Topic: anfield road stand

[Peter McGurk]

Do you really have to resort to throwing insults at anybody who doesn't agree with your point of view?

Given the amount of shite we've signed and sold on at huge losses over the last 25 years, the redevelopment of the stand wouldn't be that big a financial risk.

I think you'll find I'm one of the least likely to throw 'shite' as you call it but in this case it's entirely justified.

[Peter McGurk]

If the Annie Road End is undeveloped though our capacity will be around 53,800 which, I think, is substantially less.

Obviously the financials have to work out to make it viable, but it seems to me that we've gone from a near consensus that around 60K was viable to a determination in some quarters to prove that developing the Anfield Road End would be a waste of time.  If developing the ARE is not viable, I'm sure a similar argument could have been made around the new General Admission seats in the Main Stand. 

The Transfer Market is so mad these days that the £70 Million it would probably cost to develop this stand is about the price of 2 slightly above average strikers.

On that basis that's two slightly above average strikers that the club won't be able to buy.

[Peter McGurk]

That's why I said we are only recently making attempts to catch up. As good as the new MS is, I still think we need a bigger, modern ARE to bring the ground up to anything like the standards of a club of the stature of LFC.

I don't think it's a bizarre comment at all. I'd hazard a guess that most of our fans think we've tread water on and off the pitch for too long, and I'd guess that most would believe that it's only now that we are making real attempts to catch up. Judging by the comments of many who frequent the current ARE I'd guess that plenty believe that it's a pretty poor stand. The club have the space to expand there now, and they certainly have the money. Judging by the ST waiting list it would appear the demand is also there. Personally, I hope the club continue with the ambition shown with the new MS and take it further with a bigger and improved ARE. Some may disagree and that's their right, but I don't think it's in any way bizarre to desire such an outcome.

'Stature', 'desire', 'want', 'deserve', slippery slope.

Been there, done that. How about 'prudence' for a change.

[Rosti]

Don't get me wrong. I know nothing about finance or building, but I always find it odd that we blow countless millions on highly risky transfers and have lavished obscene wages on very average players, yet when it comes to keeping our iconic ground up to date and aiming for a capacity that even tries to get near the level of demand we seem to back off and let others pass us.

For one, a new signing is a different kind of financial risk. You can run the maths on a stadium expansion, get a quote, and have a pretty solid idea of what sort of return on investment you will get. In some ways that makes it an attractive prospect because it's a fairly known quantity (though you do need some assumptions over continued stature of the club and subsequent demand for tickets). For a new signing you're signing them on potential for them to become good and taking an element of risk that they won't fulfil that. It's apples and oranges, and in a sense it's probably easier to gamble £25m on a player who could either be the next Suarez or a flop, than it is to commit three times as much on a stadium expansion you know won't give a return for several years.

And for two, new signings are a continued cost of operating as a football club. £80m can either buy an expanded ARE, or covers us for net transfer spend for about 2-3 seasons.  If we don't spend £80m on a stadium expansion, then Liverpool continues to operate without much problem aside from ticket demand vastly outstripping supply (which doesn't necessarily hurt the owners all that much). If we don't change the squad for two or three seasons straight, then that's an entirely different matter and one that would most likely have serious consequences on the stature of the club. Buying new players, even if they turn out to be mediocre, is just an operating cost that we have to live with. A stadium expansion is entirely optional and money we don't have to spend.

I also think that as far as FSG are concerned, the performances on the pitch matter substantially more than anything to do with the stadium around it. If fans expect FSG to be looking at things with a financial spin (which, irrespective of split opinion on an ARE expansion's profitability, does seem to be fairly well agreed upon), then I'd point out that in our last financial statements we had matchday revenue around £60m for the year, compared to £125m for broadcasting revenue, and £115m for commercial deals. Expanding the ARE will probably give a nice boost to our matchday revenue, but that's still comfortably the smallest slice of the pie in terms of money coming in. Maybe we'll fall behind lesser clubs like West Ham in terms of capacity, but so long as our club brand is significantly stronger we'll always be way ahead for revenue. We earn more than twice as much revenue compared to Newcastle United despite a smaller stadium.

Compared to the extra sponsorship money and TV deals that can come from winning trophies or even just Champions League qualification, any income from an ARE expansion is going to be fairly small fry. And that I would say is the primary reason why the club might (and I just say might, because to be honest who even knows at this point) prefer to spend on risky investment in the squad over less risky investment in the stadium. Even if it ends up being poorly spent money, the gains are potentially a lot higher when it comes off, and that's ignoring direct profitability on player transfers as well.

[Son of Spion]

Rosti, thank you for your considered and indepth reply.

Maybe I'm just an old school romantic who hates the way everything in football seems to come down to pounds and pence these days, especially when the game is awash with obscene amounts of cash. There's never been so much money around, yet pounds and pence are put forward time and again as the reason not to do things. As I said though, I'm no money man and it's not my money at risk. Despite that, I really do still hope the ARE does get redeveloped. Thanks again for the response.

[Alan_X]

For one, a new signing is a different kind of financial risk. You can run the maths on a stadium expansion, get a quote, and have a pretty solid idea of what sort of return on investment you will get. In some ways that makes it an attractive prospect because it's a fairly known quantity (though you do need some assumptions over continued stature of the club and subsequent demand for tickets). For a new signing you're signing them on potential for them to become good and taking an element of risk that they won't fulfil that. It's apples and oranges, and in a sense it's probably easier to gamble £25m on a player who could either be the next Suarez or a flop, than it is to commit three times as much on a stadium expansion you know won't give a return for several years.

And for two, new signings are a continued cost of operating as a football club. £80m can either buy an expanded ARE, or covers us for net transfer spend for about 2-3 seasons.  If we don't spend £80m on a stadium expansion, then Liverpool continues to operate without much problem aside from ticket demand vastly outstripping supply (which doesn't necessarily hurt the owners all that much). If we don't change the squad for two or three seasons straight, then that's an entirely different matter and one that would most likely have serious consequences on the stature of the club. Buying new players, even if they turn out to be mediocre, is just an operating cost that we have to live with. A stadium expansion is entirely optional and money we don't have to spend.

