Topic: Was LFC Ticket Pricing Forum Now an Al555 usual mantra topic

[whiteboots]

Supply will never match demand.

A 70k capacity new stadium would have made a big dent in that demand.

[Anfield89]

A 70k capacity new stadium would have made a big dent in that demand.

And a big dent in available funds. Who wants or wanted to move ground anyway. Fuck that.

[ScottScott]

And a big dent in available funds. Who wants or wanted to move ground anyway. Fuck that.

Fuck that indeed. Get the Anny Rd done and see what else can be done organically. Stay at Anfield for as long as is possible

[Giovanni]

And a big dent in available funds. Who wants or wanted to move ground anyway. Fuck that.

The thousands of kids who can't get into Anfield, for a start.

[CraigDS]

The thousands of kids who can't get into Anfield, for a start.

Everton's (50-55k?) stadium cost is said to be around £500m, and is likely to rise again by the time it's complete. Spurs new 62k stadium is touching £800m.

A 70k stadium would easily approach the cost of the new Spurs stadium, and we'd not be able to fund that by charging low prices that 'thousands of kids' would appreciate.

[Eeyore]

Everton's (50-55k?) stadium cost is said to be around £500m, and is likely to rise again by the time it's complete. Spurs new 62k stadium is touching £800m.

A 70k stadium would easily approach the cost of the new Spurs stadium, and we'd not be able to fund that by charging low prices that 'thousands of kids' would appreciate.

Give it a decade and £800m will probably be equivalent to selling a couple of players though. The millennium Stadium cost £120m and holds 74,500 and has a retractable roof. It is too simplistic to think of Stadium's in today's money when they are going to have a life expectancy of decades.

[CraigDS]

Give it a decade and £800m will probably be equivalent to selling a couple of players though. The millennium Stadium cost £120m and holds 74,500 and has a retractable roof. It is too simplistic to think of Stadium's in today's money when they are going to have a life expectancy of decades.

Yet I doubt any lenders are taking that sort of view. In fact they aren't, hence why Everton are struggling to get a third of their cost and had to go to the council to get 2/3rds.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Give it a decade and £800m will probably be equivalent to selling a couple of players though. The millennium Stadium cost £120m and holds 74,500 and has a retractable roof. It is too simplistic to think of Stadium's in today's money when they are going to have a life expectancy of decades.

tiny problem comes when you have to pay it back in today’s money not 15 years time

[Eeyore]

Yet I doubt any lenders are taking that sort of view. In fact they aren't, hence why Everton are struggling to get a third of their cost and had to go to the council to get 2/3rds.

Everton are having difficulties because the sums simply don't add up. They only manage to get close to their capacity now because they sell season tickets at rock bottom prices. It is quite clear that theirs is a vanity project with very little logic being applied.

The argument here is that demand massively outstrips supply so there is a justification for a bigger stadium. Plus as you know we are owned by a group of very wealthy investors with access to cheap lending facilities.

[Eeyore]

tiny problem comes when you have to pay it back in today’s money not 15 years time

Silly me I thought the repayments would be spread over the term of the loan and that naming rights would subsidise the early years before our income increased.

[Anfield89]

Silly me I thought the repayments would be spread over the term of the loan and that naming rights would subsidise the early years before our income increased.

You think around £50m a year for 15 years is no problem?

[Eeyore]

You think around £50m a year for 15 years is no problem?

We are paying in the region of £25m a year for part of a stand.

[SP]

We are paying in the region of £25m a year for part of a stand.

And the net figure is? The only real figure of interest is the different between the cost of servicing the debt and the additional income.

[Anfield89]

We are paying in the region of £25m a year for part of a stand.

For 5 years. Everton don’t have the income we have.

[Eeyore]

And the net figure is? The only real figure of interest is the different between the cost of servicing the debt and the additional income.

Only if you view LFC as a business and not a football club and you view the fans as consumers.

[CraigDS]

Only if you view LFC as a business and not a football club and you view the fans as consumers.

So you expect to find financing for an £800m project without being viewed as a business or with those who will buy tickets to pay for it as consumers?

