Topic: Anfield Road Redevelopment

[Macred]

It’s not that you were winding me up, it’s just we’ve had countless members come on here over the years saying the club will never build the Main and we’re being taken for a ride - yet look where we are. Same with Melwood & Kirkby, we’ve had managers going years now who have wanted them brought together and they’re making it happen.

The club went through the correct decision making process to make sure it was done right, and it has been - both in how it looks, what it offers and the costs involved.

They will do the same now with the Anny Road, the template is there to show they can get this right too, and I’m sure more will be revealed in the coming months. I think when it comes to delivering on the building projects they’ve earned a little bit of trust.

Aye, I guess so.

[BaZ87]

The expected revenue from the main was projected to be £20m based on 25 games.

The approx. revenue per home game pre new main stand was approx. £2m.

We played 7 less games than the season (24 compared to 31) before when the new main opened. So lost that £2m revenue x 7 (£14m) - i.e. without the new main stand the matchday revenue would have dropped from £62m to £48m. So even with less games we made £12m more than the season before i.e. the new main seemingly contributed £26m in additional matchday revenue. So matchday revenue is something like £3.1m per game with the main stand or an increase of £1.1m per game.

So this year with PL 19 games, Cup 2 games, Cl 6 games  - 27 games x £3.1  + £83.8m this current year. Dometsic cup gate receipts I think are split 50/50. Cl you keep all your money.

I believe our matchday revenue includes money from pre and post season tours also..  so maybe this year we could be close to £90m in matchday revenue even without an expanded ARE or £10m behind Arsenal.  Interesting to see what Spurs do with their new stadium (and the prices they are charging... £1900 for their most expensive season ticket).

These calculations are far too simplistic. You can't simply divide total match day income by the amount of games to get an average and then use that moving forwards. The high end corporate tickets, which make up a sizeable chunk of match day revenue, are sold seasonally so whether you play 1 home cup game in a season or 10 you still earn the same amount. You only have to look at previous season to see that the fewer home games you play, the higher the average income per game is.

Match day revenue 13/14 = £51m from 21 home games = average of £2.4m per game
Match day revenue 14/15 = £59m from 27 home games = average of £2.2m per game
Match day revenue 15/16 = £62m from 31 home games = average of £2m per game.

Obviously it's possible that the club have increased the price of these corporate tickets to factor in additional European games but if you look at the difference between 13/4 and 14/15, it would suggest that they didn't (at least not by much) back then. Assuming there has been no significant increase in these prices then I'd guess that we'd be looking at between £1.5m and £2m per game for the extra 3 games this season and then maybe another £500k per game from the other 3 CL games.  That would take our match day income to around £80m with an average of just under £3m per game.

[CraigDS]

These calculations are far too simplistic. You can't simply divide total match day income by the amount of games to get an average and then use that moving forwards. The high end corporate tickets, which make up a sizeable chunk of match day revenue, are sold seasonally so whether you play 1 home cup game in a season or 10 you still earn the same amount. You only have to look at previous season to see that the fewer home games you play, the higher the average income per game is.

Match day revenue 13/14 = £51m from 21 home games = average of £2.4m per game
Match day revenue 14/15 = £59m from 27 home games = average of £2.2m per game
Match day revenue 15/16 = £62m from 31 home games = average of £2m per game.

Obviously it's possible that the club have increased the price of these corporate tickets to factor in additional European games but if you look at the difference between 13/4 and 14/15, it would suggest that they didn't (at least not by much) back then. Assuming there has been no significant increase in these prices then I'd guess that we'd be looking at between £1.5m and £2m per game for the extra 3 games this season and then maybe another £500k per game from the other 3 CL games.  That would take our match day income to around £80m with an average of just under £3m per game.

The vast majority of our hospitality packages are sold in Gold, Silver and Bronze packages - these consist of 7, 10 and 2 PL games. They don't include Cup or European games.

Obviously the very high end packages tend to include all home games, but these don't represent the majority of our hospitality offering.

[Macred]

These calculations are far too simplistic. You can't simply divide total match day income by the amount of games to get an average and then use that moving forwards. The high end corporate tickets, which make up a sizeable chunk of match day revenue, are sold seasonally so whether you play 1 home cup game in a season or 10 you still earn the same amount. You only have to look at previous season to see that the fewer home games you play, the higher the average income per game is.

Match day revenue 13/14 = £51m from 21 home games = average of £2.4m per game
Match day revenue 14/15 = £59m from 27 home games = average of £2.2m per game
Match day revenue 15/16 = £62m from 31 home games = average of £2m per game.

