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

[xerxes1]

The only hard numbers we’ll ever see will be in published accounts after the fact and there is no comparison with AFC - our circumstances are worlds apart.

I might almost (but not really) be persuaded a new stadium would work as a clean sheet enterprise.  But because 45,000 seats already exist and draw in £42m a year, it would be hard to be happy to risk £30m a year (debt payments and/or equity - either way) to get an extra £30m or even £40m in revenue (and for that to be largely dependent on naming rights).

I believe we were seduced down the wrong road in 2002 with a buoyant economy and green eyes at new stadia and brave new worlds elsewhere when the answer was under our feet.

I hope that whatever decision is reached a substantive explanation will be offered. If we are faced with being told what it is, with no explanation, and then in future we have to reverse engineer the decision I will be very disappointed.

On AFC the relevance is the raw data, no more no less. The rest is educated guess work.

Without knowing the financing of a new stadium, be it investor loan, naming rights, commercial loan, or a combination of all three, no assessment of risk is possible. We can imagine the worst, or hope for the best, but in advance of the specific  financial proposition the jury will be out. The completed ST waiting list update will establish the prospects for demand. At that point, a balanced conclusion can be reached on the basis of the evidence, always a wise course of action

[xerxes1]

We won't know the detail.  It's a given. Can't see FSG back-tracking on that.

I must have missed that.

My expectation is of some explanation along the lines of either: "the ST and commercial demand we have established along with the naming rights and funding package we have in place have made a compelling and irresistible financial and sporting case for taking LFC into a new home and a new era", or" everything we might have expected a new stadium to deliver we discovered we could do here at our traditional home, and for less money" .

Whatever they choose, our support deserves an explanation.

[xerxes1]

An interesting quote,thanks. My personal hope is that on such a pivotal decision, which will  affect our club for generations to come, they will make a full statement to explain how it has been arrived at as the consequences will be with us long after they are gone.

Your decision making process  makes claims  which may, or may not,ultimately be proved to be correct and comes to a bold conclusion.

My preference is for no assumptions to be made,for all options to be considered, for every claim to be tested, and a balanced decision to be made on the basis of that process, however long it takes to complete. I differ from your approach in that we invariably  find that the devil IS in the detail. FSG's endeavours in exploring the scale of interest in naming rights, and bottoming out future ticket demand by rationalising the 70k strong ST list, is an integral part of that process and seems wise.I am now also aware of approaches being made to seek interest in Anfield Plaza, so it appears that it too is the subject of market evaluation. I approach  the results with a cool head, and an open mind.

[LiverBirdKop]

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.

What do you think is the "Fenway approach to the surrounding area"?

[LiverBirdKop]

I am now also aware of approaches being made to seek interest in Anfield Plaza, so it appears that it too is the subject of market evaluation. I approach and anticpate the results with a cool head, and an open mind.

Interesting. Could you elaborate on that?

[xerxes1]

Interesting. Could you elaborate on that?

It's not quite as interesting as all that. Colleagues in several development companies have been approached by an agent for informal discussions on whether they would be interested in the site.The site is owned by us and has an outline consent.It is wholly appropriate that asceratining the level of interest, and therefore getting an idea on value, should be made.Those approaches were not confidential and are little more than any landowner might do at any time. It does not signify a preference for a new stadium or redevelopment.

IF, the stadium project were to go ahead the Club would have several options. Amongst them, to retain the site, sub contract the build out, and retain it as landlord, as both a capital and income generating investment. The advantage of this would be that it would be an enhanced asset which we could borrow against AND it generates cash (useful for FFP). The disadvantage is that it would swallow up several millions in development costs on a non-core project. Do FSG want to be property developers in the UK? We could also sell on the completed project to a Pension Fund for a substantial profit.

We could do it as a Joint venture with a commercial developer. We provide the land at no cost, they provide the construction and expertise, and we split the proceeds. The advantage is no capital commitment and "off core drag" (someone else has to provide the expertise and deal with the problems). The disadvantages are that our share will be much reduced (probably around a  third) and the JV partner's view on whether it should be retained as an income generating investment, or whether it should be liquidated may not be the same as ours in the future.

