Topic: 70,000 seats my arse

[Peter McGurk]

When you say 70,000 at £25 a ticket, you're assuming that every single person either lives locally and pays that amount plus whatever in the ground or that the price of the ticket is the prohibitive factor.
For people like me, the ticket is the cheapest part of going to the game. Whether it's a train ticket, petrol or food, whether you need to take time off or rearrange plans around the game, there are always extra costs. If trains to Liverpool were a tenner return, you'd see loads more demand for games. But they're not.

It's not as simple as dropping the price of the ticket. It helps but when everything else increases in cost, either you pick and choose your games or you cut something else out of your life. And right now, in this economic climate, there's not much to cut out of life.

Well said.  This really is the reality we must face up to (and not just for those who must travel)

If you dont mind me asking, how else do we get our revenues up to a level where we can compete financially with our rivals?

If we had 60,000 at Anfield earning £72m at less than half the cost of the Emirates, we should be happy as sand boys even if Arsenal did earn £100m last time and Chelsea earned more. Thankfully Man U have huge debt elsewhere.

This is because we can compete with Manchester on gate receipts by building an 80,000 stadium and charging 10 pounds a ticket. By that I mean if we succeed in successfully leveraging our global reach then our lack of gate receipts is a non issue.

£10 a ticket is about a quarter what it is now. With a stadium about double the size (80k), we would receive half (£20m) what we do now (£40m) from the gate and it would cost the club at least twice as much.  How does that help? or are you suggesting that global merchandise should subsidise the stadium?

[Just read your later post, indeed you are suggesting that the club pays for the stadium just to build the brand overseas - about £30m a year investment without return to sell more shirts you can sell by more effective means anyway? I wonder how many people buy Barcelona shirts because they have a big ground? none?]

I think at £25 a pop we could fill 70,000 - season tickets of £450 ?

That’s actually about £600 revenue per seat per season or £42m a year (half a million less than we earn now) - not so good. And it would cost, hang on... roughly £30m a year - even worse and still a risk to fill, even with minibuses.

[RJH]

Facebook has 500m profiles and has no revenues from anything and is valued at US$50bn (oh yes it has some advertising) so perhaps you arent actually monetising.

"Some advertising" is rather an understatement. It got almost $2 billion in advertising last year. I don't know what the relevance of Facebook is anyway.



As for the rest of your post, no offense, but I'm not really sure what you're on about half the time. You seem to be suggesting there is a close link between the size of the stadium and raising revenue from the global fanbase,but you don't really explain what that is.
For instance, how would an 80,000 seater stadium bring in more global revenues than say, a 60,000?
I just don't see the logic.

[MPowerYNWA]

That’s actually about £600 revenue per seat per season or £42m a year (half a million less that we earn now) - not so good. And it would cost, hang on... roughly £30m a year - even worse and still a risk to fill, even with minibuses.

£2m less over 18 premiership games - but ignores all the pro's - i.e. more stable income, other revenue.

Apologies if I missed it, where did the £30m cost come from?

[MPowerYNWA]

Does anyone have a hypothesis on how Man United get 75k?

Outside of success on the pitch is there a belief that their fans have greater affluence to afford the travel - or is this a case of more local fans?

[RJH]

Apologies if I missed it, where did the £30m cost come from?

I'm guessing it's an estimate of how much it would cost to build a 70,000 capacity stadium.

The £30m cost would be the annual payment paying off the stadium debt.

[SMD]

I think the club should identify key population centres for fans and work out at that level with supporter clubs how they can build in cheaper forms of travel (i.e. laying on mini-buses and helping the supporter clubs set up the infrastruture to help them manage everything)

If we get more fans going then we should be able to get more supporter clubs set up within a given distance of our fans and cost of travelling per fan should reduce - it's a virtuous cycle. For example if attendance at anfield increased by 55% (45k>70k) then in theory each supporter club would see an equivalent increase in their numbers which could give us the critical mass.

Won't happen. Incredibly bad PR if the club is seen to encourage out of town supporters over locals and then the age old question of identifying fans rears its head. How do you tell a fan? I don't have a fan card and I don't get tickets in my name. Yet I go to matches and I follow the club more than some arsewipe who pays his Sky sub and can't be arsed going cos there aren't any replays. How would the club identify me then? You can't canvas people outside the ground and after the game no one's going to hang about. You can talk to supporters groups but most people make their own arrangements to go to matches.

There's fuck all the club can do beside try to find partnerships to offer packages but what leverage does it have with companies like Virgin Trains? LFC can't guarantee any sort of numbers and Virgin knows that fans going from London to Liverpool by train have fuck all choice in the matter so there's no real incentive other than to guarantee seats - which they have advance tickets for and in any case you can't guarantee attendance until you've got your match ticket, at which point you have to take the train, bus or car anyway.