I also think that as far as FSG are concerned, the performances on the pitch matter substantially more than anything to do with the stadium around it. If fans expect FSG to be looking at things with a financial spin (which, irrespective of split opinion on an ARE expansion's profitability, does seem to be fairly well agreed upon), then I'd point out that in our last financial statements we had matchday revenue around £60m for the year, compared to £125m for broadcasting revenue, and £115m for commercial deals. Expanding the ARE will probably give a nice boost to our matchday revenue, but that's still comfortably the smallest slice of the pie in terms of money coming in. Maybe we'll fall behind lesser clubs like West Ham in terms of capacity, but so long as our club brand is significantly stronger we'll always be way ahead for revenue. We earn more than twice as much revenue compared to Newcastle United despite a smaller stadium.

Compared to the extra sponsorship money and TV deals that can come from winning trophies or even just Champions League qualification, any income from an ARE expansion is going to be fairly small fry. And that I would say is the primary reason why the club might (and I just say might, because to be honest who even knows at this point) prefer to spend on risky investment in the squad over less risky investment in the stadium. Even if it ends up being poorly spent money, the gains are potentially a lot higher when it comes off, and that's ignoring direct profitability on player transfers as well.

Thanks for that. Really well put.

[Nessy76]

For one, a new signing is a different kind of financial risk. You can run the maths on a stadium expansion, get a quote, and have a pretty solid idea of what sort of return on investment you will get. In some ways that makes it an attractive prospect because it's a fairly known quantity (though you do need some assumptions over continued stature of the club and subsequent demand for tickets). For a new signing you're signing them on potential for them to become good and taking an element of risk that they won't fulfil that. It's apples and oranges, and in a sense it's probably easier to gamble £25m on a player who could either be the next Suarez or a flop, than it is to commit three times as much on a stadium expansion you know won't give a return for several years.

And for two, new signings are a continued cost of operating as a football club. £80m can either buy an expanded ARE, or covers us for net transfer spend for about 2-3 seasons.  If we don't spend £80m on a stadium expansion, then Liverpool continues to operate without much problem aside from ticket demand vastly outstripping supply (which doesn't necessarily hurt the owners all that much). If we don't change the squad for two or three seasons straight, then that's an entirely different matter and one that would most likely have serious consequences on the stature of the club. Buying new players, even if they turn out to be mediocre, is just an operating cost that we have to live with. A stadium expansion is entirely optional and money we don't have to spend.

I also think that as far as FSG are concerned, the performances on the pitch matter substantially more than anything to do with the stadium around it. If fans expect FSG to be looking at things with a financial spin (which, irrespective of split opinion on an ARE expansion's profitability, does seem to be fairly well agreed upon), then I'd point out that in our last financial statements we had matchday revenue around £60m for the year, compared to £125m for broadcasting revenue, and £115m for commercial deals. Expanding the ARE will probably give a nice boost to our matchday revenue, but that's still comfortably the smallest slice of the pie in terms of money coming in. Maybe we'll fall behind lesser clubs like West Ham in terms of capacity, but so long as our club brand is significantly stronger we'll always be way ahead for revenue. We earn more than twice as much revenue compared to Newcastle United despite a smaller stadium.

Compared to the extra sponsorship money and TV deals that can come from winning trophies or even just Champions League qualification, any income from an ARE expansion is going to be fairly small fry. And that I would say is the primary reason why the club might (and I just say might, because to be honest who even knows at this point) prefer to spend on risky investment in the squad over less risky investment in the stadium. Even if it ends up being poorly spent money, the gains are potentially a lot higher when it comes off, and that's ignoring direct profitability on player transfers as well.

I think you make some good points, but we're still comparing apples to oranges here.

Signing players, in an ideal scenario, uses money generated by the club. (We have borrowed against certain players from time to time, but in the long-term, you should really only buy players who you can afford from the club's normal income streams. It's partly FFP, and partly just sustainable management.)

For stadium expansion, on the other hand, you don't want to be taking money away from the transfer and wages budget because, as you say, that hurts the team on the pitch, which has to take precedence. So if you want to expand the ground, you usually need to borrow that money, and that means that the expansion has to ultimately pay for itself before it adds anything significant to the budget.

It's possible that a club could have little to spend on players but still be able to borrow to expand. It's equally possible that the opposite could be true, and that a club with a big transfer budget might not be able to finance refurbishments.

For us, there's a decent amount of revenue coming into the club from broadcasting and commercial partnerships, enough for us to be competitive at the upper end of the Premier League.

We also have a great line of credit to date from the owners, which is how the Main Stand work was done. Understandably, they will want to see that they are likely to get that loaned money back before throwing more at the project.

One way to look at it is that the club uses its own money to sign players and FSG'S money to do redevelopment. Confusing those two "pots" is unhelpful at best.

As others have said, the answer will be in the figures, and we don't have the figures or know what FSG would find acceptable.

[andy07]

Some serious pessimists posting on this thread,  easy to find the negatives rather than the positives,  risk averse in the extreme.   Expanding the ARE is a no brainer.   

[Peter McGurk]

Some serious pessimists posting on this thread,  easy to find the negatives rather than the positives,  risk averse in the extreme.   Expanding the ARE is a no brainer.

You shouldn't confuse pessimism with realism or for that matter, optimism with fantasy. An expanded ARE is by no means a no-brainer.

JWH has made FSG intention quite clear that there will be no cross funding of the stadium from other income. The expansion is to produce income for the club and for team development. The ideal capacity with the best return on the money spent is to add corporate seats only. The more General Admission seats added after that, the weaker the return. The cost as a proportion of income goes up just as the income goes down.

There comes a point at which the benefit to the club (and hence the team) become so marginal, it's not worth taking the risk. You can at least sell a player that doesn't work out but you're pretty much stuck with a stand if you can't fill it at the right price.

Being both optimistic and realistic, the club has established where the best case capacity is likely to be and has made a planning application on that basis. It has also phased the development to confirm that the demand can actually sustain the additional expense and do what the stadium is meant for, which is to earn the money to help build a better team.

[whiteboots]

Liverpool FC accounts 2014:

Tangible fixed assets and depreciation

Depreciation is provided on the cost of fixed assets appropriate to their estimated useful lives as follows:

Freehold/long leasehold buildings - 2-20%
Youth academy - 2%
Training Ground - 2%
Stands, fixtures, fittings and equipment 10-33%

...all classes of tangible fixed assets are depreciated on a straight line basis at the rates stated above...  The historical cost of the existing stadium is included under the heading 'stands, fixtures, fittings and equipment' shown in note 10. 

