Discussion in 'The Albert - LFC Talk' started by liveforthereds, Sep 16, 2012.
All talk about the Stadium should be done here. Either a redevelopment or move to a new one.
Can't see much happening for a while to be honest,just hope Peter still posts in here in the weeks/months to come as his posts were always informative
STORY SO FAR...
The very credible and the single most significant obstacle to redevelopment that Moores and Parry faced was the land issue and the vehement opposition of the local residents. The new stadium was sold to us all (and to them) as the saviour of the club and of the area. Milk and honey would flow for the club and regeneration would follow for the residents.
John Henry has exploded the myth of the former and council have taken it into their own hands to sort out the latter.
As JWH says, a stadium in any form, new or redeveloped will not solve our financial needs at a stroke. It will not mean that we will automatically start to â€˜competeâ€™.
The regeneration of the area will proceed and the approval of the residents has been sought and confirmed by council through public consultation - no matter what happens at Anfield or Stanley Park.
Together, the two issues were going nowhere. Apart, they are both moving forward.
The baseline case for the stadium is either a fully occupied capacity of 60k over a standard season of say 21 home games or an average attendance of about 50k over a more successful season of 25 home games at todayâ€™s full prices (ie., NOT Europa League prices). Take your pick.
But while youâ€™re choosing, bear in mind that the average spend has got to rise from the current Â£940 or so, revenue per seat to about Â£1200 revenue per seat. That is to say, at todayâ€™s prices, we need to sell about 7,200 premium/hospitality packages out of a capacity of 60,000. You can pro rata that over the longer season if you like.
So that would be Â£72m a year. Already still Â£36m or so behind United. The very best we can hope for is a full stadium every match for say a 25 game season or about Â£85m. Still a long way short.
And a stadium is an extraordinarily expensive way of making money. Â£15m a year to make an extra Â£30m. The shirt deal is nearly as much. For the cost of the ink in the pen.
Other models vary. Particularly in Germany. Bayern Munich earns about Â£160m from commercial revenues (LFC roughly Â£80-90m (figures not yet out) - for the cost of the ink in Audi and Deutsche Telekomâ€™s pen (and 25 others). Their ticket prices are a fraction of ours (some less than half). If only we played in Germany.
TV comes from a shared pool. No edge there, for now. Our immediate focus has to be and is, commercial money - where we have a global edge to perhaps beat even Bayern's Â£160m. We must build that and build it fast. Meanwhile we can edge the stadium up to the point where we are happy that the club are getting the most they can from the prices we can afford to pay - without risking ruin to build it.
A simple, straightforward, no frills, powerful stadium built in stages is what we need, when we're ready for it. Ultimately a bit like the Allianz Arena. A lot like Westfalen. We need Anfield but greater http://petermcgurk.b...-after-all.html.
We won't get it until all of the issues are bolted down certainties.
As I have mentioned I have the entire planning application, If I can upload without problems I will try to post as much as I can if anyone wants any info of course.
I got tons of drawings, specs ,enviroment stuff and stuff I dont understand. In fact too much to read through but if anyone wants specifics ask and ill post them. The 2 mb upload is gonna mean I can not post a lot unless I can break them down.
Ok ill stop until requested. Just thougt their may be some intresting things in this for the enviromental of us.
Alright I lied. Looks like the stadium would have been all lit up at night from the outside, something I never really consider. TBH the stadium is a bit tainted for me cos the cowboys got their hands on it, no idea what will happen but I dont think we will press ahead with this one.
I think the only thing anyone needs to understand about it is, it doesn't work.
Peter, your thoughts and views on the stadium are appreciated in here, but in short, for the simple amongst us in here, just where exactly are we at just now, and in your opinion which direction will we head in?
Is this basically because we can not afford it? The owners have talked about long term plans. Well the stadium seems the biggest long term commitment they can make, but one they have not.
It ain't simple but you ain't stupid. We're going to redevelop Anfield carefully, sensibly and successfully.
It's because it COULD make an extra Â£32m but it WILL cost an extra Â£30m.
Rushing down that road just to 'make a long-term commitment' is about as short-sighted as you can get.
I dont understand whats short sighted Pete.We try to break even on the stadium taking into account repayments for a few years then surley it turns to profit, or am I missing something. To me a layman I thought we invest, repay and then reap rewards. To me this is long term thinking.
