Stadium pictures up on the offish

[zigackly]

yes. you are correct there. But if our loan repayments are say 30 million a year, you don't think 10 million (round number for a new sponsor) a year isn't going to help service that debt, on top of match day revenue, tv rights etc etc?

 

of course CL money is never guaranteed but then you have that as well

 

No, we've already got £30M a year loan repayments. We're talking about another £300M debt on top of that. Something like £60M a year, unless we spread it a lot further and fall further behind. Fuck it, I'm devvo'd about this whole fucking shambles. Time for a long drink.

 

It could get us by for a few years though, by then the global credit position could have improved or we'll have very nice, rich, arab men paying for everything! ...We can all hope!

 

Our best hope is Dubai government issued bonds.

[robslappa]

You're spot on. Parry said they'd have to reapply when the new design was sorted. IIRC, the attendence and height of the build are restricted due to environmental issues (transport etc).

 

Article from Dec 18th here

 

Liverpool FC’s futuristic stadium plans are scrapped - Liverpool Daily Post.co.uk

 

I've been searching for that article, I knew I'd read that somewhere.

 

That's pretty clear, IF we go ahead with the latest plans and I'm sceptical at best, then this project is going to be delayed even further. It will need another application, more studys and the possibility that it's called in. This could take years before they start.

[CrouchieBoy]

No, we've already got £30M a year loan repayments. We're talking about another £300M debt on top of that.

 

i understand this. I would presume that once we get to the point of getting the 300m for the stadium they would lump it all together. But then again I am no financial expert and will never pretend to be either.

 

guess we will have to just see what happens and hope that it doesn't get to that point

[lfcfortheleague]

Aren't those stair ramps rather than boxes in the Kop? And it looks as if it's still single tier, but for some reason they've got a big cutaway on the left side.

 

does it matter?. you car,nt read to much into fancy graphics, how well thought out can it all be?, pr exercise, its all a smoke screen,belive it when its built....remeber anfield4ever. got pj harvey on 1st. LP...DRY. 92, cup winners. class LP all the best lads. see my ebay listings user name lfcfortheleague10

[zigackly]

Purely random. I salute you.

[CrouchieBoy]

Purely random. I salute you.

 

Enjoy your drink mate! :thumbup: whats on tap?

 

i shall be following in your footsteps shortly

[zigackly]

Enjoy your drink mate! :thumbup: whats on tap?

 

i shall be following in your footsteps shortly

 

Got eight cans of Guinness and half a bottle of Laphroaig. Should see me through :yes:

 

Your good self?

[millomred]

Great design just don`t think that we will have a great team to play in it unless the yanks fuck off.

[RoboRiise]

Do you know exactly what the overall planning permission is?

 

You clearly don't, or you wouldn't be asking the question.

 

I know that if we are going to allow more than 60,000 people to attend a match, we will need further planning permission and will incur costs associated with improving the transport infrastructure (although see below). We obviously need a 71,000 seater stadium to fulfill the owner's financial plans, or else why the hell would we be building one? Therefore we need to get revised planning permission or else we'll be trying to pay for a 71,000 seater stadium with gates of 60,000.

 

To suggest they dont have permission because of some redesign isnt totally correct.

 

What, permission to allow more than 60,000 people to attend a game? Yes it is, it's utterly, completely, wholly and entirely correct. It simply could not be more correct if it tried.

 

The capacity of the redesigned stadium is over 60,000 and we only have planning permission for a 60,000 seater stadium, i.e. one that 60,000 people can go to on match days. OK, we may, MAY be able to build a 71,000 seater stadium and leave 11,000 seats empty (although if you've ever applied for planning permission for anything, you'll realise that it's far from a certainty) but that would mean that we'd be paying the same building costs and virtually the same maintainance costs whilst receiving only 85% of the anticipated revenue coming in. This can't be a good idea - surely we'd be better off being certain we can utilise the whole stadium before we turn a spade?

 

An increased capacity of 70k was part of the orignal planning application. It may not have been granted at the time but the council are clearly aware of LFC's intentions so I dont think this will be as big an issue as you make out.

 

There's no "may not have been" - not only was it quite categorically not granted, it wasn't even requested, merely discussed. Read Parry's comments. Talk of what may or may not happen in the future, about how easy the process of securing revised planning permission will be and so on is speculation plucked from the ether.

 

On top of that, we're talking about working with a rail company and the council. Well, there's a job that's bound to be completed on time and within budget...

 

 

 

 

I think when Hicks acknowledged that the cost for the first HKS design was approaching £400 million (around the time of some sports conference or other when we had just lost to the Turks in the CL, I think), that cost was for the whole project - maximum capacity stadium in the mid 70's and accompanying infrastructue expenditure. So with this downscaling or 'value engineering' as they call it, to the stadium itself, that has brought about a reduction in the overall cost of the project.

 

Regards planning permission, as already has been mentioned, the original idea was to re-submit a further planning application when construction was underway in order to get permission for the extra numbers. I’m not aware of the legal intricacies but I would have thought that building could begin straight away on this new design if the footprint and height are the same, while the design is pretty much the same.

 

Do we actually need planning permission to actually install seats within the ground? If the infrastructure work is not carried out in time, wouldn’t the Council just say: “Yes, that looks very nice but until you do the infrastructure work to accommodate the additional numbers we’re capping your capacity to 60,000”?

