Anfield or New Anfield

[Unrighteous]

You're a fucking prick. Sorry, I've just realised FSG are here the good of Liverpool and English football in general.

 

Get real dickhead, they're here for a profit. That might also include being good for us, but it won't be bad for them. They'll have learnt from the mistakes by C&A, it's amazing how few of our fans have done the same.

 

Hahahahaha! You're like a guy, who got dumped by his highschool sweetheart, and never recovered.

[Carra_is_legend]

Err... I just said that.

 

I'm not going to be an obnoxious snide until they've shown what they've got planned, considering that they've not made any ominous soundings yet.

 

Ok. But then I wouldn't call someone a retard for being skeptical. Thats just me though.

 

But we're not totally ignorant, are we? We can look at how they've acted and conducted themselves in other sports. Gillett had been bankrupt and Hicks' company fucked over a company. FSG have, as far as I'm aware, a fairly exemplary record of running sporting institutions.

 

Yeah but greed does funny things to business people. Record counts for nothing btw as we heard fans of Montreal Canadiens loved Gillett to bits! I've seen that first hand in life about business greed as well as with the club I support. As for being ignorant, like it or not, we fucking were ignorant for the first few months with Gillett and Hicks too. And please don't bother to teach me how Henry has Liverpool Football Club at his heart though, especially considering he knew fuck all about the club this time last year. There is a massive difference in saying the owners are cunts and being skeptical about it.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Everything on the planet is worth precisely what someone paid for it.

 

That's just nonsense. You're mixing up worth with cost. Art dealers (and car dealers for that matter) make a living off of buying something for less than its worth. In fact, people trawl car boot sales looking for things worth more than they pay for it.

 

Yeah but greed does funny things to business people. Record counts for nothing btw as we heard fans of Montreal Canadiens loved Gillett to bits! I've seen that first hand in life about business greed as well as with the club I support.

 

I don't agree that record counts for nothing. It counts for a lot. It's certainly an indicator, if not a guarantee.

 

As for being ignorant, like it or not, we fucking were ignorant for the first few months with Gillett and Hicks too.

 

We (as a club) were ignorant because we didn't check their record. As soon as it as we saw what they'd done in the past, it was clear how unfit they were.

 

And please don't bother to teach me how Henry has Liverpool Football Club at his heart though, especially considering he knew fuck all about the club this time last year. There is a massive difference in saying the owners are cunts and being skeptical about it.

 

When did I say anything about him having Liverpool in his heart? I'm saying he knows how to run a business, has a good record of running sporting businesses and has done well so far with taking over one of the worlds most visible sporting institutions, who happened to be in utter turmoil when they too over.

[Unrighteous]

Ok. But then I wouldn't call someone a retard for being skeptical. Thats just me though.

 

He said it was going to lead to Groundshare. That's not skeptical. That's ridiculous.

[Monkeywool]

Whatever happens, some people are going to moan like bitches.

 

If we move it'll be "we shouldn't have moved"

If we move to the parry bowl it'll be "Its a shit stadium"

If we move to the Dallas design it'll be "Reminds us of Cancer and aids"

If we stay at Anfield it'll be "We are being stagnated and we need a 100,000 seater stadium"

[Carra_is_legend]

He said it was going to lead to Groundshare. That's not skeptical. That's ridiculous.

 

Time will tell won't it?

 

If you think they didn't even think about a groundshare, you are being ridiculous.

 

I don't know whether this will lead to it, I'm not sure Barry knows either but I won't be stupid enough to rule that out completely.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Whatever happens, some people are going to moan like bitches.

 

If we move it'll be "we shouldn't have moved"

If we move to the parry bowl it'll be "Its a shit stadium"

If we move to the Dallas design it'll be "Reminds us of Cancer and aids"

If we stay at Anfield it'll be "We are being stagnated and we need a 100,000 seater stadium"

 

I'd be disappointed if they build either of the existing designs.

[Unrighteous]

Time will tell won't it?

 

If you think they didn't even think about a groundshare, you are being ridiculous.

 

I don't know whether this will lead to it, I'm not sure Barry knows either but I won't be stupid enough to rule that out completely.

 

I'm positive that they thought about it, due to the actual quotes when he refuted it.

