Anfield Expansion - Anfield Road End (Main Stand Completed)

bazza66

TIA Oldie, still in the Youth Team though
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Messages
1,206
To paraphrase a very wise man: we have a bow and arrow and sometimes hit our targets. They however, have a bazooka.
 

[email protected]

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
3,931
Yeah, the big three do have their hiccups like we do, but overall their spending power is far superior to ours. Yeah, you're going to talk of the top dollar we paid for VVD, but that as you very well know was a one-off. If we went after a player one of the big three really, and I mean really wanted, do you honestly believe we would be successful? We bought VVD beating Citeh to the punch, but they already had a wealth of centre backs, so they didn't push that hard to get him. What the previous Posts were talking about was us as a club being able to increase our overall finances in order to compete against the big three on a level playing field.
I believe Chelsea really wanted Ox as well. Ok, I will stop now
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,573
United have almost double our income. Increasing ours through ARD probably won't make that big a difference. We need better commercial deals which require consistent CL qualification and winning trophies....or a very very rich and generous sugar daddy to match the richest clubs financially year on year.
I agree, the most significant difference in income, between ourselves and manure, is the gap in commercial revenues.

Using the latest figures published by Deloitte Football Money League, our total income, for the season 2016/17, was £354.5 million of which £138.9 million was generated by commercial activity, matchday revenue £68.8 million, and £156.8 million from broadcasting.

The comparable figures for manure were, total revenue £581.2 million, commercial £279.5 million, matchday revenue £107.6 million, and £194.1 million from broadcasting.

The gap in matchday revenues is £38.8 million, compared to a gap of £140.6 million in commercial revenues. So the comparable difference in commercial revenues is far more significant. (Indeed, had we played as many home games in 2016/17 as in 2015/16 (24 compared with 31) our matchday revenue might have been over £15 million more, making the matchday gap even less significant.)

The expansion of ARE might generate additional matchday revenue of somewhere between £6 million and £9 million per annum, depending on the actual increase in capacity, the mix of corporate seats, the number of home games etc.

However, this increase in revenue has to be offset against the capital cost of remodelling / rebuilding the ARE. Depending on construction costs, it might take c.10 years before the club sees any financial benefit.

To us, as fans, the benefit of increasing the capacity of Anfield is a given. To Liverpool, as a business, the financial benefits of this expansion are far less certain compared with the benefit of increased commercial revenue.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,441
I hope our FSG management decide to increase the capacity at the Anfield Road End. To compete with the other top five clubs our ability to increase our finances is imperative. Of the predictions that have been made so far my personal preference is for a triple tier in a similar style to that of the Main Stand. Whether our club's finances will stretch to an improvement of this magnitude is something only our owners are privy to, but I live in hope that it can be accomplished.
The numbers for the ARE they put out a year or two ago were pretty dismal. The payback was somewhere around 15 years as I recall, which is a long enough time horizon that it is a very questionable project in financial terms. I think they have subsequently revised some of the plans to pull that number in, but it still isn't compelling.

As redfanman notes, the capital is better spent elsewhere if the objective is strictly financial returns.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
I agree, the most significant difference in income, between ourselves and manure, is the gap in commercial revenues.

Using the latest figures published by Deloitte Football Money League, our total income, for the season 2016/17, was £354.5 million of which £138.9 million was generated by commercial activity, matchday revenue £68.8 million, and £156.8 million from broadcasting.

The comparable figures for manure were, total revenue £581.2 million, commercial £279.5 million, matchday revenue £107.6 million, and £194.1 million from broadcasting.

The gap in matchday revenues is £38.8 million, compared to a gap of £140.6 million in commercial revenues. So the comparable difference in commercial revenues is far more significant. (Indeed, had we played as many home games in 2016/17 as in 2015/16 (24 compared with 31) our matchday revenue might have been over £15 million more, making the matchday gap even less significant.)

The expansion of ARE might generate additional matchday revenue of somewhere between £6 million and £9 million per annum, depending on the actual increase in capacity, the mix of corporate seats, the number of home games etc.

However, this increase in revenue has to be offset against the capital cost of remodelling / rebuilding the ARE. Depending on construction costs, it might take c.10 years before the club sees any financial benefit.

To us, as fans, the benefit of increasing the capacity of Anfield is a given. To Liverpool, as a business, the financial benefits of this expansion are far less certain compared with the benefit of increased commercial revenue.
I agree with both you and [email protected]Heart that we need to greatly increase our commercial revenues. Having said that the Mancs would buy shit if it had their club badge on it. They are a bunch of mindless numpties whereas our supporters have a lot more about them and won't be peddled a load of crud. Worldwide, I don't believe their support is any greater than ours, but as I have said previously, they will buy shit.
 
