Topic: Liverpool confirm decision to redevelop Anfield

[soxfan]

It doesn't make business sense, as no one would want to sponsor a stadium that everyone will still call anfield.

Where do Newcastle play? St James park....fuck knows what it's sponsors name is

Sorry but sponsors pay HUGE amounts of cash, even for places that keep all or part of the old un-sponsored name. Examples...

Sports Authority Field at Mile High Stadium
As someone before alluded, everyone had called the Denver Broncos' old stadium Mile High for decades, before sponsors. They still do, but the sponsor is still thrilled to pay BIG money. 
Tenant: Denver Broncos
Cost of Naming Rights: 25 years, $150 million

TD Garden
This is the new "Boston Garden"  -- the old one was the most famous basketball arena in the world and existed since the 1920s(?). When the new building went up, it was FleetCenter, etc. The new sponsors brought back the Garden name as everyone was still saying "we're going to the Garden tonight" TD Bank is happy to pay BIG to attach itself to the Garden name.
Naming terms: 20 years, $120 million
Exp. Date: 2025
Tenants: Boston Celtics (NBA), Boston Bruins (NHL)

So get ready for Air China Ground at Anfield or something similar, with the sponsor paying a gigantic sum to attach their name to Anfield. (I have no idea of who the sponsor will be, just using an example).

[Zeb]

Sorry but sponsors pay HUGE amounts of cash, even for places that keep all or part of the old un-sponsored name. Examples...

Sports Authority Field at Mile High Stadium
As someone before alluded, everyone had called the Denver Broncos' old stadium Mile High for decades, before sponsors. They still do, but the sponsor is still thrilled to pay BIG money. 
Tenant: Denver Broncos
Cost of Naming Rights: 25 years, $150 million

TD Garden
This is the new "Boston Garden"  -- the old one was the most famous basketball arena in the world and existed since the 1920s(?). When the new building went up, it was FleetCenter, etc. The new sponsors brought back the Garden name as everyone was still saying "we're going to the Garden tonight" TD Bank is happy to pay BIG to attach itself to the Garden name.
Naming terms: 20 years, $120 million
Exp. Date: 2025
Tenants: Boston Celtics (NBA), Boston Bruins (NHL)

So get ready for Air China Ground at Anfield or something similar, with the sponsor paying a gigantic sum to attach their name to Anfield. (I have no idea of who the sponsor will be, just using an example).

I'll put those deals into perspective if you don't mind mate.  $1 is £0.65 at the moment.

The Denver deal translates to £97.5m over 25 years. That's £3.9m a year.

The Boston deal translates to £78m over 20 years. That's £3.9m a year.

That's pocket change for pissing off the matchgoing support and losing the 'Anfield' brand. 'This is Air China Ground at Anfield' doesn't have quite the same appeal to it.

[JohnHobbes]

I'll put those deals into perspective if you don't mind mate.  $1 is £0.65 at the moment.

The Denver deal translates to £97.5m over 25 years. That's £3.9m a year.

The Boston deal translates to £78m over 20 years. That's £3.9m a year.

That's pocket change for pissing off the matchgoing support and losing the 'Anfield' brand. 'This is Air China Ground at Anfield' doesn't have quite the same appeal to it.

Not sure it really matters if it's poor over the long term, if it pays for most/all the cost of refurbishing Anfield then that's good enough surely? And as for pissing off match going support for pocket change... surely the whole point is that we'd just ignore it as it's always going to be Anfield for us?

[CraigDS]

Not sure it really matters if it's poor over the long term, if it pays for most/all the cost of refurbishing Anfield then that's good enough surely? And as for pissing off match going support for pocket change... surely the whole point is that we'd just ignore it as it's always going to be Anfield for us?

I think if they can find a sponsor that pays for it all (more or less), is named in such a way that it utilities the 'Anfield' brand so fans are still calling it that, and more importantly the redev work that's done is done in a very good way (i.e. not just a crappy over hanging tier on Main, etc) then they may well get away with not pissing off 90% of fans.

But they will piss off some of them no matter what they do to be honest as has been evident recently.

[Peter McGurk]

Not sure it really matters if it's poor over the long term, if it pays for most/all the cost of refurbishing Anfield then that's good enough surely? And as for pissing off match going support for pocket change... surely the whole point is that we'd just ignore it as it's always going to be Anfield for us?

Whatever happens elsewhere doesn't have to work here. When was the last time you heard anyone call out the name of a stand in a TV match commentary?