Look, I'm not scouse and I don't live in Liverpool but the new ground has to suit the fans who go week in, week out. I'd love to be guaranteed a ticket and be able to go but honestly unless I end up getting a well paid job, it's not happening unless I move to Liverpool.

The new ground should make it easy for kids to go. If the motivation is to make money, you can't square that circle. Either tickets will go up in other parts of the ground to compensate, you're asking the owners to put money in without making any. When we're not filling the ground, what sort of promise can we make that it won't make them a loss?

When we've squeezed our commercial activities to the point where there are few avenues to explore and Anfield is full to bursting every other week, then the stadium is a no brainer. Until then, we need to rebuild on the pitch while looking at new options for the ground.

[SMD]

Does anyone have a hypothesis on how Man United get 75k?

Outside of success on the pitch is there a belief that their fans have greater affluence to afford the travel - or is this a case of more local fans?

United aren't on the sea, there's greater surrounding area and there are more towns and cities around it. They have a relatively successful side and they've been more successful than us.
If you think they fill OT with 75,000 die hard United fans, just ask RossoBianchi to come and set you straight. (seriously, he'd be glad to).

[Peter McGurk]

£2m less over 18 premiership games - but ignores all the pro's - i.e. more stable income, other revenue.

Apologies if I missed it, where did the £30m cost come from?

Sorry, didn't follow you. Anyway the point was we'd be replacing a £42.5m debt-free income with a £42m debt-laden income and it wouldn't be very good business.

Yes, the £30m was discussed (seems like) a thousand years ago - a very broad estimate of construction costs over (say) 25 years.

Does anyone have a hypothesis on how Man United get 75k?

United aren't on the sea, there's greater surrounding area and there are more towns and cities around it. They have a relatively successful side and they've been more successful than us.
If you think they fill OT with 75,000 die hard United fans, just ask RossoBianchi to come and set you straight. (seriously, he'd be glad to).

Sorry to repeat - Greater Manchester 2.5m plus proximity of SW Yorks towns whereas, Merseyside 1.5m surrounded by salt water, asparagus (and Skem). Also 10,000 away fans for big games, also - even with all that, they are struggling.

[MPowerYNWA]

Ok, lets ignore out of town supporters then and take them as a bonus.

According to the 2001 census there are 515k male adults living in merseyside - lets half that number for those interested in football, less half that number again for everton fans and lets half that number again for those who might be actually interested in going - that's still 60k odd out of a potential pool of 120k.

Add on surrounding areas and I'm still in the belief that if you could reduce ticket prices you could get to 70k quite easily? Question is by what amount - is £25 per ticket enough?

(by way of reference greater manchester has double the population - but includes bolton, wigan etc).

[Abrak]

If we had a 60,000 stadium earning £72m at less than half the cost of the Emirates, we should be happy as sand boys even if Arsenal did earn £100m last time and Chelsea earned more. Thankfully Man U have huge debt elsewhere.



£10 a ticket is about a quarter what it is now. With a stadium about double the size (80k), we would receive half (£20m) what we do now (£40m) from the gate and it would cost the club at least twice as much.  How does that help? or are you suggesting that global merchandise should subsidise the stadium?

[Just read your later post, indeed you are suggesting that the club pays for the stadium just to build the brand overseas - about £30m a year investment without return to sell more shirts you can sell by more effective means anyway? I wonder how many people buy Barcelona shirts because they have a big ground? none?]




That’s actually about £600 revenue per seat per season or £42m a year (half a million less than we earn now) - not so good. And it would cost, hang on... roughly £30m a year - even worse.

Please start listening 'if we get a 60,000 stadium stadium generating 72m we should be happy as sandboys' So what you are saying is if we invest 300m and get 30m a year extra revenue it would be bloody great. Well it doesnt sound bloody great to me.

You cant start to think of the maths. So you say if you build an 80,000 stadium at 10 pound a ticket you will get 20m instead of 40m. Totally wrong, if your stadium has twice the capacity it will get more for its naming rights more for its merchandise it will boost the team and it will boost the total support. I reckon you would still get the same 40m.

But mate here is the killer, we have to competitors we will never get near with in terms of gate receipts Manchester and Arsenal, what happens to their revenues. Is Manchester still going to charge 60 quid a game. So you have to admit that is enormous value destruction against these guys.

Look Newcastle has massively better attendance fundamental support than Liverpool but they are a nobody. And look please do not think I am trying to add value to the supporters the supporters at the ground add value by being there. They are the people that represent everyone of your global support. If you could actually wake up you would realize that your global support would love the idea of being monetised to provide an 80,000 ground that supporters could go to for free. Because then we would feel that we helped generate the support at the ground for Liverpool.

And stop talking about shirt sales. As I say 500m facebook users pay nothing and it is valued at US$50bn. There are 4m friends of the Liverpool site in facebook. Liverpool hasnt even asked its 160m fan base to sign up to anything. So please forget about the 50,000 supporters at the ground. And whether 20m pounds loss is good news or bad news here or there in the long run. Because just US$1 per global fan in 10 years time is 160m. And they all look at Liverpool shirts they can all be signed on line and marketed to, you can pay per view, have Liverpool channels and if you guys dont have a clue how to do this you should sell it to someone who does. Because where I live we have every Liverpool match live, there are 500,000 fans and some people can name every Liverpool player since 1970 and you guys simply arent the least bit interested.

And you do not know how much this pisses me off. Because say if like me you live in Thailand you would love the idea of being monetised and Liverpool having a ground twice the size for free because then you (and the other 99%) of your fans would actually feel like they were a real fan who contributed.

But genuinely you guys have to wake up. The premiership is Britain's most successful global business. And you are talking about if ticket prices were cut to 10 pounds you would lose 20m of revenues. I simply do not care about this figure. Because actually from a global marketing perspective the fan who turns up at the club is actually an asset and part of the team.

What you have to get to grips with is the concept that 170m global fans that you can build and monetize is Liverpool's greatest asset. As I say a facebook sub is US$100 and they generate nothing. Just a US1 is US$170m over a year. You simply dont realize you dont get the TV revenues because they are split. You havent even tried to register your fans.

[SMD]

Yeah but where were Bolton, Wigan, etc when United were building their 'fanbase'?

[Peter McGurk]

Ok, lets ignore out of town supporters then and take them as a bonus.

According to the 2001 census there are 515k male adults living in merseyside - lets half that number for those interested in football, less half that number again for everton fans and lets half that number again for those who might be actually interested in going - that's still 60k odd out of a potential pool of 120k.

Add on surrounding areas and I'm still in the belief that if you could reduce ticket prices you could get to 70k quite easily? Question is by what amount - is £25 per ticket enough?

(by way of reference greater manchester has double the population - but includes bolton, wigan etc).

Isn't a bit of a waste of time to work it out from basic principles when the evidence of attendances is right in front of our eyes?

£25 is not enough. It equals about £42m a year, or what we earn now.

[SMD]

I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. I genuinely don't understand your point.

[youll never walk alone it]

xerxes? who the hell workrd those figures out mate?  theyve beat us every season but 2 for the last god knows how mnay years ?  they even beat us when they  went down a division...i know 1988 was 1 we beat them maybe 89 to.

[Peter McGurk]

Please start listening 'if we get a 60,000 stadium stadium generating 72m we should be happy as sandboys' So what you are saying is if we invest 300m and get 30m a year extra revenue it would be bloody great. Well it doesnt sound bloody great to me.

I didn’t say that at all (and I have to say, please start reading).  I said invest half the amount at Anfield for double the ROI of a new stadium such as the Emirates

You cant start to think of the maths. So you say if you build an 80,000 stadium at 10 pound a ticket you will get 20m instead of 40m. Totally wrong, if your stadium has twice the capacity it will get more for its naming rights more for its merchandise it will boost the team and it will boost the total support. I reckon you would still get the same 40m.

I have a pretty good handle on the maths thanks. £10 is about a quarter of the current price equating to about a quarter of the current revenue per seat - I’ll let you work it out from there.

[On second thoughts: The club currently earns about £940 revenue per seat a year based on a fairly standard ticket price of about £40, which is the bulk of the revenue for 41,000 seats out of 45,000 seats. So you can say roughly a 75% reduction in ticket price broadly approximates to a similar reduction in revenue per seat (even though there are more people in a larger stadium, their out-of-pocket expenditure has a relatively marginally effect as their spend is factored into the revised revenue per seat - to change this you need to get in high payers at high prices for hospitality and boxes, not in the £10 a game market - so that's about £235 revenue per seat, which at 80,000 equals £18.8m - £20m for round numbers]

BTW - do you really think naming rights count as revenue or are linked to the size of the stadium...?

But mate here is the killer, we have to competitors we will never get near with in terms of gate receipts Manchester and Arsenal, what happens to their revenues. Is Manchester still going to charge 60 quid a game. So you have to admit that is enormous value destruction against these guys.

Football loyalty is not related to price. We can’t nick any fans from United (urgh!) any more than they can nick fans from us.

