Author Topic: Anfield naming rights worth £100m  (Read 192220 times)

Offline G a r y

  • Sexist Pig. Wants to mate with Dan Bilzerian
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,866
  • Kop 306
Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« on: July 26, 2007, 10:54:56 am »
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2007/07/26/anfield-naming-rights-worth-100m-64375-19520801/

LIVERPOOL FC wants to raise £100m in a deal that will see a corporate sponsor awarded naming rights to its new stadium, it emerged last night.

Chief executive Rick Parry confirmed the club’s American owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, were keen to secure a sponsorship package similar to the one Arsenal signed for its new Emirates stadium.

It comes after Liverpool yesterday submitted a planning application for a spectacular 60,000-seater stadium which it wants to build on Stanley Park over the next three years.

It is expected to cost around £300m and is planned to be open for the start of the 2010-11 season. The design also allows the club to increase the capacity to a potential 76,000.

In an exclusive interview from America with the Daily Post, billionaire Mr Hicks said he expected the finance to be fully in place by the end of the planning process this autumn.

He said the funding would involve a combination of equity and project finance, which was typical of this type of development.

He stressed the construction was not dependent on the naming rights being sold and that the “mortgage-style” debt on the stadium would be serviced by increased revenues over a period of 25-30 years.

“The new stadium is the single most important thing in helping Liverpool remain competitive with the Manchester Uniteds, Real Madrids and Barcelonas of the footballing world,” said Mr Hicks.

A major part of the new ground will be the 18,000-capacity Kop end, almost half as big again as the current Kop.

The dramatic glass and steel design allows views of the Kop from the outside to give a feel of the atmosphere inside on approach to the ground.

“We challenged the architects to do something that would be unique to Liverpool, something that would be world class, that would encompass the Kop and something that would be recognisable to the world as Liverpool’s,” said Mr Hicks.

A construction agent for the new stadium has not yet been announced. No-one from Laing O'Rourke, which was due to build the previous ground, and is being tipped by trade press as a front runner to take on the scheme, was available for comment yesterday.

Speaking in Hong Kong on the club’s tour of Asia, Liverpool’s chief executive Rick Parry said the new stadium would allow the club to compete with European heavyweights in financial terms.

Manchester United earn around £2m more per home game than Liverpool due to their larger stadium and greater corporate facilities. Liverpool hope to close that gap once they move to the new stadium.

Mr Parry said no decision had yet been taken on naming rights but said Tom Hicks and George Gillett were keen to explore the options for a deal.

“It’s something we will look to do or start on quickly, I would say within a matter of months,” he said.

“It has to be somebody whose name and reputation match our own.

“It is certainly something that has to be complete before the stadium is finished.

“Arsenal got a very significant deal for the Emirates Stadium. And some of the figures coming out of the latest developments in America are very high.

“It’s certainly possible to have a total deal over a period of years that runs into tens of millions, if not more.”

Emirates Airlines are paying £100m to sponsor Arsenal’s new Ashburton Grove stadium over a 15-year period.

While Manchester United’s Old Trafford stadium has grown to a 75,000-seater arena, the present Anfield has a capacity of only 45,000 and far fewer corporate boxes.

“When we started this process about five or six years ago, we sat down and one of our concerns is that we were earning £1m less than Manchester United every home game,” said Mr Parry.

“Since then, United have increased their capacity twice, so the gap is significantly greater now.’’

“Hopefully the new stadium will give us more money to spend ultimately because it will generate greater revenues and that’s the whole point with the extra capacity.”

Mr Parry said a final decision had not been taken on the number of corporate boxes, but it would be more than at present.

The revised plan has been produced by leading architects HKS based in Dallas, the home of Tom Hicks.

An eight metre hollow will be dug into the park near Arkles Lane and Priory Road to avoid causing controversy or breach planning rules.

It is envisaged there will be a car park below the stadium, and as exclusively revealed by the Daily Post last year, corporate bunker suites overlooking the pitch.

The new ground will also incorporate dedicated facilities for the Anfield Sport and Community Centre and Liverpool Hope University and external facilities will include tennis courts and new multi-use games area.

The north and east facades will overlook Priory Road and Utting Avenue respectively, looking across gardens.

The south side will have a more formal appearance at the northern edge to the new Anfield Plaza development which will replace the current ground.

The stadium will have a stonework base on the north, west and east sides with mainly glass facades above. The south side will be clad in metal and overlook the Plaza.

Liverpool captain Steven Gerrard said he was “blown away” by the plans and manager Rafael Benitez said: “The plans for the new stadium are absolutely fantastic.

“It looks very different to other stadiums I have seen. There are a lot of windows and it really is ground-breaking in terms of stadium design.”

Steven Gerrard said: “It’s amazing and the best thing about it, I think, is that it’s so different to any other.

“We are Liverpool Football Club, We expect the best and this will be the best.

“ I’ve played in some special stadiums but this is something special and it’s so important that we are not seen to be copying off another club.