We could just sell the (detailed) consented site on to raise cash,and that is it. Or we could sell it on, but retain the freehold, raising cash AND generating income (but far less than in the first example where we had developed the site too).

I must stress that there is nothing new about what I have said. We know nothing of the investment portfolios and strategies of almost all FSG's consortium. I would not even try to second guess the conclusion, their options though are easier to identify.

[xerxes1]

Quite the reverse I think.  The club knows a new stadium doesn't work in principle and as circumstances are, but find themselves in an historic cleft stick.  I sense they would have gone to the detail anyway (as anyone would) but in this instance they're trying to see if the detail or a truly 'imaginative' marketing deal can turn it round.

A bold claim Peter, and I admire your courage in making it.

When I went to my first science lesson in secondary school as a 12 year old , Mr Webber ( obviously we called him "Spider", funny how you remember teachers isnt it?) was very clear with us. "Always use proven  methodology- and never anticipate results." It held me in good stead with my exams, and I was surprised but delighted in how well that principle has served me with my commercial career too. Thanks Spider!

The evidence of the season ticket demand exercise and the naming rights quest as being part of that commercial methodology is there already. Assessing options for Anfield Plaza , updated construction estimates, and assessing levels of interest in financing both schemes from within the FSG 19, and commercially, and costing them, will complete the process.

Some months ago you properly queried me on how relevant the world record naming rights deal at Citi Fields and Barclays centre, both in New York, were at around £243m ($400m). You were right to do so. The latest deal is for 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

Furthermore I did not anticipate that the CL final would overtake the Superbowl as the worlds most watched and commercially lucrative game with obvious implications for the value of naming rights deals.http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/elite-clubs-on-uefa-gravy-train-as-super-bowl-knocked-off-perch-1884429.html

UK construction costs for 2012/13 projects are now falling as Olympics projects complete and raw material demand decreases but labour supply increases.Intriguingly, the bigger the project, the lower the costs, contractors will discount heavily to guarantee continuity of work. Predicting build costs for forward projects has never been more uncertain. Furthermore, each month produces conflicting expert advice on what is going to happen in the next few months on interest rates, let alone, the next few years.

Now you may be right. FSG might feel in principle (?) a new stadium won't work, and ignore all of this. I disagree, and think that they will quietly, but professionally consider the detail ( which continues to change) and come to a balanced conclusion without "anticipating results". Don't blame me , blame Mr Webber.

Although I have confidence in the integrity of FSG's decision making methodology, I cannot predict the outcome. It may be that however persuasive the financial numbers are in favour of a new stadium, the FSG19 may simply decide to keep their hands in their pockets and be unprepared to support a significant capital project. Equally, it may be that although the financial numbers favour redevelopment, the vanity of a brand new shiny project and a longlasting physical legacy overwhelms them. Or they might simply honour the outcome of the process.We shall see.

[xerxes1]

I am happy to split with you on this one.

My experience is that it is impossible to embark on any major scheme without the detail having been worked through.Without it there is no finance, no insurance,and  no PI cover. Any scheme is dependent upon the detail. Quote principle, and the reply will come " show me the detail set against the principle." Quote past experience  and the reply will come, "Compare and contrast the detail of what succeeded and failed on that scheme with this". It's fine to say " a new stadium won't work" on here, but less impressive to the FSG 19, banks,sponsors etc who will want a little more detail. Credibility is all. I can't even make a Development proposal to my Board colleagues without the FD, Construction Director  and the instructed architects having signed it off first. When we work with Investment Consortiums and banks they often employ  a team of people simply to ask "what if" questions. "Does it make the most money? and "Show me how it stacks" are the two principles that concern everyone the most. "Don't tell me, show me".

Of course it is OK to simply say "I don't want it, whatever the number are." I simply say, "make a decision based on the numbers", not yesterday's fag packet.........

My opinion is that there is nothing whatsoever which results in us being stuck with the existing SP consent either (not sure where you got that from?) - and I expect it to lapse shortly. The Anfield Plaza consent is fine, will lapse too, and can be revived as and when. I can confidently predict that no rival application will be made! Any balanced decision to proceed will, in my view, be on the basis of a new detailed consent on SP, and a fresh detailed application on AP.

