Topic: Staying put at Anfield

[ultimatewarrior]

I would like to give my opinion on the ticket cost situation. I dont know anything for sure all i can offer is educated guesses.
The difference in cost between a new 60k seater stadium with naming rights and potential to increase to 80k and a redevelopment of Anfield to approx 60k is going to be massive. I would say the new stadium would cost max 50m more.
We know the rules about not going above the 60k mark because of transport issues. So basically we are going to charge the same ticket prices as Arsenal if we want to mirror their match day revenue as they also have a 60k stadium (the Emirates cost 400m + to build and i can absolutely garauntee that our stadium will not cost over 300m). So whether we build new or renovate to 60k we still have to charge high prices , correct?
I would say that this isnt the case for a few reasons. The cost of our new stadium is cheaper than Arsenals, we will attract a bigger naming rights deal(judging by new shirt deals), our global fanbase is way bigger than Arsenal's therefore more income and less strain when it comes to repaying the loan. Arsenal will have a 400m stadium paid for in a few years and they have been competing each year. The prices of tickets will go up but the ability to increase in the future means that it is possible they will come down when the loan is paid back.
If for example a new stadium costs £300m and we get £100m in naming right for the first 10 years and then sell the rights again for the same amount or even more, in theory the naming rights will eventually pay for the cost of the stadium. This is not possible if we stay at anfield.
In thoery LFC could have a world class stadium with a capacity of 80k+ paid for by sponsors. That means no longer do we have to match Arsenals prices we could charge lower prices because our stadium holds more people.

[Peter McGurk]

I would like to give my opinion on the ticket cost situation. I dont know anything for sure all i can offer is educated guesses.
The difference in cost between a new 60k seater stadium with naming rights and potential to increase to 80k and a redevelopment of Anfield to approx 60k is going to be massive. I would say the new stadium would cost max 50m more.
We know the rules about not going above the 60k mark because of transport issues. So basically we are going to charge the same ticket prices as Arsenal if we want to mirror their match day revenue as they also have a 60k stadium (the Emirates cost 400m + to build and i can absolutely garauntee that our stadium will not cost over 300m). So whether we build new or renovate to 60k we still have to charge high prices , correct?
I would say that this isnt the case for a few reasons. The cost of our new stadium is cheaper than Arsenals, we will attract a bigger naming rights deal(judging by new shirt deals), our global fanbase is way bigger than Arsenal's therefore more income and less strain when it comes to repaying the loan. Arsenal will have a 400m stadium paid for in a few years and they have been competing each year. The prices of tickets will go up but the ability to increase in the future means that it is possible they will come down when the loan is paid back.
If for example a new stadium costs £300m and we get £100m in naming right for the first 10 years and then sell the rights again for the same amount or even more, in theory the naming rights will eventually pay for the cost of the stadium. This is not possible if we stay at anfield.
In thoery LFC could have a world class stadium with a capacity of 80k+ paid for by sponsors. That means no longer do we have to match Arsenals prices we could charge lower prices because our stadium holds more people.

I would say that a redevelopment will cost 50% to 70% of a new stadium, not just for the construction but dependent on other costs, fees, land acquisition etc etc.  I would say that naming rights, such as they might be, would be rather better used as part guarantees for loans or better still on buying players and developing the team.  We can raise funds in other ways at Anfield (as described elsewhere).

We have no chance of charging the same prices as Arsenal.  The construction costs in the North West are about 97% of those in London.  So on a like for like basis, you might save 3%.

No matter how big our ‘global fan base’ is, the number of visitors from the Far East for example, is a tiny percentage.  We would do better to pay more attention to our nearer neighbours, if we have not reached market saturation there already.

Arsenal will pay off they loans quicker because they are selling 2000 homes and flats on three sites in North London to help.  We cannot do that.  We have 16,000 sqm of potential development at Anfield Plaza, which we haven’t even bothered to cost yet and which could just as well take place on Walton Breck Road

The cost of a new stadium capital and interest is up to £45m a year - go figure on £10m a year naming rights (bearing in mind the most recent example in the UK is about £3.4m a year).

[silver 5 star]

Arsenal will pay off they loans quicker because they are selling 2000 homes and flats on three sites in North London to help.  We cannot do that.  We have 16,000 sqm of potential development at Anfield Plaza, which we haven’t even bothered to cost yet and which could just as well take place on Walton Breck Road


What's the Obsession with "Anfield Plaza"?

I just want a top class money-spinning stadium for the team I support.

The re-development of Anfield the area and encompassing Neverton holds no interest for the majority of the support?

[Peter McGurk]

...What's the Obsession with "Anfield Plaza"?...