“The fact that a massive Kop stand will be incorporated into the new stadium is great.

“I just hope I’m still around when the day comes for us to play our first game in it.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For an extra 100m to improve the club on and off the pitch i'd be happy going to The BA arena or some shit like that, it will always be Anfield to me anyways


Offline hansen6

  • RAWK Scientific Officer, 1687-1905
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,214
  • Must post more
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2007, 11:00:40 am »
I hate these names like the Reebok  and the Emirates but if we can pay off half the ground in 15 years we'd be fools not to consider it.

Offline DonkeyWan

  • ker. Football Genius, Generously gives Young Jürgen pointers to help him improve.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,457
  • I never met a man who wasn't...
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2007, 02:01:36 pm »
Its just a name and it won't be permanent. It would be remiss of the club to at least not consider the prospect. I'm sure it will upset some fans, but I feel we need to be more realistic here. It won't alter the nature of the club, regardless of what some sad sack journos drivel into their notebooks.
Beatings will continue until morale improves...

Offline zabadoh

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,505
  • Walk on with hope in your heart
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2007, 08:41:29 pm »
I hate these names like the Reebok  and the Emirates but if we can pay off half the ground in 15 years we'd be fools not to consider it.

Me too.  The most annoying thing about corporate naming of stadiums is that corporations die and get bought out all the time, so the sponsored name on the stadium can keep changing, even though we're not getting any extra money out of it.

Here in San Francisco, our baseball stadium has been:  Pacific Bell Park, SBC Park, and now AT&T park all due to the local telephone company changing hands over the last 11 years.   :no
“It's impossible,” said Pride.  “It's risky,” said Experience.  “It's pointless,” said Reason.

“Give it a try,” whispered the Heart. - Ken-Obi

Offline Ned Kelly

  • Simple, really.
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 632
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2007, 09:29:20 pm »
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2007/07/26/anfield-naming-rights-worth-100m-64375-19520801/


Chief executive Rick Parry confirmed the club’s American owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, were keen to secure a sponsorship package similar to the one Arsenal signed for its new Emirates stadium.

It comes after Liverpool yesterday submitted a planning application for a spectacular 60,000-seater stadium which it wants to build on Stanley Park over the next three years.
potential 76,000.






Speaking in Hong Kong on the club’s tour of Asia, Liverpool’s chief executive Rick Parry said the new stadium would allow the club to compete with European heavyweights in financial terms.

Manchester United earn around £2m more per home game than Liverpool due to their larger stadium and greater corporate facilities. Liverpool hope to close that gap once they move to the new stadium.

Mr Parry said no decision had yet been taken on naming rights but said Tom Hicks and George Gillett were keen to explore the options for a deal.

“It’s something we will look to do or start on quickly, I would say within a matter of months,” he said.

“It has to be somebody whose name and reputation match our own.

“It is certainly something that has to be complete before the stadium is finished.

“Arsenal got a very significant deal for the Emirates Stadium. And some of the figures coming out of the latest developments in America are very high.

“It’s certainly possible to have a total deal over a period of years that runs into tens of millions, if not more.”

Emirates Airlines are paying £100m to sponsor Arsenal’s new Ashburton Grove stadium over a 15-year period.

While Manchester United’s Old Trafford stadium has grown to a 75,000-seater arena, the present Anfield has a capacity of only 45,000 and far fewer corporate boxes.

“When we started this process about five or six years ago, we sat down and one of our concerns is that we were earning £1m less than Manchester United every home game,” said Mr Parry.

“Since then, United have increased their capacity twice, so the gap is significantly greater now.’’

“Hopefully the new stadium will give us more money to spend ultimately because it will generate greater revenues and that’s the whole point with the extra capacity.”
Mr Parry said a final decision had not been taken on the number of corporate boxes, but it would be more than at present.

The revised plan has been produced by leading architects HKS based in Dallas, the home of Tom Hicks.

An eight metre hollow will be dug into the park near Arkles Lane and Priory Road to avoid causing controversy or breach planning rules.

It is envisaged there will be a car park below the stadium, and as exclusively revealed by the Daily Post last year, corporate bunker suites overlooking the pitch.

The new ground will also incorporate dedicated facilities for the Anfield Sport and Community Centre and Liverpool Hope University and external facilities will include tennis courts and new multi-use games area.

The north and east facades will overlook Priory Road and Utting Avenue respectively, looking across gardens.

The south side will have a more formal appearance at the northern edge to the new Anfield Plaza development which will replace the current ground.

The stadium will have a stonework base on the north, west and east sides with mainly glass facades above. The south side will be clad in metal and overlook the Plaza.

Liverpool captain Steven Gerrard said he was “blown away” by the plans and manager Rafael Benitez said: “The plans for the new stadium are absolutely fantastic.

“It looks very different to other stadiums I have seen. There are a lot of windows and it really is ground-breaking in terms of stadium design.”

Steven Gerrard said: “It’s amazing and the best thing about it, I think, is that it’s so different to any other.

“We are Liverpool Football Club, We expect the best and this will be the best.

“ I’ve played in some special stadiums but this is something special and it’s so important that we are not seen to be copying off another club.

“The fact that a massive Kop stand will be incorporated into the new stadium is great.

“I just hope I’m still around when the day comes for us to play our first game in it.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For an extra 100m to improve the club on and off the pitch i'd be happy going to The BA arena or some shit like that, it will always be Anfield to me anyways




So it's not to let the fans actually get in to watch the team they love eh? I suppose Parry is at least being honest.
The twat.
Would you rather win the lottery or Joe Royles head full of Fifty pence pieces ?

Offline Joe Rogans Chin

  • Has an uncanny grasp of Aldo's balls
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,876
  • I Don't Know What It Is But I Love It
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2007, 09:43:49 pm »
I wouldn't rule something completely different out with these Americans.

Hicks recently bought back the naming rights to Arlington park (I think) because he'd figured out a better way of generating revenues from other sponsors, although I don't know what these are.

However, it wouldn't suprise me if it's something similar to Wembley's set up, they have a main sponsor Powergen who's allowed to use Wembleys name, but ain't directly in Wembley name. I'm sure it also has approved partners like MacDonald's & ford, bit like the CL, that can use Wembleys name & are featured around the stadium.

This way, Anfield can still be called Anfield, but we may be able to find 5 or 6 blue chip companies willing to give us 20 million each to be associated with what now turns out to be a ground breaking new design for the next 15 years
(1.2m per sponsor per season must be good value?).
I'm not going over board when I say it's going to be one of the most talked about grounds in the world, even more so than are current home.

Offline LpoolHope5*

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
  • been to all five big cup homecoming parades
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2007, 09:55:20 pm »
I'm not going over board when I say it's going to be one of the most talked about grounds in the world, even more so than are current home.

...and your reasoning for this view? genuinely interested not being sarky
Nicky Campbell: "How do you feel about all of the criticisms that are levelled at the city and at scousers?"

Phil Redmond: "You have to expect that sort of thing when you live at the centre of the universe"

Offline Joe Rogans Chin

  • Has an uncanny grasp of Aldo's balls
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,876
  • I Don't Know What It Is But I Love It
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2007, 10:05:42 pm »
I'm not going over board when I say it's going to be one of the most talked about grounds in the world, even more so than are current home.

...and your reasoning for this view? genuinely interested not being sarky

I just think football fans of all clubs British & Foreign will be blown away a) Once it's built & b) when it's the increased to 76 thosand.
I also think non football fans will be compelled to visit the ground & it will become a tourist attraction in it's own right.

Ive tried not to be bias, it's what I genuinely believe.
It's totally unique, cutting edge design on the outside & traditional on the inside with a 21st century twist.

Offline mikeb58

  • The Poet Laureate of the Hillsborough forum and indeed, now, the rest of the site! Allez, allez, allez......
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,084
  • kopite
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2007, 10:12:48 pm »
I just think football fans of all clubs British & Foreign will be blown away a) Once it's built & b) when it's the increased to 76 thosand.
I also think non football fans will be compelled to visit the ground & it will become a tourist attraction in it's own right.

Ive tried not to be bias, it's what I genuinely believe.
It's totally unique, cutting edge design on the outside & traditional on the inside with a 21st century twist.

Couldn't agree more, this stadium will be world famous. Hopefully in the future  it will stage major European Football finals, bringing even more prestige and revenue into the club and area in general.

Very exciting times for the club off the field, really looking forward to things taking shape.

Hillsborough...Our Greatest Victory (out now)

Offline ShanksLad

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Justice for the 96
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2007, 02:12:54 am »
Does anyone know if this conforms to UEFA category 5.. or whatever the top rating is?

Offline kaz1983

  • "Bloody Memory Wavers" Currently in debt with RAWK.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,505
  • Well dunno what to say, honest
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2007, 03:19:15 am »
I wouldn't rule something completely different out with these Americans.

Hicks recently bought back the naming rights to Arlington park (I think) because he'd figured out a better way of generating revenues from other sponsors, although I don't know what these are.

However, it wouldn't suprise me if it's something similar to Wembley's set up, they have a main sponsor Powergen who's allowed to use Wembleys name, but ain't directly in Wembley name. I'm sure it also has approved partners like MacDonald's & ford, bit like the CL, that can use Wembleys name & are featured around the stadium.

This way, Anfield can still be called Anfield, but we may be able to find 5 or 6 blue chip companies willing to give us 20 million each to be associated with what now turns out to be a ground breaking new design for the next 15 years
(1.2m per sponsor per season must be good value?).
I'm not going over board when I say it's going to be one of the most talked about grounds in the world, even more so than are current home.

Similar to the Barcelona set-up, they have sponsership deals with Nike, Coca Cola, Audi and Telefonica...

