John Henry on Stadium Plans

Just read a response that our owner gave to The Anfield Wrap with regards to the future plans for the stadium.

Here is Johns response:

JOHN W HENRY: “A long-term myth has existed about the financial impact of a new stadium for Liverpool. Maybe it became a good reason for selling the club at one point.

“Whatever the reason, a belief has grown that Liverpool FC must have a new stadium to compete with United, Arsenal and others. No one has ever addressed whether or not a new stadium is rational.

“New stadiums that are publicly financed make sense for clubs. I’ve never heard of a club turning down a publicly financed stadium.

“But privately carrying new stadiums is an enormous challenge. Arsenal is centered in a very wealthy city with a metropolitan population of approximately 14 million people.

“They did a tremendous job of carrying it off on a number of levels. But how many new football stadiums with more than 30,000 seats have been built in the UK over the past decade or so? I’m sure every club would like to move to a new facility.

“We’ve been exploring a new stadium for the past 18 months. At one point we made it clear that if a naming rights deal could be secured of sufficient size, we would make every effort to build a new facility.

“Liverpool FC has an advantage in being a global club and a naming rights deal could make a new stadium a reality. It is something we are working on. There has been interest.

“Going in the other direction, many football clubs have successfully enlarged their seating capacity. LFC has had plans to expand the main stand at Anfield. But this avenue has been very difficult for the club over the past couple of decades.

“There are homes behind the main stand. Expansion of the main stand would have to be a priority for the city, community and immediate neighborhood in order for that to occur. And there are many people who feel this expansion should be welcomed. This issue is vital to the neighborhood’s future, but we cannot and will not act unilaterally.

“While a new stadium or an expansion of Anfield is beneficial over the long-term for the club, the financial impact of adding seats and amenities should be put into perspective. That’s why I say that it is a myth that stadium issues are going to magically transform LFC’s fortunes.

“Can Liverpool as a community afford Chelsea or Arsenal prices? No."It is often said that for Liverpool to compete in match-day revenue with United, Arsenal and Chelsea, we need a new stadium. But you can see that the £50 or £60 million differences stem as much from revenue per seat as from the number of seats. Even if Liverpool were able to get to 60,000 seats, there would have to be an increase from £900 to £1550 in revenue per seat as well to catch Arsenal.

“If Anfield yielded £1550 per seat, without adding seats, LFC match-day revenue would rise from £41M to £71M. That would be the same as building a new stadium with 60,000 seats or increasing seating at Anfield and increasing revenue per seat to £1170.

“There also is this feeling that if you add concessions and amenities such as Arsenal did at Emirates, your “per-cap" (how much is spent on concessions per person) goes way up, but the last time we checked the per-cap at Emirates was only £0.50 higher.

“The allure of a new stadium and/or refurbishment is no different at Anfield then it is anywhere in the world. New stadiums increase revenues primarily by raising ticket prices – especially premium seating.

“In America, as an example, 3 NFL (American football) clubs have moved into new stadiums over the past 3 years. The New York Jets average ticket price rose by 32% when they moved into their new stadium. The New York Giants rose by 26% and the Dallas Cowboys rose by 31%. In baseball, ticket prices rose 76% when the New York Yankees moved into their new stadium 3 years ago.

“At Emirates Stadium match-day revenues rose 96% the first year while seats had increased 57%.

“Building new or refurbishing Anfield is going to lead to an increase from £40M of match-day revenue to perhaps £60-70M if you don’t factor in debt service.

“That would certainly help, but it’s just one component of LFC long-term fortunes. Our future is based not on a stadium issue but on building a strong football club that can compete with anyone in Europe.

“This will be principally driven financially by our commercial strengths globally."

 

So that's a no then.

 

I assume John Henry didnt say peace out....


This article is surprising, but I understand what he is saying. Building a new stadium would need some caution to protect finances.

 

To me it looks like they are backtracking, very very disappointed bordering on angry with this, yet again it says are FSG really the real deal, do they want to win as much as they say.It appears to me they want to win, AS LONG AS THEY DONT SPEND ANY MONEY DOING IT, they are prepared to go with a stadium sponsor if one suits, that would that would mean the clubs value would say go form £300m to £600m , without them spending a penny themselves

IMO a new stadium is a necessity, we need minimum 65k, it would make us a lot closer to competing with Man U financially than we do at the mo, I am on the season ticket waiting list, I am 25,047th on the list after putting my name on in 2004,apparently theres just under 40k on it,IMO an increase of Anfield to 55k and you might as well not bother

Again the owners seem to be fobbing us off regards the stadium issue.NOT GOOD ENOUGH, IN FACT NOWHERE NEAR GOOD ENOUGH

 

The article lays out the situation as we have truly known it since FSG took over. John Henry is making it quite clear that whilst he wants to build a strong club and thereby maximise revenue, he is not going to do it by attempting to raise seat prices way beyond what would be acceptable to the supporters. Interestingly, he is also laying down an offer to the Council regarding upgrading Anfield - work more closely with us or that too will remain on hold.

