And the debate continues…….

Posted by

The articles regarding the dilemma facing FSG with regards to either redeveloping Anfield or going for an entirely new stadium for the Reds generated a substantial amount of interest and we were very happy to see such a wholehearted reaction from both trains of thought. We had over 1400 voters in the poll which Antoine was reactive enough to upload and the final result saw those wanting the Reds to remain at Anfield (thus a redevelopment of the present facilities) ahead with almost 66% of the votes cast.

Although there were many issues brought to bear in taking sides on the matter, it seemed evident that those in favour of an Anfield stay do so by accepting an increase in capacity to 60,000 and a general modernization of facilities, in an effort to maintain the legacy and heritage, while those in favour of a new stadium claim that this solution would probably cost less. The latter consistently pushed for a 70,000 to 80,000 capacity stadium (some even pushing towards the 90,000 seater mark), more often than not claiming that this would be the only way to contrast both Man Utd and Arsenal.

Objectively gate sales are an important source of income at any club, and with internet sources claiming that Liverpool currently make around Stg 43 million per season, the same sources say that Man Utd and Arsenal manage to net almost double that sum. There again we need to combined the right balance between gate sales, capital expenditure to turn the dream into reality, and shrewdness in transfer market and players salaries.

With regards to policies Clubs have adopted with their stadia, I wish to make the following three examples:

Man Utd – Old Trafford
Built in 1909, Man Utd’s home is the largest capacity stadium in the PL at 76,000 seated capacity. Notwithstanding the fact that it was originally designed for an 80,000 crowd, it’s amazing how restructuring (most of which done in the 90’s) managed to maintain almost the same capacity even though new football rules called for all spectators to be seated. The most recent important restructure was an additional 8,000 seats between 2005 and 2006 and plans are in place for a rebuild of the South Stand (currently single tier) which will bring the total capacity just over the 90,000 mark.

Arsenal – Highbury/Emirates
Construction of the new Emirates Stadium which was completed in 2006 cost around Stg 390 million! This substantial investment has and is being recouped with the sale of the naming rights (Emirates paid Stg 100 million on a 15 year deal on naming rights), the redevelopment of Highbury, and the obvious injection of gate sales that jumped from 38,000 to 60,300 spectators which meant an average of 20,000 spectators per home game. It’s hard to see the current design to allow an increase in capacity, at least not in the foreseeable future. Arguably, Arsenal had enough data and knowledge to know that this was the capacity needed so they did not go mega.

Juventus – Delle Alpi/Juventus Arena
Talking about big Clubs, this time moving momentarily to the Serie A, Juventus will inaugurate a new stadium come next season. Juventus demolished the 69,000 capacity Stadio delle Alpi and are rebuilding a new complex on the English model with a maximum capacity of 41,000! This when Clubs like Inter, Ac Milan, Roma, Lazio and Napoli have stadium at close to 80,000 capacity plus per home game! But then some would say, that is Serie A, and this is the Premier League, and stadium attendance in Italy is amongst the lowest amongst Europe’s elite. The cost is estimated at Euro 105 million. It is very likely that Juventus will sign a naming rights agreement and recoup a substantial part of the capital outlay.

The above three examples bring to the table three solutions that FSG will ponder on and ultimately adopt when they take the final decision (pending approval from the City of Liverpool). Restructure, build from scratch, knock it down and rebuild it. In the end, it will all boil down to economics with the preservation of legacy and heritage being very high on the agenda.

More Stories Anfield

20 Comments

  1. Ok, if you’re not going to bother reading it, then neither am I!
    ‘modernization’? Are you now an american?
    ‘There again we need to combined the right balance ‘? Pick a tense, any tense!
    ‘, and’? Basic punctuation!

    LOL at TB

  2. You’re right it comes down to enocomics. I just hope it leans towards not tearing down the beloved stadium. Not many clubs have what Liverpool have in both history and cups and one of the reasons this is, is because Liverpool have stayed true to the fans and the city.

  3. @Tonio Boone… in regards to DAMO, Hey every country has Dumbasses and unfortunately LFC has a few as fans as well.
    Good read and I appreciate your OPINION on the matter.

  4. I would be in favour of redeveloping Anfield but am concerned about the cost of my season ticket. A new stadium with a SIGNIFICANT capacity increase ought to mean that ticket prices remain static or even fall. Better to fill the ground than have it half empty…

  5. @ John Pablo. Thanks for the compliments.
    @ Damo. Keep correcting me I am thriving for perfection.
    @ Leo Roberts. Leo the prices will rise am afraid, because the idea is to increase revenues not just repay the finance. Hope it’s reasonable and if anything gradual.

