Author Topic: Why we are where we are  (Read 40737 times)

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #40 on: August 1, 2016, 06:04:01 pm »
So, do we really need to make a financial return on the Annie Road?  If we need these 'missing demographics' that traditionally have provided the 'famous atmosphere' that we market, why can't we take a bit of a loss on it and try to repair what we've got left of it?  They've already given an allocation to locals in 126/127, this could be expanded to provide more accessibility to young working class lads. 

Or, is the only hope for an increase in capacity with the main intention to improve atmosphere safe standing?  These ideas that have been banded about such as straightening the Kop (adding a block 303 and 307), or re-routing Walton Breck Road, would it be ridiculously expensive, or just too expensive to make a decent return?  (They're only two examples I can think of, they might not be the best examples).

There's not a lot in it for the club as it is but the ARE needs to make whatever return it can or it won't get built. There's no intangible gains to be had in the best away end in the league.

Offline God's Left Peg

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,791
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #41 on: August 16, 2016, 08:40:12 am »
There's not a lot in it for the club as it is but the ARE needs to make whatever return it can or it won't get built. There's no intangible gains to be had in the best away end in the league.

Put the away fans in the lower Kemlyn ;D
"The socialism I believe in is everybody working for the same goal and everybody having a share in the rewards. That's how I see football, that's how I see life."

Offline banjo

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #42 on: August 16, 2016, 12:00:49 pm »
Put the away fans in the lower Kemlyn ;D

Then who gets the joys of this view?


Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #43 on: August 16, 2016, 01:02:50 pm »
The answer to the OP is through a combination of torpor, lack of vision, lack of confidence, bad luck and circumstance.

Point zero on this is Hillsborough, The Taylor Report, and the inception of the Premier League and the money that has accompanied it. Some clubs relocated (Arsenal), some redeveloped (Man U) some took advantage of windfall opportunities ( Man City, West Ham) some took advantage of regeneration moves ( Stoke, Sunderland). We dithered.

As football became more popular, as more money came into the game, and as population growth bit such moves produced the doubling of attendances in some cases ( Sunderland), growth of over 50% in others ( Man U, Man C, Arsenal). Such action redefined, by attendance and match day income, the status of many clubs ( Reading, Swansea). We were content to let the market fill our remaining seats and inflate our ticket prices with an attendance growth amongst the worst in the North West.

A relocation was generally unpopular with our support. But in my view that was more down to the lack of vision and confidence in a move than the benefits of staying where we were. Tradition? If you look back long enough we are at Everton’s home ground. A generation has never seen a league title win at Anfield. Today creates tomorrow’s traditions.

In another thread I have seen Peter McGurk argue in favour of the longevity of reinforced concrete. In this thread I have seen Alan X argue that an 80,000 seater would price out fans. I have seen others anxious that we pay off a new stand in five years rather than look at whole of life profits.

Football is a business- but with some very odd business practices, including routinely paying out more than half of income in wages and the most significant growth coming from windfall TV rights, not success on the field.

The latest projections for the season just gone are that we will be £100m ahead of our nearest PL rivals for income (Spurs). That would pay for a new ARE in one season – and still not alter our ranking competitiveness in the league.

That our stadium torpor has cost, and is costing, us dear is not simply financial, it has also coincided with our league failure, and recently sporadic CL performances.

To Peter McGurk (earlier), I would ask, perhaps the ash, cinders and railway sleepers on the original ARE had a bit more life in them ( And a roof? Who needs a roof?)? To Alan X (earlier), I would say that a football ground is not a pleasure park. It is a place where supporters gather. Yes, they will pay to support, but also the club should pay to provide them with the opportunity to do so. The Club can afford it. The windfall growth in TV rights alone would cover the cost of admission for everyone for a season. Now I am not arguing that we should do so. I am arguing that the slavish adoption of corporate business to maximise income at the expense of fans, when that business can afford not to do so, is a curious position for any supporter to take. Some fans behave as if they are the secret love child of Ian Ayre over unsold seats. I can assure you that in the 70’s  and 80’s, there were not worried discussions on the steps of the Kop about empty seats in the main stand and gaps on the Kemlyn lower.

I was at Wembley for the Barcelona game. There were nearly 90,000 there, apart from the Barca staff they were nearly all Reds. That is a measure of what our Club is capable of. Yet I have seen some posts sneering at tourist/part time/plastic/whopper fans  who have had the temerity to turn up, unversed in match going ways… because, for a change, they could get a ticket!


I welcome the new Main Stand, but will not be celebrating the few thousand extra seats for ordinary fans after the corporate/premium seats have been filled. And with West Ham leapfrogging us in the capacity rankings ( with only 2000 fewer season ticket holders than our entire increased new capacity), and with Spurs and Chelsea set to overtake us with their redevelopments our relative status decreases.

Does capacity matter? I think it does. It reflects status. We are at the top table of EC/CL winners, yet our stadium comes way behind those whom we see as our peers. And we have lost much ground that financially we may never be at that top table for any length of time again – but what we do have is support. A support that is still the second highest by average historic league attendance in the English leagues. Providing an opportunity to come together, even if the team is not firing on all cylinders, cements that support. If you don’t, they will go and do something else, or somewhere else. Man U and Man City have not simply acquired 50,000 extra fans between them  in the PL years from existing support, they have provided the opportunity for new support to arrive, as anyone who is on the M6 northbound on a match day can testify.