Obviously it's possible that the club have increased the price of these corporate tickets to factor in additional European games but if you look at the difference between 13/4 and 14/15, it would suggest that they didn't (at least not by much) back then. Assuming there has been no significant increase in these prices then I'd guess that we'd be looking at between £1.5m and £2m per game for the extra 3 games this season and then maybe another £500k per game from the other 3 CL games.  That would take our match day income to around £80m with an average of just under £3m per game.

So the same figure that I got then... as you will see that I did not knock of half for the FA CUP games. £1.5m for each game  = £3m... from the £83m that is £80m.

It was not intended to be 100% accurate just an approximation and yes simplistic. As i said, the money generated from tours is included. The Australia tour whenever that was generated £10m (not sure what year that was). No idea about other tours, so they need to be factored in. I assume that stadium revenue includes museum and events and weddings etc. They stopped during the main stand construction phase and revenue was lost from that. I know that in 2014/15 the museum had 200,000 visitors.. and at £20 per pop that's what £2,000,000 per year. Then the stadium tour is I think on top of that, so who knows if that generated similar... and I could not tell you if that goes in the matchday pot or something else.

There is loads of info we are not privy to but ball park, we still get similar figures and it is still more than might have been expected. They say themselves that it has exceeded expectations. So all good.

[BaZ87]

The vast majority of our hospitality packages are sold in Gold, Silver and Bronze packages - these consist of 7, 10 and 2 PL games. They don't include Cup or European games.

Obviously the very high end packages tend to include all home games, but these don't represent the majority of our hospitality offering.

Look at the difference in match day revenue between 13/14 and 14/15. 6 extra home games (4 of which were European games) earned us an additional £8m or an average of £1.33m per game from all general admission tickets and match by match corporate tickets. Obviously those 2 domestic cup games would have be priced slightly cheaper bringing that average slightly down but to simplify things if you take that average over the 27 games - regular season tickets, general admission tickets and match by match corporate tickets earned approx £36m (obviously there's a few smaller issues to factor into that too), leaving around £23m (approx 40%) from seasonal corporate sales.

I don't know exactly what percentage of the additional corporate seats from the new main stand are sold seasonally compared to match by match which is why I gave a range of £1.5 to £2m but I'd be stunned if it were over £2m.

So the same figure that I got then... as you will see that I did not knock of half for the FA CUP games. £1.5m for each game  = £3m... from the £83m that is £80m.

It was not intended to be 100% accurate just an approximation and yes simplistic. As i said, the money generated from tours is included. The Australia tour whenever that was generated £10m (not sure what year that was). No idea about other tours, so they need to be factored in. I assume that stadium revenue includes museum and events and weddings etc. They stopped during the main stand construction phase and revenue was lost from that. I know that in 2014/15 the museum had 200,000 visitors.. and at £20 per pop that's what £2,000,000 per year. Then the stadium tour is I think on top of that, so who knows if that generated similar... and I could not tell you if that goes in the matchday pot or something else.

There is loads of info we are not privy to but ball park, we still get similar figures and it is still more than might have been expected. They say themselves that it has exceeded expectations. So all good.

My post wasn't aimed at your specific figures but the way you were coming to them. You can't simply work out an average and then multiply it by x amount of games. Your suggestion that match day income would have been as low as £48m without the new main stand isn't supported by the fact that we made £51m in 13/14 despite playing 3 fewer games than last season. The average income per game will always be lower in seasons where you play more games because of seasonal hospitality sales.

Re pre season tour money, I'm not 100% sure but I don't believe that is correct. If we were to play a friendly at Anfield that might go into match day revenue but money from a US or Asian tour will go into the commercial pot.

[Peter McGurk]

The numbers can and have all been reduced down to one number (by Deloitte) - revenue per seat. It's one number that takes into account numbers of seats, attendances (and hence numbers of empty seats, numbers of games, GA ticket prices, hospitality revenue, the whole toot in one number. All other numbers floor from there.

LFC have been steadily working their way from an impoverished £850 per seat towards, even past, a target of £1200 per seat. Passing this target would have been easier with the /main Stand because of the higher numbers of corporate seats and packets. The optimum RPS is at about 51,000 capacity. Take it or leave it. It's a mathematical fact. After that, the number goes down.

The numbers go down as all the there numbers (costs) go up. The revenue per seat will come DOWN when the ARE is complete, which makes it so hard to do.

Martin (sic) Broughton, bless his cotton socks, is no property developer and there are desperately few with the necessary experience to call a football stadium of the importance of Anfield right. FSG would be one of those few. They have the experience.