2014 included the write-off of the previous owner's stadium development costs.

The point of depreciation (see above) is that you don't put the full cost in the accounts in the year you spend it. You write it down over the useful life of the asset. From an profit and loss point of view it makes sense to minimise the annual figure for depreciation to maximise profit. From a tax point of view it may make sense to maximise the write down. Regardless, the figure for depreciation must be realistic and the total cost must be paid off within the useful life of the asset. It's possible that some elements of the stadium build will be written down over different periods.

As the stadium depreciation is included under 'stands etc.' the minimum depreciation percentage is 10% which on a straight line basis means that the whole cost of the stadium will be need to be written off (from an accounting point of view) within 10 years max.

There won't be a depreciation figure for the Kop, Centenary, ARE because they will have been written off a long time ago - that's the point I was making.

And according to the planning application the 4,000 new seats in the ARE Upper will all be general admission at the lower end of the pricing scale. The concourses won't provide corporate level facilities.

More than happy to concede the point on buildings depreciation in principle in our accounts.

It makes little impact however on my the overall return,and I have still to see a justification for the return being marginal.

[whiteboots]

So in your ‘model’, ticket prices are £60 including VAT (rising at 2% a year). Nice, we’ll all love paying that.

And the club can wait 15 years to see any benefit. Presumably while it waits for naming rights to bear fruit (still not seen after you banging on about it for God knows how long).

And an interesting take on £75m being ‘free’ money. FFP or not, someone has to put their hands in their pocket for £75m.

And a change of tack on FSG’s intentions. Now it’s not because they don't know what they’re doing or they're in it to squeeze every last penny out of the club, it’s because they blindly don’t do new.  Even though new would be double the cost with ticket prices to match.

And whatever the club did before and whatever the Millenium Stadium cost and whatever was in it, that was all water under the bridge long before FSG arrived. Blame someone else - Kemp, Moores, Parry - anyone you like. Nothing to do with FSG.

I'm sorry but really, if you had brains you might be dangerous.

BTW, if the the fully developed Anfield was as full as the Sunderland 'success' story, your £60 would be £70 (incl. VAT). Nice work.

It does not matter whether it is a net £50, or £38. The whole of life return is substantial. Fact.

Fifteen years is an arbitrary figure. It is rumoured that the Club intend to pay off the main Stand in five.

Naming rights are part of the equation. I am not as worried as you appear to be that no naming rights have been agreed for a new ARE which has been neither confirmed nor built. I wonder whether there will be any Main Stand sponsorship announced…?

The issue about FFP is not about raising it, it is about how it is accounted for. That is another factor in overall profitability.

New invariably, is actually cheaper than refurbishment in most cases. Our own project is a good example. The consented 60k stadium was costed at around £300m. Half a new stadium is likely to cost £114m + £75m ?, around £190m. Ticket prices become higher in the refurb as a result.

I found Rosti’s post informed, and wise. The profitability of a new ARE is not the pre-dominant financial question for FSG in an era when gate money is becoming less significant in overall income. They can take a punt at a player instead.

I assume your Sunderland comment was inadvertently inserted from another post you were making?

The attendance numbers show that in the PL/CL era Anfield has diminished in stature. Its capacity and structure  should  be consistent with the quantum of our support, and the extent of our achievement. Successive Boards, for different reasons, have not delivered that. Providing an appropriate home for existing, and future, supporters is essential for our long term health – the polar opposite to worshipping at the altar of short term maximisation of profit which you appear to champion.

[TheMightyReds]

Simply put, we have a habit of labouring our intentions and then eventual actions. This is not to blame any particular ownership, or group of individuals, it is merely stating the fact that as of the current time, it’s taken LFC the best part of approximately 20 years to increase its capacity to 54,000. That really is a sad reflection of poor planning and indecision. I think comments from other posters here reflect that huge frustration.

At the same time clubs who were nowhere near us, have now overtaken us. More action, and decisive action needs to happen at board room level. We shouldn’t be putting together any scheme or stand, without having a plan for the future. It’s basic common sense. Having a vision, that can be fulfilled at a later date with the right set of conditions (England winning WC bid). Nothing is impossible. Surely there would be 25yr plan for the stadium, that involves phase 2, and how that would work with the Centenary together, to then feed into a possible phase 3-4. To the accountants this would sound like madness. The owners might not be here, or care, but it doesn’t mean they should leave an unworkable mess should we bump into some oil rich enthusiasts.

You only need to look at obstacles that both Spurs (legal challenges at High Court) and Chelsea faced and are now facing. Chelsea have 2-3 tube lines in close proximity. Lots of residents with powerful voices in and around. They have to my mind worked an interesting solution by sinking the stadium lower, and wrapping the roof all round. £75M isn’t a huge cost really given the market a few years ago, nor how other clubs are conducting their redevelopment’s.

I understand Peter’s point that someone has to pay for this cost. I would have thought revenue streams from other areas of the business to supplement growth was pretty normal given that it’s not an astronomical cost. I'm also wondering whether the silence on the Main stand naming rights might have a part to play with the delay. FSG always promised either a new stadium OR stadium redevelopment. To my mind that means more than 50% of the ground updated. There was also a loose 'commitment' that should the main stand sell out (which it effectively has), then that gives confidence to go ahead with the ARE. All points to demand being satisfied.

Full plans really should be outlined in the next 6-8 weeks. Nothing should in theory put a stop to a plan, an application being put into the Council. This at least keeps the ball rolling so to speak. I’d back the ARE further and extend the pitch too.

Additional revenue streams (just off the top of head):

Special Events: Stadiums host special events, such as car shows, concerts  and other mass crowd events, during the closed season. Restaurants for rental overlooking the park. It would draw people into the stadium and provide further opportunities for jobs, investment in the area. Weddings are already covered under the main stand, but a large up market restaurant area in the stand for rental would keep the flow of traffic coming to the area.

Gym facilities: A fairly decent sized modern gym (with Spa) can provide a further integration with the community. Key sells are overlooking the park, training schedules from Melwood etc.  It can be open 363 days a year, apart from match days when it would temporarily be closed. If you charge a fixed cost for a basic monthly, I’m sure many would be interested in the community and it would open doors for new fans to join the club and visit the club shop on non-match days. It’s a small revenue stream, but it’s integration with the community and feeding into other income possibly makes it worthwhile.

