redasever

That’s so wrong, it’s funny... 27500 premium seats at Anfield... more than double Old Trafford (10,000 - er, about 13%)... more than the Emirates... Anfield (which costs nothing to build) has less scope for cheap prices... a new stadium is twice the cost but can have cheaper prices... the Anfield Plaza is of ‘certain’ economic benefit and will create significant numbers of jobs... You need more people to work in a new stadium with the same facilities... German stadia deliver financially (and at that, without government aid)... you can read FSG’s mind... All crackers. Great stuff - it’s how you tell ‘em. .

Because it would cost even more and even more per seat It has to work today and it has to work in thirty years time. Nobody is going to wait any length of time for a return on the investment - for the surplus for re-investment in the club. The value of the proposal is effectively evened out over the whole life of the asset. So if it’s a billion pounds over thirty years, it’s money in the bank now, not wait 15 years for a pay day. It doesn’t matter if FSG stay or go, the viability of the stadium rumbles on. .

Your dogma is showing again. For any given range that a market can support (currently £45 to £456 at Anfield), the ceiling that either stadium option can offer is the same but the floor is higher for a new stadium because of the very much larger cost ie., its lowest prices are higher than a redevelopment can offer and therefore has less elasticity of price. You cannot increase scope for lower prices by upping capacity to 70k. That’s bollocks. There’s only so many upmarket seats you can sell. Adding on more, more expensive to build seats won’t help you offer cheaper seats to anyone. It’s going the wrong way. In short, there really is more scope for some cheaper seats for families etc at Anfield because the club doesn’t have to pay so much to build them. .

As you say, gut feelings are no way to run a business. They’ve got all our own prejudgements built into them. As someone said, the greatest hindrance to progress is experience... But it never is just one seat or anything like it. Revenue per seat is extremely useful in context particularly since this exercise is more or less nailing the comparison to quite a small range (60k to 65k) or at its extreme 45000 to 65000. Agreed, a stadium needs infrastructure (road, rail etc etc). There is a problem with the length of the ‘core experience’ in football (5mins before, a quick wazz at half time and off to town from the kick off). So you might also consider ‘associated retail’ ie., the Yawkey Way idea in Boston but there are other and less risky ‘financially supporting’ developments (sponsorships, advertising and to a degree, events) which have a greater return on investment. But you’re right, the value of Anfield as a brand (together with a bit of heritage brand) is in the assessment of options I’m sure. Someone, somewhere, has put a number on that because some people travel to Anfield to experience the vibe of the place as much as to watch the football (if there’s any on at the time). Call it what you like - brand, mystique, heritage - it’s got value. I’m sure it hasn’t escaped the owners of Fenway. I’m not sure I can say the same thing about the architecture of stadia. The Allianz Arena is a great signboard for Allianz but it completely wipes any other income generation (including Bayern as a brand) off the map. For me, the building should add to the brand of the club, not be anonymous (a wasted opportunity), not devalue the brand (be cheap and nasty) and not fight the brand (the Allianz Arena). The outside look of the ground should represent the values of the club. Straightforward, honest, awesome. .

Well, the best that can be said is that there’s been a lot of change... but essentialy I agree. It hasn't been top of the top drawer has it? But despite whatever football issues might be had with FSG, I have no reason to doubt their attention to detail and careful progress. But you’re absolutely right to ask has the (matchday) bubble burst already. I’m sure FSG have considered the same issue (and will plan accordingly ie., for steady progress without over-stretching the club). And there's other things to look at... Bayern earns £160m a year from commercial revenues. Madrid and Barca, £155m and £140m. United £100m (from memory). Ours is £77m (?). Plenty of room for growth there but saying it’s so don’t make it so. You have to get out there and get it. ‘Global revenue is the priority’ - the first thing JWH said when he came. .

