Topic: NESV leaning towards a 'new stadium' and facilities

[Easy]

It will probably prove cheaper in the long run to ditch the design, take a hit on the balance sheet, and come up with a more economical layout. Redesigning the stadium should cost a fraction of the £45 million allegedly paid by H&G.

Allegedly being the key word. The most expensive plans for a stadium anywhere, ever.

[LiverBirdKop]

Yet to see anyone provide numbers $$ pro-redevelopment option after all the talk. If all NESV/FSG will do is add 4,000/5,000 extra seats over a few years then they'll have to get extremely creative in order to generate extra revenue from other areas to at least keep the other top clubs within eye sight and make the team competitive.

No matter which route they decide to go, you can take it to the bank that we'll see higher ticket prices regardless.

[scouse29]

Yet to see anyone provide numbers $$ pro-redevelopment option after all the talk. If all NESV/FSG will do is add 4,000/5,000 extra seats over a few years then they'll have to get extremely creative in order to generate extra revenue from other areas to at least keep the other top clubs within eye sight and make the team competitive.

No matter which route they decide to go, you can take it to the bank that we'll see higher ticket prices regardless.

4000 extra seats is pointless. I want a season ticket and this small minded approach solves nothing.

[LiamG]

Ho-ho

That's your input?

[LiamG]

Why would it not be a serious question? Your an architect I asked for your opinion

[BostonScouse]

Yet to see anyone provide numbers $$ pro-redevelopment option after all the talk. If all NESV/FSG will do is add 4,000/5,000 extra seats over a few years then they'll have to get extremely creative in order to generate extra revenue from other areas to at least keep the other top clubs within eye sight and make the team competitive.

No matter which route they decide to go, you can take it to the bank that we'll see higher ticket prices regardless.

Have you seen Fenway and the surrounding area? If FSG could have added 20-30k seats they most certainly would have, but it's the smallest and oldest "park" in the U.S. (a park because seating doesn't even stretch allt he way around)  squeezed into the heart of a wealthy city. Not really comparable at all other than that they faced the same dilemma and would have built a new stadium if not for fan opposition.

Bottom line is if there's revenue to be gained from expanding capacity, FSG will certainly do it to the maximum of their potential, and if the fans are more ambivalent about renovation v. a new stadium then they'll simply choose the option that maximizes this. Why are you making posts about only adding 4,000 seats and it being "pointless" as if this observation is worth anymore than saying "if FSG are going to throw money down the toilet then they might as well not bother?" Do you think that FSG is just going to add 4k seats for the sake of it? Most of these posts are just empty, half-assed speculation; if there's no sentimental reason to dig in your heels as fans over new stadium v. renovation then what are you even talking about? Until there's concrete proposals what are looking for? Nobody here has a clue about the economics of it, the limits of adding seating capacity or what project makes the most sense. One way or another you'll have a new stadium (whether refurbished or brand new) and it'll be nice and will take advantage of what FSG determines demand to be. There's way too many complicated and unknown aspects to this to even have an educated opinion on it at this point.

[LiverBirdKop]

I’m sure you’ve read what JWH had to say about the relative affluence and numbers of fans in the north and in the south.  I think those statements are uncontested and uncontestable.   We have less potential for growth in matchday revenue in Liverpool than in London.  As much as I hate so-called facts - it’s a fact you really can take to the bank.  So we have to do better than the others elsewhere (TV etc etc).  But saying it, don’t make it happen - for anyone - you have to go out there and get the business.  Something for which it seems NESV have a better track record than most.

I'm conscious about the difference between north and south. No argument there. If people are saying we could achieve the same match day revenue as Arsenal, to put it mildly that would be a pretty tall order.
At the same time, one can't use the north-south argument for stadium attendance and not for tv rights. Common sense would say that a larger population and more affluent area would equal higher viewership and ratings which would equal higher revenue from advertising. When I brought the TV rights into the discussion before (Lakers), I did so as an example of how crazy and unpredictable the sports business can be. Not sure when the current TV deals expire and what the possibilities of allowing teams to negotiate on their own will be, but the disparity it could/would create between small and big clubs would be a formidable obstacle to overcome. If that were to happen it could potentially be another massive revenue stream which could make the cost of a new stadium mute as well. 

I believe prices are maxed out or near as damn it, I really do - but what we can do is make more room in the ‘stands’ and boxes for more people who can afford the current higher prices for hospitality and get more fresh faces into standard seats elsewhere.

