Topic: anfield road stand

[TepidT2O]

Not only is  the financial argument not true. I despair that some sections of our support see optimisation of return for FSG more important than the long term interests of LFC.

He doesn't, he just realises that we live in the real world.

Why do you suggest his financial argument is untrue?  Back it up

[Nessy76]

Not only is  the financial argument not true. I despair that some sections of our support see optimisation of return for FSG more important than the long term interests of LFC.

Like who? Peter hasn't expressed a personal opinion on this as far as I've seen, he's just talking about how FSG might see it.

But you are right to point out that beyond verbally promising a new stadium to Broughton, FSG have shown no interest in making stadium development a priority.

I would point you to the Main Stand pictures thread for a comprehensive debunking of that suggestion.

[Peter McGurk]

Not only is  the financial argument not true. I despair that some sections of our support see optimisation of return for FSG more important than the long term interests of LFC.

But you are right to point out that beyond verbally promising a new stadium to Broughton, FSG have shown no interest in making stadium development a priority.

You've never had a decent understanding of how the money works. I thought I'd help you out with a definition of 'marginal' - some fell on stony ground.

My reply referred to the return for the club not for FSG. It's hard to describe risking maybe £60m for an additional income of £4m-6m a year (if you're lucky) as anything other than marginal. It's certainly not an 'easy step' (despite all the jam-tomorrow nonsense thrown in).

As it happens they are mutually beneficial in other respects. The club gets the capacity it says it needs and the fans want with interest-free money from its owners and the owners participate to their benefit in a deal which was and is unworkable for them in a conventional sense (ie., they didn't fancy borrowing the money or waiting to get it back)

Promise to Broughton of a new stadium? You'll have to do better than that. This quote from Broughton (on the day of the sale):

"There is definitely commitment to investment in a stadium... Where they haven't finalised their view is whether that should be the new stadium or whether there are still opportunities to build at Anfield itself."

[chunky]

Yes, but that doesn't fit into people's agendas mate!

agenda?

I don't think they are looking to sell up. My comment may have been a bit too subtle maybe?

[whiteboots]

He doesn't, he just realises that we live in the real world.

Why do you suggest his financial argument is untrue?  Back it up

The real world sees our club, which still boasts the second highest average home league attendance over the history of English football, squander the opportunities of the growth in football attendance while our footballing peers seize the moment.

I outlined the formula for the financial case for the ARE earlier. The numbers can only be indicative.

An extra 4000 seats at £50 generates £200,000 per game, £5m a season over 25 games. The operational build life of a modern stand is around 40 years. That is £200m in straight line income. PL ticket prices have increased by 13% in the last five years, more prior to that. Add 10%, 2% a year, compounded. A £75m stand (say) pays for itself in straight line income, before ticket price inflation and before hospitality/concession income, and commercial stand sponsorship, in fifteen years.

Add to that the fact that clubs do not amortise stadium construction. A new stand/ stadium tomorrow will cost more than one today, a further cost. The Millenium stadium was built for the same price as our new main stand. The cost of doing nothing is not nothing.

FFP does not count stadium costs in expenditure, but allows revenue generated. It is “free money” for FFP. So there is a further FFP cost when expenditure is not stand/stadium construction generated.

I appreciate that this is a little dry. But there can be a tendency to swallow some FSG statements  whole. The reason why we did not move to a new stadium, and redevelopment is slow, is not financial, it is simply that FSG don’t do new stadiums and prefer smaller, over- subscribed ones to push ticket prices, which is fair enough from their point of view.

[Alan_X]

The real world sees our club, which still boasts the second highest average home league attendance over the history of English football, squander the opportunities of the growth in football attendance while our footballing peers seize the moment.

I outlined the formula for the financial case for the ARE earlier. The numbers can only be indicative.

An extra 4000 seats at £50 generates £200,000 per game, £5m a season over 25 games. The operational build life of a modern stand is around 40 years. That is £200m in straight line income. PL ticket prices have increased by 13% in the last five years, more prior to that. Add 10%, 2% a year, compounded. A £75m stand (say) pays for itself in straight line income, before ticket price inflation and before hospitality/concession income, and commercial stand sponsorship, in fifteen years.

