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

[mark82]

Both would have the same number of premium seats.  What's the difference?

I am stating when comparing a new stadium to current Anfield it is not just about an extra 16k seats as there will be extra premium seats in that number.

[LiverBirdKop]

Extra premium seats(?), more parking, better access, more restrooms, more concessions(?), better corporate facilities in general, and the ability to expand capacity even further down the road when needed is what I see from a new stadium over a redevelopment.

Will we be able to expand capacity 10 years from now at Anfield? Ayre is very good at being diplomatic. What he says is the best option is dependent upon how long FSG intend to be involved imo. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced a new stadium is the best long term move. As a "medium term" option I would probably agree with him.

[CraigDS]

Will we be able to expand capacity 10 years from now at Anfield?

Is my main issue.

Great we may get permission to increase capacity at Anfield to 60k this time round, and this may allow us to compete financially for the next 10yrs, but what happens when we fall behind again?

The area around Anfield would of been redeveloped itself by then, how easy will it be to expand then? How willing will the council be then?

I only see a limited life at Anfield due to the size of the area it is on and how built up it is around it. Great it could be cheaper in the short term, but the useful life of a redev is less than that of a new stadium so surely is more expensive in the long run.

[xerxes1]

Great we may get permission to increase capacity at Anfield to 60k this time round, and this may allow us to compete financially for the next 10yrs, but what happens when we fall behind again?

Let's be clear, Ayres has stated that there are obstacles to a 60k redevelopment that at the moment are unresolved. They may never be.

A consent for a 60k stadium exists now.

[helmboy_nige]

Extra premium seats(?), more parking, better access, more restrooms, more concessions(?), better corporate facilities in general, and the ability to expand capacity even further down the road when needed is what I see from a new stadium over a redevelopment.

Will we be able to expand capacity 10 years from now at Anfield? Ayre is very good at being diplomatic. What he says is the best option is dependent upon how long FSG intend to be involved imo. The more I think about it the more I'm convinced a new stadium is the best long term move. As a "medium term" option I would probably agree with him.

I'd agree with this.  We all have a great attachment to Anfield, but we have to think about the long term future.  Making a nostalgic choice that "just" manages to scrape in 60,000 seats and offers no real increase to corporate facilities (I hate them too, but they are a big money spinner) may not be in our best interests.

As you say Ayre is being diplomatic and ensuring that the fans understand there is a nostalgic preference to stay at Anfield but commercially and politically it may not make sense.

[Abrak]

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/sport/football/manchester_city/s/1426345_red-card-to-any-uefa-probe-for-manchester-city

Pretty staggering some of the attitude to the Man City deal....

But this comes after years of being told that, in football – as in no other business – an asset is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it.

Well the point is that the Sponsor is run by the brother of Mansour. If my brother buys my car for 10m it doesnt mean it is worth 10m. He has just done a deal to transfer 10m to me.

Of course buying success is unfair, but it has always gone on in football – it is just that the modern generation of football clubs have perfected the art.

True. But that is why FFP has been brought in to stop owners buying success. Buying success is unfair and buying success by breaking the rules to prevent it is even more unfair and cheating.

But even if it was a cynical attempt to pump in outside money to help level the uneven playing fields of European football, Uefa should not be sticking its snout in.

And my favorite. Even if City have broken the rules, UEFA should simply ignore it. So why bother with FFP at all just let owners subsidize the clubs. Everyone will know where we stand. But to bring in FFP rules and then say you should ignore them if they are broken, totally defeats their purpose in the first place.

[xerxes1]

For me the wrong  question is being consistently asked on this. This is not about man City ( or anyone else) breaking the rules, it is about the rules themselves and how robust they are.

It has always been apparent that an executive box which normally sells for 100k a season which suddenly sells to the brother of the owner for £10m is a breach of the rules.

But proving that a new sponsorship deal is uncommercial is far more difficult.The world record naming rights deal was $400m for Barclays center stadium, opening this year, then the Farmers deal was announced in February which could be worth $1000m. Where is the sense in that? And if Farmers think it is a ggood deal, who is to say it is not?

So on a sponsorship deal you have to two very difficult bridges to cross. First, at what point is a deal clearly uncommercail (Farmers have paid up to two and a half times the record? Secondly commercial organisations need to be free to take a chance, to break new ground. The Nationwides sponsorship of the football league was a disaster, Nike's $70m dollar sponsorship of Sharapova has been a success. thats the way the market works.

My view is that it will prove impossible to prove that this deal is uncommercial.And with the EC Final this year becoming the single richest club game of any sport in the world, commercial deals will only grow. Oh and who has been driving that....................................................................UEFA...............

[Zeb]

But proving that a new sponsorship deal is uncommercial is far more difficult.The world record naming rights deal was $400m for Barclays center stadium, opening this year, then the Farmers deal was announced in February which could be worth $1000m. Where is the sense in that? And if Farmers think it is a ggood deal, who is to say it is not?

World record deal is under £15m a year for a new build stadium. Manchester City have landed a £10m - £12m a year deal for an existing stadium. Barcelona were offered £4.4m a year to rename their stadium. Chelsea have been unable to secure a stadium deal which meets their hopes of bringing in £10m a year [edit: wonder if they'll have such trouble if Manchester City deal gets the all clear though?]. Naming rights for an existing stadium in the US currently go for around £4.4m a year ($7m) with a stadium slated to host a super bowl possibly hitting £6m a year over the shorter duration of the renaming contracts (typically 5 to 10 years). It won't be hard to demonstrate that the City deal is not at current commercial rates. Whether UEFA have the balls to come down on them for it (and I'm assuming City will have been in regular discourse with UEFA over how much they can get away with) is another thing altogether.

[scimitarsam]

I'm wondering if there's any chance that the Speke concept was still up for consideration?

It seems most assume (and Ian Ayre appears to confirm) that it's a very complicated toss up between a revamped Anfield or a new stadium in Stanley Park.

Obviously the club's history is all about Anfield and the Anfield area of the city, and understandably most of us fan's ideal choice is a 60-70 capacity Anfield.

However, after reading about what the mad Shiek is going to do with Man City's Eastlands and the surrounding area, should LFC not be reconsidering Speke as the location for the new ground?

Plenty of land for a huge capacity ground, a healthy growing airport right on the door step, train services in and out already in place. Hotels could be built around a new LFC "complex" which could directly compete with the revenue that City will one day enjoy.

It seems to me that if a new ground is the route taken than Speke can offer a lot of commercial growth advantages that Stanley Park cannot. Perhaps this is a much better long term solution? In staying competitive with the blank cheque clubs...it might even land us a step or 2 ahead of them.

The questions regarding LFC's responsibility to help redevelop the Anfield area are for others to answer. If they did leave the Anfield area completely, what would happen back in Anfield?

It seems the local residents, the council and the club really need to get their heads together on this pretty sharpish. Ian Ayre's comments earlier this week seemed like a cry for help to me but they can be interpretted in many ways. Luckily we appear to have owners that genuinely care for not only the club, but it's history and therefore the Anfield area.

I'd be really interested to hear what the local fans think about the remote chance of Speke being offered up as an option. This is the biggest decision to be made in the club's history so the choice has to be the right one. Is it worth leaving Anfield completely in order to ensure long term growth, financial health and a competitve edge on the field?

Buying up a good chunk of land in Speke would surely suit the short term, medium term and potential long terms plans of the club and FSG?

[Coady]

So if we can't find a naming rights partner, will the club pull the plug on the new stadium?

[xerxes1]

It won't be hard to demonstrate that the City deal is not at current commercial rates.

New deals leap frog each other (Barclays Center v Farmers at a two and a half times multiple).Proving that a new deal is uncommercial is very difficult( over ten, twenty, thirty years) .And who is to say that the deal is not worth it to Ethiad to get CL exposure in the richest club tournamnet in the world?

This is the problem. It is not UEFA's job to manage, or control, commercial deals. There is also a risk that should they do so, it could be legally challenged.This was never going to be about cheating, but about the richest clubs working within the rules to ensure they stay that way.

[xerxes1]

So if we can't find a naming rights partner, will the club pull the plug on the new stadium?

I don't think that we will move without a naming rights deal.

I think that a redevelopment will come with a minumum of stand naming rights.

[Coady]

I don't think that we will move without a naming rights deal.

I think that a redevelopment will come with a minumum of stand naming rights.

So doing nothing is not a option then Xerxes?

[Zeb]

New deals leap frog each other (Barclays Center v Farmers at a two and a half times multiple).Proving that a new deal is uncommercial is very difficult( over ten, twenty, thirty years) .And who is to say that the deal is not worth it to Ethiad to get CL exposure in the richest club tournamnet in the world?