Nevertheless, I'm sure the club will explore every opportunity to add revenue. From tweet cafés  (keep it away from me) and TV screens to supporting developments, a fan plaza, and a, and a... I'm sure we'll see a big bag of goodies and add-ons to a stadium but none of these things pay for it. They add revenue which adds to the disposable pot to run the club. That's what they're for. Who wants to bury readies in concrete?

Lots of people got 'pissed off' when we started advertising around the ground (United had been doing it for years) but look where that attitude got us. I think re-naming the Kop is going to be tricky 'brand pollution' (unless it's to Spion Kop) but 'only' a few million here, a few million there - I don't like it but it's (mostly) all good.

There is a line, I don't think FSG will cross it - brand management.

.

[Zeb]

There is a line, I don't think FSG will cross it - brand management.

Think something along the lines of the Metlife stadium may be palatable depending on how it was done.

link to a piece on it.

Brand a stand.

[wiresnreds]

Whatever happens elsewhere doesn't have to work here. When was the last time you heard anyone call out the name of a stand in a TV match commentary?

Nevertheless, I'm sure the club will explore every opportunity to add revenue. From tweet cafés  (keep it away from me) and TV screens to supporting developments, a fan plaza, and a, and a... I'm sure we'll see a big bag of goodies and add-ons to a stadium but none of these things pay for it. They add revenue which adds to the disposable pot to run the club. That's what they're for. Who wants to bury readies in concrete?

Lots of people got 'pissed off' when we started advertising around the ground (United had been doing it for years) but look where that attitude got us. I think re-naming the Kop is going to be tricky 'brand pollution' (unless it's to Spion Kop) but 'only' a few million here, a few million there - I don't like it but it's (mostly) all good.

There is a line, I don't think FSG will cross it - brand management.

.

To be fair Peter, the Kop is regularly commented on during Liverpool games, probably one of the only single stands that ever does get it. Not that i want it to but sponsorship wise surely the KOP would be a unique advertisement to a sponsor unlike any other stand in English football !!!

[mccred]

The Kop is probably the most famous stand in football, someone may be able to prove me wrong but The Kop is mentioned at least 10 times during any televised game. I think its probably the one thing at Anfield that is untouchable name wise.
Naming rights for the entire ground, as long as it was a good deal and saved us from massive rebuilding debt is something I could live with cause it will always be Anfield to the people who go there, what its known as in China doesn't bother me. Large debt does.

[Peter McGurk]

To be fair Peter, the Kop is regularly commented on during Liverpool games, probably one of the only single stands that ever does get it. Not that i want it to but sponsorship wise surely the KOP would be a unique advertisement to a sponsor unlike any other stand in English football !!!

Fair point. But there is a line.... not that FSG wouldn't cross it if it made commercial sense but I don't think it does. The Kop is part of the brand - 'don't knock the brand'

The Kop is probably the most famous stand in football, someone may be able to prove me wrong but The Kop is mentioned at least 10 times during any televised game. I think its probably the one thing at Anfield that is untouchable name wise.
Naming rights for the entire ground, as long as it was a good deal and saved us from massive rebuilding debt is something I could live with cause it will always be Anfield to the people who go there, what its known as in China doesn't bother me. Large debt does.

But FSG will care. If the Kop is famous as the Kop in China and elsewhere, that's how it will stay. I think 'Anfield' fits in there too. Other stands...

.

[Fromola]

I'll put those deals into perspective if you don't mind mate.  $1 is £0.65 at the moment.

The Denver deal translates to £97.5m over 25 years. That's £3.9m a year.

The Boston deal translates to £78m over 20 years. That's £3.9m a year.

That's pocket change for pissing off the matchgoing support and losing the 'Anfield' brand. 'This is Air China Ground at Anfield' doesn't have quite the same appeal to it.

Exactly. It wouldn't even cover the wages of Carragher or Joe Cole if it's that much on the drip.

It needs to be upwards of £10m a year to be worth doing. Maybe just under at a push.

[mikeb58]

The name of The Kop is as widely used off the pitch as it on regarding all things LFC. How many times do you see the headline 'Kop capture new signing' 'LFC Kop new deal' etc etc.

It doesen't happen anywhere else, it's something unique to us.

Nobody should attempt to change the name of The Kop in any way, shape or form.

[andymanlfc]

But to me it will always be the Kop, even if it's sponsored, think it would be the same for most. But as you said the media will call it by its sponsored name.

[Zeb]

Exactly. It wouldn't even cover the wages of Carragher or Joe Cole if it's that much on the drip.