[LiverBirdKop]

I think this has been talked about before... but I don't necessarily mean FSG's direct involvement in the surrounding area but the development of the area (particularly around Walton Breck Road) as an 'attraction' in itself but with the stadium as its anchor - pubs, sports bars, restaurants, fast food, the club shop, expanded museum, art and souvenir shops (formalising the informal trade) as has occurred, one way or another, at Fenway.

Understand. I just thought you might be referring to closing down of a tiny street @ Fenway and making it a mini carnival atmosphere on game days. The area around Fenway, or in close proximity to Fenway has quite a few attractions and colleges/unis. Don't know if we could call Fenway the anchor per se.
It would be wonderful if the area around Anfield could blossom with pubs, shops, cafes, restaurants etc etc anchored by Anfield or the new Anfield + Anfield Plaza and become a year round attraction.
I wonder how "long term" FSG's vision is.

[xerxes1]

I wouldn’t throw the first of those babies out with the bath water just yet.  It could be a very lucrative step and ease the pressure on the balance of ticket prices.

But demolishing two sides and building 30,000 seats to gain 10,000 is a dumb-ass idea and simply unnecessary (don't even need - or rather shouldn't have even needed - a fag packet for that).  Upgrade the Main and extend the Annie Road back, corners and all, would be one way to go or perhaps simpler, upgrade the Main Stand and extend that.

Some interesting points in the full OP which I thought might be better taken in smaller chunks so they don't get lost.

I think that we both agree that the economic case for replacing ordinary seats with premium ones is overwhelming in terms of  no risk return.But with what I think is significant untapped demand the risk of increasing both is modest, the reward substanial.

The capacity of the Annie Rd is 9,074, the main stand 12,277. They are the obvious soft targets for a redevelopment ( new space to expand and age respectively). So with a current capacity of 45,276, you lose capacity down to 23,925, but have to add 31,100 to get to 55,000 ( I really cannot see the point of redeveloping for a lower capacity, with 4000 extra premium seats that only adds 6000 ordinary seats).

The biggest "end" in the country is currently the Holte End at 13,500. If we didn't beat that , it would mean that the new main stand would need to offer 17,600 seats, and I doubt the practicalities of achieving that.

[xerxes1]

I think you misunderstand me.  The detail is vital to all stages of the process after an initial assessment of the options (and that first assessment is very or even most often based on experience). Only a man with deep pockets indeed can pursue any number of options through all the 'gateways' to detailed analysis - unless of course everyone works for free.  You can't optioneer for ever and a limit on options is a good mark of the calibre of the development.  Successful developments close down options quickly and the quickest way (via 'is this situation different to what I know?') is, been there, done that, doesn't work, move on.
A new stadium screams 'too much for the market' and as fans we'd be as well to be aware of that because we are the market.

Where we differ is that there is no evidence that a new stadium is too much for the market. It is the reverse. Our match day revenue is lower than key competitors, our capacity is lower than key competitors and our premium income is lower than our key competitors.

Your premise falls at the first hurdle.

The  practicalities of how you address that include a new stadium ( but do not exclude redevelopment).

If you recommended to a Board that on the basis of your experience a new stadium should be disregarded when record naming rights values have doubled such that they could pay for a new stadium twice over, and a waiting list approaching twice the size of existing capacity had not been rationalised, how many times do you think that you would be asked for the benefit of your expertise again? I cannot reconcile your many reasonable points with such an extraordinary proposition.

[xerxes1]

Sentiment and precedent have no place in Planning but in human relations, promises and obligations, they can rule the roost.  There is an expectation of certain benefits arising out of the existing consent - this is what the club is 'stuck' with, whether the consents lapse or not.  On the other hand if council wants action and is as much for business as they say they are, they can offer a helping hand.
I guess it's something an enterprising third party might take an interest in......ah but 16,000 sqm at what, struggling to get £10 sq ft?  It's not exactly a gold mine is it?

Thanks for clarifying.

I don’t think that anyone expects the existing SP consent to be built now. My expectation is that the opportunity to build a stadium which is fit for the 21st Century should be explored on its merits, no more no less, and few would argue against that. What sweeteners the Council are able to offer will play a part in that decision making – it is part of the detail.