Tech Area – Wi-Fi, custom photo booths, apps, messages on boards pre and half time of games etc. Small but fun area.

Luxury Flats (of 8-11) – Already in outline plans.

UEFA Games: Result of extended pitch. Updating pitch.

Some Corporate Seating: Priced lower than Main, but offering good views. I’d say of an increase of the approximately 5000 seats. 5% of that could be corporate. That’s 250 seats.

Office facilities for corporate clients.

Just some avenues/thoughts that can result in Anfield being more than just a venue for match days.

[Nessy76]

New invariably, is actually cheaper than refurbishment in most cases. Our own project is a good example. The consented 60k stadium was costed at around £300m. Half a new stadium is likely to cost £114m + £75m ?, around £190m. Ticket prices become higher in the refurb as a result.

The HKS stadium was estimated at £300m in 2007. That's almost a decade ago, so even at a conservative estimate, let's add 10% and say that might cost £330m to build today.

The projected cost for expanding the Main Stand and Anfield Road was £150m.

So no, I don't see the advantage of paying twice as much for a stadium that's basically the same size. And ticket prices would obviously be even higher if we were paying off more debt.

[kennys1988team]

It has no relevance because they simply didn't have to pay for it (£2m in rent a year, £15m contribution to a £200m+ conversion, sold old ground for £70m+).

We have to pay for any increase, be it at Anfield or new stadium.

So it really has no relevance to the wider discussion which the convo was regarding.

Her indoors has put me on a fruit only lunch programme for me to gerrin me speedos on me jollies.  If I wasn't so weak I'd argue back

[Peter McGurk]

It does not matter whether it is a net £50, or £38. The whole of life return is substantial. Fact.

Fifteen years is an arbitrary figure. It is rumoured that the Club intend to pay off the main Stand in five.

Naming rights are part of the equation. I am not as worried as you appear to be that no naming rights have been agreed for a new ARE which has been neither confirmed nor built. I wonder whether there will be any Main Stand sponsorship announced…?

The issue about FFP is not about raising it, it is about how it is accounted for. That is another factor in overall profitability.

New invariably, is actually cheaper than refurbishment in most cases. Our own project is a good example. The consented 60k stadium was costed at around £300m. Half a new stadium is likely to cost £114m + £75m ?, around £190m. Ticket prices become higher in the refurb as a result.

I found Rosti’s post informed, and wise. The profitability of a new ARE is not the pre-dominant financial question for FSG in an era when gate money is becoming less significant in overall income. They can take a punt at a player instead.

I assume your Sunderland comment was inadvertently inserted from another post you were making?

The attendance numbers show that in the PL/CL era Anfield has diminished in stature. Its capacity and structure  should  be consistent with the quantum of our support, and the extent of our achievement. Successive Boards, for different reasons, have not delivered that. Providing an appropriate home for existing, and future, supporters is essential for our long term health – the polar opposite to worshipping at the altar of short term maximisation of profit which you appear to champion.

I love 'facts'. There are so easy to de-bunk. I couldn't be bothered to more than skim read the rest. We've heard it all before from you and it has been asked and answered many times over. Perhaps you might like re-read it all. That includes how marginal is the ARE.

When are you ever going to explain how the fans will afford the ticket prices needed for a new stadium?? GA at £90 plus no doubt. Ever?

[Nessy76]

Additional revenue streams (just off the top of head):

Special Events: Stadiums host special events, such as car shows, concerts  and other mass crowd events, during the closed season. Restaurants for rental overlooking the park. It would draw people into the stadium and provide further opportunities for jobs, investment in the area. Weddings are already covered under the main stand, but a large up market restaurant area in the stand for rental would keep the flow of traffic coming to the area.

Gym facilities: A fairly decent sized modern gym (with Spa) can provide a further integration with the community. Key sells are overlooking the park, training schedules from Melwood etc.  It can be open 363 days a year, apart from match days when it would temporarily be closed. If you charge a fixed cost for a basic monthly, I’m sure many would be interested in the community and it would open doors for new fans to join the club and visit the club shop on non-match days. It’s a small revenue stream, but it’s integration with the community and feeding into other income possibly makes it worthwhile.

Tech Area – Wi-Fi, custom photo booths, apps, messages on boards pre and half time of games etc. Small but fun area.

Luxury Flats (of 8-11) – Already in outline plans.

UEFA Games: Result of extended pitch. Updating pitch.

Some Corporate Seating: Priced lower than Main, but offering good views. I’d say of an increase of the approximately 5000 seats. 5% of that could be corporate. That’s 250 seats.

Office facilities for corporate clients.

Just some avenues/thoughts that can result in Anfield being more than just a venue for match days.

These are all nice ideas, but what will determine whether or not there is any further expansion is purely and simply whether or not it makes sense for the footballing side of the business. If the seats will sell at a price that makes the expansion worthwhile, it will happen. If they won't, then none of the extras you suggest will make up the shortfall in the long term.

Events are already staged at the club, but the fact is we now have a state of the art arena and exhibition/conference space on the docks, which the club would be competing with, without the skyline, transport, parking and other advantages. Anfield as an area just isn't attractive for the kind of clientele that would keep an "up-market" restaurant afloat. There's still issues with parking, never mind anything else. The club already has dining rooms and members bars which are available for hire. More of that is fine, but it's never going to be more than a minor thing for bringing money in.


A gym that's closed every second Saturday, or midweek evenings, sometimes at short notice, that's not a solid idea. If the club wants to build and run a gym, it doesn't need to be in the stadium. (The best bet there would probably be to do some kind of partnership/licensing deal with an existing prestige gym chain and take a fee for the use of the club name and branding for a city centre location. If that takes off, you could look at it.) I like the "open 363 Days a year (except for lots of days when it isn't)" pitch, though.

"Luxury flats" usually means dingy slum housing. If we put genuine prestige accommodation in there, I'm not sure who the target tenants might be?

UEFA games, lovely. Maybe once every fifteen years or so. There are only two major finals a year.

I'm not trying to piss on your cornflakes, most of these are, in themselves, not terrible ideas. But none of them is going to change the basic equation of costs and ticket sales.

