Topic: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium

[Peter McGurk]

You're presuming a redev can match a new stadium in both capacity, facilities, etc.

IMO the max revenue of a redev and a new stadium are different, and surely the club think the same or wouldn't bother considering the new stadium idea.

Yes, I am; because I'm not looking at the constraints as definite no-no.  I'm looking at them as consequences ie., if we want to do this, we have to do this.  If we want to get to 55k, we might have to bridge or close Anfield Road.  If we want 60k..., 70k... etc etc.  That's makes for a valid comparison on a like-for-like basis.

The club are looking at the new stadium because they have the consent.  The fact that it's not going ahead straight away is because it has its own consequences (like it costs too much or doesn't make enough for the club after costs).

[CraigDS]

Or maybe they've looked at how a redev Anfield could FULLY compete with a new stadium and decided those 'consequences' are too much (money, time, hassle, etc) to overcome.

You know my views already with regards to the Upper (and with that currently being the best part of Anfield concourse wise meaning the whole ground needs sorting) - and maybe they realise that the whole place needs sorting and that is a much much bigger job than just doing the Main and Anny Rd to increase capacity, etc.

[Peter McGurk]

Or maybe they've looked at how a redev Anfield could FULLY compete with a new stadium and decided those 'consequences' are too much (money, time, hassle, etc) to overcome.

You know my views already with regards to the Upper (and with that currently being the best part of Anfield concourse wise meaning the whole ground needs sorting) - and maybe they realise that the whole place needs sorting and that is a much much bigger job than just doing the Main and Anny Rd to increase capacity, etc.

Yes, I'm sure they're looking at both cases in that way.  I am also sure that 'crap' as it may be, Anfield still generates £42m a year without further investment, cynical as that may be.  And don't forget; if your seat anywhere is done up - you will pay more for it, and more than just inflation.

Property expertise has been conspicuous by its absence at the club before FSG.  FSG know that the punter must carry the can, pay the bills and provide the financial return. This is however the first public acknowledgement that a new stadium does not do that.  It does not stand on its own two feet financially - an admission that the money coming in through the gate does not pay for what's going out.  In short, it is not commercially viable.

Naming rights are a bonus, a 'windfall'.  A nice to have (sometimes very nice to have) but in the fickle world of sponsorship: unreliable - particularly in property which must be reliable to be fundable. Or as mate of mine once said 'if it needs naming rights to go; don't go there'

Because of the chain of events, the money spent and the existing consent, the new stadium has one last chance.  Ordinarily, it would have been long gone.

[Abrak]

The fundamental problem that FSG face is that they have no guarantee that they can get us into CL. If FFP is not properly implemented they face the prospect of trying to beat Arsenal and ManU whose fundamentals are better or Chelsea and City who have infinite money. Against that competition it is likely that Liverpool will come say 5th-10th in which case there is no evidence that we will really need more than a modestly redeveloped stadium to satisfy our matchday attendees.

As I say if City and Chelsea are allowed to maintain their position through deficit financing then a permanently second tier Liverpool might break even as an investment but will not warrant any reward. A larger new stadium would be something of a white elephant. As an individual investment it cannot stand on its own two feet - only on the most optimistic assumptions can the revenues justify the investment.

From FFP it can of course justify its existence because the costs are not included. And the revenues may well make the difference between LFC being an elite club or not. The difference in value between a top 4 club and a mid tier club could be several fold. So an equity investor who looks at the downside of his equity holding against what might be a considerable upside could be interested. Admittedly it is pure speculation BUT the fact that the investment has its attractions under FFP, makes it easy to understand why they are looking for some way to finance it, even though it almost certainly doesnt justify itself as a stand alone project.

[xerxes1]

The fundamental problem that FSG face is that they have no guarantee that they can get us into CL.

Our failure to be in Europe, let alone the CL, is undoubtedly a serious obstacle to Naming Rights discussions. It also impacts on future attendance patterns.

The preparedness of FSG to bankroll LFC without the revenues from either a new stadium or a substantially redeveloped Anfield are uncertain at best, and under FFP may not be possible at all.