Last edited:

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,441
I agree with both you and [email protected] I that we need to greatly increase our commercial revenues. Having said that the Mancs would buy shit if it had their club badge on it. They are a bunch of mindless numpties whereas our supporters have a lot more about them and won't be peddled a load of crud. Worldwide, I don't believe their support is any greater than ours, but as I have said previously, they will buy shit.
I am afraid this just isn't the reality. LFC may approach ManU in terms of 'high interest' supporters, but LFC is missing most of a generation of casual fans.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
I am afraid this just isn't the reality. LFC may approach ManU in terms of 'high interest' supporters, but LFC is missing most of a generation of casual fans.
That can be applied to any Prem team that has any success - I.e. Leicester City.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,441
That can be applied to any Prem team that has any success - I.e. Leicester City.
There is a major difference. In the market I live in, I have never seen a Leicester shirt or cap. I can virtually guarantee I will see a ManU one today. The penetration level of ManU's branding is absolutely staggering, catching that will take years and fundamentally, requires some significant sporting success.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
There is a major difference. In the market I live in, I have never seen a Leicester shirt or cap. I can virtually guarantee I will see a ManU one today. The penetration level of ManU's branding is absolutely staggering, catching that will take years and fundamentally, requires some significant sporting success.
As you said in one of your previous Posts, we are missing out on the generation of casual fans, fans who are waiting to latch onto a successful club. And there is the problem. The success the Mancs have had winning the Premier League against our big zero, that's where they picked up those casual fans and why we haven't. We need success, silverware, to increase our finances worldwide, and until we do we will get further and further behind.
 

SirBillShankly

We live in a fallen world.
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
10,843
United have almost double our income. Increasing ours through ARD probably won't make that big a difference. We need better commercial deals which require consistent CL qualification and winning trophies....or a very very rich and generous sugar daddy to match the richest clubs financially year on year.
.......and yet LFC are the ones that splashed £75m on a CB. The world's most expensive defender. Ever.

We can and are competing without this very very rich and generous sugar daddy you so desire.
 

Iluvatar

Allez (x6)
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
9,239
The numbers for the ARE they put out a year or two ago were pretty dismal. The payback was somewhere around 15 years as I recall, which is a long enough time horizon that it is a very questionable project in financial terms. I think they have subsequently revised some of the plans to pull that number in, but it still isn't compelling.

As redfanman notes, the capital is better spent elsewhere if the objective is strictly financial returns.
I dont think this is particularly about ROI.. I think FSG actually want to get more fans into the ground. It's going to be all general admission, so should make a huge dent in the season ticket waiting list.

The rumours on other sites are that it will be paid off in 5 years, so thats not that bad anyway.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,441
I dont think this is particularly about ROI.. I think FSG actually want to get more fans into the ground. It's going to be all general admission, so should make a huge dent in the season ticket waiting list.

The rumours on other sites are that it will be paid off in 5 years, so thats not that bad anyway.
Agreed - the motivation is not directly commercial, it is more about the vision for the club. Big intimidating place to come play roaring the Reds home and all that.

I have not seen the numbers for the current plan, but if it is down to 5 years then it is still not absolutely compelling, but not dead money either.
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
15,759
.......and yet LFC are the ones that splashed £75m on a CB. The world's most expensive defender. Ever.

We can and are competing without this very very rich and generous sugar daddy you so desire.
Who said I desire a sugar daddy for the club?

Our spending on one player doesn't mean we can financially match the spending firepower of Utd or City for example.

That doesn't mean we can't match them on the pitch through shrewd management both on and off the pitch.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
Who said I desire a sugar daddy for the club?

Our spending on one player doesn't mean we can financially match the spending firepower of Utd or City for example.

That doesn't mean we can't match them on the pitch through shrewd management both on and off the pitch.
This is the crux of the problem with some fans.... when we sell a player for £142m, celebrated stating we did well in breaking record on making the most money in England, highest transfer to date from England. Then we buy a £75m player and suddenly we don't need better commercial revenue or deep pocket financier because we just bought £75m player. How could one not see this is not the way to go in the long run, keep making money from selling players just to fund our transfer business, expecting us to be competing with the others.
 

Hope in your heart

Loyalty and patience, two undervalued concepts.
Admin
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
24,028
(...)

To us, as fans, the benefit of increasing the capacity of Anfield is a given. To Liverpool, as a business, the financial benefits of this expansion are far less certain compared with the benefit of increased commercial revenue.
I agree with this. However, the two aren't mutually exclusive, are they? Commercial revenues must be increased, that's a given at all times. But maybe, just maybe, playing in a bigger Anfield, in front of a louder (younger) crowd, would help to also get better commercial deals in the long run?

I've noticed that Anfield and the peculiar atmosphere generated by the Anfield crowd has been largely used by the owners as one of the main pillars of the club's identity, and to 'sell' the club to advertisers and commercial partners. In my humble opinion, they can't go wrong by trying to actually enhance the atmosphere inside Anfield.

