|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
Building a stadium too small and without scope fir future expansion would see the club gradually falling behind the Manchester clubs in particular but some people don't care as it will be in 10 years time We are well behind United and will fall behind City in the next 2 decades if they are more successful than us. Investing in a stadium that is not going to add much value in the next 15 years (you just want an option to expand beyond 60k if necessary in 15 years) will stretch our finances and hinder our competitiveness. Even a long term loan with naming rights will need financing and regular cash outlay which we cannot afford if we want to stay competitive.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
You need an end to end plan vish
You don't build a stadium planning for the next five or ten years surely you have to see that ?
And I am glad you said resources had we got owners who had resources we would not be in this position but we have and we are
Hence we need to fund over the longer term and maximise any supporting finances we can be that naming rights city funding or whatever How many times I've told you that unfortunately no Sugar Daddy was or is lining up to buy us, so FSG is what we have which is better than the Gladzers at least. I am sure that FSG have looked at the most viable option whether you like it or not as building the stadium including naming rights was the initial option. For the club, with the available resources, I am convinced Anfield expansion is the best option VIsh what is FSG's long term plan? I ask this as I don't really know if they have one! but you seem to know what's happening in the future so what is the long term plans FSG intend to follow say in 10 to 15 years what is there strategy for LFC how will we see that plan unfold ? They do have one right ! They are investors so they would like to have a performing assets giving them ROI in the long term. I don't know their plan but I know what I would do if it was managing that investment. Short term (next 5 years) get the club competiting in major competitions regularly ie compete to win the EPL and at least later rounds of CL. How? Allow the club to have enough finances through sponsorship deals, merchandising and increasing stadium capacity according to demand (corporate space and seats to around 60k) at least cost that won't hinder the club on the transfer market. Success on the field would allow for more and better sponsorship deals, more tv revenues (EPL and CL), more merchandising through fan base expansion worldwide. Spending 150m in the stadium will pay off itself in the next 10 years through additional match day revenues. In 10 years time the club would have been signing top sponsorship deals, merchandising and fan base would be on the up and the stadium is paid off. The club can start paying dividends even before 10 years. Now let's say that the demand for seats at the right ticket price (not cheaper) in 10 years time is going up and we need a bigger stadium. Nobody knows if that would be the case as tv money and sponsorship have been the highest growing revenues in the last decade, but let's assume that the demand for ticket is high. Then I would raise capital on the market through an IPO and either further expand Anfield (if possible and if it makes sense) or do a new stadium. The new stadium might even need to be in a completely diffferent location with the expansion of the City SP has generously shared, based on the developing fan base and where they are located, taking into account transport infrastructure. May be Stanley Park won't be the right area for that. Through the IPO I would cash out some returns too. The market cap of United is 3 billion USD, if we are successful on the pitch, in 10 years time LFC with have at least a comparable value, today we are nowhere near.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
Yes of course, we are all giving our opinions here and guessing as we are not insiders of the club. I think that this could be their plan, but FSG haven't told me so if this is what you mean.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307 |
Stan refuses to accept the potential consequences to our performance on the pitch and the knock on affects that could have for the club if were hindered by 30 years of interest repayments etc. Considering his own views regarding demand and ticket prices, it's hard to justify the expense beyond the aspirational of having a shiny new stadium.
He also wildly overestimates the tourist potential of the stadium in my opinion which seems to be another argument
He talks about the 2 billion burning a hole in Liverpool councils pocket. I would be very surprised if FSG had not approached the council for grants based around a new stadium.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
Just that some seem to arGue from a point of view that I'm right and your wrong when no one knows really! so Stan's idea is as viable as yours as no one knows, to say its nonsense gives the impression you know better when you have just said you don't ? Based on our annual report over the last couple of years (which I hope you have read, the potential stadium costs) interest rates, EPL and CL tv rights revenues and ticket prices it's not very difficult to have an estimation on costs and revenue for somebody who has some knowledge in finance. According to my estimations a new stadium which might increase revenues in 15 years after additional expenditure when additional seats are done, will cripple the club in terms of competitiveness as we will not be able to buy players. SP says there must be another way and he says it's FSG's job to find the other way. I say that FSG have looked at all options and as me come to the conclusion that Anfield redevelopment is the best option to stay competitive. Whether a long term loan or not we need to find at least an additional 25m to fund a new stadium, that's more or less a fact, and believe me, money never burns any pocket, if the council has it, it will not give it as a gift to LFC which is a private enterprise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
Just that some seem to arGue from a point of view that I'm right and your wrong when no one knows really! so Stan's idea is as viable as yours as no one knows, to say its nonsense gives the impression you know better when you have just said you don't ? I agree most of the posts on here are based on opinion but just as Vish doesn't know for certain what the long term plan is, neither does Stan. Stan however is bashing the owners and calling them penny pinchers etc and claiming they are only choosing this option to make the most profit, basing his statements on nothing more than his own opinion. Do we know for sure that this is the most profitable option for FSG? The way i see it, and this has been mentioned by many experts much more knowledgeable than myself, the biggest profit would be generated by building a new stadium and then selling the club. But would this be good for the club ? Probably not..... So as i said, yes its all opinion, but one side is arguing that this option has the least negative impacts on the club whilst the other side is saying "Screw the financial impact, FSG are thieves and are bleeding the club dry". If you look at what we do know though, purely on their track record and factual evidence, Vish has much more evidence backing up his point of view than Stan does. I am not saying Stan is wrong, he might well be right, but he is basing his arguments on no more than a "GUESS" asto what might happen in the future whereas Vish is basing his on prior experiences from other clubs and FSG's record as sports franchise owners.
