Author Topic: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium  (Read 42967 times)

Offline lfc79

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #200 on: July 9, 2011, 12:05:38 pm »
Looking at the FFP side, if aresnal got 4m per year in 2006 moving to a new stadium in London and a pretty good honours record and many seasons in the champions league for city to be getting 10m per season for converting the name of the stadium having onl just qualified for the champions league and overshadowed by manu in their own city is a stich up, how much were any other companies offering for the rights.
While other bids are not the only indication if that had been an arms length transaction they would have probably got half.

For us my view is anfield is anfield which will be part of our history if we move, a new stadium woudl be Stanley Park.

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #201 on: July 9, 2011, 12:27:10 pm »
When it comes to FFP it is very easy to conclude that a new stadium is more 'economically' effective than a redevelopment or leaving the stadium as is.

Under FFP the cost benefit analysis includes only the benefits (revenues) and no costs.

It is not difficult to work out that a new stadium of 75,000 seats will generate more revenues than a redeveloped stadium with a maximum of 60,000 seats especially when the new stadium should have an additional 10m of naming rights per annum on top of the redeveloped stadium. Also revenues on 'corporate seats' should be able to be maximized under the new stadium. The fact that the extra 'revenues' do not justify the 'extra costs' is in fact irrelevant from a strictly FFP point of view.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #202 on: July 9, 2011, 12:31:27 pm »
When it comes to FFP it is very easy to conclude that a new stadium is more 'economically' effective than a redevelopment or leaving the stadium as is.

Under FFP the cost benefit analysis includes only the benefits (revenues) and no costs.

It is not difficult to work out that a new stadium of 75,000 seats will generate more revenues than a redeveloped stadium with a maximum of 60,000 seats especially when the new stadium should have an additional 10m of naming rights per annum on top of the redeveloped stadium. Also revenues on 'corporate seats' should be able to be maximized under the new stadium. The fact that the extra 'revenues' do not justify the 'extra costs' is in fact irrelevant from a strictly FFP point of view.

It's not necessary to overstate the new stadium capacity to make the point.  It stands on a like-for-like basis but then what's the club for - 'by-passing' FFP or winning trophies?


Offline CraigDS

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 61,493
  • YNWA
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #203 on: July 9, 2011, 12:37:04 pm »
It doesn't stand side by side. By you own admission the Kop and the Centenary wouldn't be touched in a redev - so how do those two stands compete against two brand new ones and all the bells and whistles they will include over the current ones.

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #204 on: July 9, 2011, 12:53:27 pm »
It's not necessary to overstate the new stadium capacity to make the point.  It stands on a like-for-like basis but then what's the club for - 'by-passing' FFP or winning trophies?
Well if FFP allows you to include revenues and not their costs, then theoretically if you generate more revenues even on an uneconomic basis it lets you spend more on your team which should enable you to win more trophies. So the question then becomes whether we are prepared to undertake 'uneconomic decisions' that qualify as 'economic under FFP' simply to win trophies even at what would be a 'real economic loss.' But clearly 'by-passing FFP' as City have shown by their owners paying annual naming rights for City itself is aimed at a way of winning trophies without being strictly economic.

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #205 on: July 9, 2011, 04:41:17 pm »
Interesting today that The Times is quoting the overall Ethiad sponsorship deal at Man City as being worth up to £400m in its totality- vindication (if it was needed) of my consistently held belief that Naming rights sponsorship would be a vital part of our future prospects, and those of our competitors. Gary Cook speaks of an "aggressive" financial strategy, let's hope that FSG can perform at what they are supposed to be good at.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #206 on: July 9, 2011, 05:26:47 pm »
Interesting today that The Times is quoting the overall Ethiad sponsorship deal at Man City as being worth up to £400m in its totality- vindication (if it was needed) of my consistently held belief that Naming rights sponsorship would be a vital part of our future prospects, and those of our competitors. Gary Cook speaks of an "aggressive" financial strategy, let's hope that FSG can perform at what they are supposed to be good at.

