Henry comments on further expansion of Anfield

This topic contains 106 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by  gingerlfc 7 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 107 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1246887
    suarezsteeth
    suarezsteeth
    Participant
    • :

    He says further expansion may not be possible,due to the fans feelings over ticket prices. I fear that this is the sting in the tail that we all thought was coming when they backed down after the walkout last season:

    http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-owner-john-henry-suggests-11953739

    https://mobile.twitter.com/77thomo/status/781265150028443648

    Jay McKenna of Spirit of Shankly can see through their bullshit:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JayMcKenna87?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

    #1246938

    Paxman
    Participant
    • :

    ST – To be fair we know they run the club as a business so if they cannot make a business case for it, it will not happen.

    #1246959

    gingerlfc
    Participant
    • :

    Can’t quite understand it either.
    The plan is to grow the Anfield Rd by 4,800 seats.
    Over a 36 game season that’s an extra £6.15 mil in income on a £45 ticket price. That’s not including cup games, European games or other matchday revenue from those xtra 4,800
    John Henry has already mentioned £50mil to increase the stand so that means it would repay its self in approx 5yrs, pretty much like the main stand.
    I havnt even taken into consideration the new TV money or possible CL money.

    John Henrys excuse doesn’t quite add up.

    #1246974
    Red Herring
    Red Herring
    Participant
    • :

    Pax, you’ve just jumped in with pretty much exactly what I was going to say. You’re living in cloud cuckoo-land if you think that the owners are in this for some inherent love of “soccer” in general and Liverpool FC in particular. They’re treading the fine line of financial injections only to the extent where they see the good ROI business model.

    Henry and Werner may be secretly still fuming about the ticket-price walk-out. I don’t know who may have realised this, but consider the scenario on the afternoon of 06-Feb-16: LFC cruising to a comfortable win over Sunderland until the 77th minute – only to lose focus and concede 2 stupid late goals. Roll forward to the final PL table, and WHU pipped us to the Europa League place by 2 points and a +1 goal difference; and as the phrase goes “you do the maths”.

    OK, nobody can give a 100% confirmation that the walk-out directly resulted in us dropping the points, but I’d bet that H & W have considered it and how much match-day revenue we’ve lost relative to last season’s Europa League campaign.

    #1246983
    Red Herring
    Red Herring
    Participant
    • :

    as a postscript to the above…..they may have accepted losing the battle, but now aren’t going to lose the war.

    #1246989

    gingerlfc
    Participant
    • :

    Of course they’re in it for business reasons mainly but their excuse that the “ticket issue” may prohibit the expansion is disingenuous at best.

    #1247010
    MrMakaveli
    MrMakaveli
    Blocked
    • :

    I fail to see how seats that weren’t there before, now full every match would not be considered good business. What are these incredible overheads that I’m missing?

    Damn right they are still fuming and maybe they should have done with homework before they drew that reaction from Liverpool supporters (Who before that point were begging them to bring in a price DROP)

    #1247025
    suarezsteeth
    suarezsteeth
    Participant
    • :

    Lads,I understand that they’re in this to make money,and not for the love of the club,I get all that. But I agree with Ginger’s post above. It just seems a bit of a cheap shot – “You wouldn’t agree to the price hike,so we’re not going to give you the expansion”. That’s what it seems to me. I understand that it has to be financially viable etc,but surely there are better ways of doing it than ripping off the fans? What about the television money? The money coming in from partners and sponsors? Dare I suggest,the money that they brought in and didn’t spend in the summer window?

    #1247064

    Mikus
    Participant
    • :

    We’ve just been given a brand new stand making a big difference to the ground as well as increasing revenue. I’d be grateful for that alone. We don’t know what’s around the corner, but if success is, then sponsorship and TV revenues will climb further and a decision to further expand could well be revisited. For the moment, FSG are their usual reserved selves about it and I’m not going to moan too much.

    #1247067

    Paxman
    Participant
    • :

    Ginger since when does 5 X 6.15 = 50?

    At they end of the day they own the club as a business, they don’t love the club, we do, but we expect them to put their hands in their own pockets, but we don’t want to put ours in.

    We want millions spent on the ground, on players and on wages, yet if we are asked to pay an extra tenner we go mad.

    #1247094
    Red Herring
    Red Herring
    Participant
    • :

    Mr Mak>> The overheads are the interest payments on the loans to finance the development. It’s a bog simple model, that you borrow money at a rate that costs you less than the investment generates. The key difference between it working for the Main Stand and not the Annie Road is that the Main Stand architecture and orientation lends itself to a high percentage of corporate/hospitality occupancy which, like it or not, is the lucrative part of the market. The Annie Road expansion will be predominantly for ordinary ticket occupancy and they’re saying that the finance model doesn’t stack-up unless they raise prices.

