Liverpool set to sell Naming Rights to new Stadium
- Thread starter Terrier
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
This ISN'T Anfield: Liverpool ready to abandon iconic stadium
Published 23:02 07/07/11 By David Maddock
(9)
Recommend (5)
dalglish-anfield-sign-cropped
Liverpool are ready to quit Anfield for a new stadium.
But to finance the move from their historic home they will have to sell the naming rights to the ground.
The club’s American owners are under pressure to make a decision – and quickly, with planning rights extended only until September.
Liverpool’s owners have considered the future of the famous old ground since they took control eight months ago, and it was first thought they were leaning towards a redevelopment of Anfield, a stadium that was initially erected in 1892.
From the start, they made clear their idea that boosting Liverpool’s gate receipts through an increased capacity is central to their plans to develop the club, and return it to previous heights.
In recent weeks though, the Americans have come to realise that a significantly increased capacity is more easily realised by building a new stadium on nearby Stanley Park, despite the massive associated costs.
Previous owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett had promised to build a hi-tech new stadium, but when costs soared through they £400million barrier they were simply unable to keep faith with that commitment.
The prohibitive cost is also a formidable barrier for new owners Fenway Sports - especially given the short-term planning deadline.
Liverpool City Council this week extended their agreements allowing a new structure to be built on Stanley Park, but only until September, and that has added increased tension to the search for funding.
The club may well upset many fans with the switch to a new ground after more than 100 years of tradition at Anfield.
And they will alarm even more by the need to sell the name of the stadium in return for the sort of revenue that will allow them to meet construction costs.
But that seems the only way forward, as extensive analysis has disclosed the impracticality of re-developing Anfield.
As early as March of this year, Chief Executive Ian Ayre had admitted that while they would never rebrand the current Anfield ground, a new stadium would require the sale of naming rights.
And in the light of news yesterday of Manchester City’s deal with Etihad , the government backed Abu Dahbi airline, Liverpool know they need a similar deal to finance the stadium.
Recently, Billy Hogan, who is the managing director of the Fenway group’s commercial arm, insisted that the club would command an unprecedented figure if they sold naming rights for a new stadium.
“We see Liverpool as a truly global proposition from a marketing standpoint and a naming rights partnership with Liverpool Football Club is really unlike any other thing there is out there,” he said.
“It’s something we’ve seen some interest in and we’ll continue to have those conversations.”
Hogan explained that the final decision on whether to develop Anfield or build a new ground would “rest on which opportunity allows us to keep generating revenue to compete with the rest of our competition in the Premier League”, but now it seems the new build is the most viable alternative.
The deadline imposed by the planning authorities, though, means that the club faces yet another tense deadline, as the search for funds continues.
Planning consents ran only until June 19, but have now been allowed to stand until the September deadline, with Liverpool needing a final decision before then.
Clearly, Hogan’s comments suggest talks with interested parties are well underway, but they will require a deal massively beyond the previous highest deal for a football club, struck by Arsenal for the Emirates Stadium back in 2004, when they raised £100million from the Gulf airline.
City though, will smash that record when they formally announce their agreement with Etihad, their current shirt sponsors.
They are thought to have struck a deal that will bring them £150million over the next 10 years, which will go some way to addressing their massive budget deficit, which threatens their future under UEFA’s new financial fair play rules.
Liverpool would require similar, but that would still be less than the current world record for a sports franchise, a £245m, 20-year deal agreed between Citigroup and Major League Baseball’s New York Mets, whose new stadium is called Citifield.
Read more: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-news-Club-set-abandon-Anfield-build-brand-new-stadium-rather-than-renovating-iconic-ground-article762170.html#ixzz1RT2qx3HQ
Sign up for MirrorFootball's Morning Spy newsletter Register here
Published 23:02 07/07/11 By David Maddock
(9)
Recommend (5)
dalglish-anfield-sign-cropped
Liverpool are ready to quit Anfield for a new stadium.
But to finance the move from their historic home they will have to sell the naming rights to the ground.
The club’s American owners are under pressure to make a decision – and quickly, with planning rights extended only until September.
Liverpool’s owners have considered the future of the famous old ground since they took control eight months ago, and it was first thought they were leaning towards a redevelopment of Anfield, a stadium that was initially erected in 1892.
From the start, they made clear their idea that boosting Liverpool’s gate receipts through an increased capacity is central to their plans to develop the club, and return it to previous heights.
In recent weeks though, the Americans have come to realise that a significantly increased capacity is more easily realised by building a new stadium on nearby Stanley Park, despite the massive associated costs.
Previous owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett had promised to build a hi-tech new stadium, but when costs soared through they £400million barrier they were simply unable to keep faith with that commitment.
The prohibitive cost is also a formidable barrier for new owners Fenway Sports - especially given the short-term planning deadline.
Liverpool City Council this week extended their agreements allowing a new structure to be built on Stanley Park, but only until September, and that has added increased tension to the search for funding.
The club may well upset many fans with the switch to a new ground after more than 100 years of tradition at Anfield.
And they will alarm even more by the need to sell the name of the stadium in return for the sort of revenue that will allow them to meet construction costs.
But that seems the only way forward, as extensive analysis has disclosed the impracticality of re-developing Anfield.
As early as March of this year, Chief Executive Ian Ayre had admitted that while they would never rebrand the current Anfield ground, a new stadium would require the sale of naming rights.
And in the light of news yesterday of Manchester City’s deal with Etihad , the government backed Abu Dahbi airline, Liverpool know they need a similar deal to finance the stadium.
Recently, Billy Hogan, who is the managing director of the Fenway group’s commercial arm, insisted that the club would command an unprecedented figure if they sold naming rights for a new stadium.
“We see Liverpool as a truly global proposition from a marketing standpoint and a naming rights partnership with Liverpool Football Club is really unlike any other thing there is out there,” he said.
“It’s something we’ve seen some interest in and we’ll continue to have those conversations.”
Hogan explained that the final decision on whether to develop Anfield or build a new ground would “rest on which opportunity allows us to keep generating revenue to compete with the rest of our competition in the Premier League”, but now it seems the new build is the most viable alternative.
The deadline imposed by the planning authorities, though, means that the club faces yet another tense deadline, as the search for funds continues.
Planning consents ran only until June 19, but have now been allowed to stand until the September deadline, with Liverpool needing a final decision before then.
Clearly, Hogan’s comments suggest talks with interested parties are well underway, but they will require a deal massively beyond the previous highest deal for a football club, struck by Arsenal for the Emirates Stadium back in 2004, when they raised £100million from the Gulf airline.
City though, will smash that record when they formally announce their agreement with Etihad, their current shirt sponsors.
They are thought to have struck a deal that will bring them £150million over the next 10 years, which will go some way to addressing their massive budget deficit, which threatens their future under UEFA’s new financial fair play rules.
Liverpool would require similar, but that would still be less than the current world record for a sports franchise, a £245m, 20-year deal agreed between Citigroup and Major League Baseball’s New York Mets, whose new stadium is called Citifield.
Read more: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-news-Club-set-abandon-Anfield-build-brand-new-stadium-rather-than-renovating-iconic-ground-article762170.html#ixzz1RT2qx3HQ
Sign up for MirrorFootball's Morning Spy newsletter Register here
I have no real problem with this.
I agree George
I was in citifield, it's fantastic.
the thing is the last two lots of owners have looked into the viability of restructuring Anfield or builing a new stadium, and both came up with the same cconclusion under different circumstances.
I will be amazed if Fenway don't reach the same conclusion, even if they were leaning to the former as it worked in Boston
Regards
I will be amazed if Fenway don't reach the same conclusion, even if they were leaning to the former as it worked in Boston
Regards
I think every article written about our mythical new stadium has a different understanding of the word deadline than I do.
S
Squiggles
Guest
It's a necessary evil, but I would like a commitment made for the naming rights contract to not be renewed.
We should revert back to Anfield as soon as we possibly can.
We should revert back to Anfield as soon as we possibly can.
Arsenal: £100million-plus 15-year deal with Emirates
Man City: £120million 10-year with Etihad Airways
What next?
Man City: £120million 10-year with Etihad Airways
What next?
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=38421.msg1361775#msg1361775 date=1310113088]
The sentimental side of me would like them to lift the turf and top few feet of soil and have that transplanted in the new stadium if they do move. That way the pitch could always be called Anfield.
[/quote]
You do know that the turf doesn't stay the same each season? And that as opposed to 'a few feet' it's less than a foot of mostly hard compacted sand?!
The sentimental side of me would like them to lift the turf and top few feet of soil and have that transplanted in the new stadium if they do move. That way the pitch could always be called Anfield.
[/quote]
You do know that the turf doesn't stay the same each season? And that as opposed to 'a few feet' it's less than a foot of mostly hard compacted sand?!
