Topic: Bascombe Story - let's wait for confirmation before discussing it ok?

[Redman0151]

Looking at those images of a redeveloped Anfield make me want to cry...

Looks absolutely awesome, and it's just a pretty basic drawing.

Imagine a 80,000 seater Anfield... Would be incredible on a massive european night.

The players would feel so small jogging out of the little tunnel we already have at Anfield, touching the sign, coming out, and seeing the main stand, and the kop, towering above them with an extended Kop banner scrawling across the stand, and 80,000 Kopites singing 'You'll Never Walk Alone'....

I think I just orgasmed.

 Then imagine it half full vs the likes of Norwich or most other teams. 80,000 is more than we need, 60,000-65,000 with good corporate facilities has to be ideal

[Peter McGurk]

Then imagine it half full vs the likes of Norwich or most other teams. 80,000 is more than we need, 60,000-65,000 with good corporate facilities has to be ideal

Is right.

[CraigDS]

Out of interest Peter have you ever approached the club or been approached by them about your ideas?

[Peter McGurk]

Out of interest Peter have you ever approached the club or been approached by them about your ideas?

Life long fan. Thinks he knows best. No experience of designing stadia. What do you think? 

[scouse29]

Life long fan. Thinks he knows best. No experience of designing stadia. What do you think? 

Nice to see you back posting Peter. I dont agree with everything you post but you add a well balanced approach to your views.

[Lothairio]

Then imagine it half full vs the likes of Norwich or most other teams. 80,000 is more than we need, 60,000-65,000 with good corporate facilities has to be ideal

I reckon if we got the pricing policy spot on, e.g. family tickets, dad and lad deals, etc. we would near enough fill it (with the exception of possibly early round League Cup/UEFA Cup games). By doing this, we would be investing in our future, ensuring continuity for families, and also providing opportunities for many locals like myself to see the Reds, who may have been priced out of the game (maybe slightly idealistic, just my thoughts).

[mark82]

In these times I think we also need to take a close look over the Park, would never wish it on them but they have HUGE problems, losing Moyes, a relegation or two or worse is unfortunately possible, within 5-10 years of this we could see a slightly different picture in terms of demand.

Obviously should not be anywhere near the top of our considerations as many factors not under our control in the slightest could turn things around, a consideration nonetheless.

[CraigDS]

In these times I think we also need to take a close look over the Park, would never wish it on them but they have HUGE problems, losing Moyes, a relegation or two or worse is unfortunately possible, within 5-10 years of this we could see a slightly different picture in terms of demand.

Obviously should not be anywhere near the top of our considerations as many factors not under our control in the slightest could turn things around, a consideration nonetheless.

Im not sure it really is to be honest.

[west_london_red]

I reckon if we got the pricing policy spot on, e.g. family tickets, dad and lad deals, etc. we would near enough fill it (with the exception of possibly early round League Cup/UEFA Cup games). By doing this, we would be investing in our future, ensuring continuity for families, and also providing opportunities for many locals like myself to see the Reds, who may have been priced out of the game (maybe slightly idealistic, just my thoughts).

The larger the stadium, the higher the cost per seat to build. Therefore, we would need to charge more per ticket/seat to cover the cost, not less im afraid.

[CraigDS]

The larger the stadium, the higher the cost per seat to build. Therefore, we would need to charge more per ticket/seat to cover the cost, not less im afraid.

Charge more or wait longer - isn't just the higher cost option available.

[Peter McGurk]

Charge more or wait longer - isn't just the higher cost option available.

Not sure what you mean. If you mean wait longer to pay off the stadium, the longer you wait - the more you pay in interest, the less money to spend on whatever you need.

[Alan_X]

The larger the stadium, the higher the cost per seat to build. Therefore, we would need to charge more per ticket/seat to cover the cost, not less im afraid.

