Quantcast
Anfield Road redevelopment - Page 3 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Thoth

Anfield Road redevelopment

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Champions of Europe. 

 

 

 

 

I'll just leave that there. 

Yup , I prefer to wait until there is actually something to moan about before I start to moan 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mcfaggen said:

I get it, but I believe that yes we can continue to sell tickets at those prices. I reckon that the demand is that big. 

You might be right. And if the club comes up with a plan to expand and include lots of corporates within that then the club agree with you. Right now, I don't believe they've come to that conclusion. The only conclusion they've come to is the current plans are not what they want to do. They know the demand better than any of us. 

 

For what it's worth, I think we can satisfy that demand while we're successful. But we weren't selling our 45k at the end of Rodgers time. If I was making this choice like fsg will be, purely with a financial hat on, my view would be it's unlikely to be ready before klopp goes and it makes that a significant risk. As I've posted either here or elsewhere, I think it should be acceptable to do it without corporates and have it paid over the 15 or 17 years or whatever it was, but it seems that isn't good enough for our owners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, No2 said:

FSG have been around the block at this stage. If ARE made no sense they would say so, I'm not even sure they give a shit about social.media abuse and the likes, if it makes sense they will do it, if it doesn't they won't.

 

Kicking it down the road if they have no actual intention of doing anything is not something they would do. Since Tony Barrett became involved I don't think they have had any spectacular gaffes at all, they realise how many vocal nay sayers we have and know they can't pull the wool over anyone's eyes. 

There's been plenty of gaffs since TB was on board. Loads of them. Non more than the failure to go through the planning process with the community for the non-sporting events at anfield and the copyrighting of the word "Liverpool". I don't know what Tony's remit is, but it seems he gets the party's right on cup final day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sir roger said:

I thought the Main Stand was supposed to be self-financing over 8 years or so , and wasn't aware that they were potentially snaffling transfer funds to pay their loan off earlier.

Its the opposite. It was originally stated that the roughly £110 loan would be repaid over 5 and half years, so you are looking at about £20m per year. As at the last set of published accounts, so May last year, only £10m had been paid back compared to the £30-40m (could depend on the payment dates) that we would expect if it was being paid back evenly of the term of the debt. Much of what wasn't paid back was used for transfers over those 2 seasons.

 

So as of this year, we should have paid back £60m, for next summer, it is £80m. We don't know yet if anything was paid back this year just gone, it is also possible FSG may extend the term of the debt so the repayments could be spread over a longer period, but if they haven't, and if we didn't catch up with out payments last year, then there could be a big chunk of debt that needs to be paid off either this season or next. when you include the £50m being spent on Kirkby, then I can see why we the purse strings might be a bit tight this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Trumo said:

I wonder if FSG have waited to see how the facilities at Spurs' new stadium shape up before going ahead and committing to redeveloping the ARE. If you put aside the whole 'London prices' argument for one moment, you can see that Spurs have put a lot into facilities for regular (ie, non-corporate) match goers whether they are season ticket holders or day trippers. Without trying to suggest that the usual matchday spending habits of a non-corporate Spurs fan are the same as those of the non-corporate Liverpool fan, maybe they want to see how these facilities generate revenue. It could mean that general admission is more lucrative than they originally thought so any new ARE doesn't need so much in the way of corporate and VIP facilities.

 

I'm just thinking out loud here.

I've a friend who is a Spurs ST holder, and every time he goes to a game at WHL now, he spends hours in the ground before the game at the bars there. He's very complimentary about it all too, with queue times not big even when it feels busy. They've changed the approach for many football goers. Regular & OOT's. 

1 hour ago, Barry Wom said:

You might be right. And if the club comes up with a plan to expand and include lots of corporates within that then the club agree with you. Right now, I don't believe they've come to that conclusion. The only conclusion they've come to is the current plans are not what they want to do. They know the demand better than any of us. 

  

For what it's worth, I think we can satisfy that demand while we're successful. But we weren't selling our 45k at the end of Rodgers time. If I was making this choice like fsg will be, purely with a financial hat on, my view would be it's unlikely to be ready before klopp goes and it makes that a significant risk. As I've posted either here or elsewhere, I think it should be acceptable to do it without corporates and have it paid over the 15 or 17 years or whatever it was, but it seems that isn't good enough for our owners. 

