Topic: Anfield development ticket prices

[Peter McGurk]

They'll be expensive and the view will be shit. Dress it up as much as you want.

Here's news... The seats at the back will be cheaper than the seats in the middle and the same or cheaper than the seats at the front.

[Rome-77]

great thread.. ŁNOUGH IS ŁNOUGH” 

[Ned Kelly]

Here's news... The seats at the back will be cheaper than the seats in the middle and the same or cheaper than the seats at the front.

Here's news... The seats at the back will be cheaper than the seats in the middle and the same or cheaper than the seats at the front.

How is that news ?

Pretty obvious but how much will they be and what do you class as cheap?

[macca007]

Still the only way I can see tickets getting any cheaper is if they make parts of the ground safe standing. Can't see any other way at all.  Unless modern football caves in on itself and the fans just say enough is enough. And I know plenty who already have.

[xRedmanLFCx]

Still the only way I can see tickets getting any cheaper is if they make parts of the ground safe standing. Can't see any other way at all.  Unless modern football caves in on itself and the fans just say enough is enough. And I know plenty who already have.

Why, in a business sense, should safe standing cause clubs to drop prices?

Obviously, logically and socially you wouldn't expect to pay the same amount as for a seat, but why would clubs lower from what they already charge?

[Uncle Ronnie]

Why, in a business sense, should safe standing cause clubs to drop prices?

Obviously, logically and socially you wouldn't expect to pay the same amount as for a seat, but why would clubs lower from what they already charge?

Because of

Obviously, logically and socially you wouldn't expect to pay the same amount as for a seat

And you can get twice as many people in. (Maybe not twice as many but 1.5 or so)

[CraigDS]

Why, in a business sense, should safe standing cause clubs to drop prices?

Obviously, logically and socially you wouldn't expect to pay the same amount as for a seat, but why would clubs lower from what they already charge?

You've just answered your own question there - the level of 'service' being offered (i.e. Having to stand for 90 mins rather than sit in relative comfort) is less, therefore the price that can be charged should be lower.

Personally it would be good if it ever was introduced that there was a rule in place which forces standing ticket prices to be no more than the equivalent of having seats in the same area, so if you could fit 2 people in the space of one Ł40 seat then the standing tickets would be a max of Ł20 each.

[macca007]

Why, in a business sense, should safe standing cause clubs to drop prices?

Obviously, logically and socially you wouldn't expect to pay the same amount as for a seat, but why would clubs lower from what they already charge?

As above with more in and worse standards than seated but there's an increases capacity with very little cost and work to upgrade compared to if they where expanding the stand to accommodate more seats. Would be cheap to do and no one would pay the same for standing as seated.

[BOC14]

It's already the case, generally speaking, that seats with a worse view are cheaper. The main issue is that they're still not actually cheap!

[Peter McGurk]

Why, in a business sense, should safe standing cause clubs to drop prices?

Obviously, logically and socially you wouldn't expect to pay the same amount as for a seat, but why would clubs lower from what they already charge?

Since the club believes that just short of 60,000 can be filled at seating prices, it can only add capacity by reducing prices to a level that more people could afford.

In the short term, the financial benefit would be marginal (more people but lower prices and the cost of installation). It can make some sense only in the long term as it grows future generations of support for the club.

We are both arguing over semantics, my point was that the tickets will be expensive and the view will be shit. I stand by that.

FSG inherited the current stadium and facilitiesand so their hands are tied slightly by peoples current expectations. The tiered pricing system will have more levels added and these tickets will be pushing Ł60 in my opinion which is shite.

Stand by it if you like but the clubs hands are only tied by what most people can pay and still cover the cost of the stadium and make money for the team. For the majority of seats thats around about todays prices - well short of Ł60.

There are a lesser number who can pay a lot more, for premium seats and they will. But there is only about 2,600 in the corporate tier, so expect the premium seat prices to spread into the existing main stand if sales go well.

As for the view, it will be a standard above what is considered to be good. Better in the centre, less so in the wings. It will not be possible to see goal kicks over 18m high from the very back.

[Eeyore]

You've just answered your own question there - the level of 'service' being offered (i.e. Having to stand for 90 mins rather than sit in relative comfort) is less, therefore the price that can be charged should be lower.

Personally it would be good if it ever was introduced that there was a rule in place which forces standing ticket prices to be no more than the equivalent of having seats in the same area, so if you could fit 2 people in the space of one Ł40 seat then the standing tickets would be a max of Ł20 each.

In theory yes, in reality no.

The clubs will screw their customers for every penny they can get.

If a lower level of service means a lower price then surely a lower standard of Football should equate to lower prices. Likewise with the huge increases in TV revenues then there should be an opportunity to slash ticket prices. Unfortunately football clubs are like a sponge they just suck up whatever revenue is available with little regard to whether existing fans can afford it or not.

[CraigDS]

In theory yes, in reality no.

The clubs will screw their customers for every penny they can get.

I agree. Which is why I think it would be good if the powers that be can put some pressure on the clubs, if they allow standing, to prevent it.

If a lower level of service means a lower price then surely a lower standard of Football should equate to lower prices.

