Liverpool FC Forum

by **Reg** » Sun May 08, 2011 2:35 am

As in 'spade in the ground within 30 days'?

by **Reg** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:32 am

No decision on Liverpool stadium

Wednesday, 15 June 2011

Liverpool have generated some interest in selling naming rights for a proposed new stadium but a senior official insists a final decision on whether to move or redevelop Anfield has yet to be taken.

According to Billy Hogan, managing director of Fenway Sports Management - the global commercial arm of club owners Fenway Sports Group - the primary consideration has to be ensuring the club can compete financially with their main rivals.

"We see Liverpool as a truly global proposition from a marketing standpoint and a naming rights partnership with Liverpool Football Club is really unlike any other thing there is out there," Hogan told Bloomberg.

"It's something we've seen some interest in and we'll continue to have those conversations."

Hogan added that the final decision will "rest on which opportunity allows us to keep generating revenue to compete with the rest of our competition in the Premier League".

It is believed FSG's preferred option is to increase both the capacity and corporate opportunities at Anfield, as they did when they took over at baseball side Boston Red Sox.

But that could still pose some issues in restricting match-day income and plans for a new build in Stanley Park have not been ruled out.

Under the terms of the agreement struck when plans were first drawn up for the new stadium project the club did have until the end of this month to take up the option of the 999-year lease they agreed with the city council for land in Stanley Park.

With discussions between the two parties continuing, however, that may be subject to change.

Link

by **lakes10** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:43 am

bit shocked by this, i think is show how much background work G&H did not do as all the information needed would be there already.

yes still using the old ground would have some impact on the income even if it was mad bigger but the cost of building a new ground is going up day by day.

by **Waldo** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:48 am

Personally I can't see the move to SP happening any time soon and reckon the yanks will opt for a redevelopment of Anfield instead.

Which I would prefer anyway.

by **Kukilon** » Fri Jun 17, 2011 5:40 pm

This is the most important thing for the clubs future. I don't care if we live in mediocrity sporting wise for a few years as long as this is fixed.

by **Reg** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:03 am

Gut feeling tells me the longer this drags on the more likely we are to redevelop the existing stadium. Doesn´t change the fact we need a 65,000 seater.

by **Joeblackisachimp** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:06 pm

I thought the owners said they were scrapping plans for a new stadium?

Why not demolish the main stand/ paddock, as its old, and rebuild from within with a 2 or 3 tier stand increasing the capacity maybe by 10,000-20,000.

you could have it done in a year/ few months.

by **Reg** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:25 pm

Ayre reflects on stadium delay

Liverpool MD Ian Ayre says the failure of former owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett to build a new stadium "set the club back several years".

Last Updated: 30/06/11

And Ayre, promoted from commercial director late last season by new owners Fenway Sports Group, said had it not been for huge strides made in off-field business during that time the finances would have been in a bigger mess than they were just before FSG assumed control.

Hicks and Gillett were eventually ousted last October when, with creditors Royal Bank of Scotland wanting repayment of a £230million acquisition loan, a sale to FSG was pushed through against their wishes.

They departed with work on the promised stadium in Stanley Park no nearer starting than it was when Gillett pledged "the shovel needs to be in the ground in the next 60 days" at his first press conference having bought the club in February 2007.

"When you look at what we have done in growing the business, if we had started building a stadium in 2007 we would be in it by now," said Ayre.

"It could have been brilliant but we have probably set ourselves back several years."

The Reds managing director admitted there could not be a greater difference between the previous regime and the current one.

"There was a great opportunity to maximise the value of the club and they (Hicks and Gillett) were right, it needed a new stadium and new people," Ayre told the Liverpool Daily Post's Business Magazine.

"What they got fundamentally wrong was using leveraged finance to run the business and try to develop the business.

"Without the significant increase in revenues God knows how much of a mess we would have been in.

"What we have now is people who really understand how to own, operate and run a sports business.
"They are very honest about their objectives; they listen - that's quite fundamental."
The stadium issue is one which still needs resolving but Ayre said they would not repeat past mistakes and rush their deliberations.

"Nobody is going to force ourselves or the owners to make a decision until we know what's right for the club, because that was what partly went wrong before," he added.

"Sometimes people won't like that it takes a long time. That's unfortunate but it's the way we do it.
"Once a week someone will ask me what is happening with the stadium and the answer is 'We don't know'.

"The reason we don't know is there are still the two solutions. They are a new stadium in Stanley Park or a refurbished Anfield - that obviously comes with all sorts of issues - and there are a million questions to answer.

"The new stadium in the park comes down to the economics; how do we pay it back? It needs a big naming partner.

"Until you get the answer to those questions it would be wrong and unprofessional for us to make a statement about what we are doing."

Yesterday principal owner John Henry reiterated his belief that rebuilding the club - both on the field and off it - was a long-term project with no quick fixes.

Despite the progress made under FSG and manager Kenny Dalglish, who revitalised the team when he took over from Roy Hodgson in January, there is still plenty of work to be done to restore Liverpool to former glories.

And Ayre echoed the views of Henry by saying: "There's nobody getting carried away with what can be achieved in what timescale.

"The owners have said they want to win. That means a lot of things.

"We don't want to win once, we want to build consistency."

by **Thommo's perm** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:38 pm

Clear as mud and stalling
Doesnt the planning permission for SP run out soon?

by **Reg** » Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:26 pm

Today I seem to recall !

by **Kukilon** » Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:01 pm

Thommo's perm wrote:Clear as mud and stalling
Doesnt the planning permission for SP run out soon?

Don't think it matters though since the area is desperate for investment and who will do it if not our club. It's just annoying that the longer it runs on the higher the costs will be.

by **Rush Job** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:41 pm

So their looking for a "big naming partner", to finance the new ground. So thumbs are twiddled untill someone comes along with the cash. Great. No quick end in sight here.

by **parchpea** » Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:16 pm

They are none the wiser with the stadium after all the 'hard work' going on behind the scenes. Looks to me like the are waiting for someone else to pay for half of it and then they will be half way to making the decision. I am very impatient and find it difficult to comprehend how it could possibly take this long to ponder after all the paperwork and planning thats gone on already. They need to get their backsides into gear on this one because talk is cheap now after all this deliberation.

by **Kukilon** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:20 am

Only way will be a groundshare.

by **The Good Yank** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 5:58 am

parchpea wrote:They are none the wiser with the stadium after all the 'hard work' going on behind the scenes. Looks to me like the are waiting for someone else to pay for half of it and then they will be half way to making the decision. I am very impatient and find it difficult to comprehend how it could possibly take this long to ponder after all the paperwork and planning thats gone on already. They need to get their backsides into gear on this one because talk is cheap now after all this deliberation.

Is this a theory you came up with all by yourself? I think they are looking realistically at the situation. Do they spend 400 million on a new stadium, leaving the history of Anfield behind? Would the 20-30 million per year in extra revenue ( after the 400 million layout) really be worth leaving Anfield behind? I don't see a problem with taking time to weigh all options in making a decision that will affect the club for let's say the next 60 years. I'd prefer prudence over such a decision.

Liverpool FC Forum

NEW STADIUM - All News + discussion here

Who is online