|
|
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054
1st Team Squad
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054 |
In the ideal world having a brand new 70,000 stadium would be great for us, but to fund that would have a huge impact on the club, we don't have a sugar daddy to fund it like City have (and the council pretty much gave the stadium to them after the common wealth games).
Unless the owner is funding this, Everton will be paying back debts for years to come, which will impact the players they can buy. Look at the impact the Emirates Stadium had on Arsenal, and they have the largest gate receipts in the world football and a huge Stadium sponsorship deal
We increased the attendance to 54,000 by extending thh main stand, which will be paid off in a few years, if we can do similar with Anfield road and get the attendance to around 60,000 without huge debts, that would be good.
London clubs like Tottenham & Arsenal have allot of corporate facilities/conferences they can sell the club facilities to midweek, they can also raise ticket/season tickets much higher than the fans in the NW can/will pay, so the same business model will not work, will be interesting to see how Everton fund the new stadium and how it affects them on the pitch.
City didn't pay for their stadium but leased it. In fact all the clubs building stadium have/had very low seating capacity, we can move easily to 60k seats if we want, so there is no need to spend close to a billion to get there with a new stadium and the legendary Anfield atmosphere will stay. What else? I agree, better to stay at Anfield and invest, we already have 54,000 capacity, which is still bigger than Everton will start at in their new stadium!!! The original deal was City have to pay the council a percentage of their gate receipts, I think they now pay an annual fee?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394 |
A new stadium does not guarantee success in fact nothing guarantees success. However if you are a big club with a big fan base it's nice to have a stadium that is aligned with your status. Much as I love anfield it's very limited and in the wrong area the way the games going. Fans no longer cycle to the ground wearing flat caps and that was the model when the ground was sited over a hundred years ago Being loaned up to the eyeballs certainly won’t guarantee success. Definitely not but there are other options and given most of the top club either have or are investing in modern stadia there must be some reason they do it. I agree a new stadium is simply not possible with FSG who want a short term return on everything. As a club we are currently over achieving because for once FSG have hit the jackpot with their choice of manager What short term return have FSG got from the club? They've brought in a top class manager and given him funds to spend to get us to where we are. All this in spite of us having a ruined shitte hole of a stadium. They've also increased said shitte hole and may do further which will keep us as the biggest capacity in the city even if the blue stripe stadium is built. So you saying about short term return is bollox as they've been here a good while now and made the club able to compete again on and off the pitch (all without a new stadium).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
How much did they pay and what's it worth now ? They are hardly subsidising anything. Yes they are great business people but for themselves not the club. They have hardly risked any capital everything has been self financing. We are doing great at the moment but long term in my opinion we will pay for our lack of modern stadium in the right location. However perhaps you are right and I am wrong I very much hope so
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,394 |
How much did they pay and what's it worth now ? They are hardly subsidising anything. Yes they are great business people but for themselves not the club. They have hardly risked any capital everything has been self financing. We are doing great at the moment but long term in my opinion we will pay for our lack of modern stadium in the right location. However perhaps you are right and I am wrong I very much hope so What they've made on paper is irrelevant. It only counts when they sell, which they're not. So there is no short term gain from them at all. And long term we need success on the pitch. A new stadium will only hinder that as we'll have less funds to spend where it matters. To say not having a new stadium will hold us back long term is just wrong.
Last edited by wilkij1975; 22/12/18 08:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,279
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,279 |
Whatever the rights and wrongs of it Everton's new stadium is going to be in a fantastic location I would go as far as to say location wise the best in the prem for all kinds of reasons transport social economic asthetic
Everton will also be able to claim they are the Liverpool club in the heart of the city. Liverpool FC may be the bigger club at this point but on this one they have stuffed us big time.
I went to Vancouver in sept and had a look at Vancouver whitecaps ground it's stunning right on the seafront must be one of the most beautiful stadia in the world. Everton's ground is some way towards that. Anfield the area is a total dump no disrespect to anyone who lives there It's goood in a way then. Keeps us all humble by reminding us of the working class roots of the game. Isn't it also an opportunity for us to help re-generate the area rather than abandoning it? On a similar note, did you hear the Spurs story about the area around their new stadium? Apparently they've complained to the council that the local area is 'dirty' and needs cleaning up to keep in line with the new stadium! They've also refused to pay for cleaning the local area afetr matches saying that the council should pay for it.