Regeneration of the area is or was a prerequisite of the planning consent.  Some people argue it would be a major contributor to the stadium’s finances (others don’t)

[LiverBirdKop]

Emirates Upper/Lower Tier   Category A   Category B
Centre Upper   £96   £67.50
Centre Upper Back   £72.50   £51
Next to Centre Upper   £72.50   £51
Next to Centre Upper Back   £63.50   £45
Wing Upper   £63.50   £45
Wing Upper Back   £57   £40
Corner Upper   £63.50   £45
Goal Upper   £68.50   £48
Goal Upper Back   £57   £40
        
Centre Lower   £54   £37
Wing Lower   £49   £34
Corner Lower   £49   £34
Goal Lower   £49   £34

"Match ticket pricing at Emirates Stadium is based on the principle of an A and B grading, as follows: Category A fixtures: Chelsea, Liverpool, Man United, Man City, Tottenham.

All remaining Premier League games will be category B as will the majority of FA Cup, UEFA Competitions and Carling Cup matches. However, there will be some specific matches which will be designated as Category A. Details will be communicated at the appropriate time."

The Arsenal website is where I got the information from. You were replying to someone else whether they would be ready to pay £90 per game like that would be the cheapest ticket hence my reply to you. He obviously wouldn't have to.
The other prices you copied are for premium seats and boxes. Bit of a difference. 

[LiverBirdKop]

I would say that a redevelopment will cost 50% to 70% of a new stadium, not just for the construction but dependent on other costs, fees, land acquisition etc etc.  I would say that naming rights, such as they might be, would be rather better used as part guarantees for loans or better still on buying players and developing the team.  We can raise funds in other ways at Anfield (as described elsewhere).

I think you're making the case for a new stadium here. 70% of the cost of a new stadium....
So, let's say the cost of a new stadium is £300 million without the naming rights. 70% of that would be £210m. Keeping in mind FSG already said there would be no naming rights at Anfield; if these guys at FSG could get £90m. for naming rights, we'd basically have a new stadium with all its £commercial£ advantages for the price of redeveloping Anfield, plus a potential Anfield Plaza which could generate an extra £ million per year + in additional revenue? Hmmm

We have no chance of charging the same prices as Arsenal.  The construction costs in the North West are about 97% of those in London.  So on a like for like basis, you might save 3%.

We don't need to charge the same prices as Arsenal. We have greater revenue streams than them except for their matchday revenue.

No matter how big our ‘global fan base’ is, the number of visitors from the Far East for example, is a tiny percentage.  We would do better to pay more attention to our nearer neighbours, if we have not reached market saturation there already.

Not sure what market saturation you're referring to. Surely we have more than 60,000 willing fans within 150-200+ kms of Anfield.
The extra ways of raising revenue at Anfield would NO doubt be implemented at a new stadium plus others a more modern facility could bring. Like additional parking to name one.
I agree the visitors from the Far East may be a tiny percentage but it could be lucrative as well as with the Middle East fans. They could do this (applicable to a redeveloped Anfield as well obviously):

Travel
Red Sox Destinations offered $5,000 packages to Boston's opener in Japan, featuring a chartered 747 and a meet and greet with players. FSG has organized previous trips to New York and Baltimore. An offshoot does trips for BC.

That appeared in an article on Fast company magazine back in 2008. Now imagine the reverse. Trips from the ME and FE to Anfield/New Anfield. Add a few extra 1000s to also meet LeBron? 
NBA season goes from Oct(preseason) through mid June( if a potential game 7 in the Finals).

[thecrouch]

Anfield wasn't designed originally as a seated stadium and you can really tell. There are so many restricted views and there is seriously bad legroom (when you actually sit). There are 3 or 4 rows at the back of the lower deck of the anfield road end where people cannot sit due to the roof being so low. 

Hopefully any redevelopment will not just be a patchwork job. I really think that at least 3 sides of the ground would need to be totally flattened and built from scratch otherwise we're just going to run into this stadium issue another 10 years down the line (or less).

In my opinion it's better to get it out of the way now. Though it would result in a few seasons of bad disruption on match days.

[ttnbd]

Anfield wasn't designed originally as a seated stadium and you can really tell. There are so many restricted views and there is seriously bad legroom (when you actually sit). There are 3 or 4 rows at the back of the lower deck of the anfield road end where people cannot sit due to the roof being so low. 

Hopefully any redevelopment will not just be a patchwork job. I really think that at least 3 sides of the ground would need to be totally flattened and built from scratch otherwise we're just going to run into this stadium issue another 10 years down the line (or less).

In my opinion it's better to get it out of the way now. Though it would result in a few seasons of bad disruption on match days.