Add to that the fact that clubs do not amortise stadium construction. A new stand/ stadium tomorrow will cost more than one today, a further cost. The Millenium stadium was built for the same price as our new main stand. The cost of doing nothing is not nothing.

FFP does not count stadium costs in expenditure, but allows revenue generated. It is “free money” for FFP. So there is a further FFP cost when expenditure is not stand/stadium construction generated.

I appreciate that this is a little dry. But there can be a tendency to swallow some FSG statements  whole. The reason why we did not move to a new stadium, and redevelopment is slow, is not financial, it is simply that FSG don’t do new stadiums and prefer smaller, over- subscribed ones to push ticket prices, which is fair enough from their point of view.

Where are the running costs? And isn't there VAT to come off the ticket cost?

[whiteboots]

Where are the running costs? And isn't there VAT to come off the ticket cost?

Running costs will be incurred now, and over time, an older stand costs more to run than a new one. A detailed breakdown should allow for both.

The £50 was net of VAT.

Nonetheless, the numbers are pretty straight forward.

I look forwards to the "marginal" breakdown.

[mikeb58]

The real world sees our club, which still boasts the second highest average home league attendance over the history of English football, squander the opportunities of the growth in football attendance while our footballing peers seize the moment.

Don't think anybody can argue with this statement. For whatever reason, LFC has been left behind in terms of stadium capacity. It's brilliant we stayed at Anfield, but the drawbacks are obvious, the ARE being the most obvious.

Lesser clubs by miles have bigger stadiums than us, and that can't be right.I'm not talking about mere bragging rights about having a bigger stadium than anybody else, it's about the financial loss we've incurred over the years and that little fact about supply and demand.

As much as I love the new Main Stand, I will only be happy when the ARE is done and we finally reach a near 60k capacity which befits a club of our heritage and stature.

Either way, this should have been have achieved years ago in my opinion, and if that did mean a new build away from Anfield I would have accepted it.

[Anfield89]

City , Utd and Arsenal have bigger, what lesser clubs have a bigger ground (by miles)

[kennys1988team]

West Ham, Sunderland

[Nessy76]

City , Utd and Arsenal have bigger, what lesser clubs have a bigger ground (by miles)

Only Manchester United have an average attendance above 60k.

[CraigDS]

West Ham, Sunderland

West Ham were gifted theirs so not really relevant to any convo.

Stadium of Light is smaller than Anfield (now).

[Nessy76]

West Ham were gifted theirs so not really relevant to any convo.

Stadium of Light is smaller than Anfield (now).

And usually half empty.

[mikeb58]

I said (or meant!) lesser 'clubs' by miles, not miles in capacity terms. For the past few seasons Newcastle and Sunderland have had bigger capacities than us. We will leapfrog them when the new Main Stand is open.

However Spurs, Chelsea and West Ham will overtake us in the future with their new stadiums or developments. We have languished in roughly the same terms of capacity for years with shite like Villa and Everton.

We deserve better than that, cos we are better than that.

My point is, LFC should not be lagging behind anybody but Man Utd when it comes to ground capacity. They are the exception because there fan base,location and wealth has seen them pull away into a league of their own in increasing the capacity of OT.

60K capacity I reckon would suit us, as I said if we reach that at Anfield sooner rather than later, great. But until then I still think we're missing out on revenue and prestige, which is a shame for a club of our history and following.

[M7 Heckler]

Not sure if anyone's noticed but they seem to have done some work on the ARE roof, tapering it upwards where it meets the main stand, rather than leaving a cutaway section which would expose the visiting fans to the elements. Does this make it any less likely that an ARE expansion will happen any time soon?

[CraigDS]

Not sure if anyone's noticed but they seem to have done some work on the ARE roof, tapering it upwards where it meets the main stand, rather than leaving a cutaway section which would expose the visiting fans to the elements. Does this make it any less likely that an ARE expansion will happen any time soon?

None.

[mikeb58]

West Ham were gifted theirs so not really relevant to any convo.

Yeah, agree but by whatever means they got it they still have a stadium that will hold 60k, which we're led to believe is more than Anfield will  be ever able to hold.

Again this is not about bragging rights etc, or 'but so what we've still got The Kop' etc, it's about how it came to be we seem to be playing catch up or being left behind all together when it comes to stadium capacity/redevelopment.

Obviously moving away from Anfield is never going to happen (not in my lifetime anyway!) so we can't compete with likes of what Spurs and West Ham will have (not sure what Chelsea have in mind) so we are stuck with the limited amount of expansion Anfield will allow.

That's why we have to make the very most of our limitations/ capabilities and that means getting the ARE  done. At least then we are roughly up there with the likes of our competitors.

[whiteboots]

And usually half empty.

Sunderland's average attendance last year was 43,071 vs a capacity 49,000, that is 86% full, not half empty. Ours was 43,910.

Since 2008 they have only averaged less than 40,000 once, by less than a 1000.

Their move to the SOL is one of the great success stories, more than doubling their average attendance.

It is a great example of moving when the opportunity presented itself, for next to nothing, being ambitious, and growing their support.

[Peter McGurk]

The real world sees our club, which still boasts the second highest average home league attendance over the history of English football, squander the opportunities of the growth in football attendance while our footballing peers seize the moment.

I outlined the formula for the financial case for the ARE earlier. The numbers can only be indicative.

An extra 4000 seats at £50 generates £200,000 per game, £5m a season over 25 games. The operational build life of a modern stand is around 40 years. That is £200m in straight line income. PL ticket prices have increased by 13% in the last five years, more prior to that. Add 10%, 2% a year, compounded. A £75m stand (say) pays for itself in straight line income, before ticket price inflation and before hospitality/concession income, and commercial stand sponsorship, in fifteen years.

Add to that the fact that clubs do not amortise stadium construction. A new stand/ stadium tomorrow will cost more than one today, a further cost. The Millenium stadium was built for the same price as our new main stand. The cost of doing nothing is not nothing.

FFP does not count stadium costs in expenditure, but allows revenue generated. It is “free money” for FFP. So there is a further FFP cost when expenditure is not stand/stadium construction generated.

I appreciate that this is a little dry. But there can be a tendency to swallow some FSG statements  whole. The reason why we did not move to a new stadium, and redevelopment is slow, is not financial, it is simply that FSG don’t do new stadiums and prefer smaller, over- subscribed ones to push ticket prices, which is fair enough from their point of view.

Sunderland's average attendance last year was 43,071 vs a capacity 49,000, that is 86% full, not half empty. Ours was 43,910.

Since 2008 they have only averaged less than 40,000 once, by less than a 1000.

Their move to the SOL is one of the great success stories, more than doubling their average attendance.

It is a great example of moving when the opportunity presented itself, for next to nothing, being ambitious, and growing their support.

The £50 was net of VAT.

So in your ‘model’, ticket prices are £60 including VAT (rising at 2% a year). Nice, we’ll all love paying that.

And the club can wait 15 years to see any benefit. Presumably while it waits for naming rights to bear fruit (still not seen after you banging on about it for God knows how long).

And an interesting take on £75m being ‘free’ money. FFP or not, someone has to put their hands in their pocket for £75m.

And a change of tack on FSG’s intentions. Now it’s not because they don't know what they’re doing or they're in it to squeeze every last penny out of the club, it’s because they blindly don’t do new.  Even though new would be double the cost with ticket prices to match.

And whatever the club did before and whatever the Millenium Stadium cost and whatever was in it, that was all water under the bridge long before FSG arrived. Blame someone else - Kemp, Moores, Parry - anyone you like. Nothing to do with FSG.

I'm sorry but really, if you had brains you might be dangerous.

BTW, if the the fully developed Anfield was as full as the Sunderland 'success' story, your £60 would be £70 (incl. VAT). Nice work.

[Nessy76]

Sunderland's average attendance last year was 43,071 vs a capacity 49,000, that is 86% full, not half empty. Ours was 43,910.

Since 2008 they have only averaged less than 40,000 once, by less than a 1000.

Their move to the SOL is one of the great success stories, more than doubling their average attendance.

It is a great example of moving when the opportunity presented itself, for next to nothing, being ambitious, and growing their support.

We still sell more tickets than them. I don't care if they play in the maracana, it's numbers through the turnstiles that's the only sane measure. Why are you bothered about Sunderland's empty seats? Are we so fragile that we are threatened by imaginary Sunderland supporters now?

