The Liverpool FC Forum > Anfield Stadium

Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.

(1/31) > >>

paulrazor:

--- Quote from: rebel23 on February 12, 2020, 05:10:01 pm ---I think they will end up doing what Arsenal did... charging 90 a ticket and fleecing the support. Arsenal have been going backwards for a while despite having the world class stadium.

--- End quote ---
london you can nearly name your price

i would like to see the spurs stadium mind you

Mighty_Red:

--- Quote from: Hellrazor on February 13, 2020, 08:50:33 am --- london you can nearly name your price

i would like to see the spurs stadium mind you

--- End quote ---
Arsenal is proof that splurging on a big expensive stadium can harm you massively. The years they spent scrimping and selling players harmed ambitions on the pitch to the extent that the rot has set in and they are now playing catch-up and now even that extra revenue isn't enough. Of course it doesn't help them that the management of the club has also been woeful since Dein left.

Spurs have made similar mistakes - they have let the squad rot to such an extent that it will cost much more to revitalise than had they spent a bit more 2 years ago. Whilst they obviously needed a far bigger stadium, I wonder if they can continue to pack out 62k if the team falls away again for a few years. It's easy to sell cheese boards when the team is successful.

Everton take note, will they create something realistically within their means that truly restores them as a force or will they overreach and fuck themselves trying to keep up with the Joneses & Alexander-Arnolds

paulrazor:

--- Quote from: Mighty_Red on February 13, 2020, 10:08:46 am ---Arsenal is proof that splurging on a big expensive stadium can harm you massively. The years they spent scrimping and selling players harmed ambitions on the pitch to the extent that the rot has set in and they are now playing catch-up and now even that extra revenue isn't enough. Of course it doesn't help them that the management of the club has also been woeful since Dein left.

Spurs have made similar mistakes - they have let the squad rot to such an extent that it will cost much more to revitalise than had they spent a bit more 2 years ago. Whilst they obviously needed a far bigger stadium, I wonder if they can continue to pack out 62k if the team falls away again for a few years. It's easy to sell cheese boards when the team is successful.

Everton take note, will they create something realistically within their means that truly restores them as a force or will they overreach and fuck themselves trying to keep up with the Joneses & Alexander-Arnolds

--- End quote ---
yep, spurs needed to invest the last while and havent been able too

it took us a long time to get it right but we did

2002 we were all in for a new ground, god knows what it would have cost and it may not have been the cash cow todays grounds are with hospitality etc. Probably would look a touch dated already.

same capacity too as we are planning to have soon for a fraction of the cost relatively. Great too that we dont even have to reduce capacity for a year

BaZ87:

--- Quote from: Mighty_Red on February 13, 2020, 10:08:46 am ---Arsenal is proof that splurging on a big expensive stadium can harm you massively. The years they spent scrimping and selling players harmed ambitions on the pitch to the extent that the rot has set in and they are now playing catch-up and now even that extra revenue isn't enough. Of course it doesn't help them that the management of the club has also been woeful since Dein left.....
--- End quote ---

The stadium was an excuse for Arsenal's lack of spending rather than a reason. For years Arsenal had mountains of cash sat in the bank, with increased matchday revenue more than covering their financing costs.

Re Spurs, have they made a mistake? Spurs punched well above their weight for a number of years and it was never sustainable, especially once Pep come along and we got our act together. They had to make sacrifises on the pitch in order to build their stadium but without it they would have always been facing an up hill struggle to compete for the top 4 let alone any higher. Spurs are now financially set to challenge Arsenal and Chelsea on a level playing field. If they miss out on the CL this season (and that's far from certain) it will hurt them but it will be far from the end of the world either. The costs of servicing the stadium debt will be somewhere in the region of 30m per year and as of the 17/18 season, Spurs EBITDA (very loosely speaking the excess cash the business makes before any capital (player) investments, tax bills etc) was over 160m. Even without the CL Spurs could more than cover their interest payments and have plenty of cash available to improve their squad.

Al 666:

--- Quote from: vorsprungtorbenpieknik on February 12, 2020, 02:39:10 pm ---The fact of the matter is that, once built, we would have increased our capacity to 61,000 for a combined 175m. Spurs increased theirs from 39,000 to 62,000. For 1bn.

So Spurs have 1,000 extra seats for a premium of 725m more than us.

That money could have gone on players. They signed hardly any players due to finance limits. We bought Fabinho, Allison and Van Dijk (amongst others) and won the Champions league and are going to win the league.

That's the difference.

--- End quote ---

You are spot on mate the two things are exactly the same. I have a four bedroom semi and I have parked a three bedroom static caravan in the garden. So to add three bedrooms it has only cost me 5k. Some idiot down the road has spent 1.5m building an 8 bedroom mansion.

So for one extra bedroom he has spent an extra 1.495m. It would of been even more of a differential if I had gone cheap and got a three bedroom tent instead of the caravan.

I am sure both places have exactly the same facilities, will last the same amount of time and could be rented out for exactly the same amount of money.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version