As for fan participation in the decision making, ask yourself this - looking back, how much have the fans got right about Anfield? How many wasted time and effort calling for a new stadium that's going to take us to the next generation? Put us in a European elite? Shower us with cheap tickets?

[owens_2k]

The numbers can and have all been reduced down to one number (by Deloitte) - revenue per seat. It's one number that takes into account numbers of seats, attendances (and hence numbers of empty seats, numbers of games, GA ticket prices, hospitality revenue, the whole toot in one number. All other numbers floor from there.

LFC have been steadily working their way from an impoverished £850 per seat towards, even past, a target of £1200 per seat. Passing this target would have been easier with the /main Stand because of the higher numbers of corporate seats and packets. The optimum RPS is at about 51,000 capacity. Take it or leave it. It's a mathematical fact. After that, the number goes down.

The numbers go down as all the there numbers (costs) go up. The revenue per seat will come DOWN when the ARE is complete, which makes it so hard to do.

Martin (sic) Broughton, bless his cotton socks, is no property developer and there are desperately few with the necessary experience to call a football stadium of the importance of Anfield right. FSG would be one of those few. They have the experience.

As for fan participation in the decision making, ask yourself this - looking back, how much have the fans got right about Anfield? How many wasted time and effort calling for a new stadium that's going to take us to the next generation? Put us in a European elite? Shower us with cheap tickets?

So the RPS goes down with increased capacity over £51k but overall revenue per matchday will still increase due to volume of extra seats?

[Peter McGurk]

So the RPS goes down with increased capacity over £51k but overall revenue per matchday will still increase due to volume of extra seats?

RPS is an average taking all things into account and it's very simple - Annual Matchday Revenue divided by Capacity, eg., £72m divided by 60,000 = £1200 revenue per seat.

Revenue per Matchday is not a reliable measure as it will fluctuate depending on all the factors mentioned and more.

Nonetheless, Annual Matchday Revenue will increase due to volume of extra seats (provided they are sold and that's not guaranteed) but crucially, profitability will go down in line with the decreased revenue per seat versus the cost per seat.

[BaZ87]

RPS is an average taking all things into account and it's very simple - Annual Matchday Revenue divided by Capacity, eg., £72m divided by 60,000 = £1200 revenue per seat.

Revenue per Matchday is not a reliable measure as it will fluctuate depending on all the factors mentioned and more.

Nonetheless, Annual Matchday Revenue will increase due to volume of extra seats (provided they are sold and that's not guaranteed) but crucially, profitability will go down in line with the decreased revenue per seat versus the cost per seat.

To be clear, when you say profitability will go down are you referring to the average profit per seat? Providing the increased revenue is greater than the cost of capital then overall profit will go up, even if the average profit per seat reduces slightly.

[kaesarsosei]

My personal view is that I would like the AR end to be redeveloped even if it only adds 4k seats simply because the current stand looks awful, like something from Selhurst Park or the Dell. And by any accounts has a pretty bad atmosphere among home fans.

[Billy Elliot]

The optimum RPS is at about 51,000 capacity. Take it or leave it. It's a mathematical fact. After that, the number goes down.

Ian Ayre once said it was 62,000.  That being the point where we'd still fill the ground without reducing ticket prices.

We've gone from that to being satisfied at 54,000 to being ecstatic at 58,000.

[Danny Boys Dad]

My personal view is that I would like the AR end to be redeveloped even if it only adds 4k seats simply because the current stand looks awful, like something from Selhurst Park or the Dell. And by any accounts has a pretty bad atmosphere among home fans.

No it doesn't.

[jonnypb]

My personal view is that I would like the AR end to be redeveloped even if it only adds 4k seats.

Yes another 4k and a new stand is better than leaving it as is.  It would knock another chunk off the ST waiting list and also make more tickets available for members.

And by any accounts has a pretty bad atmosphere among home fans.

I think that's a bit of a generalisation.  You'll find that when the atmosphere is poor in the whole ground, it's poor in the AR, when it's good in the ground, it's good in the AR.

I've sat in the AR a number of times over the last couple of seasons and experienced a good atmosphere in there.

[Alan_X]

To be clear, when you say profitability will go down are you referring to the average profit per seat? Providing the increased revenue is greater than the cost of capital then overall profit will go up, even if the average profit per seat reduces slightly.

That's correct, unless of course the cost of building and maintaining the additional seats is excessive.

[Alan_X]

Yes another 4k and a new stand is better than leaving it as is.  It would knock another chunk off the ST waiting list and also make more tickets available for members.