Look Newcastle has massively better attendance fundamental support than Liverpool but they are a nobody. And look please do not think I am trying to add value to the supporters the supporters at the ground add value by being there. They are the people that represent everyone of your global support. If you could actually wake up you would realize that your global support would love the idea of being monetised to provide an 80,000 ground that supporters could go to for free. Because then we would feel that we helped generate the support at the ground for Liverpool.

Not only can I listen but I can see too and I am wide awake.  I’m sure we would be pleased to enjoy that support but the club doesn't have to give away the steady bedrock of matchday revenue to realise potentially volatile financial support from other sources.

And stop talking about shirt sales. As I say 500m facebook users pay nothing and it is valued at US$50bn. There are 4m friends of the Liverpool site in facebook. Liverpool hasnt even asked its 160m fan base to sign up to anything. So please forget about the 50,000 supporters at the ground. And whether 20m pounds loss is good news or bad news here or there in the long run. Because just US$1 per global fan in 10 years time is 160m. And they all look at Liverpool shirts they can all be signed on line and marketed to, you can pay per view, have Liverpool channels and if you guys dont have a clue how to do this you should sell it to someone who does. Because where I live we have every Liverpool match live, there are 500,000 fans and some people can name every Liverpool player since 1970 and you guys simply arent the least bit interested.

And you do not know how much this pisses me off. Because say if like me you live in Thailand you would love the idea of being monetised and Liverpool having a ground twice the size for free because then you (and the other 99%) of your fans would actually feel like they were a real fan who contributed.

But genuinely you guys have to wake up. The premiership is Britain's most successful global business. And you are talking about if ticket prices were cut to 10 pounds you would lose 20m of revenues. I simply do not care about this figure. Because actually from a global marketing perspective the fan who turns up at the club is actually an asset and part of the team.

What you have to get to grips with is the concept that 170m global fans that you can build and monetize is Liverpool's greatest asset. As I say a facebook sub is US$100 and they generate nothing. Just a US1 is US$170m over a year. You simply dont realize you dont get the TV revenues because they are split. You havent even tried to register your fans.

We are all well aware of the huge potential of global support, the skewed relationship that Sky‘s contractual arrangements with the FA has given to the game, the upcoming globalisation of coverage via the internet and how matchday revenue can pale into comparative insignificance. If you don't care about the prices at Anfield or the relative benefits, we do - just as much as any other club in the country does because it forms a large part of their financial security and they know all about global revenue opportunities too.  I’m genuinely sorry you feel pissed off, slighted or disenfranchised by the club and/or its fans but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the club or fans’ attitude or anything to do with the stadium.

[scouse29]

That’s actually about £600 revenue per seat per season or £42m a year (half a million less than we earn now) - not so good. And it would cost, hang on... roughly £30m a year - even worse and still a risk to fill, even with minibuses.

[/quote]

Such a valid point and wont happen. But roughly what could we expect to generate in corporate hospitality?

[JCM]

Don't forget chaps that expanding the ground is only one way to increase our income.  Other revenue streams will be developed in time and this is something FSG are very skilled at.  For example, I would imagine (given Werner's expertise in the US media) that future subscriptions to LFCTV will increase greatly as the club is marketed in the USA and maybe LFCTV will develope into something similar to NESN, who knows.

[Peter McGurk]

Such a valid point and wont happen. But roughly what could we expect to generate in corporate hospitality?

The revenue per seat factors in both hospitality and attendance (obviously not every seat is filled for every game) - so it's already included.

[scouse29]

The revenue per seat factors in both hospitality and attendance (obviously not every seat is filled for every game) - so it's already included.

Proves that the £25 ticket which would possibly see the house full will never hapen

[MPowerYNWA]

Isn't a bit of a waste of time to work it out from basic principles when the evidence of attendances is right in front of our eyes?

£25 is not enough. It equals about £42m a year, or what we earn now.

The evidence in front of our eyes is that at £41.50 with 1.5-2 very bad seasons and nothing of note left to play for in the premiership and a credit crunch we got gates of 42k on the first midweek game and 41k on the second midweek game against Fulham and Stoke respectively (within 7 days which also has an effect). 2 years down the line all this could change and demand could outstrip supply again.

The reality is we don't know the price/demand curve at play - IF we ASSUME £25 at 70,000 well that loses us £2m over 18 home games vs. current pricing at 45k - but there are other financial benefits which offset that.

There is a huge pool of LOCAL support we can tap into if we get the pricing lower (that's ignoring incremental demand from OOT) - will that local support be captivated at £25? -  who knows as only FSG will know the true numbers.