I think you've got that the wrong way round.  Anfield as it presently is was designed for sitting only, but with the absolute minimum leeway on regulations for space.  The only way you can see from those back few rows of the lower road end is if everyone is sat down.  If there is standing you can't see anything whether you stand or sit, it's the same for the last row in the lower shed end at stamford bridge.

But the stands were designed given perceived land constraints etc.  Overall the jobs done were very poor, except the Kop (but still tight on leg room if you sit).

[Peter McGurk]

I think you're making the case for a new stadium here. 70% of the cost of a new stadium....

No - just being conservative.  I don't want to make rash promises.  The biggest difference between the two (spending money in stages instead of committing to huge expense in one go) absolutely still stands.

FSG have also said there are alternatives to naming rights which could only apply to Anfield.  For me, using naming rights in this way is in any event foolhardy but that discussion’s got whiskers on it.

We need to compete on matchday prices full stop.  Everyone else has other commercial opportunities too.  We can’t match them on revenue, so it’s going to have to be on profit. We can’t match them on profit if we build new.

I’m sure there’s more than 60,000 willing fans within 200k but I’m not sure there’s enough who will be able to afford new stadium prices.  There is parking in the redevelopment

I’m not sure how many more fans there are in Ireland and Norway who are prepared to pay the (increased) cost of coming, is all.  But it is a market to go into more, either way redevelopment or new.

A very rough calculation of the value of (the pretty vague) outline consented scheme at Anfield Plaza could be £20m, could be £32m - maybe as much as £170k a year (or Gerrard for a week?)

All those things could, maybe would work but I would say the attraction of visiting Anfield, rather than Jo Soap’s Stadium would be more marketable to anywhere around the globe.  How many times have you heard “I hope to get to Anfield one day”?

I think you've got that the wrong way round.  Anfield as it presently is was designed for sitting only, but with the absolute minimum leeway on regulations for space.  The only way you can see from those back few rows of the lower road end is if everyone is sat down.  If there is standing you can't see anything whether you stand or sit, it's the same for the last row in the lower shed end at stamford bridge.

But the stands were designed given perceived land constraints etc.  Overall the jobs done were very poor, except the Kop (but still tight on leg room if you sit).

Yes - of the existing stands, only the paddock was actually designed to stand. 

People have got ‘bigger’ (not necessarily taller) and this is recognised in the new regulations.  All (all) of the view conditions can be sorted out.  You can even sort out legroom without massive demolitions and rebuilds - it depends on how much you want to pay for a ticket.

[west_london_red]

No - just being conservative.  I don't want to make rash promises.  The biggest difference between the two (spending money in stages instead of committing to huge expense in one go) absolutely still stands.

FSG have also said there are alternatives to naming rights which could only apply to Anfield.  For me, using naming rights in this way is in any event foolhardy but that discussion’s got whiskers on it.

We need to compete on matchday prices full stop.  Everyone else has other commercial opportunities too.  We can’t match them on revenue, so it’s going to have to be on profit. We can’t match them on profit if we build new.

I’m sure there’s more than 60,000 willing fans within 200k but I’m not sure there’s enough who will be able to afford new stadium prices.  There is parking in the redevelopment

I’m not sure how many more fans there are in Ireland and Norway who are prepared to pay the (increased) cost of coming, is all.  But it is a market to go into more, either way redevelopment or new.

A very rough calculation of the value of (the pretty vague) outline consented scheme at Anfield Plaza could be £20m, could be £32m - maybe as much as £170k a year (or Gerrard for a week?)

All those things could, maybe would work but I would say the attraction of visiting Anfield, rather than Jo Soap’s Stadium would be more marketable to anywhere around the globe.  How many times have you heard “I hope to get to Anfield one day”?


Yes - of the existing stands, only the paddock was actually designed to stand. 

People have got ‘bigger’ (not necessarily taller) and this is recognised in the new regulations.  All (all) of the view conditions can be sorted out.  You can even sort out legroom without massive demolitions and rebuilds - it depends on how much you want to pay for a ticket.

Peter, are you a season ticket holder or a regular match go'er?

[xerxes1]

Picking up some recently made points:

The ticket price argument is frequently misrepresented. Any idea that Anfield ,as is, remains the place for the common man at £43 a ticket is misplaced. Our existing premium seat provision is less than half that of Man U/ Arsenal. To be commercial, limited Anfield redevelopment will primarily address that. In a 55,000 seater redevelopment that may provide for another 5000 premium seats, and 5000 “ordinary “ seats. It would essentially represent an Executive upgrade.