I think that's a bit of a generalisation.  You'll find that when the atmosphere is poor in the whole ground, it's poor in the AR, when it's good in the ground, it's good in the AR.

I've sat in the AR a number of times over the last couple of seasons and experienced a good atmosphere in there.

The Anny Road is ok as long as you aren't at the back of the Lower or stuck in with a load of people on hospitality tickets who don't sing, video everything and cheer when the opposition scores.

[Alan_X]

Ian Ayre once said it was 62,000.  That being the point where we'd still fill the ground without reducing ticket prices.

We've gone from that to being satisfied at 54,000 to being ecstatic at 58,000.

That's a different calculation. Peter was talking about profitability per seat which maxes out around 51,000. Ayre was talking about capacity - filling most or all of your seats - which for most games in the season was estimated at around 62,000.

The figures will always be rule of thumb and need to be backed up with hard analysis of the particular club, catchment area and other factors including history, recent success and likely success in the future.

[Peter McGurk]

Ian Ayre once said it was 62,000.  That being the point where we'd still fill the ground without reducing ticket prices.

We've gone from that to being satisfied at 54,000 to being ecstatic at 58,000.

The so-called and misunderstood 'sweet spot' is the best balance of capacity, demand, price and cost at a reasonable level of risk. I realise what you're saying but it's not the point at which ticket prices actually reduce. The latter makes no sense. If ticket prices reduce as cost go up, it's all bad news financially.

[BaZ87]

That's correct, unless of course the cost of building and maintaining the additional seats is excessive.

These are the key questions the club need to answer when deciding to move ahead with the Annie Road then, not whether average revenue (or profit) per seat declines as Peter keeps saying.

We all know that revenue per seat will decrease as capacity increases due to limited demand for corporate seats but if overall profit can be maintained or better still, increased then give me a 62k seater stadium with a £13k revenue per seat figure over a 54k stadium with an average revenue per seat of £13.7k per seat.

[Peter McGurk]

These are the key questions the club need to answer when deciding to move ahead with the Annie Road then, not whether average revenue (or profit) per seat declines as Peter keeps saying.

We all know that revenue per seat will decrease as capacity increases due to limited demand for corporate seats but if overall profit can be maintained or better still, increased then give me a 62k seater stadium with a £13k revenue per seat figure over a 54k stadium with an average revenue per seat of £13.7k per seat.

That 5% overall equates to a 40% swing in revenue per seat on the ARE alone and could very well kill it as a scheme - particularly if the costs versus the income is already marginal. Clearly, it's all very close. Still, it's not your money. Well, actually...

That is therefore a very key issue but as I also keep saying, this is football and mad things get done. So one place I'd think about 'breaking the rules' is to demolish the whole of the ARE and build afresh 10m back. Long enough for a full length pitch and UEFA cameras. Then in the fullness of time, the club could go mad, demolish three rows of houses and do likewise with the Centenary.

[andy07]

That 5% overall equates to a 40% swing in revenue per seat on the ARE alone and could very well kill it as a scheme - particularly if the costs versus the income is already marginal. Clearly, it's all very close. Still, it's not your money. Well, actually...

That is therefore a very key issue but as I also keep saying, this is football and mad things get done. So one place I'd think about 'breaking the rules' is to demolish the whole of the ARE and build afresh 10m back. Long enough for a full length pitch and UEFA cameras. Then in the fullness of time, the club could go mad, demolish three rows of houses and do likewise with the Centenary.

If that was doable what would be the knock on effect on the Main Stand which would be offset towards the Kop?

[richmiller1]

That 5% overall equates to a 40% swing in revenue per seat on the ARE alone and could very well kill it as a scheme - particularly if the costs versus the income is already marginal. Clearly, it's all very close. Still, it's not your money. Well, actually...

You'd hope that even if the basic numbers ended up being slightly negative that the wider strategic imperatives would win out.

Any board not looking at the average age of their crowd and actively thinking 'iceberg ahead' really isn't doing the long term value of their investment any favours. Difficult to see any realistic solutions to that without increasing GA capacity.

Similarly, the intangible value of infrastructure renewal isn't to be sniffed at. The club that does nothing risks engendering a sense of stasis that can be remarkably pervasive. We know well enough what that feels like and the difference the main stand project made to internal and external perceptions. It would be a shame to risk that sense returning for the sake of a value as marginal to our financial health as paying good ol' Laser for another season

[BaZ87]

That 5% overall equates to a 40% swing in revenue per seat on the ARE alone and could very well kill it as a scheme - particularly if the costs versus the income is already marginal. Clearly, it's all very close. Still, it's not your money. Well, actually...