[xerxes1]

Naming rights are a bonus, a 'windfall'.  A nice to have (sometimes very nice to have) but in the fickle world of sponsorship: unreliable - particularly in property which must be reliable to be fundable. Or as mate of mine once said 'if it needs naming rights to go; don't go there'

Naming Rights are not unreliable - they are a contractual agreement.

Naming rights have the potential to  completely underwrite the construction costs of a new stadium such that the additional revenue is delivered as profit, or to meet a proportion of the debt from the build costs to ensure that the additional revenue is sufficent to put back into the club. As such they are an integral part of the stadium decision.

In the other thread, I made the point that when a professional man declares that adding the aggregate average attendance from one year, taking the aggregate average attendance from another, and then calculating the percentage difference, is not a statistical fact - we  have the pronouncement of a mathematics illiterate. Here is further evidence, although I am surprised that there are now two.

[The Las]

The Council, The football club and the Government need a bit of vision. With subsidy and outside investment. The Construction of A world class football stadium and events venue surrounded by a world class "Football Quarter" could be the biggest and best of its kind. It could bring a million more people into the city and country a year, create hundreds of jobs and dare i say it beome the mecca for football fans around the world to bring children and families this place could the football cultural centre of the world. The Football Disney land. ANd liverpool football club could be at the centre of it generating an unbvelievable amount of new fans.

Like I said it just requires vision.

[helmboy_nige]

Do people think that naming rights potential is drastically reduced by short term failure?  If so then our failure to get into the CL for two years running means the value of any naming rights would be much lower.  If that's the case does it not make sense to hold off on it until we are back in the CL?

Seems fickle to me, I reckon as a club with a grand history we can probably still get a good deal, but I have no idea what the values are these days.  I always figured we could do better than Arsenal in the naming rights stakes because of our global appeal.  I thought global appeal is more important than short term CL involvement.

[Abrak]

The preparedness of FSG to bankroll LFC without the revenues from either a new stadium or a substantially redeveloped Anfield are uncertain at best, and under FFP may not be possible at all.

Actually there will always be a plan B for Liverpool.

If we decide we cannot compete or compete profitably for a CL position, we can settle for a profitable upper mid tier position in the league.

Assuming 40m matchday revenues
Assuming 45m of TV media revenues
And 35m (v 68m last year) of commercial revenues
That would give us 120m of revenues which is 30m more than the 7th highest ranked PL club.

We could reduce our wages to 72m which would be about 7th in the league and comfortably break even and probably make a small profit.

At the point we decide we no longer wish to compete to be at the very top we will have a comfortable position amongst the also rans.

[Peter McGurk]

The Council, The football club and the Government need a bit of vision. With subsidy and outside investment. The Construction of A world class football stadium and events venue surrounded by a world class "Football Quarter" could be the biggest and best of its kind. It could bring a million more people into the city and country a year, create hundreds of jobs and dare i say it beome the mecca for football fans around the world to bring children and families this place could the football cultural centre of the world. The Football Disney land. ANd liverpool football club could be at the centre of it generating an unbvelievable amount of new fans.

Like I said it just requires vision.

I'm really sorry to say that that isn't true.  Vision is nothing without the ability to delver.

Naming Rights are not unreliable - they are a contractual agreement.

In the other thread, I made the point that when a professional man declares that adding the aggregate average attendance from one year, taking the aggregate average attendance from another, and then calculating the percentage difference, is not a statistical fact - we  have the pronouncement of a mathematics illiterate. Here is further evidence, although I am surprised that there are now two.

I’ll let Tiger Woods know.  As for naming rights that pay off a whole stadium or even a substantial part of it... I’m not holding my breath nor am I expecting that the club will ignore interest payments.

The other is not bad as an outright insult but water off a duck’s back I’m happy to say. 

You have deduced that a more or less static attendance at Anfield (not entirely true in itself) compared with an overall increase in attendance at football in general indicates a lack of performance on our part.  This disregards all other aspects of the situation (such as location, population, ease of access, affordability etc etc) and more especially the respective market penetrations of each club, which as I say the likes of Man U have only just caught up with.