Of no interest to most others, I disagree that precedent has no place in planning. In practise it often defines it in my experience. All legislation is measured against the decisions that subsequently result, which have a habit of sometimes being not quite what was intended, which is what keeps lawyers who specialise in planning law in very nice cars.

I agree that Anfield Plaza is no Las Vegas. But it is ours. It is deliverable. It would offer extra jobs. And it does offer a capital and income generating asset which is a consideration as FFP looms. Like you, I have hesitated to speculate on the value of the site as the variables are too great. It represents an asset if SP is built. How much of an asset will be a factor in Ayre’s decision making methodology.

[free_at_last]

Thanks for clarifying.

I don’t think that anyone expects the existing SP consent to be built now. My expectation is that the opportunity to build a stadium which is fit for the 21st Century should be explored on its merits, no more no less, and few would argue against that. What sweeteners the Council are able to offer will play a part in that decision making – it is part of the detail.

Of no interest to most others, I disagree that precedent has no place in planning. In practise it often defines it in my experience. All legislation is measured against the decisions that subsequently result, which have a habit of sometimes being not quite what was intended, which is what keeps lawyers who specialise in planning law in very nice cars.

I agree that Anfield Plaza is no Las Vegas. But it is ours. It is deliverable. It would offer extra jobs. And it does offer a capital and income generating asset which is a consideration as FFP looms. Like you, I have hesitated to speculate on the value of the site as the variables are too great. It represents an asset if SP is built. How much of an asset will be a factor in Ayre’s decision making methodology.

   I heard somewhere about a proposition to move the training ground to where Anfield is now. If the original plan was scrapped is there any advantage
 to a Melwoood development as opposed to Anfield(I haven't been back to the Pool for a while so I'm not sure of the property values and demand in different areas. Apart from a hard headed economic decison it would also mean we could save the hallowed Anfield turf.

[xerxes1]

   I heard somewhere about a proposition to move the training ground to where Anfield is now. If the original plan was scrapped is there any advantage
 to a Melwoood development as opposed to Anfield(I haven't been back to the Pool for a while so I'm not sure of the property values and demand in different areas. Apart from a hard headed economic decison it would also mean we could save the hallowed Anfield turf.

The existing planning consent provides for the pitch to be retained as Public Open Space, so the hallowed Anfield turf is not only preserved, it would actually be far more accessible than it is now.

I am aware of no means by which transferring Melwood to the existing Anfield would be viable or practical.

[west_london_red]

The existing planning consent provides for the pitch to be retained as Public Open Space, so the hallowed Anfield turf is not only preserved, it would actually be far more accessible than it is now.

I am aware of no means by which transferring Melwood to the existing Anfield would be viable or practical.

Only based on what I have seen on TV, but isnt the footprint of Melwood much bigger then Anfield plus car park etc. There looked like there were about 10 pitches at Melwood plus all the other facilities, and that certainly wouldnt fit.

[xerxes1]

A 17,000 capacity new main stand  needs to physically fit, and pass planning .As you say, it requires help from Lothair Rd , which may or may not be forthcoming. Time will judge your assessment.

“Our match day revenue is lower than key competitors, our capacity is lower than key competitors and our premium income is lower than our key competitors” is just  a sentence. It is not a non-sequitur. Whether we can afford to spend more to improve the situation is a commercial judgement – made on the basis of the evidence.

I suspect that the scale of any naming rights deal will determine whether or not a new stadium is or is not  built. The scale of the demand is more important than you suggest as the relationship between demand and capacity is key in determining ticket revennue.

You quote the maximum Farmers deal at £625m. Could a new stadium be built for £312.5m? Yes. But both figures are hypothetical extrapolations, so neither of us should worry too much.

Your comment on planning agrees with me, decisions are consistent with precedent, the practical manifestation of legislation.

We also agree on Anfield Plaza, a nice bonus, but not a determining factor.

[18 yard line]

Seats in the rear of the Annie Rd lower provide an awful view of the game.  I find it hard to believe that any redevelopment would not include both an increase in capacity and a much better viewing opportunity.   

[xerxes1]

A successful Main Stand application for 17,000 seats will vindicate your judgement Peter, neither of us will wish to anticipate results. Your optimism is encouraging for that option though.