I haven't seen The Times (lazy day) but I understand the naming rights element is still in the order of £10m a year and it would be interesting to ask what the second-placed bid was (JWH, Twitter)


Well if FFP allows you to include revenues and not their costs, then theoretically if you generate more revenues even on an uneconomic basis it lets you spend more on your team which should enable you to win more trophies. So the question then becomes whether we are prepared to undertake 'uneconomic decisions' that qualify as 'economic under FFP' simply to win trophies even at what would be a 'real economic loss.' But clearly 'by-passing FFP' as City have shown by their owners paying annual naming rights for City itself is aimed at a way of winning trophies without being strictly economic.

I think everyone has to conceded that our owners and City's owners are worlds apart.  By-passing the rules just means you can splash more of your own cash - just what the FFP rules are designed to stop and FSG have said they will not do.  They have consistently said they will spend on the team only what they generate from revenue.  They're not sugar daddies.


It doesn't stand side by side. By you own admission the Kop and the Centenary wouldn't be touched in a redev - so how do those two stands compete against two brand new ones and all the bells and whistles they will include over the current ones.

Nobody with their right head on will put boxes and hospitality suites in the kop - you could but you wouldn't, new or otherwise and the Upper Centenary has enough for the the number of seats already but more seats and hospitality would be added by expanding sideways (moving the commentary box back under the roof where it should be and adding more over the 'big box' at the AR end.  I didn't ever say the Lower was untouched either.

You could fill a new stadium or a redevelopment with 300 boxes and acres of corporate bells and whistles but don't forget, there's only so much we can afford to pay as fans - and be clear, no one else is going to pay.

« Last Edit: July 9, 2011, 09:40:22 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #207 on: July 9, 2011, 05:57:23 pm »
I haven't seen The Times (lazy day) but I understand the naming rights element is still in the order of £10m a year and it would be interesting to ask what the second placed bid was (JWH, Twitter)I think everyone has to conceded that our owners and City's owners are worlds apart.  By-passing the rules just means you can splash more of your own cash - just what the FFP rules are designed to stop.
To be fair Peter I don't think that the detail has been laid out (The Times is quoting £150m NR over 10 years ,£15m a year, and the balancing £250m is unclear).

I would identify two things. Firstly, here may be evidence of the blueprint  for future modern commercial deals where naming rights, shirt deals, sponsorships, media rights and licensing deals are intertwined offering synergy and complimentary benefits. Co-incidentally such deals are also far more dificult to expose as uncommercial because of the "contra" relationships which will be involved.

I don't think that FSG and Abu Dhabi utd are worlds apart. Media and marketing (unlike football) is FSG's home turf- they should be able to give Gary Cook a run for his money.

I believe that some are looking at FFP the wrong way round, in terms of restrictions and rule (breaking).The smart operators will be looking to make those rules work for them, not against them- over to FSG.
« Last Edit: July 9, 2011, 06:02:39 pm by xerxes1 »
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #208 on: July 9, 2011, 06:36:14 pm »
To be fair Peter I don't think that the detail has been laid out (The Times is quoting £150m NR over 10 years ,£15m a year, and the balancing £250m is unclear).

I would identify two things. Firstly, here may be evidence of the blueprint  for future modern commercial deals where naming rights, shirt deals, sponsorships, media rights and licensing deals are intertwined offering synergy and complimentary benefits. Co-incidentally such deals are also far more dificult to expose as uncommercial because of the "contra" relationships which will be involved.

I don't think that FSG and Abu Dhabi utd are worlds apart. Media and marketing (unlike football) is FSG's home turf- they should be able to give Gary Cook a run for his money.

I believe that some are looking at FFP the wrong way round, in terms of restrictions and rule (breaking).The smart operators will be looking to make those rules work for them, not against them- over to FSG.

I don't believe it's so hard to assess fair value even of a more comprehensive package but muddy waters indeed and a playground for lawyers no doubt. 