Redevelopment of anfield won't cost £30m a year in interest if that's what people are alluding to - no chance. Arsenal entire emirates stadium project cost £390m (that's fully loaded cost too) - so if we can redevelop anfield the capital outlay will be less.

[Abrak]

I'm sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. I genuinely don't understand your point.

Yeah dont worry. I cant believe I am having a debate about a major global brand with 170m supporters basing its profit model on gate receipts from 40,000 supporters that are essentially assets to the underlying value model even if they were allowed in for free.

I dont understand why everyone wants more and more revenues out of gate receipts. Every single supporter who attends essentially represents about 3,000 supporters who would like to attend in spirit ( to simplify that I would like to say I am 1 of 500,000 supporters in Thailand). We would love it if there was double the crowd and 10 pound seats because instead of deeming us worthless you got us involved. Then there would be twice the attendance and we could sit in front of our plasmas and feel we contributed. And the fans who paid 10 pound a ticket would appreciate that the people who attend the matches are part of the team supporting the club on behalf of all fans, rather than paying exorbitant prices to simply be there.

So the economic argument you are debating is simply ludicrous. But the moral argument is far worse. I have never been to Anfield but the support at the ground is integral to the very essence of any club and if people cannot grasp that concept I basically give up. I may pay nothing you may totally ignore me and you may think that your global support is totally worthless. But although there are only 40,000 supporters at the ground without them there is no club. And actually the supporters who pay 40 pounds to go to Anfield piss me off because they can afford it and they feel they are so fucking important. And they dont give a toss about the people who CAN go but cant afford it or the people who CANT go but would like to see the best possible support that we can have.

And I will get very little pleasure from helping people who go and can afford 40 pound tickets just because they are cheaper but as a supporter the best I can do is get people who can go but cant afford what I believe are totally unrealistic prices. And if you think I am making some political speech you should appreciate that just because you are one of the 50,000 who go to Anfield you do have 170m who do not. And dont tell me to catch a fucking plane.

I do understand the concept of being a supporter which is supporting the club. So I do understand that the more the supporters who go to the ground pay the bigger the supporter they feel because the more support they are giving. But at some point that have to start thinking about the other 170m who want to support the club to and want the people at the ground to pay as little as possible. And please just try and grasp the basic concept that your global support will not feel it is real 'support' until it is enfranchised. If the tickets are 10 pounds at the stadium (I know the guys who go there dont care about cheaper tickets) but your global support care about the people who go who cant afford because they cant go. And we will feel like a real supporter rather than irrelevant and worthless. But you just have to look at it front the point of view of a Thai fan. He cant go. But he knows how important the Anfield crowd is. What is the best he can do? That is to have an 80,000 stadium with 10 pound tickets supported by leveraging his revenues.

You simply have to start thinking that things are a little back to front. You have 170m global fan base and a potential 80,000 maximum crowd for free. That crowd is the tangible support for the team and each one there represent 2000 supporters who are not. The 170m supporters who are not there are the revenue base that supports the fans by keeping prices essentially to a level that there are 80,000 and not 40,000. And Liverpool supporters who have created a global brand benefit by representing it on behalf of the entire fan base at a nominal price.

Maybe I will simply put it in footballing terms. How do you beat Manchester United at gate receipts. Liverpool has 40m and ManU110m. If you dont know the answer then I give up.

[SMD]

Mate, I'm unemployed, every match I go to is a personal sacrifice. I don't like talking about but fucking hell, don't assume I turn my nose up at people who don't go. I know exactly what it means to go to the game when funds are tight. I don't have to justify my spending to you or anyone and likewise no one has to do it to me. Fuck knows what this has to do with your point but let me make something clear.

Arsenal and United make most of their matchday income from corporates. The numbers are on RAWK somewhere as this discussion has been done to death. The main argument for building a new stadium is the additional corporate capacity. You can't squeeze more boxes into Anfield unless you hack away at the Kop or rebuild the Annie Road end, which probably wouldn't be financially viable anyway.

If it's 50,000 or 80,000 you're talking about pricing structure to make the difference in capacity workable. You've already got the bulk with the additional corporate boxes so after that it's a question of economies of scale. Better and more knowledgeable men than me have debated this.

No one's suggesting that it wouldn't be fantastic to have 80k paying a tenner to get in. Come on, be realistic. John Henry isn't some scouser made good giving away his dosh. He wants to win things but he wants to do it with a return. If we win everything and he takes a percentage of the profits, who cares? If we keep winning and he takes a slice, fair play to him.