It needs to be upwards of £10m a year to be worth doing. Maybe just under at a push.

I'd question whether there is a price level a sponsor would be willing to pay where it does become worth doing. It's likely that if you did a full analysis of it that you'd come to the conclusion that the downsides would mean that the money a sponsor would be willing to pay to be associated with something like that would be so minimal that you'd be better off looking at more creative ways to do things (eg selling block sponsorship for the Kop and perhaps associating a fan zone type area in the vicinity with it which could be sponsored).

The owners are selling our history and association with that history to sponsors. Pissing away that devalues everything else. Throw in how toxic the publicity around renaming Anfield or the Kop is likely to be, and most potential sponsors would run a mile. And the ones who are left are going to be sponsors who we'd not touch ordinarily anyways - think betting companies and the like - because of the impact it would have overseas.

We'll see.

[helmboy_nige]

I wouldn't particularly have a problem with sponsorship for the stands (even the Kop).  It will always be called the Kop by the fans.  Re-naming something is a lot harder than naming something new.  That's why there is less cash on the table for re-naming rights (Etihad excluded).

On the subject of the Etihad, this is perhaps the only stadium I can think of that's been renamed recently and the name has taken hold.  And that stadium name was new anyway (City of Manchester Stadium), so it's not like it had become ingrained in the peoples minds.

The Kop can be called the Coca-Cola Kop for me, it will still be shortened to 'Kop' by most people, including the media.

[west_london_red]

Didnt someone from the club say that the Kop would not be renamed, but that the others stands would be if there was a redevelopment?

[filthy1980]

The "Kop" has already had it's name shortened #pedanctic

(just realised this isn't twitter)

[Peter McGurk]

The "Kop" has already had it's name shortened #pedanctic

(just realised this isn't twitter)

pedantic #pedantic

It's political correctness gone mad!

Didnt someone from the club say that the Kop would not be renamed, but that the others stands would be if there was a redevelopment?

The club said that the new stadium would be named but that Anfield would stay as Anfield - nothing was said about individual stands.

Exactly. It wouldn't even cover the wages of Carragher or Joe Cole if it's that much on the drip.

It needs to be upwards of £10m a year to be worth doing. Maybe just under at a push.

£3.9m is not worth having?? and a few million from a fans village, and a couple or so from concerts and a few million from advertising screens and a...

.

[JohnHobbes]

£3.9m is not worth having?? and a few million from a fans village, and a couple or so from concerts and a few million from advertising screens and a...

Yep, that made me laugh too. Deriding just £4m a year for something that doesn't matter (to us fans) and we get nothing for at present. I'd like to be wealthy enough that £4m a year was inconsequential...

[CraigDS]

£4m a year is pretty much a £75k week wage for a player - not so bad really!!

[CraigDS]

Posted on The Triangle website, this is a letter that has been hand delivered by an Arena staff member to residents (their is a scan of it on their forum but don't want to post it here and kill their bandwidth from us lot!)...

Dear Resident / Owner

Rockfield Area

I am writing to give you an update on the regeneration plans for your area.

You will be aware that over the years there have been schemes to undertake improvements in the area but some of these have encountered problems and have subsequently stalled.

The Council and its partners have now drawn up plans to continue the regeneration of the area and various options have been identified.

The proposed plans for your consideration are to be displayed at: Stanley Park - Isla Gladstone Conservatory, Anfield Road, L4 OTD on: Monday 18 June 12 noon - 8. 00 pm

I want to reassure you that although resources are limited your area is a Council priority, and everything is being done to progress the regeneration as quickly as possible.

I would be delighted if you would be able to attend the consultation event and give the Council your views on the plans. If you are however unable to attend or if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact one of my officers in Housing Renewal on 0151 233 1644.

Yours .Sincerely         
Councillor Ann O'Byrne
Cabinet Member for Housing and Community Safety

[Garstonite]

£4m a year is pretty much a £75k week wage for a player - not so bad really!!

Three quarters of a Joe Cole.

[CraigDS]

Three quarters of a Joe Cole.

Bargain 

[scouse29]

Posted on The Triangle website, this is a letter that has been hand delivered by an Arena staff member to residents (their is a scan of it on their forum but don't want to post it here and kill their bandwidth from us lot!)...

Dear Resident / Owner

Rockfield Area

I am writing to give you an update on the regeneration plans for your area.

You will be aware that over the years there have been schemes to undertake improvements in the area but some of these have encountered problems and have subsequently stalled.