[Peter McGurk]

Simply put, we have a habit of labouring our intentions and then eventual actions. This is not to blame any particular ownership, or group of individuals, it is merely stating the fact that as of the current time, it’s taken LFC the best part of approximately 20 years to increase its capacity to 54,000. That really is a sad reflection of poor planning and indecision. I think comments from other posters here reflect that huge frustration.

At the same time clubs who were nowhere near us, have now overtaken us. More action, and decisive action needs to happen at board room level. We shouldn’t be putting together any scheme or stand, without having a plan for the future. It’s basic common sense. Having a vision, that can be fulfilled at a later date with the right set of conditions (England winning WC bid). Nothing is impossible. Surely there would be 25yr plan for the stadium, that involves phase 2, and how that would work with the Centenary together, to then feed into a possible phase 3-4. To the accountants this would sound like madness. The owners might not be here, or care, but it doesn’t mean they should leave an unworkable mess should we bump into some oil rich enthusiasts.

You only need to look at obstacles that both Spurs (legal challenges at High Court) and Chelsea faced and are now facing. Chelsea have 2-3 tube lines in close proximity. Lots of residents with powerful voices in and around. They have to my mind worked an interesting solution by sinking the stadium lower, and wrapping the roof all round. £75M isn’t a huge cost really given the market a few years ago, nor how other clubs are conducting their redevelopment’s.

I understand Peter’s point that someone has to pay for this cost. I would have thought revenue streams from other areas of the business to supplement growth was pretty normal given that it’s not an astronomical cost. I'm also wondering whether the silence on the Main stand naming rights might have a part to play with the delay. FSG always promised either a new stadium OR stadium redevelopment. To my mind that means more than 50% of the ground updated. There was also a loose 'commitment' that should the main stand sell out (which it effectively has), then that gives confidence to go ahead with the ARE. All points to demand being satisfied.

Full plans really should be outlined in the next 6-8 weeks. Nothing should in theory put a stop to a plan, an application being put into the Council. This at least keeps the ball rolling so to speak. I’d back the ARE further and extend the pitch too.

Additional revenue streams (just off the top of head):

Special Events: Stadiums host special events, such as car shows, concerts  and other mass crowd events, during the closed season. Restaurants for rental overlooking the park. It would draw people into the stadium and provide further opportunities for jobs, investment in the area. Weddings are already covered under the main stand, but a large up market restaurant area in the stand for rental would keep the flow of traffic coming to the area.

Gym facilities: A fairly decent sized modern gym (with Spa) can provide a further integration with the community. Key sells are overlooking the park, training schedules from Melwood etc.  It can be open 363 days a year, apart from match days when it would temporarily be closed. If you charge a fixed cost for a basic monthly, I’m sure many would be interested in the community and it would open doors for new fans to join the club and visit the club shop on non-match days. It’s a small revenue stream, but it’s integration with the community and feeding into other income possibly makes it worthwhile.

Tech Area – Wi-Fi, custom photo booths, apps, messages on boards pre and half time of games etc. Small but fun area.

Luxury Flats (of 8-11) – Already in outline plans.

UEFA Games: Result of extended pitch. Updating pitch.

Some Corporate Seating: Priced lower than Main, but offering good views. I’d say of an increase of the approximately 5000 seats. 5% of that could be corporate. That’s 250 seats.

Office facilities for corporate clients.

Just some avenues/thoughts that can result in Anfield being more than just a venue for match days.

Just picking out one or three examples of your proposed alternative income streams:

1. there is a ban on other mass activities at Anfield. This is to protect the income stream of the Echo Arena

2. Lengthening the pitch to play UEFA finals and the like would be exorbitantly expensive for a maybe once in twenty or thirty year event. And don't forget the additional buffer zones required for TV.

3. With all due respect, Anfield is not the wealthiest place even in Liverpool and even for visitors to the football ground. The club is providing plenty of restaurants of the appropriate quality for the times when those who can afford it will be in the ground. It's not a mass market offer. It's not sustainable year-round.

 

[PeterTheRed ...]

And according to the planning application the 4,000 new seats in the ARE Upper will all be general admission at the lower end of the pricing scale. The concourses won't provide corporate level facilities.

But they would certainly provide some sort of hospitality facilities? I mean, considering that the back of the stand has an open view of the Stanley Park, it could be an interesting area for development.

[TheMightyReds]

These are all nice ideas, but what will determine whether or not there is any further expansion is purely and simply whether or not it makes sense for the footballing side of the business. If the seats will sell at a price that makes the expansion worthwhile, it will happen. If they won't, then none of the extras you suggest will make up the shortfall in the long term.

Events are already staged at the club, but the fact is we now have a state of the art arena and exhibition/conference space on the docks, which the club would be competing with, without the skyline, transport, parking and other advantages. Anfield as an area just isn't attractive for the kind of clientele that would keep an "up-market" restaurant afloat. There's still issues with parking, never mind anything else. The club already has dining rooms and members bars which are available for hire. More of that is fine, but it's never going to be more than a minor thing for bringing money in.


A gym that's closed every second Saturday, or midweek evenings, sometimes at short notice, that's not a solid idea. If the club wants to build and run a gym, it doesn't need to be in the stadium. (The best bet there would probably be to do some kind of partnership/licensing deal with an existing prestige gym chain and take a fee for the use of the club name and branding for a city centre location. If that takes off, you could look at it.) I like the "open 363 Days a year (except for lots of days when it isn't)" pitch, though.

"Luxury flats" usually means dingy slum housing. If we put genuine prestige accommodation in there, I'm not sure who the target tenants might be?

UEFA games, lovely. Maybe once every fifteen years or so. There are only two major finals a year.

I'm not trying to piss on your cornflakes, most of these are, in themselves, not terrible ideas. But none of them is going to change the basic equation of costs and ticket sales.

  The response did make me laugh at least. Yes, it's all just off the top of my head during lunch here, but you can kind of see where I'm getting at, I hope......

If what you say, ''its not going to change it much'', why is there the 'marginal' comments in here. It's either going to provide some benefit, or not. We always knew these were the cheaper tickets, but note I've included some corporate seats in there (as an example), by pushing the ARE back a little further.