The attached figures are from Stadia 4th Edition by Geraint John, Rod Sheard & Ben Vickery. They are 2005 costs so allowance would need to be made for inflation. The increase in costs as the stadium gets larger isn't just linear, it's exponential. The cost per seat of an 80,000 seater (Ł3,200 per seat average) is more than one and a half times that of a 60,000 seater (Ł2,000 per seat average). That's not so bad until you work out the cost per seat if you just allocate it to the 20,000 additional seats:

60,000 x 2,000 = 120 million (I wish, but these are for illustration only)
80,000 x 3,200 = 256 million

That's more than double the overall cost for an extra 20,000 seats, and if you divide the extra cost (136 million) by the extra 20,000 seats you get a cost per seat of

136 million / 20,000 = 6,800 per seat at 4Q2005 costs. That's more than three times the cost per additional seat.

Of course there are a range of costs but the cheapest cost option is a continuous bowl with all stands the same.

For the record - I just did a quick check and the HKS (60,000 seater when it opened) had as many seats outside the maximum recommended viewing distance (190m from the opposite corner flag) as Wembley (90,000 seats). And a fair number of those shite seats were on the 'Kop'

We really dodged a massive fucking bullet with that one - possibly the stupidest, least cost effective football ground with some of the worst views in a brand new ground ever proposed. So I guess it was 'unique' in one way at least.   

[royhendo]

Wow - that's both interesting and chilling Alan.

[Alan_X]

Thought it was helpful to give people some idea of the reality. There's a few more extracts from Stadia and the Stadium Atlas (a superb detailed analysis of the German World Cup Stadia) which make some interesting points. One is that clubs (and fans) invariably overestimate what future demand will be - the evidence is to the contrary.

The other is that there have been a few cases of clubs being sued because of shite sight lines, poor views etc, after upgrades. One of the (un-named) Italian 1990 upgrades resulted on poor sight lines that needed costly improvements that ultimately didn't solve the problems. There are stacks of SketchIp models on skyscraper City and elsewhere that look great but would be a disaster in practice. It's all very well saying we (the people who favour atmosphere over comfort) should forget modern stadium design and go 'trad' with steep stands blah, blah, blah. But what would the club do when thousands of Main Stand season ticket holders sue them because they are miles from the pitch and have a shite view of the game?

[CraigDS]

Not sure what you mean. If you mean wait longer to pay off the stadium, the longer you wait - the more you pay in interest, the less money to spend on whatever you need.

Presuming that they intend to finance it through debt. This may not be the case.

[Alan_X]

Presuming that they intend to finance it through debt. This may not be the case.

I don't see what difference that makes, or not in a good way - the cost per seat will dictate the pricing structure - if the cost of borrowing goes up because the period is extended then the payback period will also be extended, deferring the point at which we actually have positive cash-flow available to spend on players.

If the reason for increasing capacity is purely philanthropic - allowing more people to watch the match live - then fine, increase the capacity up to 80,000. If the reason is to allow us to compete against United, Chelsea, City, Arsenal, Spurs etc then an 80,000 seater would cripple us for decades to come.

And sorry if it sounds cynical but if we aren't competing at that level, then the idea that 80,000 are going to buy tickets to watch us is a joke.

[Alan_X]

From Stadia (see above):

11.2 Ground Capacity

11.2.1 The need for realism

The most important decision in planning a new stadium, or expanding an existing one, is the number of spectators to be accommodated

When developing a building brief, the design team and client organisation often over-estimate this figure. natural optimism plays a part in this. Sporting clubs always believe their attendance is about to increase dramatically, even though statistical evidence may show that it has been stable for years or even dropping; stadium owners like to believe that if only they had a bigger venue then more people would attend, even though many seats in their existing smaller stadium remain unfilled; and consultants may find it more exiting to get involved in big plans than small ones, which tends to encourage expensive thinking.

...but experience shows that attendances will tend to revert to earlier figures, after the novelty has worn off, unless the new crowd can be enticed to stay by mans of effective marketing or by the team's performance.

It is therefore the golden rule never to increase stadium capacity beyond that which is known to be necessary, and can be demonstrated to be affordable both in capital and running cost..."

Boring maybe, but that's the expert view.

[Chalky Boots]

Been reading through the thread and have to thank Alan and Peter for somewhat enhancing my knowledge on the topic in hand.