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=38421.msg1361948#msg1361948 date=1310131974]
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=38421.msg1361775#msg1361775 date=1310113088]
The sentimental side of me would like them to lift the turf and top few feet of soil and have that transplanted in the new stadium if they do move. That way the pitch could always be called Anfield.
[/quote]
You do know that the turf doesn't stay the same each season? And that as opposed to 'a few feet' it's less than a foot of mostly hard compacted sand?!
[/quote]
I knew the turf gets changed quite often, didn't know it was just sand underneath though!
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=38421.msg1361775#msg1361775 date=1310113088]
The sentimental side of me would like them to lift the turf and top few feet of soil and have that transplanted in the new stadium if they do move. That way the pitch could always be called Anfield.
[/quote]
You do know that the turf doesn't stay the same each season? And that as opposed to 'a few feet' it's less than a foot of mostly hard compacted sand?!
[/quote]
I knew the turf gets changed quite often, didn't know it was just sand underneath though!
[quote author=Binny link=topic=38421.msg1361946#msg1361946 date=1310131710]
Arsenal: £100million-plus 15-year deal with Emirates
Man City: £120million 10-year with Etihad Airways
What next?
[/quote]
We seem to be really good at negotiating deals these days so how about...
[move]
[size=36pt]...ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!...[/size][/move]
*right pinky to corner of mouth*
Arsenal: £100million-plus 15-year deal with Emirates
Man City: £120million 10-year with Etihad Airways
What next?
[/quote]
We seem to be really good at negotiating deals these days so how about...
[move]
[size=36pt]...ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!...[/size][/move]
*right pinky to corner of mouth*
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=38421.msg1361960#msg1361960 date=1310132963]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=38421.msg1361948#msg1361948 date=1310131974]
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=38421.msg1361775#msg1361775 date=1310113088]
The sentimental side of me would like them to lift the turf and top few feet of soil and have that transplanted in the new stadium if they do move. That way the pitch could always be called Anfield.
[/quote]
You do know that the turf doesn't stay the same each season? And that as opposed to 'a few feet' it's less than a foot of mostly hard compacted sand?!
[/quote]
I knew the turf gets changed quite often, didn't know it was just sand underneath though!
[/quote]
It's not just sand, but there's more sand than soil. My mates brothers best mate (yes i know but i see him a couple of times a year at parties) a groundsman at anfield & loves talking about grass tech.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=38421.msg1361948#msg1361948 date=1310131974]
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=38421.msg1361775#msg1361775 date=1310113088]
The sentimental side of me would like them to lift the turf and top few feet of soil and have that transplanted in the new stadium if they do move. That way the pitch could always be called Anfield.
[/quote]
You do know that the turf doesn't stay the same each season? And that as opposed to 'a few feet' it's less than a foot of mostly hard compacted sand?!
[/quote]
I knew the turf gets changed quite often, didn't know it was just sand underneath though!
[/quote]
It's not just sand, but there's more sand than soil. My mates brothers best mate (yes i know but i see him a couple of times a year at parties) a groundsman at anfield & loves talking about grass tech.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=38421.msg1361970#msg1361970 date=1310133414]
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=38421.msg1361960#msg1361960 date=1310132963]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=38421.msg1361948#msg1361948 date=1310131974]
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=38421.msg1361775#msg1361775 date=1310113088]
The sentimental side of me would like them to lift the turf and top few feet of soil and have that transplanted in the new stadium if they do move. That way the pitch could always be called Anfield.
[/quote]
You do know that the turf doesn't stay the same each season? And that as opposed to 'a few feet' it's less than a foot of mostly hard compacted sand?!
[/quote]
I knew the turf gets changed quite often, didn't know it was just sand underneath though!
[/quote]
It's not just sand, but there's more sand than soil. My mates brothers best mate (yes i know but i see him a couple of times a year at parties) a groundsman at anfield & loves talking about grass tech.
[/quote]
Is that job paid well? I've often wondered about the groundsmen and the job they do.
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=38421.msg1361960#msg1361960 date=1310132963]
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=38421.msg1361948#msg1361948 date=1310131974]
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=38421.msg1361775#msg1361775 date=1310113088]
The sentimental side of me would like them to lift the turf and top few feet of soil and have that transplanted in the new stadium if they do move. That way the pitch could always be called Anfield.
[/quote]
You do know that the turf doesn't stay the same each season? And that as opposed to 'a few feet' it's less than a foot of mostly hard compacted sand?!