Our failure to be in Europe, let alone the CL, is undoubtedly a serious obstacle to Naming Rights discussions. It also impacts on future attendance patterns.

The preparedness of FSG to bankroll LFC without the revenues from either a new stadium or a substantially redeveloped Anfield are uncertain at best, and under FFP may not be possible at all.

The assumption that if all else fails, someone will throw us some money to sort it out is naïve beyond words - nope, it's just bollocks.

[The Las]

One needs to have the potential first and foremost in tune with vision. Then there is a need for will. Once those two fundamantals are activated then action usually follows and shit gets done.
The potential is clearly there.

[xerxes1]

Much attention has been focussed on the prospects for Naming Rights for a New Anfield, less on the prospects for individual stand naming rights.

Of course it is possible to sell stadium naming rights AND do individual deals on stands, but I suspect that Ayre’s approach currently will be on an either or basis  for a new stadium or renaming existing Anfield Stands. The current competition for such naming rights cash is coming from the more modest opportunities presented by developments at Edgbaston, Old Trafford and Nottingham Test Grounds.

In FSG we are fortunate to have some seasoned hands on board well versed in media and marketing matters.

[Peter McGurk]

One needs to have the potential first and foremost in tune with vision. Then there is a need for will. Once those two fundamantals are activated then action usually follows and shit gets done.
The potential is clearly there.

All good stuff.  The potential is there and the vision does match it.  As yet the will is elsewhere putting out fires.

[CANADAlglish]

Emirates paid £100M for naming rights out of a £350M total cost.

[CraigDS]

Breaking news that city have agreed a naming deal with Etihad so should be interesting to see the details of that!

[red_til_i_die]

Breaking news that city have agreed a naming deal with Etihad so should be interesting to see the details of that!

Yep just seen that. I can't see the owners turning down the opportunity to make a massive deal on a potential naming rights deal on a new stadium as Anfield will always be called Anfield.

Naming rights deals and sponsor ship deals are/will be the new get arounds/loopholes round the financial fairplay rules.

[Liverbird 2010]

*Awaits a shared stadium is the only way forward from LCC* 

[Peter McGurk]

Emirates paid £100M for naming rights out of a £350M total cost.

They did not.  Emirates paid just over £50m over 15 years.  The rest was shirts sponsorship.

[Red_Rich]

...... as Anfield will always be called Anfield.

No it won't.

Only our own fans will call it Anfield.

Jeff Stelling, Sky, MOTD, Linekar, Shearer, Hansen, Demento and the mancs, other teams' players, EVERYBODY will call it the ******* stadium.

And it will be horrible to hear.

[xerxes1]

Breaking news that city have agreed a naming deal with Etihad so should be interesting to see the details of that!

The Mirror are claiming around £150m. This is in line with what I have been predicting for some time. It should be remembered that new naming rights are more valuable than a "conversion".
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manchester-City-sell-stadium-name-for-record-150million-to-Etihad-Airways-from-next-season-article762169.html

[scatman]

Emirates paid £100M for naming rights out of a £350M total cost.

Arsenal could have got much more.

[CraigDS]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-08/liverpool-s-asia-tour-vital-to-standard-chartered-sponsorship.html

Standard Chartered Plc (STAN), the international bank that sponsors 18-time English soccer champion Liverpool, says the team’s tour of Asia next week is one of the reasons it agreed to pay out a record 81.5 million pounds ($29.6).

The U.K.-based lender, which gets more than three-quarters of its profit from Asia, started a four-year contract with the Reds on July 1 last year. The club flies out in two days to start a tour that will include exhibition matches in China and Malaysia as well as an open training session in Singapore.

“It’s a pretty important part of why we signed the deal in the first place,” Gavin Laws, the bank executive who approved the accord, said in an interview. “We want to help bring Liverpool to our clients and executive clients in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. This tour is an important part of the visibility we want to give our customers.”

Standard Chartered is trying to increase its global reach after thriving during the global economic crisis that hurt most of its competitors. It has 1,700 branches and offices worldwide, including 900 in Asia. In January the lender opened a 65,000 square-foot trading floor in Singapore, which it says is the biggest in Asia.

