Liverpool Message Board
Here you go.
Armchair. Please read carefully and absorb. Then read it again just to be sure that it sticks.
Here's a quote or two
"On the back of that the club plan to push ahead with proposals to extend and improve their only home since 1892, with the Daily Express reporting that the club will sink £154m into the venerable stadium to take its capacity from 45,000 to over 60,000, the capacity of Arsenal's much-lauded Emirates Stadium."
"Redevelopment is likely to see major improvements to, and extensions of, the main stand and the Anfield Road end although that is all subject to planning permission, which has been made possible by the regeneration plans to clear some streets close to the ground, and the support of homeowners and the community.
However, redevelopment is entirely dependent on being able to get the necessary permissions to carry out the work the club want - which means a new-build on Stanley Park cannot be conclusively consigned to the waste bin until those have been secured."
Moving forward. Good
Both these links make for interesting reading. They are suggestive that we will be looking at a major look to corporate improvements. Whether those numbers are plucked out of the air or not, it seems we will be looking at approx £150m build and increasing revenue by around £40m per year. Just under 4 years to pay for itself is pretty good is it not? I think it probably suggests the youth idea will be something to stick around for the forseable future and we might be taking an Arsenal style transfer model to get us there quicker. Just as well we are generating a decent profit of our own backs without champions league football because I dont see it coming home anytime soon! For the greater good I suppose.
Losing a couple of rows of seats at the narrow ends 3-6 times a season is not very costly, especially in comparison to CL TV money. (Not costly at all if the ground isn't full.) I can't see it making sense to move a whole stand back just for that. Also, the theory that you make the pitch bigger by raising it - won't the extra space then come from losing the first row or two of seats the whole way round?
- 1 Reply to Loki
Maybe but I'm waiting for the following:
1. 60,000 seats isn't enough. We should think bigger. Where's the ambition?
2. £10k per new seat is expensive compared to the lower cost per seat of a new stadium
3. They're doing it because it's the cheap option. FSG have no money
I'll think of a few more in a minute as well.
Personally I hope they do a couple of things with the refurb.
1. Keep the Kop
2. Ensure that we can keep the atmosphere. I don't want a lifeless bowl. Staying "home" gives us teh best chance of that.
3.Sort the pitch out. It's too small for Euro competitions by all accounts but I also think a bigger pitch will suit BR's football philosophy.
Can FSG rebuild the fortress? I hope so.
- 2 Replies to LFC_Armchair_Supporter
Sofa, you need to stop your obsession about size!
60K has often been quoted as the sweet spot when it comes to football stadia that balances costs vs. revenue. If you look at match day revenues you'll see that Arsenal only earn slightly less than Utd per game, with only 60K seats vs. 75K at OT. Now part of that is because the Emirates is in London and a newer stadium, but part is that you just don't earn the same amount per seat of every additional seat you add. I know you don't go to football games, but if you did would you really pay the same amount for a ticket way up in the gods, half a mile back from the pitch? There is a point where diminishing returns means the costs is just not made up by the expense.
Then of course there is the other issue you've been told about a few times. Planning permission. Without upgrades to the surrounding area (roads, parking, public transport, etc.) we cannot go bigger than 60K. It’s a minor issue, but unless you want Mr. Henry spending his money building light rail systems, widening roads, and putting in bus lanes, rather than spending it on the Reds, it’s something that has to be considered.
- 2 Replies to Robert M
We'll just do what United do and get them from Surrey or something.
It's a fair point you touch on though Robert.
Based on those figures it's £10k a seat. A new stadium of 60k seats at £350m comes in at under £6k per seat. Considerably less.
Then there's lost seat revenue while the work happens etc. I'd guess the number at the top is obviously important as well as other costs which may not be included in the £350m Stanley Park development.