As your own figures on record naming rights confirm, the stadium could be built with up to zero debt (or a positive balance even). Combine that with the additional income from premium seats and FSG have the option to reduce ticket prices, maintain them, or increase them. But again I would not want to anticipate results.,

Demand has to be determined first – which is why the club is undertaking a ST waiting list review. Demand is what the evidence will conclude,  again I would not want to anticipate results.

The details of the Farmers Field deal are independently sourced.

Planning policy is manifested by determinations, those determinations set precedent.

There is no bullshit point scoring here, just a quiet desire to get the detail right.

The issue is, that the fans cannot afford a new stadium at prices that are going to make enough difference to the club's financial competitiveness (a view that is well and truly and publicly acknowledged by the club)

No such view has ever been expressed by the club. Instead they are conducting a prudent exercise in evaluating ST demand, naming rights income ( and I am sure estimates for Anfield redevelopment, Anfield Plaza , a new SP stadium estimate etc).They are not anticpating the results of that exercise - nor should we.

Your belief that the fans cannot afford a stadium whose costs have yet to be established stands or falls on that basis, and I admire your courage in holding it.

I feel confident that you will also respect the views of those of us who wish to come to a balanced conclusion on the basis of all the up to date evidence, without anticpating in advance what that outcome might be.

[LiamG]

you 2 still going

[xerxes1]

Well then black is white after all. 

Follow the process and you will get to the right result.

[west_london_red]

That London argument is totally flawed though. How many league teams are there in Merseyside? I can think of three, (us, Everton and Tranmere.

Now, how many are there in London? off the top of my head:
Chelsea
Spurs
Arsenal
Fulham
West Ham
QPR
Millwall
Brentford
Charlton
Crystal Palace
Leyton Orient

Add to that the number of people down here who support us or the Mancs (which is huge) and the argument about London clubs having some kind of advantage seems very weak to me as the support is so diverse down here. I read yesterday that Chelsea seaon tickets are on general sale FFS... hardly the sign of a club overflowing with supporters and its probably the second biggest London team in terms of support.

[xerxes1]

No-where does it say, or imply that: “The issue is, that the fans cannot afford a new stadium at prices that are going to make enough difference to the club's financial competitiveness (a view that is well and truly and publicly acknowledged by the club)”

Indeed Ayres biggest challenge is that Man U have increased their share of the increase in PL attendance in the NW since inception by 31%, compared to our 6%, a shortfall that can only be addressed by an increase in capacity. We have a lot of catching up to do.

As he says “Manchester United know how to do it”. He is of course wrong to say “They recognized that they couldn’t compete over the long-term with Arsenal and Chelsea in local revenue...". Manchester United’s match day revenue continues to be higher than any London club. How? A big stadium. While you snooze-you lose.

Any idea that Manchester United can’t compete against the top four London teams is not on the agenda at a Manchester United Board meeting – nor should it be at Anfield.

[west_london_red]

Not really  As it says there are two premiership teams in each of Liverpool and Manchester compared with four premiership teams in London.  There is also a world of difference in terms of affluence at the top end/corporate of the market.

Yes there are significant numbers of traveling OOTs of which United appear to have the lion’s share but overall the market for premiership games is bigger in London and some.  On the basis of these numbers Liverpool premiership clubs can draw on 0.675m each; Manchester, 1.225m and London premiership clubs, 3.75m before the dilution effect of ‘smaller’ clubs or OOTs

But yes, the market is weakening overall.  I believe Arsenal’s prices are static as well.  United have put off expanding any further indefinitely and deals are starting to appear and even Manchester’s economy is bigger than ours.  Not a good time to be spending hundreds of millions on the expectation of increased ticket prices.

There are actually 5 London Clubs in the PL  not 4 (Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Fulham and QPR), and im not quite so sure what nymber you have used for Londons population? You seem to have used a number of 15 million (3.75 * 4) when the population of Greater London is about 8 million.

I would also disput the influence of OOTs and go far enough to say that the difference in support between ourselves, the Mancs, Chelsea, Arsenal, and Spurs is tiny with no obvious candidate for best supported in London (we definitly have more fans in London then Fulham or QPR), which is quite phenominal considering we havent won the league for over 20 years. And why focus just on London, we are along with the Mancs the only two clubs that can count on support all over the country, Ireland and Dublin are not exactly far from Liverpool either.

