Anfield Expansion - Anfield Road End (Main Stand Completed)

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
You are right, of course, it will all depend how Brexit goes and how it will impact here and abroad. What it all boils down to as regards finances, and in particular our merchandising arm, is lack of success by our team in not winning any silverware. We start winning silverware again and our shirt sales will take off. We will then look at making changes to the Anfield Road End.
 

rupzzz

TIA Regular
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
7,251
It's all about that due diligence from FSG - and rightly so.

They may be worth a coupe of billion dollars, but that doesn't mean Henry is Scrooge McDuck, swimming around in his vast piles of gold and cash at home. It's all tied up in all the different businesses they run.

The Main Stand cost was estimated to be £114 million. That was paid for by FSG via an interest free loan (5.5 years). The due diligence and work required before any spades hit grounds on the main stand took a long time, as there is so much red tape to get through.

FSG are now working towards the Kirkby training complex and Acadamy facilities, which will reportedly cost £50 million.

I can't see FSG pumping the money into the Anfield Road End, (ARE) just yet. Get one thing through, go for the next. This isn't Monopoly, just building stuff left right and centre. I imagine, if the Main Stand cost £114 million, and Kirkby will be £50 million, the ARE will be somewhere in the region of £50-70 million

I have no doubts in my mind that the club have employed the relevant architects and planners etc for the redevelopment of the ARE, but these things take time.

The infrastructure costs are just one aspect that FSG have to spend on, the team/players wages is the other big thing. Although the incoming funds in recent years have been healthy, and we are in "net-profit" (hate that term as it's a very black and white view of a complex thing), they have still been spending on the players.

It's an old cliche, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

I'm happy enough enjoying the Main Stand, and the fantastic team we have at the moment. I am also excited about the future, what with Kieta on the way in, and who knows who else.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
It's all about that due diligence from FSG - and rightly so.

They may be worth a coupe of billion dollars, but that doesn't mean Henry is Scrooge McDuck, swimming around in his vast piles of gold and cash at home. It's all tied up in all the different businesses they run.

The Main Stand cost was estimated to be £114 million. That was paid for by FSG via an interest free loan (5.5 years). The due diligence and work required before any spades hit grounds on the main stand took a long time, as there is so much red tape to get through.

FSG are now working towards the Kirkby training complex and Acadamy facilities, which will reportedly cost £50 million.

I can't see FSG pumping the money into the Anfield Road End, (ARE) just yet. Get one thing through, go for the next. This isn't Monopoly, just building stuff left right and centre. I imagine, if the Main Stand cost £114 million, and Kirkby will be £50 million, the ARE will be somewhere in the region of £50-70 million

I have no doubts in my mind that the club have employed the relevant architects and planners etc for the redevelopment of the ARE, but these things take time.

The infrastructure costs are just one aspect that FSG have to spend on, the team/players wages is the other big thing. Although the incoming funds in recent years have been healthy, and we are in "net-profit" (hate that term as it's a very black and white view of a complex thing), they have still been spending on the players.

It's an old cliche, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

I'm happy enough enjoying the Main Stand, and the fantastic team we have at the moment. I am also excited about the future, what with Kieta on the way in, and who knows who else.
We have until 2019 to show our willingness to make a beginning on the Anfield Road End, and it's as you say @rupzzz, the Kirkby Academy site redevelopment will come first.

It's also true we have to take into consideration the players wages and other related costs in running the club, but we mustn't forget the huge TV revenues that come our way, merchandising - though nowhere near as good as the Mancs, it still brings in a decent amount of revenue, and the gate attendance money, which is no small amount.

In the financial league table of European clubs we are in a healthy position, so we shouldn't kid ourselves that we can't hold our own amongst most of the clubs. Barca, Real, Citeh, Mancs and Chelski apart, we are more financially better off than most.
 