What's the travel like from this utopia you live in to the real world?

[Jake]

Only if you view LFC as a business and not a football club and you view the fans as consumers.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

What yo want is a billionaire who will just give us all their money, then when that dries up, give us away to the next altruistic billionaire.

[Eeyore]

So you expect to find financing for an £800m project without being viewed as a business or with those who will buy tickets to pay for it as consumers?

What's the travel like from this utopia you live in to the real world?

No what I expect is the owners to act as custodians of one of Footballs great institutions. Part of that is to look long term and to ensure that the next generation of fans isn't priced out of the game. So for me what SP said is wrong and that the difference between what it costs and what it earns in the short term isn't the only thing that matters.

[Jake]

No what I expect is the owners to act as custodians of one of Footballs great institutions. Part of that is to look long term and to ensure that the next generation of fans isn't priced out of the game. So for me what SP said is wrong and that the difference between what it costs and what it earns in the short term isn't the only thing that matters.

But if it won't make them a profit, then they won't do it. Because otherwise they'd just be giving us money and we're unfortunately not a charity.

[SP]

Only if you view LFC as a business and not a football club and you view the fans as consumers.

You were the one moaning about the cost of the current stand.

The figure is the basis for the decision. But the owners could decide the net cost of say £5M a year is worth it for a more intimidating atmosphere, increased take in the concessions and getting more young fans hooked on match going for future revenue streams. The decision does not have to be based purely on the bottom line, but the decision to take a hit on the bottom line would need to be informed.

It is not the only thing that matters, it is the only financial figure that really matters.

[Eeyore]

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

What yo want is a billionaire who will just give us all their money, then when that dries up, give us away to the next altruistic billionaire.

How about the owners putting some of the massive increase in value of their acquisition back into the Club . You know investing in their business.

[CraigDS]

Here we go.

[Jake]

How about the owners putting some of the massive increase in value of their acquisition back into the Club . You know investing in their business.

That is a good point Al. But its like putting an extentions on your house. It might cost 20k for a new kitchen but what if iy only adds 5k value?

I want the new Annie Road end, I want anfield as big and cheap as possible. I just think it'll take difficult methods to get there.

[Eeyore]

But if it won't make them a profit, then they won't do it. Because otherwise they'd just be giving us money and we're unfortunately not a charity.

They wouldn't be donating to charity they would investing in their business. They wouldn't be giving us anything. If you take things to the nth degree then they are giving away money by not charging us a ton a ticket for the biggest games.

[Eeyore]

That is a good point Al. But its like putting an extentions on your house. It might cost 20k for a new kitchen but what if iy only adds 5k value?

I want the new Annie Road end, I want anfield as big and cheap as possible. I just think it'll take difficult methods to get there.

I understand where you are coming from but you simply can't reduce everything to a business decision. If you did we would all work 3 jobs have no kids and would invest every spare penny instead of buying match tickets.

[Jake]

I understand where you are coming from but you simply can't reduce everything to a business decision. If you did we would all work 3 jobs have no kids and would invest every spare penny instead of buying match tickets.

You can't compare a human being who has a finite existence and rightfully spend their money in experiences that heighten the pleasure of our fleeting existence with a business, who by definition its reason for being is to make money.

Your hopes are noble and I'd bloody love for them to happen, but they aren't realistic.

[Eeyore]

You can't compare a human being who has a finite existence and rightfully spend their money in experiences that heighten the pleasure of our fleeting existence with a business, who by definition its reason for being is to make money.

Your hopes are noble and I'd bloody love for them to happen, but they aren't realistic.

The business though is owned by investors who have purportedly made the conscious decision to invest because of their love of sport. In their own words they could make more money from more traditional investments.

For me the likes of Graham and SOS are trying to appeal to that sentiment, whilst at the same time trying to ensure the long term future of the Club and above all ensuring that future generations get the same access to the Club we love as we have.

We are not asking for the crazy investment that will never see a return that has propelled the likes of PSG, City and Chelsea to an entirely false position. Why not create a virtuous circle where continued investment sees continued improvement and where we grow as both a Club and as a business. Were on field success breeds further success, which in turn increases the value of the Club.