Somewhat of a speculative question here but reading on corporate boxes would it not be fair to say that the success in revenue generated from them would be dependant on not just the club progression but the Cities in general (as I'm taking into account what Peter was saying about London)?

[Peter McGurk]

Been reading through the thread and have to thank Alan and Peter for somewhat enhancing my knowledge on the topic in hand.

Somewhat of a speculative question here but reading on corporate boxes would it not be fair to say that the success in revenue generated from them would be dependant on not just the club progression but the Cities in general (as I'm taking into account what Peter was saying about London)?

There has been continued criticism of those who advocate 'getting real' here (and elsewhere). Of the multitude to pick from, H&G's biggest and most cardinal sin was taking flights of fantasy. Pumping up expectation beyond any kind of rational thinking. Some (who are no longer with us here) accused certain people of made-up economics and numerical illiteracy to suit an agenda. You could say that H&G themselves were only interested in just one thing - the increase in paper value for the club from a stadium to reap massive money on the turn or as it turned out, save their backsides in a fire sale.

The facts and the numbers and differential construction costs are as explained many times over (much to some people's annoyance but only in response to a renewed question) and are as Alan has put forward in very useful and greater detail

As has also been pointed out, the real value of property is down to what it earns, not what it cost. H&G were rumbled. But how bitterly they complained that they didn't get 'their' value of 'their' stadium. To put it bluntly - look lads, draw it as big and as flash as you can. We're not going to build it but we'll find some sucker to buy it. Well, no one bought it - least of FSG.

FSG have taken realism as their mantra.

To get to your question, FSG themselves pointed out that this isn't London. That's not to sleight Liverpool or say it's a hick town (another dumb-ass critique). It is to get real. We don't have the corporate market. We don't have City hospitality budgets on our doorstep. We don't have luxury apartments to sell or the location to sell them in. We ie., us, the fans, don't have the average spending power of the South East and yes just accept it - it is a fact, even that of Manchester.

Old Trafford gets Ł1430 per head a season from each seat. Arsenal get Ł1658. We get Ł940 (a penny for that!) - just more than half the Emirates. A standard season ticket can be Ł2,500 at the Emirates (another penny). Luckily for us, they spent Ł360m on a stadium. Listening to the radio tonight, I heard yet more complaints from Gooners - 'now that we don't have so much money'. Everyone can read what they think of their stadium on their website - it's not pretty.

So what do we do? Ape an Emirates model that as fans we wouldn't like, couldn't afford to go to in the numbers needed to fill it, pay for it and produce a surplus for the team (more pennies). Or get smart, recognise what we've got to deal with, spend less and realise as much gain for the club. It is not about what you spend, it is about what you get after you've spent it.

The only way to crack this problem is to reduce costs. For a given, attainable and realistic income, it's about cost, cost and cost. Completely and utterly as a financial aside, the answer comes with keeping our home and keeping a huge slice of what makes us, us.

[TepidT2O]

I'm not sure if the arsenal comparison is quite as clear though.

They relied heavily on property sales to finance the stadium and they must have been badly hit by the credit crunch.  Their debt is actually quite low now despite only being in the stadium for a relatively short time.  It does make me wonder of ther eis profit taking by the board at any level...

[Peter McGurk]

I'm not sure if the arsenal comparison is quite as clear though.

They relied heavily on property sales to finance the stadium and they must have been badly hit by the credit crunch.  Their debt is actually quite low now despite only being in the stadium for a relatively short time.  It does make me wonder of ther eis profit taking by the board at any level...

Mate. You're talking against yourself. Yes they did have luxury apartments to sell and they still not spending. No need to wonder about profit distribution. If any slight of hand was going on, everyone would know about it from the accounts.

None of which changes the fact that they sell all their tickets (if not fill their stadium). Their prices are high. They do have a very strong corporate market. But they have a shit stadium the fans don't like and they don't spend on players.

[TepidT2O]

Mate. You're talking against yourself. Yes they did have luxury apartments to sell and they still not spending. No need to wonder about profit distribution. If any slight of hand was going on, everyone would know about it from the accounts.

