When are we likely to get definitive stadium news?

[xerxes]

Apparently Haringey council are offering 17 million for infrastructure and local development to encourage spurs to opt to redevelop white harte lane.

 

Be interesting to see if a similar offer is on the table for Liverpool to redevelop Anfield.

 

Why should it? The offer is for a stadium move- not redevelopment.

 

"The council has offered to make the total package up to £17m, stripping away all Spurs' responsibilities to improve the Tottenham area if it pressed ahead with its new stadium in Northumberland Park."

 

Spurs stadium £17m deal offered by Mayor of London and Haringey Council (From Haringey Independent)

 

 

 

 

The Liverpool Council offer of Stanley Park, plus allowing us to redevelop Anfield Plaza will be worth considerably more than £17m over time to the club.

[PestiRed]

GLA want the whole Olympic Stadium debacle to disappear as quickly as possible. Unfortunately I don't think we have a similar card in our hand

[xerxes]

 

I don't like the way this is heading, there's obviously some sort of stale mate at present between ourselves and the council and if we are to redevelop Anfield then there will have to be some compromise with the council to address those issues or work around them.

 

My own view is that the longer this drags on, the more likely we are to see a groundshare, especially when you consider the economy could be ready to take a further nosedive.

 

 

Wise words.

 

If ever you are offered a bet between change, and no change, no change is the favourite.

 

A limited redevelopment of Anfield is undoubtedly possible – whether such a redevelopment would be “enough” is open to doubt.

 

The longer that nothing ( or little) happens at Anfield and Goodison, the greater the likelihood that groundshare will surface again.

 

I have never been convinced by Groundshare, perversely because I don’t see how Everton, when they see the numbers, will think that it will work for them, financially it may stack for us. But if a point is ever reached where it is in the financial interests of both clubs to Groundshare, it could happen. Football always follows the money.

 

I have always been unconvinced by the boycott argument. If 42,500 Scousers were happy to pay to help finance G&H, would people really stay away from a Dalglish managed LFC in a shared stadium? (Although I think that the argument is hypothetical)

 

Like everyone i just want what is best for our Club. Remaining in a stadium that is the 64th largest in Europe, and withus not playing in Europe at all, is now where we should be on or off the pitch.

[TheHitman]

Why should it? The offer is for a stadium move- not redevelopment.

 

"The council has offered to make the total package up to £17m, stripping away all Spurs' responsibilities to improve the Tottenham area if it pressed ahead with its new stadium in Northumberland Park."

 

Spurs stadium £17m deal offered by Mayor of London and Haringey Council (From Haringey Independent)

 

 

 

 

The Liverpool Council offer of Stanley Park, plus allowing us to redevelop Anfield Plaza will be worth considerably more than £17m over time to the club.

 

Spurs given 'take it or leave it' ultimatum by Boris over stadium plan | News

 

I read this article where they mentioned

 

"Mr Johnson says the money offered will allow Spurs to press ahead with the £400million redevelopment of White Hart Lane rather than continue a judicial review over the 2012 arena, which has been awarded to West Ham United."

 

Then again I should know better to take as gospel anything Boris says.

 

Whilst I agree with the principal that as FSG are out to make money it leaves the council in a difficult position. They have to weigh up their obligations to the taxpayer, whilst acknowledging the economic benefits the club bring to the city.

 

However if the club decide they want to stay at Anfield, it seems reasonable that the council do not put obstacles in their way. If this is what is happening.

[richster]

Just picking off your points 109_ Ultra.

 

The issue is not whether Anfield can be redeveloped, it is whether it can be redeveloped sufficiently to compete with the Euro elite.

 

Old Trafford is proof that you can redevelop in situ if you have the space. There is no evidence that we can acquire land sufficient to enable us to compete, and if we can, that it will meet planning regulations. It might, it might not.

 

A 60k new stadium might double our match day revenue to around £80m, twice current levels, £20m less than Man u/Arsenal. Borrowing costs are low, UK construction costs are falling in terms of raw material and labour, the quantum of Naming Rights has not been established. Henry is in no position, as we write, to make the claim you ascribe to him.

 

The economy is a worry. I acknowledged that OOT support is likely to suffer nationwide as travelling costs soar. Perversely pay tv subscriptions for sport increase in a recession as Bolton Wanderers fans decide that a Sky Sports/ ESPN football subscription is better value than a season ticket at the ground.

 

The area required to develop the Main Stand is not fully in the Clubs ownership- and may never be. There is no legal case for compulsory purchase.