However, I do think FSG are a different kettle of fish.  They want/plan to spend from revenue, it seems the sheiks are just happy to throw cash in whereas the rules are clearly there to create a level playing field for those who cannot or will not do that.  There's nothing wrong with boxing clever but in the game we love I hope there's still room for principle - even if by enforcement.

I'm sure there's solid legal opinion behind it but some people say this deal is very fishy and who am I to disagree with them (m'lud).

« Last Edit: July 9, 2011, 06:46:12 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #209 on: July 9, 2011, 06:59:07 pm »
All fair concerns, Peter.

For me, we are entering another new phase for the elite clubs, first the PL, then the CL now FFP.

Sadly, I see the only principle as having been  about making, and retaining, money since the inception of the PL. I like where we are now as little as you do.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #210 on: July 10, 2011, 11:20:00 am »
All fair concerns, Peter.

For me, we are entering another new phase for the elite clubs, first the PL, then the CL now FFP.

Sadly, I see the only principle as having been  about making, and retaining, money since the inception of the PL. I like where we are now as little as you do.

It seems to me that it's less about keeping money and more about throwing it away on vanity and hobbies, with players and agents laughing all the way to the bank.

Give someone 6 or 18months of half-decent football and they're suddenly worth tens of millions and can bring a club down with the wage bill.  Over a £100m on wages in a year - I wonder how much legroom and cups of tea half of that could buy us.

« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 11:31:04 am by Peter McGurk »

Offline Abrak

  • Pulling his Peter Principle
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,676
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #211 on: July 10, 2011, 01:58:18 pm »
Interesting today that The Times is quoting the overall Ethiad sponsorship deal at Man City as being worth up to £400m in its totality- vindication (if it was needed) of my consistently held belief that Naming rights sponsorship would be a vital part of our future prospects, and those of our competitors. Gary Cook speaks of an "aggressive" financial strategy, let's hope that FSG can perform at what they are supposed to be good at.
I think you can say from the Man City deal that naming rights and sponsorship will help them along the way to reaching breakeven under the conditions of FFP. It is going a bit far to say that 'sponsorship' revenues available to Man City from Etihad which is essentially owned by the owners of Man City, should necessarily be an indication of what LFC could possibly get from an independent free party. I guess only time will tell but I think we have the staff and owners to maximize our revenues from sponsorship but these might not equate to Man City's revenues that were perhaps given on a 'friendly' basis.

It does not however take away from your point that supposing sufficient sponsorship revenues can be generated it will make or break which route we should go down. I agree that the sponsorship revenues will make or break this deal or simply 'make it' if the goal is to be compliant with FFP rather than truly economically viable.

Offline The Las

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 315
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #212 on: July 10, 2011, 04:24:29 pm »
STATEMENT

Liverpool FC today made clear its frustration at the obstacles facing the potential re-development of Anfield.

The Club has been comprehensively exploring all options open to it in terms of new stadium development or expansion, which has included a study into the refurbishment of both its Main and Anfield Road Stands to increase capacity beyond 60,000 seats.

Managing Director Ian Ayre said: "In the nine months since the new ownership, an enormous amount of work has been undertaken in conjunction with leading architects, consultants, other industry experts and with Liverpool City Council to explore the building of a new stadium as well as exploring a refurbishment solution that could deliver the necessary growth in capacity, whilst maintaining the heritage and atmosphere that make Anfield uniquely Liverpool FC. However, with land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory issues creating barriers to our ambition, it looks increasingly unlikely there is any way we can move forward on a refurbishment of Anfield unless there are significant changes in those areas."

Commenting further on the options open to the Club, Ayre explained: "In terms of a Stanley Park stadium versus redevelopment, there is absolutely no question that a refurbishment of Anfield would come at a significantly lower cost than a new build. A new stadium of course also has its merits, being modern, more functional, and easier to construct. However, a new 60,000 capacity ground also comes at a significantly higher price, while at the same time only delivering roughly the same amount of revenue as a refurbishment of Anfield - with both options offering an uplift of approximately 16,000 seats each."