[/quote]
I knew the turf gets changed quite often, didn't know it was just sand underneath though!
[/quote]
It's not just sand, but there's more sand than soil. My mates brothers best mate (yes i know but i see him a couple of times a year at parties) a groundsman at anfield & loves talking about grass tech.
[/quote]
Is that job paid well? I've often wondered about the groundsmen and the job they do.
It's decent yeah, after a year he had to go to uni & do a three year course, most of which was about grass & pitches!! Dunno if that's unique to LFC or what.
Have a look at this on the right about emirates, ours is very similar:
extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/sport/surfacetension.pdf
Have a look at this on the right about emirates, ours is very similar:
extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/sport/surfacetension.pdf
[quote author=Binny link=topic=38421.msg1361946#msg1361946 date=1310131710]
Arsenal: £100million-plus 15-year deal with Emirates
Man City: £120million 10-year with Etihad Airways
What next?
[/quote]
Miss, miss, miss, miss, miss
£140million 5 year - Standard Charters
Oh OK, based on that I reckon we can get at least £150m over 10 years, if so and we can achieve similar contracts over 30 years the naming rights will have paid for the stadium over that period.
regards
Arsenal: £100million-plus 15-year deal with Emirates
Man City: £120million 10-year with Etihad Airways
What next?
[/quote]
Miss, miss, miss, miss, miss
£140million 5 year - Standard Charters
Oh OK, based on that I reckon we can get at least £150m over 10 years, if so and we can achieve similar contracts over 30 years the naming rights will have paid for the stadium over that period.
regards
When Fenway Sports Group took control of the club last October they set about reassessing whether Liverpool could remain at a redeveloped Anfield – as their baseball franchise, the Boston Red Sox, had done at their historical home of Fenway Park.
But Henry has accepted there are a number of difficulties, from financial, logistical and geographical points of view, associated with revamping Anfield into a 60,000-plus capacity arena.
"Anfield would certainly be our first choice. But realities may dictate otherwise. So many obstacles …" he wrote on Twitter.
However, a spokesman said: "The club's position on the stadium issue remains unaltered and no decision has been made. We are continuing to examine both the options – the refurbishment of Anfield and the new stadium in Stanley Park. A huge amount of work on that is ongoing and an announcement will be made in due course."
But Henry has accepted there are a number of difficulties, from financial, logistical and geographical points of view, associated with revamping Anfield into a 60,000-plus capacity arena.
"Anfield would certainly be our first choice. But realities may dictate otherwise. So many obstacles …" he wrote on Twitter.
However, a spokesman said: "The club's position on the stadium issue remains unaltered and no decision has been made. We are continuing to examine both the options – the refurbishment of Anfield and the new stadium in Stanley Park. A huge amount of work on that is ongoing and an announcement will be made in due course."
'The Carlsberg - probably the best stadium in the world'
Liverpool FC today made clear its frustration at the obstacles facing the potential re-development of Anfield.
The Club has been comprehensively exploring all options open to it in terms of new stadium development or expansion, which has included a study into the refurbishment of both its Main and Anfield Road Stands to increase capacity beyond 60,000 seats.
Managing Director Ian Ayre said: "In the nine months since the new ownership, an enormous amount of work has been undertaken in conjunction with leading architects, consultants, other industry experts and with Liverpool City Council to explore the building of a new stadium as well as exploring a refurbishment solution that could deliver the necessary growth in capacity, whilst maintaining the heritage and atmosphere that make Anfield uniquely Liverpool FC. However, with land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory issues creating barriers to our ambition, it looks increasingly unlikely there is any way we can move forward on a refurbishment of Anfield unless there are significant changes in those areas."
Commenting further on the options open to the Club, Ayre explained: "In terms of a Stanley Park stadium versus redevelopment, there is absolutely no question that a refurbishment of Anfield would come at a significantly lower cost than a new build. A new stadium of course also has its merits, being modern, more functional, and easier to construct. However, a new 60,000 capacity ground also comes at a significantly higher price, while at the same time only delivering roughly the same amount of revenue as a refurbishment of Anfield - with both options offering an uplift of approximately 16,000 seats each."
Added Ayre: "It's disappointing that based on where we are at the moment, we seem to be unable to press on with the more viable economic option of a refurbishment, but we remain committed to finding the best possible long-term solution. We already have a very healthy dialogue in place with several leading brands regarding naming rights for a new stadium, but like every major deal we have ever done, that just takes time to explore in full. We also have ongoing discussions with various parties around the financing of either facility. Our challenge now is to try to find a way to bring all of those elements together in a solution that is in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club and its fans.