 

However, it's pretty definitive when he says, "The supporters are the ones who come, and they don't want it."

 

It could be PR, sure, but saying it means that he knows that we don't want it.

[Rafiagra]

In an ideal world, we'd re-construct Anfield to offer the corporate facilities we need as a club to compete financially with the other top clubs. However, I'd be amazed if it happened. What is essential though is that if we build a stadium, its designed to maximise atmosphere for football matches and not just all about facilities.

[Monkeywool]

I'd be disappointed if they build either of the existing designs.

 

If they don't want it delayed by another 3 years, they have no choice.

[William_Ulsterman]

I'd be disappointed if they build either of the existing designs.

 

What are your thoughts on spending more money on a redesign? how much would it cost? another £40-50 million?.

 

I'm not happy about either design but i much prefer the H&G one and it would be a huge fucking 'Up Yours' to those two bastards to actually see it built.

[Guest Gucci_Ledge]

we will end up with a souless piece of shite. same as every other new ground but its ok, we'll rake it in from corporate facilities and having some shitty brand as the name for our new stadium. its all about keeping up with the jones, lets be sheep & do what they do. no fucking imagination.... don't see why we don' t drop the fc from our name while we are at it.

 

We hear this alot. how would a football stadium with 65,000 Liverpool fans inside be souless? As I said in another post somwhere it would have all the latest tech, design tweaks and no shit seats, with an extra 20 thousand Liverpol fans. 'Be the best ground in Europe and the envy of every other side.

 

Redevlopment would end up looking something like St James'. Good ground but never seen as a top stadium because it's cearly just a patch up job.

 

I moved to London a year ago and live 20 mintes walk from the Emirates. Ignore peole who say "it's shit", they're talking out their arse. Fantastic ground. and far better than Anfield. give us something like that but even better on Stanley Park, and we're set up for the next 150 years.

 

I agree with other posters saying redeveloping Anfield would be complete waste of time and money. It would be nowhere near as good as a new ground and seat less fans, less corporate hospitality, and then need doing up again in 20 years. It's a smalltime strategy and one of the reasons we have been overtaken as a competetive club by so many sides. It would also disrupt the team and fans massively for 3 years and cost a bomb with zero scope for name sponsorship as Ayre said. Daft idea and I knew all along Fenway would check it out to see if they could save money, realise it's a no go, and then go back to the idea of a stadium on SP.

[Captain]

Everything on the planet is worth precisely what someone paid for it.

 

So my signed Carra shirt is worth nothing because no-one paid anything for it?

 

That's some splendid logic there, mister.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Cant be arsed looking back to see if this posted yet so i will just do it.

 

But to me it looks like they want to build new stadium but unless they get 100 million at least for name rights,then it will be Anfield facelift.

 

Blood Red: Anfield’s future hinges on naming rights search

 

NO DECISION has been made but D-Day is on the horizon and the message from John Henry yesterday was clear. Liverpool’s owners want to keep the club at Anfield. They want to revamp its facilities and drag the historic stadium into the 21st century.

They still want to do to Anfield what they did to Fenway Park – the home of their American baseball side Boston Red Sox.

But nine months after inheriting the ground dilemma, Henry has admitted that “so many obstacles” still stand between Liverpool and achieving their objective.

As a result the Reds may be forced to turn their back on Anfield after 119 years and head for a new stadium in Stanley Park.

The news will delight many and leave others crestfallen.

Liverpool’s supporters are split down the middle on where the club’s future will be best served.

What everyone agrees on is that maintaining the status quo is not an option. To compete financially with their rivals, Liverpool must walk out into a bigger arena.

Next season Liverpool will generate around £1.7m per home game, while Manchester United pocket £3.6m.

Yesterday wasn’t an admission from Henry that the Reds are leaving Anfield but merely an honest appraisal of the situation they find themselves in.

Henry didn’t go into detail but the “obstacles” are clear.

The biggest one is the cost associated with redeveloping Anfield.

The necessary improvements are a logistical nightmare.

They could take up to four years to complete and during that time Liverpool would take a major hit in terms of revenues.

There would be stand closures and a heavily reduced capacity for games.

 

 

There are also issues to be addressed in terms of the properties Liverpool would need to buy and demolish nearby in order to rebuild stands.

