I understand luvgonzo's points but we have to live in the here and now and if we sell our Anfield naming rights we're likely to get £100m and if we get naming rights on our new stadium thats likely to fetch another £100m over 10 years. Thats £100m every 10 years and if we have a name of a company or however they have it then there is no financial sense involved in the decision to keep the Anfield naming rights. I understand your point but FSG are all about creating a sustainable future for the ventures they run, and if that means modernisation which may include sponsorship deals for stadiums then its the direction we're likely to move into. We'll sell the Anfield rights, have naming rights on contract for our new stadium (10 years) and that way the stadium will pay for itself quickly (Including gate reciepts increase and sponsorships) On top of this if in a few years down the line we feel we need to expand our stadium we can do it when we want and won't have to build a new stadium. Refurbishing Anfield would basically be just delaying the above and would result in us losing out on all those increased gate receipts. Look even further and we could possibly have a stadium that can be used for other sports and can benefit more people. If we can achieve all that and still re-create a modern Anfield feeling then not only is this the smartest business decision for our club now but also our future. It'll be a sustainable move which can stabalise the club's future aswell as keep our club's history and tradition. Thats the serious part out the way.. ---- Compare the Meerkat.com Etihad stadium
I'd imagine it would be an international company that get the rights, a big one. ExxonMobil, Sinopec, Allianz, ING, AT&T or maybe even Citigroup. All big companies with big money
Call me an old fart (you wouldn't be the first) but I don't want us to sell out the name Anfield just for the lure of a few more dollars. I'd rather we didn't have man city-esque cash but did still have the name of our beloved ground (if not the ground itself). People can say that we wouldn't be able to compete but IMO thats rubbish. We've never been the richest club in the league and I'm damn sure we can keep improving our cashflow with good player investment, a great youth programme and by improving results on the pitch without having to sell our soul to the corporate devil...should we have to sell out just to keep paying players more and more every year...this to me is exactly the opposite of what Liverpool FC means to me as a born and bred red. Just a thought
Can't a ground have two names? Couldn't our new ground have a commercial name and a used name. Our commercial name could be say the Warrior Sports Stadium and the used name could be Anfield. Arsenals ground has two names. Ashburton Grove and the Emirates. Man Citys ground is called Eastlands and the Etihad Stadium.Some people still call it the City of Manchester Stadium.
Good point KPR. I was thinking something along the lines of 'New Anfield sponsored by 'Insert sponsor name'. (Can't think of a sponsor at the moment) A bit like Newcastle's sportsdirect.com@StJames'ParkStadium. Thoughts?
You old fart. It was more than just a thought which caused the decision apparently now made to move rather than refurbish. FSG are well-aware of tradition and the value of it - they kept Fenway Park - so they will have done their utmost to keep Anfield because it's actually better for the brand. If they've given up then the argument in the numbers must've been pretty clear. We could challenge - Rafa did in 2009 with Hicks & Gillett on his back. But that was with squad erosion slowly dripping away, which caught up with us in 2010. But what if we don't challenge? You're not going to say, "Ah well, at least we're mid-table (or worse) at Anfield." It'll be the wrong players signed for £2m or the wrong manager taking over from Kenny or the wrong owners. Anything but we should've moved when we had the chance.
i just wish to go on record here. Our club unfortunately has had to be literally dragged kicking and screaming into the modren era. MUCH of the blmae lies with David Moores who penny pinched but sadly also with managers who didn't have the skills to bring playing staff along too. Lets be clear about a few modernisations that have been good for our club. 1. Academy in kirby. Yes built under moores, 2mil a year it cost to run and never made one player... why? because of the dark ages it was run like. Rafa bentiez no matter how you view his first team successes and failures put in successive coaching staff developments and we stand today potentially on the best crop of youngsters in the clubs history.. and thats saying something.... will it be sustained? thats the big question but here and now we are in a good place. 2. Corporate sponsorship and marketing. Our club for year prior to Ian Ayre floundered under Parry's wanten wastefulness. The great untapped gold mine is not being tapped. you only need look at our new third kit sales to see how people respond to new ideas rather than being stuck in the white/black or yeloow or green mould. SHOCK its a blue. so what, its make money. You only need look at the warrior deal, the standard charter deal and others to see the one legacy that G7H may have left behind. We are competing very well on this front finally. 3. Television and internet. We started out our tv channel with it block on setanta, bad move. now its free on sky at least and the website is far more professionally run (no more tomkins selling tomkins products for example) we see the club benefitting. 4. Fan interaction. How long have we complained about the ticketing? finally action is being taken. Where G&H didn't care Henry does care and knows success on the pithc needs happy fans in the stands. 5. professionalism in the dressing room. Again we foundered for so long wathicng successive teams just do enough. Rafa instilled discipline and professionalism but the professional footballer is little more than a whelp. It takes hugely careful selection of players to maintain this. the suarez type player married to guys like adam, lucas, downing and kuyt proves we may just finally understand the effort put in week in and week out is the only way to have success in may. 6. finally i come to the stadium. To be quite honest Mr moores singualarly failed to drive home when the time was right our competitiveness and the cost effective stadium build we could have had. The centenary stand cost only 12mil for various reasons. Moores also build two goes at the anfield road end, neither were well done. He had the opportunity to take the main stand and make it right, he never did anything. they built the kop on the back of the seating only moves we all wanted. It was cobbled togehter to be honest. Our emotions are ruling our heads here. We all know the truth here and that truth is 60-70k seats with masses or corporate bxoes are required to make the moeny to compete. If we are lucky the SOUL of the place is retained but in actual fact that SOUL is us fans. WE MUST BUY IN AND MAKE IT SPECIAL. here's a quick list of failures. St Marys, southampton Pride park Derby emirates (shock) Arsenal. what do they have in common, fans didn't like thier new abode very much and didn't make the place a home team fortress. WHEN, not IF we move to Stanley park its the duty of us fans to keep anfield in our hearts but to bring all that makes it special with us to the new gorund and make it a fortress from day one. We make anfield special, not a sign in the tunnel, not a name and not even importnat monuments we hold dear. It is ours, we cherish it but we must move on too.
100% spot on pal Remember how we took the Kop to Rome? To Istanbul? We take it wherever we go in support of our team. What difference does a couple of hundred yards make? Bugger all.
moreinjuredthanowen that was a good post and some very good points, you may have talked me round and the main reason being that your post is not about the money but about the history and tradition that I was worried about losing.
well i just think we keep the tradition alive every day, if we don't repsect and cherish it nobody else will... G&H proved that in spades. The best thing that we can do is not fall into the same trap other clubs have done. Southamptons fall from grace was so fast after they opened that stadium it was shocking. they always struggled but they'd had a good year, open a new stadium and promptly lost loads at home. Arsenals home form wasn't too hot after moving into the emirates. Liverpool#s greatest asset is its fans, city's is an arabs cheque book ,chelsea's is a a plastic flag supplier and a russians cheque every few months.... the fans will ensure our club is there in 100 years.
Good post, moreinjuredthanowen. On the down side it took the youngsters away from the seniors. It seems like small potatoes but it's something Gerrard noted in his book he felt he benefitted from. On the up side Kenny seems to understand this and has the youngsters train with the seniors more. We should also remain aware that sponsorship could suffer if we don't keep up with the pack, making it even harder. Sad but true enough that we can't afford to risk it. Amen. We support the club, not the real estate. As Stevie said, "We are Liverpool FC."
How about "The Pepsi Max New Anfield ArenaBowl.com"? Ticks all the boxes This is true - Ashburton Grove is actually the correct name of the Arsenal stadium, it's only called the Emirates temporarily under the terms of the sponsorship deal, although I don't know anyone who still refers to the Emirates as Ashburton Grove. I think if you sell the naming rights for a stadium when it's built then it's harder to get people to accept the true name as the sponsor wants their name on all the promo material etc. Although I'm pretty sure that Ashburton Grove is the name of the site that the stadium is located, much like Eastlands is where the United Stadium is. So if Liverpool's new stadium is also in the Anfield area then it could retain the Anfield name as the true name of the stadium, and Liverpool fans would probably keep using that name.
Great posts from Lil_Jatt and MITO as well as this. Liverpool fans are accused more than most of living in the past, and that's exactly what we'll be doing unless we balance this history with business sense. If we don't approach the stadium issue with a clear head then we will end up without the trophies and games in the future that made Anfield great in the first place. Anfield didn't have history when it was built, it was a combination of fans, players and matches that make it the place it is. We'll be taking the fans and the players, we just have to wait for the matches to follow before the new stadium is embedded in our history. If however we don't make the new stadium a priority over the old one, then we won't have those significant matches at either place. Games against Utd aren't the same if we aren't competing. We won't ahve Champions League games if we don't have the financial support to qualify in the first place. Lets take as much as we can with us, but also remember that the football is THE most important thing here, no matter how much we love Anfield. First and foremost I don't go to Liverpool games because i love Anfield, i go because i love football.