Sure I'd love a brand spanking new stadium but not at the expense of a squad of quality players or via ticket prices that even further out of my pocket! On the more positive side, it does suggest that John Henry himself is more interested in investing in that squad as his chosen route to higher profitability.

 

His comments certainly put things in perspective.

One thing it doesn't address is the long waiting list for season tickets; how is that going to be resolved in the near to mid-term without increasing seat numbers?

This is one aspect of our immediate "problems" that our global commercial & financial strengths won't solve

 

Firstly Dave you know the council never does the right thing. Secondly I will believe the squad "investment" when I see it. Whatever he says about extra seats not being a necessity it is worth repeating that the mancs take an extra 1million quid EVERY single home game. If we delay another ten years which it now looks like we're going to that will be another 200 mill we have to find just to stay on a par with them. I have my issues with new stadiums etc but trying to kid us that its not really that important to help us compete with other clubs is frankly insulting my intelligence.

 

Ok Im sure that out of the £40k, Im sure there are some on the list if they were REALLY asked to buy one wouldnt, but I think 2/3 probably would.Im sure we could fill a 65k seater for every PL game.Plus there are fans who dont even ever try for tickets cos its so hard to get them, if you dont aleady go to the games

 

This!!!!!

 

A statement of perfect sense imo, you don't just click your fingers and we have a 70,000 seater stadium and revenues are up there with Yernited.

You need to look at the bigger picture, we would still sell out on tickets every week of course, but we'd end up with a big library ala The Emirates with everyone moaning about how good Anfield was and what a disgrace it is that ticket prices are so high.

Lets concentrate on getting ourselves better than 8th place for a minute.

 

The other issue is comfort, Im 6ft 2, anyone sat in the kop above 6ft,its horrible dont think its much fun for whoever sits in front of me either with my knees in there back, generally now i try to avoid the kop cos of leg room.Also in the main stand when you go for a drink at half time, its like a pack of sardines, you can barely move, we are the 21st century,we need a new stadium of simlar style to the one proposed by H & G, with the 1 tire kop still, that wasnt a bowl

Revenue isnt the ONLY issue, its the main one, but NOT the only one

Other issues
1.Letting fans who wanna go the game , go to the game ( 40k season ticket waiting list)
2.Comfort
3.Just getting a new modern more customer friendly stadium

 

Operation lower expectations is a go.

 

Would rather he was honest about it than just pretending we're waiting on a plot of land and then she'll be going up only for it to never occur.

At the end of the day we are finishing 6,7,8 every season now and any REAL stars we have playing for us is minimal. Put all our money into building a new stadium for the future and neglecting signing talent and we could end up in a place unimaginable.

 

I want owners , " Who make things happen", and get the stadium issue sorted, not ones who say " Oh its not that important anyway, when they cant sort out the issue"

Its becoming more and more apparent, they dont want to spend a penny on LFC

Also, werent we told, when selling the club we were told that the stadium was a primary factor when picking a bidder..................How times change........................

 

Yawn. So fsg have invested a grand total of 23£m into this club so far after buying us at a knock down price. I wouldnt be bothered by this so much if it weren't for the whole 'we want to win the title' ****. It just insults our intelligence. you have to invest to get a return and why would any player want to come to a club with owners that (bullshit waffling aside) have shown zero intent in the last year and a half is beyond me

 

"Yawn. So fsg have invested a grand total of 23£m into this club so far after buying us at a knock down price. I wouldnt be bothered by this so much if it weren't for the whole 'we want to win the title' ****. It just insults our intelligence. you have to invest to get a return and why would any player want to come to a club with owners that (bull**** waffling aside) have shown zero intent in the last year and a half is beyond me"

^^^^^

It's all gone t!ts since Instanbul. We were on the crest of a wave, there were over 100m worldwide Reds just bursting to spend money on the club, we had the best YOUNG midfielder in the world, a manager who knew how to win titles and knew the Spanish markets and was targeting the likes of Torres, Villa, Silva, Reina, Mata and many more - the future was ours. And then David Fooking Moores and his cronies 'took time to approve of the right people who were going to provide investment and a stadium to compete with United" ... and pulled the plug on the DIC deal at the last minute because H&G were offering 20p a share more.

Don't get me wrong, DIC have struggled with the recession too, but they are fundementally back by solid money, whereas H&G were leveraged to the hilt. And this isn't hindsight - there were a few warnings about H&G's over-extension from US sports fans who'd had experience of them (especially Hicks). I strongly believe that had DIC taken over we WOULD have had a 60k stadium by now, Rafa would have had money to have bought most, if not all of the above players, and even had DIC had to sell us on in the recession, we'd now be a top four side competing for the league, even against the money of City and Chelsea.