 

I happen to agree with you that the most likely outcome is that our competitiveness will continue to erode as we do either nothing, or not enough.

 

the stadium debate concerns a lot more than just seats. A modern arena needs to generate revenue 7 days a week, and be a cornerstone in the society. If the stadium is referred to in several aspects, it also increases the potential value of a sponsorname. today the infrastructure is laughable, and there is not enough parkingspaces. Anfield is just a "shell" that generate money once the supporter has entered and queued up for some snacks. health clubs, shops, offices, training facilities, medical centres should be included. With an increase in traffic to the stadium, the public transportation will also be boosted by the govt.

 

I simply can not fathome why the clubs in PL do not arrange "pre match parties" before the games. It would also boost the atmosphere for a lt more than the few that get into the pub.

 

A stdium is more than a shell around a pitch.

 

Another spect is the possible opportunities to section the stadium The mebers club on emirates is 7000. These seats generate more than entore highbury did (38 k). Same with VIp sections. It need to maximize our potential revenue, and simply adding 15 000 seats wont help anyway near as much as a properly structured new facility.

 

As much as I would love to stay at Anfield, the modern state of football requires us to think more commercially in order to cope with the rest of the big clubs in Europe. Sad to say, but it is true.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Spurs given 'take it or leave it' ultimatum by Boris over stadium plan | News

 

I read this article where they mentioned

 

"Mr Johnson says the money offered will allow Spurs to press ahead with the £400million redevelopment of White Hart Lane rather than continue a judicial review over the 2012 arena, which has been awarded to West Ham United."

 

Then again I should know better to take as gospel anything Boris says.

 

Whilst I agree with the principal that as FSG are out to make money it leaves the council in a difficult position. They have to weigh up their obligations to the taxpayer, whilst acknowledging the economic benefits the club bring to the city.

 

However if the club decide they want to stay at Anfield, it seems reasonable that the council do not put obstacles in their way. If this is what is happening.

 

If the council here did that,then they would have to do the same with the shite.

 

Which is why imo the council arnt being to helpful if you know what I mean.

 

I get the feeling on the other hand if a joint stadium was to happen,then you would find them bending over backwards to help,probably funding part of it.

[xerxes]

 

However if the club decide they want to stay at Anfield, it seems reasonable that the council do not put obstacles in their way. If this is what is happening.

 

I agree.

 

To be fair, the club has not alleged obstruction by the Council.

 

The Club has not been transparent so far about redevelopment progress, possibly for good reason. The key question of outstanding ownerships required has never been clarified. This may be because discussions are ongoing ,and the Club does not wish to reveal to outstanding ownerships what level of ransom they have.

 

In offering us Stanley Park and ensuring that there were no zoning problems for Anfield Plaza the Council has done much for us. They cannot enforce CPO’s, they have to be applied for. If, as I believe, such an application would be unsuccessful on legal grounds there is nothing that the Council can do. If they think (are legally advised) that it is a non-starter they are saving the taxpayer by not going on a fools errand. Any application can (and would) be challenged.

 

The Council have a duty to the whole of Liverpool and the area as a whole. If a new stadium and Anfield Plaza deliver a substantial premium to the community, they are right to back it. It’s our money, our jobs.

 

As I suggested in an earlier post, if the club has to buy Council owned land to redevelop the Council is legally obliged to secure best value. The sceptre of the Council being legally obliged to ransom the club is not one that anyone would relish.

 

On planning itself, either an application conforms, or it doesn’t. Again there is no chance of a sweetheart deal between the Club and Council. An aggrieved party (of whom there will be quite a few) can appeal a consent which they claim was wrongly awarded. Again the Club has no unilateral powers.

 

I think that there is a certain amount of shadow-boxing going on here. It would suit FSG to blame the Council if they want to save face with the fans if redevelopment proves practically impossible. The Council want a working relationship with the Club if a new stadium is to be built, and is in a position to expose FSG if they are at fault. It suits neither party though to burn their bridges.

 

It is the anonymous faces of FSG who will call this one – we will be left with the consequences. But I still do not see this in terms of good guys and bad guys. We are where we are due to two decades of inertia and poor planning. FSG and the Council are having to do what they can, with what they have where they are.

[xerxes]

I get the feeling on the other hand if a joint stadium was to happen,then you would find them bending over backwards to help,probably funding part of it.

 

A joint stadium would throw the Goodison site into the pot which would make more money available.

 

Even for a joint stadium the prospects of public money being used are minimal. Should the local tax payer be subsidising £100k a week footballers?