Every seat over an extra 5000 represents a greater opportunity for fans to see LFC whether it be in the existing, or new stadium. We are not going to be able to match Emirates prices, nor could we fill an OT capacity in one leap. The objective in redevelopment or new build is to maximise existing revenues, to imaginatively seize new ones,  and to leave future generations a legacy which can meet future needs for years to come.

The suggestion that Merseyside Construction Costs are 97% of Central London’s is plainly wrong ,and can be filed with the “Naming Rights are Peanuts” curio.

Anfield Plaza is a consented scheme which can contribute revenue or capital to a new stadium immediately. Any development on Walton Breck Rd is an unconsented pipe dream which may offer the Club nothing in income.

The capital/interest cost of £45m/ naming rights £10m a year is a guess which has no value.(See construction costs and naming rights)

The arguments now are quite condensed. A modest redevelopment may not be worth it and may fail to capitalise on our potential. Wholesale redevelopment may be as expensive as a New Stadium but still represent a compromise. A new stadium may represent as much a financial burden as boon, if poorly executed.

FSG hold the cards on this one. Do they have the money, or the long term commitment to back a new stadium? What is the extent of unrealised Season Ticket demand? What is the unsatisfied premium seat/hospitality demand? Can a part redeveloped Anfield offer the same Conference/ Exhibition income that a New Stadium can? How do naming rights for existing Anfield Stands versus redevelopment compare with Stadium naming rights for a new stadium?

These are the key points on which the decision will hinge.

The affection that all of us hold for Anfield requires no explanation. Anyone, though, who has sat in the lower Annie  or Lower Centenary ( and experienced the pitiful “hospitality facilities” in the latter), or seen the Kop change from a magnificent terraced amphitheatre to a neutered makeshift conversion, or experienced a Main Stand almost 40 years old will wonder how long we can go on living off the legacy of our forebears and when we will set out our stall for what sort of football stadium we should  have for the 21st Century, and crucially, what legacy we will leave.

[Peter McGurk]

Mate, I couldn't get through that...  when you start taking other people seriously I might read on.  Maybe you'd like to PM me on it and I might provide all the references you need so you don't make a complete tit of yourself.

[silver 5 star]

Regeneration of the area is or was a prerequisite of the planning consent.  Some people argue it would be a major contributor to the stadium’s finances (others don’t)

Planning consent for a NEW stadium.

Not just changes to the existing stadium.

[Peter McGurk]

Planning consent for a NEW stadium.

Not just changes to the existing stadium.

Correct.

Peter, are you a season ticket holder or a regular match go'er?

I went away to college just before all-seaters and the real need for nearly everyone to have season tickets came in.  So now I'm back, I have to get tickets from mates or where ever.  I can manage to get to most games that way.

I know loyalty needs to be rewarded but the prices don't drop that much for having a season ticket.  Old farts like me and my mates who do have season tickets are blocking up the system.  We should be out in the 'stands' where we belong and we should be getting the yoof into the kop to make a bit more noise.

[west_london_red]

I went away to college just before all-seaters and the real need for nearly everyone to have season tickets came in.  So now I'm back, I have to get tickets from mates or where ever.  I can manage to get to most games that way.

I know loyalty needs to be rewarded but the prices don't drop that much for having a season ticket.  Old farts like me and my mates who do have season tickets are blocking up the system.  We should be out in the 'stands' where we belong and we should be getting the yoof into the kop to make a bit more noise.

I wasnt asking with regards to ticket prices, more just curious if you go through the regular pain of trying to buy tickets via proper channels and realise just how much demand there is for tickets. might be easier to get spares if your local, but down here spares are like gold dust.

[LiverBirdKop]

No - just being conservative.  I don't want to make rash promises.  The biggest difference between the two (spending money in stages instead of committing to huge expense in one go) absolutely still stands.

Are you saying that you're being conservative about the 70% figure? The thing is, we don't know much about how many stages there would be for a redevelopment either. If it's going to take as long as it has taken with Fenway, then that tells me it's a long term vision and intent from FSG.....same as a new stadium. Not sure, maybe the accounting wizards could help here, but could a brand new stadium be financed in stages as well?

FSG have also said there are alternatives to naming rights which could only apply to Anfield.  For me, using naming rights in this way is in any event foolhardy but that discussion’s got whiskers on it.

Don't recall reading that but when you have time if you could post a link that would be appreciated. What I do know I've read is we "would not consider a naming rights deal for Anfield."

Ayre: “We are actively looking for a naming partner if we were to move to a new ground, but that clearly does not apply if we decide to remain at Anfield,” he explained.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2011/03/31/liverpool-fc-chief-ian-ayre-insists-anfield-name-is-not-up-for-grabs-100252-28435569/#ixzz1KvSBDYJ9
“No final decision has yet been made, but a considerable amount of work continues on analysing the options open to us, be that a refurbishment of our existing home or the move to a completely new LFC Stadium in Stanley Park.”