None of which changes the fact that they sell all their tickets (if not fill their stadium). Their prices are high. They do have a very strong corporate market. But they have a shit stadium the fans don't like and they don't spend on players.

Point I was trying to make was that in hindsight their method of financing the stadium was hugely flawed due to the credit crunch.

It may actually have been cheaper to have done conventional financing with the benefit of hindsight.

I'm interested in this idea of a bond scheme that was suggested in the press a week or two back.

What are the benefits and draw backs of this??

[Peter McGurk]

Point I was trying to make was that in hindsight their method of financing the stadium was hugely flawed due to the credit crunch.

It may actually have been cheaper to have done conventional financing with the benefit of hindsight.

I'm interested in this idea of a bond scheme that was suggested in the press a week or two back.

What are the benefits and draw backs of this??

The bond issue story doesn't change the numbers significantly and was hardly worthy of comment for that reason. Yes, it is a source of finance but in simple terms it's just another form of debt at commercial rates. Those who buy bonds may or may not be as aggressive as banks (if they are fans. But in this case the club was looking at buyers in the States).

What the club needs to do is reduce absolute costs - either by building for less or finding a debt-free source of funding (sponsorship) or quasi-debt-free (sale of equity in the club itself) or philanthropy (the fans) but at the level needed (Ł150m), any of those would be like hen's teeth. And that's where we are at.

And of course any one of those options have their own issues and risks.

[Alan_X]

Without getting into the details of the Emirates debate (and I don't think we can draw direct lessons on either side of the argument), it's worth pointing out that for the examples I gave above, the local market for boxes and corporate seats is likely to be fixed regardless of the size of the stadium.

As previously stated, the pricing structure of any stadium is a balance between the premium offer and general ticketing. The premium seats contribute a disproportionate amount to the stadium income and in principle, allow general tickets to be kept at a reasonable level. If you add 20,000 seats, which won't include any corporate seats, the 'subsidy' from corporate income is spread across more tickets and there is pressure to increase ticket prices.

I put subsidy in quotation marks because each seat has to pay its way, but in a stadium with no corporate income the amount each seat has to raise goes up, increasing ticket prices.

[Peter McGurk]

Without getting into the details of the Emirates debate (and I don't think we can draw direct lessons on either side of the argument), it's worth pointing out that for the examples I gave above, the local market for boxes and corporate seats is likely to be fixed regardless of the size of the stadium.

As previously stated, the pricing structure of any stadium is a balance between the premium offer and general ticketing. The premium seats contribute a disproportionate amount to the stadium income and in principle, allow general tickets to be kept at a reasonable level. If you add 20,000 seats, which won't include any corporate seats, the 'subsidy' from corporate income is spread across more tickets and there is pressure to increase ticket prices.

I put subsidy in quotation marks because each seat has to pay its way, but in a stadium with no corporate income the amount each seat has to raise goes up, increasing ticket prices.

As ever, great care should be taken with comparisons. They can be useful but only in principle. The details can make the cases completely different.

***

Indeed and very much so. There is only so many guys out there with Ł65k to spend on a box or what, Ł1500 to spend on a premium seat, whatever the size of the stadium.

On that basis the optimum capacity (with the highest return per seat) might be about 51k. Which is to say, adding boxes and premium seats only to the level you might expect to sell them. Great for the finances (least cost, highest return) - a disaster for the 'ordinary' fan.

It's reckoned that 12% of capacity can generate 50% of revenue (that much). If you added those numbers of premium seats above, it would give you about 7,200 'higher payers' or 12% of 60,000. A circular argument it's true but I'm sure it will have been doing the rounds in the club - particularly when any more capacity comes with heavy infrastructural costs (more pennies).

