Anfield Expansion - Main Stand and potential Anfield Road End

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ the big dog's doodahs
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
1,834
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
52,381
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 ~ the big dog's doodahs
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
1,834
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
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
12,546
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 ~ the big dog's doodahs
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
1,834
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
52,381
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 ~ the big dog's doodahs
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
1,834
@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 ~ the big dog's doodahs
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
1,834
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
52,381
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.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ the big dog's doodahs
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
1,834
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
6,854
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 ~ the big dog's doodahs
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
1,834
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
23,012
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 ~ the big dog's doodahs
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
1,834
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
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
1,699
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 ~ the big dog's doodahs
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
1,834
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.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,963
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
2,828
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

2019, a year of incredible celebration
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
14,510
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
244
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
7,084
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 :tongue:
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
12,546
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
5,960
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.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,963
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
17,335
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
6,282
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
23,012
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.