I’m sure there’s more than 60,000 willing fans within 200k but I’m not sure there’s enough who will be able to afford new stadium prices.  There is parking in the redevelopment

Haven't seen their redevelopment plans so I wouldn't know. Due to space constraints I would imagine it's doubtful a new stadium at Stanley Park wouldn't have a lot more parking space.

I’m not sure how many more fans there are in Ireland and Norway who are prepared to pay the (increased) cost of coming, is all.  But it is a market to go into more, either way redevelopment or new.

Again, if FSG follow the American model, there will probably be some very affordable tickets as well. They'll probably be "nose bleed" but the people filling those seats could also, pay to park, drink, eat, buy merchandise, programs as well. FSG can very well work with fan groups overseas and negotiate group discounts -if there are enough extra seats available-.

All those things could, maybe would work but I would say the attraction of visiting Anfield, rather than Jo Soap’s Stadium would be more marketable to anywhere around the globe.  How many times have you heard “I hope to get to Anfield one day”?

That may be true. Anfield is Anfield, but if we go for just a few thousand extra seats and FSG make more season tickets available, then there still wouldn't be a lot of available seats to market visiting Anfield for games anyway. Would be interesting to know how much of Anfield would be conserved at Anfield Plaza.

[Peter McGurk]

Are you saying that you're being conservative about the 70% figure? The thing is, we don't know much about how many stages there would be for a redevelopment either. If it's going to take as long as it has taken with Fenway, then that tells me it's a long term vision and intent from FSG.....same as a new stadium. Not sure, maybe the accounting wizards could help here, but could a brand new stadium be financed in stages as well?  Don't recall reading that but when you have time if you could post a link that would be appreciated. What I do know I've read is we "would not consider a naming rights deal for Anfield."http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2011/03/31/liverpool-fc-chief-ian-ayre-insists-anfield-name-is-not-up-for-grabs-100252-28435569/#ixzz1KvSBDYJ9
“No final decision has yet been made, but a considerable amount of work continues on analysing the options open to us, be that a refurbishment of our existing home or the move to a completely new LFC Stadium in Stanley Park.” Haven't seen their redevelopment plans so I wouldn't know. Due to space constraints I would imagine it's doubtful a new stadium at Stanley Park wouldn't have a lot more parking space.  Again, if FSG follow the American model, there will probably be some very affordable tickets as well. They'll probably be "nose bleed" but the people filling those seats could also, pay to park, drink, eat, buy merchandise, programs as well. FSG can very well work with fan groups overseas and negotiate group discounts -if there are enough extra seats available-. That may be true. Anfield is Anfield, but if we go for just a few thousand extra seats and FSG make more season tickets available, then there still wouldn't be a lot of available seats to market visiting Anfield for games anyway. Would be interesting to know how much of Anfield would be conserved at Anfield Plaza.

I’m saying it could be less.

Each stand would take two years, with staggered starts so a new stand could open every year after that.

It is a long term vision and that’s good but it reduces risk while maximising return. 

As for funding in stages - it’s a primary benefit of redevelopment.  Previous stages can be up and running and funding following stages.  Whereas with a new stadium you must pay out for four years before you get a penny extra income. If you look at cash flow, redevelopment gets off to a head start in the race for revenue from which a new stadium never recovers.

I can’t quite remember but I think it was Ginsberg (Red Sox) who said that because the naming rights option was not available at Fenway, they found other ways to fill the gap (in-stadium sponsorships, ads....). 

Also what price the Anfield brand to the club (visitors, overseas fans, tours, visits)??  The stadium is certainly worth £42m a year in gate receipts and it’s paid for - a bit better than any likely or heard of naming rights deal.

The new stadium has in-stadium parking - so does the redevelopment.

Just bear in mind, the bigger the stadium, the more expensive it is per seat - particularly in the ‘nose-bleeds’ (because of the height)

Only the pitch stays in the ‘illustrations’ of Anfield Plaza.

[xerxes1]

I’m saying it could be less.Each stand would take two years, with staggered starts so a new stand could open every year after that.
It is a long term vision and that’s good but it reduces risk while maximising return. As for funding in stages - it’s a primary benefit of redevelopment.  Previous stages can be up and running and funding following stages.  Whereas with a new stadium you must pay out for four years before you get a penny extra income. If you look at cash flow, redevelopment gets off to a head start in the race for revenue from which a new stadium never recovers.
I can’t quite remember but I think it was Ginsberg (Red Sox) who said that because the naming rights option was not available at Fenway, they found other ways to fill the gap (in-stadium sponsorships, ads....). Also what price the Anfield brand to the club (visitors, overseas fans, tours, visits)??  The stadium is certainly worth £42m a year in gate receipts and it’s paid for - a bit better than any likely or heard of naming rights deal.The new stadium has in-stadium parking - so does the redevelopment.Just bear in mind, the bigger the stadium, the more expensive it is per seat - particularly in the ‘nose-bleeds’ (because of the height).