That is therefore a very key issue but as I also keep saying, this is football and mad things get done. So one place I'd think about 'breaking the rules' is to demolish the whole of the ARE and build afresh 10m back. Long enough for a full length pitch and UEFA cameras. Then in the fullness of time, the club could go mad, demolish three rows of houses and do likewise with the Centenary.

First off I was using those figures just as example but I don't understand why you keep focusing on the revenue per seat figure as if that's the key. Why not reduce the size of the ground to 15k, only have corporates and have a revenue per seat of £6k?

Revenue per seat will always decrease as you increase the capacity due to limits on demand for high end corporate tickets. That is not a reason for not expanding the annie road though. Whether revenue per seat decreases by 5, 10 or ever 15%, all that matters is whether overall revenue increases by enough to justify carrying out the work. How much exactly that needs to be will depend on the cost of the work, cost of capital, pay back period and so on. If revenue per seat was the key then we'd have never looked at expanding it at all.

[Billy Elliot]

The so-called and misunderstood 'sweet spot' is the best balance of capacity, demand, price and cost at a reasonable level of risk. I realise what you're saying but it's not the point at which ticket prices actually reduce. The latter makes no sense. If ticket prices reduce as cost go up, it's all bad news financially.

It all sounds arbitrary to me.  Ayre said 62,000 was the point where ticket prices wouldn't reduce, so I'm not sure what you mean.  If he was right then ticket prices wouldn't reduce unless we went over 62,000.

In an earlier post you said it was mathematically proven as fact to be 51,000 (or something like that, I haven't looked back to see exactly what you said).  I think you also referred to them as experts.

How an accountancy firm who have probably never stood a foot in Liverpool or a football ground can be considered expert is beyond me.  For example, we could probably reduce capacity and double ticket prices and still fill the ground.  After the £77 walk out they could have stood the ground and stilll filled it at those prices (if they couldn't still have filled it then their analysis would have been useless).  We'd have a very unhappy core fan base, some of which might have fucked it off but they could easily be replaced by FSG's LFC Family.

I think when calculating a sweet spot you need to consider the mind set of loyal football fans who feel they shouldn't be the subject of normal economic supply and demand.  Seeing the fans as important stake holders (especially those from the natural catchment area) seems to be beyond the owners of most football clubs.

Any normal businesses would love their customers to have the mind set of a football fan, they'd embrace it. 

Gone off on a tangent, fuck it, all this shit makes the Premier League boring anyway.  Ended up as a bit of a mind dump that, sorry.

Considering accountants in London as experts is what caused the £77 walk out.

[Peter McGurk]

It all sounds arbitrary to me.  Ayre said 62,000 was the point where ticket prices wouldn't reduce, so I'm not sure what you mean.  If he was right then ticket prices wouldn't reduce unless we went over 62,000.

In an earlier post you said it was mathematically proven as fact to be 51,000 (or something like that, I haven't looked back to see exactly what you said).  I think you also referred to them as experts.

How an accountancy firm who have probably never stood a foot in Liverpool or a football ground can be considered expert is beyond me.  For example, we could probably reduce capacity and double ticket prices and still fill the ground.  After the £77 walk out they could have stood the ground and stilll filled it at those prices (if they couldn't still have filled it then their analysis would have been useless).  We'd have a very unhappy core fan base, some of which might have fucked it off but they could easily be replaced by FSG's LFC Family.

I think when calculating a sweet spot you need to consider the mind set of loyal football fans who feel they shouldn't be the subject of normal economic supply and demand.  Seeing the fans as important stake holders (especially those from the natural catchment area) seems to be beyond the owners of most football clubs.

Any normal businesses would love their customers to have the mind set of a football fan, they'd embrace it. 

Gone off on a tangent, fuck it, all this shit makes the Premier League boring anyway.  Ended up as a bit of a mind dump that, sorry.

Considering accountants in London as experts is what caused the £77 walk out.

It's not the least bit arbitrary. carefully worked out to the best of anyone's ability. I would rely on experience but I wouldn't rely on anyone's word as gospel who didn't have it, amongst the least of which would be Ian Ayre (Parry, Purslow...). And the £77? How many seats would that have affected?

First off I was using those figures just as example but I don't understand why you keep focusing on the revenue per seat figure as if that's the key. Why not reduce the size of the ground to 15k, only have corporates and have a revenue per seat of £6k?

