Topic: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium

[PJLFC1]

Liverpool F.C's Home Ground Stadium Will Always Be Known / Called ANFIELD Regardless And That's A FACT ! However I personally couldn't care less were the naming rights go to within reason , whoever offers the Best all round package / deal will win and not the most money as was the case with Warrior which Ian Ayre confirmed I think in a recent interview and he is doing a great job at present which I think we all agree .

[PJG]

Hopefully not virgin  *fingers crossed* 

[ben]

has to be done. have to be ruthless if we want to be the best.

when do we think we'll have news on which way the stadium is going to go? would love to have concrete plans in place in the summer.

to be honest, i love the stadium hicks and gillet had designed. i know a lot of people won't want any memory of them two here, but that design was phenomenal.

[SpartanTree. No deccies or lights.]

I guess it will happen one day, it will be sad but we are still the same people and the same club.

Exactly.  The supporters bring the Kop to life - the bricks and mortar aren't as important.  I'm sure any new stadium will be designed to include a big Kop and constructed with a view to creating a noisey atmosphere.  The rest is down to us to turn up and make some noise.

[the_untouchable]

Facebook Stadium. Like it!

[88_RED]

can u all please get ur knickers out of a twist.. Nowhere does the article say "renaming" anfield..

What it does say is that fsg are looking to get sponsorship for different parts of the stadium if they decide to refurbish anfield.. They dont want to rebrand anfield per say.. So u might get the pepsi kop or the coke centenary.. But stadium still remains anfield.. If we go across the park.. Well thats a different story and any new stadium will not really be anfield now will it.. There can only be one anfield for me..

[djschembri]

has to be done. have to be ruthless if we want to be the best.

when do we think we'll have news on which way the stadium is going to go? would love to have concrete plans in place in the summer.

to be honest, i love the stadium hicks and gillet had designed. i know a lot of people won't want any memory of them two here, but that design was phenomenal.

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=273456.0

[its cold in the stands]

if we leave anfield it wont be the same club, most clubs could only dream of having a home stadium with the history and folklore of anfield and yet so many are keen that we move away?
if we knock down anfield it will be another `knocking down the cavern` moment for this city, that made financial sense in the 70`s too.
once the novelty of having a new stadium wears off people will regret us leaving, it might take 10 years, it might take 20 years, but at some point in the future people will regret that we moved away from our spiritual home.

[jonjosuso]

My initial reaction is similar to a lot of yours here, I would hate to see Liverpool play home games away from 'Anfield'.

Then I think about it, we need to keep up with the pace. This is what is happening in world football, the big stadiums are getting naming rights,which brings cash. Lets not even go into how much we lose on matchday revenue compare to the Manc and Arsenal.

I would hate a naming deal, but I would then embrace it. We as fans are the best in the world, if this were to happen I would want the best sponsor, the best deal and the best stadium to reflect our fans.

We could take pride in the success of the business(es) which had names attached to anfield and we could revel in teh success of players the money could buy.

As always, skeptical, but 100% willing to get behind wherever this club goes.

YNWA.

[CraigDS]

if we leave anfield it wont be the same club, most clubs could only dream of having a home stadium with the history and folklore of anfield and yet so many are keen that we move away?
if we knock down anfield it will be another `knocking down the cavern` moment for this city, that made financial sense in the 70`s too.
once the novelty of having a new stadium wears off people will regret us leaving, it might take 10 years, it might take 20 years, but at some point in the future people will regret that we moved away from our spiritual home.

If we don't move (or at least drastically change Anfield so it is no longer the stadium it was) then in 20yrs we risk being a mid table side at best.

[its cold in the stands]

If we don't move (or at least drastically change Anfield so it is no longer the stadium it was) then in 20yrs we risk being a mid table side at best.

i`m sure anfield can be redeveloped.

[CraigDS]

i`m sure anfield can be redeveloped.

To what extent. Replace the Main Stand and all the history it includes. Replace the Kop (again). Replace Anny Rd end (again).

Do that and its already a new stadium. Why not just move 100yrds to a new one, remember our history and create new memories.

