Liverpool FC Forum

by **Paul C** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:47 am

Old Trafford is getting extended to 76,000 seater and were looking to spend £150m-£200m on a 60,000 stadium, plus the fact were going to be on our ar5e after spending this money, is it really worth it when our main targets are on the field?

by **dawson99** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:53 am

ive never really understood the money side of things when it comes to football.
200 million for a 60,000 seater stadium is a hell of alot of money but what would happen to anfield? Would it be sold or turned into a commemorative park? Could the 60,000 be upgraded at a later date if needed? we need a stadium that would equal any in europe and i think we deserve it and could fill it.

I just want to watch the football, stay away from the money. i never cared how much kewell was on as it doesnt bother me. its the results that bother me.

Should we buy a new stadium? i honestly dont know. it all depends if we are more about buisiness than football and which one would tip the scales

by **Ciggy** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:59 am

Must admit Old Trafford looked scary yesterday imagine when its a full house with 76 thousand there, ours looked little compared to that yesterday but Anfield is the best place on earth better than Old Toilet.
But its all about the wonga thats why they will earn more money than us with such a big stadium, see Boros ground yesterday was bloody empty, 26 thousand, disgrace.

by **Judge** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:06 am

New stadium delays hitting Liverpool FC finances Feb 24 2006

By Alan Weston Daily Post Staff

LIVERPOOL Football Club is falling behind other leading Premiership clubs because of delays over building its new stadium at Stanley Park, directors were warned last night.

Shareholders at the club's annual meeting held at Anfield were told it would take another four years for a stadium to be built, even if work started on it today.

That is double the amount of time that was previously given by the club.

The board of directors told shareholders that "progress was being made" on talks with un-named investors about the projected £160m stadium.

artists impression of new ground

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:11 am

You gotta think of the long term investment mainly from tickets sales. Liverpool take over 1.25 million per game in ticket sales alone, thats based on 46000. For 60000 seats its 1.8 million per game. Over a season thats good money

by **The Ace1983** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:13 am

From what I understand is that the site where Anfield is now will be sold off and turned into new houses to regenerate the area. Seeing as I don't live in Liverpool, I can't really comment on it.

As far as the money goes a new stadium would pay for itself fairly quickly. I've written on here before how Old Trafford brings in around £10,000,000 more every game than Anfield because not only does it offer more seats, but those seats are filled by more people willing to spend more money on food, drink and merchandise. Add on to this a short term stadium sponsorship deal, like the one Arsenal are doing with Emirates and we could potentially see an automatic £80,000,000 come in straight away. It makes long term sense, though it could present some short term problems on the financial side of things. New Stadiums make money.

by **dawson99** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:20 am

10 million more per game?

by **The Ace1983** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:26 am

dawson99 wrote:10 million more per game?

Think about it. Not only are you putting about 20,000 more bums on seats, there is more room for advertising, more exec boxes, more food gets sold, more programmes, more merchandise and more beer gats sold with the irony of having to use less electricity per person on lighting. Add onto this non-game events ike concerts and the like and put that into game costs and we're talking 5hit loads of cash. And of course, your prices can raise as well.

by **dawson99** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:31 am

never thought about that ace. thats almost a million from the tickets alone. that is a lot of moulah. So its tradition against money and money always wins

but the extra money would mean more players which would improove the history and the tradition of the club ill never change

by **Paul C** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:31 am

The Ace1983 wrote:From what I understand is that the site where Anfield is now will be sold off and turned into new houses to regenerate the area. Seeing as I don't live in Liverpool, I can't really comment on it.

As far as the money goes a new stadium would pay for itself fairly quickly. I've written on here before how Old Trafford brings in around £10,000,000 more every game than Anfield because not only does it offer more seats, but those seats are filled by more people willing to spend more money on food, drink and merchandise. Add on to this a short term stadium sponsorship deal, like the one Arsenal are doing with Emirates and we could potentially see an automatic £80,000,000 come in straight away. It makes long term sense, though it could present some short term problems on the financial side of things. New Stadiums make money.

It's nearly 70,000 already and we hold 45,000 so thats 25,000 more, this new ground were looking at will only hold 60,000 which I know is probably expandable but then thats even more money to expand it

IMO I'd just build a 70,000+ or not bother cos 60,000 ain't sh!t :angry:

by **Lando_Griffin** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:12 am

Seriously - if we must leave Anfield (I would rather stay), we should look at making the best stadium in Europe.

It should be the best in Britain at least.

80k capacity, and we're cooking. Surely it won't affect the price as much as these f*cking stupid Blue-sh*te-induced delays. :angry:

by **Judge** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:45 am

Lando_Griffin wrote:Seriously - if we must leave Anfield (I would rather stay), we should look at making the best stadium in Europe.

It should be the best in Britain at least.

80k capacity, and we're cooking. Surely it won't affect the price as much as these f*cking stupid Blue-sh*te-induced delays.

we could drop the pitch at anfield to create more seating, just like barca have done

by **banana** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:49 am

Manchester will have 76.000

and next year Arsenal will have 70.000

Chelsea will expand and they have unlimited funds as it is.

We are quickly falling far behind the top teams in terms of financial muscle if we don't expand. They will earn over a full season £ 20 million more than us in stadium revenues.

by **Redman in wales** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:18 am

agree banana.

1. the revenue. as already mentioned the extra revenue we'd get from a 60'000+ (i'd prefer 70 or 80 thousand too) would help pay for it and also fund transfer kitty

2. 'The 12th man' Think of the crowd getting behind the team in a 40'000 stadium... then think of the crowd getting behing the team on a european night in our own 70'000 steader stadium... nevermind 12th man but 13th aswel!

3. The fear Factor. - Teams wont fear Anfield as much. There was a time (most due to the formidable force of LFC - but partly due to the ground) that teams hated coming to Anfield. With Arsenals new ground holding 70'000, Utds 76'000 and Chelski not far behind, Anfield could be seen as a nice ground to visit, and not intimidating as we once were.

by **Paul C** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:07 pm

Redman in wales wrote:3. The fear Factor. - Teams wont fear Anfield as much. There was a time (most due to the formidable force of LFC - but partly due to the ground) that teams hated coming to Anfield. With Arsenals new ground holding 70'000, Utds 76'000 and Chelski not far behind, Anfield could be seen as a nice ground to visit, and not intimidating as we once were.

All the players (even the mancs) say that Anfield is the best away ground to play at cos of the atmosphere, etc

Liverpool FC Forum

New ground - Maybe i'm missing something?

Who is online