As always, good on stadium, bad on economics.

There is no doubt that gradual redevelopment is the least cash hungry option. But if your end result is a stadium which fails to maximise your revenue potential and still leaves you behind your competitors it is pointless.

It is not true that a redevelopment offers a financial advanatge which is never bettered by a new stadium.

A revenue of £42m per annum is almost £60m a year less than Man U/Arsenal are producing - which is the whole point. If that is the limit of what you think LFC can generate- your call.

It is not true that the larger the new stadium, the more expensive it is per seat ( although in a confined space redevelopment that may be true).

[ultimatewarrior]

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/premier-league/2011/05/01/2466505/liverpool-to-wait-another-year-to-get-green-light-for-200m

[ttnbd]

the source is the news of the screws so should be ignored and removed from here.

[Peter McGurk]

As always, good on stadium, bad on economics.

There is no doubt that gradual redevelopment is the least cash hungry option. But if your end result is a stadium which fails to maximise your revenue potential and still leaves you behind your competitors it is pointless.

It is not true that a redevelopment offers a financial advanatge which is never bettered by a new stadium.

A revenue of £42m per annum is almost £60m a year less than Man U/Arsenal are producing - which is the whole point. If that is the limit of what you think LFC can generate- your call.

It is not true that the larger the new stadium, the more expensive it is per seat ( although in a confined space redevelopment that may be true).

Quoting rumours of slants as fact is puerile.  There is no other reason to state that a redevelopment will fail to maximise revenue.  The facilities will be the same if not better.

A redevelopment has the same potential for revenue for less cost. This is called a financial advantage.

Yes, we all know the comparison with other clubs and I don’t think anyone has ever said we are at our limit (apart from you to put words in others’ mouths).  The £42m a year is clear and free of procurement costs.  This is called a fantastic asset

A larger stadium costs more per seat the bigger it is, primary because of the cost of the superstructure needed to get higher and the much, much bigger roof (since the increases are on the larger outside edge).

If you cannot understand that development is driven by the relationship between revenue and cost, it’s hard to help you but if you like, I can put you in touch with a good QS or there’s a couple of books you might like to read to give you a basic understanding on the subject.

Look mate, don't you realise everyone here is bored with this spat between us?  It's not helping the discussion and adds nothing to the general awareness of the issues.

[xerxes1]

Quoting rumours of slants as fact is puerile.  There is no other reason to state that a redevelopment will fail to maximise revenue.  The facilities will be the same if not better.A redevelopment has the same potential for revenue for less cost. This is called a financial advantage.Yes, we all know the comparison with other clubs and I don’t think anyone has ever said we are at our limit (apart from you to put words in others’ mouths).  The £42m a year is clear and free of procurement costs.  This is called a fantastic asset.A larger stadium costs more per seat the bigger it is, primary because of the cost of the superstructure needed to get higher and the much, much bigger roof (since the increases are on the larger outside edge).If you cannot understand that development is driven by the relationship between revenue and cost, it’s hard to help you but if you like, I can put you in touch with a good QS or there’s a couple of books you might like to read to give you a basic understanding on the subject.Look mate, don't you realise everyone here is bored with this spat between us?  It's not helping the discussion and adds nothing to the general awareness of the issues.

I prefer facts to rumours and slants.

A redevelopment could maximise revenue. However it has the disadvantage against a new stadium of having four existing stands and a confined site. The statement that a redevelopment WILL maximise revenue in these circumstances is the one I challenge. It might not. My opinion is that it will not.

The facilities at a redeveloped Anfield could be better. The aforementioned constraints are hurdles not found in a new stadium. So again, although they could be better, they might not. And the cost of refurbishing and rebuilding to a standard that exceeds new would almost certainly be  greater. So the claim that  facilities would match or better those at a new stadium is easily challenged.

A redevelopment could have the same revenue potential for less cost – it’s called a guess, not financial advantage. Let’s see how Ayre’s investigations pan out.

We both agree that any redevelopment or new stadium has to offer us a financial advantage.

A stadium does not cost more per seat the bigger it is. A significant proportion of construction costs are fixed. An architect does not charge you for an extra row, the plant, once hired doesn’t charge per journey, the seat manufacturer does not increase his charge per seat the more you order ( they reduce it) etc. The incremental cost of an extra row of seats is negligible, not higher. Of course there are break points, an extra tier for instance,  when the cost clock has to be zeroed again. And it is much easier to build economically on a virgin site than it is a developed confined one.