[free_at_last]

One pitch is certainly a non-starter.  I think there are only 3 or 4 at Melwood - could be worth taking the option to lease the park and put Melwood there.  Council still gets its money.  Melwood gets sold for housing...

  How much would Melwood be worth to a property developer? I know we freaked out when there were reports of H&G trying to mortgage Melwood but do we really need to
own our training ground when the equity isn't generating any income? It's a bit like owning a nice holiday home that you only use one week a year while you can't afford to fix
your leaking roof in your primary residence. Would a Melwood sale pay enough to finance the redevelopment of Anfield and the setting up of a new training ground? The equity
would then start generating income (less any lease payments) and we don't have an interest bill to eat into our transfer budget.

[CraigDS]

If we move out of Melwood if would probably be to an expanded site where the academy is based, nowhere near enough room on the current footprint of Anfield.

As for the value of Melwood, probably nowhere near enough to even cover half the cost of any renovation - especially once we have taken off the cost of any new training complex which would run into the tens of millions going by current cost of Melwood.

[CraigDS]

Also just to add - the only reason we would move from Melwood would be footballing reasons - i.e they want youth and first team on same complex, or Melwood becomes too small for the first/reserves and the associated back room staff that includes.

[free_at_last]

Also just to add - the only reason we would move from Melwood would be footballing reasons - i.e they want youth and first team on same complex, or Melwood becomes too small for the first/reserves and the associated back room staff that includes.

I was thinking along the lines mentioned by Peter of leasing Stanley Park and putting up a training ground there. Obviously close to Anfield and using our equity to our full advantage.
 Nowadays money= football reasons!

[LiverBirdKop]

Both Chelsea’s and Arsenal’s revenue per seat greatly exceeds Man Utd’s.  There is no way that Man U could compete on return with a new stadium of whatever size - that’s a good reason why they redeveloped and given our less prosperous market (even with the Norwegians and the Irish), an even better reason why we should do the same.

United have been redeveloping over a looong period of time even at times reducing capacity when the demand was obviously there. They were the first ones to add corporate boxes. I find it to hard to believe they wouldn't have much larger match day revenues today if they had built a new stadium 15 years ago. Why on earth would they even consider building a new stadium today?

[CraigDS]

I was thinking along the lines mentioned by Peter of leasing Stanley Park and putting up a training ground there. Obviously close to Anfield and using our equity to our full advantage.
 Nowadays money= football reasons!

Would never get permission to take over the whole park (or majority of it) to ring fence it as our training complex.

Granted lease the area around the Academy and build it there, but most profit from selling Melwood would be taken up building the new facilities.

Melwood isnt in the centre of some hotbed financial area in the centre of a capital city (alla Madrid) so isnt worth huge huge money.

[free_at_last]

Would never get permission to take over the whole park (or majority of it) to ring fence it as our training complex.

Granted lease the area around the Academy and build it there, but most profit from selling Melwood would be taken up building the new facilities.

Melwood isnt in the centre of some hotbed financial area in the centre of a capital city (alla Madrid) so isnt worth huge huge money.

ok - I'll write that one off then. I remember West Derby being a nice area(I'm from Huyton  )and thought Melwood would be worth a few bob.

[xerxes1]

Both Chelsea’s and Arsenal’s revenue per seat greatly exceeds Man Utd’s.  There is no way that Man U could compete on return with a new stadium of whatever size - that’s a good reason why they redeveloped and given our less prosperous market (even with the Norwegians and the Irish), an even better reason why we should do the same.

This confuses two points.

Man Utds strategy to counter higher ticket revenues per seat in London - is to have more seats. It has demonstrably worked.

If we are able to build a 76,500 seater stadia with the approraiate facilities in situ, no doubt we will. Which is rather the point.

[LiamG]

With Old trafford it took them a long time to max out the potential capacaity, you could say they are stuck on there current capacity, if we re-develop anfield, wont we be maxed out at a capacity even less than theres?


So the more seats to counter higher ticket prices just wont work at anfield

[gorgepir]

After reading through these comments, I think I would like to put in my 2cents.

