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

[Abrak]

Actually you guys are missing what I believe is behind what might be a much the 'concept' of a much 'enlarged Eastlands.'

As we know Manchester is basically Red. We also know that match day ticket prices are a total disgrace and that Sheik has money coming out of his ears. He is therefore in a very strong position to claim a huge moral high ground in Manchester over football by building an 80,000 capacity Eastlands and reducing basic match da ticket prices to 15 quid. In the article it talks about junior season tickets at 90 quid. You are literally talking about fans moving from old trafford to Eastlands and to football fans being 'converted' to City. I do feel 50 quid tickets at Old Trafford is a big issue.

Now of course it wont do much for City's revenues but it will sure as murder United match day revenues. And as the costs dont matter for FFP I dont see why they will be bothered it will be very much a case of creative destruction.

Match day revenues have stalled in the EPL... personally I think it is only a question of time before someone builds a bigger stadium to actually cut prices.

[Red Beret]

No, no, no!  You can’t buy fan loyalty with cheap tickets even between Man U and Manchester City.  Club support in this country is part of the social fabric, sense of community and civic pride.  Dumping seats on to the market at Eastlands won’t make one jot of difference to OT - other than the fans there will moan about the low prices elsewhere.

Expenditure on stadia doesn’t count in FFP rules but matchday revenue certainly does!  Manchester City need more not less to cover their enormous wage bill - hence the massive commercial element to the Eastlands scheme.  Doesn’t matter where the revenue comes from as long as it comes into the club.

Except for the fact that the modern fan is a glory hunting plastic who will switch allegiances at the drop of the hat for a club that's winning trophies and has dirt cheap seats - especially if you're having to travel miles for 'your' club's home games.  As for matchday revenue, well City could build an 80k stadium, halve prices and, with their new plastic army, probably still make more money than they do now.

City and Utd both have their hard core supporters, just like we do in this city.  But our city is smaller and much more tribal.  I'm pretty sure if Utd stopped winning a fair number would change sides, especially in the youth stakes.  It's a basic rule in business - get them in young and establish brand loyalty.  And of course, if it forces the parents to take the kids to watch games as well...

[Zeb]

Except for the fact that the modern fan is a glory hunting plastic who will switch allegiances at the drop of the hat for a club that's winning trophies and has dirt cheap seats - especially if you're having to travel miles for 'your' club's home games.  As for matchday revenue, well City could build an 80k stadium, halve prices and, with their new plastic army, probably still make more money than they do now.

City and Utd both have their hard core supporters, just like we do in this city.  But our city is smaller and much more tribal.  I'm pretty sure if Utd stopped winning a fair number would change sides, especially in the youth stakes.  It's a basic rule in business - get them in young and establish brand loyalty.  And of course, if it forces the parents to take the kids to watch games as well...

Would agree with that. Manchester City's main task will be to reverse nearly a generation of young lads in what were 'traditional' blue areas switching to supporting Manchester United. Lower ticket prices may help them with that. Personally, I think the market in Manchester is starting to feel the pinch financially. You can get Manchester United tickets fairly easily for all but the big matches now - the price escalation has really locked out a huge part of their traditional support. Manchester City are advertising tickets like crazy all season long and still don't sell out. More capacity for Manchester City just won't be filled at current prices. A few seasons of success may help them out there but I honestly can't see the city supporting two 70k+ stadiums even with non-local support at current prices.

[LiverBirdKop]

No, no, no!  You can’t buy fan loyalty with cheap tickets even between Man U and Manchester City.  Club support is part of the social fabric, sense of community and civic pride.  Dumping seats on to the market at Eastlands won’t make one jot of difference to OT - other than the fans there will moan about the low prices elsewhere.

In modern times fans have more loyalty to winning teams especially with young lads. Now give them a winning team with one or two world stars and half price tickets, and you have a winning combo for the future. We shall see that experiment develop before our eyes.

[tomtom]

No, no, no!  You can’t buy fan loyalty with cheap tickets even between Man U and Manchester City.  Club support is part of the social fabric, sense of community and civic pride.  Dumping seats on to the market at Eastlands won’t make one jot of difference to OT - other than the fans there will moan about the low prices elsewhere.

Expenditure on stadia doesn’t count in FFP rules but matchday revenue certainly does!  Manchester City need more not less to cover their enormous wage bill - hence the massive commercial element to the Eastlands scheme.  Doesn’t matter where the revenue comes from as long as it comes into the club.

If City build a massive new stadium, including a large away end and half their ticket prices I will go to every away game we play there. I'm sure there's plenty of others who wouldn't have been able to afford/get tickets for the City away game too in previous seasons.