Revenue per seat will always decrease as you increase the capacity due to limits on demand for high end corporate tickets. That is not a reason for not expanding the annie road though. Whether revenue per seat decreases by 5, 10 or ever 15%, all that matters is whether overall revenue increases by enough to justify carrying out the work. How much exactly that needs to be will depend on the cost of the work, cost of capital, pay back period and so on. If revenue per seat was the key then we'd have never looked at expanding it at all.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. The revenue per seat is a key indicator of all how well the stadium is doing and how well the club is doing because if we do well in Europe or the Cups, then the RPS goes up. If we do well, corporate sales go up for each game and both corporate sales and general admission sales go up because they are more games.

Costs are very often forgotten for sure and most of the chat here is because of that but if the RPS is higher then the club can do more with capacity. It's not the other way around. There is a balance. Between how many fans can afford what and the cost of providing it. There is no build and they will come (and charge whatever you fancy). It's a balancing act across all football grounds and across many, many property developments, absolutely anywhere and anytime.

You are right that a small stadium full of corporates would yield the best possible return on anyone's investment but it wouldn't maximise the profit and the 'buzz' to help the club compete and generate more games and increase the RPS... and that is what a stadium is for - to generate 'critical mass', passion and following and to make the money to reinvest in the team.

We'll never generate the RPS of Arsenal or Chelsea but we can look after costs better than them and RPS better than them. We can probably generate more matchday profit than them. I'm not saying the highest RPS is the best. It's a balance. Always has been. Always will be.

[Peter McGurk]

You'd hope that even if the basic numbers ended up being slightly negative that the wider strategic imperatives would win out.

Any board not looking at the average age of their crowd and actively thinking 'iceberg ahead' really isn't doing the long term value of their investment any favours. Difficult to see any realistic solutions to that without increasing GA capacity.

Similarly, the intangible value of infrastructure renewal isn't to be sniffed at. The club that does nothing risks engendering a sense of stasis that can be remarkably pervasive. We know well enough what that feels like and the difference the main stand project made to internal and external perceptions. It would be a shame to risk that sense returning for the sake of a value as marginal to our financial health as paying good ol' Laser for another season

Eh?

But anyway... What I think is happening with the old farts argument is the club is moving to a lot more people going to fewer games at higher prices. Don't like it much (probably) but I can appreciate why someone would think it works.

[BaZ87]

I'm sorry but you're wrong. The revenue per seat is a key indicator of all how well the stadium is doing and how well the club is doing because if we do well in Europe or the Cups, then the RPS goes up. If we do well, corporate sales go up for each game and both corporate sales and general admission sales go up because they are more games.

Costs are very often forgotten for sure and most of the chat here is because of that but if the RPS is higher then the club can do more with capacity. It's not the other way around. There is a balance. Between how many fans can afford what and the cost of providing it. There is no build and they will come (and charge whatever you fancy). It's a balancing act across all football grounds and across many, many property developments, absolutely anywhere and anytime.

You are right that a small stadium full of corporates would yield the best possible return on anyone's investment but it wouldn't maximise the profit and the 'buzz' to help the club compete and generate more games and increase the RPS... and that is what a stadium is for - to generate 'critical mass', passion and following and to make the money to reinvest in the team.

We'll never generate the RPS of Arsenal or Chelsea but we can look after costs better than them and RPS better than them. We can probably generate more matchday profit than them. I'm not saying the highest RPS is the best. It's a balance. Always has been. Always will be.

I'm not sure how I'm wrong - your reply to my tongue in cheek comment about a 15k seater stadium full of corporates is the point I've been making. Maximum revenue per seat does not equal maximum profit or we'd have a tiny stadium with ticket prices of £500 per game. The club won't decide against expanding the Annie Road because average revenue per seat will drop. The decision will be taken based on their forecasts on overall profitability - which will be determined by potential revenue and costs.

As I keep saying, we all know average revenue per seat will drop if we expand the annie road but if overall revenue increases enough to justify the cost then it will happen.

[Peter McGurk]

I'm not sure how I'm wrong - your reply to my tongue in cheek comment about a 15k seater stadium full of corporates is the point I've been making. Maximum revenue per seat does not equal maximum profit or we'd have a tiny stadium with ticket prices of £500 per game. The club won't decide against expanding the Annie Road because average revenue per seat will drop. The decision will be taken based on their forecasts on overall profitability - which will be determined by potential revenue and costs.

As I keep saying, we all know average revenue per seat will drop if we expand the annie road but if overall revenue increases enough to justify the cost then it will happen.

You are wrong when you say that If revenue per seat was the key then we'd have never looked at expanding at all.

The club is looking at expanding and it needs to get RPS right - not the most or the least but the best balance for the numbers and types of demand and the cost of meeting that demand. That's not a tiny stadium at £500 a seat (great as the return on investment might be) nor a huge one at £20 a seat.