That is why we are where we  are.


Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,264
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #44 on: August 16, 2016, 01:54:27 pm »
Most of that has been dealt with many time in the past so I won;t do a point by point. So just a couple of quick ones.

Quote
As football became more popular, as more money came into the game, and as population growth bit such moves produced the doubling of attendances in some cases ( Sunderland), growth of over 50% in others ( Man U, Man C, Arsenal). Such action redefined, by attendance and match day income, the status of many clubs ( Reading, Swansea).

Swansea didn't build a stadium - it's owned by the council and hosts Swansea City and the ospreys.

Reading's capacity is 24,000 which they filled when they were doing well but average capacity is around 17,000 for the last couple of seasons. Fortunately they never went ahead with the expansion plans (up to 37,000+) that received planning approval in 2007. Building seats doesn't attract supporters - success attracts supporters.

Sunderland's Stadium of Light has a capacity of 49,000 but their average attendance is around 40,000 - if you build it, they might come if the team's successful...

Man United didn't build a new stadium - they've redeveloped Old Trafford in a piecemeal fashion as demand for tickets increased with success. If they come, and there's success... you build it. That goes against everything you say, surely. They appear to have reached a ceiling of 75,000ish which is still short of the 80,000 that Liverpool have been encouraged to build by the more starry eyed of our supporters.

Man City, who have the TV income, Champions League money and the bottomless pockets of their owners have a stadium that's 55,000 at the moment and will go to around 60,000. Not 70,000, not 80,000... but around the same capacity as Anfield if we do the ARE.

Arsenal - 60,000 seater in one of the richest catchment areas of the capital. Chelsea planning a similar size in an even richer part of London.

Quote
In this thread I have seen Alan X argue that an 80,000 seater would price out fans.

Could you explain how a new-build 80,000 seat stadium with all the appropriate range of seats and facilities for one of Europe's top clubs would not put the club in hock and bot require higher ticket prices?

Quote
The latest projections for the season just gone are that we will be £100m ahead of our nearest PL rivals for income (Spurs). That would pay for a new ARE in one season – and still not alter our ranking competitiveness in the league.

Your grasp of basic finance again. What does that even mean? You're quoting income not profit after tax. And what does the difference between our income and Spurs income have to do with the price of fish? If anyone used your financial logic they'd be bankrupt in a year.

Quote
I was at Wembley for the Barcelona game. There were nearly 90,000 there, apart from the Barca staff they were nearly all Reds. That is a measure of what our Club is capable of.

Are you arguing for building the new stadium in West London and joining a European Super-League? Wembley showed the appetite for a one-off exhibition game against Barcelona in West London. It tells us nothing about the capacity we need every other Saturday in L4.

I agree that the club was short-sighted in the seventies/eighties when we maybe should have made more of our success. That doesn't change the fact that the right thing to do was to redevelop Anfield. And there's no evidence that you've presented to suggest anything much bigger than 60,000 would make sense. That's not bowing to corporate logic - it's just common sense.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #45 on: August 16, 2016, 02:37:26 pm »
I think it can be shorter than that Alan - our friend here continues his one-eyed approach to the world by persistently ignoring cost. Cost to the club and cost to the fans. None of those clubs has ever given any fan anything that they have not had to pay for.

In truth this other is a sugar daddy world where someone else pays because the fans 'are the club', where we 'deserve' to be in an elite and the owners are duty-bound to provide.

We are none of these things. We are a club that must pay its way to survive and compete. Just like every other club and just the way it's always been.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2016, 02:39:01 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline banjo

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #46 on: August 16, 2016, 04:25:23 pm »


Reading's capacity is 24,000 which they filled when they were doing well but average capacity is around 17,000 for the last couple of seasons. Fortunately they never went ahead with the expansion plans (up to 37,000+) that received planning approval in 2007. Building seats doesn't attract supporters - success attracts supporters.

Reading and its immediate suburbs have a total population of 252,052. Liverpool/Birkenhead metropolitan area had a population over 2.2 million

Sunderland's Stadium of Light has a capacity of 49,000 but their average attendance is around 40,000 - if you build it, they might come if the team's successful...

Sunderland's average league position over the past 9 years is 15th

Man United didn't build a new stadium - they've redeveloped Old Trafford in a piecemeal fashion as demand for tickets increased with success. If they come, and there's success... you build it. That goes against everything you say, surely. They appear to have reached a ceiling of 75,000ish which is still short of the 80,000 that Liverpool have been encouraged to build by the more starry eyed of our supporters.

Old Trafford was built to a plan dating back to the later 1960's that has been updated over the years. If the main stand didn't have a railway line running directly behind it, do you really think there wouldn't be a facsimile of the North stand in its place with a capacity pushing 90,000?

Man City, who have the TV income, Champions League money and the bottomless pockets of their owners have a stadium that's 55,000 at the moment and will go to around 60,000. Not 70,000, not 80,000... but around the same capacity as Anfield if we do the ARE.