 

That's an interesting point. It puzzles me a little though, because with their phased building plan they wouldn't have had to find all of those funds immediately anyway. Given the scale of the reaction when the original plans were withdrawn, I'm surprised they didn't consider pressing on with phase one whilst delaying phase two (or are the costs of building materials just going to keep on spiralling for ever now - I don't know?) I don't think there was ever a timescale suggested for phase two anyway?

 

Perhaps they did consider it and even phase one was too expensive, who knows?

 

There is a pretty obvious positive reading of this whole situation, namely that the owners have realised over the last twelve months that they'd got in over their heads. They've now reappraised the situation, developed a better understanding of the business and have a more realistic idea of the kind of money a top four club needs access to. They've revised their financial projections including building a larger, cheaper ground that will bring in more money at the gates and they now think they can move us forward in the way we all hoped.

 

 

 

 

I even kind of wish I was still capable of believing things like that.

[CrouchieBoy]

Got eight cans of Guinness and half a bottle of Laphroaig. Should see me through :yes:

 

Your good self?

 

rack of stella for me. on special so i figured it would be a crime not to pick it up

[RedPower]

 

That's an interesting point. It puzzles me a little though, because with their phased building plan they wouldn't have had to find all of those funds immediately anyway. Given the scale of the reaction when the original plans were withdrawn, I'm surprised they didn't consider pressing on with phase one whilst delaying phase two (or are the costs of building materials just going to keep on spiralling for ever now - I don't know?) I don't think there was ever a timescale suggested for phase two anyway?

 

Perhaps they did consider it and even phase one was too expensive, who knows?

 

There is a pretty obvious positive reading of this whole situation, namely that the owners have realised over the last twelve months that they'd got in over their heads. They've now reappraised the situation, developed a better understanding of the business and have a more realistic idea of the kind of money a top four club needs access to. They've revised their financial projections including building a larger, cheaper ground that will bring in more money at the gates and they now think they can move us forward in the way we all hoped.

 

 

 

 

I even kind of wish I was still capable of believing things like that.

 

From what I remember reading, I thought the original plan was to have a mid 70’s capacity when the stadium opened on day one, with initial planning permission being sought for 60,000 initially because it would get passed by the planners more easily as we already had permission for a 60,000 stadium. Thus we could get to work with the minimum of delay and apply for the extension to capacity while work was underway. So in this scenario it would be important to have an idea of the overall cost of the maximum capacity project.

 

Pressing on with phase one – actually building the ground - would have taken away a major area for reducing costs – the ‘value engineering’ bit. Plus, they held a competition between HKS and AFL for the new ‘cost effective’ stadium and that must have had some sort of effect too.

 

Having got permission to actually build a stadium, the way I see it is that it’s then more important to see what permission you have in terms of how many people are allowed through the gate when the thing is finished rather than how many physical seats are in the ground – and that will obviously be governed by the supporting infrastructure. When Parry says they are aiming for 71,000 seats (with latest design) from 'day one' and if the 'day one' he is referring to is the day the diggers move in then, yes, we will need the planning permission sorted beforehand. If however Parry is referring to 'day one' as our first competitive home match then I don't see why a later planning application cannot be submitted for the increased capacity. All in my laymans opinion, ofcourse.

[Dropkick]

Its not a parry bowl but they have somehow spoilt it the 'kop' end doesnt have that in your face effect that the original had. It looks even more airy.

 

 

[Anny Road]

Thats just a CAD drawing. A single tier Kop that size with a postcode ticket allocation system will be great.

[Anubis]

They seem to have widened the Kop, and reduced the height slightly. Coupled with what looks like an increase in the height of the Anfield Rd end, then it does look slightly less impressive than the original, but still pretty impressive though. And much better than what I'd feared.

 

Now they can fuck off. Ta.

[hamstrung]

Dodgy architects

 

Stadium collapse in Texas hits US architects behind Liverpool's new £300m arena | the Daily Mail

 

Liverpool are facing potential embarrassment after the American architectural firm who will build the club's new £300million stadium learned that a university stadium in Texas which the company is renovating has suffered a partial collapse.

 

The stadium seating at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth collapsed in a huge heap of steel and concrete on Friday, causing £7m worth of damage.

 

Engineers and planners from HKS, the Dallas firm which recently unveiled plans for Liverpool's new 71,000-seat stadium, launched an immediate investigation into the cause of the collapse. There were no injuries since the stadium was empty at the time.

 

HKS produced the original designs for Liverpool's arena which were rejected by co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett late last year when they ran £50m over budget. There was no immediate reaction from Liverpool FC to the news.

But after revising those plans, and beating off Manchester-based AFL's rival bid, the American company secured the £300m contract for the new ground in Stanley Park.

 

In addition to HKS's own investigation of the Fort Worth stadium collapse, Texas Christian University will hire independent structural and design engineers to review the collapse and examine all the findings.

[Hazel Motes]

HAHAHA! This is comedy gold. Our club that is.

[Ged B]

I was wondering what would be next, after all it's been little while since we've been publicly embarrased.

Normal service is resumed.

[Mark P]

What's with the big gap on one of the corners of the ground? It'll be like Stoke City!

[Scouse_Datcha]

It is way to early to blame them for this IMO.

 

This is prob. just someone who have cut corners and havent put enough pillars under a structure.