Actually works out very similar annually Xerxes - you can put Citifield at the same price too and then there's a steep fall off down to Reliant and other similarly priced stadiums. New Meadowlands has been without for a year and looks likely they'll have to take the $18m a year on offer. Dallas has still to be named so that might be an interesting one to follow as Jones has been looking for a sponsor for a couple of years now. The market for stadium naming rights for new builds is fairly static right now - mainly because the traditional sponsor companies are in deep doodoo themselves. And yet here we are with a non-new build stadium getting a deal within the same kind of price range as the very top handful of new builds in the States. Commercial, my arse

Think a 10 year deal which is 2x - 3x any comparable deal worldwide is looking at the extreme edge of probability. Just for comparison's sake, I'd congratulate you on your foresight if we got a naming deal for a new stadium which was at £40m+ per annum anywhere in the world any time soon. Think I'm safe with that prediction

[Peter McGurk]

I deal with ROL issues on a regular basis with schemes of a similar value. My experience is that, in particular with multi-ownerships, of which this is one, ROL negotiations can be lengthy, and protracted. I have no doubt that the scale required by two stands offering a 37,000 capacity has the potential to produce significant and possibly insuperable obstacles in this regard.

It is true that some ROL objections may be bought off by compensation. It is not true that this is possible in even the majority of cases. It is also true that they may be the grounds for refusal. It is further not true that "where there is a will, there is a way". Either a scheme meets statutory standards - or it does not.

The suggestion that such an exercise could be successfully completed in an afternoon on a project of this size will astonish all professionals, including those at the Council, and football club.

The fact that we are where we are  is evidence of this, in Ayres own words "Anyone out there who has ever been involved in a major construction project would, I think, pretty much determine seven months to be a very short time. " He is right.

All of the housing behind three sides of the ground is either cleared, planned for clearance or under review.  It would not be beyond the wit of man to devise a scheme for the whole area that satisfies the requirements of expansion and regeneration.  The opportunity is there to take a collaborative approach.  As I said where there's a will there is a way. 

Given that a new stadium would produce very little by way of return in the medium term (perhaps we would spend 10 or 15 years paying off the debt) and the possibility that one side is determined to take a partial and un-collaborative view there is little prospect of progress - in any direction.

Council have taken a very open and proactive stance to promoting business in the city. It is strange that here they seem to be making an exception.

So if we can't find a naming rights partner, will the club pull the plug on the new stadium?

That seems to be the clear message.  And not only a naming rights partner but the right naming rights partner at the right level (£££)

[xerxes1]

Actually works out very similar annually Xerxes - you can put Citifield at the same price too and then there's a steep fall off down to Reliant and other similarly priced stadiums. New Meadowlands has been without for a year and looks likely they'll have to take the $18m a year on offer. Dallas has still to be named so that might be an interesting one to follow as Jones has been looking for a sponsor for a couple of years now. The market for stadium naming rights for new builds is fairly static right now - mainly because the traditional sponsor companies are in deep doodoo themselves. And yet here we are with a non-new build stadium getting a deal within the same kind of price range as the very top handful of new builds in the States. Commercial, my arse .Think a 10 year deal which is 2x - 3x any comparable deal worldwide is looking at the extreme edge of probability. Just for comparison's sake, I'd congratulate you on your foresight if we got a naming deal for a new stadium which was at £40m+ per annum anywhere in the world any time soon. Think I'm safe with that prediction .

The problem with your argument is that it is retrospective.

You are right to point out the naming rights problems in the US right now, a mature and declining market.

That naming rights in the UK at the top end is a relatively emerging market is part of the problem. Who is to say what way it will go? And with the CL now the richest club tournament in the world over taking the Superbowl we are in new, and uncharted, territory.

You are right to point out that with us not  even in the Europa League, let alone the CL, we are looking for Naming Rights partners from a position of weakness.

I understand your view on the City deal, and broadly agree with your assessment of its current status - but that is very different from being able to prove that a ten (or twenty year etc) deal is uncommercial. In ten years it may prove to have been excellent value for Ethiad, partcularly if City consolidate their poistion in the Euro Elite. That is where UEFA have themselves a problem. I predicted it - and it has come to pass.

We should remember that FSG with its range of diverse sporting interests is well able to play that game too. The contra deal with Lebron James, LFC, FSG and FSM, mired in mystery being a glimpse of what may be to come.

[xerxes1]

As I said where there's a will there is a way.

You know that not to be true.

If a proposed scheme does not meet legal requirements it won't happen- you can will as long as you want.