Last edited:

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,441
In the financial league table of European clubs we are in a healthy position, so we shouldn't kid ourselves that we can't hold our own amongst most of the clubs. Barca, Real, Citeh, Mancs and Chelski apart, we are more financially better off than most.
LFC will probably move past Chelsea on the revenue table this season. The gap was only around £3M last year, when neither side was in the CL. Liverpool's matchday revenue is modestly higher and will probably be more so this year although the poor Cup runs hurt that. Commercial revenue is now within £1M, with Chelsea being ahead. If LFC doesn't catch Chelsea, it will basically be because of the Nike deal Chelsea now has. Most of their overall revenue, where LFC is likely to catch up.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
LFC will probably move past Chelsea on the revenue table this season. The gap was only around £3M last year, when neither side was in the CL. Liverpool's matchday revenue is modestly higher and will probably be more so this year although the poor Cup runs hurt that. Commercial revenue is now within £1M, with Chelsea being ahead. If LFC doesn't catch Chelsea, it will basically be because of the Nike deal Chelsea now has. Most of their overall revenue, where LFC is likely to catch up.
I never thought we were as close as that financially to Chelski, but with Abramovich pay rolling them, and seemingly willing to do so with the club being his baby, I still see them ahead of us when it comes to wealth. They have also been in Europe a lot more than we have in the last decade, so monies acquired there has resulted in them having many players on their books, although admittedly a fair few of them are loaned out. But as I said in a previous Post, we are not that far behind five or six of the wealthiest clubs. Also on my previous Post, I forgot to add PSG as one of the wealthy clubs.
 

Commando

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
2,883
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.
It wasn't so long ago that some fans were doing just that. The away end at Wigan in the eighties was just a big hill. I went there with Tranmere.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
It wasn't so long ago that some fans were doing just that. The away end at Wigan in the eighties was just a big hill. I went there with Tranmere.
I remember going to Prenton Park (circa 1960's) and standing on earth, but it was dry earth because there was a roof covering that end of the ground.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,573
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.
You are quite correct, the two need not be mutually incompatible; ideally we have both. However, Liverpool has finite resources and has to choose what will most likely represent its most cost effective investment.

The club invested £109 million to expand the Main Stand; this has resulted in an increase in matchday revenue, which if sustained will be sufficient to pay down the construction costs in five to six years. Thereafter it will add £20 million every year to the bottom line, however we will only see this financial benefit from 2022.

The club has also invested in additional commercial staff (c. 62), and while this increase may not be directly responsible for all the growth, commercial income increased by c. £23 million in the season 2016/17. (No doubt some of this growth might be attributable to the increased capacity of Anfield; we simply do not have the data to make even an educated guess.)

Further increasing the capacity, with the addition of more affordable seating, would enhance the "Anfield Experience" which in turn might encourage additional sponsorship, but this cannot be taken for granted.

The primary driver, for increased commercial (and broadcasting) revenue is success on the pitch; ideally, winning silverware. And although investing in the squad does not automatically guarantee success, it is more likely, in the short term, to produce results than simply increasing the capacity of Anfield. (Longer term, the club is investing £50 million in an improved training complex; the only return on this investment will be if it succeeds in producing a steady stream of youth talent.)

While you and I might argue that bigger and more vociferous crowds will encourage the team to bigger and better performances, we have to recognise that buying (or nurturing) better quality players is a more certain prescription for success.

So, does Liverpool use £50 million to buy a new midfielder say, who might enhance our chances of a league title or qualification for the CL (as well as having a potential higher resale value); or does it invest the same £50 million in redeveloping the ARE, bearing in mind it might take 5 or 10 or maybe many more years before it makes a positive contribution to our transfer funds?

As a fan, I want both, but for me it's an easy choice; it's not my money.
 

Red Armada

TIA Regular
Joined
Jan 3, 2008
Messages
3,140
So, does Liverpool use £50 million to buy a new midfielder say, who might enhance our chances of a league title or qualification for the CL (as well as having a potential higher resale value); or does it invest the same £50 million in redeveloping the ARE, bearing in mind it might take 5 or 10 or maybe many more years before it makes a positive contribution to our transfer funds?