[Alan_X]

Running costs will be incurred now, and over time, an older stand costs more to run than a new one. A detailed breakdown should allow for both.

The £50 was net of VAT.

Nonetheless, the numbers are pretty straight forward.

I look forwards to the "marginal" breakdown.

Why does an older stand cost more to run? Staffing, utilities maintenance etc will be about the same as they're based on capacity but obviously a new stand's running costs will include an allowance for depreciation. It's not a huge number but regardless, the running costs come off the gross ticket income (after VAT) so a £50 ticket net of VAT is not £50 profit.

That' s fairly basic stuff which suggests you don't have a clue what you're on about.

£50 net of VAT is ridiculous/

So £50 tickets (probably still too high for the new Annie Upper) would be £41.67 net of VAT at 20%. A fair number will be new season tickets so there's another discount in there.

Let's allow, say 10% on running costs? That leaves £38 income per seat. And of course as that's part of the club's income there will be a share of the club's other operating costs - administration, player's salaries, transfer fees, Melwood, the Academy etc to come off the top.

That's the way businesses work.

[Alan_X]

We still sell more tickets than them. I don't care if they play in the maracana, it's numbers through the turnstiles that's the only sane measure. Why are you bothered about Sunderland's empty seats? Are we so fragile that we are threatened by imaginary Sunderland supporters now?

And they sell their Category A tickets for £32 - £40.

[stueya]

I agree on the margins being lower than Whiteboots suggests but I think FSG will take into account ticket price hikes over the next ten years, whilst I know ticket prices are being held at the moment  they will begin to climb again though maybe not to the level of the 20%+ rate that we've seen since 2006.

The other point is that the club don't value a ticket on the price on the front of it but actually value it based a combination of its cost + the additional match day income it brings and other existing revenue streams which could undoubtedly be enhanced by the extra capacity.

I've always felt that as a club we've spent the last 25years missing tricks left right and centre and I firmly believe that not extending now would be another missed trick

[whiteboots]

We still sell more tickets than them. I don't care if they play in the maracana, it's numbers through the turnstiles that's the only sane measure. Why are you bothered about Sunderland's empty seats? Are we so fragile that we are threatened by imaginary Sunderland supporters now?

The point is that their new stadium, more than doubling average attendance, is a success story.

Far from being fragile, I am bullish about our prospects for a new ARE, and beyond.

[whiteboots]

Why does an older stand cost more to run? Staffing, utilities maintenance etc will be about the same as they're based on capacity but obviously a new stand's running costs will include an allowance for depreciation. It's not a huge number but regardless, the running costs come off the gross ticket income (after VAT) so a £50 ticket net of VAT is not £50 profit.

That' s fairly basic stuff which suggests you don't have a clue what you're on about.

£50 net of VAT is ridiculous/

So £50 tickets (probably still too high for the new Annie Upper) would be £41.67 net of VAT at 20%. A fair number will be new season tickets so there's another discount in there.

Let's allow, say 10% on running costs? That leaves £38 income per seat. And of course as that's part of the club's income there will be a share of the club's other operating costs - administration, player's salaries, transfer fees, Melwood, the Academy etc to come off the top.

That's the way businesses work.

Older stands are more expensive to run because they require greater maintenance, pro rata.

You state that “obviously  a new stand's running costs will include an allowance for depreciation”. I can see from your posts  that you are unusually well clued up both as a fan, and professionally. Show me an item in our accounts for the remodelled Kop, Centenary Stand, or existing ARE when it was rebuilt which shows a depreciation figure. It’s not there. I don’t know of a club that does. That is why new stands are so expensive. Fittings may be depreciated, the structure is not.

You are right to say that the running costs, in the grand scheme of things, are neither here nor there. Any increased costs relate to increased revenue, and are likely to be marginal.

Any projected figure for ticket prices represent a hostage to fortune. Any new stand will be at least two years off. £50 net is revenue, not profit. It is also an average. Premium seats will be higher, concessions lower.

Four thousand new seats generates revenue, how you wish to apportion that revenue is up to you.

