IAN Ayre has admitted that the Anfield Road end wouldn’t have the benefit of hospitality and as such would not be a “smart investment for the business”.
Redeveloping the Anfield Road end was initially outlined as phase two of the plans to redevelop Anfield, of which the soon-to-be completed Main Stand was phase one.
However the owners have been coy on how likely the developments will be, with owner John Henry recently claiming that ticket prices may “foreclose further expansion”.
The issue of the redevelopment was raised at the latest Supporters’ Committee meeting, with Ayre insisting that the club were careful not to make any promises on the Anfield Road end.
In the minutes published from the meeting, Ayre said: “The planning application does not dictate when any redevelopment of Anfield Road would start. The club’s objective was always to build and open the main stand. From the outset, the club did not want to set deadlines or promises it failed to keep.
“The club now needs a period of time to ensure that what it has put in place works, and in tandem continue with plans for Anfield Road. However, as with the Main Stand, the club has to find the right economic model, and only then will it be the right time to move forward.”
A lot of fans believed that the lack of potential for corporate facilities in the Anfield Road end was one of the reasons that plans seemed to be stalling, a belief which Ayre confirmed to be true while revealing how much the stand would cost to repay in terms of general admission tickets.
Liverpool’s chief executive added: “A stand behind a goal doesn’t have the benefit of hospitality that would go a long way to meet the redevelopment costs. If you consider the redevelopment of Anfield Road from a purely general admission perspective, building, say, 6,000 extra seats to take the capacity up to 60,000 would cost somewhere between £60million and £70m.
“At £12,000 to £13,000 per seat, it would take approximately 15 years to pay back, which is not a smart investment for the business. Therefore the club needs to find a rounded solution that’s in the best interests of the football club.”
The suggestion was put to Ayre, who is set to leave the club next summer, that the repayment targets put forward don’t seem too far-fetched and that the fans would be happy to fund the development.
Ayre responded to this suggestion saying: “We should have that conversation.”
He admitted that he was not in a position to speak for the owners or their plans but insisted: “it’s an interesting proposition and one worth looking at.”
Recent Posts:
[rpfc_recent_posts_from_category meta=”true”]
Pics: David Rawcliffe-Propaganda Photo
Like The Anfield Wrap on Facebook
We’ve been shortlisted for Best Podcast at the FBAs. You can vote for us here.
with both spurs and chelsea , building new 60.000 seater stadiums in the next few years . and even westham moving to the olympic stadium which is also 60.000 seater . i do think its short sited and even commerically a mistake , not to expand anfield to a 60,000 seater stadium . the owners could try to get a stadium sponsor , the man city ground , which they dont even own { leased from manchester council } earns them £10 million a season , with a 10 year deal . would calling our ground the standard charter anfield stadium be such a bad idea ? i think that the club should consult the fans and at least have the conversation . we need a 60.000 seater stadium to compete with our richer rivals . whom we have been falling behind commercially for years . the mancity owners built and paid for their new training ground plus the their stadium expansion with their own money . they didnt loan the money to the club . which is what FSG did with LFC . Come on FSG you can make a real statement of intent by expanding the Anfield road end and maybe put to bed the Chinese buy out rumours !
For all anyone knows this could be similar to transfer dealings where you feed lines into the media about cost and affordability and likelihood to try and bring a better deal to the table….
“the fans would be happy to fund the development”
what exactly does that mean? Happy to accept increased ticket prices if it got built? Fans to invest in some kind of bond scheme to raise funds? Fans happy to see reduced transfer budgets for 10-15 years as it gets paid off?
Reading some comments on the echo about this. Ayre is being criticised for this; it was a supporters club that mentioned fan investment! Ayre, rightly so, is speaking in business terms; a viable financial model. I believe that this will happen eventually and we all need to stop getting our knickers in a twist!
Whats Ayre on about?
say it costs 70million to build for 6,000 seats 70m divided 6k = £11,666.66
so it would take one season at £11,000 to pay it back not 15…
£11,666.66 divided by 19 (home games) = £614.03 meaning it would cost £614 a match for LFC to break even in one-year
let’s say LFC aimed for 10 years so £614.03 divided by 10 = £61.40 expensive granted but hell of a lot less than £12,000 eh?
I think you got to the point eventually there fella..
I think Ayre’s figures are correct tbf.
4800 seats at £50 a time times 19 home games would be £4.57m a season.
Therefore 15 years to pay off £70m.
That’s not the point for me as I want to see it built but just saying.
Why is it deemed that repayment over 15 years is not a reasonable pay back term? That is a relatively modest period for many commercial investment projects. Looking for payback over 5-7 years would be more profitable for the owners but is that the only point of the football club? To suggest so says to me finance is everything and investment in the future of the club, for the benefit of the club and fans is not truly a factor in their thinking. Naïve of me to have ever thought otherwise I suppose, but if you trade on the emotion and loyalty of people you should pay more respect to their interests.
I have a question that lingers at the back of my mind on all this.
Which is, why not just pay for it outright.
Where’s the Suarez money Bill?
I thought we made a profit of £60m in the last accounts which was put down to the sale of Suarez
This year we haven’t laid out the £35m net we pay annually on players plus the TV money has gone up.