I suggest that you read the books on revenue and cost yourself first.

I am not interested in spats, only in placing the arguments for and against redevelopment fairly. It is precisely because I am concerned about general awareness of issues that I correct what is presented as fact if it is not so.

[Peter McGurk]

I prefer facts to rumours and slants.

A redevelopment could maximise revenue. However it has the disadvantage against a new stadium of having four existing stands and a confined site. The statement that a redevelopment WILL maximise revenue in these circumstances is the one I challenge. It might not. My opinion is that it will not.

The facilities at a redeveloped Anfield could be better. The aforementioned constraints are hurdles not found in a new stadium. So again, although they could be better, they might not. And the cost of refurbishing and rebuilding to a standard that exceeds new would almost certainly be  greater. So the claim that  facilities would match or better those at a new stadium is easily challenged.

A redevelopment could have the same revenue potential for less cost – it’s called a guess, not financial advantage. Let’s see how Ayre’s investigations pan out.

We both agree that any redevelopment or new stadium has to offer us a financial advantage.

A stadium does not cost more per seat the bigger it is. A significant proportion of construction costs are fixed. An architect does not charge you for an extra row, the plant, once hired doesn’t charge per journey, the seat manufacturer does not increase his charge per seat the more you order ( they reduce it) etc. The incremental cost of an extra row of seats is negligible, not higher. Of course there are break points, an extra tier for instance,  when the cost clock has to be zeroed again. And it is much easier to build economically on a virgin site than it is a developed confined one.

I suggest that you read the books on revenue and cost yourself first.

I am not interested in spats, only in placing the arguments for and against redevelopment fairly. It is precisely because I am concerned about general awareness of issues that I correct what is presented as fact if it is not so.

You see, what you do is ignore supporting argument and offer contrary assertion as (fact and) counter argument, which it is not.

When I say a stadium costs more per seat because.. and then give you very valid reasons why this is true, you ignore that and start talking about anything else that might have tangential relevance.

Now I call that a spat.  And it’s really time you gave it up.  If I were you, I would give everyone a little bit of respect.  No one is stupid.  If there’s one thing the last few years have shown, it’s that no-one here is easily hoodwinked.

[No23isCarragher]

As I just posted in the rumours thread but also relevant here as it would indicate a possibility of staying at Anfield:

A very good friend of mine works for a large construction firm in Manchester. He told me yesterday that his firm and a few others have been approached by the club with a project to build quadrants to fill in the corners and increase capacity at Anfield. Sounds like it would be similar to what was done at Old Trafford.

[scouse29]

As I just posted in the rumours thread but also relevant here as it would indicate a possibility of staying at Anfield:

Hannan's are a Manchester based company that have had some say in new Anfields designs in the past.

Cant see us just filing the corners in thou.

http://www.hannan-uk.com/liverpool.html

[No23isCarragher]

I would imagine it may just be the first part of a larger expansion plan. Will quiz him again sober as we were doing quite a lot of drinking yesterday.

[CraigDS]

Consering both the Main Stand and Anny Rd would need totally rebuilding I can't see them just filling in the corners.

[Red Beret]

I don't understand the argument over which course of action is better for us.  I would prefer us to have a new stadium, with ultra modern facilities and an expandable capacity that will allow us to compete with our rivals.  I want my club to possess the finest, most modern stadium in European football.

But I also love Anfield and it's incredible history.  It truly is the spiritual home arguably the mightiest football club in the world.  Whichever course FSG decide to take they will have carefully weighed up the pros and cons.

To argue that a redevelopment of Anfield still leaving us trailing behind our rivals is an exercise in semantics.  This we know, to a certain point, is true.  Doubtless so will FSG.  Therefore if they're prepared to consider it they must have a reason.  That reason will not be to deliberately handicap us economically so FSG must be satisfied that we can remain competitive at a redeveloped Anfield - otherwise they would not consider it a viable option.

I'm not one for figures and such but I imagine redeveloping Anfield over the next 3 years or so (for example) could cost almost as much as building a new stadium from scratch so it does seem a trifle odd.  I imagine that name, Anfield, has it's own selling power, as well as its own innate charm.

[mavuto]

Not sure if it already has been covered in previous posts, shouldn't we be moving towards developing the stadium to meet the "UEFA Elite stadium" requirements. We are regarded as among the top clubs in the world therefore it is essential we have a top stadium whether we stay at Anfield or move across. Surely any decision made should consider having this in the criteria.