[MULLENEDWINE]

I'm wanting us to re-furb Anfield as the idea of having some horrible company named stadium makes me shudder. I think everyone at the club knows this and i'm sure they'll make the right decision...

[its cold in the stands]

To what extent. Replace the Main Stand and all the history it includes. Replace the Kop (again). Replace Anny Rd end (again).

Do that and its already a new stadium. Why not just move 100yrds to a new one, remember our history and create new memories.

like the cavern?

[helmboy_nige]

All makes sense to me.  The owners are just being thorough.  They are seeing what potential money there is in naming rights and that will help to inform their decision about either staying or moving.

[CraigDS]

like the cavern?

So you're telling me that once the Main Stand is replaced (gone are the old changies, the tunnel, the dugouts, etc), that in your eyes this is the Anfield of old? The Anfield so much history was made in?

It would be no different to what a new stadium over the road would be. Both would give a wink to the past histories but both are brand new stands/stadiums that are in no way linked to the past histories.

If we get this wrong by just trying to renovate for historys sake then we risk our history being all this club has ever been about and no future memories ever being made.

[Paulie's Wallnuts]

It seems ironic to me that some would be bothered about the name when in the Warrior kit deal thread, the general consensus was that "as long as they pay £20m a year, i dont care what the kit looks like"

To an extent i agree. Would it really be a great deal if, like Arsenal, we got £100m over a number of years to call Anfield something else?

As long as the name is tasteful and are willing to pump money into the club, who are we to turn the money away?

[Skeeve]

Naming rights for the existing stadium are likely to be inconsequential - Chelsea tried and failed to get £100m to rename Stamford Bridge. The reason? It's Stamford bridge, isn't it?

The big money IS in a branded stadium "Allianz Arena", Farmers Insurance have just signed a $700m deal for the 30 year naming rights deal for a stadium that doesnt even have a team in it yet!
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/fortune/1103/gallery.stadium_names.fortune/index.html

Naming rights for existing stadiums can be profitable if you look at some of the ones in the states, their drawback is that the ones companies would want to sponsor are the more famous ones and those ones being so famous people just tend to use the existing names anyway.

[CraigDS]

To an extent i agree. Would it really be a great deal if, like Arsenal, we got £100m over a number of years to call Anfield something else?

As long as the name is tasteful and are willing to pump money into the club, who are we to turn the money away?

For me its not just about pumping money in to the club that matters - its the long term effect it could have.

If we get half the money it would take to build a new stadium that would last us the new century (obv with expansions, etc. as Anfield has had) then that means much more than just money in.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Oh dear. New 'Stadium'

What is supposed to be wrong with our FOOTBALL GROUND?

[Skeeve]

If we are gonna move, it'll still be called Anfield regardless, no matter who sponsors it.

I'm sure they'll be sensible enough not to get tied into a long deal like Arsenal.

While they may not go for a 10 year deal, I don't think it would make much difference as they are not going to abandon a revenue stream like that after the initial deal, they will either extend the deal with the existing company or find somebody else to take over the naming rights instead.

[smicer07]

Oh dear. New 'Stadium'

What is supposed to be wrong with our FOOTBALL GROUND?

It's too small if we want to compete financially in the future?

[JamesG L4]

What a putrid sport we follow.

It disgusts me on almost every level. If they change the name, we will try keep Anfield going, but gradually the new brand will seep in. I'm sure no Arsenal fan calls their stadium Highbury (although different scenario).
 
Every TV, every radio, every newspaper "At the Panda Cola Bowl..."

Vile.

[ben]

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=273456.0

haha, pretty conclusive that. notion retracted.

[Keith Lard]

Oh dear. New 'Stadium'

What is supposed to be wrong with our FOOTBALL GROUND?

Do you think we should just keep our ground as it is and maybe just give it a lick of paint?

The debate would not stop there then ... a new thread would then start about whether we should use Dulux Weathershield or Sandtex?

[beliverpool]

New Stadium might be the best optioin as you can only expand Anfield to a certain extent and will likely need to still move in the near future.

[its cold in the stands]

So you're telling me that once the Main Stand is replaced (gone are the old changies, the tunnel, the dugouts, etc), that in your eyes this is the Anfield of old? The Anfield so much history was made in?

It would be no different to what a new stadium over the road would be. Both would give a wink to the past histories but both are brand new stands/stadiums that are in no way linked to the past histories.

If we get this wrong by just trying to renovate for historys sake then we risk our history being all this club has ever been about and no future memories ever being made.

anfield is more than a stadium mate, it`s a working class church, people have had their ashes spread on that pitch, the place meant that much to people that they wanted to spend the rest of eternity there.
when the likes of suarez and lucas run around that pitch they are running across the same patch of ground that the likes of albert stubbins, gordon hodgson, billy liddell, ian st. john, ron yeats, kevin keegan, emlyn hughes, kenny dalglish etc etc ran across.
when league footy first began on the 8th september 1888 anfield was one of only 2 remaining grounds (the other is prestons deepdale) that hosted a game on that first saturday afternoon, competative football was being played at anfield long before the other `cathedrals` of world football like wembley, the nou camp, the maracana, the bernabeu even old trafford existed.
anywhere else they would be respecting that history and trying to build upon it, for some reason we want to discard it.
as i said most other clubs could only dream of having a home stadium with such history.

[Entropicity]

"The Budweiser"

Whasssssssssssuuuuuuuuuuupppppppppppppppp!!! Watching a game, having a bud.

[west_london_red]

What a putrid sport we follow.

It disgusts me on almost every level. If they change the name, we will try keep Anfield going, but gradually the new brand will seep in. I'm sure no Arsenal fan calls their stadium Highbury (although different scenario).
 
Every TV, every radio, every newspaper "At the Panda Cola Bowl..."

Vile.

The main difference for us is that the current location and proposed location are so close to each other, and crucially we are still playing in the district of Anfield so can legitimatly call any new stadium Anfield

[CraigDS]

anfield is more than a stadium mate, it`s a working class church, people have had their ashes spread on that pitch, the place meant that much to people that they wanted to spend the rest of eternity there.
when the likes of suarez and lucas run around that pitch they are running across the same patch of ground that the likes of albert stubbins, gordon hodgson, billy liddell, ian st. john, ron yeats, kevin keegan, emlyn hughes, kenny dalglish etc etc ran across.
when league footy first began on the 8th september 1888 anfield was one of only 2 remaining grounds (the other is prestons deepdale) that hosted a game on that first saturday afternoon, competative football was being played at anfield long before the other `cathedrals` of world football like wembley, the nou camp, the maracana, the bernabeu even old trafford existed.
anywhere else they would be respecting that history and trying to build upon it, for some reason we want to discard it.
as i said most other clubs could only dream of having a home stadium with such history.

Im sorry to break it to you, but that patch of ground has been dug up (deep) and replaced many times over. The main stand is the last of the 'historic' parts that was there in times gone by, and that needs levelling and rebuilding for any renovation to work. That ISNT the stadium or pitch anymore where all that history was made.

Anfield currently is the pretty much the same as if I knocked down 75% of my mums house (where I grew up) and replaced that with bigger and better parts to the house. It would no longer be where I grew up and the memories I made there. If I then had to replace the final 25% then it really would lose all connection to the past other than its on the spot of the house I grew up in.

Much the same analogy can be given for moving. If you still lived in the house you grew up in and were having a family of your own - you had the choice of renovating/improving the current house which would more or less satisfy what your family need/want for the new 10yrs, or move to a new house which would provide fully for your family for next 30yrs, which would you do?

[its cold in the stands]

Im sorry to break it to you, but that patch of ground has been dug up (deep) and replaced many times over. The main stand is the last of the 'historic' parts that was there in times gone by, and that needs levelling and rebuilding for any renovation to work. That ISNT the stadium or pitch anymore where all that history was made.