That may be the case that prices are maxed out, but do you honestly believe NESV/FSG won't be increasing ticket prices anyway?

A straight swap of seats to increase the number of premium seats and boxes and a reduction in overall capacity is a possible but very short-sighted first step.  It will price out the future - not nice.

Yeah, that wouldn't be good at all. Non starter there.

About 54,000 may be a better number.  You could create roughly double the number of premium seats (probably the most we could ever fill) and increase the availability of standard seats as well.  Number of boxes?? Take your pick, but at about 50 (currently 31) and running at the same prices as now, the overall ‘revenue per seat’ would be about £1320 - very similar to Man U (£1316).

50 sounds about right. I read about this somewhere a few years ago. Some team was getting creative. As we all know, a lot of fans pool together to buy ST and then split the games, so what they were going to do was to allow ST holders to upgrade to boxes(set aside for special events ) for certain games therefore allowing more STs into the games. Of course if someone or a company wanted the boxes then they'd get them.

So if we want to compete for revenue and for profit but are restricted by the amount we, the fans can pay, we really need to avoid a new and massive stadium

Why does the stadium have to be massive?

[xerxes1]

I’m conscious these posts are getting longer and longer - please bear with me. 

A redevelopment makes more in the short term (where otherwise, you would just be paying out during construction of a new stadium) and makes a greater profit in the long term (because the costs are less).

So if we want to compete for revenue and for profit but are restricted by the amount we, the fans can pay, we really need to avoid a new and massive stadium.

Some good points in the main body of your post let down by some needlessly, and patently incorrect, observations.

The first para is untrue .You take a portion of naming rights, sponsorship, premium income upfront during construction,you can also offset construction costs against profits and end load the finance costs.. We simply cannot speculate on the exact figures. We can say that " you would simply be paying out during construction of a new stadium" is wrong for the aforementioned reasons.

The second para is untrue.The idea that a limited redevelopment can compete in terms of  revenue generation with a new 60k stadium requires no further comment out of kindness.

If you want to make the reasonable point that a redeveloped Anfield which offers hospitality and additional seating commensurate to demand, and could get planning, all big ifs, might compete with a new stadium option both in terms of revenue and profit, then do so. That is true and accepted by all.

The issue of comparative profit is just a guess on your part.Without knowing the scale and cost of redevelopment you can come to no such conclusion.

[LiverBirdKop]

Have you seen Fenway and the surrounding area? If FSG could have added 20-30k seats they most certainly would have, but it's the smallest and oldest "park" in the U.S. (a park because seating doesn't even stretch allt he way around)  squeezed into the heart of a wealthy city. Not really comparable at all other than that they faced the same dilemma and would have built a new stadium if not for fan opposition.

I have been to Fenway and I'm also aware of plans before NESV purchased the team to build a new Fenway a couple hundred yards away behind home plate.It was a little bit more complicated than just "fan opposition".

Why are you making posts about only adding 4,000 seats and it being "pointless" as if this observation is worth anymore than saying "if FSG are going to throw money down the toilet then they might as well not bother?"

The 4,000 number was just
1-a number/guess based on my answer to another poster who was saying the redevelopment would be "modest", and
2-going by what NESV have done at Fenway since they took over.
Please quote where I said it was "pointless"? Take your time and good luck finding where I said that. And I'm "making posts" because we're having a discussion with other posters. If you have a problem with that, feel free to not join in and move on.

Do you think that FSG is just going to add 4k seats for the sake of it?

Pretty ridiculous question.

Most of these posts are just empty, half-assed speculation; if there's no sentimental reason to dig in your heels as fans over new stadium v. renovation then what are you even talking about? Until there's concrete proposals what are looking for? Nobody here has a clue about the economics of it, the limits of adding seating capacity or what project makes the most sense.

No kidding it's all just speculation. Did you miss where I said the exact thing myself a few posts ago? Too funny. Maybe you should slow down a little and actually read what's already been said before jumping in all guns blazing into a discussion that no one's forcing you to participate in.

One way or another you'll have a new stadium (whether refurbished or brand new) and it'll be nice and will take advantage of what FSG determines demand to be. There's way too many complicated and unknown aspects to this to even have an educated opinion on it at this point.