Reds captain Steven Gerrard will miss the tour. He’ll remain in the U.K. to work on his fitness after undergoing an operation on his groin in April.

“We would have loved to have him there,” said Laws, the bank’s group head of corporate affairs. “It isn’t going to happen. We understand the priority is to get Steven fit for the Premier League season and if staying at home is the price we pay that’s fine.”
‘Worst Start’

Liverpool is the bank’s first team sponsorship. The initial year of the agreement included the sale of the team to the Boston Red Sox owner Fenway Sports Group following a legal struggle, the club suffering its worst start to a season in more than half a century, the sale of its striker Fernando Torres and the return of Kenny Dalglish, the coach that took Liverpool to its last championship in 1990.

“They finished the season really strongly, they started it really poorly and there was plenty of visibility about the club all through the season,” said Laws, who described the team as one of the top four or five in the world. “Who knows how long any club can go without winning something before they start to lose their fanbase? But you know Liverpool is engrained in many people’s lives throughout the world.”

Liverpool, whose main shirt color is red, yesterday said sales of its third jersey were a record for a change uniform. The white and blue outfit was launched earlier this year amid controversy as some fans complained its local rival Everton plays in blue, and others said it was imposed on the team by Standard Chartered because of similarities to the bank’s insignia.
‘Massive Influence’

Laws said his company had no involvement in the design of the shirt produced by Adidas AG. He’s faced earlier criticism after being reported as saying the bank would like the team to sign some Asian players.

“We seem to be branded as having massive influence on player selection, kit selection, whatever,” he said. “We have a lot of input on areas of commercial work but we have no say whatsoever in what the kit looks like, what the colors of the kit are and we have no say in player selection. At the end of the day we clearly understand that we’re a sponsor and they’re a football club.”

Tickets for the game in Malaysia were sold in the bank’s branches there. Talks to use the infrastructure as a shop window to sell Liverpool merchandise haven’t progressed beyond early discussions.
Naming Rights

Standard Chartered is also interested in becoming a naming rights partner if Liverpool decides to build a new stadium. Planning rights to develop a site in Stanley Park, close to the club’s current Anfield stadium, were recently extended until September. Fenway Sports Group is getting closer to a final decision.

“There’s a whole lot of things got to happen before that becomes a sensible conversation and the club know that we’re interested in being involved in that conversation,” said Laws.

[gorgepir]

Standard Field?

Sounds too plain. Better than Etihad.

[CraigDS]

Heard something earlier that Etihad means United when translated - so City would be playing at the Manchester Etihad (United) Stadium...

[xerxes1]

Standard Chartered is also interested in becoming a naming rights partner if Liverpool decides to build a new stadium. Planning rights to develop a site in Stanley Park, close to the club’s current Anfield stadium, were recently extended until September. Fenway Sports Group is getting closer to a final decision.

“There’s a whole lot of things got to happen before that becomes a sensible conversation and the club know that we’re interested in being involved in that conversation,” said Laws.

An interesting quote, thank you.

[sidneyroughdiamond]

What about the Liverpool Standard Stadium ... I could certainly live with that.

[18 yard line]

'Anfield Standard Stadium'?...

[ultimatewarrior]

So many people posting stadium names in relation to Standard Chartered. FFS the name of the company is STANDARD CHARTERED , 2 words ! Why on earth woould a company spend millions on naming rights only to include half of the companies name. Jesus lets just go with the "Cola" stadium or maybe "Bank Of" arena

[LiverBirdKop]

Standard Chartered is not the friendliest of names for a stadium. I can see people just calling it "Standard".

Interesting what Gavin Laws is saying: “There’s a whole lot of things got to happen before that becomes a sensible conversation and the club know that we’re interested in being involved in that conversation,” said Laws."

I wonder what those "whole lot of things" that "got to happen" are?

[Kaos AD]

'Anfield Standard Stadium'?...

Chartered (An)Field .