That's sort of the case isn't it? Lower standard of football tends to = less demand for tickets which tends to = lower prices.

Not always of course as there are other things which effect demand, but in general that appears to happen.

Likewise with the huge increases in TV revenues then there should be an opportunity to slash ticket prices. Unfortunately football clubs are like a sponge they just suck up whatever revenue is available with little regard to whether existing fans can afford it or not.

Yup, agree with that. However that are some differences from increase in TV revenue and introducing a new ticketing level which standing would be.

Again though, it's why id like to see some control on it if introduced - as there should of been with the TV increase.

[Smudgester]

Where are people getting the idea that safe standing would DOUBLE the capacity in such sections? Most models/images I have seen give the impression that you'd be lucky to even get a 50% increase

[CraigDS]

Where are people getting the idea that safe standing would DOUBLE the capacity in such sections? Most models/images I have seen give the impression that you'd be lucky to even get a 50% increase

What models are you looking at?

The FSF safe standing model has two people in front of 1 seat. Others I have seen are approx 1.8 in the same area.

[SpartanTree. No deccies or lights.]

Since the club believes that just short of 60,000 can be filled at seating prices, it can only add capacity by reducing prices to a level that more people could afford.

In the short term, the financial benefit would be marginal (more people but lower prices and the cost of installation). It can make some sense only in the long term as it grows future generations of support for the club.

After the current renovation - Anfield's capacity will go up to 54k and if the Annie Road works go ahead then it'll raise capacity to 58k.

So we wouldn't be able to raise capacity anyway would we based on the fact that if we go beyond 60k there's a huge cost implication related to transport etc ?

[Rome-77]

After the current renovation - Anfield's capacity will go up to 54k and if the Annie Road works go ahead then it'll raise capacity to 58k.

So we wouldn't be able to raise capacity anyway would we based on the fact that if we go beyond 60k there's a huge cost implication related to transport etc ?

i,m not sure them  transport/60k/plans are  still relevant, its was a 5 years old application for a new ground
in Stanley park that was being built on an existing car park.
say we got to 58,000 with the rd end, and some how managed to plan for another 4-5,000 not sure
we would neen planing for over 60k transport ?     

[CraigDS]

i,m not sure them  transport/60k/plans are  still relevant, its was a 5 years old application for a new ground
in Stanley park that was being built on an existing car park.
say we got to 58,000 with the rd end, and some how managed to plan for another 4-5,000 not sure
we would neen planing for over 60k transport ?   

We'd need a new transport plan for any increase, as we have had to do for the current work on Anfield.

How exactly do you think it's not relevant though? I mean the back of the current Anny to the back of what would of been the new stadium is less than 100m, so it's in exactly the same area. Not much has changed in the last 5 years with regards to local transport infrastructure, and I doubt much has changed with how fans travel to and from games.

[Rome-77]

relax lad, just asking the question
the original plan was 5 years ago and going straight from 45k to 60 odd and getting rid of 3,000 car park space.
with the attendants now going up in small stages,without getting rid of the club car park i wonder if this still applies
does anyone know for sure     

[Nessy76]

We'd need a new transport plan for any increase, as we have had to do for the current work on Anfield.

How exactly do you think it's not relevant though? I mean the back of the current Anny to the back of what would of been the new stadium is less than 100m, so it's in exactly the same area. Not much has changed in the last 5 years with regards to local transport infrastructure, and I doubt much has changed with how fans travel to and from games.

Presumably there is still that car park?

As for ticket prices in standing areas, I'd expect them to be lower than seated prices, but maybe not as low as half.

So say Ł25 rather than Ł40. (For sake of argument)
10,000 seats at Ł40 would get you Ł400,000.
18,000 standing places at Ł25 would get Ł450,000.
And you'd also make more from selling more drinks, pies, programmes, and stuff from the club shop.
Assuming the average fan spends a fiver inside the ground, that's another 40k in match-day income right there, and given the generous mark-up on all that stuff, at least 30k of that would be sheer profit.

That's Ł80,000 more per match. Not to be sniffed at.

So yes, in principle the club could charge considerably less for standing places and still benefit from the change.

[CraigDS]

relax lad, just asking the question

And I was answering it. Any assumption I was anything but 'relaxed' is in your head.

the original plan was 5 years ago and going straight from 45k to 60 odd and getting rid of 3,000 car park space.
with the attendants now going up in small stages,without getting rid of the club car park i wonder if this still applies
does anyone know for sure     

Stages doesn't matter so much. The end result is still that X amount of people will be coming and going before matches.

The club would be required to show either the current transport infrastructure at the time can handle the added amount of people planned, or would have to show what measures would be put in place to do so.

Also, there wasn't a loss of 3,000 spaces. Firstly they were going to put car parking under the stadium, then when they were cost cutting, from memory they were going to build a multi story car park next to the ground, I think where the school has been knocked down.

[Rome-77]

And I was answering it. Any assumption I was anything but 'relaxed' is in your head.

Stages doesn't matter so much. The end result is still that X amount of people will be coming and going before matches.

