Liverpool close in on naming rights partner

I would love for the turf to be taken up at anfield and placed at the new stadium.

Regardless, i don't want our new stadium called Anfield or have the word Anfield in it.

Anfield is a one and only. It will never ever be forgotten from our history much like the Kop never will. If we move on, change the name.

Infact that is the reason it should be called Anfield or have Anfield in its name. I would love if it were that way.

I guess I still haven't properly digested the fact that we'll be moving out of Anfield, the name's too closely related to Liverpool to me.

Sorry JD, but it doesn't work that way ... It is not only about the additional 15,000 seats ... It is about the improved corporate hospitality facilities, and the improved match-day hospitality facilities ... And if you want to know how, take a look at this ...

It might not work that way in your mind, but that is what JH spoke about the last time the stadium issue was raised. He even said is it worth it for an extra 15,000 seats, and that is a FACT.

And if we can not redevelop Anfield, it is only because of the red tape from the local council. FSG seem to want to redevelop Anfield, but are getting a little bit annoyed at some of the objections from Liverpool City Council.

Regardless, i don't want our new stadium called Anfield or have the word Anfield in it.

Anfield is a one and only. It will never ever be forgotten from our history much like the Kop never will. If we move on, change the name.

I don't think the official name will include Anfield, I just think most of us locals will end up calling it Anfield, as the area the ground is situated in is still Anfield!!

It might not work that way in your mind, but that is what JH spoke about the last time the stadium issue was raised. He even said is it worth it for an extra 15,000 seats, and that is a FACT.

Those interviews by John Henry and Tom Werner were part of a well coordinated PR campaign, trying to put the pressure on the Liverpool City Council to grant us a planning permission for a BIG upgrade on our current ground ... Personally, I would have absolutely loved that outcome, but according to the latest info from reliable sources (like Tony Barrett), it seems that the Anfield upgrade scenario is impossible, not only because of the opposition from the Council, but also because of practical problems, like the land ownership ...

As for the revenue growth from a new stadium, here are the only numbers that are really interesting for me:

Arsenal's match-day revenue have risen from £44.1 million in the 2005/06 season, to £90.6 million in the 2006/07 season ... They still have 51,071 regular seats at the Emirates, but they also have 7,139 seats at the "club level", and 2,222 seats at the "executive level" ... The match day income from the 9,361 seats at "club level" and "executive level" is about the same as the match-day income from the 51,071 regular seats ...

Do you really think that John Henry and Tom Werner are unaware of these numbers, especially since it has been made public that they have been cruising the new football grounds around Europe this summer ?

Problem is we are unlikely to be able to charge anywhere near the same price for seats (executive or otherwise) as they can in London. Not if we want to sell any that is.   

Problem is we are unlikely to be able to charge anywhere near the same price for seats (executive or otherwise) as they can in London. Not if we want to sell any that is.   

Exactly. I was thinking this earlier, we cannot charge the same ticket prices Arsenal do. They have the most expensive tickets in the league...and it's increasing year on year.

But it's a fact that we need to catch up, we need to make up some space because they're earning 60 million more a year in match day revenue which is not healthy for us if we want to compete in the long term.

As i said my wife works in Coke-cola head office in  Dublin,she is in accounts and the talk in her job is that Coke is leading the race for the sponsorship Deal worth close to 250million dollars

I like the jersey Racer the white would be funky!!

I have been hearing this at work too... I would love my company to sponser LFC - and as a global brand (the biggest) I can think of no other sponser that would be better. When we stoped sponsering the leagues we always committed to get back into footabll, so I'm hoping. Also they could run limited edition cans with our players on them, old payers, youth players etc. These sent around the globe would be a massive boost for LFC.

Exactly. I was thinking this earlier, we cannot charge the same ticket prices Arsenal do. They have the most expensive tickets in the league...and it's increasing year on year.

But it's a fact that we need to catch up, we need to make up some space because they're earning 60 million more a year in match day revenue which is not healthy for us if we want to compete in the long term.

Profit through volume is the answer. If we had a massive stadium we could charge less and still make more money. The additional cost of going from say 65,000 to 95,000 may not be that big - and filling it wouldnt be a massive problem in my opinion. We could also host friendly's there when it's not being used for extra revenue.