But what he won't do is piss away money and building a stadium because of some bizarre penis envy of Old Trafford is not going to happen.
You talk about the moral argument to build a ground as big as possible and make it as cheap as possible. Well, you can't have both. The bigger the ground is, the more it'll cost (and it's not linear) and the more it'll have to earn to pay for itself. So you won't see prices slashed, you'd be lucky to see an average price freeze.
And if the ground doesn't get filled, it impacts our standing and it affects the team's morale seeing a third of the ground empty.

How do you beat Manchester United at gate receipts? Who cares? Let's sort out our off the pitch performance, let's work to our capabilities and let them worry about the £1bn hole in their accounts while we spend intelligently and efficiently.

We are not Manchester United, we are not Chelsea: We are Liverpool.

[SP]

I am being pedantic, but why is everyone talking about 18 home games? Surely it is 19 home league games?

[MPowerYNWA]

I am being pedantic, but why is everyone talking about 18 home games? Surely it is 19 home league games?

Lol, very true - we got carried away.

[MPowerYNWA]

The 170m supporters who are not there are the revenue base that supports the fans by keeping prices essentially to a level that there are 80,000 and not 40,000

90% of Man Utd revenues come from the UK - they haven't worked out how to capitalise on their global fan base and we're about 10 years behind them so whilst the global fan base is heart warming it is not yet of crucial importance to our P&L. If we can work it out, then obviously the sheer volumes of fans means it could be a huge revenue stream.

To be clear, I love the global fan base I'm just mentioning this in the context of financials.

(PS Figures based on some previous work I've seen via. google - happy to stand corrected)

[Peter McGurk]

The evidence in front of our eyes is that at £41.50 with 1.5-2 very bad seasons and nothing of note left to play for in the premiership and a credit crunch we got gates of 42k on the first midweek game and 41k on the second midweek game against Fulham and Stoke respectively (within 7 days which also has an effect). 2 years down the line all this could change and demand could outstrip supply again.

The reality is we don't know the price/demand curve at play - IF we ASSUME £25 at 70,000 well that loses us £2m over 18 home games vs. current pricing at 45k - but there are other financial benefits which offset that.

There is a huge pool of LOCAL support we can tap into if we get the pricing lower (that's ignoring incremental demand from OOT) - will that local support be captivated at £25? -  who knows as only FSG will know the true numbers.

Redevelopment of anfield won't cost £30m a year in interest if that's what people are alluding to - no chance. Arsenal entire emirates stadium project cost £390m (that's fully loaded cost too) - so if we can redevelop anfield the capital outlay will be less.

The evidence is we’ve never had more than 50k average even when the price was £1.90 and the reality is we can fill as big a stadium as we like at the right price but that won’t help us if we go bust doing it.

If the club spends £30m just to lose £30.5m (including hospitality and pies), that’s not going to happen. Although the builder at least would be happy, would the fans be happy just to pay him instead of helping the team?

A new stadium is a non-starter at pretty much any price we can pay. The only way that a bigger ground might work (ie., one we can afford and will enable us to compete financially) is a redevelopment of Anfield.

[MPowerYNWA]

I guess it's a circular debate until we get some information we won't be able to necessarily move the discussion forward.

However it's been great to have a reasonable debate about it and it will be interesting to see how it all pans out - thanks.

[Peter McGurk]

I think you've made your point about estrangement, the global fanbase and worldwide income. We can understand it, but the stadium has nothing to do with it.

[Peter McGurk]

Mate, I'm unemployed, every match I go to is a personal sacrifice. I don't like talking about but fucking hell, don't assume I turn my nose up at people who don't go. I know exactly what it means to go to the game when funds are tight. I don't have to justify my spending to you or anyone and likewise no one has to do it to me. Fuck knows what this has to do with your point but let me make something clear.

Arsenal and United make most of their matchday income from corporates. The numbers are on RAWK somewhere as this discussion has been done to death. The main argument for building a new stadium is the additional corporate capacity. You can't squeeze more boxes into Anfield unless you hack away at the Kop or rebuild the Annie Road end, which probably wouldn't be financially viable anyway.

If it's 50,000 or 80,000 you're talking about pricing structure to make the difference in capacity workable. You've already got the bulk with the additional corporate boxes so after that it's a question of economies of scale. Better and more knowledgeable men than me have debated this.

No one's suggesting that it wouldn't be fantastic to have 80k paying a tenner to get in. Come on, be realistic. John Henry isn't some scouser made good giving away his dosh. He wants to win things but he wants to do it with a return. If we win everything and he takes a percentage of the profits, who cares? If we keep winning and he takes a slice, fair play to him.