"You'll"?. Little slip up there maybe "Boston Scouse"? One way or another I want what's best for my club, short and long term. We've had enough of charlatans and BS the last few years.
A refurbished stadium is not the same as a new stadium either. Been to Fenway and after $285m.(or around $240m. at the time I guess) spent on it, it sure didn't seem all that "new" to me. 

[BostonScouse]

I have been to Fenway and I'm also aware of plans before NESV purchased the team to build a new Fenway a couple hundred yards away behind home plate.It was a little bit more complicated than just "fan opposition".

False.

The 4,000 number was just
1-a number/guess based on my answer to another poster who was saying the redevelopment would be "modest", and
2-going by what NESV have done at Fenway since they took over.

You should read my post again before going on about "reading whats been said." Going by what they did at Fenway is irrelevant here. Completely different situation.

Please quote where I said it was "pointless"? Take your time and good luck finding where I said that. And I'm "making posts" because we're having a discussion with other posters. If you have a problem with that, feel free to not join in and move on.

Excuse me for translating this;

If all NESV/FSG will do is add 4,000/5,000 extra seats over a few years then they'll have to get extremely creative in order to generate extra revenue from other areas to at least keep the other top clubs within eye sight and make the team competitive.

Into "pointless." I take it back, what an excellent and nuanced point; if FSG are going to arbitrarily add the same number of seats that they did in Fenway then they won't get enough revenue from those additional seats to make them competitive unless they "get extremely creative" in other areas. So similarly, if FSG were to do nothing at all, they would also be in the same position. Again, the only commonality between anfield and fenway is the ownership group, the t.v. contracts, marketing, sales, ticket prices, demographics, regulations etc. are all entirely different. Also I would posit that you actually have no clue whether they can remain competitive by adding only 4-5k seats, since, you know, you do actually have no idea what you're talking about.
 

Pretty ridiculous question.  No kidding it's all just speculation. Did you miss where I said the exact thing myself a few posts ago? Too funny. Maybe you should slow down a little and actually read what's already been said before jumping in all guns blazing into a discussion that no one's forcing you to participate in.

Then why would they only add 4,000 seats if that'll leave them "needing to get extra creative in other areas" (according to your audit) to be competitive? I've read the majority of this thread, all it is is a repetitive reincarnation of this conversation
 

"You'll"?. Little slip up maybe "Boston Scouse"?

What is this even supposed to mean? obviously since my name is "BOSTON" Scouse I don't live in liverpool and won't be getting a new stadium. But yeah you caught me again! just as impressive as this wonderful blunder a few pages ago (which you've yet to own up to):

You sound familiar. Forgot your other screen name? Please explain why you think it's laughable. Every single one of the NESV investors/partners/members whatever you want to call them is public. It's not that difficult to learn about them.what they do and what they're worth. Plenty of articles of all kinds on all of those names from a simple search.

John W. Henry - Principal Owner
Thomas C. Werner - Chairman
Thomas R. DiBenedetto
Michael Egan
David Ginsberg
Michael Gordon
John A. Kaneb
Seth Klarman
Larry Lucchino
Henry F. McCance
Phillip H. Morse
The New York Times Company
Art Nicholas
Frank Resnek
Martin Trust
Jeffrey Vinik

In response to this post which you struggled mightily to digest apparently:

did the email say that he doubted they "had the money" for a new stadium or that they were hesitant to commit to building a new stadium? The idea that they don't have the money to do whatever they want in terms of a stadium is laughable, and even a superficial glance at their membership would have confirmed that. it would make sense for them to want to leave their options open though.

One way or another I want what's best for my club, short and long term. A refurbished stadium is not the same as a new stadium either. Been to Fenway and after $285m.(or around $240m. at the time I guess) spent on it, it sure didn't seem all that "new" to me.

I guess you didn't go to Fenway before then, or make the realization that it was built in 1911 and is the same structure that it was back then (unlike the anfield stands). Either way what they did in Fenway is about as relevant as your input on this topic and your quest to out me as some kind of nefarious figure (not at all). if you want what's best for the club then you have something in common with FSG, whose interests are one and the same.

[LiverBirdKop]

False.

Is "false" the best you can do? Which part? Please enlighten us. I'll be more than happy to admit I had incorrect information.
About the so-called "blunder". You didn't have a problem with what I said back then when you replied directly to the quote you're reposting:

I think you misread my post since you made the exact same point I was making.