Offering kids season tickets for £90 would win a lot of supporters over long term also. A lot of kids get into football without the influence of an elder.. I did anyway, only after I'd nailed my colours to the mast did my distant uncle start taking me to the match.

I live in Manchester now and Liverpool FC means the world to me, but if I didn't give a monkeys about football but one of my kids did, how easy would it be to send them off to the City games with a family friend or even buy them a season ticket for £90? That's a youngster converted. There will be thousands of scenarios like that too.

Is it even fair on the kids to try and make them support a team they probably won't be able to afford to go and watch until their 25? If they grow up with a local team in the top flight offering tickets for half the price of any other club in the land, realistically they are going to able to follow that team week in week out, as it should be. I honestly think I'd have to let them make their own decision rather than influencing them if that were to happen.

[west_london_red]

In modern times fans have more loyalty to winning teams especially with young lads. Now give them a winning team with one or two world stars and half price tickets, and you have a winning combo for the future. We shall see that experiment develop before our eyes.

Think you underestimate 'loyalty' of the plastics/glory hunters. We havent wont the league in over 20 years and we are still the second best supported team in the country, and probably miles ahead of 3rd (whoever that is). Fans are fickle, but they are not that fickle.

My older brother is an 80's glory hunter like most OOTs, he hasnt switched teams, he made sure I was a red when growing up in the lean 90's (im a glory hunter without the glory!), and we have ensured his son too is a Red, and that pretty much applies to most OTTs whether they support us, the Mancs or more recently Chelsea.

[xerxes1]

There is some truth in much of what has been said here.

It is true that old tribal loyalties die hard, and are passed on. It is also true to say that since the inception of the PL significant new numbers have come to football, and as a Club we have been about the worst in the North West at capitalising on that growth.

There is a huge appetite for PL football. In greater Manchester , for the non-committed, if watching Man U v West Brom costs you £50 at OT, but £25 quid to see Man City v  Wba, do not underestimate where they will go. So how big is the “uncommitted” marketplace – it’s vast. 1990 to 2009 average PL attendances in the North West have risen by 75% (115,403) – our share? Down 9% at 16%.

On RAWK we are the exception, the converted, but the stats show that attendance patterns do shift:

1990 v 2009 av gate plus increase
Man U :39,331.... 75,304........35,973
Wigan: 2,769 .... 18350........ 15,581
Bolton 7292 ...... 22,486 .......15,194
Man City :27,975.. 42,899,.... 14,924
Blackburn 9,607.... 23,479..... 13,872
Everton: 26,353.. 35710..... 9357
LFC 36875......... 43611..... 6736
Blackpool 4,077.. 7,843 ..... 3,766
Total: 154279...... 269 682... 115,403
Av attendances rose by 75%

Share of North West Attendance 1990v 2009 and % change
Man U 25% ..28%.. +3%
LFC 24%.. 16% .. -9%
Man City 18% .. 16%.. -2%
Everton 17%.. 13% ..-4%
Blackburn 6% .. 9%.... +3%
Bolton 5% .. 9% .....+4%
Blackpool 3%... 3% ..... =
Wigan 2% ...3% ....+1%



Total increase in PL attendance in North West:115,403
LFC’s share of that increase: 6%
League Table of Increased Gate ( increase in average per club as a % of the overall increase in the period):
Man U 31%
Wigan 13%
Bolton 13%
Man City13%
Blackburn 12%
Everton 8%
LFC 6%
Blackpool 3%

League Table of percentage Increase in Gate:
Wigan 462%
Bolton 208%
Blackpool 183%
Blackburn 144%
Man U 91%
Man City 53%
Everton 36%
LFC 18%

[LiverBirdKop]

Think you underestimate 'loyalty' of the plastics/glory hunters. We havent wont the league in over 20 years and we are still the second best supported team in the country, and probably miles ahead of 3rd (whoever that is). Fans are fickle, but they are not that fickle.

You're right. We seem to have a very loyal following even worldwide , but we're a team with a lot of tradition. We may not have won the league in ages, but we did win the CL and made it to the final a couple years later. We also pushed for the title a couple years ago so we've been "in the news" as a winning team so to speak. My comments may apply more to foreigners, the Americas in particular. I have traveled extensively through South America and prior to Istambul there were no LFC jerseys to be seen anywhere but you'd run into people wearing the manc's and even Arsenal's. After 05 I'd see the occasional LFC but more painfully, quite a few Chelsea jerseys even though many of those "fans" had probably never heard of them until they won the PL a couple times.

[URS83]

the numbers on the grounds capacities don't look right for Anfield and Old Trafford.