"We are mindful that supporters have been promised a solution in the past and have been disappointed, and also that local residents would like to know what direction we are headed in. However, just like any other business, we can only proceed as and when we are clear on all elements and we will not be forced to make a decision that is not in the best long-term interests of our club and we will not make any promises to our fans that we cannot keep. We will continue to work diligently on this project and keep our fans informed of any progress."
Council leader Joe Anderson said: "We recognise that Liverpool FC need to make the right decision on the stadium options, and it is crucial that it is not only the right one for the club but also for local residents.
"We fully appreciate that the new owners have made real progress over the past nine months since they took over, and we will continue to support what they are trying to deliver. However, it is unfortunately the reality that the debate and discussions over a new stadium have gone on for many years, causing a great deal of frustration and uncertainty within the local community.
"Although we are fully supportive of the club, we can't ignore the fact that the clock is and has been ticking, and people need certainty about the development.
"We will do what we can to continue to help the club, and I can reassure people that we will be pressing for a decision as soon as is practically possible that will benefit Liverpool FC and deliver the much needed regeneration that the area so badly needs."
Author: Liverpoo[/size][/font]
The Club has been comprehensively exploring all options open to it in terms of new stadium development or expansion, which has included a study into the refurbishment of both its Main and Anfield Road Stands to increase capacity beyond 60,000 seats.
Managing Director Ian Ayre said: "In the nine months since the new ownership, an enormous amount of work has been undertaken in conjunction with leading architects, consultants, other industry experts and with Liverpool City Council to explore the building of a new stadium as well as exploring a refurbishment solution that could deliver the necessary growth in capacity, whilst maintaining the heritage and atmosphere that make Anfield uniquely Liverpool FC. However, with land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory issues creating barriers to our ambition, it looks increasingly unlikely there is any way we can move forward on a refurbishment of Anfield unless there are significant changes in those areas."
Commenting further on the options open to the Club, Ayre explained: "In terms of a Stanley Park stadium versus redevelopment, there is absolutely no question that a refurbishment of Anfield would come at a significantly lower cost than a new build. A new stadium of course also has its merits, being modern, more functional, and easier to construct. However, a new 60,000 capacity ground also comes at a significantly higher price, while at the same time only delivering roughly the same amount of revenue as a refurbishment of Anfield - with both options offering an uplift of approximately 16,000 seats each."
Added Ayre: "It's disappointing that based on where we are at the moment, we seem to be unable to press on with the more viable economic option of a refurbishment, but we remain committed to finding the best possible long-term solution. We already have a very healthy dialogue in place with several leading brands regarding naming rights for a new stadium, but like every major deal we have ever done, that just takes time to explore in full. We also have ongoing discussions with various parties around the financing of either facility. Our challenge now is to try to find a way to bring all of those elements together in a solution that is in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club and its fans.
"We are mindful that supporters have been promised a solution in the past and have been disappointed, and also that local residents would like to know what direction we are headed in. However, just like any other business, we can only proceed as and when we are clear on all elements and we will not be forced to make a decision that is not in the best long-term interests of our club and we will not make any promises to our fans that we cannot keep. We will continue to work diligently on this project and keep our fans informed of any progress."
Council leader Joe Anderson said: "We recognise that Liverpool FC need to make the right decision on the stadium options, and it is crucial that it is not only the right one for the club but also for local residents.
"We fully appreciate that the new owners have made real progress over the past nine months since they took over, and we will continue to support what they are trying to deliver. However, it is unfortunately the reality that the debate and discussions over a new stadium have gone on for many years, causing a great deal of frustration and uncertainty within the local community.
"Although we are fully supportive of the club, we can't ignore the fact that the clock is and has been ticking, and people need certainty about the development.
"We will do what we can to continue to help the club, and I can reassure people that we will be pressing for a decision as soon as is practically possible that will benefit Liverpool FC and deliver the much needed regeneration that the area so badly needs."
Author: Liverpoo[/size][/font]
I reckon we're getting a shiny new stadium...
S
Squiggles
Guest
I would like to stay at Anfield, but if the club is going to grow and grow then we need a stadium which will be able to compete with Old Trafford, and sadly Anfield isn't it. We should have aspirations of filling a 75,000 seater.
But would we fill it (serious question)?
- Status