But let’s just take your figure of £38 net. That is £152m gross income over the forty years lifetime, plus naming rights, plus ticket inflation, plus hospitality/concession revenues. How much do you think a new ARE will cost? I won’t hold you to it. It is an indicative figure. And then explain how the return is marginal?

[Peter McGurk]

Older stands are more expensive to run because they require greater maintenance, pro rata.

You state that “obviously  a new stand's running costs will include an allowance for depreciation”. I can see from your posts  that you are unusually well clued up both as a fan, and professionally. Show me an item in our accounts for the remodelled Kop, Centenary Stand, or existing ARE when it was rebuilt which shows a depreciation figure. It’s not there. I don’t know of a club that does. That is why new stands are so expensive. Fittings may be depreciated, the structure is not.

You are right to say that the running costs, in the grand scheme of things, are neither here nor there. Any increased costs relate to increased revenue, and are likely to be marginal.

Any projected figure for ticket prices represent a hostage to fortune. Any new stand will be at least two years off. £50 net is revenue, not profit. It is also an average. Premium seats will be higher, concessions lower.

Four thousand new seats generates revenue, how you wish to apportion that revenue is up to you.

But let’s just take your figure of £38 net. That is £152m gross income over the forty years lifetime, plus naming rights, plus ticket inflation, plus hospitality/concession revenues. How much do you think a new ARE will cost? I won’t hold you to it. It is an indicative figure. And then explain how the return is marginal?

Ok this is beyond silly now. Is nobody paying for this stadium? According to your own 'calculations' the nett return to the club is three parts of sweet FA for 15 years.

And, it's so BORING!!!!!! It's been done to death a thousand times over. You lost. Get over it.

[Cork Red]

So in your ‘model’, ticket prices are £60 including VAT (rising at 2% a year). Nice, we’ll all love paying that.

And the club can wait 15 years to see any benefit. Presumably while it waits for naming rights to bear fruit (still not seen after you banging on about it for God knows how long).

And an interesting take on £75m being ‘free’ money. FFP or not, someone has to put their hands in their pocket for £75m.

And a change of tack on FSG’s intentions. Now it’s not because they don't know what they’re doing or they're in it to squeeze every last penny out of the club, it’s because they blindly don’t do new.  Even though new would be double the cost with ticket prices to match.

And whatever the club did before and whatever the Millenium Stadium cost and whatever was in it, that was all water under the bridge long before FSG arrived. Blame someone else - Kemp, Moores, Parry - anyone you like. Nothing to do with FSG.

I'm sorry but really, if you had brains you might be dangerous.

BTW, if the the fully developed Anfield was as full as the Sunderland 'success' story, your £60 would be £70 (incl. VAT). Nice work.

Do you really have to resort to throwing insults at anybody who doesn't agree with your point of view?

Given the amount of shite we've signed and sold on at huge losses over the last 25 years, the redevelopment of the stand wouldn't be that big a financial risk.

[Alan_X]

Older stands are more expensive to run because they require greater maintenance, pro rata.

You state that “obviously  a new stand's running costs will include an allowance for depreciation”. I can see from your posts  that you are unusually well clued up both as a fan, and professionally. Show me an item in our accounts for the remodelled Kop, Centenary Stand, or existing ARE when it was rebuilt which shows a depreciation figure. It’s not there. I don’t know of a club that does. That is why new stands are so expensive. Fittings may be depreciated, the structure is not.

You are right to say that the running costs, in the grand scheme of things, are neither here nor there. Any increased costs relate to increased revenue, and are likely to be marginal.

Any projected figure for ticket prices represent a hostage to fortune. Any new stand will be at least two years off. £50 net is revenue, not profit. It is also an average. Premium seats will be higher, concessions lower.

Four thousand new seats generates revenue, how you wish to apportion that revenue is up to you.

But let’s just take your figure of £38 net. That is £152m gross income over the forty years lifetime, plus naming rights, plus ticket inflation, plus hospitality/concession revenues. How much do you think a new ARE will cost? I won’t hold you to it. It is an indicative figure. And then explain how the return is marginal?