Redevelopment: Cheaper, probably the best financial return in the short+middle term, keep Anfield's name.
New Stadium : Best long term prospects and financial return, bigger and modern stadium with better viewing, possibility of increasing capacity just in case.


Traditionalists would go for the first, modernists would go for the second. I just want something done (and I know it has to be the right decision, bla bla) so we don't fall behind the likes of ManU, Chelsea and Arsenal further. I really don't care at this point anymore, it has been dragged on for too long for me to have an opinion. Probably would have to wait for next year for anything to happen.

[xerxes1]

Yes it has demonstrably worked (Selling more seats in a larger capacity stadium counteracts higher ticket prices from a lower capacity.)

Phew – there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents.........

Clearly for the same matchday revenue a new stadium has a bigger overall stadium revenue (ie., it is plus naming rights).

This claim is not only unclear- it makes no sense.

  But, redevelopment has a superior return for investment in the club, the team, the next generation of fans.... (ie., it has a lower cost).  If naming rights go towards the cost of the stadium (to make up some of the difference in cost of construction), new money must be found elsewhere for players.

A lower cost and a lower return are not the same. We all agree that a modest redevelopment around the main stand could offer a few thousand  more seats for a far lower cost than a new stadium, and for a good percentage return on cash used. But it could not compete with the revenue uplift of a new stadium. So your claim that it offers a lower cost and possibly a greater percentage return is meaningless and irrelevant.

As has been pointed out ad nauseam. Naming rights have the potential to offer anything from a modest contribution to construction costs – to a cash surplus. However modest or great ( I would not wish to anticipate results) they reduce the cash call and increase funds available for players.

So what do we want to do?  Bend a few FFP rules with a ‘forced’ increase in revenue or, increase the ‘actual’ financial benefit to the club with a better return???

LFC is out of Europe. We will take a minimum two year shortfall in CL income. We have won nothing for five years. Two of our key competitors have stadia generating £60m+ more per annum, our other two key competitors pay more in wages, have invested far more heavily in their squads in recent years,  and have vastly wealthier and better resourced owners than ours. Worldwide media rights are likely to grow further (wide of stadia income).But that uplift will benefit our competitors as much as ourselves, and if we are not in the CL no-one in China will be that bothered watching Jordan Henderson star for us against Oldham in the League Cup.

Stadium revenue uplift is the only thing we can do to significantly improve income that our competitors cannot ( because we have done so little).Under FFP it is also free money. There is no actual benefit to the club in generating some modest extra cash – which has no material impact on our ability to be competitive at the highest level.

You asked “what do we want to do”? The answer is to build a stadium which maximises our capacity and revenue potential and enables us to compete at the Euro top table now, and in the forthcoming decades. I do not care whether that is delivered at Anfield, or Stanley park. What FSG ARE doing is to complete a financially sound methodology of seeing how much cash could be raised by naming rights, and how much extra capacity could be guaranteed by increased ST sales alone. I won’t anticipate those results – I will be guided by them, as will FSG.

[xerxes1]

do you have anything to say about the relative importance of revenue v return or not?

A lower cost and a lower return are not the same. We all agree that a modest redevelopment around the main stand could offer a few thousand  more seats for a far lower cost than a new stadium, and for a good percentage return on cash used. But it could not compete with the revenue uplift of a new stadium. So your claim that it offers a lower cost and possibly a greater percentage return is meaningless and irrelevant.

An increased revenue and cash profit from a new stadium would be preferable to a greater percentage but lower cash profit return from Anfield , so long as it is commercial.

[xerxes1]

  there is no limit on the capacity at Anfield as an application has never been made.

There are demonstrable physical boundaries around the existing Anfield stadium which inhibit expansion. In theory they might be removed, in practise that remains untested.

The attractions of an open, undeveloped site are self evident.

the only way more and less expensive seats would work is at Anfield.  The seats in a new stadium are inherently more expensive.

The price of seats at the existing Anfield continue to rise. The only way that Anfield can offer less expensive seats is if we expand in situ to meet demand. If we do not, they will continue to rise ahead of inflation. The scale of that demand in ST terms is being calibrated now - I would not like to anticipate the results of that exercise.

A New Anfield that was wholly or largely funded by Naming Rights offers the option for FSG to freeze or lower some prices, so the claim that “The seats in a new stadium are inherently more expensive” is demonstrably untrue.