The Council and its partners have now drawn up plans to continue the regeneration of the area and various options have been identified.

The proposed plans for your consideration are to be displayed at: Stanley Park - Isla Gladstone Conservatory, Anfield Road, L4 OTD on: Monday 18 June 12 noon - 8. 00 pm

I want to reassure you that although resources are limited your area is a Council priority, and everything is being done to progress the regeneration as quickly as possible.

I would be delighted if you would be able to attend the consultation event and give the Council your views on the plans. If you are however unable to attend or if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact one of my officers in Housing Renewal on 0151 233 1644.

Yours .Sincerely         
Councillor Ann O'Byrne
Cabinet Member for Housing and Community Safety

Anyone going down?

[RedPross]

If we were to look to add to the existing Centenary Stand would we not also need to purchase the houses on Skerries Road behind it?

Otherwise we will end up with a stadium like St James..... Two huge and disproportionately sized Stands dwarfing the Kop and Centenary which I think would look awful and would make the Kop look stupid. It's already way to small as it is!!!

[CraigDS]

If we were to look to add to the existing Centenary Stand would we not also need to purchase the houses on Skerries Road behind it?

Otherwise we will end up with a stadium like St James..... Two huge and disproportionately sized Stands dwarfing the Kop and Centenary which I think would look awful and would make the Kop look stupid. It's already way to small as it is!!!

Centenary already dwarfs the other stands (certainly Anny Rd) so that shouldn't look out of place if both Anny and Main are done. I can't see the Kop looking too bad unless they go stupidly large on the Main - but then if were doing these things in stages you'd hope the next after those two would be the Kop anyway.

[ttnbd]

If we were to look to add to the existing Centenary Stand would we not also need to purchase the houses on Skerries Road behind it?

Otherwise we will end up with a stadium like St James..... Two huge and disproportionately sized Stands dwarfing the Kop and Centenary which I think would look awful and would make the Kop look stupid. It's already way to small as it is!!!

A load of the Skerries Road houses were only modernised a few years ago too so can't see that being the case.  Suppose they could consider rebuilding but in a better way than it is currently.

[CraigDS]

A load of the Skerries Road houses were only modernised a few years ago too so can't see that being the case.  Suppose they could consider rebuilding but in a better way than it is currently.

I think the club own most of the road anyway don't they, or did they modernise them and sell them on rather than rent them out?

Either way I'd imagine the Centenary will be the last to get any major work done and will be years down the line.

[ultimatewarrior]

If we were to look to add to the existing Centenary Stand would we not also need to purchase the houses on Skerries Road behind it?

Otherwise we will end up with a stadium like St James..... Two huge and disproportionately sized Stands dwarfing the Kop and Centenary which I think would look awful and would make the Kop look stupid. It's already way to small as it is!!!

The new main and Annie rd stands will have to be huge if they want to increase to 65k. The kop and Centenry stand hold less than 25k so the we would be looking at around 40k between the new Main stand and the Annie rd . Whatever new worrk carried out on the stands will have to suit modern regs and the incorperation of boxes in both stands will also add to the size of the redevelopement. Adding to the Centenery stand might not be a bad idea but it just drive the cost of a redevelopment further towards that of a new build. Then were into the naming right decision again.

[Peter McGurk]

The new main and Annie rd stands will have to be huge if they want to increase to 65k. The kop and Centenry stand hold less than 25k so the we would be looking at around 40k between the new Main stand and the Annie rd . Whatever new worrk carried out on the stands will have to suit modern regs and the incorperation of boxes in both stands will also add to the size of the redevelopement. Adding to the Centenery stand might not be a bad idea but it just drive the cost of a redevelopment further towards that of a new build. Then were into the naming right decision again.

It's not so hard to get to 65k with four corners and two stands to deal with. And stuff the boxes. They don't make as much as premium seats.

.

[swordfishtrombone]

What sort of price range do you envisage for premium seats Peter?

[mikeb58]

Followed this with great interest since day one (many, many years ago!) There was a time the club was adamant Anfield could only be extended to hold 55k...end of story, nothing on top of that now or in the future.

So what's changed, have they gained more access around the ground than they thought possible, has the engineering/construction side of it progressed sufficiently to allow a bigger expansion of Anfield or where the club simply telling porkies holding on to the Stanley Park dream?

[CraigDS]

Followed this with great interest since day one (many, many years ago!) There was a time the club was adamant Anfield could only be extended to hold 55k...end of story, nothing on top of that now or in the future.

