Liverpool owner John Henry hints at Anfield redevelopment
Liverpool owner John Henry has hinted the club could be set to redevelop Anfield, saying it is a "myth" that a new stadium will improve the Reds' financial fortunes. The feasibility of building a new ground on Stanley Park has long been mooted by Fenway Sports Group (FSG). But Henry says a new stadium is not vital for Liverpool's long-term future. "A long-term myth has existed about the financial impact of a new stadium," he said in an email to theanfieldwrap.com. "A belief has grown that Liverpool FC must have a new stadium to compete with [Manchester] United, Arsenal and others. "No-one has ever addressed whether or not a new stadium is rational." FSG is believed to have long favoured the remodelling of Anfield and was faced with a similar situation with one of their other clubs, the Boston Red Sox.
After conducting a feasibility study for around a year, FSG opted to redevelop the 100-year-old Fenway Park and Henry hinted last year he was keen to do something similar with Anfield, stating that it would be hard to replicate the atmosphere generated at the stadium. The American also believes moving to Stanley Park would likely result in higher ticket prices and feels the best method for the club to compete financially with the Premier League's leading sides would be to increase their worldwide commercial revenue streams instead. "New stadiums increase revenues primarily by raising ticket prices - especially premium seating," added Henry. "While a new stadium or an expansion of Anfield is beneficial over the long term for the club, the financial impact of adding seats and amenities should be put into perspective. "That's why I say that it is a myth that stadium issues are going to magically transform LFC's fortunes. "Building new or refurbishing Anfield is going to lead to an increase from £40m of match-day revenue to perhaps £60-70m if you don't factor in debt service. "That would certainly help but it's just one component of LFC's long-term fortunes.
Re: The stadium
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:08 pm
by D___C
Fingers crossed its redevelopment.
Anfield is iconic... you cannot buy that. The history, the aura, everything about the stadium. So, if we can expand two stands and get it to 55/60 thousand then perfect. A world class facility full of history. Thats the ultimate. The generic bowl is the nightmare. I do not envy Arsenal fans one little bit. A boring, soulless, bowl with no distinct characteristics that tell you "this is Arsenal".. it could be any teams ground, plus the atmopshere is sh1t. And theirs is one of the "best" bowls.
The owners know tradition (as they did the same with Boston)... please god they follow the same method with us.
Anfield is iconic... you cannot buy that. The history, the aura, everything about the stadium. So, if we can expand two stands and get it to 55/60 thousand then perfect. A world class facility full of history. Thats the ultimate. The generic bowl is the nightmare. I do not envy Arsenal fans one little bit. A boring, soulless, bowl with no distinct characteristics that tell you "this is Arsenal".. it could be any teams ground, plus the atmopshere is sh1t. And theirs is one of the "best" bowls.
The owners know tradition (as they did the same with Boston)... please god they follow the same method with us.
They obviously don't have the money for a new stadium and they want us to pay for it
Re: The stadium
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:41 pm
by tubby
55-60? Needs to be 60minimum IMO. Is it even worth it for just 55k seats?
Re: The stadium
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:53 pm
by sixbuster
Hi Guys, I agree with everything being suggested in favour of Anfield. One thing I wish to throw out for some thoughts are what are your feelings on Anfield being renamed/branded?
Re: The stadium
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 8:21 am
by Raoul
sixbuster » Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:53 pm wrote:Hi Guys, I agree with everything being suggested in favour of Anfield. One thing I wish to throw out for some thoughts are what are your feelings on Anfield being renamed/branded?
I doubt anything will be done without naming rights involved somehow. In the end, whatever the club and media call the place, Anfield will remain Anfield to the fans. Don't worry, the This is Anfield sign above the tunnel will remain, just in case anyone forgets where they are.
Anfield is iconic... you cannot buy that. The history, the aura, everything about the stadium. So, if we can expand two stands and get it to 55/60 thousand then perfect. A world class facility full of history. Thats the ultimate. The generic bowl is the nightmare. I do not envy Arsenal fans one little bit. A boring, soulless, bowl with no distinct characteristics that tell you "this is Arsenal".. it could be any teams ground, plus the atmopshere is sh1t. And theirs is one of the "best" bowls.
The owners know tradition (as they did the same with Boston)... please god they follow the same method with us.
What makes a bowl soulless? A bowl is just a continuation of 4 stands with rounded corners, it creates more seats and it is more efficient...
Anfield is iconic... you cannot buy that. The history, the aura, everything about the stadium. So, if we can expand two stands and get it to 55/60 thousand then perfect. A world class facility full of history. Thats the ultimate. The generic bowl is the nightmare. I do not envy Arsenal fans one little bit. A boring, soulless, bowl with no distinct characteristics that tell you "this is Arsenal".. it could be any teams ground, plus the atmopshere is sh1t. And theirs is one of the "best" bowls.
The owners know tradition (as they did the same with Boston)... please god they follow the same method with us.
What makes a bowl soulless? A bowl is just a continuation of 4 stands with rounded corners, it creates more seats and it is more efficient...
because even a whopperdome made out of gold bricks and platinum girders wont mean as much to people as this load of concrete and rusty old iron. if you need why that is explaining to you then you dont understand football.
Anfield is iconic... you cannot buy that. The history, the aura, everything about the stadium. So, if we can expand two stands and get it to 55/60 thousand then perfect. A world class facility full of history. Thats the ultimate. The generic bowl is the nightmare. I do not envy Arsenal fans one little bit. A boring, soulless, bowl with no distinct characteristics that tell you "this is Arsenal".. it could be any teams ground, plus the atmopshere is sh1t. And theirs is one of the "best" bowls.
The owners know tradition (as they did the same with Boston)... please god they follow the same method with us.
What makes a bowl soulless? A bowl is just a continuation of 4 stands with rounded corners, it creates more seats and it is more efficient...
because even a whopperdome made out of gold bricks and platinum girders wont mean as much to people as this load of concrete and rusty old iron. if you need why that is explaining to you then you dont understand football.
But that's not the question is it? The question is why is a bowl shaped stadium soulless? Because kerry was saying bowls are soulless...
Re: The stadium
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:41 am
by Rimetto
they are soulless because they are clean and modern and have no history but also to enable them to actually create the bowl they need to take the stands back from the pitch and that's where the problem lies.
The stands are back away from the pitch and also rise at a angle that's not steep enough to create the feeling of the fans being on top of the pitch. If we did go to a modern stadium i'd like us to follow the way the millennium stadium has done things (hard to keep part of the old i know) and create large stands that rise steeply so the fans and the sound stay close to the pitch
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:23 am
