• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

John W Henry Speaks On The New Stadium Issue...

Status
Not open for further replies.

themn

Very Well-Known
Member
From 'The Anfield Wrap':

http://www.theanfieldwrap.com/2012/06/john-w-henry-on-the-stadium-question/

JOHN W HENRY ON THE STADIUM QUESTION

by TheAnfieldWrap // 15 June 2012 // 0 comments

THE ANFIELD WRAP was recently invited to put some questions on an email to owner John W Henry. Of course we asked the stadium question – here’s his answer:

“A long-term myth has existed about the financial impact of a new stadium for Liverpool. Maybe it became a good reason for selling the club at one point.
“Whatever the reason, a belief has grown that Liverpool FC must have a new stadium to compete with United, Arsenal and others. No one has ever addressed whether or not a new stadium is rational.
“New stadiums that are publicly financed make sense for clubs. I’ve never heard of a club turning down a publicly financed stadium.
“But privately carrying new stadiums is an enormous challenge. Arsenal is centered in a very wealthy city with a metropolitan population of approximately 14 million people.
“They did a tremendous job of carrying it off on a number of levels. But how many new football stadiums with more than 30,000 seats have been built in the UK over the past decade or so? I’m sure every club would like to move to a new facility.
“We’ve been exploring a new stadium for the past 18 months. At one point we made it clear that if a naming rights deal could be secured of sufficient size, we would make every effort to build a new facility.
“Liverpool FC has an advantage in being a global club and a naming rights deal could make a new stadium a reality. It is something we are working on. There has been interest.
“Going in the other direction, many football clubs have successfully enlarged their seating capacity. LFC has had plans to expand the main stand at Anfield. But this avenue has been very difficult for the club over the past couple of decades.
“There are homes behind the main stand. Expansion of the main stand would have to be a priority for the city, community and immediate neighborhood in order for that to occur. And there are many people who feel this expansion should be welcomed. This issue is vital to the neighborhood’s future, but we cannot and will not act unilaterally.
“While a new stadium or an expansion of Anfield is beneficial over the long-term for the club, the financial impact of adding seats and amenities should be put into perspective. That’s why I say that it is a myth that stadium issues are going to magically transform LFC’s fortunes. **Here is a chart based on 10/11 match-day revenue**


**I couldn't format the chart to look all neat, so you need to see the link, soz**


“It is often said that for Liverpool to compete in match-day revenue with United, Arsenal and Chelsea, we need a new stadium. But you can see that the £50 or £60 million differences stem as much from revenue per seat as from the number of seats. Even if Liverpool were able to get to 60,000 seats, there would have to be an increase from £900 to £1550 in revenue per seat as well to catch Arsenal.
“Can Liverpool as a community afford Chelsea or Arsenal prices? No.
“If Anfield yielded £1550 per seat, without adding seats, LFC match-day revenue would rise from £41M to £71M. That would be the same as building a new stadium with 60,000 seats or increasing seating at Anfield and increasing revenue per seat to £1170.
“There also is this feeling that if you add concessions and amenities such as Arsenal did at Emirates, your “per-cap” (how much is spent on concessions per person) goes way up, but the last time we checked the per-cap at Emirates was only £0.50 higher.
“The allure of a new stadium and/or refurbishment is no different at Anfield then it is anywhere in the world. New stadiums increase revenues primarily by raising ticket prices – especially premium seating.
“In America, as an example, 3 NFL (American football) clubs have moved into new stadiums over the past 3 years. The New York Jets average ticket price rose by 32% when they moved into their new stadium. The New York Giants rose by 26% and the Dallas Cowboys rose by 31%. In baseball, ticket prices rose 76% when the New York Yankees moved into their new stadium 3 years ago.
“At Emirates Stadium match-day revenues rose 96% the first year while seats had increased 57%.
“Building new or refurbishing Anfield is going to lead to an increase from £40M of match-day revenue to perhaps £60-70M if you don’t factor in debt service.
“That would certainly help, but it’s just one component of LFC long-term fortunes. Our future is based not on a stadium issue but on building a strong football club that can compete with anyone in Europe.
“This will be principally driven financially by our commercial strengths globally​
 
Him and all his lizard twat mates can fuck off. Tickets in the centenary suite have gone up from 2200 to 2995.

