• 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.

Liverpool chief executive Ian Ayre reveals Anfield Road redevelopment cost

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hansern

Thinks he owns the place
Member
Liverpool chief executive Ian Ayre reveals Anfield Road redevelopment cost - says club are open to supporter investment

BY ANDY KELLY
Ayre says FSG looking for a solution to funding the revelopment of Anfield Road end



Liverpool CEO Ian Ayre Peter Byrne/PA Wire
Liverpool chief executive Ian Ayre has put a cost of £60m - £70m on the club redeveloping the Anfield Road end of the ground to bring capacity towards 60,000..
But the Reds supremo described a possible 15 year repayments required to finance the extra 6,000 seats as “not a smart investment for the business.”
Ayre said the club needed to find “a rounded solution” but left open the possibility of supporters investing in a proposal to extend the ground.
The Anfield Road has become an issue for supporters following the successful launch of the extended Main Stand earlier this season which has taken Anfield’s capacity to 54,074.
Outline planning permission to extend the Anfield Road is already in place but Ayre told a meeting of the Liverpool Supporters’ Committee that the Anfield Road brought more challenges financially.


Liverpool owner John Henry suggests ticket 'issue' may put further Anfield expansion at risk
Ayre, who will leave Anfield at the end of this season, said: “ A stand behind a goal doesn’t have the benefit of hospitality that would go a long way to meet the redevelopment costs.
“If you consider the redevelopment of Anfield Road from a purely General Admission perspective, building, say, 6,000 extra seats to take the capacity up to 60,000 would cost somewhere between £60m and £70m.
“At £12,000 to £13,000 per seat, it would take approximately 15 years to pay back, which is not a smart investment for the business. Therefore the Club needs to find a rounded solution that’s in the best interests of the football club.”
That £12,000 per seat equates to the current cost of season tickets at roughly around £800.
In the minutes of the meeting which was held after the opening of the Main Stand, Ayre added that “the Club’s objective was always to build and open the main stand. From the outset, the Club did not want to set deadlines or promises it failed to keep.”
READ MORE
Liverpool fans split over John Henry's Anfield comments
He suggested that LFC now needs a period of time “to ensure that what it has put in place works, and in tandem continue with plans for Anfield Road”.
“However, as with the Main Stand, the Club has to find the right economic model, and only then will it be the right time to move forward,” he added.
The prospect of supporter involvement was raised by Graham Smith, a representative for Merseyside based supporters on the committee.
Mr Smith said: “There are people who would think a 15-year return would make sense, and that’s the supporters. The supporters would fund such a development upfront if the Club made an appeal for financial support.”
He added that he was of the view with the right relationship with investors, the £60m, or whatever the figure needed was, could be raised.
In response, Ayre said while he that was not in a position to speak for the owners or their plans, it was an interesting proposition and one worth looking at.


“We should have that conversation,” he added.
Liverpool owner John Henry made headlines late last month after appearing to suggest that fans’ desire for affordable tickets was “an issue” for the further redevelopment of Anfield.
Speaking to AP in New York, he said; “I don’t know if there is a next step because ticket prices are an issue in England. That may foreclose further expansion. We’ll have to see.”
That was taken by some supporters as a reference to the supporter protest of February this year when a 10,000 plus walk out of fans during the Sunderland game led to a change of heart by the ownership over some higher prices linked to the new Main Stand.
The extra 8,500 seats in the expanded Main Stand include roughly half as hospitality, which is worth more in financial terms to the club.
It is expected that the £120m interest free loan provided by FSG to pay for the work can be repaid with five to six years.
 
No chance of further expansion after the last protest, when tickets prices were going to increase.
 
No chance of further expansion after the last protest, when tickets prices were going to increase.
Yeah, that two million will make all the difference.

It's bollocks. Ticket prices are such a relatively small amount of a clubs income that it can't be used as a valid reason to not do something of this scale & cost.
 
Actually that's exactly what they are saying from the other side....afield road end does not offer any benefit other than ticket prices, and if that is the case it financially makes no sense to dump 60 to 70 million for something that will fetch very little in the form of returns.

