Stadia Business

Photo Albums

Videos

Olympic Park fly-through January 2012 - London 2012 05:03
93 views
2012-01-17 11:15:44
Stadia Business

anfield2Plans to redevelop Liverpool's home, Anfield are still well on track according to managing director Ian Ayre.

Last October, the club announced that they would no longer be going ahead with plans to build a new stadium at neighbouring Stanley Park.

Principal owner John W Henry has made it a priority to keep Liverpool at Anfield, saying last year he felt it was a "myth" that the club needed to move to a new ground to improve their financial prospects.

Ayre told Sports Illustrated that an announcement on the next stage of the redevelopment could come as soon as May.

"In order to extend Anfield, we need to acquire a bunch of privately-owned property around the stadium," he said. "We're making really good progress with that.

"We have a meeting coming up in the next few weeks with the city council and ourselves and stakeholders. We said some months back it would take several months to improve that property acquisition situation. We're definitely on target so far.

"The No. 1 priority is to stay at Anfield, but there are two or three hoops to go through. The first is property acquisition, the second will be planning and the third will be to build the thing. I would guess our next announcement on it will come sometime in May or June."

Liverpool had been pursuing a new stadium at Stanley Park since 2000, but estimates suggested that building it would have cost around twice as much as redeveloping their current home.

In addition, Henry and chairman Tom Werner were attracted to Anfield's atmosphere and history because it reminded them of the 1912-built Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox baseball team, which they also own.

Ayre said: "We've always said the preference was to stay at Anfield. It's the heart of the football club.

"I remember the first time John and Tom came to look at Liverpool before they bought it. I was the person showing them around. When we went into Anfield, John said to me: 'This is like Fenway. It's the same feeling. Why would we want to build a new stadium?'"

iSportconnect subcommunity for sports professionals in stadia & arena industry. IMPORTANT NOTICE: The discussion boards & walls in sub communities are specifically for news and discussions relating to sports business offering a collective platform for the members. If you have a posting of a commercial nature, please post it as your status or in the 'Market Place' section of the site for free, otherwise it will simply be removed and your membership be blocked in some cases.

Discussions

The opportunity now exists to establish an NFL franchise in London at the Olympic Stadium. We will see whether the NFL want to seize that opportunity or to continue with their "slow but steady" approach to proving that their is a big enough fan base in London. Will those who currently go to the NFL match at Wembley support a London team or will the London franchise have to build a new fan base? Whatever the answer, the opportunity to find out is now. A leading sports lawyer Patrick Cannon has been leading a syndicate for more than two years who would like to get and develop the London franchise. The matches so far have been great market research. The next step is to do it.
Last replied by Michael Cunnah on Thursday, 01 November 2012
At a time when the tragedy of Hillsborough has re-surfaced, it is odd timing to raise the issue of a return to standing on the terraces. Aston Villa may be seeking a way to attract back some of their lost fans but I doubt whether the Premier League would ever sanction a return to the "bad old days" of standing on the terraces. That genie is out of the bottle.
Last replied by Michael Cunnah on Monday, 29 October 2012
The concept of a transfer window distorts the market with ridiculous volumes of activity taking place on the last day as buying clubs panic and selling clubs hold out for a better deal. It should be scrapped altogether.
Last replied by Steven Falk on Friday, 31 August 2012
With the cost of any redevelopment at Stamford Bridge being prohibitively high, aside from the practical limitations, then a new stadium is the only sensible option if Chelsea are going to be able to significantly increase their matchday and commercial revenues. The Deloitte Football Money League report for 2010/11 had Chelsea with matchday revenues of £68m, significantly behind Arsenal (£103m) and Manchester United (£109m) so the financial implications are clear for all to see. With FFP, closing this gap will be crucial to Chelsea's continued development. What they now have to do, with the big assumption that they can secure the site (there are reportedly 10 bidders in total), is to get the fans on board and secure the ownership of Stamford Bridge from the Chelsea Pitch Owners. My view is that they will achieve this and I think they have learnt from the failed attempt earlier in the year. Evidence can already be seen in today's press release with the comments made about what shape the new stadium will take.
Last replied by Stephen Dunham on Friday, 04 May 2012
Newcastle fans are probably some of the most passionate in the world, i know,i was born there. I always find it staggering that people who build up a fortune in business and obviously are very commercially astute can act in ignorant ways when it comes to running a football club. The club would know that fans would be appalled about any kind of stadium name change, but to re-brand it the Sports Direct Arena to try and tempt other sponsors is actually just daft. I think what is happening in the UK market is that all clubs are desperately pushing this opportunity in the media, we see it regularly from the likes of Spurs and Chelsea but the facts remain that only new stadia builds have a real chance of securing naming rights. Any brand doing sufficient due diligence on the situation at Newcastle will not lend their name to this stadium. He has managed to generate millions of pounds of column inches for Sports Direct in the process however!
Last replied by Stephen Pearson on Tuesday, 20 March 2012
West ham or another Football club are the only sporting club that could make the stadium really work, certainly in terms of making money. West ham have stated they wont share with a rugby union club due to the damage the pitch will receive through constant use, and with both rugby union seasons and football seasons being running simultaniously ist highly unlikely. Atheletics and Rugby League are the only other real options. With Rugby League operating in the summer when no football is being played, and Athletics use not requiring a great deal of use of the grass pitch. alternatively if something like an I-Pitch is installed, similar to the one currently used by Rugby club Widnes, all pitch issues may become redundant.
Last replied by Michael Wheeler on Thursday, 02 February 2012
It is a fine line that Tottenham Hotspur, the Mayor and Haringey Council are travelling along. From my Wembley Stadium experience I can assure you that government at any level does NOT subsidise football stadiums. However, Tottenham is a very good example of why and how public money should be spent on a new stadium project. Tottenham High Road, just as Wembley was, is an area in dire need of regeneration. So poor is the area that it desperately needs a large scale development to kick start an improvement programme for the whole area. However, if you were a commercial entity, such as Tottenham Hotspur FC, and you were about to spend £300m - £400m, the largest investment that you will ever make, you might worry that Tottenham High Road isn't the best place to do this.....but Tottenham are from Tottenham so it is the obvious place for them to be. The deal that is agreed is for Tottenham to stay in their heartland and for the Mayor and Haringey to commit to some regeneration of the area to make the investment by Tottenham seem appreciated. Let's be clear, the money from both the Mayor and from the local government will NOT be contributing to the stadium but to local transport infrastructure and a general facelift of the area. Personally, having travelled to White Hart Lane many times, I feel that whatever the Mayor and the local council are spending in this area they are getting the best of this deal. Firstly, they need to spend this money anyway to help this down at heel area and secondly, what they are spending will be insufficient to address the real needs of the transport infrastructure. This area needs a tube station. Getting to WHL is a real challenge and my team have rarely come away with a result!
Last replied by Michael Cunnah on Tuesday, 31 January 2012
I have stood at a number at number of grounds and can't say there is always a notable difference from some of the seated stands that I've been in. A lot of the newer grounds in the Premier League have been designed for seating, meaning that a lot of work would be needed and high costs would be incurred to alter them ensuring they are suitable for standing. I'm not convinced they'd benefit from doing so. Safe standing would be unlikely to lead to a sustained increased in attendances. If clubs want higher attendances, they need to review the cost of the tickets.
Last replied by Colin Robinson on Wednesday, 25 January 2012