Both ends of the ground are quick easy fixes to raise capacity - this does not prevent further more expensive development in the future

Arsenal - 60,000 seater in one of the richest catchment areas of the capital. Chelsea planning a similar size in an even richer part of London.

Take a look at the Chelsea plans. Pretty much every inch of the space available has been used to create capacity, hence the odd shaped sloping stands in the corners. If they had more space available, chances are they'd go bigger.

Does the size and quality of the stadium not also reflect on the clubs ambitions. This then can then impact upon cost and the outcomes when buying new players or retaining current ones.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2016, 04:26:57 pm by banjo »

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #47 on: August 16, 2016, 05:28:42 pm »
Does the size and quality of the stadium not also reflect on the clubs ambitions. This then can then impact upon cost and the outcomes when buying new players or retaining current ones.

A 'bigger club' will indeed affect player costs - to make them bigger too. But beyond the right capacity, the bigger the stadium, the more the fans will pay. Is that really what everyone wants?

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #48 on: August 16, 2016, 05:31:02 pm »
Then who gets the joys of this view?



It's an unfortunate fact that if they sat down, they'd see.

Offline Uncle Ronnie

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,204
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #49 on: August 16, 2016, 05:55:34 pm »

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2016, 10:27:27 pm »
Uncle Ronnie- it means exactly what I mean to say.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #51 on: August 16, 2016, 10:34:50 pm »
Uncle Ronnie- it means exactly what I mean to say.

And yet... somehow you suggest it translates as the fault of the current owners, the ones who have turned that inactivity on its head.

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #52 on: August 17, 2016, 11:17:56 am »
So just a couple of quick ones....
I simply cannot agree, or accept, a number of the conclusions you are drawing.

The financial and playing success of Swansea and Reading, two clubs more normally associated with the lower leagues have been transformed by stadium moves. Fact.

Sunderland’s home attendance has only fallen below 40,000 once ( by less than a thousand) in the past nine seasons. It has been 43,000 for the past two. Prior to their move they had not averaged more then 30,000 for 21 years, and had only averaged more than 20,000 twice in sixteen years. Fact.

I won’t counter your other examples in the interests of avoiding tedium.

My point about the larger stadium ( I accept that 80k would be a bridge too far), but let us say 70k,is that the club has the financial wherewithal to underwrite additional cost at the expense of providing more space for our supporters, accepting that meeting, and sometimes exceeding demand will result in lower prices. It isn’t just about maximising profits – it’s about a football club providing enough space for as many regular supporters as it can. Radical I know…

You are free to question my grasp of finance, as I am yours. Nothing I have suggested leads to bankruptcy.

Football, and LFC, is awash with cash. The difference between winning the PL and coming bottom is only around £40m. Yet there is only one league title, one CL, four CL places to aim for ( the domestic cups are financially insignificant even if we wouldn’t mind winning them!). Our annual revenue is around £100m greater than Spurs, yet £200m behind Man U. We can’t outspend Man u, nor are we going to get caught by Spurs ( until they move into a new stadium). So how do you spend your cash? Spend £150m more on players, and you still won’t outgun Man U, spend £50m less in the transfer market  and Spurs won’t overtake us.

 Maybe investing in the ground and facilities for our supporters, which pays back over years, may be wise so long as our relative competitiveness with those ahead of us, and behind us, is unaffected?

Hardly radical.

What I do unswervingly back is our support. It is what sets us aside from every other club, bar Man U. It is time we took off the dust sheets.

Offline banjo

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #53 on: August 17, 2016, 03:58:44 pm »
It's an unfortunate fact that if they sat down, they'd see.


If the people in front of you sat down, you'd see.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,264
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #54 on: August 17, 2016, 04:28:05 pm »
I simply cannot agree, or accept, a number of the conclusions you are drawing.

The financial and playing success of Swansea and Reading, two clubs more normally associated with the lower leagues have been transformed by stadium moves. Fact.

Sunderland’s home attendance has only fallen below 40,000 once ( by less than a thousand) in the past nine seasons. It has been 43,000 for the past two. Prior to their move they had not averaged more then 30,000 for 21 years, and had only averaged more than 20,000 twice in sixteen years. Fact.

I won’t counter your other examples in the interests of avoiding tedium.

My point about the larger stadium ( I accept that 80k would be a bridge too far), but let us say 70k,is that the club has the financial wherewithal to underwrite additional cost at the expense of providing more space for our supporters, accepting that meeting, and sometimes exceeding demand will result in lower prices. It isn’t just about maximising profits – it’s about a football club providing enough space for as many regular supporters as it can. Radical I know…

You are free to question my grasp of finance, as I am yours. Nothing I have suggested leads to bankruptcy.

Football, and LFC, is awash with cash. The difference between winning the PL and coming bottom is only around £40m. Yet there is only one league title, one CL, four CL places to aim for ( the domestic cups are financially insignificant even if we wouldn’t mind winning them!). Our annual revenue is around £100m greater than Spurs, yet £200m behind Man U. We can’t outspend Man u, nor are we going to get caught by Spurs ( until they move into a new stadium). So how do you spend your cash? Spend £150m more on players, and you still won’t outgun Man U, spend £50m less in the transfer market  and Spurs won’t overtake us.