 

What would happen is that the Council would impose Section 106 Contributions on the development of Goodison obliging the developer to contribute to broader regeneration costs -everyone wins.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

I agree.

 

To be fair, the club has not alleged obstruction by the Council.

 

The Club has not been transparent so far about redevelopment progress, possibly for good reason. The key question of outstanding ownerships required has never been clarified. This may be because discussions are ongoing ,and the Club does not wish to reveal to outstanding ownerships what level of ransom they have.

 

In offering us Stanley Park and ensuring that there were no zoning problems for Anfield Plaza the Council has done much for us. They cannot enforce CPO’s, they have to be applied for. If, as I believe, such an application would be unsuccessful on legal grounds there is nothing that the Council can do. If they think (are legally advised) that it is a non-starter they are saving the taxpayer by not going on a fools errand. Any application can (and would) be challenged.

 

The Council have a duty to the whole of Liverpool and the area as a whole. If a new stadium and Anfield Plaza deliver a substantial premium to the community, they are right to back it. It’s our money, our jobs.

 

As I suggested in an earlier post, if the club has to buy Council owned land to redevelop the Council is legally obliged to secure best value. The sceptre of the Council being legally obliged to ransom the club is not one that anyone would relish.

 

On planning itself, either an application conforms, or it doesn’t. Again there is no chance of a sweetheart deal between the Club and Council. An aggrieved party (of whom there will be quite a few) can appeal a consent which they claim was wrongly awarded. Again the Club has no unilateral powers.

 

I think that there is a certain amount of shadow-boxing going on here. It would suit FSG to blame the Council if they want to save face with the fans if redevelopment proves practically impossible. The Council want a working relationship with the Club if a new stadium is to be built, and is in a position to expose FSG if they are at fault. It suits neither party though to burn their bridges.

 

It is the anonymous faces of FSG who will call this one – we will be left with the consequences. But I still do not see this in terms of good guys and bad guys. We are where we are due to two decades of inertia and poor planning. FSG and the Council are having to do what they can, with what they have where they are.

 

Great post and the thing about them shadow boxing is how I feel whats going on.

 

Still the biggest thing for me is the fact that FSG before buying us would of looked into the minutest thing of what needed doing at the club before paying that sort of money for us.

 

Surely one of the biggest things would of been the ground situation.

 

Which I would imagine going into great detail wit h all concerned,what was the road they were going to take.

 

There s noway they would of layed out that sort of cash without knowing about the problems upgrading the stadium or the sort of cost to build any new stadium before they bought us.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

A joint stadium would throw the Goodison site into the pot which would make more money available.

 

Even for a joint stadium the prospects of public money being used are minimal. Should the local tax payer be subsidising £100k a week footballers?

 

What would happen is that the Council would impose Section 106 Contributions on the development of Goodison obliging the developer to contribute to broader regeneration costs -everyone wins.

 

I have been saying for along time i think it will end up as a joint stadium.

 

More so since the piece in the paper with john Henry basically saying that upgrading isnt really a viable way to go ,with all the legal problems it involved.

 

Basically meaning they would be doing the new stadium route.

 

Everything since then backs up a joint stadium even more with the building a new stadium for 15,000 extra seats as pointless since coming out from FSG.

 

Just seems to me because of the way us fans feel about a joint stadium they know to just comeout and say it would cause such a fan backlash,that there doing a pr thing to make it look like the joint stadium is the only route to take.

 

Like I said thats just my outlook om it all.

[Archer]

Take this or leave it but I hear the shared stadium is back on the agenda in a big way. Having studied the season ticket waiting list the club doubt if they'll sell the required amount of seats to justify the expense of a brand new stadium alone. Apparently redeveloping the existing ground is a non starter. They've been in touch with both LCC and Everton and a shared ground mostly funded by the council and leased back to both clubs is looking the most likely outcome.

 

Like I say though, take it or leave it.

[Melchett]

Leave it.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Yeah, I'll leave it. They've already seen how uncomfortable fans can make it for owners, why would they want all that again. They'd go from being tentatively respected and appreciated to being the target for outrage.

[xerxes]

Apparently redeveloping the existing ground is a non starter. They've been in touch with both LCC and Everton and a shared ground mostly funded by the council and leased back to both clubs is looking the most likely outcome.

 

 

The longer nothing happens – the more financially attractive a shared stadium is likely to be.

 

There is zero chance of the Council building a stadium and leasing it to LFC/EFC.