***

Given that the only way to crack the problems is to stay at Anfield. Given that a modern stadium design in the UK is inevitably a sad and 'soulless bowl'; Given that the financial answer comes with keeping our home and keeping a huge slice of what makes us, us, I cannot see how Liverpool Football Club could ever accept settling for second best and moving - even if it is only to Stanley Park

[wiresnreds]

From Stadia (see above):

11.2 Ground Capacity

11.2.1 The need for realism

The most important decision in planning a new stadium, or expanding an existing one, is the number of spectators to be accommodated

When developing a building brief, the design team and client organisation often over-estimate this figure. natural optimism plays a part in this. Sporting clubs always believe their attendance is about to increase dramatically, even though statistical evidence may show that it has been stable for years or even dropping; stadium owners like to believe that if only they had a bigger venue then more people would attend, even though many seats in their existing smaller stadium remain unfilled; and consultants may find it more exiting to get involved in big plans than small ones, which tends to encourage expensive thinking.

...but experience shows that attendances will tend to revert to earlier figures, after the novelty has worn off, unless the new crowd can be enticed to stay by mans of effective marketing or by the team's performance.

It is therefore the golden rule never to increase stadium capacity beyond that which is known to be necessary, and can be demonstrated to be affordable both in capital and running cost..."

Boring maybe, but that's the expert view.

Pretty fair points but with my local rugby team Warrington Wolves, they got  a new stadium and attendances have increased from an average of 4k to over 11k a game, this increased gradually year after year even with a poor team although doing a lot better the last two years. I know its low figures and all that but must prove that decent facilities have some impact on viewing attendances.

[Zeb]

Pretty fair points but with my local rugby team Warrington Wolves, they got  a new stadium and attendances have increased from an average of 4k to over 11k a game, this increased gradually year after year even with a poor team although doing a lot better the last two years. I know its low figures and all that but must prove that decent facilities have some impact on viewing attendances.

Middlesbrough are a good, if perhaps extreme, example of what happens when a club's performance dips. Went from an average gate in the high teens to 30k when they got their new ground and peaked at 34k. Since then, they've slumped all the way back down to 16k so far this calendar year. Relegation effectively knocked their gates right back to where they were before they got a new stadium.

[Garcepticon]

Jamie Carragher, April 2010

'From what I'm hearing within the club, I don't think our stadium is too far off. Hopefully that good news will happen in the next six months and we can move on. We're Liverpool Football Club, one of the biggest in the world, and we deserve a really special, iconic stadium.'

[west_london_red]

Middlesbrough are a good, if perhaps extreme, example of what happens when a club's performance dips. Went from an average gate in the high teens to 30k when they got their new ground and peaked at 34k. Since then, they've slumped all the way back down to 16k so far this calendar year. Relegation effectively knocked their gates right back to where they were before they got a new stadium.

Middlesbrough attendences dived before they were relegated from what I remember, but them like Blackburn now will always struggle to shift significant numbers of tickets, neither town is particulaly large and their OOT following is non-existant.

[Peter McGurk]

The attached figures are from Stadia 4th Edition by Geraint John, Rod Sheard & Ben Vickery...

The other is that there have been a few cases of clubs being sued because of shite sight lines, poor views etc, after upgrades. ...It's all very well saying we (the people who favour atmosphere over comfort) should forget modern stadium design and go 'trad' with steep stands blah, blah, blah. But what would the club do when thousands of Main Stand season ticket holders sue them because they are miles from the pitch and have a shite view of the game?

Naturally enough and for obvious reasons, people like Sheard et al can be light on how to solve the nitty-gritty of the detail.

***

As you are probably aware the calculation used for whether a view is good or not (a ‘C-value’), is very clumsy. Taking it all the way back to the published source, the Green Book even steps back from it to a degree. Ultimately no ‘good’ values are given and much is left in the hands of the expertise of the designer. That said, Sheard and others reckon 90 to be ‘better than good’.

I once asked a colleague (with a degree in Maths) to derive an integral formula to calculate the minimum ‘C-value’ taking into consideration every point on a given series of ellipses. It worked but I wouldn’t trust it with a barge pole. There is software to do it but basically you have to work it out for every single seat.

The upshot is, the further back you go at the maximum angle allowed, the less good the view. This produces the low angled bowls of modern stadia and gives refurbishments a 'problem' (because they are steeper than modern stadia).