Liverpool FC accounts 2014:

Tangible fixed assets and depreciation

Depreciation is provided on the cost of fixed assets appropriate to their estimated useful lives as follows:

Freehold/long leasehold buildings - 2-20%
Youth academy - 2%
Training Ground - 2%
Stands, fixtures, fittings and equipment 10-33%

...all classes of tangible fixed assets are depreciated on a straight line basis at the rates stated above...  The historical cost of the existing stadium is included under the heading 'stands, fixtures, fittings and equipment' shown in note 10. 

2014 included the write-off of the previous owner's stadium development costs.

The point of depreciation (see above) is that you don't put the full cost in the accounts in the year you spend it. You write it down over the useful life of the asset. From an profit and loss point of view it makes sense to minimise the annual figure for depreciation to maximise profit. From a tax point of view it may make sense to maximise the write down. Regardless, the figure for depreciation must be realistic and the total cost must be paid off within the useful life of the asset. It's possible that some elements of the stadium build will be written down over different periods.

As the stadium depreciation is included under 'stands etc.' the minimum depreciation percentage is 10% which on a straight line basis means that the whole cost of the stadium will be need to be written off (from an accounting point of view) within 10 years max.

There won't be a depreciation figure for the Kop, Centenary, ARE because they will have been written off a long time ago - that's the point I was making.

And according to the planning application the 4,000 new seats in the ARE Upper will all be general admission at the lower end of the pricing scale. The concourses won't provide corporate level facilities.

[Alan_X]

Also - just a random search of Arsenal's Annual reports throws up under 10. Tangible fixed assets a figure for the depreciation on the stadium of £29 million plus a 5.5 million charge under 'freehold properties' and a transfer of £3 million from 'freehold properties' to 'plant and equipment' relating to the refurbishment works on the Club Tier of the Stadium with a shorter write down period.

It's possible that the main structure of the new stand will be included in properties rather than stands, fixtures etc in Liverpool's next set of accounts which would allow a longer depreciation period and lower annual allowance in the accounts.

But wherever it ends up - valuation and depreciation of an asset is always shown in a company's accounts.

[kennys1988team]

West Ham were gifted theirs so not really relevant to any convo.

Stadium of Light is smaller than Anfield (now).

Re West Ham and their stadium - they secured it through the (albeit v. dubious) preferred bidding process.   It's theirs.  It has a bigger capacity than ours. They are a lesser club, so, it is relevant to convo

[CraigDS]

Re West Ham and their stadium - they secured it through the (albeit v. dubious) preferred bidding process.   It's theirs.  It has a bigger capacity than ours. They are a lesser club, so, it is relevant to convo

It has no relevance because they simply didn't have to pay for it (£2m in rent a year, £15m contribution to a £200m+ conversion, sold old ground for £70m+).

We have to pay for any increase, be it at Anfield or new stadium.

So it really has no relevance to the wider discussion which the convo was regarding.

[Anfield89]

The Eithad was already built and also only cost Man City £20m. Knowing their owners they probably would have built one anyway what ever the costs but it removes a hell of a lot of obsticules and costs that almost every club has the deal with.

[Alan_X]

It has no relevance because they simply didn't have to pay for it (£2m in rent a year, £15m contribution to a £200m+ conversion, sold old ground for £70m+).

We have to pay for any increase, be it at Anfield or new stadium.

So it really has no relevance to the wider discussion which the convo was regarding.

What is relevant is the capacity of around 60,000. The expanded Etihad will be 61,000, Arsenal is just over 60,000, Spurs new ground is around 60,000...

[Cork Red]

What is relevant is the capacity of around 60,000. The expanded Etihad will be 61,000, Arsenal is just over 60,000, Spurs new ground is around 60,000...

If the Annie Road End is undeveloped though our capacity will be around 53,800 which, I think, is substantially less.

Obviously the financials have to work out to make it viable, but it seems to me that we've gone from a near consensus that around 60K was viable to a determination in some quarters to prove that developing the Anfield Road End would be a waste of time.  If developing the ARE is not viable, I'm sure a similar argument could have been made around the new General Admission seats in the Main Stand. 

The Transfer Market is so mad these days that the £70 Million it would probably cost to develop this stand is about the price of 2 slightly above average strikers.

[Nessy76]

If the Annie Road End is undeveloped though our capacity will be around 53,800 which, I think, is substantially less.