 Maybe investing in the ground and facilities for our supporters, which pays back over years, may be wise so long as our relative competitiveness with those ahead of us, and behind us, is unaffected?

Hardly radical.

What I do unswervingly back is our support. It is what sets us aside from every other club, bar Man U. It is time we took off the dust sheets.

There are too many other factors to say that Reading and Swansea's fortunes were changed by the stadium move. Reading was transformed by John Madjeski pumping in his own cash.

As with Sunderland, there was an imbalance between supply and demand for tickets in the past. As the supply now exceeds demand it's reasonable to assume that 40-43,000 is around the ceiling for Sunderland unless there's a significant improvement in their fortunes on the pitch. The new ground opened in 1997 and they increased capacity from 42,000 to 49,000 in 2000. Since then the average attendance has dipped and fluctuated as the club has yoyoed between the Premier League and the Championship.

If you were right, then building the stadium would have made Sunderland successful. That's clearly not the case. There is a core support for most clubs that depends on history of the club and the size, population density and character of the catchment area. On top of that there will be an additional group who will go when a new ground opens and might go regularly for something to do with their mates on a Saturday and especially when a big team comes to town. Then there are those who will go if the club is successful and who will fall away if or when the club gets relegated. Success creates demand

http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/sund.htm

There are clubs where the capacity doesn't meet the demand of the catchment area. That was true of Sunderland and it's true of Liverpool. But you can't cherry pick attendances and then extrapolate the figures to to suggest that there is a rule (or rule of thumb) whereby creating a new stadium will somehow lead to the same percentage increase in attendances that Sunderland saw when they built the Stadium of Light.

I'm interested to know why you say that 80,000 is a step too far. Why should that be if it's the stadium that creates demand? If you accept that there's an upper limit on demand then you agree with me in principle and we're just arguing over the number.

*edit I don't understand how building expensive new seats will lower prices and maximise profits. As has been explained endlessly on here, the cost per seat doesn't go down the more you build, it goes up because of the increase complexity of the build. One of the biggest misconceptions is that building a stadium is like mass production. There is no economy of scale - it's the opposite.

And you're still talking about spending revenue. It's business 101 - you can't spend revenue (unless you want to go bust), you can only spend net profits after tax.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2016, 04:34:53 pm by Alan_X »
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #55 on: August 17, 2016, 07:27:59 pm »
Alan, I respect your view. It is one that many would agree with. However I do think that a significant amount of the evidence you present, you have retro fitted, making it fit your conclusions, rather than shaping them.

I am astonished that you do not accept that Reading and Swansea’s moves have been pivotal to their relative success. Madjeski would not have pumped the money in at Elm Park, Swansea could not have reinvented itself at the Vetch.

I do not claim that stadium moves offer success. With so few honours on offer that would be  foolish. I do claim that they can reinvent, and refinance a club and that Sunderland are an excellent example.

Success always has always created demand. However judicious stadium moves/redevelopment can transform a clubs fortunes without having to build a  new trophy cabinet . Sunderland, whose success has been modest/negligible/relative, take your pick, have doubled their  home attendance, and quadrupled their income since Roker, fact. I do not cite that success as a rule of thumb. I do cite it as an example of how getting it right pays handsomely.

I don’t argue that the stadium itself creates demand – see Darlington. I do argue that it can be the catalyst for a new era – judging how big the quantum of opportunity is requires judgement, and a bit of luck.

Of course projecting demand will be arguing over a number. My sense is that with Man U paddling hard to fill 76,000 seats, with their recent history of success, an 80k Anfield would be too big an ask. Equally, I believe that a 54,000 Anfield, when Newcastle are getting almost 53,000 I the Championship is far too low. My personal view is that an Anfield at 65-70k would be  a great objective, accepting that it may not always be full, but would be for the big games and if/when success returned as it surely will some day. I do accept that there are infrastructure liabilities over 60k which may severely impact the commerciality of edging over 60k.

Building  a larger ground will not maximise profits. It will ensure that LFC meets the reasonable demand to come and see the game live. The cheapest prices reduce because that under capacity for over demand has been removed. The FD’s nightmare, the delight of ordinary fans. I should stress that this only make sense if we can afford it – and we can.

I do understand corporate finance, and know that you do too. My observation on the rough £100m gap in revenue below us, and £55m ahead (Arsenal) is expressed crudely to demonstrate a point. That revenue offers choice, how you spend it is up to the Clubs. My point is that we may be well advised to invest in the stadium while we can. Past EC winners Nottingham Forest, with an income of £17.4m have no such luxury.

In the upper echelons of the PL, hundreds of millions no longer guarantees success, what it can do though is offer a stadium worthy of our illustrious history.

An interesting debate- thank you.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #56 on: August 18, 2016, 01:20:14 am »


In the upper echelons of the PL, hundreds of millions no longer guarantees success, what it can do though is offer a stadium worthy of our illustrious history.



Or an albatross to toast your dreams on.