Tenants in flats, well I'm sure it wouldn't be millionaire row stuff thus not out of reach for many people. Surely maximum £200k per flat.  Flats will be bought at that price.
 
Package office service with sponsorship of Main and ARE. Banners in concourse etc. I'm sure the commercial guys would have been running all the options, and if like I said in my war and peace statement above, the demand is there and FSG stated that if main stand was taken up then they 'would' build.

Didn't know about the Docks Arena issue which Peter has also highlighted. Fair play. Your other options on the gym are interesting though.

Of course we all know about Liverpool being not London, thus we tread carefully.

Do you not feel that ARE is in urgent need of an upgrade. At a cost of £75M it is a 'no brainer' to do now with the low cost's?

[Alan_X]

New invariably, is actually cheaper than refurbishment in most cases. Our own project is a good example. The consented 60k stadium was costed at around £300m. Half a new stadium is likely to cost £114m + £75m ?, around £190m. Ticket prices become higher in the refurb as a result.

What on earth are you on about? A large part of our workload is refurb and that's because it's not cost effective to knock down and start again every time.

New 60K stadium in Stanley Park = say £350 million (current prices)

Refurbished 58.5K Anfield = £150 million

Ticket prices in the new hospitality facilities will be higher (that's kind of the point) but the cost of building the majority of the seating was written off years ago.

Maybe maths has changed since I was at school but £150 million is less than £350 million.

[banjo]

What on earth are you on about? A large part of our workload is refurb and that's because it's not cost effective to knock down and start again every time.

New 60K stadium in Stanley Park = say £350 million (current prices)

Refurbished 58.5K Anfield = £150 million

Ticket prices in the new hospitality facilities will be higher (that's kind of the point) but the cost of building the majority of the seating was written off years ago.

Maybe maths has changed since I was at school but £150 million is less than £350 million.

I don't quite follow how you can build an fit out a 60k seat stadium for 350m and yet the ARE quotes are around 150m?

The current ARE isn't a big stand. It could be demolished and the ground leveled in under a month and ready for a new build. From that point on-wards,  comparing the costs of the exterior building and fitting out the interior spaces/concourses, on a like for like square meter basis, should bring the ARE in significantly less than the 42% cost of a 60,000 new build, even with economies of scale.

Athletic Club Bilbao built a new 3 tiered 53,000 seater for 173m euros a couple of years ago, so £150m for 'behind a goal' sounds a little steep to me.

[CraigDS]

Athletic Club Bilbao built a new 3 tiered 53,000 seater for 173m euros a couple of years ago, so £150m for 'behind a goal' sounds a little steep to me.

Is Bilbao local to Merseyside?

[AthleticClub]

Is Bilbao local to Merseyside?

It's a shell of a stadium, very basic in terms of the facilities (was there a few months ago). They also messed up and have had to put a new roof structure in place this summer. Oh and the regional government paid for a good portion of the build, the banks much of the rest and Bilbao a tiny fraction much to the fury of San Sebastian et al as you'd imagine.

The two are not comparable at all

[Nessy76]

The response did make me laugh at least. Yes, it's all just off the top of my head during lunch here, but you can kind of see where I'm getting at, I hope......

If what you say, ''its not going to change it much'', why is there the 'marginal' comments in here. It's either going to provide some benefit, or not. We always knew these were the cheaper tickets, but note I've included some corporate seats in there (as an example), by pushing the ARE back a little further.

Tenants in flats, well I'm sure it wouldn't be millionaire row stuff thus not out of reach for many people. Surely maximum £200k per flat.  Flats will be bought at that price.
 
Package office service with sponsorship of Main and ARE. Banners in concourse etc. I'm sure the commercial guys would have been running all the options, and if like I said in my war and peace statement above, the demand is there and FSG stated that if main stand was taken up then they 'would' build.

Didn't know about the Docks Arena issue which Peter has also highlighted. Fair play. Your other options on the gym are interesting though.

Of course we all know about Liverpool being not London, thus we tread carefully.

Do you not feel that ARE is in urgent need of an upgrade. At a cost of £75M it is a 'no brainer' to do now with the low cost's?

We've certainly seen a change over the last twenty years, where football clubs, and us in particular, have been chasing alternative revenue streams. And a club's greatest asset is usually the stadium, so it makes sense to see if that asset can be sweated to generate more income. That's everything from corporate boxes, ads at pitchside, stand naming rights, seat sponsorship, hospitality, retail and on and on. But at some point, you have to look at the balance sheet and see where the big money is coming from.

And in the end, the sort of money you could generate from these sort of ideas, it's not a huge amount in the grand scheme of things. Yes, every little helps add to the bottom line of the balance sheet, but if the seats won't sell for enough to pay for the expansion, then none of this stuff will change that. Some of these are things we're already doing one way or another, most of them are things the club could do with or without expanding the ARE. If we want to put more business facilities into the ground, there's probably room there already. If not, we could do it elsewhere.

The club has owned and let property in the past, (although as a means to an end rather than an income stream) and if we wanted to, we could probably open up a club owned property development portfolio, build an appartment bloc somewhere and sell all the flats we wanted to. (It would also make more sense to do that on the riverside than in Anfield, of course.)

I wouldn't even rule out that kind of commercial development "arm" of the club emerging at some point, but it would be a new venture with no guarantee of success and it's getting a long way from where we want the people running the club to have their focus. Similarly the club could buy a fleet of buses and put in a tender to run services across the city. Might be profitable. It's a lot simpler, though, to just let Arriva or whoever pay £xM per year to use the club crest and branding.

What we know is that the club saw fit to apply for outline planning consent for the ARE. That means they were thinking about it. The word was that the development would be largely dictated by sales of new seats in the Main Stand. Since then there has been a clear message from the fans about ticket prices, and a huge fall in the value of the pound. Either or both might change things, because those are the sort of things that the club will base their decision on.

If we want to build apartments into the stand, that will be more expensive than not building them in there. (I don't think even Peter McGurk will argue with me about this.) So you'd look at how much you can lease or sell those flats for, look at the cost of that, and that's how you make that decision. But that decision is about whether you can build and sell apartments, and will be a different conversation to whether or not you can build the stand.

The talk about marginal income is mostly about the fact that you're really talking about a very large project, with a significant budget. You might run a great gym that brings in £500k a year net, and that's a wonderful piece of business, but that's not going to be a drop in the ocean of the costs of building a stand, and unless you're fairly sure that you can sell enough seats in that stand, it's not going to affect the decision a huge amount.