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
No I haven't read account reports but I can imagine there not too crash hot
however sometimes opportunities arise that if missed can be very damaging long term and based on what Stan has said it sounds like this is one of opportunities !
This investment in the area seems to be a major factor to the long term position of the community in that area
I mean utd saw the need to build a bigger stadium and one that could be added to if needed back in 1960, 54 years ago ! LFC need to have more ambition like utd had way back then
If I'm close to correct 15k extra seats x say 60 quid x say 26 home games x 10 years is about 230 mil, 80 mil above the money thereabouts there spending not mention there will no doubt be more maintenance to do on the old part of the buildings.
of course it might not need doing till 20 years ! Right but the cost then to build a new stadium instead of 450 or 500 mil could be out to 1.2 billion by then so in twenty years they may of made say 200 mil from the proposed extra seats now even if they made 250 mil from seats which I very much doubt still means there going to be up for a heck of a lot more money than now close to 900 mil going of some building costs that seem to double every 20 years I think I'm close to a roundabout figure so to get 900 mil they need to have made an extra 45 mil a year clear to reinvest in a new stadium.
the seats will generate somewhere between 10 to 12 mil a year that's being generous I believe too !
So every year we need to be making a clear 38-40 mil in new sponsorship every year
That's major sponsorship deals every year I'm not an accountant so I could be wrong but that's the road we have to travel in 20 years and don't forget there's no land near where they are now to build on as I can see Stanley park being off limits by then ! as too much council infrastructure would have to change to accommodate it
And as land will be becoming a rarer commodity that is going to be a huge cost too as we weren't buying the land at Stanley park any way you can see my point it might seem a good option now to Reno anfield but we may pay a huge cost in the future for that decision ? I said how I think money can be raised in 15 years if we are successful on the pitch, I said an IPO. Today, we cannot really do that because the club is worth much much less, if we look at the last transaction, FSG paid I think 300m to buy, since then the net worth has gone down because of additional debt (even if shareholder loan). The good news is that we have more sponsorship revenue and tv rights revenue (as we finished 2nd), but it's one year. By showing similar figures in the next 10 years the club will be worth much more and we will have the possibility of raising cheaper capital (risks will be lower). United has a market capitalisation of 3 billion US. In any case, if ever, we are going to use more than 60k seats, it going to be in at least 10 years, we cannot afford to pay interest over that period without additional revenues, that's the hard fact. The only club that took that route recently is Arsenal and now it's going to be harder because City has also broken into the top 4 and Arsenal can spend. Getting into CL is crucial and if ever we do not have the means to get in, teams like Spurs will.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
If you want a refurbishment of Anfield as opposed to a new stadium you have to accept Liverpool we be at a huge disadvantage to our north west rivals for all time at a time when the North West is predicted to be the fastest growing region economy outside London.
The notion we can make a capital placing to build a new stadium in 15 years is absolutely crazy both in economic terms and planning.
I remember both Moore's and Gillet and Hicks commissioning expert consultants both in the UK and the USA all these consultants concluded refurbishing Anfield was not an option because of the very capacity issues we raise now. And before someone tells me Moores and G&H were idiots please try to understand the consultants did the study not the owners personally. So is the evidence was over whelming then what's changed ? Nothing at all except the owners risk appetite FSG are supremely risk adverse and only have a superficial interest in the club and the city and wont over extend beyond a low risk threshold. FSG never had any interest in doing anything than applying the Fenway model to Liverpool and the inaction since their takeover was just managing fans expectations downwards to the plan they always had.
I disagree we have to be in the champions league or build an adequate stadium e.g. its one or the other.
We have to do both.
The interest rate numbers banded about anywhere from £15m to £25m are eminently serviceable and don't forget as capital debt is eroded over time and as our additional marketing (via a proper stadium) the medium term repayments will be insignificant and they are not prohibitively high in the short to medium.
Yes in the very short term it will impact our ability in the transfer market (but not if we had owners with more muscle but that's a different story) but that's a price worth paying to give LFC a long term future.
In any case that extra £20m does not guarantee we obtain champions league especially if we buy an Aspas every year.
It's also not true to say we could not raise any forms of finance other than loans at the moment. Net worth does not enter into it what matters is securitisation of income e.g. the surety of future income flows. Many's the company being floated on AIM with no or negative net worth but strong securitisation. We have unlimited financing options including potential for Liverpool city region grants if we agreed to groundshare with Everton.
I must also disagree with Maxi that tourism is small it is HUGE.
Liverpool has just opened a cruise liner terminal where do you think these people will want to see? I went to Barcelona a few years ago guess what was on my list to see? Might it have been the Camp Nou ? why do I do and millions of tourists want to see that? Two reasons they have a great team and impressive stadium and are seen as one of the world's great clubs.
Manchester United are the same anyone who has seen Old Trafford lit up over the water at Lowry cannot fail to be impressed and go to Manchester city centre on match day and you will see tourists from all over the world.
I want the same for Liverpool football club.
Last edited by Stanley Park; 24/06/14 12:13 PM.
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
If you want a refurbishment of Anfield as opposed to a new stadium you have to accept Liverpool we be at a huge disadvantage to our north west rivals for all time at a time when the North West is predicted to be the fastest growing region economy outside London.
The notion we can make a capital placing to build a new stadium in 15 years is absolutely crazy both in economic terms and planning.
I remember both Moore's and Gillet and Hicks commissioning expert consultants both in the UK and the USA all these consultants concluded refurbishing Anfield was not an option because of the very capacity issues we raise now. And before someone tells me Moores and G&H were idiots please try to understand the consultants did the study not the owners personally. So is the evidence was over whelming then what's changed ? Nothing at all except the owners risk appetite FSG are supremely risk adverse and only have a superficial interest in the club and the city and wont over extend beyond a low risk threshold. FSG never had any interest in doing anything than applying the Fenway model to Liverpool and the inaction since their takeover was just managing fans expectations downwards to the plan they always had.
I disagree we have to be in the champions league or build an adequate stadium e.g. its one or the other.
We have to do both.
The interest rate numbers banded about anywhere from £15m to £25m are eminently serviceable and don't forget as capital debt is eroded over time and as our additional marketing (via a proper stadium) the medium term repayments will be insignificant and they are not prohibitively high in the short to medium.
Yes in the very short term it will impact our ability in the transfer market (but not if we had owners with more muscle but that's a different story) but that's a price worth paying to give LFC a long term future.
In any case that extra £20m does not guarantee we obtain champions league especially if we buy an Aspas every year.
It's also not true to say we could not raise any forms of finance other than loans at the moment. Net worth does not enter into it what matters is securitisation of income e.g. the surety of future income flows. Many's the company being floated on AIM with no or negative net worth but strong securitisation. We have unlimited financing options including potential for Liverpool city region grants if we agreed to groundshare with Everton.
I must also disagree with Maxi that tourism is small it is HUGE.
Liverpool has just opened a cruise liner terminal where do you think these people will want to see? I went to Barcelona a few years ago guess what was on my list to see? Might it have been the Camp Nou ? why do I do and millions of tourists want to see that? Two reasons they have a great team and impressive stadium and are seen as one of the world's great clubs.
Manchester United are the same anyone who has seen Old Trafford lit up over the water at Lowry cannot fail to be impressed and go to Manchester city centre on match day and you will see tourists from all over the world.
I want the same for Liverpool football club.
What you want and what is possible given our resources are 2 different things. 20m does not guarantee success to reach CL but massively increases the chances, this is why it is the clubs ususally spending more on players who finish there except may be Arsenal, but then, the competition was lower. Nobody knows whether we'll need more than 60k seats or not and no reasonable person would spend that kind of money in such level of uncertainty, it's not about risk appetite but insanity. Didn't you say it yourself that seats have started to be empty at OT, what has changed now? Maybe a lot of people managing clubs have seen this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
I presume then vish you have conceded all the other points and you are saying we will never need beyond 58k ? They may or may not be correct.
The reason ticket sales are falling at OT (they were falling in the ferguson era) is price pure and simple certainly not lack of interest.
I believe eventually there will be a correction there has to be both for economic and social reasons. Just my opinion but I believe stadiums will get bigger and more impressive both to obtain volume and marketing for all the reasons previously said.
I may be wrong if I am right then Liverpool FC has a limited future
It's also not just about capacity and profit and loss a new stadium build would have better design for the modern world. Anfield was designed for an era 70 years ago
It's a tragedy no vision just short term economics within the framework of a disconnected foreign investors small pocket
A great club forever constrained
Last edited by Stanley Park; 24/06/14 01:05 PM.
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