Would be interesting to see how many normal seats in the upper centenary have been converted before the start of this season. Price freeze my hoop.
 
I wonder If they do expand Anfield or build a new stadium will they have an underground incubator where he can hatch his eggs?
 
Building a new stadium is risky business. I don't have exact numbers, but it said that since the Wembley project was calculated til it eventually kicked off, the steel prices had increased enourmously, handing the FA a huge extra cost on steel alone.
 
I think Hicks and Gillet had done the sums too, which was why there was such a big emphasis on corporate and whu they looked at more than 60k seats.
The sums that Parry did made the stadium self financing even with servicing the debt, still that was a shit stadium.
So we can't do nothing , but we have to do something although it won't be a life changer.
Although on those figures increasing the capacity by 20,000 brings in an 18m a year revenue increase, which I would have thought should not be sniffed at. I have always said its not worth doing anything that is going to be less than 65k capacity.
We can only do a new stadium if someone more or less buys it for us, and we can only upgrade Anfield if the council let us knock down the homes, but we won't force the issue unless the council or someone back us.
As Roscoe says some common sense, but it looks like nothing is going to happen any time soon.
He has certainly dampened any expectation levels, perhaps it's a ploy and he has something up his sleeve
 
I think Hicks and Gillet had done the sums too, which was why there was such a big emphasis on corporate and whu they looked at more than 60k seats.
The sums that Parry did made the stadium self financing even with servicing the debt, still that was a shit stadium.
So we can't do nothing , but we have to do something although it won't be a life changer.
Although on those figures increasing the capacity by 20,000 brings in an 18m a year revenue increase, which I would have thought should not be sniffed at. I have always said its not worth doing anything that is going to be less than 65k capacity.
We can only do a new stadium if someone more or less buys it for us, and we can only upgrade Anfield if the council let us knock down the homes, but we won't force the issue unless the council or someone back us.
As Roscoe says some common sense, but it looks like nothing is going to happen any time soon.
He has certainly dampened any expectation levels, perhaps it's a ploy and he has something up his sleeve


The problem is with the 65k capacity is that we'd be unlikely to fill it at present and unlikely to fill it at any time in the near future. We've seen plenty of times that we couldn't sell out games in the past three years. And if we're not selling out then the stadium becomes a noose around our neck, much like the Stadio Del Alpi was for Juve with it's 80,000 capacity They built a 41,000 seater stadium for 120m and are much better off because of it.

We just have to accept that some teams will always have more money and focus on getting the most out of what we have. That said a redevelopment of Anfield to get the most out of what's possible there would be a better solution all round.
 
67.000 not 80.000, but a decent point. I think we'd fill it tbh, had the highest attendance average in years this season regardless of terrible home form. The match day experience will count aswell.
 
http://lfcstats.co.uk/20112012attendances.html


We're not selling out on a regular basis.

8/05/2012
LiverpoolChelsea
40,721
01/05/2012
LiverpoolFulham
40,106
22/04/2012
LiverpoolWest Bromwich Albion
43,660
07/04/2012
LiverpoolAston Villa
44,321
24/03/2012
LiverpoolWigan Athletic
44,431
13/03/2012
LiverpoolEverton
44,921
03/03/2012
LiverpoolArsenal
44,922
06/02/2012
LiverpoolTottenham Hotspur
44,461
14/01/2012
LiverpoolStoke City
44,691
30/12/2011
LiverpoolNewcastle United
44,372
26/12/2011
LiverpoolBlackburn Rovers
44,441
10/12/2011
LiverpoolQueens Park Rangers
45,016
27/11/2011
LiverpoolManchester City
45,071
05/11/2011
LiverpoolSwansea City
45,013
22/10/2011
LiverpoolNorwich City
44,931
15/10/2011
LiverpoolManchester United
45,065
24/09/2011
LiverpoolWolverhampton Wanderers
44,922
27/08/2011
LiverpoolBolton Wanderers
44,725
13/08/2011
LiverpoolSunderland
45,018
 
There's always a variation of a few hundred game to game, I assume depending on away allocations & how many seats used to separate fans, sometimes it's just a few seats wide others its about 12 rows all empty.