Problem is we are unlikely to be able to charge anywhere near the same price for seats (executive or otherwise) as they can in London. Not if we want to sell any that is.   

Over the past 5 seasons, Arsenal have an annual match-day revenue of around £95-100 million ... Over the same period, we have an annual match-day revenue of around £42-43 million ... Even if we charge 20-25% lower prices than Arsenal, we would still double our match-day revenue in a new 60,000 seater stadium, with heavily improved corporate and match-day hospitality facilities ... At the moment, only 11.8% of the seats at the Emirates are "premium" seats, and only 3.7% of the seats are "executive" seats ... The remaining 84.5% of the seats are "regular" seats, with the tickets being sold on regular (London) prices ... Still, the "premium" and the "executive" seats create 50% of the match day revenue ... Here is the reason:

https://bookings.arsenal.com/events/events.htm

Profit through volume is the answer. If we had a massive stadium we could charge less and still make more money. The additional cost of going from say 65,000 to 95,000 may not be that big - and filling it wouldnt be a massive problem in my opinion. We could also host friendly's there when it's not being used for extra revenue.

Actually, from a technical point of view, going from 60,000 to 90,000 would double the building cost of the stadium, due to a heavily increased usage of steel and other expensive materials ... According to the stadium design experts, the optimal cost/benefit capacity is at 55,000 - 60,000 ...

I would love for the turf to be taken up at anfield and placed at the new stadium.

Sorry, but the pitch/turf is changed every Summer.

I don't think the official name will include Anfield, I just think most of us locals will end up calling it Anfield, as the area the ground is situated in is still Anfield!!

I don't think it will either.

I think a massive section of our new museum will be devoted to Anfield.

Agree that any new stadium will not include the name Anfield and I wouldn't want it to.

To be honest I almost don't want us to leave Anfield at all regardless of finances. I know that a bigger capacity is needed to increase revenue but I really can't imagine us playing anywhere else.

It may be an old fashioned or even blinkered view but is an extra 15000 seats really worth it?

I'm not totally convinced it is.

Agree that any new stadium will not include the name Anfield and I wouldn't want it to.

To be honest I almost don't want us to leave Anfield at all regardless of finances. I know that a bigger capacity is needed to increase revenue but I really can't imagine us playing anywhere else.

It may be an old fashioned or even blinkered view but is an extra 15000 seats really worth it?

I'm not totally convinced it is.

Firstly, I would want it to be called Anfield. Nothing else, just Anfield. Swerve naming rights, swerve Stanley Park, swerve new Anfield, just Anfield. That is our home, has been since day one. Not into all this name changing, Baseball Ground to Pride Park, The Dell to St Mary's, Ninian Park to Cardiff City Stadium, Maine Road to City Of Manchester Stadium to Ethiad Stadium, Highfield Road to The Ricoh Arena, Springfield Park to The JJB to the DW Stadium. Nah swerve all that, you need a connection with your ground and ours is Anfield.

One of the most important and famous features of this club is the This Is Anfield sign at the tunnel. How many people have touched that sign. Can't have that at anywhere but Anfield. Can't have that at the Coca Cola Arena or The Sony Stadium or The Amy Winehouse Memorial Ground. That sign was brought in by Shanks to intimidate the opponents. It's a part of our club's history and tradition. And something as small as that can have a major impact. Imagine us walking down the stairs onto the pitch and not touch the This Is Anfield sign. Something we've done for close to half a century.

Secondly, I agree that I don't want us to leave our current home either. Anfield has so many special memories for me personally as it does for anybody who has been there. Everyone around the world knows about Anfield. It's got the most famous stand in world football - The Kop. No new stadium is gonna have the same Kop, it can't be the same. And people are just happy to throw it away on a whim, not me la. I want Anfield to remain and us to remain there.

Lets move to a 60/70 thousand seater with even more pompous cu*ts sat in the executive boxes and even more day trippers taking up seats that should be going to the every day genuine fan who wants to be for the right reason - to support their club - not to take pictures or to clinch business deals. Ticket prices will increase, they always do with new stadiums. No doubt everything within the ground would increase such as pies, programs and merchandise within the shop. And the current prices have already priced a lot of Reds out of going on a regular basis, it could get to the point where they can't afford to go at all.