[caronia]

StAnfield

[Peter McGurk]

The Mirror are claiming around £150m. This is in line with what I have been predicting for some time. It should be remembered that new naming rights are more valuable than a "conversion".
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manchester-City-sell-stadium-name-for-record-150million-to-Etihad-Airways-from-next-season-article762169.html

It seems to be in the order of £10m a year with a much bigger shirts and branding deal attached.

I see JWH wondered what the losing bid was worth.  You could say this suggests he might have been sceptical whether it was a 'fair value' under the FFP rules...

Always struck me that the name is an anagram of iDeath.

[CraigDS]

I see JWH wondered what the losing bid was worth.  You could say this suggests he might have been sceptical whether it was a 'fair value' under the FFP rules...

to be honest his answer was to someone saying it was a £400m deal over 10yrs, and think he was joking what the second bid was in terms of us getting it as £400m was a stupid (and incorrect) amount.

[Peter McGurk]

to be honest his answer was to someone saying it was a £400m deal over 10yrs, and think he was joking what the second bid was in terms of us getting it as £400m was a stupid (and incorrect) amount.

Is true, and I've just accidentally clicked on a S*n link chasing the story.  I'm going for a shower.

A bit more sense here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/07/manchester-city-naming-rights (from Thursday)

And the Mirror had it at £10m - pretty much as we had been led to expect.

[xerxes1]

It seems to be in the order of £10m a year with a much bigger shirts and branding deal attached.I see JWH wondered what the losing bid was worth.  You could say this suggests he might have been sceptical whether it was a 'fair value' under the FFP rules...

Stefan Szymanski ( there must be a hell of an anagram in that!), Professor in Sports Business at London Business School is quoted in The Times as saying he believes the City deal is within FFP.

[Peter McGurk]

Stefan Szymanski ( there must be a hell of an anagram in that!), Professor in Sports Business at London Business School is quoted in The Times as saying he believes the City deal is within FFP.

Easy enough = A.N other academic(ski)

Extraordinarily simplistic numbers, but it is interesting to note that even at that level of naming rights, the club could still spend as much as 70% of the cost of a new stadium on a redevelopment and make the same 'return'.  No wonder redevelopment is JWH's preferred option.

[CraigDS]

Extraordinarily simplistic numbers, but it is interesting to note that even at that level of naming rights, the club could still spend as much as 70% of the cost of a new stadium on a redevelopment and make the same 'return'.  No wonder redevelopment is JWH's preferred option.

to be honest without even having any ideas about any of the numbers - which is what we all have - its impossible to figure that out.

[Peter McGurk]

to be honest without even having any ideas about any of the numbers - which is what we all have - its impossible to figure that out.

Not really (and it is very simplistic, as I say) - for a given capacity and matchday revenue (£1430 x 60,000 = £85m), a new stadium is £10m stronger from naming rights (a stupid way of working it out but that's the comparison). That £95m is going to cost about £32m a year (capital and interest on a £400m stadium), netting about £63m.  If you do the same 'sums' for a redevelopment based on £85m a year (with zero naming rights), the max spend to net £63m is about £22m or 70%.  Strictly back of fag packet but interesting nonetheless.

We don't have to work out that it is JWH's preferred option - he has said as much and in as many words.

There's also this from a blogger that JWH rates although I have no independent corroboration: "Henry admitted that the previous stadium move proposals 'just didn’t make any economic sense or they would have been built.'”  Obviously this relates to the previous HKS design, which to my mind (and maybe Alan_F's) was overblown.  The Parry bowl was not enough on the other hand and wouldn't have had enough revenue.

[xerxes1]

Extraordinarily simplistic numbers, but it is interesting to note that even at that level of naming rights, the club could still spend as much as 70% of the cost of a new stadium on a redevelopment and make the same 'return'.  No wonder redevelopment is JWH's preferred option.

I agree with you.

The question is whether that redevelopment, at 70% of cost, can deliver the capacity and facilities we require. I know that you believe it can. We will both be interested to see the end game on this.

[Peter McGurk]

I agree with you.

The question is whether that redevelopment, at 70% of cost, can deliver the capacity and facilities we require. I know that you believe it can. We will both be interested to see the end game on this.

Yes, I think all the issues are clear - let's see.