Offline Hank Scorpio

  • is really a Virgo, three pinter. Royhendo's stalker.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,939
  • POOLCHECK HOMIE
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2007, 08:48:21 am »
To get a good deal on these naming rights is essential, not a bonus.

Offline oojason

  • The Official RAWK Audio Visual God. Founder Member of the Ricky Gervais' 'David Brad Fan Club'.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 23,949
  • The Awkward Squad
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2007, 04:39:31 pm »
The Downgraded Stadium - in association with "Further Promises We Can't/Won't Keep" (TM)
.
Some 'Useful Info' for following the football + TV, Streams, Highlights & Replays etc - www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=345769

A mini-index of RAWK's 'Liverpool Audio / Video Thread' content over the years; & more - www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=345769.msg17787576#msg17787576

Offline RedBoywonder

  • The Big E
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,611
  • and could he play.....
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2007, 06:00:43 pm »
The Downgraded Stadium - in association with "Further Promises We Can't/Won't Keep" (TM)

The ENRON Anfield.

Or The Northern Rock arena.
Justice for the 96.

Offline oojason

  • The Official RAWK Audio Visual God. Founder Member of the Ricky Gervais' 'David Brad Fan Club'.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 23,949
  • The Awkward Squad
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2007, 03:43:39 pm »
It's a good job that we didn't already secure monies from naming rights to the HKS ground... ;)


...yet IF, for arguements sake we did pull in £100m in the future for naming rights, would not that be approximately 40%-50% of the cost of the proposed new 70,000 stadium?

Would the stadium actually have to be built before a naming rights deal could be struck? (I can't remember if Arsenal secured their's before the new ground was started or finished). Could monies from any such naming rights deal count as collateral on a loan for funding the build of the new ground?
.
Some 'Useful Info' for following the football + TV, Streams, Highlights & Replays etc - www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=345769

A mini-index of RAWK's 'Liverpool Audio / Video Thread' content over the years; & more - www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=345769.msg17787576#msg17787576

Offline REDcrazy

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 806
  • YNWA
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2007, 06:44:43 am »
It's a good job that we didn't already secure monies from naming rights to the HKS ground... ;)


...yet IF, for arguements sake we did pull in £100m in the future for naming rights, would not that be approximately 40%-50% of the cost of the proposed new 70,000 stadium?

Would the stadium actually have to be built before a naming rights deal could be struck? (I can't remember if Arsenal secured their's before the new ground was started or finished). Could monies from any such naming rights deal count as collateral on a loan for funding the build of the new ground?

Emirates and Arsenal officially announced the sponsorship a couple of years before it opened.

Offline oojason

  • The Official RAWK Audio Visual God. Founder Member of the Ricky Gervais' 'David Brad Fan Club'.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 23,949
  • The Awkward Squad
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #16 on: December 20, 2007, 01:13:16 pm »
^ cheers REDcrazy

Hopefully the club have been (or are) looking to bring in this decent sized chunk of income - would certainly help us out considering our recent troubles with spiralling stadium costs and securing loans.

I imagine any potential company wishing to associate themselves with us and the new ground may want to see finalised stadium plans and some sort of guarantee that it will actually be built.

Seems strange the naming rights issue was very quiet during the flashy HKS stadium designs...
.
Some 'Useful Info' for following the football + TV, Streams, Highlights & Replays etc - www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=345769

A mini-index of RAWK's 'Liverpool Audio / Video Thread' content over the years; & more - www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=345769.msg17787576#msg17787576

Offline Giono

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 9,927
  • And stop calling me Shirley
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2007, 05:25:04 am »
The Texas Rangers have decided not to have a sponsor of their stadium.

"I am a great believer in luck and the harder I work the more of it I have." Stephen Leacock

Offline shanklyboy

  • OCB Enforcer.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,591
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #18 on: January 3, 2008, 03:14:00 am »
If it's anything other than Anfield it will be the final nail in our already dwindling cultural and historical coffin.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy.
www.savelfc.org

Offline LFCsnoopz

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,556
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #19 on: January 3, 2008, 12:44:47 pm »
the over-ambitious dreams arena

Offline ttnbd

  • RAWK Chief Financial Officer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,975
  • ANFIELD4EVER
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2008, 10:12:29 pm »
expect part of the name to be Anfield Arena.

Noticed that there was a new company set up in August at Temple Square in Liverpool for Anfield Arena Limited.  This, I am guessing, will be the company that would have the stadium on it's books.

Name & Registered Office:
ANFIELD ARENA LIMITED
FLOOR 6, 5 TEMPLE SQUARE
TEMPLE STREET
LIVERPOOL
MERSEYSIDE L2 5RH
Company No. 06343315

 
   
 
Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 15/08/2007

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
 
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
None Supplied
 
Accounting Reference Date: 31/08
Last Accounts Made Up To:  (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 15/06/2009
Last Return Made Up To:
Next Return Due: 12/09/2008 
 
 
So all say thanks to the Shanks

He never walked alone

Lets sing our song for all the world

From this his Liverpool home

Offline youngie

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,094
  • LFC
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #21 on: January 12, 2008, 11:05:56 pm »
expect part of the name to be Anfield Arena.

