's going to subsidise the more expensive-to-build seats in the gods for families. .

You said that a comparison between new and redeveloped on the basis of 60k capacity was a fallacy. Ooooohkay. Did you mean that the revenue wouldn't be the same or the capacity wouldn't be the same? Assuming you meant the former (I don't want to put words in your mouth, you understand but you're not helping me here), ie., that the capacity, number of boxes and corporate facilities wouldn't be the same; on what basis would you say that would be so? .

I've never held that opinion, let alone expressed it. Could you quote it, please? I'm sorry, this got buried. I wasn't ignoring it. You said... I think you have to agree that that is effectively saying that Anfield cannot hold 60k. .