***

Extending Anfield backwards is problematic in that sense and you have to be very careful where and how you put boxes (they affect the height in the calculation) to keep the C-values above 90.

If you want to have a bigger and bigger stadium (say more than 60k at Anfield) the C-value is going to drop from ‘better than good’ to just ‘good’ as you go further back. But not quite ever ‘shite’ because you run out of maximum viewing distance before you get there.

***

The Italian examples you gave may have already had excessive angles and I guess that might be the reason they ran into trouble. Devil in the detail, comparisons are always difficult - particularly from country to country.

[Zeb]

Middlesbrough attendences dived before they were relegated from what I remember, but them like Blackburn now will always struggle to shift significant numbers of tickets, neither town is particulaly large and their OOT following is non-existant.

2009 average there of 28.4k, relegated and then a 2010 average of 19.9k. For the 14 years prior to that (which included one season in Championship followed by an immediate promotion soon after the stadium was built), the mean average was 30k with a low of 26.7k in 2008 and a high of 34.3k in 1999 with 28/29k being the mode average. It's an extreme example but does make the point - whether the third or so no longer going were born and bred next to Ayresome park or travelling in from a wider area, they aren't going right now.

Trying to dig out a study to link but so far just found the headline press release - it was done by Deloitte in 2007 and made the same point as the work Alan_F has quoted. There is a real danger of overestimating the size of stadium required - we saw that with Everton's Kirkby plans. Everton's plan made little financial sense when their board decided that they could fill a 50k stadium every week; it made none when alternative studies predicted an average gate of around 38k.

[Peter McGurk]

Middlesbrough attendences dived before they were relegated from what I remember, but them like Blackburn now will always struggle to shift significant numbers of tickets, neither town is particulaly large and their OOT following is non-existant.

Although the OOTs do make a difference, it's not as big as you might think and varies club to club. It seems the biggest factor by far is population within 10 miles (this is the week for repeating things). The research is tedious to read but a crucial outcome is summarised...

"Our results reveal a positive impact of market size on gate attendance, as expected.
After experimentation with sizes of concentric rings, we find that the population
located in rings outside a 10 radius from the home team stadium does not contribute
significantly to attendance" [my bold]

http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/48823/1/Document.pdf

***

I also found this which is on a tangent but interesting and by the same researcher...

“The power has shifted to the TV audience, but the fans attending a match will always be important. I found that TV fans also value the quality of fans in the stadium to give the match atmosphere, so the football authorities should make sure that the stadium is quite full if they want a large television audience.”

As I've said elsewhere, it is quite possible that as the financial influence of global TV rights increases the financial purpose of the stadium could 'merely' be to be a baseline of secured income via STs and to provide an occasion and an event to sell on the box. It certainly takes a low-risk line with the club's finances. Investment in new stadia is mega. It's TV companies who invest in television infrastructure.

A case for low cost investment, cheaper seats, roaring atmosphere and full houses of fans steeped in the traditions and mythology of the club (ie., they know the words and are prepared to make a noise) if ever I saw one. Not every aspect of which I can see happening in a new stadium

http://www.lums.lancs.ac.uk/news/9610/tundephd/

Trying to dig out a study to link but so far just found the headline press release - it was done by Deloitte in 2007 and made the same point as the work Alan_F has quoted. There is a real danger of overestimating the size of stadium required - we saw that with Everton's Kirkby plans. Everton's plan made little financial sense when their board decided that they could fill a 50k stadium every week; it made none when alternative studies predicted an average gate of around 38k.

I can't find any research on the effect of building a new stadium on attendance either but certainly Arsenal's ticket sales went up when they moved. Of course they were doing extraordinarily well at the time. But perhaps they were able to exploit a very large corporate market (the City) that couldn't be reached at Highbury. Certainly the design is geared that way as the ring of silence shows. It seems that there is very little evidence either way and therefore a very significant risk to take on a big capacity.

However there is the possibly apocryphal line that new stadia affect the team performance badly for about four years after opening (but then again, Arsenal haven't been doing so well lately).

