Interesting article in the Echo.

[DeeGame]

The who gives a fcuk what the stadium is called as long as we got damn build one!

[Dhav]

Coca-Cola Stadium would be good.

Coca-Cola Kop.

I think people will accept selling stadium-naming rights, but I dont think they would accept renaming the Kop.

[Dhav]

I believe during the first press conference with the new owners, one of them said something along the lines of "if selling the naming rights to the stadium brings in enough money to help fund one terrific signing a year, then that's something we have to look at".

I see that point.

jD

To be honest, I think that was clever spin by Gillett, selling it to the fans in a way in which the team benefits.

But the truth is that selling the naming rights could go a hell of long way towards paying for the stadium itself, and for this reason it is an absolute no- brainer.

[Draxdor]

Problem solved. Well, I'm off to the pub...

jD

[livvy145]

Part 2

The crucial countdown


In part two of his series assessing the challenges facing new owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks, Liverpool FC correspondent CHRIS BASCOMBE explains why the American ownership may be defined by the success of their first major project: Building the new Anfield

by Chris Bascombe, Liverpool Echo


APRIL 2, 2007, was pencilled in as a momentous day for Liverpool Football Club.

Builders Laing O'Rourke were scheduled to begin work on the new stadium on Stanley Park. Not now.

Publicly, Liverpool insist there's nothing worrying about the postponement, although not all the club's employees would agree.

Most notably, members of those departments who've spent recent years based in what's still affectionately known as 'Tina's Guest House' on Anfield Road.

On their final day of relocation to different parts of the city, news of the possible delay filtered through. The triumphant return to Stanley Park scheduled for 2009 now depends on the outcome of a review.

Liverpool finds itself in an unsatisfactory limbo period where various offices of the club are to be found in a selection of city locations.

The Public Relations department, led by former player Brian Hall, is now based on the Dock Road.

The Community Development Office will spend the next few years in Garston. The club website finds itself in Bootle. Meanwhile, the Vernon Sangster Leisure Centre stands abandoned having passed into the club's hands on the day the hold-up was announced.

The stoppage is said to be temporary, but it's now up to George Gillett and Tom Hicks when the first spade goes into the Stanley Park turf.

Gillett and Hicks wanted the 61,000 capacity increased, either now or further down the line once the arena is built.

The review's findings will be revealed by the end of the month, and despite the feverish excitement following revelations they'd eventually like a 76,000 seater stadium, the choice is blunt. Key meetings involving the American's consultants and planners spelt out the reality earlier this week.

Liverpool can push on with the existing plan, with minor rather than fundamental alterations, or the process which has lasted six years to get to this point must start again.

The existing plans have been re-examined by Dallas firm HKS, having been originally put together by Atherden Fuller Leng. Legally, HKS can only make tweaks if the existing plan is to progress. Re-designing the stadium would have monumental consequences.

It's natural the owners wish to review their purchase, particularly as they say the current architects' plan is six years old. The successful construction of the new stadium must be their flagship policy. Unfortunately, there is a gulf between their dreams and reality.

Under the existing design, there is no scope for extension. It would, literally, be back to square one. All the political, planning and diplomatic battles Liverpool won to get to this point would have to be re-fought.

It could take a minimum of two years to win approval for a new scheme, and even then, with the implications to the infrastructure, particularly as Stanley Park is a Grade 2, Victorian site, they may not get the go-ahead. Then they would have to look elsewhere.

A delay would also be very expensive. The current cost is £180m. One estimate suggests even a two year wait could see this rise another £140m, while the loss of matchday revenue would be equally damaging.

Liverpool supporters, meanwhile, are now being asked what they want from a new stadium.

Despite their religious devotion to Shanklyesque socialist principles, they're an essentially conservative bunch.

They've settled into a matchday routine they wish to preserve, and the onset of modern ways has even provoked a hearty few to form their own association - Reclaim The Kop - which will shadow the stadium development, diligently ensuring there's no compromise on their ideals.

If it's possible to recreate an exact replica of the current Anfield, only a bit bigger, that will be fine. Oh, and a bit more leg room wouldn't go a miss.

A unique Kop End must be saved, the atmosphere protected, ticket prices kept at affordable levels and ticket purchases easier to complete.

Those studying the fans' survey, sent out at Gillett and Hicks' request earlier this week, will quickly discover other issues are important, but peripheral.

And while the rhetoric about hearing the fans' views plays well to gallery, it's the profits from getting as many bums on seats which is clearly pre-occupying the new co-chairmen.

Liverpool desperately needs a new stadium as soon as possible, or the owners' hopes of achieving a profit on their investment is doomed.

The 2006 Deloitte Financial Report into club revenues underlined precisely why it's integral to Liverpool's survival at the top, and why Rick Parry was prepared to think the unthinkable in 2001 and suggest leaving the current Anfield.

Last year, Liverpool made 32.7 million pounds, or 27 percent of its earnings, from match-day sales, including tickets.

The comparison with Manchester United is depressing.

Their match-day income was nearly double, settling on £71.3million, or 43% of their earnings.

This is by far United's most lucrative revenue stream. For all the arguments regarding the marketing and commercial strengths of each club, this explains why United can regularly bid £30m on a player and Liverpool cannot.

It's not only United leaving the Reds behind financially.

Thanks to their move to The Emirates Stadium, Arsenal expect income to increase by as much as £35million in 2007.

If Liverpool could claim this kind of revenue, it would not only help Rafa Benitez improve the squad, it would also assist in the repaying the cost of the £180m scheme.

Much was made of recent revelations Gillett and Hicks have taken out a £500m loan to buy the club, absorb existing debt, finance the stadium and provide working capital. They have borrowed £298m from the Royal Bank of Scotland to purchase the club, and a further £200m to pay for the stadium.

They've also set up two companies based in Britain but owned by Kop Football (Caymen) Ltd in the tax haven of the Caymen Islands and Kop Investment LLC in Delaware, also noted for low taxes.

In stark, significant contrast to Manchester United, they're not saddling Liverpool with any new debts, although the £21m a year interest will be paid out of club accounts.

It should be stressed there's nothing new, strange or concerning about their approach since their vast wealth can guarantee repayment. The comparison with Arsenal's stadium financing is highly favourable to Liverpool.

Arsenal paid for their stadium with a £260m loan from a group of six banks.

The debt was moderately counter-balanced when they agreed £100m stadium sponsorship with Emirates Airlines.

But the Arsenal strategy is far riskier than Liverpool's because they've put their huge debt upon the club, and will need regular Champions League qualification to manage it.

If standards on the pitch deteriorate and the Gunners don't continue to fill their arena or play in Europe's elite competition, they'll face a financial crisis.

However, much of the work in North London has been a useful blueprint for the Reds, not least naming rights.

We don't yet know what the new stadium will be called, although it's inconceivable any Liverpool fan will refer to it as anything other than Anfield, regardless of the protocol of having an advertiser's name carried along for the ride and the cash.

If it's built, Liverpool will have a self-sustaining revenue stream. The more money they make from stadium attendance, the more money will be available to the manager, the more quality there will be on the pitch, and the more fans will continue to pack the stadium.

It's the luscious circle at the heart of Liverpool remaining a member of the European elite for the next century.

Without question, it's the single most important issue since the club was founded. Gillett and Hicks are wise to ponder the repercussions of every decision taken up to this point, but with deadlines looming, fans eager for answers and club departments scattered across the city, time is not on their side.

[Dhav]

Thanks for posting that livvy. Makes sobering and quite depressing reading. I am still shocked that the board sanctioned a move to stadium that had the capacity fixed permanently at 61,000 with no option to expand at a later date - that is commercial suicide and a completely wasted opportunity. If the idea is to catch up to Man Utd, then we need 65,000 seater at least, with the option to go up to 70-75,000 if need be. Old Trafford will soon be expanded again and I;'m sure in the next few years their stadium will go to 90,000. We wont be able to compete with a fixed capcity of 61,000

[dom9]

I don't know why anybody build a new stadium with a view to expanding it?

If you are starting from scratch, why not just build it the right size to start with? It's a lot cheaper.

[Dhav]

I don't know why anybody build a new stadium with a view to expanding it?

If you are starting from scratch, why not just build it the right size to start with? It's a lot cheaper.

But if the idea is to build a stadium to compete with the Mancs, building it to 61,000 without an option to expand at a later date is extremely limiting,.

How much is it costing the Mancs to increase OT by 5-10,000 seats each time? Peanuts compared to the extra revenue they generate.

Arsenal's new stadium might only hold around the same as New Anfield is planned for now, but apprently they still sell out and it's as hard to get tickets now as when they were still at Highbury, and they dont have the support we do.

Building a stadium to a max capacity of 61,000 is insane.

I do agree with you though - if we are going to start from scratch, and we're building a stadium without it being expandable, then it should be built to the right capacity, and in my view 61,000 is too low.

[ningnangnong]

I think people will accept selling stadium-naming rights, but I dont think they would accept renaming the Kop.

I realise that, and agree with you.

[dom9]

I do agree with you though - if we are going to start from scratch, and we're building a stadium without it being expandable, then it should be built to the right capacity, and in my view 61,000 is too low.

That's it.

OT, like anfield has evolved over the best part of a century. In that time, there were terraces, and now there are not. United also had the space to expand, unlike the the situation at Anfield, so we have to build from new, just like Arsenal.

We can learn from them because they are proving that 60,000 is too small. It seems that they are also proving that to transport that many people to the ground without a decent transport network is also difficult.

But, if we are to build a new ground, it has to be the right size to start with. It is pointless to do it twice. If the demand is there now, capitalise on it.

To be fair, when the 60,000 idea was originally conceived, OT had a similar capacity, Newcastle hadn't extended their ground yet, and Arsenal weren't even on the drawing board. There weren't too many complaints about it at the time from what I remember.

[bazza76]

That's it.

OT, like anfield has evolved over the best part of a century. In that time, there were terraces, and now there are not. United also had the space to expand, unlike the the situation at Anfield, so we have to build from new, just like Arsenal.

We can learn from them because they are proving that 60,000 is too small. It seems that they are also proving that to transport that many people to the ground without a decent transport network is also difficult.

But, if we are to build a new ground, it has to be the right size to start with. It is pointless to do it twice. If the demand is there now, capitalise on it.

To be fair, when the 60,000 idea was originally conceived, OT had a similar capacity, Newcastle hadn't extended their ground yet, and Arsenal weren't even on the drawing board. There weren't too many complaints about it at the time from what I remember.

I think there was mate, a few complaints i mean.
I think it was mostly argued though that we wouldnt fill anything above a 60,000 seater, which i thought was a little presumptious.
it seems now there has been a big upturn in the demand of season tickets from what i remember though, i remember doing the anfield tour and being told there was a waiting list of over 20,000 it seems now there is a 50,000 plus waiting list. Personally speaking, I was never happy with the 61,000 cocacity, especially given the reasons why we were told we were only getting 61,000 which was due to GH having more momney to spend in the short term. That reason that they gave, wasn't good enough for me.

[G]

For me capacity locked at 61000 is commercial suicide.It needs to be expanadable at the very least although I'd rather it was just built bigger in the first place.Expanding at a later stage means reducing capacity while work is on going and that won't be good for fans or revenue.Interestingly,with Platini looking to take away one of Englands champions league places Arsenal could find themselves in dead lumber quicker than their worst case scenario could have imagined.

[dom9]

Interestingly,with Platini looking to take away one of Englands champions league places Arsenal could find themselves in dead lumber quicker than their worst case scenario could have imagined.

That could easily be us too.

[Draxdor]

That could easily be us too.

Thought it, but didn't want to say it...

[Angry Dan]

Our loans are not secured against the club like the Arse's are tho