• 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 plan £250m field of dreams

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hansern

Thinks he owns the place
Member
The Reds are confident of persuading a leading global firm to buy the rights to name the club’s proposed new groundJonathan Northcroft

LIVERPOOL will brush off the controversy over England’s top clubs selling naming rights to their stadiums and chase the most expensive naming rights deal in the history of sport. Despite the recession, the Merseyside club’s hierarchy are convinced they can raise a mammoth £250m by persuading a leading global firm to buy the rights to name Liverpool’s proposed ground.

Liverpool’s owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, have been buoyed by their record £20m-per-season shirt sponsorship agreement signed recently with Standard Chartered, taking it as proof of the world-wide appeal of the club and the Premier League. These factors have persuaded Hicks and Gillett to revisit stadium-building plans, shelved due to Liverpool’s debts. The two Americans now believe they can underwrite more than 50% of the cost of building a new ground on a site earmarked on Stanley Park through a world-record naming rights sale.

The benchmark they have set Liverpool’s commercial team is the deal signed between the New York Mets baseball franchise and Citigroup. The American financial services giant paid $20m (£12m) a year over 20 years to have a new stadium, Citi Field, opened by the Mets early in 2009. Liverpool believe they can outstrip that. “Naming rights are a global market,†said Hicks. “We likely will partner with someone wanting global branding, unlike the US stadiums, which only worry about TV appeal in the States, similar to why Standard Chartered chose to partner with us on our shirts.â€

Despite debts approaching £300m and Liverpool’s onfield worries, Hicks remains bullish about the outlook for his club. He said Rafael Benitez would not be forced to sell star players even if Liverpool fail to qualify for the knockout stages of the Champions League. Hicks and Gillett are seeking new investors, in the hope of raising money to reduce the club’s debt by diluting their shareholding, and spoke of “significant interestâ€. They are undeterred by protests by Newcastle fans in response to their club’s stadium being renamed sportsdirect.com@St James’ Park Stadium and criticism of Chelsea, who last week announced they were looking to sell off naming rights to Stamford Bridge in the hope of raising £150m.
Liverpool believe their situation is different, because they are building a new stadium rather than renaming an existing one. They regard as a precedent Arsenal, who signed a £100m 15-year deal with Emirates, which also included shirt sponsorship, when they moved from Highbury in 2006. Manchester United are the only Big Four club for whom a naming rights sale does not appear an option. A club source said a rights sale involving Old Trafford is “not on our agendaâ€. Sir Alex Ferguson said Chelsea’s plans were driven by money. “It is the only reason I can think of. But it does not really conern me. I wouldn’t have thought [it would happen at United].â€
 
Ah, sorry mate. It got lost in the copy + paste.

It's from the Times;

From The Sunday Times November 8, 2009
 
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=37009.msg982185#msg982185 date=1257639592]
The Playdoh arena.
[/quote]

I'm worried they're going to try to cut costs by making the stadium out of playdoh.
 
[quote author=darkstarexodus link=topic=37009.msg982187#msg982187 date=1257639655]
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=37009.msg982185#msg982185 date=1257639592]
The Playdoh arena.
[/quote]

I'm worried they're going to try to cut costs by making the stadium out of playdoh.
[/quote]Ok in that case the Fymo arena. That shit goes hard in the oven.
 
How about Legoland @ Liverpool, complete with amusement park for extra revenue? Lego is indestructible. And it'll keep us having a major Danish sponsor so khl and others don't feel left out after Agger is jailed for dogging and his contract is severed.
 
I remember hating the thought of having our stadium branded but right now that just seems an incredibly snobby attitude to have.

So long as Anfield remains in the title I'm not arsed who we get.
 
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=37009.msg982211#msg982211 date=1257640678]
I remember hating the thought of having our stadium branded but right now that just seems an incredibly snobby attitude to have.

So long as Anfield remains in the title I'm not arsed who we get.
[/quote]

If it's a long term deal, which it likely will be, I do care to a certain degree but I have accepted the inevitability of selling the rights to someone. It's either that or no stadium, something which has become very clear.

I would also prefer Anfield remains in the title but I'm curious how important or significant that is to locals.
 
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=37009.msg982185#msg982185 date=1257639592]
The Playdoh arena.
[/quote]

I laffed.
 
I just hope we don't end up with an email address for a stadium name like Newcastle haev
 
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=37009.msg982299#msg982299 date=1257646214]
I just hope we don't end up with an email address for a stadium name like Newcastle haev
[/quote]

That WOULD be atrocious.
 
[quote author=darkstarexodus link=topic=37009.msg982219#msg982219 date=1257641089]
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=37009.msg982211#msg982211 date=1257640678]
I remember hating the thought of having our stadium branded but right now that just seems an incredibly snobby attitude to have.

So long as Anfield remains in the title I'm not arsed who we get.
[/quote]

If it's a long term deal, which it likely will be, I do care to a certain degree but I have accepted the inevitability of selling the rights to someone. It's either that or no stadium, something which has become very clear.

I would also prefer Anfield remains in the title but I'm curious how important or significant that is to locals.
[/quote]

It'll be seen as a necessary 'evil' and still be called Anfield amongst the people of Liverpool.

Money always comes first. Always.
 
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=37009.msg982339#msg982339 date=1257650325]
Indeed for £250m they can call it the Alex Fergy Anfield Bowl for all I care

regards
[/quote]

But only if they don't put "Sir" in front, right?
 
The "I cant believe it's not Anfield" stadium.
 
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=37009.msg982339#msg982339 date=1257650325]
Indeed for £250m they can call it the Alex Fergy Anfield Bowl for all I care

regards
[/quote]

hahaha
 
Interesting that no poster seems to be aginst the idea. I'm sure when the idea was first mooted, some people were dead set against the idea calling it 'sell out' etc.

The Owners from a purely business perspective have done something really quite amazing in that way that they've increased the value of the club without putting much money into it. Just by saying its worth 3 times more than when they bought it has increased its value.

They have a world record sponsorship shirt sponsorship deal, will keep the old sponsors and now there's talk of world record ground naming deal. One thing's for sure they know the value of the club.

I still don't like them tho'.
 
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=37009.msg982339#msg982339 date=1257650325]
Indeed for £250m they can call it the Alex Fergy Anfield Bowl for all I care

regards
[/quote]

Well said, and I was really hoping for an older (apols) head's opinion on this. Is anyone arsed about the name? We can worry about that later, the main thing is that the thing is actually built.
 
I'd rather Liverpool competing for trophies at the (insert corporate overlord here) stadium, than fading into history at Anfield.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom