The Business Case for a Smaller Capacity ??

[degsy]

Theres another aspect to this 'business case'
As Liverpool is growing in tourism, business visitors and student numbers - as long as those trends continue - there is a large market for 'EPL tourists' - people who just want to watch any Premier League match, whoever is playing. Like going to a concert, theatre show or cinema, it's just some entertainment for some visitors. Of course, we don't yet have the mass appeal of the reds, but if our business and commercial strategy is right, we can sell ourselve as an 'authentic, traditional' club, but with this fancy modern stadium. Surely it can sell a lot of seats. If our capacity is capped at an unambitious figure, I seriously doubt that the club has got its other commercial and marketing plans in place. It might show that at every level of the club, we are still feeling like 'plucky little Everton in LFC's shadow'. We have to fight and grow at every level and in every aspect, and business ambition, when ALL PL games and clubs are gaining in popularlty, not just the obvious world renowned ones, is central

Pretty much this. I went to the sydney harbour / bridge / opera house and decided as I'd come this far I'd go in so I booked a show for the evening I was there, I was date limited so took pot luck on what was on...apart from the muriels in the phil the lay out was similar...form governs function after all...I got lucky and had a reasonably priced evening with Michael Palin.
Just sayin like

 

[Wizard]

That would be the Newcastle who spent pennies the last few windows, the one that has been relegated twice in about 5 years, and the one that last won anything it was in black and white? (on TV)

You may have a point! Sake.

But they have a bigger stadium than us so they must be a bigger club and have had much more success than us since expanding St James’!! That’s how it works isn’t it!?

 

[Hibbo]

Less capacity, more expensive the ticket (cause they are rarer). Supply and demand etc.

 

[BiggyRat]

Why won't he post it himself?

Well, I mean he is a CEO of a multi-million pound company who has been head-hunted for a £250,000 job of his dreams elsewhere, as opposed to someone who to an almost self-depreciating extent gets it wrong on his predictions, so there's that.

But a fella who has, generously, a tremendously ropey track-record on all things Everton is saying we can.

Does he not see the massive gaping logical hole here?

I think this is what always strikes me as the false premise with Esk's articles. This is not 'opinion on the match' fare that can of course be subjective. These are whole institutions who have access to detail in minutiae to come to their conclusions and yet he still goes over and over on the idea that he has figured it all out.

Or possibly asking him why he had an accumulation of spectacular whiffs and still persisted with the idea he was 'sourced'.

I genuinely have no idea. Good question.

lollollol Gold, sheer gold!

 

[gorgeousgeorgeEFC]

In other words: the money that we'll save from going for the smaller option could just about buy us a full-back.

Yup.

And how long will a full-back be with us? Five years or so?

This stadium will be with us for the next century.

 

[MickA]

But they have a bigger stadium than us so they must be a bigger club and have had much more success than us since expanding St James’!! That’s how it works isn’t it!?

I know loads of NUFC fans (proper ones not the 90s brigade) and they all loved the 36k St James. The current 52k version looks ridiculous and has lost the bear-pit aspect as it's so wide open.

I don't think capacity and the feel of a stadium should really be taken in isolation, it's about how you combine the best of both for me. I reckon we'll end up with 55k minimum and I'm still optomistic it'll be a fitting home for us.

 

[blueblue]

I think Dan Meis is downplaying the expectation that it will be 60k or even greater.
I think more and more it looks as if it will be around 55k.
We are currently rock solid on 40k and if you factor in new stadium bounce, better catering and hospitality facilities, no seats behind pillars and some additional sales from tourist and neutral fans wanting to see the new stadium we could be heading towards 50k average very quickly.

If we are lucky enough that we appoint the right manager and become successful before the stadium is finished then I think we will go immediately onto crowds of 50k and better.

 

[peteblue]

We’re being softened up for a 50K stadium, trust me........

 

[Jeff Jones]

Speaking for myself, I'd be quite happy with a 50,000 odd stadium with the built in option to expand, if necessary.

I say 'if necessary', because I think there will be less need or demand for actually attending stadiums as televising technology
improves.

 

[paulf]

The major problem is the team as well....if we aspire to the gravy gurgler and his fellow bisto-ettes as what we need taking us forward ...then we might as lower to 40k as we will lose match going guys in droves...
Massive Spring/Summer coming up..

 

[Steve0]

Just build the 60k and work on marketing/pricing strategy. Liverpool's population is growing for the first time in half a century, transport links better than ever, no obstructed views etc.

We'd definitely sell 60k for the derby, United, Citeh and a couple others without even trying. So if we built a 50k (instead of a 60k) stadium thats 50,000 tickets @ £20 for 90% and £150 corporate for 10% = £1.5m ish p/a we can wave bye bye to.

 

[EFC78]

Speaking for myself, I'd be quite happy with a 50,000 odd stadium with the built in option to expand, if necessary.

I say 'if necessary', because I think there will be less need or demand for actually attending stadiums as televising technology
improves.

I am not saying your wrong as it's your opinion and neither of us know, but i've seen that suggested a few times. Are you suggesting that those who only make a few games a season would prefer to not actually attend as technology gets better? Or the regular matchgoers?

I can't see it having any sort of impact whatsoever on the regular matchgoing support. How advanced the televising technology gets has no impact on me whatsoever as I want to be there watching my team live.

 

[Efcjake]

Without challenging any of the core assumptions, there are two answers:

1) The board believes that there will be sufficient unused capacity in the 60k stadium to render the smaller size optimal.

2) The board cannot secure sufficient financing for the larger stadium.

If the core assumptions are on the table, then a far greater set of explanations becomes feasible.

Hmmmm I know which one I believe.

 

[kenada_blue]

Our average home attendance has been higher than spurs since 2009. And I doubt we would rip off our fans with a large increase in season ticket prices. 60k+ shows ambition not just domestically but for other football games and non footballing events.

Top 6 clubs.
Etihad and Klanfield are under 55k.
Emirates 60k.
Chelsea 42k
United 70k
Spurs are at Wembley.

West Ham average 56k and it's one of the worst grounds in the country.

Minus United, the top northern clubs don't hit 60k. RS are expending but they can fill that. Newcastle hit 52k, Eithad is empty most of the time. Sunderland the same.

The idea we as a club nowhere near the top 6 should be easily get and fill a 60k stadia is nuts.

 

[peteblue]

Top 6 clubs.
Etihad and Klanfield are under 55k.
Emirates 60k.
Chelsea 42k
United 70k
Spurs are at Wembley.

West Ham average 56k and it's one of the worst grounds in the country.

Minus United, the top northern clubs don't hit 60k. RS are expending but they can fill that. Newcastle hit 52k, Eithad is empty most of the time. Sunderland the same.

The idea we as a club nowhere near the top 6 should be easily get and fill a 60k stadia is nuts.

Both Chelsea and the RS will have 60,000 seater stadia. You do realise that nothing ever stays the same in football and you either aim to be the best or you just exist. We have won more titles than 3 of the teams you mention, in fact more than Chelsea/Spurs or City/Spurs combined.....only by combining City/Chelsea are we one title behind.....I don’t believe we will build a 60,000 seater, but don’t ever suggest we are not up to it.......