If you can make more money building something that isn't a football stand, it makes more sense to do that, in a nutshell.

[Nessy76]

I don't quite follow how you can build an fit out a 60k seat stadium for 350m and yet the ARE quotes are around 150m?

The current ARE isn't a big stand. It could be demolished and the ground leveled in under a month and ready for a new build. From that point on-wards,  comparing the costs of the exterior building and fitting out the interior spaces/concourses, on a like for like square meter basis, should bring the ARE in significantly less than the 42% cost of a 60,000 new build, even with economies of scale.

Athletic Club Bilbao built a new 3 tiered 53,000 seater for 173m euros a couple of years ago, so £150m for 'behind a goal' sounds a little steep to me.

If you want to demolish the existing stand, you'd need to allow for the loss of ticket revenue during the building work, which makes it much more expensive.

I think the £350m figure is a rough extrapolation from the quoted £300m from 2007/8. Even at the time, some sources gave that closer to £400m.

The £150m figure relates to the cost of the Main Stand and Anfield Road Stand expansions.

[Macred]

Peter, do you have a link to the restrictions on using Anfield for stadium concerts and similar types of events? I can see there might be some competition for the Arena but didn't Everton host a boxing tournament this summer and I would have thought there would be a difference between the type of events they would host i.e. Arena is what 11000 max so the really big stadium players wouldn't like to play there and indeed do not; your Foo Fighters, Taylor Swifts etc and those kind of events can make millions - and if they play in front of 50,000+ each night, its a whole different ball game competition wise. So  any restrictions could be appealed on those grounds (albeit it sounds like an illegal restraint of trade to me).

I think like Croke Park, you could only do 4 or so of these type of things but they seem to make a heap of money from the limited information I can find on the internet. Maybe an Anfield festival with camping in the park etc. could create a real good vibe for the area and generate extra revenue in the close season, with the food court (wherever that is going?)and bars etc.

[banjo]

If you want to demolish the existing stand, you'd need to allow for the loss of ticket revenue during the building work, which makes it much more expensive.

I think the £350m figure is a rough extrapolation from the quoted £300m from 2007/8. Even at the time, some sources gave that closer to £400m.

The £150m figure relates to the cost of the Main Stand and Anfield Road Stand expansions.

The £150m then makes more sense if it pays for both stand developments.  Man City added 6000+ seats and a 3rd tier on their south stand for a rumored £50m which would be a rough benchmark.

[CraigDS]

The £150m figure relates to the cost of the Main Stand and Anfield Road Stand expansions.

I'm not sure it does, as I've seen the club mention figures £120m+ for the Main.

[Macred]

http://www.fcbusiness.co.uk/eversion/fc82/html5/index.html?page=1

If you read the very last paragraph of this article, an interview with Ian A, they refer to the planning application referring specifically to being able to host international fixtures and European finals.

As an aside, I hate the idea of people owning apartments in the ground.

[CraigDS]

http://www.fcbusiness.co.uk/eversion/fc82/html5/index.html?page=1

If you read the very last paragraph of this article, an interview with Ian A, they refer to the planning application referring specifically to being able to host international fixtures and European finals.

As an aside, I hate the idea of people owning apartments in the ground.

It will be able to host them due to the facilities it'll have, but it will be short on capacity (other than for a Europa final) and pitch size will be an issue.

The article doesn't mention, and IA certainly doesn't mention, that hosting one is the aim.

[Macred]

Figures quotes at the start for actual construction costs were circa £75 mill main stand and £50 mill for the ARE. Another £50mill was related to planning and write off costs etc when funding the main so £125 mill for that part.

"The construction of the new stand will cost £75m with associated costs taking the overall total to £115m. The loan, made available from FSG’s cash reserves, will be repaid over the next five-and-a-half years." Daily Express 2014

"The estimated cost of the build is £75m with £39m going on costs." Daily Mail

"Construction costs £75million, but associated expenses have driven the price up a further £40million. FSG is paying with its cash reserves with a five-year loan, which the club expects to repay with the dividends once Anfield has risen to a 53,500 capacity" Telegraph

All circa December 2014 so presume by then they had a pretty good handle on what the cost would be.

[Macred]

It will be able to host them due to the facilities it'll have, but it will be short on capacity (other than for a Europa final) and pitch size will be an issue.

The article doesn't mention, and IA certainly doesn't mention, that hosting one is the aim.

I didnt say IA said anything I just said that in an article, which is an interview with IA, its refers to the planning application refers to being able to host those events. I didnt ever say that IA said that. The article however does. I have not looked for the exact wording in the planning documents but the inference is that the reason for making the facilities compliant to host these events would mean a likely intention to do so. Capacity for European Cup finals is 50,000 isnt it (i cant readily find the answer but that seems to be mentioned)? So the only issue then becomes the length of the pitch.

[CraigDS]

I didnt say IA said anything I just said that in an article, which is an interview with IA, its refers to the planning application refers to being able to host those events. I didnt ever say that IA said that. The article however does. I have not looked for the exact wording in the planning documents but the inference is that the reason for making the facilities compliant to host these events would mean a likely intention to do so. Capacity for European Cup finals is 50,000 isnt it (i cant readily find the answer but that seems to be mentioned)? So the only issue then becomes the length of the pitch.

I know you didn't - I was pointing out to those who may not click the link that IA didn't say it in case they thought he did in his interview.

It's been a while since read the full planning docs but don't think they mention hosting anything specifically. We've a certain requirement to reach a certain rating stadium to comply with many of the things which would be required to host a final, but as Peter said, it's like a 1 in 20 year thing and certainly not something we'd have gone above and beyond to plan for.

[TepidT2O]

Macred, now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time.

[CraigDS]

Macred, now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time.

Hiding in plain sight? 

[TepidT2O]

Hiding in plain sight? 

now then, now then

[Peter McGurk]

Peter, do you have a link to the restrictions on using Anfield for stadium concerts and similar types of events? I can see there might be some competition for the Arena but didn't Everton host a boxing tournament this summer and I would have thought there would be a difference between the type of events they would host i.e. Arena is what 11000 max so the really big stadium players wouldn't like to play there and indeed do not; your Foo Fighters, Taylor Swifts etc and those kind of events can make millions - and if they play in front of 50,000+ each night, its a whole different ball game competition wise. So  any restrictions could be appealed on those grounds (albeit it sounds like an illegal restraint of trade to me).