[Abrak]

No, no, no!  You can’t buy fan loyalty with cheap tickets even between Man U and Manchester City.  Club support is part of the social fabric, sense of community and civic pride.  Dumping seats on to the market at Eastlands won’t make one jot of difference to OT - other than the fans there will moan about the low prices elsewhere.

Expenditure on stadia doesn’t count in FFP rules but matchday revenue certainly does!  Manchester City need more not less to cover their enormous wage bill - hence the massive commercial element to the Eastlands scheme.  Doesn’t matter where the revenue comes from as long as it comes into the club.

I agree that 'club support is part of the social fabric, sense of community and civic pride'. But you are wrong when you talk about City 'dumping seats'. Whenever you look at match day receipts and the stadium you seperate those revenues and those costs. Actually the match day attendees are an integral part of the 'whole' revenue stream that includes media revenues and commercial revenues. The match day attendees are the physical representatives for the TV viewers and the eye balls that are not there. If you asked a match day attendee in the Bundesliga whether his 20 euro ticket was 'ticket dumping' or whether Man U's 50 quid ticket was a 'rip off' I am pretty sure I know which answer you will get. I am also pretty sure which price cements 'club support as part of the social fabric, enhances a sense of community and civic pride'. The simple and undeniable fact is that many genuine supporters simply cannot afford to go and support their club at match days at current ticket prices and they certainly cannot afford to take their kids.

So with out a doubt in my mind, it will gain Man City a huge number of new supporters within the football community and amongst the next generation.

It is difficult to stitch together the social fabric of a community with 50 quid match day tickets.

[Abrak]

One of the concepts that clubs have got to get a grip with is that tickets might be reaching prices at which they are maximising economic revenues. In other words by raising prices your revenues could indeed fall. We are not in fact far from this in reality. For the top 6 clubs, which account for 60% of revenues in the EPL, match day ticket receipts actually fell 5% in 09/10.

Now once you reach this level you should be open to looking at other ways of looking at prices. If prices fall, the number of attendees could rise boosting revenues but as importantly those people who see lower prices maybe far more loyal to your club (appreciate the value in the ticket more.)

Actually the whole economic model for football is about 'taking it to the masses' whether it is about showing it on 'TV', to Indians, to the Chinese or whomever, there is little point in turning the match day attendance over to the BMW driver. It is far better to take some of the commercial revenues and the media revenues and use them to drive a large 'mass' match day attendance which is what your entire support base would like to see. The massive growth in football revenues should have enfranchised local support to be able watch their local team and not have disenfranchised it.

[jambutty]

The rising prices of tickets will always be with us.  A team striving for better things will always require more spending/income.

Fans will bite the bulllet or club together and split the tickets.

[TepidT2O]

On a completely different point of view.....

When will we know what's going to happen?

The planning permission was extended to July(?) wasn't it?

That should surely mean that we know what will happen in the next couple of months shoukdnt it?

[xerxes1]

On a completely different point of view.....

When will we know what's going to happen?

The planning permission was extended to July(?) wasn't it?

That should surely mean that we know what will happen in the next couple of months shoukdnt it?

I think that the planning  expires around 27/7. But in itself, that’s not a big deal , Stanley Park is not going to be snapped up by someone else!

FSG don’t have to say anything. It was reported that there were 70,000 names on the ST waiting list. The processing of the first 25,000 names alone is unlikely to be completed prior to the end of July, meaning that there is no chance whatsoever of FSG being able to gauge ST demand by that date. At that rate they may not finish the exercise till the end of the year.

Ayres is properly exploring all naming rights options, no doubt with the help of TW. Until the scale of interest for New Stadium naming rights, Old Stadium renaming rights, and individual stand naming rights for Anfield have been established, together with the demand for new ST’s, FSG cannot make an informed decision. When that information will converge is anyone’s guess.

Meanwhile another pot-less season has slipped by, Arsenal and Man U have banked another £60m more than us from stadium revenues, our matchday income will decline against our key competitors still further as first we dropped out of the CL, then we dropped out of Europe altogether – just as FFP starts to bite. We are on the cusp.

[davenorthwales]

If City build a massive new stadium, including a large away end and half their ticket prices I will go to every away game we play there. I'm sure there's plenty of others who wouldn't have been able to afford/get tickets for the City away game too in previous seasons.

Offering kids season tickets for £90 would win a lot of supporters over long term also. A lot of kids get into football without the influence of an elder.. I did anyway, only after I'd nailed my colours to the mast did my distant uncle start taking me to the match.

it doesn't seem like nearly 10 years they've been there.. aren't they paying 3m to the council each year?.. i'm not sure how long their lease is for, probably a good few years. with a capacity of 47k, it does make you think how they can afford to do it, but it has to be only on the back of the rent.

[Zeb]

it doesn't seem like nearly 10 years they've been there.. aren't they paying 3m to the council each year?.. i'm not sure how long their lease is for, probably a good few years. with a capacity of 47k, it does make you think how they can afford to do it, but it has to be only on the back of the rent.

Lease was reported by local press to be for 250 years when it was first granted in 2003. Got renegotiated last year when they switched from a small percentage of ticket income (came to about £2m a year in the couple of years prior to the renegotiation) to the fixed £3m per year, but local press hasn't said whether lease was extended again. One of the side effects of the lease being renegotiated was that it seems that it was tied to the Manchester City owners paying for more regeneration work in that part of the city - the ground where FC United were going to play fell into that area and the council has pulled their funding and won't grant a lease on the proposed stadium site now. They've already got permission to extend to 60k capacity as well as to do a fairly massive redevelopment involving linked hotels etc and that kind of work doesn't fall under the new financial rules as far as I'm aware, although the income once its built can count towards offsetting the footballing side of things.

[davenorthwales]

would be better if the regeneration money went to places such as sure starts, modernising or replacing housing. etc and if they wanted to be serious they would have done it. nobody envisged a recession at the time so fancy hotels were on the cards and backhanders floating about for the construction firms.   the council knew what they were doing so they're in effect getting work done for nowt.. same as tesco in a way, councils grant them permission to build on a playing fields as long as they tart up the town a bit.

all the councils have the same module, build a hotel (hoping to attract incoming business) - it's the same everywhere, they all say the same thing, as if the answer to lifes probems is to build a hotel, attract the businesses.  at the end of the day, they could build all the hotels they want but there is a limited amount of businesses out there and not enough to spread around.

that is a long time for a lease with man city.  then again, stanley park lease was around 999 years lol. 3m per year over 140 = 420m = 3 times of what the stadium cost to build or 120m to build if they got someone in and take out a loan and pay 300m in interest over 20 years.

i wouldn't have thought a council were in a negotiating position to take a cut of the gate receipts - that doesn't sound quite right in practice as it gives the impression they have a run in the club or own part of it.. just because they own the land and lease it out doesn't mean they have affairs inside the business.

as councils are not that daft, someone is losing out somewhere and i can't see a club losing money cos they pay too much rent and i can't see the council leasing out too cheap.. if the balance is correct, how are city managing to do the cheap season tickets? something is subsidising it

[Zeb]

would be better if the regeneration money went to places such as sure starts, modernising or replacing housing. etc and if they wanted to be serious they would have done it. nobody envisged a recession at the time so fancy hotels were on the cards and backhanders floating about for the construction firms.   the council knew what they were doing so they're in effect getting work done for nowt.. same as tesco in a way, councils grant them permission to build on a playing fields as long as they tart up the town a bit.

all the councils have the same module, build a hotel (hoping to attract incoming business) - it's the same everywhere, they all say the same thing, as if the answer to lifes probems is to build a hotel, attract the businesses.  at the end of the day, they could build all the hotels they want but there is a limited amount of businesses out there and not enough to spread around.

that is a long time for a lease with man city.  then again, stanley park lease was around 999 years lol. 3m per year over 140 = 420m = 3 times of what the stadium cost to build or 120m to build if they got someone in and take out a loan and pay 300m in interest over 20 years.

i wouldn't have thought a council were in a negotiating position to take a cut of the gate receipts - that doesn't sound quite right in practice as it gives the impression they have a run in the club or own part of it.. just because they own the land and lease it out doesn't mean they have affairs inside the business.

as councils are not that daft, someone is losing out somewhere and i can't see a club losing money cos they pay too much rent and i can't see the council leasing out too cheap.. if the balance is correct, how are city managing to do the cheap season tickets? something is subsidising it

Got to remember Manchester City's financial position when they got given the lease on the stadium. Original lease was for the council to take half the ticket money from all tickets sold above 32k on a matchday. Could have meant that Manchester City paid no rent at all if they'd gone tumbling down the divisions again. The new lease seems to have been done with the planned expansion to 60k capacity in mind - the council get a fixed income still higher than the current lease while the club have the potential to take in even more money without having to share it with the council. Currently they do a season ticket for £260 - the catch is that where you sit is decided by the club so it's not a particularly popular option but they've now got their full 36k season ticket holders. Not sure how that's impacted upon other teams in the Greater Manchester area, but I know that Oldham and Bury do half-price admission for Manchester City season ticket holders when Manchester City are playing away but they're playing at home.