Noticed that there was a new company set up in August at Temple Square in Liverpool for Anfield Arena Limited.  This, I am guessing, will be the company that would have the stadium on it's books.

Name & Registered Office:
ANFIELD ARENA LIMITED
FLOOR 6, 5 TEMPLE SQUARE
TEMPLE STREET
LIVERPOOL
MERSEYSIDE L2 5RH
Company No. 06343315

 
  
 
Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 15/08/2007

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
 
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
None Supplied
 
Accounting Reference Date: 31/08
Last Accounts Made Up To:  (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 15/06/2009
Last Return Made Up To:
Next Return Due: 12/09/2008 
 
 


nice work that  ttndb

Offline shanklyboy

  • OCB Enforcer.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,591
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2008, 12:01:25 am »
If it's anything other than Anfield it will be the final nail in our already dwindling cultural and historical coffin.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy.
www.savelfc.org

Offline shanklyboy

  • OCB Enforcer.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,591
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2008, 12:08:05 am »
expect part of the name to be Anfield Arena.

Noticed that there was a new company set up in August at Temple Square in Liverpool for Anfield Arena Limited.  This, I am guessing, will be the company that would have the stadium on it's books.



Surely this is just an administrative, financial company set up to oversee the funding and building operation.
The name , I would imagine is to differenciate between Anfield and the New Stadium.

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy.
www.savelfc.org

Offline adz174

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2008, 07:43:28 pm »
as long as anfiels is in the name it is ok
eg: the cocacola new anfield
WALK ON

Offline 7Dalglish

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,392
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2008, 07:57:03 pm »
expect part of the name to be Anfield Arena.

Noticed that there was a new company set up in August at Temple Square in Liverpool for Anfield Arena Limited.  This, I am guessing, will be the company that would have the stadium on it's books.

Name & Registered Office:
ANFIELD ARENA LIMITED
FLOOR 6, 5 TEMPLE SQUARE
TEMPLE STREET
LIVERPOOL
MERSEYSIDE L2 5RH
Company No. 06343315

 
  
 
Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 15/08/2007

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
 
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
None Supplied
 
Accounting Reference Date: 31/08
Last Accounts Made Up To:  (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 15/06/2009
Last Return Made Up To:
Next Return Due: 12/09/2008 
 
 


Any ideas why it's listed as a different company and not just a department of Liverpool Football Club?

Offline ttnbd

  • RAWK Chief Financial Officer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,975
  • ANFIELD4EVER
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2008, 08:05:18 pm »
Risk management purposes usually, but could be just for while construction is happening.  If the stadium is on a separate companies books, aswell as it's associated debt, then the risk is reduced on the club itself as it wouldn't necessarily be liable on any debt defaults.
So all say thanks to the Shanks

He never walked alone

Lets sing our song for all the world

From this his Liverpool home

Offline 7Dalglish

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,392
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #27 on: January 17, 2008, 08:13:26 pm »
Thanks, if that's the case I wonder how Anfield Arena would be able to get the loan secured if not using assets of the club. Value of the stadium once complete plus the owners other assets?

Offline ttnbd

  • RAWK Chief Financial Officer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,975
  • ANFIELD4EVER
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #28 on: January 17, 2008, 08:45:38 pm »
the loans will either be secured against the stadium (which maybe difficult as for a stadium the only thing of real value is the land it's on rather than the stadium) or against future earnings (most likely scenario).  The company that owns the stadium will lease it out to the club on a match by match basis etc.  But ultimately I think the stadium company will be a wholy owned subsidiary of the club itself.
So all say thanks to the Shanks

He never walked alone

Lets sing our song for all the world

From this his Liverpool home

Offline shanklyboy

  • OCB Enforcer.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,591
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #29 on: January 18, 2008, 01:31:08 am »
The apathy surrounding this is truly embarrasing.
Put a thread up about a new kit coming out and it gets blitzed. Put this up and hardly anyone gives a shit.

If they are allowed to change the name once they can change it again.
A new stadium name every few years. each time it will have less impact on the fans
I don't care how much it's worth, it will turn my stomach once they do it so fuck knows what we'll end up with.
No thanks.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy.
www.savelfc.org

Offline 7Dalglish

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,392
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #30 on: January 18, 2008, 01:46:31 am »
The apathy surrounding this is truly embarrasing.
Put a thread up about a new kit coming out and it gets blitzed. Put this up and hardly anyone gives a shit.

If they are allowed to change the name once they can change it again.
A new stadium name every few years. each time it will have less impact on the fans
I don't care how much it's worth, it will turn my stomach once they do it so fuck knows what we'll end up with.
No thanks.

The alternative is worse, I understand what you're feeling and it took a while for me to resign myself to the fact but Football isn't what it used to be.

We have to complete with our rivals financially and the stadium is a large part of that. It will still be Anfield no matter who the sponsor is.