Now... we're f00ked. As has been said, not much choice than letting Brendan rebuild and hoping at least the football gets better. And hey, by the sounds of things they may extend the Main Stand to include a few executive boxes...

To me, the writing was on the wall with the latest cowboys when they backed kenny to the hilt over the Suarez business - until the English press started all that self-fulfilling prophency nonsense about NESV's brand going toxic. As has been mentioned, they got the club £300m below the Forbes book price in a closed auction. Their net spend in the transfer market is £35m so far. This worldwide they're squeezing with all the asset parsimony that the can will only stay big for so much longer - Istanbul was seven years ago now, and the dads who worshipped John Barnes are getting older and few.

The future is not good - and I don't trust these shysters any more than the last ones. Cheers John Moores.

 

I honestly don't expect the Council to do the 'right' thing. As you say they have a very long history of not being able to.

As for FSG then the story waits to be written. My business head says that Henry is right and that the bang for buck without a partner, either the Council or somebody buying the naming rights, just isn't there. In the present economic climate it would be a very risky decision to take unilaterally. There is absolutely no point in gaining up to £1 million per game if the cost of doing so is almost equivalent for the neat 10+ years.

Debt is an ogre that will be stalking many clubs across Europe this Summer. LFC is relatively debt free and that is probably the safest way to be at present. However, if we are to build "a strong football club that can compete with anyone in Europe." then the primary investment focus has to be on the pitch. However, I do not see Henry giving Rodgers free reign to 'splash the cash'.

It's all well and good arguing that we have a huge waiting list and that we could probably fill a 60,000 stadium but somebody has to pay for that investment. Henry is making it clear that the financial argument is just not strong enough without either a partner or a dramatic hike in seat prices. Personally I would rather wait for a new stadium located somewhere away from Anfield with better transport link possibilities (like the Speke site you suggested a while ago). In the interim my focus would be upon building a side that is writing new pages in our history and thereby making us an even more attractive prospect for naming partners AND investing in our commercial profile worldwide.

 

To be fair Henry has done what I asked him to do which was clarify what we were speculating:

There will be no new stadium unless the funds are there to pay for it & FSG aren't prepared to take all the risk themselves which as Dave says is perfectly reasonable in the current climate.

Just like FSG the investors that have the type of money required are watching the European situation with a cautious eye so until that ship is patched or sunk I personally believe that when Henry says there has been "interest" it is a hypothetical that will only happen in sunnier climates.

Stadium development depends on a long running situation that I think is naive to ask FSG to solve when no one else has to date.

So if we trust FSG are to be believed: they want to build a young team that under the right structure will provide us a long term challenge for trophies. Eventually if the financial circumstances are right the stadium will be resolved.

Are they talking bull? Well, frankly it's not something I can tell so far. I go into this season with the same optimism I had last year with KD.

As you say D if they aren't the real deal their "objectives" will soon diverge drastically from their contributions.

 

We’ve been exploring a new stadium for the past 18 months. At one point we made it clear that if a naming rights deal could be secured of sufficient size, we would make every effort to build a new facility.
“Liverpool FC has an advantage in being a global club and a naming rights deal could make a new stadium a reality. It is something we are working on. There has been interest.



So theres been interest, this is my feeling, I suspect anyone who would be prepared to fund a new stadium, wants to own a share of the club too,FSG therefore have turned the offer down.I suspect FSG want someone else to fund the stadium,making the club twice as valuable and therefore double there money.Only my hunch buts thats what I believe

If theres interest in building a new stadium what is stopping it from happening...............

 

If FFP is implemented then the stadium is essential. It as already been pointed out but Man Utd get £1m per home game more then us, that is at least £22m per season (19 league games, at least 3 Champions League games and probably a few others to boot too) more than us before we start!

It is okay saying we need to improve the commercial revenue but which brand is bigger at the moment... Liverpool or Manchester United...? Not to mention that both Manchester City and Chelsea have been attempting to improve in this area too. Football fans are fickle, especially youngsters. They follow the team that is winning, the three teams mentioned are certainly going to win more than us over the next three, four or five years IMO. They will all be in the Champions League playing top level football against other top level teams and being regularly televised to boot! It certainly won't hurt the club but...WE ARE NOT GOING TO CATCH UP BY IMPROVING THE COMMERCIAL SIDE OF THE CLUB!!!!

Why does moving to a new stadium result in a ticket increase...? Because the Directors want to see the debt repaid as quick as possible...? Do some financial planning, I am sure I am not the only one that doesn't mind club debt if it means a bigger, better and more suitable stadium! And besides that, wouldn't a bigger stadium add value to their asset too...? So, in the long term, they would stand to gain from a debt put on and paid for by the club anyway! They could even lend the club the money themselves and charge interest - adding an interest rate that is lower than the banks would offer keeping the fans happy and them making money too, would anyone be bothered about this? I certainly wouldn't!

This is the first time I have been annoyed by comments by FSG and Henry. It just seems ludicrous to me