If something turns a profit twenty years from now, it is not worth doing unless you have no other possible investment. A massive expenditure of say 200 million to add 15k seats has a terrible repayment timeline, even if the owners chose to make all of that capital available to the club it almost certainly would be better invested in something else.
Yeah but I bet we wont be saying that in twenty years if you get my point. The owners have talked about a long term plan and more seats be it by a new stadium or redevelopment has to happen sooner rather then later for me.
With the inclusion of FFP rules we should go for a 70 thousand seater IMO. I predict in the future we will also see a wage cap brought in by agreement from the european clubs. As long as we got the facilities we should always be competitve, it is seen as a big reason we are not as competitve now, but some people like to sweep it under the carpet and say "oh it's not worth it" just because everyone knows we cant afford it. I reckon a bit of a campaign has started to get us used to the idea it is not worth any benefit, thinking long term I believe this is short sighted, even though Peter who I respect thinks investing in the future is short sighted because we dont see short term gains presumabley.
My point in a nutshell is what is best for the club, increase capacity however they do it has to be near the top (Long term)
Invest in other areas IMO is short term
I will post this again as the previous thread has vanished. In the US and elsewhere, including Europe, new stadiums are being built being financed with the sell to investors of premium club seating and/or personal seat licenses. Google both to understand. No new stadiums are being financed entirely through long term loans. Clubs wish to pay off any loans as quickly as possible, and none of the clubs wish to be toting a long term millstone loan.
Premium club seating and personal seat licenses are upfront one time sells. Those who invest with either can sell their investment at a later date, in most cases with a significant profit. With a redevelopment selling several thousand premium club seating is more likely than selling forty or fifty thousand personal seat licenses.
To get a grasp on the possible revenues that could be generated quickly with premium club seating, follow this math. 4k seats times 20 grand creates 80 million or say 6k seats times 10 grand creates 60 million. A club could pay off half the costs of a redevelopment by selling premium club seating, if not all. Depends upon the numbers.
While premium club seating targets the very rich fans interested in an investment, personal seat licenses targets every season ticket holder whether rich or poor. For an example follow this math. 40k seats times 2 grand creates 80 million, or say 60k seats times 1 grand creates 60 million. Again a similar generation of funds. Much depends upon the numbers.
Many clubs or teams in the US have done both with new stadiums. While local governments in the US do tend to finance a good percentage of new stadiums, by no means do they finance the entire costs. I doubt if LFC would get any finance through any local or national government. Notice also the City's sheik passed off any of his investment expanding their stadium through to a naming rights deal with an existing stadium, although a fairly new stadium. I doubt whether any club could match that deal. Naming rights are usually sold for brand new stadiums, not old ones like Anfield.
Don't worry mate, we understand (and selling premium seats in advance may happen. For example, much of Wembley's premium seating is tied up for 15 years in that way. Poor souls, we get it, ok?).
But this isn't Wembley and those aren't the numbers and your numbers aren't the numbers.
Nevertheless, funding has never been the issue. The issue is whether a new stadium makes money or not and it doesn't.
We can afford anything that makes enough money. Anything.
If we can show a bank that a capacity of 100k works and we are prepared to guarantee the bank or any investorâ€™s money, theyâ€™ll give it to us.
In twenty years time weâ€™ll look back on a redevelopment thatâ€™s been paying us money all that time and say thank God we havenâ€™t been paying all that money into a bank all that time.
In the good old days the stadium was the big hitter. In fact that and beer was pretty much it, financially. Times change. Littlewoods Pools gave us an edge. Then TV took over. Now commercial revenue is taking over that.
Bayern Munich, Real Madrid and Barcelona have pretty much double our commercial revenue for comparatively little cost. A new stadium would add nothing after costs. Nothing. Nil. Nada. Nix. Nothing for 10 to 15 years. Nothing to help catch Bayern's Â£160m commercial revenue. A redevelopment would at least make a contribution but still, less than a shirt deal and at still, big big cost.
'But 'Arsenal did it, so can we!'. Yes, they did. And? (even with 2,000 homes to sell as well). 'But Chelsea are doing it!' Yes, they might. Because they're short of cash? No. Because of FFP? Yes. But not because they'll make shedloads on the stadium. Maybe because they'll leave a few acres in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to throw up a few hundred luxury apartments... What about Spurs? That's a stand-alone new stadium! No. It isn't. Supporting development around that too.
The stadium is important but it's not the one and only any more - and certainly not on its own.
The 'commitment' here is short-sighted. It's a statement. What (some) people want to hear. Not planning for the future. A spade in 60 days. A commitment to lose money.
The world has moved on. We don't speculate to accumulate any more. Too many risks. Too many failures. We think smart. Invest less. Return more.
Spending a lot up front on a stadium is not smart and it's not looking after the long term particularly. And, if we are investing and waiting, our competitors are even further over the hill and far, far away.
Looking after total revenue (Stadium, TV/Internet and Commercial) at minimum or even minimal cost is smart and looks after the short, medium and long term.
Peter I have no clue what the real numbers will be. I am not even sure FSG knows, but I do believe they will have some insight for either a new stadium or a redevelopment. Since a redevelopment involves less funds, FSG will most likely lean for a redevelopment. Appears the real estate issues are being solved, and once the land is in hand I expect the dirt will start flying. One can't build anything on land they don't own. Currently the real estate issue is more of a problem than financing a redevelopment. While I am sure there will be a loan, it won't be a long term millstone loan the club or the fans targeted can not afford.
As I say, funding is not the issue. "FSG can't afford a stadium" is not the issue. Of course they can. And in lots of different ways - including pre-sold premium seats. But one or two thousand a seat is a bare income for a premium seat for just one year. It doesn't fund a stadium. It's not selling forward at all. And selling 40,000 for Â£80m or Â£60m for 60,000 of them is bollocks. That's income. Not funding. And 60k premium seats even at that price? Where are the rest of us going to sit?
So is 4k at Â£20k or 6k at Â£10k. Income. That's all. The former for five years and the latter for two and a half.
Â£4,000 minimum a year per seat for 15 years. Now you're talking. Â£60k a pop (but more likely a 'top of the range' Â£6,000 a seat a year/ Â£90k commitment). And to make it a useful marketing tool for the buyer, what? a table of 6 or 10? How many are going to write a cheque for Â£360k to Â£600k (or even Â£900k) and say thank you very much??? No mate. Those aren't close to the numbers or the demand.
Did you google the two terms I mentioned? Obviously NOT! One has to purchase a seat using either method just to be able to buy season tickets each and every year at the same price as before if not more. If you don't buy your season tickets each and every year you lose the seat you purchased. Of course if you choose not to buy season tickets, one can sell or lease their seat to another person who will buy season tickets. But if you don't you are SOOL.
The concept behind the schemes is to FIRM UP season tickets sales from year to year, and not have fans opting out if they perceive a bad year upcoming. The impatient fans demand AMBITION from the owners, why is it so difficult to understand the owners and the club demand AMBITION from the fans with their pocketbooks for more than one year? It is a two way street.
100 to 150 million isn't pocket change for a redevelopment, and neither is 300-400 million for a new stadium. Not for the club, and not for the owners. Not even for City's sheik.
And the above math I mention is backed by every calculator. It is not fuzzy math...
You point up the usefulness of premium seats, sold in advance.
No one in their right mind is going to sell â€˜premiumâ€™ tickets (with a bottle of wine and all the nosh) at one or two thousand a year and lock them in for a period of time at that low price.
Centenary Club tickets worked out at Â£4788* per 19 game season last year (*bought individually based on Cat A games - season tickets are available) why on earth drop the price to one or two thousand?
Why on earth sell the stadium out (or a very significant part of it) at that level? - for the whole stadium for Â£60m a year (when the target is Â£72m) or try to more than double the price for 40k â€˜averageâ€™ fans who are struggling already? And BTW, how dare you suggest the fans lack personal financial commitment to the club (average gross salaries before tax - for the 'economically active'- Â£15k to Â£35k)?
And no one in their right mind is going to lock premium tickets in at ten or twenty thousand and send that two-and-a-half or five yearsâ€™ income down the swannee to the bank.
All together that demonstrates a singular lack of ambition on the clubâ€™s part and someone who has the calculation completely arse-backwards. You wonâ€™t find that on Google.
As I said, you sell a number at a (discounted) higher price for 10 to 15 years in advance. And there are a limited number of people up for it - not 40,000 or 60,000. 4,000 perhaps or less.
But putting all that money into the building pot robs the income pot. It takes money from the team and ploughs into paying for concrete - and the debt on the concrete. Great.
So, you donâ€™t do that. You keep the income as disposable income. FCS thatâ€™s what youâ€™re trying to achieve - growing the disposable income and as long as we have ludicrous player costs, developing the team.
Advanced premium seat sales, premium club seating, personal seat licenses, debentures (pick a term - any term) may give you money up front to marginally reduce debt costs. It may improve the financial feasibility around the edges but it does not â€˜payâ€™ for a stadium
To try otherwise is to send the money you make the wrong way. It defers the reward while still carrying the risk. Up to another decade or so in waiting.
and a robber button?
LFC didn't sell the back two rows of the Lower Annie Rd to the Mancs, due to the severely restricted views there which then encourages people to move down into the aisles. Shows quite frankly how inadequate the Annie Rd is, how on earth did that get approved by the club when it was designed?!
Did it make any more sense in the terrace era? There are a fair number of stands around the leagues that were clearly never intended for all-seater stadiums.
As far as I know there's nothing explicit in the regulations that says you miss see the full flight of the ball so... however anything that encourages people to be unsafe is regulated against.
In this case the real problem is caused by people standing up (of course, against the rules) - so you can't see the ball on the pitch either!
The view from the upper tier is great but it makes the stand very difficult to expand . So, the upper tier must go and with it, the problem views in the lower tier.
There was no upper tier in the standing era.
Fans don't pay for the seats with cash in advance, they agree to sign a contract to do so with a loan if necessary in the same manner they buy a car or a boat or a home with payments. But the club gets the money upfront from the bank in the same manner as a car dealership does. Simply put, if you don't keep up with your payments, you lose your seat. The club doesn't lose, as the club can resell the seat. Not many have that much cash in hand at any moment. Credit will have to be used.
not that i doubt you, but thats really sad.
really sad that something based on the ethos of equality and fairness (sport) has degenerated to what you are proposing and claiming as the norm.
fans getting loans just for the right to buy a ticket.
fuck me, no wonder the 99% are getting rowdy.
It just isn't viable for English football precisely because of that greater egalitarian appeal. What Toby simply refuses to acknowledge is that the 'market penetration rates' for football are so much higher than for any North American sport that the comparison is apples to oranges. LFC's catchment area is about 1.4 million, Anfield can already contain around 5% of the adult male population, and we are not even exclusive within that area. The highest ratio where seat licences have been successful in any significant number is in the Baltimore (Ravens) market, where it is approximately 2.5%. In general, where scarcity has been lower than that, the market for seat licenses has no liquidity and there is very little value (for example, the Columbus Blue Jackets). Even that simple comparison ignores the respective wealth (and especially disposable income) of the two areas, which is dramatically in Baltimore's favour.
Years ago, I was involved in doing some analysis for a North American group that was considering buying Leeds. In the end, the factor that decided against it was discomfort with the market penetration assumptions - by North American standards, there was no basis to assume growth in attendances/support, even though the club had strong PL level support just a few years before.
I have no doubt that PSLs of some form or another will be involved in the stadium 'solution' but they are just not going to be the magic bullet solution. FSG are entirely aware of the limitations of the region, Henry was not talking off the cuff in his comment about it not being London. The Arsenal model appeals to them, but they recognize that the numbers behind Arsenal are a lot more like a North American sports business than a traditional English club.
Curse you ..........................
I was sooooo enthusiastic about the plans for the new stadium under FSG, but now I rather think that it's all pie in the sky, a little like their transfer policy.
An outrageous suggestion bordering on the uncaring attitude of an Ocean Finance. I let the earlier reference to individuals selling on their 'debentures' at profit go. I'm regretting it. Not only would the club we are supporting with our money lose the growth garnered by others but ticket-touting is severely frowned upon here - legitimised ticket-touting or otherwise.
Albeit this is the cold, hard side of the business but selling an enhanced product at an enhanced price that someone can afford is a long way from encouraging or driving fans into debt in return for their support. Not that this club or many others would dream of it and not for sentimental or way-out-wacky-liberalist reasons - but because it wouldn't withstand the backlash.
As if we haven't had enough of a global debt-based recession, you want to start our very own mini-version in Liverpool. Take a bloody star.