As a Club we garner a far bigger slice of things like TV revenue not because of our owners but because of our fans. How many times do you see the TV cameras focusing on other teams singing pre kick off. The fans are a special part of the Club and if the Owners aren't prepared to protect that then it is up to us to make them see sense.

[Greg86]

The business though is owned by investors who have purportedly made the conscious decision to invest because of their love of sport. In their own words they could make more money from more traditional investments.

For me the likes of Graham and SOS are trying to appeal to that sentiment, whilst at the same time trying to ensure the long term future of the Club and above all ensuring that future generations get the same access to the Club we love as we have.

We are not asking for the crazy investment that will never see a return that has propelled the likes of PSG, City and Chelsea to an entirely false position. Why not create a virtuous circle where continued investment sees continued improvement and where we grow as both a Club and as a business. Were on field success breeds further success, which in turn increases the value of the Club.

As a Club we garner a far bigger slice of things like TV revenue not because of our owners but because of our fans. How many times do you see the TV cameras focusing on other teams singing pre kick off. The fans are a special part of the Club and if the Owners aren't prepared to protect that then it is up to us to make them see sense.

I've seen you post on this subject plenty of times Al, and I'm pretty sure I've never seen an answer to the following; what exactly are you asking them to do? Reduce ticket prices and put their own money into the club each year to replace the lost funds? Reduce ticket prices without replacing the lost funds?

To put this into context a few numbers:

Assume 40k tickets reduced, assume 25 home games a season (19PL, 3CL, 3 Various cup)

At £10 / ticket reduction that's 10mill a year or a weekly wage bill reduction of 192k
At £20 / ticket reduction that's 20mill a year or a weekly wage bill reduction of 384k

You say you want investment from them but what in rough detail do you actually want them to do?

I like the fact the club is run from it's own funds, the problem there is that they have to try and balance growing revenue and ensuring that they do not push the fans away.

[Eeyore]

I've seen you post on this subject plenty of times Al, and I'm pretty sure I've never seen an answer to the following; what exactly are you asking them to do? Reduce ticket prices and put their own money into the club each year to replace the lost funds? Reduce ticket prices without replacing the lost funds?

To put this into context a few numbers:

Assume 40k tickets reduced, assume 25 home games a season (19PL, 3CL, 3 Various cup)

At £10 / ticket reduction that's 10mill a year or a weekly wage bill reduction of 192k
At £20 / ticket reduction that's 20mill a year or a weekly wage bill reduction of 384k

You say you want investment from them but what in rough detail do you actually want them to do?

I like the fact the club is run from it's own funds, the problem there is that they have to try and balance growing revenue and ensuring that they do not push the fans away.

Your post shows the exact futility of not looking to lower ticket prices though. £10m gets you a 20th of a Neymar or a 15th of a Coutinho. It is miniscule.

TV revenue is worth 2, 3 or 4 times as much as match day revenue and it will only increase. So stop flogging a dead horse and realise that a huge Stadium full of vibrant fans will only increase your TV and Commercial revenue.

Real and Barca are big draws because they have huge stadiums and glamour aplenty.

The sooner we realise that the better.

[CHOPPER]

[Eeyore]

Says the fella who asked us to stop protesting against Hicks and Gillet because he just wanted to get on with enjoying the games.

[Graham Smith]

Increasing ticket revenue has no basis whatsoever in increasing competiveness. None.

It has happened for 10 years on and off and we’ve won one league cup.

Investing in a proper ground at Anfield would make a difference but that requires very long term investment and vision.

[Harinder]

Says the fella who asked us to stop protesting against Hicks and Gillet because he just wanted to get on with enjoying the games.

So do we call you Eddie or do we stick with Al?

[Graham Smith]

So do we call you Eddie or do we stick with Al?

You can call him Al

[SP]

Looks more like a Betty to me.

[ScubaSteve]

Your post shows the exact futility of not looking to lower ticket prices though. £10m gets you a 20th of a Neymar or a 15th of a Coutinho. It is miniscule.