[davenorthwales]

i heard of that before, oldham charging less for man city supporters.  why just STH i don't get.. then again, i wouldn't normally go to see another team play out of general interest

jeez that sounds excessive the council taking 50% cut. mind you, that still could work out cheaper than a stadium build but only for a certain number of years.
well, the council would know about the possibility of relegation anyway - i'm sure they're not that shortsited. or are they?  around the time of 2002 they had anelka, fowler wasn't with them til shortly after.

what if they did go down say 4 years time? dwindling figures, they'd be starting to struggle to pay the rent never mind anything else. as they had a good support over the years even when they were in div 2 as their gates sugessted at the time, but a 30,000 crowd is a heck of a diference over a year than a 40k.

there will come a time when MC supporters realise it's costing to much.. i still can't find out what kind of work and take home pays manutd get to afford to get to matches and sustain it (as mentioned in other threads elswhere)..

lol, the ticket prices are in here too.. i was just saying last night, swansea is down the road from me and i said i haven't got far to go to see liverpool play.. then it dawned on me this morning, i dont think i can afford to go to that even.. i will go but it means saving up..

and that has finally woken me up completely.  i have already said ages ago that locals in liverpool cannot afford to go, and even if someone is living next door to anfield cannot go... and that is so sad.  and i know that for sure now when i have the opportunity, even if it's only a 25mins drive or 50 mins or so on the train and a 25 min walk..

[Zeb]

They've actually got a pot of money set aside especially to cover lease payments for future years (obviously not all 200+ years though). So I'd say they'd have a few years grace if the sheikhs did just pull out from the whole thing tomorrow.

It's the cup matches where Manchester City have really struggled to fill Eastlands (obviously that's not included in season ticket prices although they did a deal for the UEFA cup matches which worked out as £17 a match when you paid in advance). Half-full at best for third and fourth round FA cup this season, UEFA cup matches not selling out with £5 adult and £1 child prices. Can only imagine what the attendances would have been like without the slashed ticket prices. But £6 for a dad and his lad to go and watch a top four team play? About a tenner including travel from anywhere in the city boundaries and that's something every family can afford. Even if the club is barely covering costs, that's the kind of thing which is going to help keep them in touch with the next generation of season ticket holders and help build up the local support some more even if it's only a few matches a season where there's that kind of excess capacity from lack of demand.

Would imagine the other Greater Manchester clubs offering discounts to STHs would be because they're targetting people who already have shown they get to matches and may just fancy watching some kind of football every week even when their team plays away. (In a sense, it's a return to the old days of people turning up to watch whoever was at home that week - take out any sense of nastiness between the clubs involved and it works). I used to go watch Hull City play when I was at Uni for similar reasons - couldn't get to Anfield on a matchday but £4 to get in with student discount at Boothferry Park meant I could get to a match with some mates and have a few beers for under a tenner.

[davenorthwales]

do sunderland still do their cash for kids? i haven't heard much since when they let in kids for a pound. and stadium of light has a higher capacity.  i'll have to be reminded if other clubs do other schemes.

thats some going when you were up in hull. it does make me wonder how they do it - rather thn run the risk of a half full or less stadium as you say, knock down the price.  maybe the mancity scheme of doing cheap europa tickets was to get people intersted, as compared to liverpool as here people were going to go to the europa game anyway whereas with man city it maybe a lack of interest.

wasnt their replay with notts county on tv as well? or was it just the first tie televised. i remember the first one on itv as that was 1-1.  maybe they just dont enjoy the cup ties as we do.

oldham and bury have always been under the shadow of the other two for decades.  out of curiosity, i just had a look at bury website. gawd, do clubs still have those text alerts for news?  2011-12 prices are £19 for cat A and £18 for B.. 16-21 £13 and £14, under 16 £10 and £11.  maybe their promotion will get some people interested again, especially it has been the highest they have ever been

[Lothairio]

Just wish they'd hurry up and make a bloody decision one way or tother, and cut all this crap, bullshit, bollocks and speculation. How long is it now, 20 years? Kinell.... ..

[west_london_red]

Let’s dream a little (well, a lot) and say our market is much more valuable than the current world record and we blew Farmers’ Insurance (£15m) out of the water at £25m a year for naming rights, we might be up to speed with our competitors on revenue (with a FULL stadium) BUT we’d be paying OT prices and losing £30-£40m a year to pay for the cost of construction.

The right decision is obviously more important than getting a quick decision either way.

Could you include what assumptions you have made there?

For starters, how much is the stadium? How long is the naming deal? What are you assuming ticket prices to be? What capacity? What interest are we paying on loans?

I've probably missed a few other pieces of information but that should be enough to get us started.

[CraigDS]

And what's it's based on in terms of redev and the extra income, cost of, etc that includes.