I actually don't have a problem with what they are doing. They have come good and rebuilt that main stand, so the next step can take its time.
 
Yeah, that two million will make all the difference.

It's bollocks. Ticket prices are such a relatively small amount of a clubs income that it can't be used as a valid reason to not do something of this scale & cost.

Exactly. The question has to be what benefit does the Club get from having a greater potential gate? A minor increase in revenue but at the cost of significant disruption during build, further stretching local services and pissing off the local community
 
They should knock it down and build another a huge one tiered stand with safe standing in min, and make that the Kop.

It's the easiest stand left to redevelop. I've never understood the lack of ambition with the Anfield Road end.
 
They should knock it down and build another a huge one tiered stand with safe standing in min, and make that the Kop.

It's the easiest stand left to redevelop. I've never understood the lack of ambition with the Anfield Road end.
Limited potential for corporate money, that's what the problem is.

Why the fuck they think having apartments in there is a good idea is beyond me.
 
As i've said many a time, they aren't fans. They see the club as a business. Like it or not any investment with a payback of over 10 years will be rejected at any board level.

The two options are:
Get a corporate sponsor and have naming rights to the stand
Or
Ask the fans for injection of cash.

That's the reality everyone. Dreams of knocking it down and rebuilding it are just pipe dreams. Due to payback periods.
 
Yeah, that two million will make all the difference.

It's bollocks. Ticket prices are such a relatively small amount of a clubs income that it can't be used as a valid reason to not do something of this scale & cost.


That is being a little naive to think a stand will be built for "free"


Shareholders aren’t going to be willing to pay for a stadium unless they see a return on investment and with a stand this will mean higher prices through corporate tickets / the fan.
 
As i've said many a time, they aren't fans. They see the club as a business.

Probably because it is a business.

If we want the club to be successful - and I expect we do - well, then, it has to be run like a business. Little point in shelling £70m on a stand if it detrimentally affects the playing side, which is ultimately what makes the club successful.
 
Probably because it is a business.

If we want the club to be successful - and I expect we do - well, then, it has to be run like a business. Little point in shelling £70m on a stand if it detrimentally affects the playing side, which is ultimately what makes the club successful.
Yep
 
A load of bull all round. The value immediately goes onto the club, there's probably a sponsor or two knocking about to lessen the price, our transfer model (one which had no problem pissing the cost of this stand away on Downings and Balotellis until recently) suggests we're going to be in the black a lot more often going forward so there should be extra dosh for stuff like this. It's also the last/only feasible upgrade on the stadium before major local infrastructure investment , so they should just get it done.
 
That is being a little naive to think a stand will be built for "free"


Shareholders aren’t going to be willing to pay for a stadium unless they see a return on investment and with a stand this will mean higher prices through corporate tickets / the fan.
I don't expect it to be built for free.

However raising ticket prices all over the ground will bring approx 2m more per season. With the building costs we're talking about that is such a relatively small amount over the aim of paying it back within five seasons that it won't make a real difference to whether the stand is built or not.

The big thing that will sway it either way is how much corporate money they can wring out of it & how much the corporate facilities in the main stand is raising currently as an indicator.

The rest of this is just bluster aimed at softening the blow & weaken any opposition to the ticket price rise they have already decided to implement.
 
A load of bull all round. The value immediately goes onto the club, there's probably a sponsor or two knocking about to lessen the price, our transfer model (one which had no problem pissing the cost of this stand away on Downings and Balotellis until recently) suggests we're going to be in the black a lot more often going forward so there should be extra dosh for stuff like this. It's also the last/only feasible upgrade on the stadium before major local infrastructure investment , so they should just get it done.
While the asset value goes up, investors always look for a return on investment. Sorry. Its a fact.
 
A load of bull all round. The value immediately goes onto the club,

Indeed. But I guess the point is, it doesn't increase the value by anything like the outlay, and the payback being years in the making. Making the whole idea questionable from a business perspective.
 
I get it, I reject it. You're not telling me there isn't a 6-10 year sponsor available for half the costs, which then immediately makes it viable. As FFF called, it's all masquerade to soften the blow of a price increase.
 