Anfield currently is the pretty much the same as if I knocked down 75% of my mums house (where I grew up) and replaced that with bigger and better parts to the house. It would no longer be where I grew up and the memories I made there. If I then had to replace the final 25% then it really would lose all connection to the past other than its on the spot of the house I grew up in.

Much the same analogy can be given for moving. If you still lived in the house you grew up in and were having a family of your own - you had the choice of renovating/improving the current house which would more or less satisfy what your family need/want for the new 10yrs, or move to a new house which would provide fully for your family for next 30yrs, which would you do?

i dont agree mate, thats a poor argument, are you telling me that the manc`s are stupid for feeling any sort of connection to old trafford these days because it`s not the same place the likes of charlton, law, edwards and best played?
i bet manchester united fans are proud that old trafford may be a huge 78,000 seat stadium these days but it is essentially the same place where matt busby stood in the 1940`s, surveyed the damaged to the stadium caused by the luftwaffe and swore to himself that he would build a great club out of the wreckage.

[kalle-anka]

Will be a very sad day when we no longer play at "Anfield".

I think it will happen though.

[west_london_red]

i dont agree mate, thats a poor argument, are you telling me that the manc`s are stupid for feeling any sort of connection to old trafford these days because it`s not the same place the likes of charlton, law, edwards and best played?
i bet manchester united fans are proud that old trafford may be a huge 78,000 seat stadium these days but it is essentially the same place where matt busby stood in the 1940`s, surveyed the damaged to the stadium caused by the luftwaffe and swore to himself that he would build a great club out of the wreckage.

We should be proud of our history, but we shouldnt let it hold us back.

[its cold in the stands]

We should be proud of our history, but we shouldnt let it hold us back.

how does redeveloping anfield hold us back?

[west_london_red]

how does redeveloping anfield hold us back?

It does if we cannot add enough seats and corporate stuff to it to.

[its cold in the stands]

It does if we cannot add enough seats and corporate stuff to it to.

i`m sure they could if they wanted to.

[west_london_red]

i`m sure they could if they wanted to.

All depends on planning permission, and considering Anfield is surrounded by peoples houses on 3 sides it is far from guranteed based on what i have read here, but i am not expert in planning permission.

The thing with Anfield compared to the few other stadiums i have been to is that its footprint is very small, now that has its advantages in terms of everyone being close together helping with the atmosphere, the disadvantage being the non existant leg room in much of the stadium and difficulty in expanding the stadium.

Would love a 60-65k expanded Anfield, but if it isnt possible, id rather we move than stay in say a 55k seaster Anfield. The stadium has to server us for the next 100 years like Anfield, we cannot compromise, its not fair on future generations of supporters.

[its cold in the stands]

All depends on planning permission, and considering Anfield is surrounded by peoples houses on 3 sides it is far from guranteed based on what i have read here, but i am not expert in planning permission.

The thing with Anfield compared to the few other stadiums i have been to is that its footprint is very small, now that has its advantages in terms of everyone being close together helping with the atmosphere, the disadvantage being the non existant leg room in much of the stadium and difficulty in expanding the stadium.

Would love a 60-65k expanded Anfield, but if it isnt possible, id rather we move than stay in say a 55k seaster Anfield. The stadium has to server us for the next 100 years like Anfield, we cannot compromise, its not fair on future generations of supporters.

they could do it if they wanted to, and anfield isnt surrounded by houses on 3 sides these days, there`s quite a bit of room around it now, there`s only the kemlyn road thats still a bit cramped (and even then there`s a car park at the back of it).

[west_london_red]

they could do it if they wanted to, and anfield isnt surrounded by houses on 3 sides these days, there`s quite a bit of room around it now, there`s only the kemlyn road that s still a bit cramped.

There are houses on the roads that surround it though and im really not sure what you mean by there is quite a bit of room around Anfield when there really isnt, and your repetition of they "could do it if they wanted to" doesnt neccessarily make it so.

[PILLSBURY069]

There is the other option which is how they have named the headingley cricket ground, it is now known as the headingley carnegie ground, the owners will know how important the name anfield is,so they will find a way to keep it.