Added Ayre: "It's disappointing that based on where we are at the moment, we seem to be unable to press on with the more viable economic option of a refurbishment, but we remain committed to finding the best possible long-term solution. We already have a very healthy dialogue in place with several leading brands regarding naming rights for a new stadium, but like every major deal we have ever done, that just takes time to explore in full. We also have ongoing discussions with various parties around the financing of either facility. Our challenge now is to try to find a way to bring all of those elements together in a solution that is in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club and its fans.

"We are mindful that supporters have been promised a solution in the past and have been disappointed, and also that local residents would like to know what direction we are headed in. However, just like any other business, we can only proceed as and when we are clear on all elements and we will not be forced to make a decision that is not in the best long-term interests of our club and we will not make any promises to our fans that we cannot keep. We will continue to work diligently on this project and keep our fans informed of any progress."

Council leader Joe Anderson said: "We recognise that Liverpool FC need to make the right decision on the stadium options, and it is crucial that it is not only the right one for the club but also for local residents.

"We fully appreciate that the new owners have made real progress over the past nine months since they took over, and we will continue to support what they are trying to deliver. However, it is unfortunately the reality that the debate and discussions over a new stadium have gone on for many years, causing a great deal of frustration and uncertainty within the local community.

"Although we are fully supportive of the club, we can't ignore the fact that the clock is and has been ticking, and people need certainty about the development.

"We will do what we can to continue to help the club, and I can reassure people that we will be pressing for a decision as soon as is practically possible that will benefit Liverpool FC and deliver the much needed regeneration that the area so badly needs."

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #213 on: July 10, 2011, 05:22:15 pm »
However, with land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory issues creating barriers to our ambition, it looks increasingly unlikely there is any way we can move forward on a refurbishment of Anfield unless there are significant changes in those areas."
Thanks for that Las.

The above quote always lay at the heart of this. My doubts that an in situ development that meets our capacity and facility needs could be delivered appear to have been justified.

A 60k redeveloped Anfield would be wonderful - but looks to be a pipe dream.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,571
  • Justice.
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #214 on: July 10, 2011, 07:40:40 pm »
Thanks for that Las.

The above quote always lay at the heart of this. My doubts that an in situ development that meets our capacity and facility needs could be delivered appear to have been justified.

A 60k redeveloped Anfield would be wonderful - but looks to be a pipe dream.

Should read the whole statement Xerxes. He went on to say:

""We are mindful that supporters have been promised a solution in the past and have been disappointed, and also that local residents would like to know what direction we are headed in.

"However, just like any other business, we can only proceed as and when we are clear on all elements and we will not be forced to make a decision that is not in the best long-term interests of our club and we will not make any promises to our fans that we cannot keep. We will continue to work diligently on this project and keep our fans informed of any progress.

"It’s disappointing that based on where we are at the moment, we seem to be unable to press on with the more viable economic option of a refurbishment, but we remain committed to finding the best possible long-term solution.

"We already have a very healthy dialogue in place with several leading brands regarding naming rights for a new stadium, but like every major deal we have ever done, that just takes time to explore in full. We also have ongoing discussions with various parties around the financing of either facility.

"Our challenge now is to try to find a way to bring all of those elements together in a solution that is in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club and its fans.""

Ayre seems to disagree with you over the potential for a refurb to meet "our capacity and facility needs" as well as the economics of it too.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 07:50:36 pm by Zeb »
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Online oojason

  • The Official RAWK Audio Visual God. Founder Member of the Ricky Gervais' 'David Brad Fan Club'.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 23,905
  • The Awkward Squad
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #215 on: July 10, 2011, 07:51:40 pm »
I read it as a 'softening up' PR piece - in that the club doesn't alienate the fans who want to stay at Anfield - by suggesting that it's out of their hands to get a redevelopment done - hence a new stadium is the reluctant way forward.
.
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 Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,571
  • Justice.
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #216 on: July 10, 2011, 08:11:25 pm »
I read it as a 'softening up' PR piece - in that the club doesn't alienate the fans who want to stay at Anfield - by suggesting that it's out of their hands to get a redevelopment done - hence a new stadium is the reluctant way forward.