BTW Sunderland's reported matchday income (July 2014) was £16m. Not much of a corporate finance guru there I suspect.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2016, 01:26:23 am by Peter McGurk »

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #57 on: August 18, 2016, 08:57:29 am »
BTW Sunderland's reported matchday income (July 2014) was £16m. Not much of a corporate finance guru there I suspect.
Sunderland have provided a ground fit for as many people as might reasonably expect to normally come to se them for a cost of around a third what we are paying for our Main Stand.

That was good business, that was good for the fans. How much less revenue would have come from Roker with half the fans?

I think you may be wiser to restrict your observations to structure, rather than finance. The latter undermines your credibility on the former.

Offline Mr Mingebag Squid

  • Wire glory hunter
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,292
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #58 on: August 18, 2016, 12:20:36 pm »
The problem with using Swansea and Reading as an example of a new stadium move bringing "success" is you need to look where they started relative to us.

Both Swansea and Reading were down in the lower leagues, where extra income will help them move up the leagues easily. Swansea used their momentum over a couple of seasons to push themselves up, while Reading was a slower more measured push.

So to an extent, their new stadiums did bring them "success".

For us though, it's different. We're starting from a much higher starting point. We're in a league where generating an extra £20M a season isn't really going to help us forward - we've seen City and United spending 100's of millions now to get to the top.

Would it have been wise for FSG to spend £300/400/500M or however much on a new stadium? No. They've done it correctly by refurbishing the main stand at a fraction of the cost of a new stadium. Yes people will whinge and moan that X built a new stadium for Y pounds or that some other club in a totally different country built a whole 90,000 seater stadium for the price of our main stand - but for us, for our circumstances, the absolute right thing has been done.
My Sporting Dream Team:-
LFC - Worcester Warriors - Warrington Wolves - New England Patriots - Jenson Button
My Twatter : @MrHappySquid

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #59 on: August 18, 2016, 07:25:57 pm »
Sunderland have provided a ground fit for as many people as might reasonably expect to normally come to se them for a cost of around a third what we are paying for our Main Stand.

That was good business, that was good for the fans. How much less revenue would have come from Roker with half the fans?

I think you may be wiser to restrict your observations to structure, rather than finance. The latter undermines your credibility on the former.

Extraordinarily thin business. Not good business. The least return for this least input. A Lidl of a stadium perhaps. But if the stands cost a third of the Main Stand, is paying from three-quarters of our ticket prices such a good deal for the fans?  mmmm.... rather recklessly, I'll let you do the maths. Actually, perhaps not.

As to credibility, there's nothing I've said about finance of the stadium that has not been borne out by events. Everything you've had to say over the years on this and any other subject is in the bin where it belongs. You lost that argument. I'd move on if I were you.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2016, 08:40:33 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #60 on: August 19, 2016, 11:38:33 am »
Extraordinarily thin business. Not good business. The least return for this least input. A Lidl of a stadium perhaps. But if the stands cost a third of the Main Stand, is paying from three-quarters of our ticket prices such a good deal for the fans?  mmmm.... rather recklessly, I'll let you do the maths. Actually, perhaps not.

As to credibility, there's nothing I've said about finance of the stadium that has not been borne out by events. Everything you've had to say over the years on this and any other subject is in the bin where it belongs. You lost that argument. I'd move on if I were you.

I think you may wish to revisit this post...

Your saying something does not make it so alone. Evidence matters. That you have none, and have to resort to abuse, says it all.

The thread title is "why  we are where we are". The answer is because we have missed opportunity after opportunity, and continue to do so.

The fans deserve more. As you agonise about whether we fill another seat, others leave us behind, and an increasing bill to pay as a result.

Arguing that we shouldn't do much as we don't do much is hardly impressive

Offline Mr Mingebag Squid

  • Wire glory hunter
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,292
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #61 on: August 19, 2016, 02:00:18 pm »
Is Mr White Boots Rome-77?
My Sporting Dream Team:-
LFC - Worcester Warriors - Warrington Wolves - New England Patriots - Jenson Button
My Twatter : @MrHappySquid

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,264
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #62 on: August 19, 2016, 02:17:23 pm »
Is Mr White Boots Rome-77?

Haha! Could be.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,264
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #63 on: August 19, 2016, 02:28:04 pm »
Sunderland have provided a ground fit for as many people as might reasonably expect to normally come to se them for a cost of around a third what we are paying for our Main Stand.

That was good business, that was good for the fans. How much less revenue would have come from Roker with half the fans?

What's the overall spec for the Stadium of Light? The new Main Stand extension contains all of the most expensive parts of a new stadium (but also parts that generate the most revenue per seat). The new additional upper tier seats would be a relatively small part of the development cost. It's the massive building underneath, full of boxes, hospitality facilities, food and drink concessions, larger concourses, media and press areas and so on, that will make the 'cost per seat' higher than Sunderland. The ARE if/when it gets done will be far cheaper 'per seat'. 

And staying at Roker wasn't an option. It was landlocked and couldn't be redeveloped. 
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #64 on: August 19, 2016, 03:12:41 pm »
What's the overall spec for the Stadium of Light? The new Main Stand extension contains all of the most expensive parts of a new stadium (but also parts that generate the most revenue per seat). The new additional upper tier seats would be a relatively small part of the development cost. It's the massive building underneath, full of boxes, hospitality facilities, food and drink concessions,  larger concourses, media and press areas and so on, that will make the 'cost per seat' higher than Sunderland. The ARE if/when it gets done will be far cheaper 'per seat'. 