  6. I love Anfield but my chances of ever getting a seat for table top games is zilch unless I join the oposition, but a new stadia would give me at least half a chance, as I’m in my mid 60s unless they get a move on I wont be around long enough to benefit.

    It’s got to be Stanley park for me.

  7. From a Spanish point of view the cases of Atletico Madrid, Valencia and Sevilla CF make interesting reading. Valencia went for their own and private investment, turning down further borrowing from the public sector in the form of long-term low-interest loans from the local government. They wanted results faster than the public sector could provide.

    When the crisis hit Spain hard, harder than anywhere else, with the possible exceptions of Greece and Ireland, the dual motor that was driving the Spanish economy: the construction business on a mindless building spree regardless of demand and banks and local building societies gifting low interest loans committed hari-kari.

    That left Valencia FC with a half built ‘new’ stadium that lost its principal sponsors overnight once the construction companies realised that they would not be able to finish the work without further investment on a massive scale and the banks refused to provide guarantees. Everything is on hold for the foreseeable future and Valencia CF have had to offload key players – Silva, Villa in anattempt to keep the book balanced.

    Atletico Madrid wanted to build a new stadium close to the location of their present home. Forced by the city government to accept the ‘Olympic’ stadium in the capital as their new home on lease and sell off their current stadium in an attempt to clear off long-term debts the club reluctantly agreed. However, the city council are rethinking their plan in light of the collapse of the construction industry and the lateral effects of the global crisis.

    Sevilla CF ran through plans to redevelop their stadium, Ramon Sanchez Pijuan and increase the capacity from 42,000 to 65,000. The work was due to start in 2010 but once again the global crisis put paid to the best laid plans. The latest news related to the stadium plans places scheduled work to begin in 2014 – few of the informed observers would ratify that.

  8. In this day and age, the audience is the world. Whether the stadium accommodates 60,000 supporters or 80,000 pales is a small difference compared to the worldwide fanbase.

    Consequently, main revenues will come from TV rights and sales of merchandise around the world.

    The financial advantage that a big stadium brings is eroding because of telecommunication. So, let’s not jump onto that bandwagon when it’s already passed. Would rather see the money invested in players or a better global media strategy.

  9. @ Patrick. Thank you for your examples from Spain. I think the new owners of Liverpool are beyond that and have the finance, security and all the attributes to keep any promise they make.
    @ Bill. For sure any option would take a couple of years so hang on in there mate!
    @ Scott. The money for the squad will be there notwithstanding a new stadium or a redevelopment. Rest assured.
    @ Damo. I miss you! :-)

  10. i hope you all tuned in to lfc tv tonight as i requested – i said you would be amazed if you did – well 5 fabulous goals from a 16 year old boy in a 9 – 0 win was pretty amazing dont you think !

  11. the 5 goal boy is raheem stirling, a cross between john barnes and robbie fowler – no exageration, if kenny hasnt got himon a 5 year deal by nexy month i will be astounded.

  12. Damo:

    “Ok, if you’re not going to bother reading it, then neither am I!
    ‘modernization’? Are you now an american?
    ‘There again we need to combined the right balance ‘? Pick a tense, any tense!
    ‘, and’? Basic punctuation!”

    “‘modernization’? Are you now an american?”

    It’s “American”, not “american”. :)

  13. To be true and fair I think the price that FSG payed in other to buy Liverpool was far below our value but because we all wanted hicks and gillett out they go it easy,,,, so I think building a new stadium shouldn’t be too much of a financial constraint for them although I’d like to see a rehab of anfield instead!!!!

  14. FSB/NESV considers a new or redeveloped stadium as a separate item not directly linked to LFC,. Henry and Werner have said so during interviews a few times already, Its an American concept, that stadiums and clubs aren’t directly linked,… Maybe related, but not directly linked. But I am sure they are aware of these differences, I wonder whether the British do?

    FSG/NESV are aware a grounds share isn’t greeted with glee by the British fans. This attitude does place a spanner into the works… Their studies will most likely reveal what is best for the long term is a new stadium with a grounds share with Everton. But since so many fans are opposed to a grounds share LFC may have to settle for something less, a redeveloped Anfield instead…

    Do they do what is best for LFC, or do they do what is best to please the fans?

  15. Don, I beg to differ friend. Rest assured that the majority of Liverpool and Everton fans would prefer to remain in their presents stadia than share a modern one. It’s not a conceivable concept in any european league except Italy where all the stadia are not owned by the clubs…only Juventus will break away from this trend with their new Juventus Arena to be opened for next season.
    It’s not a question of pleasing the fans. Everyone knows there are economics at play here but we all want, and NESV/FSG will want the best solution. You cannot take a clubs heritage and legacy and throw it down the drain. I am sure the best solution will be found but a ground share is an option we all prefer not to consider.

Comments are closed