Don't think that's needed. The plans are in place for a move into a new stadium already. To me, that's a clear 'we want to refurb, we can afford to do that, but we're under pressure to move and we're not budging until that makes some kind of sense financially'.
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #217 on: July 10, 2011, 08:13:33 pm »
Ayre seems to disagree with you over the potential for a refurb to meet "our capacity and facility needs" as well as the economics of it too.
I don’t read it that way.

Picking  up your highlighted points. The first one is straight forwards. The Club don’t HAVE to do anything. Their only obligation is to the FSG investors. They will take the best available option.

The second highlighted point is misleading. If refurbishment is a more viable economic option – do it. If it is not viable, don’t.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,571
  • Justice.
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #218 on: July 10, 2011, 08:24:38 pm »
I don’t read it that way.

Picking  up your highlighted points. The first one is straight forwards. The Club don’t HAVE to do anything. Their only obligation is to the FSG investors. They will take the best available option.

The second highlighted point is misleading. If refurbishment is a more viable economic option – do it. If it is not viable, don’t.


And in this case, Ayre is implying that the best available option isn't moving into a new stadium.

Second point seems fairly clear - refurb (as Peter and others have said for months - in fact as Coco himself confessed some time back, whilst also highlighting the difficulty of getting that past the council) is the more financially viable option right now and one which Ayre implies is the one which they want to press on with. Same story with Henry the other night - 'preferred option, but such obstacles...' to paraphrase him.

Ayre's comments seem fairly self-explanatory to me. The reasons for moving into a new stadium aren't those grounded in the economics - "A new stadium of course also has its merits, being modern, more functional, and easier to construct. However, a new 60,000 capacity ground also comes at a significantly higher price, while at the same time only delivering roughly the same amount of revenue as a refurbishment of Anfield".

Guess we'll just have to disagree on what Ayre meant. :)
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline helmboy_nige

  • A diplomat... except in the face of total morons
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 7,616
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #219 on: July 10, 2011, 08:26:01 pm »
Interesting article and seems to corroborate the feeling a few have been having.  There are so many barriers to a redevelopment whereas the only issue with a new stadium (to the owners) is cost.

Offline The Las

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 315
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #220 on: July 10, 2011, 08:43:56 pm »
Forgive me if im being thick here, but can someone tell me what we have learned since the parry bowl. We are being told alot of work has been done. But i seem to remember the following has always been true:

There are too many obsticles to expanding anfield, How many feasability inquirys need to be conducted before we gho back to square one - We cant move forward at our current site.

This stinks of well orchestrated procrastination to me. Our owners have been very astute in their observations and lessons learnt from the last two cowboys. But I thought when the sale of the club was being tendered one of the pre-requisites was to build a new stadium.

JH and TW have been a breath of fresh air since they have come in and ive loved everything they have 'said' and their attitude towards transfers.

I know however this is a business venture backed by investors who will want a return on their money, forgive me for being sceptical but ive kind of been waiting for this statement. From the councils point of view no goals posts have moved the obsticles still remain.

Can someone put me right if im wrong.

Offline LiamG

  • He's loving angels instead. Cos through it all they offer him protection.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,160
  • Y.N.W.A
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #221 on: July 10, 2011, 09:08:35 pm »
Quote
"However, with land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory issues creating barriers to our ambition, it looks increasingly unlikely there is any way we can move forward on a refurbishment of Anfield unless there are significant changes in those areas."

Enviromental being what?

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #222 on: July 10, 2011, 09:11:15 pm »
And in this case, Ayre is implying that the best available option isn't moving into a new stadium.
If  we can’t develop Anfield, a new stadium is the only option (other than doing nothing).

Quote
Second point seems fairly clear - refurb (as Peter and others have said for months - in fact as Coco himself confessed some time back, whilst also highlighting the difficulty of getting that past the council) is the more financially viable option right now and one which Ayre implies is the one which they want to press on with. Same story with Henry the other night - 'preferred option, but such obstacles...' to paraphrase him.

