Topic: Ayre: 'We're making stadium progress'

[RedPross]

Why don't we just build a raw no thrills football stadium..... Steep intimidating and concentrated on keeping as much atmosphere and notice inside.

Make it 65,000.....possibly like the Lloyds building with the insides outside..... And then when the money comes in we add the additional boxes.... They'll be there but not finished off... And the stadium grows as the money is freed up!!!!

Created a stadium with the atmosphere of Dortmunds..... Not all pretty from the outside but inside a totally amazing experience!!!!

[gazzathered]

Trying to appease the fans if you ask me,a week after giving bad news there giving is no new news

[Alan_X]

We could always make Anfield slightly taller? That might bring in the eyesore argument, but that'd easier to handle than building back even further.
Anyway, I'm not pleased with this 60,000 capacity crap. 60,000 is the modern for clubs of our size (and smaller). In a few years time, with the game expanding globally and countries with large population and rapid growth developing more interest in the European game (China, USA, India, Brazil) I say we need more than 60,000. Look at Man Utd, a lot of their Old Trafford visiting fans are either foreigners who have settled in the UK or people who have travelled.
If FSG are going to make us as big globally and commerically as they claim, we need well beyond 60,000 seats. 80,000 has to be the target.

First off building more seats means building back because of basic geometry. You can overlap to a certain extent but just building up gives limited additional seats (Anny Road Upper). If you go up close to the pitch the rake becomes unacceptable. You also need concourses stairs and additional ancillary areas.

And there is no evidence that there will ever be 10-15,000 flying in from the far east and America every match day and for midweek Carling cup games. Forget United - they have had twenty years of success and are te poster boys of sky and the premier league. let's see if they're still selling out OT in five years if City have taken their mantle. 60,000 isn't fashion - it's economics. You don't spend hundreds of millions on a stadium and just pick a capacity out of the air.

[Alan_X]

Why don't we just build a raw no thrills football stadium..... Steep intimidating and concentrated on keeping as much atmosphere and notice inside.

Make it 65,000.....possibly like the Lloyds building with the insides outside..... And then when the money comes in we add the additional boxes.... They'll be there but not finished off... And the stadium grows as the money is freed up!!!!

Created a stadium with the atmosphere of Dortmunds..... Not all pretty from the outside but inside a totally amazing experience!!!!

Because our match day revenue would be shite. Did you read my post about Sunderland's stadium of light? 40,000  average crowd and a matchday income that is a tiny fraction of the major clubs.

Oh and Dortmund is a thing of real beauty.

Edit - in other words, the money would never come in and we'd fall so far behind we'd never catch up. The boxes and corporate tickets are what brings in the big bucks and pays for you and me to have reasonably priced tickets.

[plasterered]

Trying to appease the fans if you ask me,a week after giving bad news there giving is no new news

My thoughts exactly due to the timing of this.

This "dialogue" has been going on and on since moores was there. a conversation that gets passed from owner to owner - its the longest conversation on earth and as long as it remains a conversation ~I wont get excited

[lcjpm01]

Here you go

https://twitter.com/1Dev/status/204649529260244994/photo/1

That surely must be an improvement than being able to watch the Wolves

[MikaelLFC]

Good reasoning Alan_X, I'm with you on this one.

I've got one question though, if we build a new ground, do you reckon it'd be possible to build a 'base' for let's say 60'000 seats, with a possibility to 'upgrade' to 80'000 if needed (if the demand gets bigger in the future, that is)? Or would that be impossible directly from a practical view?

[Alan_X]

Haha - brilliant! Restricted view: restricted to half the pitch. There were some seats like that in the first version of the HKS stadium. I hope that's the first phase and the next phase will sort it out but even so, basic error.

[MikaelLFC]

Do they get to pay half the price as they only see the half pitch?

[JP-65]

That surely must be an improvement than being able to watch the Wolves

ha ha ha

[Kite]

If we can stay at Anfield with 60,000 seats its fantastic news. 

[Scud02]

If we can stay at Anfield with 60,000 seats its fantastic news.

We'll need more than 60,000 I think, maybe closer to 70,000 with the sweet spot being 65,000 as stated by Ayre.

[Alan_X]

Good reasoning Alan_X, I'm with you on this one.

I've got one question though, if we build a new ground, do you reckon it'd be possible to build a 'base' for let's say 60'000 seats, with a possibility to 'upgrade' to 80'000 if needed (if the demand gets bigger in the future, that is)? Or would that be impossible directly from a practical view?

It's possible to increase capacity if you have the money and the land to do it. Half the stadiums in the worls started out as smaller grounds.

Most people wouldn't have a clue that this is the Westfalenstadion in the early seventies.



It wasn't built to be expanded but the architects and engineers worked out ways to increase it - the yellow cantilevered roof supports are a brilliant solution to holding up a roof in a stadium that wasn't designed to be that big.



The San Siro has three tiers and each tier is effectively a new building with it's own access ramps and stairs.
This is iyt after the second tier was added in 1955:



And for the 1990 World Cup:



You can see the ramps and the underside of the second tier stands behind the new circular towers, the new tier and the roof structure.

I always said that the AFL (Parrybowl) design could be enlarged if the need arose. You'd need a different roof but that's standard for increasing an existing stadium.

[MikaelLFC]

That's brilliant Alan_X, cheers! A very interesting read and quite honestly, I hadn't thought of actual stadiums that were rebuilt. With the technology and creativeness there is out there these days, I imagine FSG won't have problems if they decide to rebuild Anfield.

Didn't really know that Westfalenstadion was rebuilt, quite amazing if you compare that photo with today!

[david25113051]

We'll need more than 60,000 I think, maybe closer to 70,000 with the sweet spot being 65,000 as stated by Ayre.

we need a lot more vip boxers theses bring in the cash from the corporate side of things i would prefer the idea of staying at anfield and redevelop it
if we are to move i personally like the way the san siro ( as one guy posted above ) is i would not like a ground like city or arsenal
i think they will go with what ever idea make them the most corporate space

[stevejd63]

I can fully understand FSG not making a decision

Am I the only one who thinks a redeveloped Anfield with say 50,000 seats for plebs like me and maybe 5000 ‘Premium seats’ would be more than enough.

All this talk of 60,000 plus just smacks to me of ‘we’ve got bigger cocks than you’

I feel the season ticket waiting list will disintegrate the minute people can actually buy one.

Just recently I was up for the Fulham game, think there was 4,000 empty seats. A week later against Chelsea the lad I sit next to, from Liverpool had a spare that he could not give away. Where were all these extra supporters then?

I think FSG know this and that is why they are reluctant to commit.

If it was my choice I certainly would not spend vast amounts of money on what could prove to be a white elephant

[CraigDS]

They have already said just over 60k is the ideal amount currently so 55k isn't going to cut it really as will still leave us a fair way behind each season from stadium income.

[Alan_X]

I know Peter is seen as having a bee in his bonnet about rebuilding Anfield but his reasoning is spot on. I still worry about the quality we'll be left with in the retained parts. I wouldn't have a problem if a tweaked version of the AFL design was built in Stanley Park. It's a much better stadium that the renders suggest. I did an overlay of the AFL Kop and the Westfalenstadion Sudtribune and they are about the same.

The perceived rake of a stand often has to do with the edges - if the edges are contained it feels steeper than a continuous bowl.. In the conversation I had the other evening we are talking about how the Kop is't that steep. You feel like part of the crowd with a connection with the person in front and behind who are closer to your level.

[stevejd63]

They have already said just over 60k is the ideal amount currently so 55k isn't going to cut it really as will still leave us a fair way behind each season from stadium income.

I know what you are saying, I'm just not sure we'll fill it.
I just think we have reached the point where the cost is too great for the average fan.
I'm an OOTer and I've had to pass my ticket on for a few games this year due to cost. i know loads of people that are doing the same.

The Main stand and Paddock need doing up regardless of more seats. I'd then bend the corners around to join the Kop. We could probably get an extra 5000 seats there. Stop there see how it goes, if we sell out then do the next phase. For me that would be the Annie Road.

A gradual increase would, in my opinion be the best way to go

[Peter McGurk]

...I always said that the AFL (Parrybowl) design could be enlarged if the need arose. You'd need a different roof but that's standard for increasing an existing stadium.

The corner solution at Westfalenstadion is ingenuous and would work very well at Anfield.

But comparisons are very tricky. Westfalen was expanded in several goes and the roof replaced at significant expense but it was helped by local government and the DFF via hosting of two World Cups.