And staying at Roker wasn't an option. It was landlocked and couldn't be redeveloped.
Staying at Roker was an option They could have said to themselves that they rarely got more than 20,000- so make do and mend.

If you haven’t been to the SOL I would recommend it. Excellent hospitality, concourse and media facilities, good views, good legroom, better than we currently offer.

Our Main Stand’s facilities will be better, because it is fourteen years newer.

I agree that the ARE should be cheaper, not least because the demand for hospitality/premium seats in ends is less so those costs are less. That is not necessarily a good thing though as those facilities provide a revenue and inflationary upward income, as the stand is paid down.


 But the void, (If the road is closed), is enormous and could easily take significant banqueting facilities. But I don’t want the ARE on the cheap. I want an ARE to be proud of. It will be bigger than the Kop, we should make it even better.

The cost of the SOL (Circa £24m), and the Millenium (Circa £112m) demonstrates so well that there is a cost in NOT doing things, our Main Stand costing more than the Millenium. You just defer it.

You can either make it happen, let it happen, or wonder what has happened. As a club we have been guilty of the latter.

Offline Mr Mingebag Squid

  • Wire glory hunter
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,292
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #65 on: August 19, 2016, 03:40:57 pm »
Staying at Roker was an option They could have said to themselves that they rarely got more than 20,000- so make do and mend.

If you haven’t been to the SOL I would recommend it. Excellent hospitality, concourse and media facilities, good views, good legroom, better than we currently offer.

Our Main Stand’s facilities will be better, because it is fourteen years newer.

I agree that the ARE should be cheaper, not least because the demand for hospitality/premium seats in ends is less so those costs are less. That is not necessarily a good thing though as those facilities provide a revenue and inflationary upward income, as the stand is paid down.


 But the void, (If the road is closed), is enormous and could easily take significant banqueting facilities. But I don’t want the ARE on the cheap. I want an ARE to be proud of. It will be bigger than the Kop, we should make it even better.

The cost of the SOL (Circa £24m), and the Millenium (Circa £112m) demonstrates so well that there is a cost in NOT doing things, our Main Stand costing more than the Millenium. You just defer it.

You can either make it happen, let it happen, or wonder what has happened. As a club we have been guilty of the latter.

Different times, different parts of the country, different economy. You cannot compare building a stadium nearly 20 years ago to a stand being built now.
My Sporting Dream Team:-
LFC - Worcester Warriors - Warrington Wolves - New England Patriots - Jenson Button
My Twatter : @MrHappySquid

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,264
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #66 on: August 19, 2016, 06:34:42 pm »
Staying at Roker was an option They could have said to themselves that they rarely got more than 20,000- so make do and mend.

If you haven’t been to the SOL I would recommend it. Excellent hospitality, concourse and media facilities, good views, good legroom, better than we currently offer.

Our Main Stand’s facilities will be better, because it is fourteen years newer.

I agree that the ARE should be cheaper, not least because the demand for hospitality/premium seats in ends is less so those costs are less. That is not necessarily a good thing though as those facilities provide a revenue and inflationary upward income, as the stand is paid down.


 But the void, (If the road is closed), is enormous and could easily take significant banqueting facilities. But I don’t want the ARE on the cheap. I want an ARE to be proud of. It will be bigger than the Kop, we should make it even better.

The cost of the SOL (Circa £24m), and the Millenium (Circa £112m) demonstrates so well that there is a cost in NOT doing things, our Main Stand costing more than the Millenium. You just defer it.

You can either make it happen, let it happen, or wonder what has happened. As a club we have been guilty of the latter.


The reason I asked for the spec is that without it, there is no way of knowing what we are comparing. Is the £24 million the main contract cost for construction without fit-out? Does it include fees and other costs? Davis Langdon did an analysis of stadium costs in 2004, which had a range of costs per seat from 1,000 - 1,700 for a regional stadium to 1,500-3,000 for a 'regional feature stadium' and up to £5,000 for a national iconic stadium. 

Indicative Costs for Stadium Developments:

http://www.building.co.uk/attachments.aspx?height=auto&width=600&storycode=3036931&attype=T&atcode=1475761

Regional Stadium Cost Model:

http://www.building.co.uk/attachments.aspx?height=auto&width=600&storycode=3036931&attype=T&atcode=1475763

If Sunderland built the original 42,000 Stadium of Light for 17 million that's £404 per seat. The expansion in 2002 is about in line with Davis Langdon's figures at £1,000 per seat but with no additional hospitality etc.

That doesn't include fees, external works, fit out etc. There doesn't appear to have been any additional floor area created because the extra tier was cantilevered back which makes a big diffference. The cost model is based on the seating bowl plus the GIA of all of the floors created in the back of house areas.

Liverpool's Main Stand increases the gross floor area significantly. As this picture shows, as well as the extra seating we have built a substantial 6 story building behind the main stand with a podium and large areas of external paving and planting.



Without a detailed cost plan for each development it's impossible to say how they compare. For example, the Main Stand is design and build - does the £75 million include the novated design team's fees?