The sums might not add up when it comes to trying to do what the owners want to Anfield but building a new ground in Stanley Park is also not a certainty.

Much will hinge on the current global search being carried out by Fenway Sports Group for a naming rights partner.

Manchester City’s £150million ten-year deal with Abu Dhabi’s national airline Etihad Airways showed what such an agreement can rake in but that will prove tough to emulate.

After all City’s owner Sheikh Mansour is part of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi which has a bottomless pit of cash.

Liverpool would hope to match the £100million deal Arsenal struck with Emirates airline when they moved grounds in 2006. But that was also tied in with shirt sponsorship and it was over a 15-year period.

Head of corporate affairs Gavin Laws threw Standard Chartered’s name into the hat yesterday when asked about the possibility of becoming a naming rights partner.

“There’s a whole lot of things got to happen before that becomes a sensible conversation and the club know that we’re interested in being involved in that conversation,” Laws said.

There shouldn’t be a shortage of takers to be associated with the Reds’ unique brand but the economic downturn certainly makes that search tougher than it would have been in the past.

The owners will also be wary of ensuring they select the right kind of partner to avoid a backlash from supporters. The highest bidder might not be the best one for Liverpool. The name Anfield is iconic and history must be respected.

A recent reduction in global construction costs would bring the overall cost of a new 60,000 capacity stadium below the £300million mark, but Liverpool would still need the naming rights cash to represent a significant chunk of that.

If the right fee via naming rights can’t be secured over the next three months then the Reds would have no option but to stay put and carry out piecemeal improvements of Anfield.

What’s clear is that the pressure on the club to decide what to do is growing. Central Government have got in on the act with Housing Minister Grant Shapps saying “there’s a really urgent decision to be made”.

By mid-September Henry needs to decide whether to take up the option of the 999-year lease for the Stanley Park site. The clock is ticking and Anfield will soon discover its fate.

Blood Red: Anfield’s future hinges on naming rights search - News - Liverpool FC - Liverpool Echo

 

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

If they don't want it delayed by another 3 years, they have no choice.

 

Why three years? I don't think it would take anywhere near that long. Even then, 3 years for the next 100? Not a big deal if it's 3 years. It's short-termism that got us into this mess.

 

What are your thoughts on spending more money on a redesign? how much would it cost? another £40-50 million?.

 

I'm not happy about either design but i much prefer the H&G one and it would be a huge fucking 'Up Yours' to those two bastards to actually see it built.

 

I've always thought that we should get this decision right. I think spending the money making sure the 400-500m project right is absolutely the right thing for the long term future of our club.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

LFC statement on stadium - Liverpool FC

 

Liverpool FC today made clear its frustration at the obstacles facing the potential re-development of Anfield.

 

The Club has been comprehensively exploring all options open to it in terms of new stadium development or expansion, which has included a study into the refurbishment of both its Main and Anfield Road Stands to increase capacity beyond 60,000 seats.

 

Managing Director Ian Ayre said: "In the nine months since the new ownership, an enormous amount of work has been undertaken in conjunction with leading architects, consultants, other industry experts and with Liverpool City Council to explore the building of a new stadium as well as exploring a refurbishment solution that could deliver the necessary growth in capacity, whilst maintaining the heritage and atmosphere that make Anfield uniquely Liverpool FC. However, with land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory issues creating barriers to our ambition, it looks increasingly unlikely there is any way we can move forward on a refurbishment of Anfield unless there are significant changes in those areas."

 

Commenting further on the options open to the Club, Ayre explained: "In terms of a Stanley Park stadium versus redevelopment, there is absolutely no question that a refurbishment of Anfield would come at a significantly lower cost than a new build. A new stadium of course also has its merits, being modern, more functional, and easier to construct. However, a new 60,000 capacity ground also comes at a significantly higher price, while at the same time only delivering roughly the same amount of revenue as a refurbishment of Anfield - with both options offering an uplift of approximately 16,000 seats each."

 

Added Ayre: "It's disappointing that based on where we are at the moment, we seem to be unable to press on with the more viable economic option of a refurbishment, but we remain committed to finding the best possible long-term solution. We already have a very healthy dialogue in place with several leading brands regarding naming rights for a new stadium, but like every major deal we have ever done, that just takes time to explore in full. We also have ongoing discussions with various parties around the financing of either facility. Our challenge now is to try to find a way to bring all of those elements together in a solution that is in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club and its fans.