But what he won't do is piss away money and building a stadium because of some bizarre penis envy of Old Trafford is not going to happen.
You talk about the moral argument to build a ground as big as possible and make it as cheap as possible. Well, you can't have both. The bigger the ground is, the more it'll cost (and it's not linear) and the more it'll have to earn to pay for itself. So you won't see prices slashed, you'd be lucky to see an average price freeze.
And if the ground doesn't get filled, it impacts our standing and it affects the team's morale seeing a third of the ground empty.

How do you beat Manchester United at gate receipts? Who cares? Let's sort out our off the pitch performance, let's work to our capabilities and let them worry about the £1bn hole in their accounts while we spend intelligently and efficiently.

We are not Manchester United, we are not Chelsea: We are Liverpool.

Intelligently and efficiently. I agree with all that in all but two respects. There are no economies of scale (as you say yourself, the costs aren’t linear) and it is possible and financially feasible to get the corporates and boxes in at Anfield without hacking anything to bits.

[Peter McGurk]

I guess it's a circular debate until we get some information we won't be able to necessarily move the discussion forward.

However it's been great to have a reasonable debate about it and it will be interesting to see how it all pans out - thanks.

If you wait for life to happen to you, it usually does!

[SMD]

Intelligently and efficiently. I agree with all that in all but two respects. There are no economies of scale (as you say yourself, the costs aren’t linear) and it is possible and financially feasible to get the corporates and boxes in at Anfield without hacking anything to bits.

Just because it's not linear doesn't mean there are no economies of scale

And I'd really like to hear how you'd get more boxes into Anfield without hacking anything to bits (genuinely, not taking the piss)

[Peter McGurk]

Just because it's not linear doesn't mean there are no economies of scale

And I'd really like to hear how you'd get more boxes into Anfield without hacking anything to bits (genuinely, not taking the piss)

True, not necessarily so - but you know what I meant 

By building at the back of the Main Stand or even the Centenary (no higher and definitely closer than at the Emirates) and (replacing roof supports and) building in the corners (like OT). You can also get a row actually in the main stand (but I guess that's cheating - you'd need to take out two rows of seating) and a row at the top of the paddock (but maybe not as good).

[xerxes1]

Sweeping up a few posts:
@Peter McTurk

The evidence is we’ve never had more than 50k average even when the price was £1.90 and the reality is we can fill as big a stadium as we like at the right price but that won’t help us if we go bust doing it.
A new stadium is a non-starter at pretty much any price we can pay. The only way that a bigger ground might work (ie., one we can afford and will enable us to compete financially) is a redevelopment of Anfield
the big news is that neither you nor I nor anyone that can go to the match in any great numbers can afford a new stadium at the prices needed to pay for it and to make some money for the team.

And we do have a handle on the salient and relevant figures and on the practicalities of the situation.  To suggest otherwise, is simply burying your head in the sand.

You are right about the historic average maximum. However you are wrong to ignore increased population, massively increased mobility, and affluence which has enabled some key competitors to significantly improve on their historic positions. This is about the future, not the past.

It is not true that a new stadium is a non-starter, nor is it true that redevelopment is the only option, nor is it true that a new stadium cannot be commercial. You are simply wrong.

@SMD

Arsenal and United make most of their matchday income from corporate

This is not true. Both Arsenal and Man U derive about 40% of matchday income from premium seats.

United aren't on the sea

Good on physical geography, on human geography there are around 4.5m in the Merseyside/Birkenhead/Manchester conurbations within 45 minutes travelling distance of Liverpool. That is more than enough to support an increase in attendance which others have managed, and we have not, largely at our expense.

Incredibly bad PR if the club is seen to encourage out of town supporters over locals and then the age old question of identifying fans rears its head

This is not true. All PL Clubs have become increasingly dependent upon OOT support as prices have risen. “Fans” have become whoever can afford to pay the price. It’s a simple equation, if only 2.5% of the marketplace (Merseyside) can afford to pay £40 for a ticket, you reach out to the next 800,000 for your next 20,000 people who can afford it. And that is exactly what has happened around the country, not just at Liverpool.

The fact is that by any measure LFC has underperformed the marketplace in attendance growth over the last 20 years.
If we stay put, premium seat numbers will rise, ordinary price seats will be squeezed, and so will rise too. The idea that it represents a “safe” option for either ticket prices, or our ability to compete in the marketplace is wrong.

Our future for the next 50 years lies in the decision that FSG make. Our stadium performance over the past 20 years is a disgrace. If we do nothing, or very little, the liklihood is that we will be condemned to the Euro Second Tier for the foreseeable future. Incremental increases in TV/ Commercial income are likely to benefit our rivals similarly, the stadium is the only area where we can make a solus “great leap forwards”. Whther that is a 70k stadium we will need to wait for FSG’s report.