[xerxes1]

Let’s dream a little (well, a lot) and say our market is much more valuable than the current world record and we blew Farmers’ Insurance (£15m) out of the water at £25m a year for naming rights, we might be up to speed with our competitors on revenue (with a FULL stadium) BUT we’d be paying OT prices and losing £30-£40m a year to pay for the cost of construction. £375m based on figures from the club and the most recently completed stadium in the UK of similar size and facilities; naming rights pro rated as an annual amount (as it says) based on known (and often quoted) figures from the Farmers' Insurance deal in the US; £1430 revenue per seat based on OT prices (as it says); 60k as the existing consent; 6-8% based on currently available money for similar projects (see discussion here). Can you question these numbers or say any different and back it up?

Could you include what assumptions you have made there?

The current world record deal is the Farmers stadium Los Angeles at $700m,possibly rising to $1000m. At an exchange rate of 1.6416 that is the equivalent of £426m -£609m.
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/news/story?id=6078709
The cost of a new stadium is now unknown, but £375m is a reasonable estimate. Matching the Farmers deal would provide a surplus of between  £51m and £183m (£1.7m pa-£6.1m pa) over the 30 year term. (In practise the surplus could simply be used to pay down the debt faster).

There is no £30m/£40m annual loss on construction, the naming rights revenue in this example  actually offers a surplus. We are unlikely to be able to match Old Trafford matchday income because there are no plans for a 76k stadium, nor can we command the CL/Title winning premium that Man U currently can. But we can offer a 15k uplift on capacity (up to 60k) with no cost not covered by that naming rights example. Furthermore, the Man u owners are currently servicing a debt ( not all Man U's) estimated at being as high as £1.1bn (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10237268) ours is variously estimated at being around £89m – and could decrease through a combination of naming rights surplus ( in that example) and additional revenue from the 15k seats.Our competitiveness in terms of liquid cash vis a vis Man U improves significantly .

It is true to say that owners have a habit of charging as much as they can for a seat. It is not true to say that there is any debt driven imperative to increase the price of a seat by  even a £1 in the example originally quoted. My personal view is that we are unlikely to match the Farmers example, but the conclusions drawn needed correcting in relation to the facts.

I hope that helps clarifying the detail of the discussion.

[west_london_red]

It was by way of a conclusion of stuff already said over the past two or three (?) years when this latest round of debate started.

If you want me to repeat it all, I can (but I won't) - or you can read back - but in brief and for starters and without having the entire debate again....

£375m based on figures from the club and the most recently completed stadium in the UK of similar size and facilities; naming rights pro rated as an annual amount (as it says) based on known (and often quoted) figures from the Farmers' Insurance deal in the US; £1430 revenue per seat based on OT prices (as it says); 60k as the existing consent; 6-8% based on currently available money for similar projects (see discussion here).  Can you question these numbers or say any different and back it up?

To be clear, what these numbers say is that even if we do fantastically well commercially - way, way better than the best in the world to date; if we absolutely fill the stadium and if we pay the best prices in the region, we are still not getting close to our closest rivals in terms of money for the team.

Can you repeat it all? can you show us the calculations that result in a £30-40 million decrease in net income?

As much as I have differed in opinion with ttndb over our previous owners (that not to say he supported them, he just didnt state an opinion), I would not argue with his knowledge and he stated a net increase on income of about £30 million if i remember correctly (apologies ttndb if i am mis-representing you)

[ultimatewarrior]

A fan posts his anger at the hesitation of the owners on making a decision about redevelopment or new build. Completly understandable in my eyes.

Just wish they'd hurry up and make a bloody decision one way or tother, and cut all this crap, bullshit, bollocks and speculation. How long is it now, 20 years? Kinell.... ..

But Peter somehow manages to take the posters comment and use it to feed his addiction to these threads. It must be a quiet time for architects.

[ultimatewarrior]

Let’s dream a little (well, a lot) and say our market is much more valuable than the current world record and we blew Farmers’ Insurance (£15m) out of the water at £25m a year for naming rights, we might be up to speed with our competitors on revenue (with a FULL stadium) BUT we’d be paying OT prices and losing £30-£40m a year to pay for the cost of construction.

The right decision is obviously more important than getting a quick decision either way.

Seriously Peter what promted you to reply to the previous comment ? Your reply is absolutely irrelevant to his frustrations. In my eyes , after a few days of inactivity surounding this subject, you just could help yourself and obviously have a little extra time on your hands to launch your opinions (that have been heard and challenged before) again and have repetitions of old conversations. I just dont understand it.

[ultimatewarrior]

As it happens, I'm very busy at the moment but there's plenty of time outside of work hours to comment here.  Tired of petty and meaningless bickering with Xerxes, I left it for a bit to give others a chance and the conversation stopped dead.

