John Henry gives further indication of Anfield redevelopment

Comments by Liverpool owner John W. Henry this week have given further indication that the club are set to remain at Anfield, rather than moving to a new stadium in Stanley Park.

After over a decade of planning for a new stadium, three different designs and over £50m in costs, a decision is expected soon to announce that Liverpool will instead look to redevelop their famous stadium.

In an email sent to LFC fans’ website The Anfield Wrap, Henry discussed what he described as “a long-term myth” about the financial impact of a new stadium.

When Henry’s Fenway Sports Group, formerly New England Sports Ventures, bought Liverpool in October 2010, then-chairman Martin Broughton explained that they would deliver a 60,000 capacity stadium, but that no decision had yet been made on whether it would at Anfield or Stanley Park.

“They haven’t committed to what that is yet but we will have a stadium of more than 60,000 whether it is the new stadium as designed. There is a short-time table for that,” said Broughton.

Since then there have been strong indications that FSG’s preferred option is to remain at Anfield, as they did with the Boston Red Sox. Recently though, Liverpool supporters have grown frustrated at the lack of an announcement one way or another – 20 months after FSG purchased the club.

Reports recently have claimed that Liverpool City Council have given LFC until the end of June to make a decision.

Henry told The Anfield Wrap “No one has ever addressed whether or not a new stadium is rational.”

Managing director Ian Ayre has explained multiple times how Liverpool have been exploring both options, with a new stadium only viable if a naming rights partner can be found. Henry said;

“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.

Perhaps most worryingly, Henry ended his email by claiming increasing match-day revenue is “just one component of LFC long-term fortunes”. Fans will be hoping that does not mean no decision is made regarding the stadium issue.

Further improvements to the corporate hospitality areas of Anfield are being made throughout this summer. Last year the boxes on the Centenary stand were altered, this year the Main Stand area is being improved.

Comments Notice: By using the comments feature on This Is Anfield, you are agreeing to our comments policy.
  • mali994

    John Henry no further at liverpool

    • http://twitter.com/LFCPortland LFC Portland

      really insightful reasoning there.

    • Scouse76

      Liverpool is incredibly lucky to have John Henry. His approach, and of course his money, will give long-term stability to the club and steer the club through all of the commercial/business dealings and allow the manager and the players to do their job.

      • Martyn1986

        Read Soccernomics, its an excellent insight into where ‘football’ is heading, with FSG and B.Rogers Liverpool are heading in excactly the right way.

        New stadium or not? redevelop anfield or not? In the long term running of a ‘football’ club these are 2 small questions.

        Structure and development of players and staff, marketing, transfer policy, wage bill and global appeal, these are the more important questions and ones which right now FSG have got spot on.

  • Scouse76

    I like John Henry and how he approaches things sensibly and rationally. He’s not swayed by the media or fans shouting about what they want. I like how he handled the manager search and I like how he deals with the stadium issue. People who rush big decisions make big mistakes.

  • http://twitter.com/iweedy SuaRed

    If you have not done it already watch the film ‘Moneyball’ staring Brad Pitt or read the book ‘Baseball Economics’. This will give you an insight into where the game is going. John Henry is ahead of the curve and Liverpool are in really good hands.

    • j75j

      If you read about the real team it’s based on the Oakland Athletics they are having their own problems moving into a purpose built $400 million park called Cisco Field .

      • http://twitter.com/LFCPortland LFC Portland

        That had to do with TV rights in the Bay Area vs the San Francisco Giants who also operate int he market – get your facts straight.

        • j75j

          Nothing to do with TV rights! Problems buying land and Cisco being hit by the Dot Com bubble burst effecting the companies growth firstly then resistance from the local community in Fremount , now they are looking to build the stadium in Oakland .The FACT is no stadium has been built in 10 years sound familiar????

  • http://www.facebook.com/jay.blindside Jay Blindside

    New or refurbished stadium is still going nowhere ! He is still well ontrack to improve us a little and then sell out for a nice little earner ! Why should he waste money on a stadium that he isn’t going to be interested in for long? A con!

    • http://twitter.com/LFCPortland LFC Portland

      I don’t think JH sells out at all. The club is being modernised in every which way so that we have all the necessary tools to win the league and be in a better position to capitalise on the commercial side; something Moores & Perry never did for us after 2005.

  • j75j

    It has become a myth now because the cost of building the new stadium has tripled!
    Now they will spend the same amount on redeveloping Anfield which would have covered the cost of building the original new stadium in 2002!
    No point putting forward the building of a new stadium if the club is to scared to make the moves needed and the costs of building the stadium aren’t firstly put in place to cover it. The whole process is a joke and for Henry to start questioning the whole process publicly after 15 years doesn’t do the club or fans any favours and carries on the divides in the club.

    • http://twitter.com/LFCPortland LFC Portland

      sorry fella, but that blame lies firmly on the shoulders of Moores and Perry. We should have capitalized on the success of the Champions League win and M&P clearly were out of their depth to do so. H&G would have built a stadium using nothing but debt and we would have been broke. Cut Henry some slack. We’re lucky to be financially solvent.

      • j75j

        The comment was aimed at all the owners since this move was talked about.

        They did take advantage they sold the club when it was on an up wards
        curve to men who owned or helped run big sports franchises in US it was LFC which showed these men up for what they are.
        Why should Henry be cut some slack? Was Rafa,Roy or Dalglish? Board room talk about football being a results driven business so we want results on and off the pitch.
        A business like LFC deserves the premises fitting to the club/company. Business out grow their homes and either move or redevelop 10 years and nothing constructive has been done all that time the Premier League has been getting bigger and we still dither.

  • j75j

    Henry mentioned the 3 NFL teams The New York Jets and Giants whose shared stadium cost $1.7 BILLION
    Dallas Cowboys Stadium cost $1.4 BILLION
    Can stadiums that cost that much and ticket prices be used in comparison to a stadium that will cost $470 million?
    Is it really any surprised they had to put up ticket prices????????

  • Hewearsthefamousred

    Ive seen estimates that we 70m fans, 70 x £100 = £700m. Isn’t there some similar formula, where fans donate, or buy ownership of the new stadium which is leased to the club on v favourable (almost free) terms, which means we all get the new stadium we want with little financial burden to the club??