As the picture, shows the San Siro didn’t have a roof prior to the latest ‘upgrade’, so they were at liberty to ‘bang on’ another tier without having to remove an old one.

[ChaChaMooMoo]

Right to light? Does it denote the basic natural lighting?

Surely a stadium wont block the basic natural lighting to a row of houses. Or am I missing something here?

[Peter McGurk]

I know Peter is seen as having a bee in his bonnet about rebuilding Anfield but his reasoning is spot on. I still worry about the quality we'll be left with in the retained parts. I wouldn't have a problem if a tweaked version of the AFL design was built in Stanley Park. It's a much better stadium that the renders suggest. I did an overlay of the AFL Kop and the Westfalenstadion Sudtribune and they are about the same.

The perceived rake of a stand often has to do with the edges - if the edges are contained it feels steeper than a continuous bowl.. In the conversation I had the other evening we are talking about how the Kop is't that steep. You feel like part of the crowd with a connection with the person in front and behind who are closer to your level.

This is not an ‘either or’. It’s not a question of poorer facilities or a new stadium. All of the seats in a redevelopment (and the hospitality etc etc) can be as good as a new stadium. Every seat in the ground could be upgraded - as long as you pay for it. In a new stadium you must pay for it. No choice.

The pricing structure at Anfield is in any event too flat. The premium seat prices are eye-watering at the top end (works out at over £8000 a season, per head and more than the boxes, per head). But the standard seat prices price out the less well-off and families and it doesn’t maximise the ‘take’ from Joe Average who’s got a few bob more.

There a multitude of ‘price entry points’ at the Allianz for example ie., something to suit everyone. Perfectly do-able to offer such a plan in the UK, but here this plan would have a higher price floor. The lowest price would be higher than at the Allianz and significantly higher than an existing and un-upgraded seat in a redeveloped Anfield.

But on the slightly different issue of atmosphere, Westfalen is surprisingly small for its capacity. I stand to be corrected but since some of those seats will go back some years, I imagine they’re not as big as modern regulations call for. In other words, Westfalen has kept the old seats for the same reasons as we would at Anfield - to have a wider spread of prices (and a better 'crowd')

There’s many worry about losing the ‘crowd’ as the seats get bigger and bigger and I would be one of them. I’d rather be in a crowd than sitting at home in an armchair. Having been to Wembley now - not an unreasonable comparison.

.

[Peter McGurk]

Because our match day revenue would be shite. Did you read my post about Sunderland's stadium of light? 40,000  average crowd and a matchday income that is a tiny fraction of the major clubs.

Oh and Dortmund is a thing of real beauty.

Edit - in other words, the money would never come in and we'd fall so far behind we'd never catch up. The boxes and corporate tickets are what brings in the big bucks and pays for you and me to have reasonably priced tickets.

Private boxes are not going to help. Private boxes are inflexible (you can always sell a premium seat without the hospitality package if you're playing Stoke), expensive to build and difficult to sell and they offer a lower return than some premium seats.

Current premium prices work out at from £2,964 to £8,664 a season for the premier league fixtures alone. Boxes are £6,500 a head.

We've already half-buried the boxes in the Centenary Stand. The seats are in front of the glass now. Nuke the boxes completely and re-fitted that whole floor as a hospitality suite with rows of premium seats in front. A table in a glass-fronted hospitality suite under the stand and a great seat in front of it. Top-end service and top-end prices - or actually ten or fifteen years' worth in advance.

The receipts from 7,200 to 7,500 medium to (very) expensive premium seats would put the income from 300 or so private box seats in the shade and leave 53k to 58k standard seats to meet a spread of price demand.

.

[Alan_X]

Private boxes are not going to help. Private boxes are inflexible, expensive to build and difficult to sell and they offer a lower return than some premium seats.

Current premium prices work out at from £2,964 to £8,664 a season for the premier league fixtures alone. Boxes are £6,500.

We've already half-buried the boxes in the Centenary Stand. The seats are in front of the glass now. Nuke the boxes completely and re-fitted that whole floor as a hospitality suite with rows of premium seats in front. A table in a glass-fronted hospitality suite under the stand and a great seat in front of it. Top-end service and top-end prices - or actually ten or fifteen years' worth in advance.

The receipts from 7,500 medium to (very) expensive premium seats would put the income from 300 or so private box seats in the shade and leave 53k to 58k standard seats to meet a spread of price demand.

Good points Peter - I hadn't thought about boxes that way - but whether boxes or corporate seats, you need higher spec facilities and more space concourse side to justify the cost premium. And the suggestion that you start out with just the cheap seats makes no sense .

[Alan_X]

Peter - I'll scan and post the info on the Westfalen from Stadium Atlas later. The bottom tier in the picture above is early 1970s so probably tighter than current specs.

[Peter McGurk]

Good points Peter - I hadn't thought about boxes that way - but whether boxes or corporate seats, you need higher spec facilities and more space concourse side to justify the cost premium. And the suggestion that you start out with just the cheap seats makes no sense .

Premium seats still cheaper per head to build than boxes. And, er no. I'm suggesting the opposite. Start with the expensive seats.

.

[Alan_X]

Premium seats still cheaper per head to build than boxes. And, er no. I'm suggesting the opposite. Start with the expensive seats.

.

You were - the lad I was replying to said build just the cheap seats and add 'boxes' later when the money rolls in. That's the Sunderland scenario: big stadium with minimal income

[Flaccid Bobby Fowler]

not sure if its been asked before but apart from the obvious, is there anything stopping us from building down instead of up?

[JP-65]

not sure if its been asked before but apart from the obvious, is there anything stopping us from building down instead of up?

I'm far from an expert, but I would imagine cost has a lot to do with it.

[CraigDS]

The problem is if you build down, and intend to add extra rows of seats to all stands at the bottom so they remain close to the pitch, is you then need to move at least two of the stands back (say Anny Rd and Main Stand). Moving them back would cause a right to light issue as the stand gets closer to the houses as it would if it went up in its current location. I also believe digging down brings up a fair few costly construction issues but not something I know a lot about.

[mikey_LFC]

Would be easy if you didn't mind not seeing the pitch.

Just build it the stand vertical and have straps on the seats like a roller-coaster. Simple and cheap.

[free_at_last]

Just build it the stand vertical and have straps on the seats like a roller-coaster. Simple and cheap.

For the benefit of any of FSG's advisers who are reading - that was a joke.

[Peter McGurk]

You were - the lad I was replying to said build just the cheap seats and add 'boxes' later when the money rolls in. That's the Sunderland scenario: big stadium with minimal income

oh no I wasn't...

.

[CraigDS]

oh no I wasn't...

.

He is agreeing with you, and meant someone else was saying about the cheap seats. Unless you realised that and Ive missed something!!

[Peter McGurk]

Here you go

https://twitter.com/1Dev/status/204649529260244994/photo/1

I imagine the need to build those seats now to complete the roof over the end stand but they won't be used until the next stand is done. Or it's just a ...

.

[Peter McGurk]

He is agreeing with you, and meant someone else was saying about the cheap seats. Unless you realised that and Ive missed something!!

No, he was saying we needed boxes.... aaaaaaaaaaah!

[Alan_X]

No, he was saying we needed boxes.... aaaaaaaaaaah!

I wasn't... I think?... it's too hot and I need a beer. Anyone care to join me?...

[Peter McGurk]

I wasn't... I think?... it's too hot and I need a beer. Anyone care to join me?...

In spirit if not in person....

[Peter McGurk]

I'm unopposed to a new ground or but would prefer a redevelopment of where we are now - but Ayre saying 'a £300 million build for 15,000 new seats' is not quite the full story, as I pointed out in my post.

Wha'..?

Given that all other things (the premium seats, boxes - or not - room for offices, functions and meetings and corporate events (but not concerts - not allowed in the new stadium),purpose-built store, food and drink in the concourses, cafes, restaurants, bars, an enlarged and improved museum and tours and all the viewing and legroom) can be equal - as I said, £300m for 15,000 seats is the story. It's the mountain that naming rights has to come to.

Given all that, why do people still want a new stadium?

.

[RJH]

not sure if its been asked before but apart from the obvious, is there anything stopping us from building down instead of up?

I'm not sure what the obvious is?

But anyway, I think the problem is you'd have to rebuild all the stands.

If you lower the pitch, you'd mess up the sightlines of all the existing seats - a section of pitch closest to each stand wouldn't be visible.

Secondly, as Craig says, you'd also have to move at least some of the stands in order to have space to put in the new rows at the front.