[mavuto]

Anfield is amazing and I've been proud to be there many a time, I'm just wandaring whether it is good enough to qualify for the Elite stadia

[xerxes1]

Not sure if it already has been covered in previous posts, shouldn't we be moving towards developing the stadium to meet the "UEFA Elite stadium" requirements. We are regarded as among the top clubs in the world therefore it is essential we have a top stadium whether we stay at Anfield or move across. Surely any decision made should consider having this in the criteria.

I don't see "UEFA Elite Stadium" status as being an end in itself. I do think that presige comes into this - if we can afford it.

[paul j]

Anfield is amazing and I've been proud to be there many a time, I'm just wandaring whether it is good enough to qualify for the Elite stadia

i don't think it comes near.

[Red Beret]

I know there's a lot of speculation about ticket price hikes, either in a new stadium or a redeveloped Anfield.  I think that prices may rise but also what about striking a balance between revenue and filling the stadium out?

If we had a 55k or 60k seater wouldn't we have more flexibility in fixing prices?  Would there not be greater scope that, in some matches at least, tickets may be cheaper so as to fill out the ground?  Not saying it's likely...

[LiverBirdKop]

I know there's a lot of speculation about ticket price hikes, either in a new stadium or a redeveloped Anfield.  I think that prices may rise but also what about striking a balance between revenue and filling the stadium out?

If we had a 55k or 60k seater wouldn't we have more flexibility in fixing prices?  Would there not be greater scope that, in some matches at least, tickets may be cheaper so as to fill out the ground?  Not saying it's likely...

That's what's typical in some of the new stadiums in America. For example the Yankees and their $1.5 Billion stadium have plenty of $15 tickets and even $5 tickets(obstructed views). Same case with the Mets $1Billion stadium. Plenty of $10-$45 tickets. Same at Petco Field (newish stadium) and Camden Yards. Mind you, that's baseball and they play at least 81 home games a year.

Either way, with more boxes, premium seats and total seats, I'm sure they could strike a nice balance and offer a few thousand cheaper  tickets (extra atmosphere plus extra £ from parking, food, bevvies, merchandise, programs) at a new stadium.

By the way, Larry Lucchino who's the CEO and President of FSG was the President of both the Baltimore Orioles and San Diego Padres when they built Camden Yards and Petco Field respectively. Camden Yards in the 90s and Petco Field in the 2000s so there's experience in building new stadiums there. Both stadiums are "retro" which is a trend inspired by Camden Yards and followed by many baseball teams' new stadiums(retro-classic and retro-modern) .

[Acaustiq]

i don't think it comes near.

The main issue is pitch size I suspect, it's not long enough.

Everything else (number of tv studios, VIP seating, cctv, etc) if not already to the required standard can be easily sorted with a redevelopment.

[xerxes1]

@Acaustiq

Everything else (number of tv studios, VIP seating, cctv, etc) if not already to the required standard can be easily sorted with a redevelopment.

I dispute your use of the word “easily”. Refurbishment of existing structures invariably involves compromise, and high cost. New Build on a confined site is limited by existing boundaries.
It may be possible to renovate to a 21st Century standard. Let’s see how the feasibility studies shape up.

@ Red Beret

I know there's a lot of speculation about ticket price hikes, either in a new stadium or a redeveloped Anfield.  I think that prices may rise but also what about striking a balance between revenue and filling the stadium out?

If we had a 55k or 60k seater wouldn't we have more flexibility in fixing prices?  Would there not be greater scope that, in some matches at least, tickets may be cheaper so as to fill out the ground?

The battle lines are well defined on this.

Some argue that the increased cost of a new stadium inevitably means higher prices all round – and that that is the whole point, to maximise revenues.

Others say that the enhance premium seat/conference revenues that a new stadium disproportionately delivers allows for  a  greater spread of ticket prices.

FSG will charge what they can get, whether we move or not.

Instinctuvely I agree with your guess that a larger (60,000 seater) stadium will mean that more fans get to see games – and that there will be more lower priced tickets to fill it with the top end subsiding those reductions making the overall project still economic. But without having the exact numbers to go on , that is just a speculative guess.

[Acaustiq]

@Acaustiq

I dispute your use of the word “easily”.

[xerxes1]

Although more difficult than you believe, I would hope that the architect could demonstrate a little more reserve.

[Peter McGurk]

Although more difficult than you believe, I would hope that the architect could demonstrate a little more reserve.

In what respect, mate?

[paul j]

The main issue is pitch size I suspect, it's not long enough.

Everything else (number of tv studios, VIP seating, cctv, etc) if not already to the required standard can be easily sorted with a redevelopment.

its not just pitch size the stands at anfield are too close to the pitch under fifa/uefa new rules.