It's just another part of today's game that circles around money. It's actually sickening.

It really is a dilemma DLS and there is also no guarantee that moving to a 60-70000 seater stadium will make the club any more successful.

Obviously it will generate more revenue but will that automatically translate to success on the pitch which is ultimately what the football club exists for.

To be honest mate, I don't think the extra revenue helps you initially at all. Money is always tight because you're always trying to pay back the money you've spent on the new stadium. If you don't spend it like Arsenal, you will be in a good financial position but then you've got the other side where do you spend and hope you can get success to pay for the new stadium, if not you can end up in sh*t street like so many who've bought new stadiums and not had the success to pay for it.

As I've said earlier in this thread, we didn't need a flashy new stadium when we twatted United 4-1 and Madrid 4-0 in a matter of days of one another. Two of the biggest clubs in the world both in name and commercially with two of the biggest stadiums. If your squad is good enough, it's not gonna make a blind bit of difference what size stadium you've got. And if you're squad is sh*t, it's not gonna make a blind bit of difference what size stadium you've got - look at Arsenal and their bare trophy cabinet since moving to this new stadium.

There is a little flaw with that theory ... Only couple of months after beating the Mancs 4-1 and Real Madrid 4-0, our best player that season has joined the same Real Madrid ... We can list millions of reasons for his departure, but there really is one simple reason: He wanted to compete for trophies ...

There is a little flaw with that theory ... Only couple of months after beating the Mancs 4-1 and Real Madrid 4-0, our best player that season has joined the same Real Madrid ... We can list millions of reasons for his departure, but there really is one simple reason: He wanted to compete for trophies ...

Or he was the first to see the writing on the wall.

The United and Madrid results were because we had a manager who was a genius who made us punch above our financial weight. United and Madrid are in the champions league every year without fail, we are not.

The United and Madrid results were because we had a manager who was a genius who made us punch above our financial weight. United and Madrid are in the champions league every year without fail, we are not.

And that's because of the size of the stadium is it? If it is, Newcastle should be in there year on year out. And by the way our first season without Champions League football for some time came under that genius who made us punch above our weight.

Have not read this full thread, but wanted to put my 20pence in the ring...

A new stadium is not just all about the seat capacity...
Surely there will be some retail/dining additions to the 'complex'.. This in it's self will bring in revenue, visitors, tourists, etc..

The corporate side will also be a major part of the investment - corporate spenders bring in good revenue..

Yes more seats means more attendences and a small additional revenue in seating turnover, but add that to the whole day's outing that some spectators make it - visitors from outside the city, will spend whilst visiting the complex...

I'm not saying the extra income will mean we will 'over night' became a better team and be competing against the other top 4 clubs - we are already doing that!
But if this increased revenue income is used wisely we can build for the future and gain momentum that we already have created in the past year under KK and the new owners..

The new owners know what they are doing and know it's not all about making a quick buck (unlike some previous un mentionable names!)

We have the following that will always be Liverpool at heart and whether we play at Anfield, Stanley-Anfield Park or The MacDonalds Stadium or maybe the iStadium? (how cool would that be?) we will be there as the best supporters in the world as we always have been... Maybe not sounding as great as the KOP does, but with more fire in our hearts and voices, we could still make it the best experience and be that feared 12th man against the away team that we always had...

The club it's self has history, and attracts the big players because of that. We 'ARE' the biggest club in the world and we can be the best again...

Just remember, Liverpool ACTUALLY currently play at the old home of Everton!! We are the better younger brother that has grown out of change...

Maybe with the past 20 years we have been stuck in the past, and it's time for a new start and a fresh approach...

I say good for the new stadium, (maybe I can get more chance of getting tickets.. ha ha).. but in the end it's our hearts and loyalty and voices that make Liverpool FC what they are... We'll just have to sing louder and prouder and show the world WE CAN BE THE BEST again!!..

Now hurry up and build the bloody thing.....

We currently make £42m from out home matches.  Compared to £110m at OT and £100m for the Emirates.  If you take into account the non-London venue and the fact that we haven't won the league, with a 65k odd stadium, we can be making maybe £80m a year from the new stadium, that is an extra £40m a year, if you use half of it to pay down the debt, that still adds £20m to our transfer and wage budgets each and every year.