What is unclear is what aspects of a redevelopment have a solution, and what aspects have no solution in situ.

[Abrak]

But proving that a new sponsorship deal is uncommercial is far more difficult.The world record naming rights deal was $400m for Barclays center stadium, opening this year

I couldnt find details of the Farmer's deal.

However you could basically argue that Barclays overpaid for the naming rights for the Barclays Center Stadium on the basis that their US$400m sponsorship is actually greater than the value that Forbes placed on the New Jersey Nets which was US$365m in January 2011.

In other words they could have bought the entire team stadium and all for less than the sponsorship and then they could have called the stadium what they liked and put whatever on their Jerseys. Obviously I am joking to an extent but SC rather than pay 400m quid for naming rights for Liverpool could just have bought the entire club debt free.

Surely there has to be some relationship between the naming rights and the value of the club - I am vaguely thinking about what Henry meant when he said your best player must be worth at least 10% of your naming rights.

If our 'brand value' alone just for 'naming rights' (forgetting kit deals and other sponsorships) it is worth say 400m quid then surely the club is worth a lot more.

It is fairly clear that when naming rights get up to these sort of levels either (1) they are not commercial or (2) if they genuinely are commercial and the company is extracting that much value, then the underlying sporting assets/clubs are seriously undervalued. Henry wouldnt make up a statistic like that it is bound to be a rule of thumb that is based on analysis.

Even if there is a lot of overvaluation out there. It is interesting to see the exponential growth in commercial revenues that a very select Group of clubs are experiencing. Unlike media revenues these are not spread evenly across the league. And they are now becoming a very large figure with no incremental cost (media revenues are spread thinly giving no competitive advantage and match day revenues require a considerable capital cost.) So we do hear of a new record deal virtually every month. It is even more interesting to see that poorer names than ours like Bayern Munich already have much higher commercial revenues. One cant help but get the feeling that these commercial revenues will translate into a lot of value in the business in the future.

[Peter McGurk]

You know that not to be true.

If a proposed scheme does not meet legal requirements it won't happen- you can will as long as you want.

What is unclear is what aspects of a redevelopment have a solution, and what aspects have no solution in situ.

The area around three sides of Anfield potentially presents a blank canvas to regeneration.  For one reason or another the authority responsible for that regeneration deems the involvement of the stadium as a necessary part and catalyst to that process.  Why Anfield should be a special case, I don't know - regeneration occurs elsewhere with or without such catalysts.  In the light of the absence of central government assistance, the local authority is clinging on to extant agreements for want of that assistance.

There are two choices.  Council can dig its heels in and insist on satisfaction of the previous agreements no matter that it does not suit the club to the extent that their primary objective is not met (a better return for the club) or, the two parties can work together to satisfy club and community.  Clearly the latter process has broken down and unless and until there is movement, nothing will happen.

The blank canvas can be 'populated' with a strategy that suits both causes (and meets legal requirements). On such a blank canvas, anyone competent in area and mixed use regeneration could put forward such a proposal.  On what we've seen and read, you have to question the quality of the thinking available to formulate and deliver such a strategy.

[Zeb]

The problem with your argument is that it is retrospective.

Just informing you rather than arguing with you. Sure the points sink in and will appear in future predictions, just as they have before

You are right to point out the naming rights problems in the US right now, a mature and declining market.

Unlike the fresh and vibrant British and European markets where some of the most successful clubs over the past decade have failed to achieve the top-end of US sponsorship deals for stadiums?

That naming rights in the UK at the top end is a relatively emerging market is part of the problem. Who is to say what way it will go? And with the CL now the richest club tournament in the world over taking the Superbowl we are in new, and uncharted, territory.

We're not really. Barcelona, £4.4m a season rejected. Chelsea, no takers at £10m a season. It's rather silly to put Manchester City in those two clubs' price range in the first place, but even if we do, it still makes no sense. At least their shirt deal does make sense if everyone pretends really, really hard that Manchester City are one of the leading global clubs. Mind - what happens if they do win the league and they're already commanding the prices you'd expect a much more successful club to have? There'd be an argument that UEFA has to let them double those figures to reflect their increased visibility and marketability? Silliness really to argue that sponsors don't have any idea on the value of how and where they spend their money.

I understand your view on the City deal, and broadly agree with your assessment of its current status - but that is very different from being able to prove that a ten (or twenty year etc) deal is uncommercial. In ten years it may prove to have been excellent value for Ethiad, partcularly if City consolidate their poistion in the Euro Elite. That is where UEFA have themselves a problem. I predicted it - and it has come to pass.