*edit*

Also, as you rightly say, the income from TV deals is significantly higher now than when Sunderland built the Stadium of Light. Unfortunately for Sunderland they are continuing to make significant losses as gate receipts and TV money continues to fall.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/business/business-news/sunderland-afcs-losses-widen-255m-11275553

Despite having a bigger stadium and decent hospitality facilities (in your opinion) their gate receipts are just £10 million which is 26% down on the year before. Liverpool's gate receipts are five times that already and the new Main Stand will significantly increase the difference further.

Building the Stadium of Light has done nothing to make Sunderland successful. 
« Last Edit: August 19, 2016, 06:47:12 pm by Alan_X »
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #67 on: August 19, 2016, 07:22:52 pm »
I think you may wish to revisit this post...

Your saying something does not make it so alone. Evidence matters. That you have none, and have to resort to abuse, says it all.

The thread title is "why  we are where we are". The answer is because we have missed opportunity after opportunity, and continue to do so.

The fans deserve more. As you agonise about whether we fill another seat, others leave us behind, and an increasing bill to pay as a result.

Arguing that we shouldn't do much as we don't do much is hardly impressive

I've provided you with the evidence many, many times in the past years. I've waited many times for evidences from you (how can you build a new stadium without charging the hugely increased ticket prices to pay for it? - remember that one?). Or let's try this again from the very same post - "But if the stands [at Sunderland] cost a third of the Main Stand, is paying from three-quarters of our ticket prices such a good deal for the fans?" Well? Is it?

As for personal abuse, you understand the concept of pot calling the kettle black, right?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2016, 07:35:26 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #68 on: August 23, 2016, 12:17:40 pm »
The reason I asked
The illustrative value of the SOL is simply one of how seizing the opportunity, and the moment, can pay dividends. However much a  lesser SOL specification and sumptuous Main Stand specification you allow for, that point is made.

Your claim that gate receipts “continue to fall” is disingenuous. Gates have doubled since Roker, and  last year almost matched ours. The only reason receipts  fell last year was that the year before, they were boosted by their Capital One Cup run  to the Final. League gates have risen in four out of the past five years, last year’s fall was by 80 . Robust figures.

On topic, my case is that we have been slow to respond to the increasing popularity of football match going, whilst others have seized  the opportunity.

That case is  incontrovertible

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #69 on: August 23, 2016, 03:11:38 pm »
The illustrative value of the SOL is simply one of how seizing the opportunity, and the moment, can pay dividends. However much a  lesser SOL specification and sumptuous Main Stand specification you allow for, that point is made.

Your claim that gate receipts “continue to fall” is disingenuous. Gates have doubled since Roker, and  last year almost matched ours. The only reason receipts  fell last year was that the year before, they were boosted by their Capital One Cup run  to the Final. League gates have risen in four out of the past five years, last year’s fall was by 80 . Robust figures.

On topic, my case is that we have been slow to respond to the increasing popularity of football match going, whilst others have seized  the opportunity.

That case is  incontrovertible

In which case is the current owners not seizing an opportunity? Do you mean by not building a new stadium at double the cost and ticket price?

The main stand maximises the return and the ARE will maximise the income. How is this incontrovertible for you?

Offline Billy Elliot

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,870
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #70 on: August 24, 2016, 03:40:13 pm »
Remember when they stuck those seats to the roof at the old Wembley (was it Olympic Viewing Gallery or something like that)?  If we just did that on each of the four stands it'd add around another 8,000.  Easy that.
With me 3 star jumper half way up me back!

Offline Billy Elliot

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,870
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #71 on: August 30, 2016, 02:03:19 pm »
Just seen that there's still good availability for some of the packages in the Main Stand for the Leicester match.  Wonder if they'll put them on as general admission if they don't sell, and the implications of a new Anfield Road End if that happens a lot.  A middle tier general admission ticket, wonder how they'd price that?
With me 3 star jumper half way up me back!

Offline carl123uk

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,103
  • @CarlLFC5
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #72 on: August 30, 2016, 03:28:32 pm »
I read somewhere that they were going to delay the ARE due to lack of take up on the hospitality. Was the new tier going to have executive boxes in?

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #73 on: August 30, 2016, 06:00:48 pm »
In which case is the current owners not seizing an opportunity? Do you mean by not building a new stadium at double the cost and ticket price?

The main stand maximises the return and the ARE will maximise the income. How is this incontrovertible for you?
Our failure to move/redevelop in the post Taylor-years has cost us hundreds of millions as build costs have inflated.

Developing the Main stand and ARE will stack. But the current redevelopment is too little, too late.

A new stadium would indeed have cost us twice as much as a half new/half old stadium, short term. Long term the whole of life ticket receipts and savings on the inflated costs of build in the future are handsome. Making do and mending catches up with you at some point in the future – and costs you. In an era of inflationary football income and low interest rates your claim of double ticket prices is simple hysteria.

The thread asks us why we are where we are? The answer is that we have missed opportunity after opportunity. Perhaps a more pertinent question is , “Have we missed the boat?”

The evidence that statistically we have missed the attendance uplift enjoyed by club all around us is there in black and white. The benefits of timeous shrewd stadia moves and redevelopments equally so.