What FSG choose  to do is another matter, but I would not want to anticipate results. My guess would be more and higher priced premium seats, and a tranche of lower than existing price seats as a fan sweetener.

However both Anfield and a New Anfield are subject to the same market forces – FSG will charge as much as they can. In a lower capacity stadium with high demand that only means higher, not lower prices.

[LiverBirdKop]

Why would a new Old Trafford make more money than the redeveloped Old Trafford?  That makes no sense at all.  Same capacity, same number and standard of boxes and hospitality...

It makes a lot of sense if they had added more boxes than they have now. Unless you can show me where they couldn't/wouldn't have added more boxes in a new stadium. Not a stretch to think they would've added more boxes quicker with a new stadium which would've been much cheaper to build then than now(captain obvious I know.) Their redevelopment has been done over decades so you're not really comparing apples with apples here.

[xerxes1]

They can't sell what they've got now (for the prices they want to charge).

As with most of your financial analysis, and commentary - untrue.

OT Av last season: 75109  Capacity: 75769   % of capacity filled: 99.1%

[ianlit]

Process-driven organisations are essentially 'closed-thinking' led by their history - keeping things the same to produce the same result; meeting the same 'insuperable' problems with the same 'can't do' response.  Open-ended and progressive groups overcome apparently insuperable difficulties to reach innovative and successful results (and beat the shit out of their leaden-headed competitors).  As I mentioned earlier - two ways to build a Tardis; believe you can, or don't try.  Or in this case accept that the only way to increase revenue is to spend hundreds of millions on a new stadium or, have a go at the alternative.

Getting back to the issue of the club's view of affordability, I think this comes close enough:

"...we compete today in very different world than [Shankly] competed in and have a different set of obstacles to overcome in order not to be left behind in a very competitive world. The world was not connected in those days. Very little was instantaneous. And revenue generation consisted of selling tickets and not much else.     

How will four Premier League teams in Liverpool and Manchester ever be able to compete over the long-term against four teams in London?  (Merseyside has a population of approximately 1.35 million people; Manchester 2.55 million.  Arsenal and Chelsea have 14 million people spread over a smaller area - the metropolitan area of London. And they have perhaps the wealthiest supporters in the world.)       

Manchester United knows [how to] do it.  No matter how we feel about them on the field, that club has shown exactly what it takes to be successful in the modern competitive landscape. Although Liverpool FC and Manchester United are the clubs with a truly global fan base and the opportunity to capitalize upon that advantage, over the last 20 years Manchester United has left LFC behind in terms of revenue-generation and stability.  They have been the most aggressive club commercially. They recognized that they couldn’t compete over the long-term with Arsenal and Chelsea in local revenue..."  JWH/TW

The population figure you are quoting for Manchester is for the whole of Greater Manchester. Your London figure is for the S.East. Merseyside and G.Manchester are artifical creations set up in 1974. The latter created by lumping together a group of Lancashire towns – often with only very loose links. Merseyside is largely Liverpool with a couple of additions. The area of GM is thus twice the size of Merseyside. Wigan is the same distance from Liverpool as it is from Manchester and yet is included in Greater Manchester. Pre-1974 it arguably had greater links to Liverpool. G.Manchester has four PL teams (MU, MC, Bolton and Wigan), and Championship sides such as Bury, Oldham, and Rochdale. Merseyside does not currently include places with a close connection to Liverpool such as Ormskirk, Skelmersdale, Runcorn, Widnes, and Ellesmere Port. If it was the size of GM then it would also take in these places and areas such as Warrington, Chester, and parts of N.Wales. The original proposal for Merseyside included most of these places but they were removed for political reasons. If you ignore the arbitrary boundary then the population of the region is taken to be in excess of 2m – with only three teams (LFC, EFC, and Tranmere).

[xerxes1]

And they have put their expansion on indefinite hold because they cannot fill any more at the prices they want to charge (they said, not me).  They... are ...advertising... deals... at... lower... prices... because...they... are... maxed... out.

You said "They can't sell what they've got now", which was wrong.

That the market has stalled at at £70m matchday revenue more than us per annum rather makes the point of the argument for a larger modern stadium, doesnt it?