As Henry said, what was the losing bid from a non-linked company?

We should remember that FSG with its range of diverse sporting interests is well able to play that game too. The contra deal with Lebron James, LFC, FSG and FSM, mired in mystery being a glimpse of what may be to come.

I don't know what this means. You'll have to be more specific. If you're saying that we can expect FSG to arrange sweetheart deals from other companies they own as sponsors, I'll laugh now though If you're saying that FSG will be hoping that they can get higher prices by being able to offer 'value' across a range of markets, sure. That's not the same game though.

[Zeb]

I couldnt find details of the Farmer's deal.

Maximum of $700m over 30 years starting from 2013. Lots of escalator clauses needing to be triggered to get it that high. Totally dependent on NFL team moving into the stadium. If a second team moves in, deal could escalate again to $1 bn over 30 years.

[mark82]

New deals leap frog each other (Barclays Center v Farmers at a two and a half times multiple).Proving that a new deal is uncommercial is very difficult( over ten, twenty, thirty years) .And who is to say that the deal is not worth it to Ethiad to get CL exposure in the richest club tournamnet in the world?

This is the problem. It is not UEFA's job to manage, or control, commercial deals. There is also a risk that should they do so, it could be legally challenged.This was never going to be about cheating, but about the richest clubs working within the rules to ensure they stay that way.

I don't think CL exposure means anything, isn't the emirates called Ashburton Grove for CL coverage?
It only really affects the domestic market which is why there is such a difference between europe and the US.
Also this Ethiad is losing money and being propped up by the royal family, it is clear spending so much of their turnover on such a deal makes no sense at all.

[LiverBirdKop]

I don't think CL exposure means anything, isn't the emirates called Ashburton Grove for CL coverage?
It only really affects the domestic market which is why there is such a difference between europe and the US.
Also this Ethiad is losing money and being propped up by the royal family, it is clear spending so much of their turnover on such a deal makes no sense at all.

I didn't know that (your very first sentence.) Interesting, but remember that the domestic league is extremely popular in Asia and other pockets of the world so it's global in that sense.
I think this has a good chance of dragging on for a while until our success attracts more interest. I also wouldn't be shocked if nothing at all happened on either front for years.

[xerxes1]

I don't think CL exposure means anything, isn't the emirates called Ashburton Grove for CL coverage?
It only really affects the domestic market which is why there is such a difference between europe and the US.
Also this Ethiad is losing money and being propped up by the royal family, it is clear spending so much of their turnover on such a deal makes no sense at all.

Being in the CL is everything, both commercially and in terms of sporting excellence.

The commercial benefits to Ethiad will only become apparent in a decades time.They are a new comany (2003). Having spent $8bn on five 777's (they have 61 in total) the City deal is modest. Yet large aggressive advertising is part and parcel of the expansion of a new business. It is not difficult to see the attractions of sponsoring a team whom they hope will be a force in the world's richest club competition. New airlines lose money, they make money by bold advertising and efforts to secure market share - which is exactly what they are doing.

It has served Emirates airlines very well.

[Peter McGurk]

Being in the CL is everything, both commercially and in terms of sporting excellence.

The commercial benefits to Ethiad will only become apparent in a decades time.They are a new comany (2003). Having spent $8bn on five 777's (they have 61 in total) the City deal is modest. Yet large aggressive advertising is part and parcel of the expansion of a new business. It is not difficult to see the attractions of sponsoring a team whom they hope will be a force in the world's richest club competition. New airlines lose money, they make money by bold advertising and efforts to secure market share - which is exactly what they are doing.

It has served Emirates airlines very well.

Tripped up on the last line!  Emirates have been a great airline for longer than you care to accept.

[mark82]

Being in the CL is everything, both commercially and in terms of sporting excellence.

The commercial benefits to Ethiad will only become apparent in a decades time.They are a new comany (2003). Having spent $8bn on five 777's (they have 61 in total) the City deal is modest. Yet large aggressive advertising is part and parcel of the expansion of a new business. It is not difficult to see the attractions of sponsoring a team whom they hope will be a force in the world's richest club competition. New airlines lose money, they make money by bold advertising and efforts to secure market share - which is exactly what they are doing.

It has served Emirates airlines very well.

Ian Ayre disagrees with this.

[Rome-77]

  ha ha

[LiverBirdKop]

^^^^ Hahaha.