That refurbishment in situ is cheaper than a new stadium has never been in doubt. What always has been in doubt, and appears to be being confirmed, is that it may be  practically impossible.
Quote
Ayre's comments seem fairly self-explanatory to me. The reasons for moving into a new stadium aren't those grounded in the economics - "A new stadium of course also has its merits, being modern, more functional, and easier to construct. However, a new 60,000 capacity ground also comes at a significantly higher price, while at the same time only delivering roughly the same amount of revenue as a refurbishment of Anfield".
That a 60k stadium with matching facilities in situ is a better option than a new build has never been in doubt. Again what Ayres confirms is that  that  may be practicably possible.


"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Mike_LFC

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #223 on: July 10, 2011, 09:12:33 pm »
Enviromental being what?


Probably means the height of any new stands.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #224 on: July 10, 2011, 10:07:37 pm »
In short, we know what we want and we know what's stopping us.

Now we know, redevelopment is a better deal.  Time to step up to the plate and let them know what we want.




« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 08:36:56 am by Peter McGurk »

Offline Easy

  • Sunday Mornin Tiger
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 936
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #225 on: July 10, 2011, 11:14:14 pm »
In short, we know what we want and we know what's stopping us.

Now we know, redevelopment is a better deal.  Time to step up to the plate guys.  So what do we want?


But Peter, aren't FSG saying that the "better deal" that is a refurbished Anfield most probably doesn't exist due to the obstacles they've mentioned? Therefore, by default, it's not the better deal at all since it exists only in theroy and as in all practicality, impossible.

If an option is impossible, you go to plan B or keep the status quo.

I think this is all PR to be honest. They're intending to build a new stadium and managing fan expectations about the loss of Anfield.

Offline Stussy

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,266
  • ...we had dreams and songs to sing...
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #226 on: July 10, 2011, 11:14:39 pm »
Now we know, redevelopment is a better deal.  Time to step up to the plate guys.  So what do we want?

We know you were right all along.

"My idea was to build Liverpool into a bastion of invincibility. Napoleon had that idea. He wanted to conquer the bloody world. I wanted Liverpool to be untouchable. My idea was to build Liverpool up and up until eventually everyone would have to submit and give in."

Offline Stussy

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,266
  • ...we had dreams and songs to sing...
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #227 on: July 10, 2011, 11:15:36 pm »
I think this is all PR to be honest. They're intending to build a new stadium and managing fan expectations about the loss of Anfield.

To soften the blow when the decision is made? Could be right there.



"My idea was to build Liverpool into a bastion of invincibility. Napoleon had that idea. He wanted to conquer the bloody world. I wanted Liverpool to be untouchable. My idea was to build Liverpool up and up until eventually everyone would have to submit and give in."

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #228 on: July 10, 2011, 11:20:43 pm »
But Peter, aren't FSG saying that the "better deal" that is a refurbished Anfield most probably doesn't exist due to the obstacles they've mentioned? Therefore, by default, it's not the better deal at all since it exists only in theroy and as in all practicality, impossible.

If an option is impossible, you go to plan B or keep the status quo.

I think this is all PR to be honest. They're intending to build a new stadium and managing fan expectations about the loss of Anfield.

There's a big difference between impossible and obstacle.  Do you really think FSG are going to be forced into something they don't want to do?  I'm not going to pick at the words but there's definitely some pushing going on.

It's hardly good PR to admit to accepting second best.



 
« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 11:25:24 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline Stussy

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,266
  • ...we had dreams and songs to sing...
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #229 on: July 10, 2011, 11:27:05 pm »
Peter, what is your informed guess about what the obstacles being cited are?

"My idea was to build Liverpool into a bastion of invincibility. Napoleon had that idea. He wanted to conquer the bloody world. I wanted Liverpool to be untouchable. My idea was to build Liverpool up and up until eventually everyone would have to submit and give in."

Offline Easy

  • Sunday Mornin Tiger
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 936
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #230 on: July 10, 2011, 11:33:17 pm »
Depends what you mean by "good PR".