The club would be required to show either the current transport infrastructure at the time can handle the added amount of people planned, or would have to show what measures would be put in place to do so.

Also, there wasn't a loss of 3,000 spaces. Firstly they were going to put car parking under the stadium, then when they were cost cutting, from memory they were going to build a multi story car park next to the ground, I think where the school has been knocked down.

but isn't that what doing it in stages does, say there's  no real problem at 58,
building a new train station for say 63, would be irrelevant.what do you reckon

[CraigDS]

but isn't that what doing it in stages does, say there's  no real problem at 58,
building a new train station for say 63, would be irrelevant.what do you reckon

Of course, but it would still require a transport plan. It would also require the multiple transport plans done previously for 60k+ (both new stadium and expansion) being wrong or for things to of changed either locally with the transport infrastructure or with the way fans travel to the match.

Also it ignores the fact that there is little to show, at ticket prices which makes it viable to actually build something so big, the demand for such a sized stadium is there.

And yes, before you say it... something is wrong with me/they should just build it anyway/viable smiable/etc.

[Rome-77]

Of course, but it would still require a transport plan. It would also require the multiple transport plans done previously for 60k+ (both new stadium and expansion) being wrong or for things to of changed either locally with the transport infrastructure or with the way fans travel to the match.

Also it ignores the fact that there is little to show, at ticket prices which makes it viable to actually build something so big, the demand for such a sized stadium is there.

And yes, before you say it... something is wrong with me/they should just build it anyway/viable smiable/etc.

not going down the same rd again because i keep gettin warned but as you bought it up.
there deffo demand for a 60-65,000 stadium, 
you have no idea   

[CraigDS]

not going down the same rd again because i keep gettin warned but as you bought it up.
there deffo demand for a 60-65,000 stadium, 
you have no idea   

Feel free to start a new thread with what I presume is some pretty detailed evidence of this demand.

[Rome-77]

Feel free to start a new thread with what I presume is some pretty detailed evidence of this demand.

but you then say the owners wont build the rdend stand until know if demand is there.
so have they got the "detailed evidence"  or not,
its the demand for the corporate that's the issue.. to them because if they easily sell out
the corporate seats will then move into the lower mainstand and so on.

anyway enough on that tonight.       

[CraigDS]

snip     

Seriously mate, read the 70k my arse thread from cover to cover which is further down the forum, and then if you've anything new either ask Alan to open that back up or start a new thread.

[Rome-77]

Seriously mate, read the 70k my arse thread from cover to cover which is further down the forum, and then if you've anything new either ask Alan to open that back up or start a new thread.

you really wind me up.

[Ned Kelly]

you really wind me up.

Haha don't let the bastards grind you down mate.

The demand is absolutely there for a ground with a 65k capacity , trouble is it moves the 'sweet spot' that Ian Ayre is so fond about.

There lies the problem.

Liverpool fc is being used for the benefit of the fsg hedge fund , simple really.

[Peter McGurk]

not going down the same rd again because i keep gettin warned but as you bought it up.
there deffo demand for a 60-65,000 stadium, 
you have no idea   

Deffo. Right. Next...

Haha don't let the bastards grind you down mate.

The demand is absolutely there for a ground with a 65k capacity , trouble is it moves the 'sweet spot' that Ian Ayre is so fond about.

There lies the problem.

Liverpool fc is being used for the benefit of the fsg hedge fund , simple really.

The sweet spot is the best balance of cost, demand and price.

Adding more capacity doesnt move it. It moves the money away from it. In short, spending more to earn less for the team. Simple enough really.

It is more than the 70k my arse thread that some need to re-read.

[Rome-77]

Deffo. Right. Next...


The sweet spot is the best balance of cost, demand and price.

Adding more capacity doesnt move it. It moves the money away from it. In short, spending more to earn less for the team. Simple enough really.

It is more than the 70k my arse thread that some need to re-read.

what as the world come to liverpool fans using the word sweet spot. the club belongs to us ffs
what an absolute disgrace,
lets put the tickets up a tenner then we wont need any extension, another sweet spot, Jesus       
shanks will be turning in his grave.what a gang of tory capitalists.

we should have the 2nd biggest capacity in England, end of 
 

[Ned Kelly]

Deffo. Right. Next...


The sweet spot is the best balance of cost, demand and price.

Adding more capacity doesnt move it. It moves the money away from it. In short, spending more to earn less for the team. Simple enough really.

It is more than the 70k my arse thread that some need to re-read.

The sweet spot is what's best for FSG not LFC , Simple enough really.

[CraigDS]

Either of you two going to bother backing up your arguments with some actual facts?

[Rome-77]

Either of you two going to bother backing up your arguments with some actual facts?

you want facts, here one i cant afford to take my lad the game.
what a joke you are.. sweet spot 

[CraigDS]

you want facts, here one i cant afford to take my lad the game.
what a joke you are.. sweet spot

Is your lad the size of 5,000 normal people?

If not it doesn't really prove we could sell out a 65k seater regularly.

[TepidT2O]

Just fucking leave it

[Claire.]

Same old faces ruining the same old threads... Locked for a bit until someone who can be arsed to moderate you unlocks it.