Surely, that must mean we’re going to make another £60m+ profit in this accounting period. Maybe a little bit in the accounting year inbetween too . I’ve said before on here I may be completely wide of the mark on these figures but I can’t help thinking the club has £100m+ in the bank. It’s all based on the fact we broke even in the accounting period of 3 years ago once a chunk of the debt had been paid/written off. If we can break even then after spending £20m net and the next year we make £60m because of the Suarez sale after spending £25m net then it suggests to me the club can afford it’s wages and £20m transfers from the commercial revenue, tv revenue and match day revenue. If we save on the £25m net and have an extra £30m minimum from tv plus merchandising is growing at 10% then surely we have money. Next season we’ll have £20m extra from the CL.
I’m losing myself here with figures plucked from the air but FSG are gonna make an absolute fortune from LFC when they eventually sell. Why not do this for the fans and good of the club using money the club earns. An extra 5k seats would increase the value of the club when they sell it anyway because it’d be an asset. I appreciate it’s not good business for them short term but it’d certainly be a good PR opportunity with the fans and would benefit the club long term. I’ve always supported FSG in terms of I understand it’s a business to them but I’m under the impression the more success the business has the more they make so I trust them to aim for success but I was absolutely livid when Henry made the comments in New York. I found the insinuation highly offensive.
Hi Robin,
I hope FSG use their imagination and find a way to develop the Anfield Road end, regardless of the short term return on investment. But, I don’t think we can assume that there is a pot of cash sitting on LFC’s books that can be allocated to cover some of the costs.
When LFC returned a £60m profit in the last set of of full accounts to May 2015, this was explained as being down to the Suarez sale. It was also explained at the time that this didn’t reflect the underlying performance of LFC financially and a the true reflection was closer to break even.
I think the reason for the this difference is the way in which player transfers are accounted for. The Suarez sale was all booked as income in the 2015 accounts, regardless of whether the payment might have been in installments. This money was all allocated towards the £120m spent on purchasing 8 new players, but because this £120m is capitalised in the accounts and written down over the duration of the players contracts, it didn’t balance the Suarez money. So P&L accounts show a profit, but there is no cash sitting in an account as a result of it.
As a guess, I would imagine that LFC would have some spare cash as a result of financial performance since the May 2015, but probably less than you might expect.
Hi Greame
I know mine was a naive comment and I know accounting in football isn’t straight forward with amortisation and other things I don’t understand but I still can’t away from it.
I agree the club break even now. I think I said that myself. We did 3 years ago and we did 2 years ago + the Suarez money. What I can’t get away from is in those break even years we spent £25/£30m net on transfers. This year we didn’t. To my mind that’s break even plus £25/£30m. Then the tv money has gone up quite considerably since those break even years (possibly by £30m). For example, had we had a different manager than Klopp he would have been given anywhere around £40m net to spend and we’d have broken even or recorded profit. All I’m saying is, give the saved transfer money to a Annie Road stand fund and start again next year. I’m sure well over half could be paid for right now.
But, I don’t know how it all works. I suppose, one thing I do know is it doesn’t work like I want it to. Money saved doesn’t necessarily mean money to spend. I will be intrigued to see the accounts in 18 months for this summer though.
Think there struggling to sell the top hospitality packages
If fans are willing to contribute directly to the redevelopment of the Annie Rd end with money from their own wallets should they also seek shares in the club?
If we had 60-70m to spend – would people prefer we spend that on the Anfield Road or on merging Melwood and the Academy into one site?
I think getting younger fans into Anfield will safeguard the future lifeblood of the support base, hence the atmosphere, success on the pitch and ultimately profitability.
I get so PO when people such as that blurt IA and his mates fail to see the bigger picture which IS the future of LFC. It’s laughable they focus on short term profit especially as what RC says about making an absolute packet over the next decade is bang on the money.
I bet JK would have his €s worth behind closed doors. Imagine the din after expanding the Annie Road, then extending the Kop featuring a semi enclosed Walton Breck Road as a sort of massive Domed High Street with Bars restaurants and Hotels.
I think we need to take a step back here. Ian Ayre is leaving so he can be more bullish in the answers he gives to questions (within reason). He mentions other ways of investing, of no time frame on planning permission
People have taken that, rightly so, to mean Fan investment. Is this not a message to Chinese investors? We have other options. Fans want the stadium increase. We know it doesn’t make commercial sense.
I really do think that there’s a lot of negotiating going on at the moment between FSG and China. Henry, Werner and Ayre been far more vocal in past 6 months than the previous 6 years!
People have latched on to fan investment because a member of the Supporter Committee suggested fan investment as a possible solution during the meeting with Ian Ayre.
This has nothing to do with China. There are no ongoing discussions with Chinese investors. All that talk was just based on a couple of journalists getting spoofed, and then not bothering to check their facts carefully enough.
TBH I’d like to see a bigger stand constructed on the anfield road than the one that has planning permission. That end of the ground does not have the obstacles of houses and light constraints and so could be built as big as you want it to be. 60.000 is a good number but I believe we should be aiming for more in the stadium 65.000 minimum. I’m not too convinced with the corporate line either the club could still sell executive boxes in the anfield road stand maybe at a cheaper rate to the main stand. which I Hear they are charging a fortune for anyway
The club is selling the experience of anfield and a large stadium with passionate fans will sell every seat corporate or not
What ever investment or loan I beleive we should not spend 5-10 years deciding what to do with the anfield road end act now and in 10 years time it’s almost paid for wait and we will be still discussing things in years to come