Offline shanklyboy

  • OCB Enforcer.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,591
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #31 on: January 18, 2008, 02:25:00 am »
The alternative is worse, I understand what you're feeling and it took a while for me to resign myself to the fact but Football isn't what it used to be.

We have to complete with our rivals financially and the stadium is a large part of that. It will still be Anfield no matter who the sponsor is.
I'll never resign myself to it. I've seen enough of our heritage go down the toilet.
The problem is mate is that it WONT be Anfield will it.
We'll all take the piss out of Everton moving to the Tesco arena, but at least they are moving lock stock and barrel to Kirkby.
We are moving across the road and seem to think it's ok to prostitute our home for the sake of some new players who will be dead and gone when our ground is still there.
What will the fans of the future call it....certainly not Anfield.

Imagine how you'll feel when your kids  are saying "What was Anfield Dad"
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy.
www.savelfc.org

Offline 7Dalglish

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,392
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #32 on: January 18, 2008, 05:15:57 am »
It won't be to fund new players, not directly anyway. It will be to reduce loan repayments for the building of the stadium. It will still be Anfield, it will still be in Anfield and there's no reason why everyone can't continue to call it that.

The sponsors will come and go but it will still be in Anfield. I bet some lads were pissed off when we first put Hitachi across our chest in the 70's but that didn't change anything either. I think the shirts would be better without but it's part of the game and not doing so puts us at a disadvantage, it's the same with the stadium sponsor, you'd better get your head round it.

A good comparison would be Candlestick park, it's an American Football stadium but it's had a number of sponsors over the years but to the fans it's still known as Candlestick, not 3Com or anything else.

The rest of what you said makes absolutely no sense at all, you seem emotional which is understandable but you're way over the top.

Online Valore

  • Why Don't You Come On Over
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,405
  • Help Rafa, help us. Help Rafa... Help Us...
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #33 on: January 18, 2008, 05:51:45 am »
As long as its got Anfield in the name, I don't think it really matters.

Even if it was called the Burger King Anfield Arena, you and I would still call it Anfield, and I'd suggest on TV and radio we'd hear Anfield as well. Sure, if we get a stupid sponsor other fans will take the piss, but really, they'll have to take the piss out of something anyways.
Quote
They beat better teams on the way, won in circumstances when other teams would have surrendered, were given the last rites and pronounced dead at the scene, before grabbing the attendant by the throat on the slab in the morgue, making everyone jump.

- Martin Samuel, after we beat Arsenal 4-2 in the second leg of the CL QF 2007-200

Offline shanklyboy

  • OCB Enforcer.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,591
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2008, 01:34:56 pm »
It won't be to fund new players, not directly anyway. It will be to reduce loan repayments for the building of the stadium. It will still be Anfield, it will still be in Anfield and there's no reason why everyone can't continue to call it that.

The sponsors will come and go but it will still be in Anfield. I bet some lads were pissed off when we first put Hitachi across our chest in the 70's but that didn't change anything either. I think the shirts would be better without but it's part of the game and not doing so puts us at a disadvantage, it's the same with the stadium sponsor, you'd better get your head round it.

A good comparison would be Candlestick park, it's an American Football stadium but it's had a number of sponsors over the years but to the fans it's still known as Candlestick, not 3Com or anything else.

The rest of what you said makes absolutely no sense at all, you seem emotional which is understandable but you're way over the top.

Do me a favour mate and don't patronise me.
I don't give a shit what candlestick park is called or any other stadium.
I understand the dynamics of finance and marketing better than you might appreciate.

I also understand that there is no guarantee the word Anfield will be in any name attributed to our new stadium.
From a business point of view, which is where you seem to be approaching this from, any potential sponsor would be willing to pay a bit more for exclusive naming rights, as in the Emirates Stadium etc.
How would you feel about that?

You seem to think that doesn't matter which is your choice. I make no apologies for  'getting emotional' about it.
My concern is that people have the same opinion as you do and are  not GETTING EMOTIONAL about it.

I imagine when Sky are welcoming viewers to the ASDA arena on the first day of the new stadium the penny might drop.  Once the agreements are signed though, it will be tough shit.
Still....ASDA is better than TESCO'S so what the fuck eh?

35 comments on this thread sum up the apathy towards it , which I find incredible.
Maybe if H & G made a statement today about what they intend to name the stadium there would be uproar.
As there isn't, nobody is arsed as long as we can buy a few more players on the back of it when it does happen.

To compare it with having a sponsors name on your shirt is ludicrous.
I personally don't like it and never have but the comaprison is not on the same scale.

The marketing applicatiions for having the Stadium called Anfield are only too obvious, that is the only hope I have of it remaining.
One last thing; if they didn't re-name the stadium would you be up in arms over it ?

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy.
www.savelfc.org

Offline 7Dalglish

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,392
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #35 on: January 18, 2008, 06:33:56 pm »
Do me a favour mate and don't patronise me.
I don't give a shit what candlestick park is called or any other stadium.
I understand the dynamics of finance and marketing better than you might appreciate.

You don't give a shit but it's an example of how this works, as it happens Candlestick will no longer have a sponsor from 2008 onwards and will be known officially as Candlestick again after over 15 years of 3Com/Monster.

I also understand that there is no guarantee the word Anfield will be in any name attributed to our new stadium.
From a business point of view, which is where you seem to be approaching this from, any potential sponsor would be willing to pay a bit more for exclusive naming rights, as in the Emirates Stadium etc.
How would you feel about that?

I'll always call it Anfield so I don't care.

You seem to think that doesn't matter which is your choice. I make no apologies for  'getting emotional' about it.
My concern is that people have the same opinion as you do and are  not GETTING EMOTIONAL about it.

Comparing us to what is happening to Everton is silly, they're moving lock, stock and barrel. We're staying in Anfield. The comments about a future son were funny. That's up to you lad, you educate him and tell him what it was like in your day, just like everyone else does.

I imagine when Sky are welcoming viewers to the ASDA arena on the first day of the new stadium the penny might drop.  Once the agreements are signed though, it will be tough shit.
Still....ASDA is better than TESCO'S so what the fuck eh?

The penny needs to drop with you lad, times have changed and if we want a new stadium and it's the right kind of deal then naming rights are something we have to pursue.

35 comments on this thread sum up the apathy towards it , which I find incredible.
Maybe if H & G made a statement today about what they intend to name the stadium there would be uproar.
As there isn't, nobody is arsed as long as we can buy a few more players on the back of it when it does happen.

Or maybe people understand it's something we have to do whether we like it or not?

To compare it with having a sponsors name on your shirt is ludicrous.
I personally don't like it and never have but the comaprison is not on the same scale.

No, it's not ludicrous at all. We were the first to do it so it was a big deal at the time, it was something Liverpool fans hadn't seen before and I'm sure it took a lot of people time to get used to having something other than a Liverbird on their chest.

The marketing applicatiions for having the Stadium called Anfield are only too obvious, that is the only hope I have of it remaining.
One last thing; if they didn't re-name the stadium would you be up in arms over it ?

This last question just shows you up, yes I'm desperate for a name change just for the fucking sake of it.


[/quote]
« Last Edit: January 18, 2008, 06:56:11 pm by 7Dalglish »

Offline shanklyboy

  • OCB Enforcer.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,591
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #36 on: January 18, 2008, 07:36:56 pm »

You don't give a shit but it's an example of how this works, as it happens Candlestick will no longer have a sponsor from 2008 onwards and will be known officially as Candlestick again after over 15 years of 3Com/Monster.

I'll always call it Anfield so I don't care.

Ahhh well that's alright then. It might be called Anfield again in 15 years. Great. You can call it a name that doesn't exist anymore!
Such is the nature of sports in The US that the 'franchise' can simply exist somewhere else. Which name do we call our stadium this week. Monster Park, Candlestick, Candlestick Park or the romantic..The Stick.
Seeing as the 49ers play there now when it was originally the home of The SF Giants is indicative of the nature of US sport once again. Then again, the SF Giants  moving to Pacific Bell Park, which was subsequently to become AT&T Park is not a problem. The £ or the $ are king it seems, even though we cling to our history like our lives depended on it we sing songs about it, but everything has it’s price doesn’t it.

Comparing us to what is happening to Everton is silly, they're moving lock, stock and barrel. We're staying in Anfield. The comments about a future son were funny. That's up to you lad, you educate him and tell him what it was like in your day, just like everyone else does.

You think it's ok to change the name of our stadium , even though it's still in Anfield? You can't see the bitter irony of that?
The point you made about Everton is the exact same point I made a few posts up if you care to have a look, so need to remind me of it.

I don't have to tell my kids about it anymore . They understand and are part of it now.
They understand our history and the pitfalls of the future as far as we can see them.
What their kids will know is a different matter.

The penny needs to drop with you lad, times have changed and if we want a new stadium and it's the right kind of deal then naming rights are something we have to pursue.

Or maybe people understand it's something we have to do whether we like it or not?

The penny dropped with me a long time ago.....lad.
As far as we are aware, the finance is already in place to build it.
So what is it? A necessary evil  or an evil necessity?
Times have changed eh? So a ground share with Everton makes perfectly good financial sense to H & G. They explain it will enable us to compete with the other top clubs........and they believe times have changed, so they are sure nobody will mind.

No, it's not ludicrous at all. We were the first to do it so it was a big deal at the time, it was something Liverpool fans hadn't seen before and I'm sure it took a lot of people time to get used to having something other than a Liverbird on their chest.