Yet the sad truth of your position is that when followed long enough, it becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy. Even for a club of our standing and history, if you don’t win the title for a quarter of a century, if you struggle to even qualify for the CL, existing support will ebb. Crucially, new support, and particularly regional floating support, will be lost to others. Man U and Man City have not added over 50,000 per game collectively from die hard reds and sky blues. The ground that was once too small, becomes big enough.

Now you can argue that success on the field and gate revenues do not equate, not least because of the impact of TV/commercial income. There is some truth in that. Equally, when you look at the top table of clubs here, and in mainland Europe, our ground capacity continues to be off the pace.

So , have we missed the boat? Probably.

 

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #74 on: August 30, 2016, 06:04:22 pm »
Our failure to move/redevelop in the post Taylor-years has cost us hundreds of millions as build costs have inflated.

Developing the Main stand and ARE will stack. But the current redevelopment is too little, too late.

A new stadium would indeed have cost us twice as much as a half new/half old stadium, short term. Long term the whole of life ticket receipts and savings on the inflated costs of build in the future are handsome. Making do and mending catches up with you at some point in the future – and costs you. In an era of inflationary football income and low interest rates your claim of double ticket prices is simple hysteria.

The thread asks us why we are where we are? The answer is that we have missed opportunity after opportunity. Perhaps a more pertinent question is , “Have we missed the boat?”

The evidence that statistically we have missed the attendance uplift enjoyed by club all around us is there in black and white. The benefits of timeous shrewd stadia moves and redevelopments equally so.

Yet the sad truth of your position is that when followed long enough, it becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy. Even for a club of our standing and history, if you don’t win the title for a quarter of a century, if you struggle to even qualify for the CL, existing support will ebb. Crucially, new support, and particularly regional floating support, will be lost to others. Man U and Man City have not added over 50,000 per game collectively from die hard reds and sky blues. The ground that was once too small, becomes big enough.

Now you can argue that success on the field and gate revenues do not equate, not least because of the impact of TV/commercial income. There is some truth in that. Equally, when you look at the top table of clubs here, and in mainland Europe, our ground capacity continues to be off the pace.

So , have we missed the boat? Probably.

You can read, right?

Which part of current owners do you not understand?

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,551
  • JFT 97
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #75 on: August 30, 2016, 06:09:42 pm »
You can read, right?

Which part of current owners do you not understand?

Would that be the current owners who followed exactly the same plan as Moores and Parry where you destroy the surrounding area to such an extent that the remaining residents finally give in and let you extend the ground.

"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #76 on: August 30, 2016, 06:20:35 pm »
Would that be the current owners who followed exactly the same plan as Moores and Parry where you destroy the surrounding area to such an extent that the remaining residents finally give in and let you extend the ground.



They gave in? Or were they happy with the £100m to be spent on the area? Or their own arrangements?

Let's face it, there's plenty in this city who'd be happy to get what they got.

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 31,551
  • JFT 97
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #77 on: August 30, 2016, 07:08:23 pm »
They gave in? Or were they happy with the £100m to be spent on the area? Or their own arrangements?

Let's face it, there's plenty in this city who'd be happy to get what they got.

What about the poor bastards left in huge amounts of negative equity who were forced to sell their homes for a pittance because LFC had destroyed their street just because it happened to be in the way of the Clubs expansion plans.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #78 on: August 30, 2016, 10:29:36 pm »
What about the poor bastards left in huge amounts of negative equity who were forced to sell their homes for a pittance because LFC had destroyed their street just because it happened to be in the way of the Clubs expansion plans.

Market value plus 10% plus removal costs etc etc. Some pittance.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,820
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #79 on: August 30, 2016, 10:36:30 pm »
Our failure to move/redevelop in the post Taylor-years has cost us hundreds of millions as build costs have inflated.

Developing the Main stand and ARE will stack. But the current redevelopment is too little, too late.

A new stadium would indeed have cost us twice as much as a half new/half old stadium, short term. Long term the whole of life ticket receipts and savings on the inflated costs of build in the future are handsome. Making do and mending catches up with you at some point in the future – and costs you. In an era of inflationary football income and low interest rates your claim of double ticket prices is simple hysteria.

The thread asks us why we are where we are? The answer is that we have missed opportunity after opportunity. Perhaps a more pertinent question is , “Have we missed the boat?”

The evidence that statistically we have missed the attendance uplift enjoyed by club all around us is there in black and white. The benefits of timeous shrewd stadia moves and redevelopments equally so.

Yet the sad truth of your position is that when followed long enough, it becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy. Even for a club of our standing and history, if you don’t win the title for a quarter of a century, if you struggle to even qualify for the CL, existing support will ebb. Crucially, new support, and particularly regional floating support, will be lost to others. Man U and Man City have not added over 50,000 per game collectively from die hard reds and sky blues. The ground that was once too small, becomes big enough.

Now you can argue that success on the field and gate revenues do not equate, not least because of the impact of TV/commercial income. There is some truth in that. Equally, when you look at the top table of clubs here, and in mainland Europe, our ground capacity continues to be off the pace.

So , have we missed the boat? Probably.

You can read, right?

Which part of current owners do you not understand?