Good PR isn't just about getting positive messages out there, it's about getting your message (good or bad) out there in the best possible way.

"Second best" doesn't come into it - what do you mean by "best"?

If one option is impossible then a new stadium is not the "second best" option - it's the other option.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #231 on: July 10, 2011, 11:42:45 pm »
"Second best" doesn't come into it - what do you mean by "best"?

If one option is impossible then a new stadium is not the "second best" option - it's the other option.


"the more viable economic option" and no one has said it's impossible.


Peter, what is your informed guess about what the obstacles being cited are?

'land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory" issues.  Clearly the club is not at liberty to say.  Perhaps you could ask council.  As a significant land owner in the area, I imagine that council might figure in there somewhere...

« Last Edit: July 10, 2011, 11:51:48 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline caronia

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
  • SOS Membership Number:7348
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #232 on: July 11, 2011, 04:37:25 am »
Maybe FSG wish to bring this supposed dilemma to the fore in the hope that the supporters will bring pressure to bear on the council to find a speedy resolution.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2011, 05:53:27 am by caronia »

Offline LiamG

  • He's loving angels instead. Cos through it all they offer him protection.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 12,160
  • Y.N.W.A
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #233 on: July 11, 2011, 07:39:24 am »
Why do people think its a PR to soften the blow? All they are doing is telling us whats happening, But most of it we knew anyway, It's just the obstacles we dont know what they are, im sure we will find out one day, Im sure they wont give up pursuing redeveloping Anfield because that is there preffered option, if the obstacles theyve mentioned can be overcome then there will be no need for a new stadium

Offline MikeD

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #234 on: July 11, 2011, 08:34:53 am »
propagandaphoto David Rawcliffe
#Liverpool's Ian Ayre said the press conf that the club are speaking to a Chinese company about naming rights for poss new stadium.

from twitter

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #235 on: July 11, 2011, 08:46:21 am »
Maybe FSG wish to bring this supposed dilemma to the fore in the hope that the supporters will bring pressure to bear on the council to find a speedy resolution.

Yes, I would if I were them.  Time to let council know what we think?




Offline CraigDS

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 61,493
  • YNWA
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #236 on: July 11, 2011, 08:59:23 am »
The problem is, the cost of making the problems stopping a redev could push the cost up so it is not the most viable option.

I'm also amazed they are still only considering 60k is enough.

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #237 on: July 11, 2011, 09:16:59 am »
I am pleased that the Club has made this statement as I have been critical of a lack of information to date. As invariably happens the statement begged as many questions as it answered.

My view is that the Council is obliged to support a new stadium move because of the finnacial and employment uplift that Anfield Plaza provides. It is not obliged to put any obstacles in the way of redevelopment, and there is no evidence, or suggestion, that that is what they are doing.

I was surprised to see that Ayres was talking about a 60k capacity, involving redevelopment of the Annie rd and Main Stand only becuase that involves some 37,000 seats where now there are only 22,000. That involves a scale and massing considerably in excess of what is there now. I have discussed elsewhere what the challenges of land assembly are. The planning obstacles (not Council driven) for such increases may be significant.

Although i would be perfectly happy to see a redeveloped Anfield at 60k, i accept that the financail and economic interests of the community are better served by a New Anfield. Any popular approach to the Council would reflect that.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Raul!

  • No nude LFC topics - Sir Raul la di Dah of Coverpoint - Imminently Female
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 16,037
  • My nipples explode with delight
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #238 on: July 11, 2011, 09:21:11 am »
From the profound to the superficial, I would ecpect that a stadium sponsored by Standard Chartered would be called the StanChart something or the other.

Offline caronia

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 179
  • SOS Membership Number:7348
Re: Liverpool FC owners seek naming partner for potential new stadium
« Reply #239 on: July 11, 2011, 10:06:37 am »
Yes, I would if I were them.  Time to let council know what we think?

I'm sure it would do no harm for the supporters club and other affiliated groups to express their views to the council,but I have a feeling  the council would not wish to enter a dialogue with them.



[