I think like Croke Park, you could only do 4 or so of these type of things but they seem to make a heap of money from the limited information I can find on the internet. Maybe an Anfield festival with camping in the park etc. could create a real good vibe for the area and generate extra revenue in the close season, with the food court (wherever that is going?)and bars etc.

It was either in the Heads of Agreement between LCC and the club or it was a planning condition of the new stadium that was transferred to the redevelopment.

I believe Paul McCartney's concert in 2008 was the last such event at Anfield and in the year the Echo Arena opened.

I'll post it if I find it...

***

It's a planning condition in both new and redevelopment consents (but no mention of Echo Arena):

Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the stadiums playing pitch shall be used solely for the hosting of sporting events which shall be limited to the following:

(a)   Liverpool FC first, reserve, youth and ladies home Association Football team fixtures.
(b)   The screening of Liverpool FC first team away Association Football games.
(c)   Other domestic cup competition football fixtures.
(d)   International (club and national team) football fixtures.
(e)   Rugby League and Rugby Union fixtures.
These are known hereafter as sporting events in this decision notice.

REASON:  It is in accordance with the application and to safeguard the amenities of residents in the vicinity of the application site as the holding of non-sporting events has not been assessed either in the Environment Statement or in the application.

I imagine this reason would be less open to legal challenge than the protection of another business like the Echo Arena (and no council's going to want challengeable conditions).

In theory, you could have a concert with the audience and stage in one stand (and there are curtain systems to do that) but a one-stand concert would bring you back to the same sort of attendance as the Echo Arena (but with a lot more fuss - all the gear had to be craned in for the McCartney concert)

Also, all that would kind of flout the reason for barring it, so Council would object/ refuse the application to hold any non-sporting event anyway .

Planning conditions are written to be watertight. No means no.

[Macred]

It was either in the Heads of Agreement between LCC and the club or it was a planning condition of the new stadium that was transferred to the redevelopment.

I believe Paul McCartney's concert in 2008 was the last such event at Anfield and in the year the Echo Arena opened.

I'll post it if I find it...

***

It's a planning condition in both new and redevelopment consents (but no mention of Echo Arena):

Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the stadiums playing pitch shall be used solely for the hosting of sporting events which shall be limited to the following:

(a)   Liverpool FC first, reserve, youth and ladies home Association Football team fixtures.
(b)   The screening of Liverpool FC first team away Association Football games.
(c)   Other domestic cup competition football fixtures.
(d)   International (club and national team) football fixtures.
(e)   Rugby League and Rugby Union fixtures.
These are known hereafter as sporting events in this decision notice.

REASON:  It is in accordance with the application and to safeguard the amenities of residents in the vicinity of the application site as the holding of non-sporting events has not been assessed either in the Environment Statement or in the application.

I imagine this reason would be less open to legal challenge than the protection of another business like the Echo Arena (and no council's going to want challengeable conditions).

In theory, you could have a concert with the audience and stage in one stand (and there are curtain systems to do that) but a one-stand concert would bring you back to the same sort of attendance as the Echo Arena (but with a lot more fuss - all the gear had to be craned in for the McCartney concert)

Also, all that would kind of flout the reason for barring it, so Council would object/ refuse the application to hold any non-sporting event anyway .

Thanks, interesting. I remember looking at something a while ago and seeing that Anfield has hosted tennis events and all sorts over the years. I presume if they were so minded a detailed planning application for the ARE could include an updated environmental study etc, disruption, limits on events both in number and in time i.e. finish at 11 which I think they do at the Eithad etc. Whether they would apply or get a permission is another question but arguably it would bring money jobs and prestige to the area and the stand could be designed specifically for conversion into a stage and the roof to hold lighting rigs (maybe). Just think out loud as to how you could monetise the ARE to help cover the cost but still keep it as a general admission stand.

[Peter McGurk]

Whilst digging around I see this condition, which interestingly would make the residential extremely difficult to deliver:

The residential units on the upper tier of the expanded Anfield Road Stand shall be acoustically insulated in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority (in consultation with the Council's Environmental Health Service) which shall be installed to their satisfaction prior to the use hereby permitted commencing.

REASON: It is in the interests of the amenity of occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

[Peter McGurk]

Thanks, interesting. I remember looking at something a while ago and seeing that Anfield has hosted tennis events and all sorts over the years. I presume if they were so minded a detailed planning application for the ARE could include an updated environmental study etc, disruption, limits on events both in number and in time i.e. finish at 11 which I think they do at the Eithad etc. Whether they would apply or get a permission is another question but arguably it would bring money jobs and prestige to the area and the stand could be designed specifically for conversion into a stage and the roof to hold lighting rigs (maybe). Just think out loud as to how you could monetise the ARE to help cover the cost but still keep it as a general admission stand.

Pretty hard to achieve and protect the 'local residents' amenity' at the same time. Conditions aren't so easily circumvented. Put simply, council have written in the power to stop it.


As for lights on the roof (shudder..!):

...All external light fittings shall be orientated so that any measurements taken at any nearby habitable room windows do not exceed 6 lux [not much at all]. The proposed scheme should take into account inclusive design principles ensuring the needs of visually impaired are met...

REASON:  It is in the interests of the safety and convenience of stadium users, the amenities of nearby residents and to avoid light pollution in accordance with save UDP Policies H4 and C7.


As for concerts from the stadium (in the park perhaps):

There shall be no amplified music within the external concourse area, including any music directed thereto from within the premises, beyond levels  agreed with the local planning authority (in conjunction with the Environmental Health Service).


REASON: To protect residential amenity and avoid causing noise nuisance to neighbouring premises.


And even from the bars and restaurants:

Noise control measures must be employed within the development such that sound generated within the commercial entertainment areas contained with the expanded stadium does not give rise to noise levels exceeding NR25 at the boundary of any nearby residential accommodation (expressed in terms of the maximum sound pressure level in each octave band) outside the hours of 0700 - 2300.

REASON:  To protect the amenity of such residential occupiers


 As i said, no means no... and the ARE is all General Admission anyway.