So are you here just to tell us how wonderful FSG are and how they have nothing but the investment's club's best interest at heart as often as possible? 

Yes! It's all speculation! If that wasn't obvious enough to you being that this is a -supporters forum- maybe they should put a reminder at the top of every page .

Supporters Forum= speculation on scores, new players, players to be sold, line-ups, injuries, formations, tactics, redevelopment, new stadium, future jerseys, finances, etc etc etc.   
As I said, I've been to Fenway twice, last time in 2008. But thanks for reminding me about how old that place is since I would never have noticed! 
After $285m., goodness, it must've been a miracle that place was still standing since I didn't think it was that "pristine" the last time I was there. Definitely not reflective of the price$ they were charging for just about everything.

Two quick questions if it's alright BostonScouse. Are you from Liverpool?
When was the last time you went to Anfield? 

[xerxes1]

For me, the key point from the above posts is that refurbishment/redevelopment is no soft option.In situ, it can be more expensive, and represent a compromise on the ideal.

At the heart of this is the absence of any information from FSG on what is being actively considered.That in itself will tell us much. They may simply not have the cash/will for a new stadium which poses another set of questions altogther.

[xerxes1]

Xerxes, I’m more than happy to give figures based on my experience.  This is information, not speculation or guesswork.  I’m really not bothered that you can’t see the difference/work this out for yourself but you seem a bright enough bloke, why don’t you have a go.And do me a favour, don't put words in my mouth about what I am arguing and then accept them as true.

Your error is simply to represent a scenario as an only conclusion.That is where you needlessly subvert your own credibility.I only ever quote you and haul you up when you make that mistake.

If you are not - that's fine.

A redeveloped stadium could be the answer- a new stadium could make us significant profit.The detail will determine the answer.No-one on here denies the former, least of all me.

Your bizarre belief in naming rights as cost rather than direct windfall,and refusal to acknowledge the significance of them, leaves you open to ridicule, and damages a perfectly tenable case ( a redevelopment that delivers on objectives may be cheaper and more culturally satisfying than a new stadium).

Your contribution to this thread has been unique in that others have had to put your case for you, as well as the counter-case.Instead of representing a perfectly valid point of view (as put above), and which you frequently do in part, you insist on bolting on a kamikaze extra- which is what none of us get.

[xerxes1]

Apparently the club is making an announcement on the Season ticket waiting list today.It will be interesting to see how this pans out.Arsenals move was predicated on their ST/Hospitality waiting lists.

[The Flying Pig]

The club is conducting a full-scale review if the season ticket waiting list.

http://www.lfc.tv/news/latest-news/season-ticket-waiting-list-announcement

This may be a step towards a decision to renovate or rebuild if they can get an accurate picture of the true extent of the season ticket waiting list.

[Coady]

Apparently the club is making an announcement on the Season ticket waiting list today.It will be interesting to see how this pans out.Arsenals move was predicated on their ST/Hospitality waiting lists.

What was the outcome of the Arsenal move?

[xerxes1]

What was the outcome of the Arsenal move?

Arsenal were able to presell the additional season ticket and corporate space on the basis of existing demand.

The news that the Club has set a deadline of 29/4 for ST waiting list returned "confirmations" suggests that neither a new stadium, nor redevelopment announcements , are imminent this summer.

For whatever reason, the stadium"issue" appears to be on the back burner.

[Canada Loves Anfield]

I guess its not really "ITK" info or anything like that, but I took the tour of Anfield last week cause my bird has never done it. I was talking with some of the older tour guides and they all seem very confident that Anfield is going to be redeveloped. They said NESV are going to buy out those houses behind the Main Stand and expand the Anfield Road end. They said that it looks as though they were planning to get Anfield to 60, 000. I asked as many as I could to see if it was just one trying to spout shite, but all of them seem extremely confident that Anfield is going to be redeveloped. Hope it happens. Just passing on what I heard...

[rafathegaffa83]

They said NESV are going to buy out those houses behind the Main Stand and expand the Anfield Road end. They said that it looks as though they were planning to get Anfield to 60, 000. I asked as many as I could to see if it was just one trying to spout shite, but all of them seem extremely confident that Anfield is going to be redeveloped. Hope it happens. Just passing on what I heard...

Would make sense, considering the club has been buying up houses in that area for years.

[LiverBirdKop]

Interesting that they're 'only' going to check the first 25,000.  The result might give an indication of how many duplicates (or triplicates) there are but the total number won't be clear-cut.

I'm leaning towards triplicates. 

They do mention that they'll contact the rest of the list later in the year.

Later this year, the Club plan that a further communication will be made to remaining supporters (outside of the first 25,000 already contacted) outlining their options if they wish to remain on the list and be considered should a Season Ticket become available in the future.

[TepidT2O]

So can we assume from this that having 25,000 waiting for a season ticket would be a magic number in any decision making process?

Tell me if I'm extrapolating too much.

[igerera]

On Fenway, can you tell us a bit more (or give us a link) of the history surrounding the ‘decision’ to stay?  I understand there was also a complication with the Big Dig?

With the period of major Fenway renovations coming to an end, John Henry talked a little bit about the Fenway decision (and other topics) in this interview with one of the Boston sports radio stations this week (3/1/11)  -- http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2011/03/01/john-henry-on-big-show-mlb-fined-him-500k-for-revenue-sharing-comments/

When you first bought Fenway, were you aware of the discussions about building a new park?

I saw the model about a year before buying.

Was renovating Fenway always your plan, or had there been public support for a new park, might you have gone that route?

For me, personally, I’ve always loved Fenway Park. To me, you could never replicate in a new park the feeling of history that Ty Cobb stood at that plate, Ted Williams. It would have been a difficult transition for me personally and I think for a lot of the people, maybe most of the people, in the group. We had to study — and we did — we had to study both sides. But to answer your question directly, if we’d have had all the support, that plan included public money. I’m not sure we would have, in the real world, had a lot of support for putting a lot of public dollars into the new facility.

With public funding, would you have built a new park that would have been more spacious and that would have had a traditional look?

It’s possible, because anything you can do to enhance the fan experience, you want to do. But could you replicate what we have at Fenway? No. So there would have been arguments on both sides. We didn’t have that opportunity, so it’s a little bit pointless to speculate what we would have done if we’d been given…I don’t know. I think it was a $600 million ballpark, something along those lines. And I think the Red Sox were going to be on the hook for something like $100 million. It probably would have been more. It’s hard to speculate, going back. But to try to answer your question, it would have been a difficult decision if we could have gone large enough, if taxpayers were willing to pay those kinds of dollars, it probably would have been economically beneficial for us to go that route.

Would it have been impossible to do something like that privately?

I don’t know about impossible, but I’d just spent three years in Florida trying to do something along those lines. I didn’t really come here with any kind of expectation that we were going to get the kind of help we would have needed to spend $600 million. We ended up spending, I think, $285 million, which was far more than we’d anticipated spending on Fenway. But we did more than we had anticipated in making Fenway a better fan experience and a better ballpark.

Do you still ever discuss a new park, or given the spending on renovations, are you committed to remaining in Fenway?

I don’t see a choice. I just don’t see a choice, especially with the economics that exist today for Massachusetts and locally. I think it’s a non-starter. Someday, will it make sense for the club and maybe for the community? Maybe someday. But what we’ve done and the reason we’ve spent so much money is to try to make sure this ballpark will be vibrant and viable for the next 50 years. So probably not in my lifetime will we see a new ballpark.

This ballpark will last another 50 years?

Yes. We spent $50 or $60 million on waterproofing. Waterproofing means removal of concrete. It was a major undertaking to [ensure] the structural viability of Fenway for the next 50 years.

[campioni]

So can we assume from this that having 25,000 waiting for a season ticket would be a magic number in any decision making process?

Tell me if I'm extrapolating too much.

i don't think the 25,000 number has too much significance at the minute. from the info released so far it seems they are contacting all those people who requested to be on the waiting list prior to the introduction of fan cards in 2004. it sounds like that number just happened to be approx 25,000.

once they have dealt with that group and have worked out how many of those still wish to be on the list, they will probably deal with the rest.

[xerxes1]

The lack of transparency in the process begs more questions than it answers in the stadium decision.

At last there appears to be some sort of science being applied.Yet it also appears that nothing much else of substance has happened to date as you can commission little in the way of studies that is substantive without some sort of guide on capacity.But hey ho, a measurable start is being made.

How the 70,000 on the list will distill down is anyones guess. But once it has, the numbers of those who do want ST's, yet have not applied as it has appeared a pointless exercise, will need to be added.