And they got the stadium for three parts swagger and a thank you... it's all happening for sure but I'm not sure so much in Liverpool. The top premium seat at Anfield currently works out at £8,500 per season. Not exactly £1500 a pop... .

£300m for 15k seats is such a big deal as everything is monthly and annual. Everything gets spread out over the term of the feasibility. As I said everything is for now and for the long term. It must work now and ‘forever’ (the life of the stadium). But I know that’s not what you were asking... the ‘intangible’ matchday spend, the add-ons and goodies are all already in the package. All wrapped up in the ‘revenue per seat’ - it’s not just ticket prices. The conference and concert market is pretty much sewn up at the Echo Arena for the bigger stuff although the occasional Paul McCartney does happen. There’s not a huge smaller event market and plenty of cheap competition. There will always be weddings. Arsenal make a lot of it, maybe there’s some for LFC but in comparing new v redevelopment you take it as even stevens (but concerts on the pitch are not allowed in a new stadium). I can see a whole football quarter thing going on with training pitches, soccer school, academies, sports science etc etc (rather than a general sports, pool, cycling thing) but they all have their own costs and their own feasibilities. It’s just a sense, but for me it’s not priority and another group of risks, rewards and benefit. I wouldn’t call any of it ‘supporting development’ to help a stadium out. The stadium must work as as a stadium, stand alone. I think it was the second thing JWH said when he came. .

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. .

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. .

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

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. .

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. .

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

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 .

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. .

Council presented three options to the residents of the the Rockfield Triangle last Tuesday (details here Rockfield Refurbishment Options - The Triangle - Supporting Local People ). The club were also present (presumably as property owners). The local residents say that the club preferred option 3 (which was best for redevelopment). They also said that GVA Grimley has been putting offers to the locals on the club's behalf for properties in Lothair Road and Alroy Road - at least one of which has been accepted. The residents also say a survey to assess rights of light is under way in the area. .

Ta-rah then. .

When you run out of argument you get arsey. It's your style. You have to live with it. Just once or twice try answering a question or responding to a point made. Anyone else might learn something... nah! - back in the box. Best to stay positive. .

...is more or less spot on. A 16,500 Main Stand is achievable without considering the corners. In fact it could be a whole lot bigger within maximum recommended viewing distances but it just isn’t necessary. Similarly each corner could accommodate 3,400 within viewing distances but it would be better to settle for about 1100 to the height of the back of the Centenary Stand (also less roof work all round). The Anfield Road End can be of a very similar size to the Main Stand although 15,000 is enough (again without corners). But some of the hospitality already in the ARE works out at more than £4,500 a head per season (19 games). 500 of those would do better than 10 or 20 (or even 40) boxes at £6,500 per head, be less expensive to build (for more return) and no doubt easier to sell. You could expand the kop a little but it's maybe not worth the cost. This similar: anfield_120512plan3 by Peter McGurk, on Flickr

I couldn't give a monkey's fist for what goes on at your home turf or Aston Villa or at the Emirates. Rather than look at what was done, why not look at what can be done? But that's not your home turf is it? .

So, no comment on what's actually put to you. Again and as ever. I'm always around mate. You were getting out of hand again. Get back in your box. .

Erm no. Not fact. Modern stadia are almost square - check out the Allianz Arena. allianz-plan , on Flickr Not that we need more boxes anyway. Premium seats make more money. Anfield’s premium seats range from £3,000 to £8,500 a season. Some of the more expensive ones are already in the Anfield Road End. Big stands yes. Huge stands no. Nobody going mad. As you say, stick to what you know.

Unless you know something we don't know, they have not. Council want to clear and grass over Lothair Road. It's a standard tidy up procedure. They would like the club to give them the houses for free.... .

If in doubt, call someone a name... As I said. if you want to be informed - do some research. No one's going to do it for you. .

What? You say that without backing it up with any scientific evidence? Seriously, if you want to know, just google it. Read some articles, gather some information. Have a think for yourself. Clearly, it would make a change. .