TV revenue is worth 2, 3 or 4 times as much as match day revenue and it will only increase. So stop flogging a dead horse and realise that a huge Stadium full of vibrant fans will only increase your TV and Commercial revenue.

Real and Barca are big draws because they have huge stadiums and glamour aplenty.

The sooner we realise that the better.

I was strongly in favour of us moving away from Anfield and building a new stadium simply to get more fans through the door and increase the capacity that we are desperate for. The expansion of the main stand has hardly scratched the surface.

We have a 25,000 STH waiting list that has reached such an excessive figure that the club have had to stop further applications, a members pool that can’t even be catered for due to the demand, and a general sale that pretty much is nonexistent as ticket sales don’t make it that far. We must be one of the only clubs that are in this position and knew about it and still didn’t capitalise on the opportunity to move on. The club from top to bottom are so hung up on history that realistically an Anfield expansion was going to be our only ever option.

If we had built a new stadium we could’ve change the dynamics of the ground, sifted out all those touts with loads of tickets, increased the local ticket capacity, catered for more locals and tourists (one-off) wanting to go the game.

It would have brought a new lease of life that is badly needed at Anfield...I have some great memories but the atmosphere is stale and the time was right to move on but instead nothing has changed and the fans are still in the same situation climbing over each other just to buy a ticket.

[storkfoot]

In my lifetime, I have seen a 22,000 home crowd for a Saturday home game at a time when we were one of the best teams in Europe. Yes, I know the world has changed but it will change again sometime. It certainly will if the TV bubble bursts.

My point is simply that bigger is not always best. A 70,000 soulless bowl with 30,000 rattling around in it would be horrendous.

[sminp]

My point is simply that bigger is not always best.

Try telling that to my wife

[Greg86]

Your post shows the exact futility of not looking to lower ticket prices though. £10m gets you a 20th of a Neymar or a 15th of a Coutinho. It is miniscule.

TV revenue is worth 2, 3 or 4 times as much as match day revenue and it will only increase. So stop flogging a dead horse and realise that a huge Stadium full of vibrant fans will only increase your TV and Commercial revenue.

Real and Barca are big draws because they have huge stadiums and glamour aplenty.

The sooner we realise that the better.

Or for a more realistic value, reducing the cost of tickets by £11.48 would mean we could not have purchased Sadio Mane or paid his wages (basis 5 year fee amortization).


This is the equation that needs to be considered. If the club is to be self sufficient then reductions in ticket prices mean we cannot afford to support as large a wage bill or player amortisation as we currently do.

So, I come back to the question. Would you rather we reduced ticket prices and didn't sign Sadio, or do you want the owners to be putting their own money in each year? If so, how much do you want them to be putting in? What exactly are you asking for from FSG when you say "investment"?

EDIT: Either you're showing you don't understand how transfers are accounted for (i.e. cost amortised over the duration of the contract + wages being the annual cost) or you are being deliberately obtuse with your fractional costs of players.

[Graham Smith]

Or for a more realistic value, reducing the cost of tickets by £11.48 would mean we could not have purchased Sadio Mane or paid his wages (basis 5 year fee amortization).


This is the equation that needs to be considered. If the club is to be self sufficient then reductions in ticket prices mean we cannot afford to support as large a wage bill or player amortisation as we currently do.

So, I come back to the question. Would you rather we reduced ticket prices and didn't sign Sadio, or do you want the owners to be putting their own money in each year? If so, how much do you want them to be putting in? What exactly are you asking for from FSG when you say "investment"?

EDIT: Either you're showing you don't understand how transfers are accounted for (i.e. cost amortised over the duration of the contract + wages being the annual cost) or you are being deliberately obtuse with your fractional costs of players.

Nonsense.

There is no evidence at all that our ticket pricing policy and increasing prices has led us to be more competitive. Nor that  the current prices of tickets have stopped us buying any player.

It isn't a binary choice as you have laid out - here's a thought, say 35 contracted players at LFC - when negotiating salaries shave an average of £1000 a week from them. There's over £12m a year.

FSG have choices and flexibility to achieve this.