'I was only in the game for the love of football - and I wanted to bring back happiness to the people of Liverpool.' Bill Shankly
'We should have made a signing or two in the last couple of transfer windows.' Vish
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
I was at a PWC meeting in Manchester with Q&A rick parry in the 90,s the stadium was discussed. There was no talk then of revamping anfield all were agreed we needed a new stadium and the club were looking at new stadia since the 80,s speke was discussed which would have been a great location. Moores sold because he did not have the financing needed. In the end the investment we have had is no better than moores although I agree the business acumen is well ahead. So what's changed nothing other than fans expectations have been managed down. As for staying at anfield for some kind of working class crusade fantastic I presume then we will be reducing the ticket prices so the working class can get in ? No ? Thought not !
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 193
Under 16 Player
|
|
Under 16 Player
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 193 |
Depends on what your definition of "heart of the city" is. Every scouser knows that town is not really the "heart" of the city. Town is where the council and fat joe anderson spends most of the money. The real liverpool is where the people are. The residential areas. Anfield is a dump though yes, this is true. But thats down to the council only investing in redevelopment in south liverpool and town and also using the anfield area to accommodate ex-cons and former homeless/drug addicts. Thats something that the council needs to sort out. As for Anfield the stadium. I dont know. There is something special about knowing that we're on the same ground were we seen the legends play, the same place where previous supporters centuries ago used to come to watch us play. Sentimentality and all that. But like others have said, the only team in recent times who are better off of having a new stadium seem to be city, but thats as a result of the billions being spent by their oil owners than having a better stadium. If we can redevelop, if we can renovate for cheaper and have the best of both worlds then I'm for that. Something tells me we'd be losing a bit of the soul of the football club if we said goodbye to Anfield.
Last edited by ghostgoal; 22/12/18 09:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,279
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,279 |
No just a bit... we'd be losing loads.
If need be, why doesn't the club just gradually buy up the streets of houses that are in the way?
'I was only in the game for the love of football - and I wanted to bring back happiness to the people of Liverpool.' Bill Shankly
'We should have made a signing or two in the last couple of transfer windows.' Vish
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054 |
Depends on what your definition of "heart of the city" is. Every scouser knows that town is not really the "heart" of the city. Town is where the council and fat joe anderson spends most of the money. The real liverpool is where the people are. The residential areas. Anfield is a dump though yes, this is true. But thats down to the council only investing in redevelopment in south liverpool and town and also using the anfield area to accommodate ex-cons and former homeless/drug addicts. Thats something that the council needs to sort out. As for Anfield the stadium. I dont know. There is something special about knowing that we're on the same ground were we seen the legends play, the same place where previous supporters centuries ago used to come to watch us play. Sentimentality and all that. But like others have said, the only team in recent times who are better off of having a new stadium seem to be city, but thats as a result of the billions being spent by their oil owners than having a better stadium. If we can redevelop, if we can renovate for cheaper and have the best of both worlds then I'm for that. Something tells me we'd be losing a bit of the soul of the football club if we said goodbye to Anfield. Man City's new stadium is in a run down area of Manchester, so it's not like they've moved to a swanky area of Manchester, amusingly Man Utd have ended up near Salford Quays, which is the old docks area, which has been rebuilt and invested in since the 90's. I live very close to that area and grew up on the docks as my father and grandfather were dockers until the 80's.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
OP
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
I was at a PWC meeting in Manchester with Q&A rick parry in the 90,s the stadium was discussed. There was no talk then of revamping anfield all were agreed we needed a new stadium and the club were looking at new stadia since the 80,s speke was discussed which would have been a great location. Moores sold because he did not have the financing needed. In the end the investment we have had is no better than moores although I agree the business acumen is well ahead. So what's changed nothing other than fans expectations have been managed down. As for staying at anfield for some kind of working class crusade fantastic I presume then we will be reducing the ticket prices so the working class can get in ? No ? Thought not !
1990? Really. Things change you know. In those days gate revenue was the highest and probably they didn't even look at the possibility of developing Anfield. We all know how good Moore was at taking strategic decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