Exactly , because there is no new in formation. Tell me ! What is the point in rehashing past arguments that yourself and Xerxes had. Your post is just going to urge him or other members to have the same argument as before.

[xerxes1]

Like Peter, I was surprised that the thread stopped dead after a break.

He and I agree on far more than we disagree.The stadium decision process should take as long as it takes.At the current rate of progress simply working through the 70,000 ST waiting list will take till the end of the year.I would be uneasy if we took a decision on capacity without that basic exercise of establishing demand having been completed.

If we can revamp Anfield, creating modern uncompromised facilities and a significant increase in capacity sufficent to improve our FFP position, and do so economically at Anfield, I am happy with that, and I can think of few who would disagree.

Peter, justifiably highlights concerns about what a new stadium could mean for the fans- and those concerns are valid.

I am fond of the saying "You can either make it happen, let it happen, or wonder what has happened". My concern about the status quo is that I think that as a club we are now in the latter category. Fans are already paying inflated prices, in a capacity lower than our average capacity potential, in outdated facilities, that are delivering revenues below what the club should expect, which will increasingly affect our competitiveness on the pitch.Doing nothing is no longer an option. Whether it is a revamped Anfield , or a New Anfield, we all want the best deal for fans and the club.

I would expect Peter to challenge unreliable evidence that I offer, and I am sure he would expect the same from me.But on the basis of the facts only, and others can feel persuaded, or unpersuaded as they see fit.Forumistas should never doubt our common "best deal for the fans and the club" objective.

[west_london_red]

As I said, I can but I won't.  You want repetition, others don't

I did not ever say there would be any nett decrease in income.  I said that if we managed £1430 per seat with an absolutely full stadium and stupendously outstanding naming rights of £25m a year, our total 'matchday-related' revenue of £110m would be reduced by £30m - £40m to pay for the stadium.  That would be £70m or a worst case nett increase of £30m.

£1430 over say 25 games works out to be £57 a ticket. Taking into account that there will be say 10% of the stadium occupied by corporates (paying between £80 to a couple of hundred) an average of £57 doesnt seem unreasonable.

But without knowing what your estimating the stadium to cost, over how long your paying off any loans, how long a naming deal lasts and a whole host of other variables its difficult to say if a new stadium stacks up or not.

[xerxes1]

Arsenal have around 9,500 premium seats out of a 60k capacity, 16%, Man U, 10,700 in a 76k capacity,14%, in both instances those seats produce around 40% of matchday revenue.We currently have 4000 premium seats , about 9% of capacity. The percentage of matchday income this produces I have never seen, but i suspect that it is far lower because of the shortage of facilities.

The good news for FSG is the only way is up. The potential to increase premium seat numbers, percentage of capacity, total capacity,and income is a hit in all  categories.

We can't compete with Arsenal's London prices, nor can we currenly compete with Man U's Cl/League Title challenging proposition- but we can quite clearly improve this income considerably. FSG will concentrate on this as it offers a disproportionate return.Increase in ordinary capacity alone is secondary because of its much lower return.

The most cost effective thing that FSG could do is to offer another 4000 premium seats at the expences of ordinary fans and refurbish/convert, because whatever it costs would offer an immediate and effective return- but clearly that would be unacceptable to our mass fan-base.

I think that FSG will look at doubling premium capacity.If they did so, a redeveloped Anfield at 55,000 would only offer another 6000 ordinary seats. To get to 55k you would almost certainly have to replace the Main and Annie Rd End stands.Whether our mass support feel that the disruption of rebuilding half the ground for an extra 6000 ordinary seats is worth it is open to debate.

I suspect that the outcome of the ST trawl will be crucial to this.Ayres will know already what latent Commercial demand there is for premium seats, and an additional 4000 still puts us under Man U/Arsenal.That leaves 11,000 capacity to underwrite at 60k.

That the 70k ST waiting list is historically inaccurate and subject to duplicate entries few would doubt.Yet just one in seven, 14%, need to be live to underwrite a 60k capacity.

FSG/Ayres have the good fortune to be in a position to shape a pivotal moment in the Club's development, and future. It will be interesting to see what they do with it after two decades of torpor.

[xerxes1]

 Man u’s matchday revenue in D&T’s latest  report was, e122.4m (£109.355m), Arsenal’s e114.7m(£102.47m) ours e52.4m, (£46.81).
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/industries/sportsbusinessgroup/sports/football/deloitte-football-money-league-2011/66f55ec578ffd210VgnVCM2000001b56f00aRCRD.htm#1
Man U’s average attendance was 75,109, 29 home games, av ticket revenue,£50.20

Arsenal’s average attendance was 60,025, 28 home games, av ticket revenue,£60.96

So if we matched OT’s revenues at £50.20 a seat in a 60k stadium over 29 games we would generate £87.34m, £31m more than we are getting at the moment ( from less home games due to poor cup performance).