 

Where on earth would they get £350m odd from? With libraries and fire stations being closed, policemen losing their jobs and school budgets reduced , can you seriously envisage anyone suggesting that the City should finance a new stadium for two clubs whose income is in excess of £200m a year and who pay their employees up to £125,000 a week? No-one would support such a proposal.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

The longer nothing happens – the more financially attractive a shared stadium is likely to be.

 

There is zero chance of the Council building a stadium and leasing it to LFC/EFC.

 

Where on earth would they get £350m odd from? With libraries and fire stations being closed, policemen losing their jobs and school budgets reduced , can you seriously envisage anyone suggesting that the City should finance a new stadium for two clubs whose income is in excess of £200m a year and who pay their employees up to £125,000 a week? No-one would support such a proposal.

 

Theres a great chance here to start a I know why Bungling Bill isnt finding new owners,it is because he knows a joint stadium is going to happen and when it does he is doing one with the cash they get for woodison.

[shanks69]

leave it, the council don't have the money this year they have a 91 million short fall in money and another 53 million next year.

[xerxes]

Theres a great chance here to start a I know why Bungling Bill isnt finding new owners,it is because he knows a joint stadium is going to happen and when it does he is doing one with the cash they get for woodison.

 

Explain how there is a "great chance". The Council have no money, and have no business building and owning football tradiums. It's a non-starter.

 

Furthermore the sale of Goodison wont even cover their debts.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Explain how there is a "great chance". The Council have no money, and have no business building and owning football tradiums. It's a non-starter.

 

Furthermore the sale of Goodison wont even cover their debts.

So in that case the joint stadium is a non starter then.

 

Which means zero options on any stadium.

[Antynwa]

The council can't afford fuck all.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

The council can't afford fuck all.

 

I would think they can get some sort of grant thing because how can Spurs be getting offered 17 million from there council,after just having the area practically torched to the ground in the riots.

Edited September 30, 2011 by SCOUSE TAPAS
oh its a boris grant i just noticed

[xerxes]

So in that case the joint stadium is a non starter then.

 

Which means zero options on any stadium.

 

I would think they can get some sort of grant thing because how can Spurs be getting offered 17 million from there council,after just having the area practically torched to the ground in the riots.

 

 

 

The fact that the Council have neither the cash, nor would they get a mandate, to build a stadium does not preclude the possibility of a shared stadium .

 

My personal view is that a shared stadium might work for us in theory, but that it would relegate Everton to servile status, so in practice they would be unable to swallow the terms – unless they were VERY desperate.

 

Spurs are not being given anything by the Council. Instead, £17m worth of infra structure improvements in the surrounding area which they were previously being asked to pay has been waived. By a Council keen for them to commit to Harringey and not contest a move to the Olympic Stadium.

 

The Stanley Park move requires the Club to make no capital payment whatsoever for the land, a considerable windfall for the club, with an annual rent being paid instead. Because the freehold for Anfield (Plaza) remains with the Club, and the rent from the developed land will far exceed the rent on Stanley Park, the Club will be sitting on a significant profit- thanks to the Council

[Ted]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8799918/Liverpool-chairman-Tom-Werner-says-Everton-groundshare-idea-is-dead.html

[Guest ShoePiss]

Liverpool chairman Tom Werner says Everton groundshare idea is 'dead' - Telegraph

 

Liverpool chairman Tom Werner says Everton groundshare idea is 'dead'

 

This is great news, I thought it was going to be an article about football being dead. Pleasant surprise.

[Guest ShoePiss]

"Liverpool earn £60million less than Manchester United in annual matchday revenue. Until they renovate or move, they will fall additional millions behind every season"

 

"He has revealed for the first time that if Liverpool are not able to modernise Anfield, they will design new plans for a stadium on Stanley Park rather than pursue either of the two existing schemes left by previous owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

 

That would require a fresh planning application which could take a minimum of two more years before construction began. "

 

So if those numbers are correct by the time a new stadium was built we'd be at least £240m behind Utd and it will most likely be 5 years before we have a new stadium.

[lifetime fan]

"Liverpool earn £60million less than Manchester United in annual matchday revenue. Until they renovate or move, they will fall additional millions behind every season"

 

"He has revealed for the first time that if Liverpool are not able to modernise Anfield, they will design new plans for a stadium on Stanley Park rather than pursue either of the two existing schemes left by previous owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

 

That would require a fresh planning application which could take a minimum of two more years before construction began. "

 

So if those numbers are correct by the time a new stadium was built we'd be at least £240m behind Utd and it will most likely be 5 years before we have a new stadium.

 

 

Hardly the current owners fault.