I could well be wrong, and I accept that I'm no expert. 

 

I think the Concert angle is also a part of their thinking. They've got the few on trial at the moment, but they'll clearly want more and the ARE will provide the necessary access etc. so perhaps that wasn't properly on the original submission? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming this goes ahead, what capacity do you think we’ll be looking at? They have to improve the transport links don’t they if it’s over 60,00 so you wouldn’t think it would be worth it if the capacity was going to be around 61 or 62,000. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Woolster said:

Its the opposite. It was originally stated that the roughly £110 loan would be repaid over 5 and half years, so you are looking at about £20m per year. As at the last set of published accounts, so May last year, only £10m had been paid back compared to the £30-40m (could depend on the payment dates) that we would expect if it was being paid back evenly of the term of the debt. Much of what wasn't paid back was used for transfers over those 2 seasons.

 

So as of this year, we should have paid back £60m, for next summer, it is £80m. We don't know yet if anything was paid back this year just gone, it is also possible FSG may extend the term of the debt so the repayments could be spread over a longer period, but if they haven't, and if we didn't catch up with out payments last year, then there could be a big chunk of debt that needs to be paid off either this season or next. when you include the £50m being spent on Kirkby, then I can see why we the purse strings might be a bit tight this season.

Haven't they also have to refinance? It was a loan via fsg originally to get lower interest rates, but that is now no longer the case and we have something with a slightly higher interest payment. I don't know if that changes the term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:

Assuming this goes ahead, what capacity do you think we’ll be looking at? They have to improve the transport links don’t they if it’s over 60,00 so you wouldn’t think it would be worth it if the capacity was going to be around 61 or 62,000. 

That transport link thing dates back to h&g's time. I'm sure environmental impact has changed since. I think they'll be able to get beyond 61k without having to build a railway station. But they may need to think about busses or park and ride etc more closely than they do today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The transport links threshold was 68,000 so anything under that they wont have to contribute to a new train station.

 

Loads of people moaned about the stadium during the 3 concerts in the summer saying that the main stand was ok but the seats in the Kop and the KD were awful with no legroom. Comparing the legroom to the Etihad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any imaginary drawings or virtual reality tours yet? Taps fingers.....

Got to rush them out so we can re-attach our heads....and then hold them high whilst re-claiming the oh so essential bragging rights; using them as a comfort blanket to cry our selves to sleep with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, No2 said:

FSG have been around the block at this stage. If ARE made no sense they would say so, I'm not even sure they give a shit about social.media abuse and the likes, if it makes sense they will do it, if it doesn't they won't.

 

Kicking it down the road if they have no actual intention of doing anything is not something they would do. Since Tony Barrett became involved I don't think they have had any spectacular gaffes at all, they realise how many vocal nay sayers we have and know they can't pull the wool over anyone's eyes. 

Yeah, but, something something yacht something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Barry Wom said:

Haven't they also have to refinance? It was a loan via fsg originally to get lower interest rates, but that is now no longer the case and we have something with a slightly higher interest payment. I don't know if that changes the term. 

 

Don't think there was a refinance. It had been said that the loan would be interest free, but when the accounts were published you could see there was interest on the loans. But apparently FSG had borrowed the money themselves, and lent on to us at the same rate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Woolster said:

 

Don't think there was a refinance. It had been said that the loan would be interest free, but when the accounts were published you could see there was interest on the loans. But apparently FSG had borrowed the money themselves, and lent on to us at the same rate

I thought they had put a margin on it too, but i would expect nothing less! But the initial money (when the original business plan was put in place) was to use FSG funds (they are an investment vehicle after all!) as you say, but then perhaps because that is no longer the case, it changed the plan? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Woolster said:

 

Don't think there was a refinance. It had been said that the loan would be interest free, but when the accounts were published you could see there was interest on the loans. But apparently FSG had borrowed the money themselves, and lent on to us at the same rate

Correct. The first year was called interest free but Im not sure FSG said it was,just the Echo and other outlets putting it out there. In reality, it was something like around 1% interest in the first year which was discounted below commercial rates.

 

The second year shown in last years accounts indicated the interest rate had gone up a little in line with the commercial loan rates but was still less than commercial rates.

 

There's been no re financing of the loan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/08/2019 at 15:22, Bjornebye said:

This will have a yacht on the moorings before Bramley Moore. 

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×