Naming rights could cover all, or part, or nothing (unlikely) of construction costs. If our 19 investors put in an extra  £19.75 m each that would cover the cost of a £375m stadium, with a huge capital appreciation in value resulting.

Without knowing what proportion of the construction might be met by naming rights and/or investor injection we do not know what the debt burden would be.

LFC was bought for £300m. Kroenke’s bid for Arsenal values them at £730m. A stadium funded  by naming rights is stunning value – it’s free money (No new stadium no cash). But also the investors stumping up in part for a new stadium  could also represent an excellent return.

Those are the numbers – you decide!

[west_london_red]

So yeah, if you could fill a new 60k stadium every match at OT prices and with staggeringly good naming rights, you would increase net revenue by about £30m. 

Does it maximise revenue under FFP??? yes (dependent on the naming rights deal).  Is the increase in revenue a good return on capital employed??? not really.  Does it increase the potential for investment in the team??? not as much as a redevelopment.  Is it riskier than a redevelopment??? oh very definitely, yes.

From my point of view if the cost of a new stadium @ 60k minus naming rights is more then redeveloping Anfield to 60k then myself and most supporters would go with the later and say redevelopment is the better option i'd say. However, the crux of the question is can we get to 60k at Anfield first of all with regards to planningh permission, and how much will it cost?

[CraigDS]

For me you've also got to take in to account...

- Future expansion past 60,000. Would expanding Anfield to 60k be the max we'll ever get? Would that then mean in 20yrs we'll be stuck lagging behind the others again?
- The expansion of the 'match day experience' around the whole stadium. I.e. more food sales, more drink sales, more seating with entertainment (Sky TV) to attract people before and after games. More merchandise sales within the stands, etc.

Its not just about the capacity imo as thats only part of the issue, its them making that capacity pay the maximum possible the can/are prepared to within the stadium.

[xerxes1]

Mate, those numbers from Deloitte's are in Euros.

I thought they looked high! Thanks for picking that up - I have changed the original for ease, and am grateful for the heads-up. Fortunately the ratios remain the same.

[xerxes1]

I think most would agree with that (even if only on a 'feels right' level) but if naming rights were finally and definitely shown to be less than the difference in cost, it becomes a financial no-brainer.

There are two approaches to planning; what can we put up with with minimum fuss or what do we want to do and deal with the consequences.  The latter is harder but better.

I don't think we should set foot on any road that boxes the future in.  The solution must be open-ended.  Anything done now must not limit future expansion.  That's a question of design and attitude (dealing with consequences rather sticking to 'accepted' limits ie., thinking out of the box).

All that matchday stuff is vital.  Vital there's enough and vital there's not too much. But there's plenty of room under the new sections of stand in a redevelopment.

You could also consider the Fenway approach to the surrounding area to get in as much 'extras' as possible but you have to bear in mind there's only so many who can get to the match and then they can only spend so much.

Fair points, well made.

[xerxes1]

I can see where the revenue per seat figure has a place – fair point.

I used  investor further investment as a hypothetical scenario. We don’t know how all the individual stakes sit, as far as I am aware. Getting 19 people to do the same thing is tricky in any situation.

However if you look at it as a block investment, with only £200m cash committed so far, and £375m of their own money was put in with zero naming rights that is a £575m commitment. Arsenal is valued at £730m on a closed market basis, it could fetch more. Equally because of lower gate revenue we may be worth less. But at £730m, for a £575m commitment that would represent a return of 27% over investment. Clearly all these figures are estimates, but it appears that there may be a worthwhile capital growth opportunity there. I think that there is at least a case sufficient to justify such an investment. Exactly what AFC would fetch on the open market, and what LFC would fetch for an unknown capacity stadium of an unknown cost are figures which I suspect neither of us would want to stick our necks out for – I’m not!

However I  don’t want to push the above scenario too hard, because I think it unlikely ( and even I can’t see the point of proving something which I don’t think is going to happen!). My guess is that naming rights will generate more than a third of construction cost, how much more I don’t know, with  a reduced balance being either borrowed commercially, or from the investors.

I’m not even sure that I can comment on your £30m/£380m return assessment, as without knowing what the proportions are between commercially borrowed money, investment money and naming rights cash.

I think that both of us relish the time when we can get some hard numbers to get our teeth into once deliberations are complete.

[Ryan M]

Hi Peter, every time I see this thread your name appears all the time, are you involved in construction? I wonder if any decision will be made soon.

[Ryan M]

Ah right that explains it Peter.

You sound far to intelligent for me, so you believe a decision might be made in July, if so why do you think that?