I originally said that an RPS of about £1200 with a capacity of 60,000 (or £72m) would be right for the club at prices of ‘today’ ie., a few years ago. This is well short of London clubs but would not stretch fans any further on ticket price and would not be too expensive as a redevelopment and might yield a better profit (whereas a new stadium would be too expensive for the same revenue).

Turns out this may have been conservative (no bad thing) and the club is maybe doing better than that already. At the current rate the £1370 RPS might be £1300 or better when the ARE is done.

Nonetheless this is at 40% less RPS on the ARE and in round terms 40% less available to pay the cost. Assuming off site hospitality perhaps this might be ok but it is touch and go.

[BaZ87]

You are wrong when you say that If revenue per seat was the key then we'd have never looked at expanding at all.

The club is looking at expanding and it needs to get RPS right - not the most or the least but the best balance for the numbers and types of demand and the cost of meeting that demand. That's not a tiny stadium at £500 a seat nor a huge one at £20 a seat.

I originally said that an RPS of about £1200 (or £72m) would be right for the club at prices of ‘today’ ie., a few years ago. This is well short of London clubs but would not stretch fans any further on ticket price and would not be too expensive as a redevelopment (whereas a new stadium would be too expensive for the same revenue).

Turns out this may have been conservative (no bad thing) and the club is maybe doing better than that already. At the current rate the £1370 RPS right be £1300 or better when the ARE is done.

Nonetheless this is at 40% less RPS on the ARE and in round terms 40% less available to pay the cost. Assuming off site hospitality this might be ok but it is touch and go.

How on earth is that wrong? Every man and his dog knows that overall rps will decrease if and when we expand the annie road. The fact that we're even considering expanding the annie road despite of this shows you that maintaining or increasing rps is not the key driver for the decision. Overall profit is the key and obviously the more revenue per seat (from those extra seats) the greater chance of increasing the profitability of the stadium and therefore justifying the expansion.

My initial reply to you was to clarify whether you were talking about average profit per seat or the overall profit from the stadium because it's the latter, not the former that will dictate whether the Annie Road happens or not. Revenue/profit per seat will decrease if we expand any further but if the increased capacity, even at less profit per seat means overall profit increases enough then the work happens or else we'd have never built beyond the 51k optimum rps that you keep mentioning.

[Peter McGurk]

How on earth is that wrong? Every man and his dog knows that overall rps will decrease if and when we expand the annie road. The fact that we're even considering expanding the annie road despite of this shows you that maintaining or increasing rps is not the key driver for the decision. Overall profit is the key and obviously the more revenue per seat (from those extra seats) the greater chance of increasing the profitability of the stadium and therefore justifying the expansion.

My initial reply to you was to clarify whether you were talking about average profit per seat or the overall profit from the stadium because it's the latter, not the former that will dictate whether the Annie Road happens or not. Revenue/profit per seat will decrease if we expand any further but if the increased capacity, even at less profit per seat means overall profit increases enough then the work happens or else we'd have never built beyond the 51k optimum rps that you keep mentioning.

You are criticising the emphasis on RPS as if it were key to have the maximum. This is wrong. It is essential to get RPS to the right level not a theoretical and unsustainable maximum.

Also I was not confusing revenue with profit.

[Billy Elliot]

And the £77? How many seats would that have affected?

If  I remember correctly there was also the £100+ general admission tickets that were renamed 'low level hospitality' after the TWG were told of the proposed prices.  Then there was a whole load of £67 tickkets on top.  But to answer your question the amount of people affected by the £77 seats is the equivalent to the amount of people who walked out after 77 minutes.

Anyway, I've had enough of it all.  I've never paid more than £48 and now I wouldn't pay more than £35 to watch a match (barring a Cup Final).

They can stick their sweet spots, revenue per tickets, ticket amnesties, Thatcherite ID card schemes, and 25 year waiting lists up their arse.  Some still enjoy it and I've got nothing against them but I didn't sign up to all that shite the first time I clicked through a turnstile. 

[BaZ87]

You are criticising the emphasis on RPS as if it were key to have the maximum. This is wrong. It is essential to get RPS to the right level not a theoretical and unsustainable maximum.

No I wasn't criticising. I've acknowledged that the higher the RPS the greater chance of profitability reaching a point that makes the work feasible. My initial reply was to clarify whether you were referring to profit per seat or overall profit and my entire point since has been that whether RPS is 5% more, the same or even 10% less, it's the overall profit that will dictate whether the work happens. RPS can increase but the expansion may not happen if the costs are too high and equally RPS could decrease and the expansion could still be feasible if the costs are lower. Overall profit, not RPS or even profit per seat is all that matters.