If they don't want to build it because it won't pay for itself quick enough then fair enough but they shouldn't be trying to lay the blame of not building it on the fans. That's just a cunts trick.
It didn't take them long to backtrack from their grovelling apology regarding ticket prices in February to now blaming fans for them not being able to upgrade the anfield road stand. Makes it seems that the original apology was bullshit and they were more concerned with the negative press they were receiving.
 
It just shows up the lies behind their 'We're only interested in the club, & we only wants best for the club long term'.

If that was the case then worrying about returns over five years, or even a decade, makes no sense. If it's better for the club long term, which it obviously is, then the answer should obviously be build the fucking thing.

As they aren't doing so, it's fair to assume that selling the club is on the agenda during that time period.
 
It’s hardly lies, more like the reality of the situation unless you have mega billionaire as your owner who happy to write the cost off.
 
I get it, I reject it. You're not telling me there isn't a 6-10 year sponsor available for half the costs, which then immediately makes it viable. As FFF called, it's all masquerade to soften the blow of a price increase.

Maybe they think it makes more business sense - and a footballing sense - to pour money into the team rather than a new stand. Maybe they see that as the way to on-field success. Which is what any end game is all about, obviously.
 
It just shows up the lies behind their 'We're only interested in the club, & we only wants best for the club long term'.

If that was the case then worrying about returns over five years, or even a decade, makes no sense. If it's better for the club long term, which it obviously is, then the answer should obviously be build the fucking thing.

As they aren't doing so, it's fair to assume that selling the club is on the agenda during that time period.

It probably is. So what?

It's either this way - build a sustainable model - or a megatrillionaire plaything's way.
 
Maybe they think it makes more business sense - and a footballing sense - to pour money into the team rather than a new stand. Maybe they see that as the way to on-field success. Which is what any end game is all about, obviously.

Then say so.

Come out & say that building the stand would leave the manager short of funds to spend on the team for five years or more.

The fans would get that. As it is they're effectively blaming the fans, which is a fucking lie.
 
Maybe they think it makes more business sense - and a footballing sense - to pour money into the team rather than a new stand. Maybe they see that as the way to on-field success. Which is what any end game is all about, obviously.

FSG have no clue whatsoever about how to deliver on-field success.
 
Maybe they think it makes more business sense - and a footballing sense - to pour money into the team rather than a new stand. Maybe they see that as the way to on-field success. Which is what any end game is all about, obviously.

Or they see it is an an expense they don't want to fork out for if they're flogging us in a few years time. Say we spent 40m over 5 years and the rest was sponsored, are you trying to suggest that £8m a year would make anything other than the most modest difference to our plans? We get a bosman instead of paying x for a backup player, whoop de whoop. Personally I'd forgo one extra squad player if it meant that we could get an extra 6k fans in a week.
 
Then say so.

Come out & say that building the stand would leave the manager short of funds to spend on the team for five years or more.

The fans would get that. As it is they're effectively blaming the fans, which is a fucking lie.

Maybe they don't actively want to sell, but don't want to tie themselves down for years either.
 
Or they see it is an an expense they don't want to fork out for if they're flogging us in a few years time. Say we spent 40m over 5 years and the rest was sponsored, are you trying to suggest that £8m a year would make anything other than the most modest difference to our plans? We get a bosman instead of paying x for a backup player, whoop de whoop. Personally I'd forgo one extra squad player if it meant that we could get an extra 6k fans in a week.

Erm, the sponsorship money is also money foregone. I'd say they are trying to max out on sponsorship deals regardless of their expansion plans.

I'm not sure this business lark is quite as cut and dried as you would appear to think.
 
Or they see it is an an expense they don't want to fork out for if they're flogging us in a few years time. Say we spent 40m over 5 years and the rest was sponsored, are you trying to suggest that £8m a year would make anything other than the most modest difference to our plans? We get a bosman instead of paying x for a backup player, whoop de whoop. Personally I'd forgo one extra squad player if it meant that we could get an extra 6k fans in a week.

But the club would be a more valuable asset with the stand updated. They wouldn't lose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom