Liverpool FC Forum

[stmichael]

Following Parry's comments on five live yesterday, I have been reading some very good discussion on all subjects of what he said, particularly regarding Stevie G and the new stadium. To be perfectly honest i'm as sick as everyone else of talking about stevie but the new stadium is very much part of the short term future of this club and provokes some lively debate to say the least. Quite simply it is a MUST and here's an article basically explaining why.

Chelsea are clearly in a financial league of their own at the moment as I'm sure nobody could argue. A club who can "afford" to lose £88m in a season and just take it in their stride is taking football to a whole new stratosphere. Nobody can compete with that sort of wealth, not even manure. All I'll say is that Chelsea better hope Abramovich doesn't get bored and decides to b#gger off in the near future (although I wish he would). 

You then have Arsenal, who are now less than a year away from their new 60,000-seater Ashburton Grove stadium. Costs are rumoured to have soared well beyond the £300 million mark ... but their £100 million Emirates deal has softened that blow considerably. In financial terms, they are unable to compete with the likes of Manure and Chelsea in the transfer market, but the way they have "sold" for substantial profit has always meant that they have been financially stable.

If I'm not mistaken, Manure, who already have the biggest capacity stadium in the land (pre-Wembley) have just had planning permission to extend old trafford by 7,900 seats to 76,000 seats. In financial terms, that equates to an additional £5 million per season in revenue for the mancs, on top of the millions which they already generate from commercialism worldwide.

But back to us. Rick Parry reaffirmed yesterday just how important this new stadium is. However people should still remember that there is no new investment agreed yet (although there are rumours of several proposed takeovers)... there is no new stadium sponsorship deal in place yet, and there is no £20 million North West Development Agency (NWDA) grant agreed yet ...

In fact, it's quite depressing to think that we are having serious problems financing a stadium that is currently a THIRD of the price of arsenal's new stadium

So, looking at a worst-case scenario (financially) ... if our new stadium is aborted and we remain at our current home for the foreseeable future, what does this mean to our future competitiveness...? The following analysis looks solely at gate receipts and ignores other revenue streams. Using united as an example, each new seat amounts to £633 of additional revenue per season…

The capacity at Stamford bridge is 42,500 … 2,000 less than Anfield … but this is irrelevant as Chelsea are prepared to throw money at players and run at an £88 million loss per year if they want to…

The capacity of Ashburton Grove will be 60,000 … that equates to approximately 15,500 seats more than us and therefore £9.8 million more than us per season.

The capacity of old Trafford will be 76,000 … that equates to approximately 31,500 seats more than us and therefore £19.9 million more than us per season.

£10/£20 million extra spending each year gives you a lot of power in the transfer market.

All of the above scenarios are depressing enough should we fail to go ahead with the new stadium … but even if we do, both ourselves and arsenal would still be £10 million per year behind united in gate receipts alone. That’s not allowing for all of the additional revenue streams that chelsea and united enjoy.

Just to put things into perspective, LFC was recently valued at around the £200 million mark … united are valued around the £800 million mark. Think about it, that’s FOUR TIMES the value of our club … and Chelsea are rapidly heading the same way … Then ask yourself who is STILL the most successful team ever in this country by a distance…? Depressing how we are so far behind in the financial stakes, isn’t it?

Chelsea and Manure are positioning themselves to become light years ahead of the rest … but at least Arsenal have been astute enough to be able to compete with them financially in the short to medium term…

Losing out on the new stadium could prove to be financially disastrous for LFC and send the club so far behind the current top 3 that any dreams of number 19 could become of the ‘pipe’ variety

But here's to hoping 

[Judge]

money rules today, so a new stadium is a must stmike

[LFC #1]

I still very up in the air on this situation.

Firstly how much is this new stadium going to cost? at least 100 million pounds more than likely.

So there will be 15 000 more seats than Anfield has currently which if you use the equation in that article based on Ashburton grove gives us 9.8 million more a season, which if you roughly multiple by 11 pays for the entire stadium, i.e. 11 seasons.

so in the long term a new stadium is the way forward for sure, but you could also argue that you could shleve the idea and put that 100 Million towards the team, making the team top of England and perhaps eirope once agian (although not entirely certain with Chelsea's spending power)

If success came from the emphaisis on the team thwn that would bring in more money from merchandiese, CL prize money and sponsorship deals which could then be used for funding a stadium in future years.

Although this is a risky strategy, as if the team isn't as successful as expected then the chance for a new stadium could have disappeared.

But it is also a risk spending all that money now, epsecially if the results on the field were not as good as was hoped.


But one thing is for sure, if the new stadium is too go ahead then I think we need major investment, which there is an article about on lfc.tv today.

Investment Article.

[dawson99]

but if we can equal sponsorhip for the stadium the same as the gooners then the stadium would only cost us a pittance.
New Englandw inning the superbowl agani could be great for us as the guy who owns them could now seriously consider buying us (200 million? id buy us ina  second for that money)

[LFC #1]

but if we can equal sponsorhip for the stadium the same as the gooners then the stadium would only cost us a pittance.

yes and then you get another debate going about selling out vs traditions, and i tend to read into both argumentts as each is valid.

[dawson99]

yeah but when u weigh it up would u rather have the tradition of the past or a premiership winning formula of the future?

[stmichael]

We really do have to get this bit right, the new ground, the investment and new sponsorship deals are the foundation stones for the next 30 years never mind next season or the season after that.

In the short term, yes of course we have to compete and be as successful as we possibly can on the field, even if success is only measured by qualification to the CL, and good cup runs. The long term expectations of the new Liverpool will involve Parry in making considered judgements, and not just grabbing the first couple of offers that come along. The long term will have to see us accept ground sponsorship schemes, and as Parry has said, not ideal, but if we want to compete at the highest level , that is the price we have to pay.

I thought Parry spoke a lot of sense in the piece, then again I have always thought he has spoken sense and done the right things for the club, and like most of us he does not have the benefit of hindsight.

There are too many on here that are to easily influenced by other peoples opinions on Rick Parry, and have little or no idea of what is really going on behind the scenes if you ask me.

[Judge]

bottom line is the stadium will be built, and thats it lads

[LFC #1]

yeah but when u weigh it up would u rather have the tradition of the past or a premiership winning formula of the future?

I think we can still have both.

For example why not have the stadium name like Boro's whic the sponsor name and Anfield both fitting in, like Boro's BT Cellnet Riverside.

I think that you also have to consdier the this is Anfield sign, the Shankly and Paisley Gates, as well as the Hillsborough Memorial which is IMO the most important thing to consider.

[Igor Zidane]

its the revenue from the corparate boxes that is significante how many do we have at anfield,20 at most ,that will at least be quadrupled and at 30 to 40,000 pounds a go per season  that willmake for a fair bit of extra money cming in IMHO.

[Judge]

i'll have a corporate box for 30-40 grand, ney probs

[stmichael]

For example why not have the stadium name like Boro's whic the sponsor name and Anfield both fitting in, like Boro's BT Cellnet Riverside.

i live in middlesbrough mate and believe me the sponsors name would soon wear off amongst fans anyway. nobody's called it the bt cellnet riverside for years. it's just the riverside.

[LFC #1]

exaclty my point st mick, it would still be considered Anfield but just with some tacky corporate sponsor's name on it for the money.

[Judge]

call spongebob squarepants stadium, and after a while we'll call it sponge. coz we'll soak up pressure and hit em on the break.....woooohoooo , it works

[109-1105722616]

how good is our stadium gonna look when we cant fill it for league cup matches and premiership games against poorer clubs like portsmouth