 

"We are mindful that supporters have been promised a solution in the past and have been disappointed, and also that local residents would like to know what direction we are headed in. However, just like any other business, we can only proceed as and when we are clear on all elements and we will not be forced to make a decision that is not in the best long-term interests of our club and we will not make any promises to our fans that we cannot keep. We will continue to work diligently on this project and keep our fans informed of any progress."

 

Council leader Joe Anderson said: "We recognise that Liverpool FC need to make the right decision on the stadium options, and it is crucial that it is not only the right one for the club but also for local residents.

 

"We fully appreciate that the new owners have made real progress over the past nine months since they took over, and we will continue to support what they are trying to deliver. However, it is unfortunately the reality that the debate and discussions over a new stadium have gone on for many years, causing a great deal of frustration and uncertainty within the local community.

 

"Although we are fully supportive of the club, we can't ignore the fact that the clock is and has been ticking, and people need certainty about the development.

 

"We will do what we can to continue to help the club, and I can reassure people that we will be pressing for a decision as soon as is practically possible that will benefit Liverpool FC and deliver the much needed regeneration that the area so badly needs."

[Brownie]

Interesting stuff. The club clearly want to redevelop and this statement looks to me as though it's designed to put pressure on the people who are proving to be 'obstacles' in the desire to redevelop.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

"However, a new 60,000 capacity ground also comes at a significantly higher price, while at the same time only delivering roughly the same amount of revenue as a refurbishment of Anfield - with both options offering an uplift of approximately 16,000 seats each."

 

That's a bit mischievous, if you ask me. It would be more expensive to build a new stadium, but when you account for naming rights it isn't so clear cut. And I don't accept that you get the same revenue from it. You get the same revenue from the seats, but everything else is raised significantly.

 

We need to go to Herzog & de Meuron and ask them to design us something unique, functional and can be scaled upwards.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

Looks to me like it's putting the ball back into the council's court, as well as preparing people for the fact we're probably going to wind up moving.

[The Dude Abides]

Just my gut feeling. But I think the decision to build a new stadium would have been made already if we had the money to do it. I just don't think FSG are prepared to make that kind of an investment.

[Unrighteous]

Just my gut feeling. But I think the decision to build a new stadium would have been made already if we had the money to do it. I just don't think FSG are prepared to make that kind of an investment.

 

I reckon that it's like Arsenal's new ground... We NEED the naming rights to be sold. We can't do it without that.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Looks to me like it's putting the ball back into the council's court, as well as preparing people for the fact we're probably going to wind up moving.

 

That is what I see to,they know what it would mean to a lot of fans i f we leave Anfield,and this seems to me to be there way of explaining the inevitable.

[Guest Gucci_Ledge]

That's a bit mischievous, if you ask me. It would be more expensive to build a new stadium, but when you account for naming rights it isn't so clear cut. And I don't accept that you get the same revenue from it. You get the same revenue from the seats, but everything else is raised significantly.

 

Yup. That bit about same revenue is horseshit.

 

He also admits it would just be 2 stands getting an upgrade. So things like cramped seating and poor views in the kop and Cent will remain. Basically the route the want to take is to make the project cheaper in the short term, then let the next set of owners worry about finally building the new ground we so sorely need in 20 years time.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Just my gut feeling. But I think the decision to build a new stadium would have been made already if we had the money to do it. I just don't think FSG are prepared to make that kind of an investment.

 

I don't see the logic behind this. They were always going to do one or the other. Refurbishment would have cost a lot, building a ground will be financed by naming rights, sponsorships and loans secured against the raise in revenue that it'll create.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Yup. That bit about same revenue is horseshit.

 

He also admits it would just be 2 stands getting an upgrade. So things like cramped seating and poor views in the kop and Cent will remain. Basically the route the want to take is to make the project cheaper in the short term, then let the next set of owners worry about finally building the new ground we so sorely need in 20 years time.

 

It's not necessarily any cheaper. In fact, I'd bet my bollocks to a barn dance that a refurbishment will be more expensive.