Most of those games were sold out.
 
That makes perfect sense.

Didn't they whittle down the ST list recently ? Making people pay to stay on it ?

Maybe the numbers aren't as impressive as we always thought they were
 
I understand the point Ross is making, and agree with it to an extent, but as FFF has pointed out the lower numbers in those games where almost all to do with the absence of away fans, there was hardly any Chelsea fans there for the last game of the season.
So considering the crap couple of league seasons we have had I think those stats could have been worse, in fact I bet there were a couple of games last season that were worse where Liverpool fans did stay away.
As Hmmmmmm suggests what about the season ticket waiting list? There were 70k people on it, now I am not naive enough to believe that is the real number for one second, but a good guess is 25% of that are serious so that's around 17k people that want to spend money who can't.
Everyone on this board knows how difficult it is to get tickets, if it was easier surely there would be more of an interest in travelling and attending.
United would no-doubt have taken the same view when they were relegated to the second division in 1974, little did they think less than twenty years later they would be the dominating club in Britain for the next couple of decades at least and they would have a huge sell out capacity.
If you think small you will achieve small. I don't mind thinking about 60k but that has to be easily expandable to at least 70k, other than that is short term thinking.
Mr Henry conveniently glosses over Manchester United in his thoughts, another club in a provincial city with a demographic no different from here and that houses the biggest capacity club Stadium in the Premier League, by some way, 76k next to the 60k of the Emirates.
They have not built a new stadium because Old Trafford has evolved, but they are able to evolve as it is in an industrial area with the infrastructure that supports a big stadium, and they basically can do what the fuck they like, we are in a residential area and are limited by peoples lives, and how much the transport and the infrastructure can support us. My whole spin on this is, and always has been, a new stadium, in the city boundaries, but in an area that can support transport and infrastructure without needing to consider the sensitivities of neighbouring residents. In other words do it right or don't do it at all.
I like JH a lot, and have a lot of time for him, but if he thinks we are limited by our support when we field a successful team to a 60k stadium then he is the smallest thinking Yank I know of. What he is saying , I think, is that the level of support is not as important as other off-field activities, or at least it is just part of the picture, and he is probably right, but a big part of the measure of the success of a team, and certainly a tangible one, is the size of the stadium and size and noise of the crowd.
I don't have to think back too far to cup homecomings, when we won the 5th there were over 400,000 people out to see that, greater than the population of Liverpool itself, I think that says something. Look at that compared to City or Chelsea or even United, nothing has come close to that as far as I am aware.
As I say in principle I agree with Ross, we have to get it right on the pitch and generate more interest, and as far as I can see there is no mad urgency and the priority for the next few years should be improving the team.

regards
 
I think what Henry is saying is 'we can't afford a 70k seater stadium'.

That is basically the crux of it.

Ignore all the pros and cons. The bottom line is that if the money was there we'd build that
sucker. This is reinforced by talk of naming rights etc.
 
That is basically the crux of it.

Ignore all the pros and cons. The bottom line is that if the money was there we'd build that
sucker. This is reinforced by talk of naming rights etc.
He also said there was interest in buying the naming rights although probably not at the right price.
 
No, it's Henry's fault for not getting loans against their assets, instead looking for a ludicrous amount upfront from a sponsor.
 
I think he's saying, we should really move the franchise to London where the Liverpool reds might have a more populous and wealthy fanbase.
 
Some excellent posts here and I particularly agree with Vlad's point about doing it properly. Stanley Park may not have the housing problem that Anfield has but traffic will still be a problem and there aren't exactly plenty of pleasant hotels for out of town fans.

If we leave the Anfield stadium then I would prefer a clean break. There's plenty of space for a good size stadium, parking and room to expand in Speke with easy access via buses, trains and planes.
 
No, it's Henry's fault for not getting loans against their assets, instead looking for a ludicrous amount upfront from a sponsor.

The banks wouldn't have allowed us to get so highly leveraged again.

That's why we had Inner Circle Sports looking for investors. Minority investor + Naming Rights Deal = New Stadium.
 
I think he is saying that there needs to be a massive increase in ticket prices to the levels of Arsenal's and Chelsea's
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom