How big a stadium do we need

70000 would be ideal to be honest

I would take a 55,000 redeveloped Anfield over a 65,000 new soulless bowl any day.

Reebok, Eastlands, Liberty..all sh*te!

To be honest do we need a bigger stadium fille dwith even more people with Cameras who just sit there in silence

Liverpool FC and Everton FC chiefs Ian Ayre and Robert Elstone reveal thoughts on future of both clubs

EVERTON FC cannot redevelop Goodison Park and Liverpool FC will not announce its stadium plans until a “responsible” way to raise finances has been found, club bosses said.

Blues chief executive Robert Elstone and Reds managing director Ian Ayre shared a platform yesterday to discuss football finance at a fringe event at the Global Entrepreneurship Congress, which is being held in the city.

Mr Elstone ruled out redeveloping Goodison Park as unaffordable and Mr Ayre said the Reds were looking for a responsible way to add 20,000 extra seats to their gate receipt. Everton is currently searching for a new home and Liverpool is mulling over whether to build a new ground in Stanley Park or redevelop Anfield.

The pair sat down for a question and answer session with Frank McKenna of lobby group Downtown Liverpool in Business, which hosted the event for delegates to the congress.

Both leaders announced plans to expand their commercial operations in Asia, and said the idea of a 39th Premier League game being played abroad to help raise revenue needs to be explored.

ON THE STADIUM QUESTION

Ian Ayre believes Anfield represents one of the best stadium atmospheres.

“People are more interested in what happens on the pitch. It’s not to say that the other things are not important.

“It is about finding the right solution that keep the great heritage experience and atmosphere and finding the right thing for the future. It’s not so easy a challenge.

“We have to have the right economic model.

“Our sweet spot is around 60,000 to 65,000, because we don’t want empty seats.

“We already have 46,000 seats, and those extra 20,000 seats are not going to generate hundreds of millions.

“If it meant we were writing cheques for that rather than the team people will ask why.

“We have got to do it in a responsible way. If you don’t do that you can get yourselves in all kinds of trouble.

“The board are very focused on it but conscious of the fact it has to be the right economic model.”

Robert Elstone said: “I agree with what Ian said, the most important thing is the atmosphere and the experience, so maybe we have got the recipe for a share.

“Chelsea FC recently did some work about the challenge of redeveloping and staying at Stamford Bridge, and it said their capacity would go down.”

He said the London club had been told it would be hugely complex and also cost £600m.

“There are similar problems to rebuilding Goodison.

“The only sensible option is land acquisition. I genuinely believe that the redevelopment of Goodison is not a realistic option.”

He said ideas to redevelop the Park End would still leave the other three sides of the stadium in desperate need of updating.

“We have to look for a new site and use the Kirkby funding model which involved 40% to 45% of the capital cost coming from retail uplift subsidy.

“I don’t think there are a shortage of sites, I believe there is a shortage of funding.

“I think our optimum capacity is around 50,000, which generates an extra £5m [a year]. That means its tight, it needs a great naming rights deal or subsidy, or probably both.”



http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2012/03/16/liverpool-fc-and-everton-fc-chiefs-ian-ayre-and-robert-elstone-reveal-thoughts-on-future-of-both-clubs-100252-30548720/#ixzz1pGwQV6Xs

Liverpool FC and Everton FC chiefs Ian Ayre and Robert Elstone reveal thoughts on future of both clubs

EVERTON FC cannot redevelop Goodison Park and Liverpool FC will not announce its stadium plans until a “responsible” way to raise finances has been found, club bosses said.

Blues chief executive Robert Elstone and Reds managing director Ian Ayre shared a platform yesterday to discuss football finance at a fringe event at the Global Entrepreneurship Congress, which is being held in the city.

Mr Elstone ruled out redeveloping Goodison Park as unaffordable and Mr Ayre said the Reds were looking for a responsible way to add 20,000 extra seats to their gate receipt. Everton is currently searching for a new home and Liverpool is mulling over whether to build a new ground in Stanley Park or redevelop Anfield.

The pair sat down for a question and answer session with Frank McKenna of lobby group Downtown Liverpool in Business, which hosted the event for delegates to the congress.

Both leaders announced plans to expand their commercial operations in Asia, and said the idea of a 39th Premier League game being played abroad to help raise revenue needs to be explored.

ON THE STADIUM QUESTION

Ian Ayre believes Anfield represents one of the best stadium atmospheres.

“People are more interested in what happens on the pitch. It’s not to say that the other things are not important.

“It is about finding the right solution that keep the great heritage experience and atmosphere and finding the right thing for the future. It’s not so easy a challenge.

“We have to have the right economic model.

“Our sweet spot is around 60,000 to 65,000, because we don’t want empty seats.

“We already have 46,000 seats, and those extra 20,000 seats are not going to generate hundreds of millions.

“If it meant we were writing cheques for that rather than the team people will ask why.

“We have got to do it in a responsible way. If you don’t do that you can get yourselves in all kinds of trouble.

“The board are very focused on it but conscious of the fact it has to be the right economic model.”

Robert Elstone said: “I agree with what Ian said, the most important thing is the atmosphere and the experience, so maybe we have got the recipe for a share.

“Chelsea FC recently did some work about the challenge of redeveloping and staying at Stamford Bridge, and it said their capacity would go down.”

He said the London club had been told it would be hugely complex and also cost £600m.

“There are similar problems to rebuilding Goodison.

“The only sensible option is land acquisition. I genuinely believe that the redevelopment of Goodison is not a realistic option.”

He said ideas to redevelop the Park End would still leave the other three sides of the stadium in desperate need of updating.

“We have to look for a new site and use the Kirkby funding model which involved 40% to 45% of the capital cost coming from retail uplift subsidy.

“I don’t think there are a shortage of sites, I believe there is a shortage of funding.

“I think our optimum capacity is around 50,000, which generates an extra £5m [a year]. That means its tight, it needs a great naming rights deal or subsidy, or probably both.”



http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2012/03/16/liverpool-fc-and-everton-fc-chiefs-ian-ayre-and-robert-elstone-reveal-thoughts-on-future-of-both-clubs-100252-30548720/#ixzz1pGwQV6Xs

Reading between the lines, sounds like we're staying put for the time being?

Think the Bitters may be dreaming if they think they can fill 50,000

Team	MinCrowd	MaxCrowd	AveCrowd	TotCrowd	Played
Manchester United	74,719	75,627	75,348	979,529	13
Arsenal	59,643	60,106	59,957	779,444	13
Manchester City	46,321	47,422	47,036	658,515	14
Newcastle United	42,869	52,388	46,290	648,066	14
Liverpool	44,372	45,071	44,819	582,648	13
Chelsea	40,999	41,820	41,591	540,687	13
Sunderland	32,296	47,751	38,461	499,993	13
Tottenham Hotspur	35,801	36,274	36,069	504,975	14
Aston Villa	30,744	40,053	34,273	445,550	13
Everton	29,561	39,510	33,100	430,309	13
Stoke City	26,564	27,739	27,211	380,959	14
Norwich City	26,107	26,816	26,547	345,116	13
Wolverhampton	22,657	27,447	25,636	333,280	13
Fulham	23,555	25,700	25,151	352,117	14
West Bromwich Albion	22,474	26,221	24,631	344,839	14
Bolton Wanderers	20,028	26,854	23,532	305,926	13
Blackburn Rovers	18,003	25,570	22,068	308,953	14
Swansea City	19,028	20,526	19,929	259,087	13
Wigan Athletic	15,796	20,601	17,898	250,585	14
QPR	15,195	18,076	17,117	239,650	14

http://www.emfootball.co.uk/attend.html

The way I look at it is that unless a club has an average crowd close to capacity there is no need for expansion so out of that list I'd say that the teams that could look to increase are

Man utd
Arsenal
Man City
Liverpool
Chelsea
Tottenham
Stoke

These are the only teams in the league that could improve their gate receipts I left out a few teams due to the chance of relegation

Looking at that table shows we are filling Anfield regularly but when compared with Goodison you can see that they couldn't fill anywhere near a 50.000 stadium

Team	MinCrowd	MaxCrowd	AveCrowd	TotCrowd	Played
Liverpool	44,372	45,071	44,819	582,648	13
Everton	29,561	39,510	33,100	430,309	13

So looking at our Stadium capacity of 45276 (wiki) our fill percentage is 98.99%
Over at Goodision however it is at 82.43% Or to put it a different way nearly 1/5 of the stadium isn't being used as it is.

No idea why thats gone messy if a mod could tidy it up I'd be greatly appreciated

A bit off topic but is that a mis print on Newcastle's figures or is there lowest attendance really 4,869?

Yeah its a misprint fixed now

Huge clubs have huge stadiums - Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan, Bayern Munich.

60,000 is the range for big  - but not huge -  clubs like Arsenal, Celtic or Benfica.

Liverpool is a huge club and needs to start thinking and acting like one.

70,000 should be the minimum for a new stadium considering Manure, our biggest rivals, are already on 76,000. We'll fill it if the owners and management are doing their job by putting top class players on the pitch and reasonable ticket prices off it.

We'll fill it if the owners and management are doing their job by putting top class players on the pitch and reasonable ticket prices off it.

The two don't necessarily go together though do they?

If they pay 300m for a stadium they are going to want a return and quick...That can't happen so with the type of owners we have that is not an option.I'd not read the stuff from the Echo until after I commented on the NESV thread regarding the stadium.  A big naming right sponsor I think is key to us doing this, because they are not going to want to pay a massive amount out of their own pockets that they are unlikely to see any return on for a long time.. As well as investing on the pitch. So it's one or the other, they need a big sponsor to get involved and we probably in an ideal world need champions league football to have that extra income in to the club.

The owners have said repeatedly that we can spend what we generate for player transfers, they won't be bankrolling us, that is a sensible business approach to people wanting to keep their investors happy.. Will they put their hands into their pocket for 300m? No, if a sponsor gives 150m for a 10 year naming right deal which is a fairly likely amount leaves them 150m or so to find themselves, again they are unlikely to get that from their own accounts so will that come off of our potential player investment for say the next 5 years apart from what we generate from player sales..? Is that what Ian Ayre is getting at? Is this another testing of the water to see what fans would prefer? A new stadium with little transfer activity or more transfer activity and no new stadium? I think the owners would prefer the stadium as that in the short term will generate more cash? With corporate boxes etc... More bums on seats..

The Arsenal model? Pay off the stadium with generated money from gate receipts, corporate, other sponsorship deals.. Until its paid off no real player investment.?

Or do they look to try to spend less and develop Anfield to it maximum and split the difference between stadium costs and player transfers... But they must be aware that they wouldn't be popular trying to change the name of Anfield for a sponsor to pay for a redevelopment..

It's obviously something they are struggling to make a decision on.. And I at the moment don't know which way they will go. But Surely staying at 45,000 and no corporate and no additional sponsorship won't move us forward even with Champions league football as that would be just where we were 5 years ago ( without the debt that followed)

Tred water and you stand still... Make no decision and we go backwards..

Think we need clarity on this soon.

Make no mistake NESV are business men and not daft, they want to make money as well as win so which ever decision makes them that is the way we will go, but standing still won't get us anywhere and them forking out even 10% of the cost of a new stadium themselves won't happen in my opinion.

This is obviously a bigger issue than they thought on buying us and we have yet to comprehend.

The problem with the Arsenal model is that Arsenal do have money from their gates receipts. I think its a problem with Arsene Wenger more than the board - he is very very prudent with money and tries to spend little. We see he has total faith with the youngsters.

A bit off topic but is that a mis print on Newcastle's figures or is there lowest attendance really 4,869?

42,869!!

The problem with the Arsenal model is that Arsenal do have money from their gates receipts. I think its a problem with Arsene Wenger more than the board - he is very very prudent with money and tries to spend little. We see he has total faith with the youngsters.