[CraigDS]

Although the OOTs do make a difference, it's not as big as you might think and varies club to club. It seems the biggest factor by far is population within 10 miles (this is the week for repeating things). The research is tedious to read but a crucial outcome is summarised...

"Our results reveal a positive impact of market size on gate attendance, as expected.
After experimentation with sizes of concentric rings, we find that the population
located in rings outside a 10 radius from the home team stadium does not contribute
significantly to attendance" [my bold]

http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/48823/1/Document.pdf

Not having the time to go through that whole thing at the moment - does that differentiate between the attendance at the like of Wigan and Bolton where they will be very local, to that of a Man United or Liverpool who have a very wide spread of support not only domestically but also Europe and the wider world?

[Peter McGurk]

Not having the time to go through that whole thing at the moment - does that differentiate between the attendance at the like of Wigan and Bolton where they will be very local, to that of a Man United or Liverpool who have a very wide spread of support not only domestically but also Europe and the wider world?

It takes a whole load of factors such as those into account and more - local support, national support, nearby overseas (European) support, even away support. It doesn't set out to apply different criteria to different cities, it simply measures an effect and notes the conclusion.

It would not have checked the address of everyone that went to the match but simply correlated size of population within a given distance to attendance. It's not actually telling us where the individuals come from but it does factor in the size of the OOT market, for example.

Incidentally, it concludes that the size of the global fans base has very little effect on attendance - as I think you'd expect. There's not many pop over from KL on a weekend.

[west_london_red]

It takes a whole load of factors such as those into account and more - local support, national support, nearby overseas (European) support, even away support. It doesn't set out to apply different criteria to different cities, it simply measures an effect and notes the conclusion.

It would not have checked the address of everyone that went to the match but simply correlated size of population within a given distance to attendance. It's not actually telling us where the individuals come from.

Incidentally, it concludes that the size of the global fans base has very little effect on attendance - as you'd expect.

Cant argue with the stats but I suspect when it comes to us OOTs do make up a large % of those at the ground. I buy my tickets via membership so sit at different seats most games I attend and sit very rarely sit next to locals, I usually end up sitting next to Irish or Scandinavian supporters, and on the odd occasion OOTs whose accents i dont recognise. Also, putting aside ST holders who make up over 50% of those at Anfield (ST holders will obviously tend to be locals) then of whats available to buy via membership and general sale, OOTs will make up a pretty heft %

[Peter McGurk]

Cant argue with the stats but I suspect when it comes to us OOTs do make up a large % of those at the ground. I buy my tickets via membership so sit at different seats most games I attend and sit very rarely sit next to locals, I usually end up sitting next to Irish or Scandinavian supporters, and on the odd occasion OOTs whose accents i dont recognise. Also, putting aside ST holders who make up over 50% of those at Anfield (ST holders will obviously tend to be locals) then of whats available to buy via membership and general sale, OOTs will make up a pretty heft %

Well yes, I move around the ground too. Ignoring the research - it's mostly (middle aged) scousers in the kop (like me), wools and octogenarians (used affectionately!) and the one girl and her boyfriend a week from Malaysia, in the Main Stand, old kop exiles in the lower cent, can't get a ticket for the upper and all sorts in the AR - oh, and players in the boxes...

 

[CraigDS]

Well yes, I move around the ground too. Ignoring the research - it's mostly (middle aged) scousers in the kop (like me), wools and octogenarians (used affectionately!) in the Main Stand, old kop exiles in the lower cent, can't get a ticket for the upper and all sorts in the AR - oh, and players in the boxes...

Thats because we don't just let anyone up here 

[Peter McGurk]

Thats because we don't just let anyone up here 

It'll just be the mute swans then... ))

I think the real story here is that no f*cker knows exactly how many would come to a bigger stadium. It's a big risk to build big and hope, and a more clever way forward to add to what you've got in smaller steps until they stop coming.

[CraigDS]

It'll just be the mute swans then... ))

depends how much Ive had to drink...

[Peter McGurk]

depends how much Ive had to drink...

There's a new idea out this season called the Sat'dee 3 o'clock kick-off. I think it might catch on.