The LiverpoolFC Forum > The Stadium Debate

Staying at Anfield?

(1/15) > >>

Discipline:
Liverpool owner John Henry has hinted the club could be set to redevelop Anfield, saying it is a "myth" that a new stadium will improve the Reds' financial fortunes.

The feasibility of building a new ground on Stanley Park has long been mooted by Fenway Sports Group (FSG).

But Henry says a new stadium is not vital for Liverpool's long-term future.

"A long-term myth has existed about the financial impact of a new stadium," he said in an email to theanfieldwrap.com. 

"A belief has grown that Liverpool FC must have a new stadium to compete with [Manchester] United, Arsenal and others.

"No-one has ever addressed whether or not a new stadium is rational."

FSG is believed to have long favoured the remodelling of Anfield and was faced with a similar situation with one of their other clubs, the Boston Red Sox.

• LFC stadium: Timeline of events
2002: Plans announced to build a 55,000-seater stadium on Stanley Park
2004: Planning permission approved for Stanley Park
2005: Groundshare ideas with Everton rejected
2006: Council give go-ahead to proceed with new stadium
2006: European Regional Development Fund awards grant towards Stanley Park improvements
2007: Redevelopment statement issued that new stadium work will begin in May
2007: New Reds owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks order stadium redesign
2007: Reds reveal plans for 60,000-seater stadium on Stanley Park
2008: Liverpool confirm building of new stadium will be subject to a delay
2009: Liverpool announce new stadium plans could start in April 2010
2010: Groundshare ideas with Everton discussed
2011: News that planning obstacles could affect redevelopment of Anfield
2012: Liverpool announce plans to continue with new stadium at Stanley Park
2012: Discussions over redeveloping Anfield announced
After conducting a feasibility study for around a year, FSG opted to redevelop the 100-year-old Fenway Park and Henry hinted last year he was keen to do something similar with Anfield, stating that it would be hard to replicate the atmosphere generated at the stadium.

The American also believes moving to Stanley Park would likely result in higher ticket prices and feels the best method for the club to compete financially with the Premier League's leading sides would be to increase their worldwide commercial revenue streams instead.

"New stadiums increase revenues primarily by raising ticket prices - especially premium seating," added Henry.

"While a new stadium or an expansion of Anfield is beneficial over the long term for the club, the financial impact of adding seats and amenities should be put into perspective.

"That's why I say that it is a myth that stadium issues are going to magically transform LFC's fortunes.

"Building new or refurbishing Anfield is going to lead to an increase from £40m of match-day revenue to perhaps £60-70m if you don't factor in debt service.

"That would certainly help but it's just one component of LFC's long-term fortunes.

"Our future is based not on a stadium issue but on building a strong football club that can compete with anyone in Europe. This will be principally driven financially by our commercial strengths globally."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18461597

CraigDS:
Already being discussed in about 3 threads mate!

Discipline:
Mods, close the thread. Didn't know that. :(

Red Beret:
Seeing as it's not been closed yet ;) I just want to add a little aside that's not related to current developments.

It was Parry who decided we needed a new stadium and it was Moores - clueless businessman that he was - who agreed.  If LFC had had the kind of commercial development back in 1999 that we have now, like we'd have been generating so much money Moores would never had needed to sell in the first place.  It was his and Parry's inertia that brought us to this point.  Moores said we needed a new stadium because Parry said so.  Parry said it because he said to expand Anfield would take years of fiddly negotiations that were not practical - never mind the fact that if they had been arsed doing those negotiations a new stadium would likely have been up and running 6 years ago.

It all comes down to the money.  Get us winning on the pitch and give the commercial arm something it can exploit and sell to raise the money we need.  Everything else should flow from there.

djphal:

--- Quote from: Discipline on June 16, 2012, 02:09:16 PM ---Mods, close the thread. Didn't know that. :(

--- End quote ---

you need more Discipline

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page