As a fan, I want both, but for me it's an easy choice; it's not my money.
Thankfully so far we've had both. A spanking new stand and a new one to come with a new training complex on the way as well; plus the Van Dijks, Keitas and Salahs in the transfer windows. FSG are improving both the club's infrastructure and the playing personnel, which is the best way to move forward and start competing for major trophies once again.
 

ptt

2020, head of the table.
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
16,444
Thankfully so far we've had both. A spanking new stand and a new one to come with a new training complex on the way as well; plus the Van Dijks, Keitas and Salahs in the transfer windows. FSG are improving both the club's infrastructure and the playing personnel, which is the best way to move forward and start competing for major trophies once again.
I think there's no question that we're improving on all fronts, good time to be a fan, the future's bright :)
 

zman89

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
248
60-70 million is basically an average player nowadays. I don't see why we can't expand the ARE, even if it doesn't make that much financial sense. I hope that not everything is about the money.
 

i_still_miss_fowler

Open Your Eyes Morty!
Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
7,580
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?
Do you remember the 1980s movie trading places with Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy ? There where two old billionaires who bet each other they could take a conman (Eddie Murphy) and make him successful, and the man who had given everything to the company (Dan Aykroyd) would struggle if he was left in the cold.

The best rationale I can come up with for swapping Dalglish with Rodgers was Henry was making a similar bet with Warner :p
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
15,759
Do you remember the 1980s movie trading places with Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy ? There where two old billionaires who bet each other they could take a conman (Eddie Murphy) and make him successful, and the man who had given everything to the company (Dan Aykroyd) would struggle if he was left in the cold.

The best rationale I can come up with for swapping Dalglish with Rodgers was Henry was making a similar bet with Warner :tongue:
I love that film. Required watching at Christmas by all of my family.
 

liveforthereds

asp67 twitter
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
5,963
There would be a reason why they won't adopt safe standing for the ARE.... It's not currently allowed.

Why spend extra money on something you might still not to be able to use, considering winter breaks and VAR have taken ages to be implement don't expect it to be back in the PL before 2025.
The highlighted is wrong as it's not law, I maybe wrong on this but even the FA don't have an actual rule for this but because of the Taylor Report suggesting that all stadia be seated the Premier League clubs at the time adopted it and what is now the Championship side also but go outside the top two leagues and standing is still allowed. UEFA also have a no standing policy for European games but other leagues around Europe do allow standing at league and domestic cup games.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,573
The highlighted is wrong as it's not law, I maybe wrong on this but even the FA don't have an actual rule for this but because of the Taylor Report suggesting that all stadia be seated the Premier League clubs at the time adopted it and what is now the Championship side also but go outside the top two leagues and standing is still allowed. UEFA also have a no standing policy for European games but other leagues around Europe do allow standing at league and domestic cup games.
I think @mattyhurst is correct. Under current legislation Anfield has to be an all seater stadium.

"Under the Football Spectators Act 1989 (as amended), from 1 August 1994, all football clubs in the Premier League and the Championship have been required to provide all-seated accommodation. Clubs promoted to the Championship for the first time have up to three years to convert any standing areas to seats. Once converted, grounds must remain all-seated, even if a club is relegated from the Championship."
[From House of Commons Briefing Paper; Number 03937, 9 June 2017; Standing at football matches]
 

redbj

hurry up, July 1st, let's get the show on the road
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
18,174
Did you read any of the posts in the last few days? Might explain why we can't just expand the ARE willy nilly.
I read them, but I still agree with the poster.... to me, even a cursorary glance at the numbers means I’d be 50/50.

Then throw in the added capacity and knock on effect of more access ( hence more grass roots fans), and finally remaining relevant and at he forefront of modern football, then, ye, 100%, I agree, something’s are worth more than what’s on a balance sheet which relates directly to ‘bums on seats’.