The end result will serve to smoke out FSG's intentions. If the 70k, plus new registrations distills to a few thousand, the redevelopment case is overwhelming. If it is 10,000 plus the new stadium becomes favourite, with the attractiveness increasing in proportion to the surplus as "demand led" selling increases prices.

With the existing planning consents due to expire in July, and the first 25,000 deadline not until the start of May, the evidence is that the existing consent will not now be implemented. In itself that is not a surprise. The design is four years old, and advances have been made.The materials choice is four years old, again material costs have altered significantly both up and down. And that does not even start to allow for owner preference.

[LiamG]

I think with the season tickets its more to clear up the list rather than see what will happen with a stadium, People who registered for a season ticket might not want one again,may have died, etc

[scouse29]

I’m conscious these posts are getting longer and longer - please bear with me. 

I’m sure you’ve read what JWH had to say about the relative affluence and numbers of fans in the north and in the south.  I think those statements are uncontested and uncontestable.   We have less potential for growth in matchday revenue in Liverpool than in London.  As much as I hate so-called facts - it’s a fact you really can take to the bank.  So we have to do better than the others elsewhere (TV etc etc).  But saying it, don’t make it happen - for anyone - you have to go out there and get the business.  Something for which it seems NESV have a better track record than most.

I believe prices are maxed out or near as damn it, I really do - but what we can do is make more room in the ‘stands’ and boxes for more people who can afford the current higher prices for hospitality and get more fresh faces into standard seats elsewhere.

A suitably modest development would be any first step in a long term plan.  A redevelopment makes more in the short term (where otherwise, you would just be paying out during construction of a new stadium) and makes a greater profit in the long term (because the costs are less).

A straight swap of seats to increase the number of premium seats and boxes and a reduction in overall capacity is a possible but very short-sighted first step.  It will price out the future - not nice.

About 54,000 may be a better number.  You could create roughly double the number of premium seats (probably the most we could ever fill) and increase the availability of standard seats as well.  Number of boxes?? Take your pick, but at about 50 (currently 31) and running at the same prices as now, the overall ‘revenue per seat’ would be about £1320 - very similar to Man U (£1316).

But, getting above that number will be hard to accommodate, because having maximised the premium seats, you can only add standard seats and boxes (which anyway seem to have limited appeal) so as the stadium gets bigger, the revenue per seat starts to fall but since it costs less, more ‘profit’ is possible or, you can increase prices (which shrinks the market - a difficult balance but one you can make, whereas a new stadium commits you to a cost and a required revenue - there is no flexibility to manage the risk).

However everyone (at the top) apart from Arsenal (and City who have a cheap new stadium off the council) enjoys the benefit of reduced costs of redevelopment and to build new we put us in the same boat of cost as the Emirates.  We don’t have luxury apartment sales to rely on (2,000 apartments at about 450k a pop is a lot of money - Anfield Plaza as valuable?, I think not). 

In the London market Arsenal could stuff in as much upmarket stuff as they could possibly manage.  If you can afford £2000 for a standard season - fine, but if you’re up against it with prices, a new stadium hits you with a triple whammy of falling revenue per seat, exponentially increasing cost and reduced profit as it gets bigger and bigger.

So if we want to compete for revenue and for profit but are restricted by the amount we, the fans can pay, we really need to avoid a new and massive stadium.

I'm sorry, I genuinely didn't think it was a serious question.

But how much would you pay for it?

What has that got to do with anything?

You asked me before what i would pay for a match ticket

[Canada Loves Anfield]

Would make sense, considering the club has been buying up houses in that area for years.

Yeh, but there are those 2 or 3 houses that have been holding out for a big pay out. The guides were insisting that Henry and co. are ready to just pay up and get them the fuck out so they can knock them down now.

[Coady]

I guess its not really "ITK" info or anything like that, but I took the tour of Anfield last week cause my bird has never done it. I was talking with some of the older tour guides and they all seem very confident that Anfield is going to be redeveloped. They said NESV are going to buy out those houses behind the Main Stand and expand the Anfield Road end. They said that it looks as though they were planning to get Anfield to 60, 000. I asked as many as I could to see if it was just one trying to spout shite, but all of them seem extremely confident that Anfield is going to be redeveloped. Hope it happens. Just passing on what I heard...

Would the older tour guides know this much? the Last time I did the stadium tour they told us similar, and that was 2008.

[scouse29]

oops, sorry

Apology accepted but i still dont see what difference what i would pay for a ticket has to do with anything?

[..Bruiser..]

Fair enough whether they decide to redevelop or not. I believe it would cost less but still a lot obviously. We'd still be behind the mancs by a long way on match revenue though at 60k.

[unusg]

we have to accept that we will remain a long way behind the mancs even with a new or re-developed ground. they had the land, space, the money and foresight to build a big stadium which no one else in the UK can compete with. Instead we have to be creative in how we generate income and on player recruitment and sales. i can live with that as long as we are competitive on the pitch and challenging for trophies.

[Mackeroo]

If they do decide to redevelop then that's good enough for me. These guys have demonstrated with the renovation of Fenway, that they can undertake, and complete, a major stadium refurb.

I would be interested to get people's views on whether once the initial renovation is complete to say 60,000 seats, would there be future scope for expansion to increase capacity further should the need arise?

Obviously we can't say for certain without seeing plans etc, but what is the general consensus?

[LiverBirdKop]

If they do decide to redevelop then that's good enough for me. These guys have demonstrated with the renovation of Fenway, that they can undertake, and complete, a major stadium refurb.

A 10 year plan at a cost of $285 million while ultimately just adding 10% extra seats(not even 4,000) is what they've done at Fenway.
Without question, different circumstances including the need for much more than 10% extra seats on our end.

Edit: Consider that baseball's off-season is 5-6 months. Ours is less than 3.

 

[Mackeroo]

A 10 year plan at a cost of $285 million while ultimately just adding 10% extra seats(not even 4,000) is what they've done at Fenway.
Without question, different circumstances including the need for much more than 10% extra seats on our end.

I know what they've done at Fenway mate, I've was there before the 10 year plan kicked in. Can't wait to go back and see the finished project in person. All I was saying was that their redevelopment was successful, considering that they faced some constraints with regards to the old structure.

We definitely need more than a 10% increase in capacity, that much is certain.

My question was more related to what are people's views on the refurb. Once it has been completed will the new capacity be finite, or will there be further scope for expansion? I just hope that whatever decision is taken is in the best interests of the club, not just a short-term fix, but a long-lasting solution.

Basically I mean that I don't want us to redevelop and then 10/15/20 years down the track we still need a new stadium, hence my question about further scope for expansion.

Hope that makes sense.

[LiverBirdKop]

My question was more related to what are people's views on the refurb. Once it has been completed will the new capacity be finite, or will there be further scope for expansion? I just hope that whatever decision is taken is in the best interests of the club, not just a short-term fix, but a long-lasting solution.

Well, the answer to your question depends on how much they do at Anfield. I personally have serious reservations about what FSG can and will do investment wise.

[LiamG]

Basically I mean that I don't want us to redevelop and then 10/15/20 years down the track we still need a new stadium, hence my question about further scope for expansion.

Hope that makes sense.

makes sense to me, its exacly what i was thinking!

I dont want us to expand and then not be able to expand anymore! FSG need to think about this and that will ultimatley depend on how long they intend to be in charge for

If Anfield gets maxed out at say 65K, is there any point in re-developing it?

[xerxes1]

The "what" FSG choose to do is less important than the "why".

What is significant currently is how little FSG appear to have done to come to a balanced decision.

[LiverBirdKop]

The "what" FSG choose to do is less important than the "why".

What is significant currently is how little FSG appear to have done to come to a balanced decision.

How is the what less important than the why? What they do is the end product and the why we'll probably never know beyond their sweet PR talk.

[Paddock77]

The "what" FSG choose to do is less important than the "why".

What is significant currently is how little FSG appear to have done to come to a balanced decision.

How do you know that FSG have done "little....... to come to a balanced decision"?

[xerxes1]

How do you know that FSG have done "little....... to come to a balanced decision"?

Ascertaining the level of demand from the existing ST database (sic) will not be completed until after the existing consents have expired.

Demand is the startpoint for any balanced decision on redevelopment v new stadium.

No application for a detailed consent on Anfield Plaza has been made.Without such a consent it is an unquantifiable asset and cannot be offset against a new stadium costs.

Any redevelopment of Anfield would require planning permission, no application has been made, or public consultation  taken place.

Of course it is possible that estimates have been prepared, but without the guide of what scale of project is required, and what prospect of success such a project might have, it amounts to very little.