    OK, call them greedy, thieving bastards until the cows come home, but they’re not going to budge on this unless they know that the pricing model is not going to get hi-jacked midstream like it did last time.

    #1247100
    Red Herring
    Red Herring
    Participant
    • :

    These guys are investors and investment relies on stability and certainty. I think all they’re saying is we’ll invest further when we have greater certainty. They certainly aren’t cut from the same cloth as a Jack Walker.

    #1247133
    Red Herring
    Red Herring
    Participant
    • :

    There may also be an element to this if you increase the capacity up to 60,000, then there may be enough seats for most ordinary punters for the majority of games and they won’t be forced into taking the hospitality options. I only paid stupid money last Saturday for a hospitality ticket because I live down south these days and can never build up enough games on a Fan Card to get a sniff at a normal ticket i.e. a vicious circle. But you ring-up the hospitality booking line and someone answers it in 3 seconds and will give you whatever you want if you’re prepared to pay. FSG don’t want to now stuff-up the hospitality operations by making it too easy to get to a game for circa £50!

    #1247151
    MrMakaveli
    MrMakaveli
    Blocked
    • :

    Keeping your stadium up to date is a cost of doing business in the football world. We’re lucky that we actually have demand for extra seats and it’s being talked about here like it isn’t worthwhile.

    I get your point about the corporate seating, that is the way it is. FSG’s seating plan was to further the divide between the budget priced fans and those with more money and I think their attitude right now highlights that problem if nothing else. Cater to the richer fans and screw the rest.

    You watch, they will expand the Anfield road end (if they don’t sell the club that is). They are able to sell the naming rights to the stands if they want, nothing stopping them there besides the stadium name and the Kop, I imagine. If they can’t make it financially viable to have more people in a stadium while selling the naming rights then maybe they are in the wrong business.

    Look back to the days of old, how was it ever financially viable before all the other matchday income? there has never been a better time to have more people in your grounds than now.

    #1247196
    Red Herring
    Red Herring
    Participant
    • :

    When I “look back to the days of old”, I actually recall crumbling terracing, loose crush barriers, no roof (or at best a corrugated sheet roof), rivers of urine and a caravan selling pies and Bovril. Yes, they were magical days – especially as we were the dominant team in the country – but the amount of money required to increase the stadium capacities to the standard prevailing at the time was so inconsequential to what is expected these days. Hence financial viability was an easier box to tick.

    #1247199

    gingerlfc
    Participant
    • :

    Completely right Pax, my maths is off there, was doing something else at the time but the point still stands.
    An extra £6.2mil approx per year and that’s without taking into consideration cup matches, other matchday revenue, European football, increased TV revenue, the profit we made this summer on transfers, naming rights etc etc.
    Henry has said previously it would take £50mil.
    The non increase in ticket prices does not hold that back. His excuse does not hold up.

    #1247202
    MrMakaveli
    MrMakaveli
    Blocked
    • :

    Totally with you Ginger.

    It appears there is a civil war between Liverpool fans on the horizon. Great timing Henry *cocks shotgun*

    #1247214
    MrMakaveli
    MrMakaveli
    Blocked
    • :

    Red H – Ya I knew I shouldn’t have mentioned the days of old thing as it was a total minefield but many a good stadium and stand have been built since those days. Lots of volunteer work being done for the poor football clubs.

    The costs have gone up but so has the revenue. It isn’t all about seating these days, stand naming rights has been mentioned here but I’ve yet to see someone counter that point. Even without it, I’d bet that it can be done so that it is financially viable and at the same time good for the fans.

    #1247247

    Paxman
    Participant
    • :

    Mr Mak – You say FSG want to cater for the rich and screw the rest, but didn’t the proposed pricing structure actually bring down the price of the cheaper tickets? A point that doesn’t make headlines but it was there.

    #1247268
    Red Herring
    Red Herring
    Participant
    • :

    I think a good debate has been had on this thread (and on the parallel thread to this); but the bottom line is that both owners and fans want a bigger Anfield, although our agendas are somewhat different, but at the end of the day, it’s going to be done on their terms and not ours. What recourse do we have if we don’t like their terms? Not a lot really except vote with our feet and stay away or launch an industrial sabotage war such as we did against H+G. Personally, I don’t think either of these will hold much water in the current climate. I’m sure that FSG want 2 things from their LFC venture: 1.) to make money and 2.) to be loved by the fans. However, if they can’t have both, I know which option they will favour.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 107 total)

You must be logged in to reply this topic.