"The argument stands where a redeveloped Anfield does not have the cost of re-building 45,000 seats! By adding (only) 15,000 seats the costs are greatly reduced. This is not a piece-by-piece refurb as such - it’s a new addition, behind the existing stands and all-year round.
Top dollar for naming rights in our context is nowhere near the records achieved elsewhere. And even our surprisingly big shirt deal is ‘only’ 1.5m more than Man U."
Ok so 15k brings us to 60k. In your opinion we can fill no more, is that right? I dont know the exact price for 15k extra seats but i would say its around 100m because of a new roof. With no room for expansion beyond 60k and also keeping prices down, you are saying that we will compete with United for the next 100 years? Sincerely doubt it Peter.
JWH has made the point that we’re not in London (and we’re not in Manchester).
We are squeezed on prices now and the local business market is not as big as either of those two places. If we carried on with the same prices that we pay now in a 60k stadium, we’d still be about £54m a year behind United. So prices must go up or better for us, more corporates must come in.
But if we build a new stadium, United’s position becomes almost unassailable. They have a bigger market who can afford more. But they have also spent so ‘little’ on a redevelopment that they make more profit. More than we could ever hope to make if we have to pay for a new stadium.
I'm sure you are aware that football is the biggest sport in the world (both on TV and match day) and lfc is one of the biggest clubs in the world. NFL is not so popular outside of the US so I think it would be of greater interest to market a "soccer" team in the fareast since its popular there already. I've never heard of Farmers Insurance but obviously they are a major player in the states and probably dont give a toss about Aisa. We would be looking for a sponser with ambition and wants to be recognised globally. So going along with what seems to be FSG's plan to makes us a heavily supported club and a household name, i arrive at the conclusion that we would attract more investment than a NFL team who is happy with its local (national) support.
It's not about how big the sport is, it's more about who is watching it. There's an awful lot of people in the US who watch NFL and
need insurance. The market spending power is immense and that’s Farmers interest - they care for American Football only that it’s well supported in their market place.
Similarly, Warrior no doubt want to sell sports kit in the Far East and so are willing to pay for that exposure. The Emirates want to sell flights to the City etc etc
The unanswered question is, who has the biggest interest in selling to our markets and is their interest as big as Farmers or Warrior or Emirates....?
So your saying that there is no short term benefit (we will be financially no better or worse off) but it will benefit us in 15-30 years time? that to me still says a new stadium is the way forward for the long term good of the club.
No, I'm saying we'll still lag behind our competitors for another 15-30 years - a real disaster for the long term good of the club.