Obviously the financials have to work out to make it viable, but it seems to me that we've gone from a near consensus that around 60K was viable to a determination in some quarters to prove that developing the Anfield Road End would be a waste of time.  If developing the ARE is not viable, I'm sure a similar argument could have been made around the new General Admission seats in the Main Stand. 

The Transfer Market is so mad these days that the £70 Million it would probably cost to develop this stand is about the price of 2 slightly above average strikers.

As far as what is viable goes, all we know for certain is that the club looked at the situation, presumably did their costings and projections, and applied for outline permission. That doesn't make anything definite, but it does mean that, at that point at least, the figures can't have been completely hopeless. I'd like to think FSG understand that a lot of people are very keen for this to go ahead, and cancellation (which is how it would look) would be deeply unpopular. It's the kind of mistake they have largely avoided until now. Their biggest to date was the ticket prices, and once they saw the depth of feeling on that, they backed right off. Their mantra of "under promise and over deliver" does seem to be more than just a soundbite.

[Son of Spion]

The Transfer Market is so mad these days that the £70 Million it would probably cost to develop this stand is about the price of 2 slightly above average strikers.

So for roughly the cost of two players who hardly set the club alight with their footballing performances (Carroll and Benteke) we could build a fantastic new ARE and turn Anfield into a ground much more befitting of a club the stature of LFC?

Don't get me wrong. I know nothing about finance or building, but I always find it odd that we blow countless millions on highly risky transfers and have lavished obscene wages on very average players, yet when it comes to keeping our iconic ground up to date and aiming for a capacity that even tries to get near the level of demand we seem to back off and let others pass us.

OK, it's not my money, but I notice so many people (not talking about RAWK specifically) looking for reasons not to do things rather than for reasons we maybe could or should. Liverpool FC have tread water on and off the field for far too long and it's cost us dear. It's only in recent times we seem to be trying to make serious attempts to catch up on the ground we conceded, and I hope a new ARE is part of that.

[Nessy76]

So for roughly the cost of two players who hardly set the club alight with their footballing performances (Carroll and Benteke) we could build a fantastic new ARE and turn Anfield into a ground much more befitting of a club the stature of LFC?

Don't get me wrong. I know nothing about finance or building, but I always find it odd that we blow countless millions on highly risky transfers and have lavished obscene wages on very average players, yet when it comes to keeping our iconic ground up to date and aiming for a capacity that even tries to get near the level of demand we seem to back off and let others pass us.

OK, it's not my money, but I notice so many people (not talking about RAWK specifically) looking for reasons not to do things rather than for reasons we maybe could or should. Liverpool FC have tread water on and off the field for far too long and it's cost us dear. It's only in recent times we seem to be trying to make serious attempts to catch up on the ground we conceded, and I hope a new ARE is part of that.

Bizarre. The Main Stand is literally still being worked on as we speak.

[Son of Spion]

Bizarre. The Main Stand is literally still being worked on as we speak.

That's why I said we are only recently making attempts to catch up. As good as the new MS is, I still think we need a bigger, modern ARE to bring the ground up to anything like the standards of a club of the stature of LFC.

I don't think it's a bizarre comment at all. I'd hazard a guess that most of our fans think we've tread water on and off the pitch for too long, and I'd guess that most would believe that it's only now that we are making real attempts to catch up. Judging by the comments of many who frequent the current ARE I'd guess that plenty believe that it's a pretty poor stand. The club have the space to expand there now, and they certainly have the money. Judging by the ST waiting list it would appear the demand is also there. Personally, I hope the club continue with the ambition shown with the new MS and take it further with a bigger and improved ARE. Some may disagree and that's their right, but I don't think it's in any way bizarre to desire such an outcome.

[Nessy76]

That's why I said we are only recently making attempts to catch up. As good as the new MS is, I still think we need a bigger, modern ARE to bring the ground up to anything like the standards of a club of the stature of LFC.

And if it happens, it will only happen after the Main Stand is finished. Nothing has changed there.

[Son of Spion]

And if it happens, it will only happen after the Main Stand is finished. Nothing has changed there.

Of course. My post was simply to suggest that I believe we should press on with the ARE after the MS is completed and up and running.