The only real point I concede is eddies point about timing and the global economy, even then, football seems to work in a bubble anyway......not sure how bullet proof this theory is, but it’s a working class game people tend to turn too especially in times of hardship.
 

inaiq

"Some people feel the rain others just get wet"
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
6,218
Can someone help me understand how our capacity is limited to 60K due to the council limitations with transport infrastructure.

However in the same weekend we have 53K at home, there will be 70K at Aintree (less than 4 miles away)
Is it to do with some blue shits on the council, mayor etc.. ?
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,441
Can someone help me understand how our capacity is limited to 60K due to the council limitations with transport infrastructure.

However in the same weekend we have 53K at home, there will be 70K at Aintree (less than 4 miles away)
Looked like nothing less than a shakedown to me, which in the context of the city using financial engineering to get the taxpayers to gift Everton a stadium is outrageous.
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
15,759
Looked like nothing less than a shakedown to me, which in the context of the city using financial engineering to get the taxpayers to gift Everton a stadium is outrageous.
Could timing be key here - the stadium expansion being discussed when council funding an issue generally. Everton negotiations when capital markets are more supportive? After all Everton would still be paying right?
 

Iluvatar

Allez (x6)
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
9,239
You are quite correct, the two need not be mutually incompatible; ideally we have both. However, Liverpool has finite resources and has to choose what will most likely represent its most cost effective investment.

The club invested £109 million to expand the Main Stand; this has resulted in an increase in matchday revenue, which if sustained will be sufficient to pay down the construction costs in five to six years. Thereafter it will add £20 million every year to the bottom line, however we will only see this financial benefit from 2022.

The club has also invested in additional commercial staff (c. 62), and while this increase may not be directly responsible for all the growth, commercial income increased by c. £23 million in the season 2016/17. (No doubt some of this growth might be attributable to the increased capacity of Anfield; we simply do not have the data to make even an educated guess.)

Further increasing the capacity, with the addition of more affordable seating, would enhance the "Anfield Experience" which in turn might encourage additional sponsorship, but this cannot be taken for granted.

The primary driver, for increased commercial (and broadcasting) revenue is success on the pitch; ideally, winning silverware. And although investing in the squad does not automatically guarantee success, it is more likely, in the short term, to produce results than simply increasing the capacity of Anfield. (Longer term, the club is investing £50 million in an improved training complex; the only return on this investment will be if it succeeds in producing a steady stream of youth talent.)

While you and I might argue that bigger and more vociferous crowds will encourage the team to bigger and better performances, we have to recognise that buying (or nurturing) better quality players is a more certain prescription for success.

So, does Liverpool use £50 million to buy a new midfielder say, who might enhance our chances of a league title or qualification for the CL (as well as having a potential higher resale value); or does it invest the same £50 million in redeveloping the ARE, bearing in mind it might take 5 or 10 or maybe many more years before it makes a positive contribution to our transfer funds?

As a fan, I want both, but for me it's an easy choice; it's not my money.
I wonder if a lot is hinging on CL qualification, as qualifying 2 years in a row surely should see a big spike in renewal prices for various deals we have? I'd imagine we'd be wanting pretty much parity with some of the newer deals we've seen over the last year or so.

I'd love that match day revenue became so unimportant the focus could be on reduced tickets and getting young fans into the ground.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,441
Could timing be key here - the stadium expansion being discussed when council funding an issue generally. Everton negotiations when capital markets are more supportive? After all Everton would still be paying right?
I am not sure capital markets are particularly more receptive than they were 5 years ago, especially not vis-a-vis a UK asset.

Everton would still be paying, but that is sort of the essence of financial engineering. An asset will be created with funds secured by the taxpayer, a revenue stream will be created by that asset, during which time the taxpayer carries the associated risk (the parameters of which remain very unclear), and that revenue stream is expected to pay off the asset. In the end, Everton's customers/supporters will pay, but somehow this sort of model sounds sensible when it is described around a sporting asset, when if one substituted 'City/taxpayer' for you, 'Everton' for me, and 'new stadium' for say 'apartment building', 'football' for 'property business', the deal is on the face of it ludicrous. You get a minimal return, take on all of the downside risk and get none of the equity built up from getting into the property business.
 

rupzzz

TIA Regular
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
7,251
Can someone help me understand how our capacity is limited to 60K due to the council limitations with transport infrastructure.