It is true that poorly managed, a stadium development comes with risk, the risk is probably greater by not doing it though.FSG have the capacity to emulate, in a way suitable to our circumstances, what Arseanl and Man U have achieved – our future depends upon it.

[xerxes1]

xerxes? who the hell workrd those figures out mate?  theyve beat us every season but 2 for the last god knows how mnay years ?  they even beat us when they  went down a division...i know 1988 was 1 we beat them maybe 89 to.

Which stat are you querying?

[Peter McGurk]

Sweeping up a few posts:
@Peter McTurk
You are right about the historic average maximum. However you are wrong to ignore increased population, massively increased mobility, and affluence which has enabled some key competitors to significantly improve on their historic positions. This is about the future, not the past.

It is not true that a new stadium is a non-starter, nor is it true that redevelopment is the only option, nor is it true that a new stadium cannot be commercial. You are simply wrong.

If you’re going to sweep up mate why don’t you offer a bit more than “oh, no it isn’t”?

[TepidT2O]

It would seem this 70000 seats is dead in the water.


Having just seen Henry on SSN he seems keen to stay at anfield.

Interesting times.

[BIGdavalad]

Do we do the same?

No, Liverpool's attendance figures come from people going through turnstiles.

[Jacob Ian]

It would seem this 70000 seats is dead in the water.


Having just seen Henry on SSN he seems keen to stay at anfield.

Interesting times.

Just saw that. I assume that means they've figured out away to expand? (btw, I'm not the best informed on what our options are here).

[SpartanTree. No deccies or lights.]

90% of Man Utd revenues come from the UK - they haven't worked out how to capitalise on their global fan base and we're about 10 years behind them so whilst the global fan base is heart warming it is not yet of crucial importance to our P&L. If we can work it out, then obviously the sheer volumes of fans means it could be a huge revenue stream.

I've been reading through this thread and I have a couple of questions related to the above discussion.

- You mentioned that we're about 10 years behind them - I take it you're referring to global marketing etc but can you clarify this point please.
- Is there any reason we can't steal a march on them and start to tap into this market now ?

[Alan_X]

I have no particular reason to discuss monetisation of a global fan base with you.

However, I will admit that I do not know much about the geography etc of Liverpool and I am surprised that Liverpool could not fill an 80,000 stadium week in week out even if it gave tickets away for free. I am rather disappointed in fact. Prices seem so outragously high that I would have thought that there are very many fans who simply cant afford to go the stadium week in and week out. It is difficult to tell given that it hasnt been tried but I will admit that I assumed that you could fill the stadium with free tickets and you probably know far more than me on the subject. I do know the basic stats but I do not know the elasticities.

I essentially do believe though that there is more inherent value in Liverpool by building a stadium say 60,000 and giving the tickets away for free while building and monetising the global fan base. The attendance of the fans at the ground is integral to the value you can derive from the global fan base.

Your argument that if you gave away tickets for free would mean you couldnt fill an 80,000 stadium is not a good one for implying that there is much value at all in the leveraging the fans who actually turn up. A free ticket to watch a match generating demand of less than 80,000 is not really going anywhere. That point I do agree, if you have 40m of revenues from 40,000 spectators you are getting 1000 a spectator. If you offer a price of zero you get less than 80,000 spectators. So it is all a complete waste of time apart from I am suggesting that you might at least consider building a 70k stadium and offer it for free.

Now if you wish to start talking about monetisation of 170m global fans, please do not start with that comes mostly through TV revenues. Facebook has 500m profiles and has no revenues from anything and is valued at US$50bn (oh yes it has some advertising) so perhaps you arent actually monetising. Actually you would be surprised how less fickle overseas fans are as Liverpool still has the second biggest global reach. But look if you want to piss around with 50,000 fans by charging them a fortune for 50m a year to cheer our team on go ahead and do it.

So look I will readily admit that I do not know or have the knowledge to know that if tickets were free the club could not regularly fill an 80,000 stadium. But all that does is confirm my view that there is not much more money to take out of the attendance fans. If for instance you cannot conceive of how 170m fans might generate an additional US$1 a year in 10 years time.

(As a personal opinion, I do actually believe that Liverpool could fill an 80,000 stadium week in week out if tickets were free because I believe that fans would respect a club who appreciated that those who turned up to support the club at the ground were part of the team. But that is very subjective judgment. What I will tell you is this is that the global fan base would like to see an 80,000 stadium packed for free because they have been monetised rather than a 40,000 stadium being charged enormous prices to cheer on their team.

No offence intended but you have no idea what you are talking about.