This last question just shows you up, yes I'm desperate for a name change just for the fucking sake of it.
I know we were the first and I didn’t like it then and don’t like it now. To say it’s not a ludicrous comparison is…….ludicrous. If we had changed the shirt to Blue for more money. Now that would be a ludicrous thing to do wouldn’t it?
Or maybe if it was just something we had to do whether we like it or not eh?
My last question showed ME up!
Ironically it was the most important question. One I was keen to get your answer on.
I wasn’t surprised you didn’t .
I asked if you would be up in arms if they didn’t sell the naming rights.
Well would you?
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy.
www.savelfc.org

Offline 7Dalglish

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,392
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #37 on: January 18, 2008, 08:07:48 pm »
Well it's clear we draw the line at different points, you at a stadium sponsor and me at ground share. The finance is not in place as it happens but that's all covered in another thread.

I'll answer the question you're keen to hear, if we refused a stadium sponsor to pacify fans concerns and the result was that we were less competitive compared to our rivals I'd be up in arms. If we were in a position where we could refuse 100m or whatever it may be then I'd be overjoyed. The reality is that we need to do everything we can to reduce the burden of building a new stadium. I said it showed you up because what person in their right mind would want to change the name of our home for no reason what so ever?

Using an American football situation gave you the opportunity to talk about everything that is wrong with that 'sport' and I agree with it but my point was that although there was a stadium sponsor the fans still referred to it by the original name and that sponsorship is not set in stone. The same can be said of any sponsor that we get, that's all.

Offline shanklyboy

  • OCB Enforcer.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,591
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #38 on: January 18, 2008, 08:29:03 pm »
Well it's clear we draw the line at different points, you at a stadium sponsor and me at ground share.
The thought of a groundshare to me is almost as bad as playing in 'The Asda Arena'.
Why don’t you want a groundshare if it’s financially the right thing to do. Got to move with the times.

The finance is not in place as it happens but that's all covered in another thread.

The finance is in place.
Maybe not as they want it to be but in place all the same.Otherwise the grant funding wouldn't have been given nor the planning permission.

I'll answer the question you're keen to hear, if we refused a stadium sponsor to pacify fans concerns and the result was that we were less competitive compared to our rivals I'd be up in arms. If we were in a position where we could refuse 100m or whatever it may be then I'd be overjoyed. The reality is that we need to do everything we can to reduce the burden of building a new stadium. I said it showed you up because what person in their right mind would want to change the name of our home for no reason what so ever?
I didn’t mention refusing a sponsor to pacify fans. What if we didn’t actively seek one because we were financially sound. Would you be up in arms then.?
What if we changed the name of Anfield next season………would that be o.k for a few years to raise some cash?
If we need to do everything to reduce the burdeon of building the stadium and we were offered £50 million to change our kit to Royal Blue and have a minimum ticket price of £60 would that be acceptable?

Using an American football situation gave you the opportunity to talk about everything that is wrong with that 'sport' and I agree with it but my point was that although there was a stadium sponsor the fans still referred to it by the original name and that sponsorship is not set in stone. The same can be said of any sponsor that we get, that's all.


We are not American sports fans. Using them as an example of how we should accept things is insulting to be honest. Our culture and heritage can’t be bought…….well maybe it can in the name of ‘moving with the times ‘ eh?
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy.
www.savelfc.org

Offline 7Dalglish

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,392
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Anfield naming rights worth £100m
« Reply #39 on: January 18, 2008, 08:44:00 pm »
The thought of a groundshare to me is almost as bad as playing in 'The Asda Arena'.
Why don’t you want a groundshare if it’s financially the right thing to do. Got to move with the times.

Because as I said I draw the line there, I'd rather we played in the second divi than share a ground with them. I'm not saying it's right, it's how I feel, much like you with stadium naming.

The finance is in place.
Maybe not as they want it to be but in place all the same.Otherwise the grant funding wouldn't have been given nor the planning permission.
 I didn’t mention refusing a sponsor to pacify fans. What if we didn’t actively seek one because we were financially sound. Would you be up in arms then.?
The finance is not in place, again it's covered in a number of other threads. I've already answered the question, did you not read it? I'd be overjoyed if we didn't need to get sponsorship for the stadium if we were financially sound. If you can show me how this is possible I'd love to hear it. I'm always open to a difference of opinion and don't have a problem changing mine if it makes sense to me.

What if we changed the name of Anfield next season………would that be o.k for a few years to raise some cash?
If we need to do everything to reduce the burdeon of building the stadium and we were offered £50 million to change our kit to Royal Blue and have a minimum ticket price of £60 would that be acceptable?

That is a silly senario you've created there.

We are not American sports fans. Using them as an example of how we should accept things is insulting to be honest. Our culture and heritage can’t be bought…….well maybe it can in the name of ‘moving with the times ‘ eh?

No, it's an example of fans ignoring a stadium sponsor name and using the original name of their stadium. It's not insulting at all. Middlesborough is another example, I remember going there and it was the Cellnet Riverside stadium, then the BT Cellnet Riverside stadium and now just the Riverside stadium. Twats though they are their fans actually named it The Riverside and during their sponsorship years called it the Riverside regardless of the sponsorship.