However in the same weekend we have 53K at home, there will be 70K at Aintree (less than 4 miles away)
Unfortunately there isn't any published information that is easily available.

My understanding is that in the past (going back to the Moores and H&G days), the council informed the club that any redevelopment of over 60k would have a significant impact on transport infrastructure, and therefore it was unviable or the club would likely have to contribute a large chunk of money on upgrades to that infrastructure (through planning agreements and S.106 planning obligations). That contributed to the club looking at options away from Anfield, for an entirely new stadium.

Re. the question about the weekend of the Grand National at Aintree, when a development proposal is considered, it is done so taking account of the existing network and developments (when transport assessments are undertaken). Therefore, one scenario that would have been considered is events taking place at both sporting venues at the same time. The outcomes of such assessments, resulting in the 60k ceiling being set, would have been that going above that would have a significant impact.

Going above 60,000 is not dead in the water in my opinion. With a continued push for use of more public transport and using systems like park and ride and smart motorways, it could become viable to undertake the improvements/upgrades to the transport network that would be required. These types of upgrades take a lot planning. First there's funding, then and a lot of specialist assessments, then going through the democratic process of approval, and finally a huge amount of spending on the materials/labour - easily into £100s of millions.

It's why the entire process is taking so long, and the club are right not to continually put out statements akin to "spades will be in the ground in days", and instead do it once, and do it right. We have only had the joy of the Main Stand for coming upto 18 months. It took six years from FSG buying the club to the stand opening. We will need to enjoy it, and the football that Klopp has the team playing for a while yet before the ARE is done.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,573
Can someone help me understand how our capacity is limited to 60K due to the council limitations with transport infrastructure.

However in the same weekend we have 53K at home, there will be 70K at Aintree (less than 4 miles away)
Planning consent has never been sought for a stadium capacity in excess of 60,000 so there never was any formal statement regarding a requirement to invest in transport infrastructure or the exact increase in capacity (over and above 60,000) that would trigger the need for this investment.

However when a possible increase to 70,000 was mooted (c.a. 2007/2008) the council "let it be known" that there would have to be a public enquiry, and that their support for the application (for increased capacity) would only be forthcoming if Liverpool committed to invest in local transport infrastructure e.g. one of Merseytravel's pet schemes, upgrading the Bootle branch line.

As both @inaiq and @Arminius have said, the bluenose dominated council is more than willing to fleece Liverpool, whilst bending over backwards to offer financial support for the blueshites.

For example, the expansion of the Main Stand would have cost considerably less had we not been obliged to "donate" substantial (undisclosed*) sums towards the general regeneration of the Anfield area.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,950
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/spo...verpool-accounts-anfield-road-latest-14352711

The indications are that the Kirkby training centre will be completed by the summer of 2020 and will take priority over any ARE expansion/rebuild. That means that the earliest an expanded ARE is likely to open (assuming it goes ahead) will be for the 21/22 season. Chances are that the club will need to re-apply for planning permission as the current deadline (I think this is around September 2019) for proceeding on the initial permission is likely to have expired by the time building commences.
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
15,759
Planning consent has never been sought for a stadium capacity in excess of 60,000 so there never was any formal statement regarding a requirement to invest in transport infrastructure or the exact increase in capacity (over and above 60,000) that would trigger the need for this investment.

However when a possible increase to 70,000 was mooted (c.a. 2007/2008) the council "let it be known" that there would have to be a public enquiry, and that their support for the application (for increased capacity) would only be forthcoming if Liverpool committed to invest in local transport infrastructure e.g. one of Merseytravel's pet schemes, upgrading the Bootle branch line.

As both @inaiq and @Arminius have said, the bluenose dominated council is more than willing to fleece Liverpool, whilst bending over backwards to offer financial support for the blueshites.

For example, the expansion of the Main Stand would have cost considerably less had we not been obliged to "donate" substantial (undisclosed*) sums towards the general regeneration of the Anfield area.
Wasn't part of the donation due to accepting the club's role in lighting the area?
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,573
Wasn't part of the donation due to accepting the club's role in lighting the area?
Indeed it was, amongst other things!

For example, condition 24 of the planning consent sets out the following requirements:

The capacity of the Main Stand shall not exceed 12,000 spectators until the following highway works have been completed strictly in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and implemented at nil cost to the City Council. The specific details of the works required are set out in the Transport Strategy (Document C1/3) and include the following works;

Measure 1.1: Sleepers Hill taxi drop off/pick up area (figure 12.4)

Measure 1.2: Oakfield Road taxi drop off/pick up area (figure 12.5)

Measure 1.3: Arkles Lane taxi drop off/pick up area (figure 12.6)

Measure 1.4: Anfield Road Taxi One drop off area (figure 12.7)

Measure 1.5: Various locations for Taxi Pick Ups (figure 12.8)

Measure 1.6: Robson Street Bus Stands (figure 12.9)

Measure 1.7: Existing bus stop signage to diversion routes (figure 12.10)

Measure 2.0: Route Diversions for scheduled bus services during period of

road closures including bus stop signs and any necessary infrastructure, access kerbs, shelters, posts or road markings. (figures 12.11a,b,c) 12.12a,b,c)

Measure 4.0: Improvements to the City Centre express services before and after Matches including bus stop signs and any necessary infrastructure, access kerbs, shelters, posts or road markings. (figure 12.14)

Measure 5.0: Improved Soccerbus Service to / from Sandhills including bus stop signs and any necessary infrastructure, access kerbs, shelters, posts or road markings. (figure 12.15)

Measure 6.0: Disabled drop off area and disabled parking (figure 12.16)

Measure 7.0: Extension to parking restriction along Walton Breck Road at

the junction of Everton Valley Road figure 12.17)

Measure 8.0: Additional cycle parking facilities

Measure 9.0: Pedestrian Access Improvements in the vicinity of stadium.

The proposed amendments to Alroy Road, Gilman Street & Walton Breck Road in accordance with drawing reference no. PL1312.GA.106_PL01.

An assessment of the street lighting on Walton Breck Road to ensure that satisfactory lighting levels are maintained with the proposed introduction of uncontrolled crossing points adjacent to the stadium on Walton Breck Road and any necessary upgrade to equipment or service.

The extension of the Football Match Parking Zone to include the residential areas to the west of St Domingo Road and Heyworth Street as identified on Plan LS52137.

The assessment and any necessary reconfiguration of the existing free parking bays to residents parking bays to those roads with such facilities within the FMPZ areas 1-5.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,573
I wonder if a lot is hinging on CL qualification, as qualifying 2 years in a row surely should see a big spike in renewal prices for various deals we have? I'd imagine we'd be wanting pretty much parity with some of the newer deals we've seen over the last year or so.

I'd love that match day revenue became so unimportant the focus could be on reduced tickets and getting young fans into the ground.
I believe that if we can qualify for the Champions League on a regular basis, then the value of our commercial deals are almost certain to rise. Whether qualifying for the CL for two successive seasons will be sufficient to achieve parity with some of the mega-deals secured by our competitors, I don't know. Maybe we will have to qualify and progress well to the later stages of the competition, every season, for several more seasons, before the eye-watering sponsorships are on offer; who can say?

As for increased commercial income being the catalyst for lower ticket prices, I would be less confident. Although I can see the benefits that this might achieve i.e. an increase in younger attendance and an improved match atmosphere, I suspect that before ticket prices were reduced we would have to see a sustained reduction in transfer fees, player wage demands, and agents fees, none of which are likely in the foreseeable future. Throw in the possibility that TV revenues might stagnate, or even fall, then matchday revenue becomes more significant, not less, further reducing the possibility of a reduction. But, I hope I'm wrong.