So what's changed, have they gained more access around the ground than they thought possible, has the engineering/construction side of it progressed sufficiently to allow a bigger expansion of Anfield or where the club simply telling porkies holding on to the Stanley Park dream?

My guess is on the latter, as its clearly obvious if you can gain the land (maybe the ability to do that has changed in recent times, which in the last 10yrs is a possibility) then you can get it up to whatever capacity you wanted (if you're willing to pay the costs).

[danthemanlfc]

All very interesting developments regarding the letter from the council, however, is there any chance the mods can merge this and the naming rights thread as they're discussing the exact same thing!

What is the realistic potential for development of the infrastructure surrounding and on the way to Anfield? As I know a few have said that is what constitutes the 65k ceiling on capacity. I guess with the public spending cuts we aren't likely to see any improvements or even newly-built rail lines considered...

[mikeb58]

Just a general question, would you prefer a more 'uniform' but smaller ground when it comes to expanding Anfield or some big monstrosity that is St James Park, which in my opinion looks ridiculous.

I suppose if money is the be all and end all the club with opt for the latter, if so, hope they make a better job of it than Newcastle did!

[Coady]

Surely the Echo would be all over this if we were close to expanding Anfield.

[CraigDS]

Surely the Echo would be all over this if we were close to expanding Anfield.

Not really much of a story yet, and they have pretty much ran with what we know - that the council have contacted residents with a few options (this was a few weeks ago now).

[oojason]

All very interesting developments regarding the letter from the council, however, is there any chance the mods can merge this and the naming rights thread as they're discussing the exact same thing!

What is the realistic potential for development of the infrastructure surrounding and on the way to Anfield? As I know a few have said that is what constitutes the 65k ceiling on capacity. I guess with the public spending cuts we aren't likely to see any improvements or even newly-built rail lines considered...

It'd be interesting to see what the council's requirements are now, and if there are any differences in developing or building a new ground, for the traffic and infrastructural requirements.

If I recall correctly, there are rail lines not too far away that could be used (nr Clubmoor?) - a station would have to be built and some improvements to see the switch from freight to passenger line? I imagine the club would have to pay for most of this - there were estimates and guesses at £10m on here a few years ago for it. Worth doing a search for it on here and at the echo online.

Be good to what, if any, park and ride areas there'd be, and any improvements from local transport to and from the ground from the City Centre - as well as the surrounding roads and pavements themselves. This is more a council thing, and right now there's probably not much money, if any at all, going for this.

Should be interesting to see the club address this in any releases/PR/spin from them about redevelopment - as well as more detailed plans for regeneration of the area.

[CraigDS]

If I recall correctly, there are rail lines not too far away that could be used (nr Clubmoor?) - a station would have to be built and some improvements to see the switch from freight to passenger line? I imagine the club would have to pay for most of this - there were estimates and guesses at £10m on here a few years ago for it. Worth doing a search for it on here and at the echo online.

It may of been Peter or someone else, but sure they said for it to be viable the track would need about 5-7 stations on it each at a cost of £10m. Then the track itself would need some major improvements including extending it as it doesn't go on to the main lines it would need to - and this wouldn't be cheap. Sure I read somewhere that the overall figure would be upwards of £100m. Obviously the club wouldn't be liable for all of this, but even if the club put a decent amount in I don't think the council have the funds (or inclination) for the rest.

[oojason]

Just a general question, would you prefer a more 'uniform' but smaller ground when it comes to expanding Anfield or some big monstrosity that is St James Park, which in my opinion looks ridiculous.

I suppose if money is the be all and end all the club with opt for the latter, if so, hope they make a better job of it than Newcastle did!

Depends on whether the club has done complete redevelopment plans that includes redoing the Kop and Centenary stands some time after they've finished the other two stands mate - and how long that'd be?

It'd be interesting to find out to see if they've forward-planned for this - or is the redevelopment 'just' an add-on to get more fans in at the cheapest cost - and the owners (whoever they are by then) will have to figure something out if and when the time comes?

I'd prefer a more uniform ground than a monstrosity - though could depend on how it looks from the outside and the effect it'll have on the area - compared to sitting in some Westfalonstadion 1-tier megastand

[mikeb58]

I thought The Kop was as big as it could be now as the roof would overhang Walton Breck Rd, hence its uneven shape at the back now.

I think when it was built in 94 it was the optium size for a single tier stand.

A 2 tiered Kop would have held more, but nobody wanted that.