They reportedly make 1million per home game ( London prices mind) but they haven't yet paid off the stadium which they are doing as a priority.

They have a pot for transfers by the rumours that the papers suggest but how much none of us know. Wenger does like developing youngsters granted but paying off the stadium still takes up a chunk of their revenue. Once it's paid off then they will be in a fantastic financial position.

Liverpool managing director Ian Ayre admits the club have to be responsible in their financial approach to solving stadium issues.

The Reds are looking to add 20,000 seats to their match-day capacity but Ayre said fans would start questioning their logic if multi-million-pound sums were invested in achieving that at the expense of the team.

Redevelopment of Anfield and a new-build in Stanley Park are the two options open to Liverpool, but Ayre has already admitted the latter would require a marquee naming rights deal for it to make financial sense.

"It is about finding the right solution that keeps the great heritage experience and atmosphere and finding the right thing for the future. It's not so easy a challenge," he said.

"We have to have the right economic model. Our sweet spot is around 60,000 to 65,000 because we don't want empty seats.

"We already have 46,000 seats and those extra 20,000 seats are not going to generate hundreds of millions.

"People are more interested in what happens on the pitch [but] it's not to say that the other things are not important.

"If it meant we were writing cheques for that rather than the team, people will ask why."

Ayre, speaking at the Global Entrepreneurship Congress being held in the city, is quoted in the Liverpool Echo as saying Liverpool must act "in a responsible way".

Across Stanley Park, Everton have stadium issues of their own, with plans to relocate for a new-build being frustrated on a couple of occasions, most recently when a joint proposal with Tesco for a site at Kirkby was rejected.

Everton chief executive Robert Elstone insists redevelopment of Goodison Park is unrealistic.

He said: "We have to look for a new site and use the Kirkby funding model which involved 40% to 45% of the capital cost coming from retail uplift subsidy.

"I don't think there are a shortage of sites, I believe there is a shortage of funding."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/no-simple-stadium-decision-for-liverpool-admits-ian-ayre-7575163.html

My biggest worry is having 60-65k seats and not being able to expand to match future demands. If by some miracle the council were able to provide the transport infrastructure.

That would enable us to build a stadium fitting our stature. We must remember that we are on a 20 year dip in form and yet still manage to fill Anfield at nearly every game. If the owners are that confident that we will be successful again in the near future then why limit the extra income that would surely be made available when we become the force we once were again.

Ian Ayre's view on stadium sharing and Fernando Torres.

This was ment to be about a hour ago???

Id say 60,000.
I reckon we could fill a 70,000 on a big game but its better to keep that special feeling of it being difficult getting a ticket.

If we had, For example, 70,000 vs Wigan there would be no sense of achievement in going watching your team as pretty much anybody would be able to get a ticket.

I Love the feeling at Anfield of being in the 12,000 Kopites and wanna keep it that way

Huge clubs have huge stadiums - Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan, Bayern Munich.

60,000 is the range for big  - but not huge -  clubs like Arsenal, Celtic or Benfica.

Liverpool is a huge club and needs to start thinking and acting like one.

70,000 should be the minimum for a new stadium considering Manure, our biggest rivals, are already on 76,000. We'll fill it if the owners and management are doing their job by putting top class players on the pitch and reasonable ticket prices off it.

Those are huge places though. We haver one of the biggest supported club in the world but not in Liverpool. We wouldnt fill 75 000 people each game. But i understand where you are coming from as we are a huge club. If we do somehow get the 75 total we need to work out how to fill in the satdium such as free tickets to school kids for early fa cup ties etc.

65000-70000

65000-70000

Ian Ayres number by any chance.

Just thought I'd weigh in - 75'000 to 80'000 no less.

They would get filled no problem

What is the latest on the season ticket waiting list ?  Would have thought that of the 65k that was on the original list, it would probably come in at around 45k

On that basis, to clear the list fully we would need a 90,000 seater - but think they will settle for around 70k, with a design that is able to be extended if requied