The main stand was a first significant step in that direction. The next phase is the reconstruction of the ARE stand. Maybe a project with a lesser direct financial impact, but crucial to offering cheaper seats, and thus generating a better, louder atmosphere.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
Think back to the Main Stand getting its makeover, nobody, at least fans, thought what a silly idea it was spending all that money on just one stand. You have to speculate to accumulate otherwise nothing would ever get done. And it has to be said what a fantastic stand it is, so why wouldn't we want the same for the Anfield Road End? Yes, the financial argument is all very real in that it would take years to break even, but as I stated earlier in this Post, nothing would ever get done. If we want progress, we have to ignore the negatives, and that includes hard-nosed businessmen.
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
15,759
Think back to the Main Stand getting its makeover, nobody, at least fans, thought what a silly idea it was spending all that money on just one stand. You have to speculate to accumulate otherwise nothing would ever get done. And it has to be said what a fantastic stand it is, so why wouldn't we want the same for the Anfield Road End? Yes, the financial argument is all very real in that it would take years to break even, but as I stated earlier in this Post, nothing would ever get done. If we want progress, we have to ignore the negatives, and that includes hard-nosed businessmen.
No, you don't have to speculate to accumulate, that's just a trite cliche. Ignoring the negatives gives rise to expensive mistakes happening which could hold the club back.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
No, you don't have to speculate to accumulate, that's just a trite cliche. Ignoring the negatives gives rise to expensive mistakes happening which could hold the club back.
So what you are saying is we don't need to plan anything and that it will all turn out nice in the end? The negatives I'm talking about is not wanting to take a chance to progress and not the financial aspect. You also say it's a cliche to use the adage speculate to accumulate, so why do people bet on the horses, dogs, football and numerous others by putting money on in the hope of accumulating money. It's easy for you to throw out - just a trite cliche - but it happens to be the way of everyday life. In finishing, do you speculate - Lotto, Euromillions, in the hope of accumulating money?
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
So what you are saying is we don't need to plan anything and that it will all turn out nice in the end? The negatives I'm talking about is not wanting to take a chance to progress and not the financial aspect. You also say it's a cliche to use the adage speculate to accumulate, so why do people bet on the horses, dogs, football and numerous others by putting money on in the hope of accumulating money. It's easy for you to throw out - just a trite cliche - but it happens to be the way of everyday life. In finishing, do you speculate - Lotto, Euromillions, in the hope of accumulating money?
That's a bad example though.... if you were to use stocks and stuff like that, you might get some support up in here. Betting in hope to accumulate your wealth is the stupidest thing to do. You bet because you just wanted to have a bit of fun, wanting to make money in those area more often than not sees you in the gutter.
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
15,759
So what you are saying is we don't need to plan anything and that it will all turn out nice in the end? The negatives I'm talking about is not wanting to take a chance to progress and not the financial aspect. You also say it's a cliche to use the adage speculate to accumulate, so why do people bet on the horses, dogs, football and numerous others by putting money on in the hope of accumulating money. It's easy for you to throw out - just a trite cliche - but it happens to be the way of everyday life. In finishing, do you speculate - Lotto, Euromillions, in the hope of accumulating money?
Seriously? It is trite, most people don't get rich playing the lottery or gambling on horses. There is a reason gambling is called a mugs game.

And rather than plan an investment you would rather the owners gamble with the club's future?
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
That's a bad example though.... if you were to use stocks and stuff like that, you might get some support up in here. Betting in hope to accumulate your wealth is the stupidest thing to do. You bet because you just wanted to have a bit of fun, wanting to make money in those area more often than not sees you in the gutter.
I couldn't agree with you more, Eddie, but surely you aren't saying that people don't do those sort of things, be they stupid or otherwise? If they didn't then we wouldn't have the plethora of betting shop across Britain and there wouldn't be huge amounts to be won on the various lotteries.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
Seriously? It is trite, most people don't get rich playing the lottery or gambling on horses. There is a reason gambling is called a mugs game.

And rather than plan an investment you would rather the owners gamble with the club's future?
No, not everyone gets rich, but that's not the reason why people fork out their hard-earned, they hope to win the jackpot and, if they are lucky enough, they are made for life.

And as for gambling the club's future, every player we sign and have signed is one hell of a gamble. Regarding the increasing capacity at the Anfield Road End, do you believe that to be a gamble?
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
I couldn't agree with you more, Eddie, but surely you aren't saying that people don't do those sort of things, be they stupid or otherwise? If they didn't then we wouldn't have the plethora of betting shop across Britain and there wouldn't be huge amounts to be won on the various lotteries.
Of course, financial modelling to forecast to see the return of investment is at best, an estimate, you are absolutely right. But unlike gambling, investing in a big stand like that require risk management, and it has to take into account. Unlike going into a betting shop and put £1 on Rochdale to draw 2-2 against Spurs for a 14times return, that's not something you crunch numbers to minimise your chance of losing that £1. See where I am getting at?
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
Everything is a risk, Eddie, but do our owners not take that risk and make improvements to the Anfield Road End. There may be a loss in the first five years or so, but any improvement to the ground will eventually bring in its financial rewards. Why are the other top five clubs doing something to their grounds if, as you intimate, there is risk involved?
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
15,759
No, not everyone gets rich, but that's not the reason why people fork out their hard-earned, they hope to win the jackpot and, if they are lucky enough, they are made for life.

And as for gambling the club's future, every player we sign and have signed is one hell of a gamble. Regarding the increasing capacity at the Anfield Road End, do you believe that to be a gamble?
You've suggested the club should simply ignore the negatives - when the club does that it gets stung - that includes when signing players - look at the Balotelli fiasco.

I expect the Ard to go ahead once the club have done their due diligence.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
You've suggested the club should simply ignore the negatives - when the club does that it gets stung - that includes when signing players - look at the Balotelli fiasco.

I expect the Ard to go ahead once the club have done their due diligence.
I'm saying they should ignore the negativity of doing nothing because of any risk it may incur. As for your saying the club gets stung if they ignore the negatives, you're just stating from a different approach what I said about it being a gamble buying players. If you're saying the Balotelli signing was a negative, then you are putting the cart before the horse (yes, another trite cliche). The signing of Balotelli was a gamble that went wrong and not seen as a negative pre-signing.
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
Everything is a risk, Eddie, but do our owners not take that risk and make improvements to the Anfield Road End. There may be a loss in the first five years or so, but any improvement to the ground will eventually bring in its financial rewards. Why are the other top five clubs doing something to their grounds if, as you intimate, there is risk involved?
Well, it all depends on their goal. For me, expanding on the ARE may be good for the fans, but I would certainly like to see them work even harder on securing better commercial deals outside our television licensing rights that we gained by default for being in the league. Return of investment from ARE would not be seen so soon, and the benefit of having more income to plough into transfer fees won't be realised for a very long time. They will need to repay the rebuild before they could use those money to buy players. So the risk-reward ratio for me as a fan from afar, not so great. Sponsorship deals have very little cost of sales, so most of the money coming in would be able to use for our expenses, be it operational or capital (buying players).

At least that's how I see it... but of course as a fan, I would like them to do it all. Better commercial deal and at the same time building the stand without having to worry about the manager having to sell players to buy new ones.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
@redfanman, we are going round in circles here and we are never going to agree. We have a difference of opinion and that's where it should remain.

We have gone off-thread here with these Posts of ours, so we should get back on track with the discussion about Anfield Expansion.

Our opinions differ but we are LFC supporters, and that won't change. YNWA
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
Well, it all depends on their goal. For me, expanding on the ARE may be good for the fans, but I would certainly like to see them work even harder on securing better commercial deals outside our television licensing rights that we gained by default for being in the league. Return of investment from ARE would not be seen so soon, and the benefit of having more income to plough into transfer fees won't be realised for a very long time. They will need to repay the rebuild before they could use those money to buy players. So the risk-reward ratio for me as a fan from afar, not so great. Sponsorship deals have very little cost of sales, so most of the money coming in would be able to use for our expenses, be it operational or capital (buying players).

At least that's how I see it... but of course as a fan, I would like them to do it all. Better commercial deal and at the same time building the stand without having to worry about the manager having to sell players to buy new ones.
As fans we definitely want it all. The thing I look at is if no investment was ever made to the infrastructure of Anfield, then we fans would be watching games on open-air earthen embankments. Therefore, ground improvement and expansion is a necessity whatever the cost may be. Our club is not a poor one, it's well run and the players bought are of good quality, so isn't that what we all want, Eddie?
 

lfc.eddie

"¿Plata... O Plomo?"
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
53,286
As fans we definitely want it all. The thing I look at is if no investment was ever made to the infrastructure of Anfield, then we fans would be watching games on open-air earthen embankments. Therefore, ground improvement and expansion is a necessity whatever the cost may be. Our club is not a poor one, it's well run and the players bought are of good quality, so isn't that what we all want, Eddie?
Yes, we aren't poor but we don't own it. The people who owns it will have to weigh their options and I can see that. Let's not forget cost of rebuilding may change if recession actually hits the world this year, and judging by the type of business Henry is in, he certainly took the 10 year recession cycle into account.

It is nice to have a new and big shiny stand, but it is also good to have a winning team. If by rebuilding the ARE meant we will need to sell more players to fund our transfer, and hamper our ability to offer good wage package, I would certainly hope we don't go ahead. Bear in mind, we don't control the club finances and the owners do.