[SP]

This topic is about the Anfield Road expansion. Can certain posters stop their dick waving contests. It is really fucking tedious. You are as smug, rigid and inflexible as each other. Neither of you have a monopoly on the truth, and neither of you are above mispresentations to suit your agenda. You can both do better.

I know a lot of innocent posts got removed  as collateral damage. Sorry.

[Peter McGurk]

Neither of you have a monopoly on the truth,

And you do I guess. Don't bother mate. I'm gone.

[Eeyore]

How on earth is that wrong? Every man and his dog knows that overall rps will decrease if and when we expand the annie road. The fact that we're even considering expanding the annie road despite of this shows you that maintaining or increasing rps is not the key driver for the decision. Overall profit is the key and obviously the more revenue per seat (from those extra seats) the greater chance of increasing the profitability of the stadium and therefore justifying the expansion.

My initial reply to you was to clarify whether you were talking about average profit per seat or the overall profit from the stadium because it's the latter, not the former that will dictate whether the Annie Road happens or not. Revenue/profit per seat will decrease if we expand any further but if the increased capacity, even at less profit per seat means overall profit increases enough then the work happens or else we'd have never built beyond the 51k optimum rps that you keep mentioning.

Agree completely, there is always a point where volume exceeds revenue per seat.

Surely given the harsh economic realities of our primary catchment area we should be looking for both volume and Revenue per seat.

[andy07]

Some interesting reading in this thread in the absence of any real news.  People will always pontificate  when there is no news and pure speculation runs rife.  Perhaps the thread should be locked until there is an official announcement?

[Macred]

Some interesting reading in this thread in the absence of any real news.  People will always pontificate  when there is no news and pure speculation runs rife.  Perhaps the thread should be locked until there is an official announcement?

Why lock the thread? If people are not interested while there is no real news surely they just dont come to the thread until the plans are announced and that will be picked up by the Echo and the press generally. The discussion at this stage is centered on the financing of the development in the thread and that would seem to be the same stage that the club is at and is all part of the redevelopment process. It does seem to all go a bit personal at times... but that is natural I guess. IMO its interesting what we can and can not afford and what we might do, could do and the different reasons for those views. I can see merit in many of the arguments I think, and I learn from the different opinions but I have no idea who is right or wrong. Shame to close it down though, I think the debate is good until we get some pictures to look at.

[sharkeyb]

we building this or not then?

[paulrazor]

we building this or not then?

retweet from carra hinted yes but link was to daily fail so didnt open

[Garlicbread]

From the Mail:

Liverpool will speed up plans to revamp Anfield — and are already speaking to companies about sponsoring their new stand.

Officials at the club were given outline permission to extend the Anfield Road End when they applied for planning approval for the now-completed Main Stand.

They have until September 2019 to submit detailed plans for the next phase of the development, which is expected to take the capacity above 60,000.

However, the success of the extension of the Main Stand, which has triggered a staggering rise in matchday income of £12million, has prompted them to press ahead on the next phase of redevelopment at their iconic home this summer.

And Sportsmail understands that a number of high-profile companies have been approached about putting their name to the new stand which would generate even more income for the club.

Officially, Liverpool say that they are currently at a feasibility stage over the expansion of the Anfield Road End and are considering a number of options.

It is expected that an extra tier will be added, providing an extra 6,000 seats and taking its height to the same size of the new Main Stand, which has proved a hit with supporters.

Space behind the stand means that an expansion would be relatively straightforward as opposed to the expansion of the Main Stand, which was only possible after a number of nearby homes were bought and then demolished. It also means that, should it be deemed economically and logistically viable, they could push for 8,000 seats instead of 6,000.

At one stage, the plan in the boardroom was to monitor the performance of the Main Stand, and bank the additional income, before turning attention to the Anfield Road End.

However, the roaring success of the extension, which raised the capacity by around 8,500 seats to 54,074, has speeded up the process.

The £12m extra it generated took Liverpool’s matchday revenue to £74m, according to their accounts for the financial year up to May 2017 — a season without the additional income European football brings.

That leaves them behind Manchester United and Arsenal, on £107m and £100m respectively, but another expansion is likely to bridge the gap further as they seek to create a level financial playing field.

None of Anfield’s existing stands currently carry the name of a sponsor, but the revenue this could bring is thought to be a major attraction.

[TepidT2O]

 Not a good source as the author......

I would take with a large pinch of salt right now...


Probably pinched for the TIA piece...