Anfield or New Anfield

[Guest ShoePiss]

What does middle of Feb got anything to do with us building a new stadium? You said it to have a pop at FSG.

 

It has everything to do with us building a new stadium, it's February 2012 and we're no closer to building a stadium now than we were in 2002. It's significant.

 

I've had plenty of pops at the owners and plenty of times I've commended them. This is about something that will have an impact long after the current owners leave.

 

You'd rather this topic went quietly away would you? Well sorry pal but that isn't going to happen.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Also, I'll have a fucking pop at the owners any time I feel it's warranted.

[18-5]

Having a pop at an opportune time that is.

 

They haven't said anything yet and as new owners, they might want to look at the clubs financial status for a couple of years before taking such a big decision.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Having a pop at an opportune time that is.

 

They haven't said anything yet and as new owners, they might want to look at the clubs financial status for a couple of years before taking such a big decision.

 

They're no longer new owners, they've been involved for well over a year. That shit needs to stop. If it is their intention to wait a couple of years to look over the financials (this is bollocks) then they'd do well to communicate that.

 

I don't need to wait for an opportune time to have a pop, if it warrants it I will. I don't need to wait until it's 'safe' to do so.

[18-5]

They don't have to communicate anything to you. They don't owe you anything.

 

Hell, they might not even build a new stadium. What are you going to do about it?

[Guest ShoePiss]

They don't have to communicate anything to you. They don't owe you anything.

 

Hell, they might not even build a new stadium. What are you going to do about it?

 

You son are a fucking dickhead.

 

You do realise that people have paid to be on the season ticket waiting list and a lot of them will have done so on the strength of news about a new or expanded stadium don't you?

 

Oh and I'm a season ticket holder so if they do plan to move they do have to communicate to me you fucking tool.

 

The bottom line is they do owe the fanbase a line of communication on this, that's why they have had one open on it since they came in.

[lifetime fan]

They bought the club having given assurances they would either build a new stadium or expand Anfield to a bigger capacity.

 

They have done neither and what is more concerning is that they appear to have done fuck all about either option apart from stall.

[Beantown Red]

Probably been answered many times before but what is stopping the club from expanding Anfield? I remember reading that some of the houses in the area are owned by the club, council, or some other agency but why could the club not buy them? Even if they had to pay over the odds for them wouldn't it be cheaper than a new stadium cost? Why do the club not have more pull when it comes to the council/government?

[Unrighteous]

£350m for a new 60,000 stadium at 8 per cent annual interest = £28m per year.

5,000 extra season tickets @ £750 average = £3.75m

Average attemdance up by a further 5,000 per game = £3.75m.

Additional income from corporate - no idea at all but guess at additional £5m per year.

Cups and Europe extra income - maybe £2m per year.

Any new opportunities - maybe £1m per year.

I cannot see how we can even cover the interest costs let alone pay back the original loan. Selling the stadium naming rights? Would need to be over £10m per year.

 

Err... You realize that the building materials are cheaper, now, right?

[redasever]

Err... You realize that the building materials are cheaper, now, right?

 

Unfortunately that is not true.

 

Anyway... we already earn about £40m a year from Anfield. We might expect about £72m from a full 60k stadium at an average of £1200 per seat (currently £940 - so includes 'corporates'). It may very well cost about £30m a year.

 

So, an additional income of £32m may cost us £30m.

 

A redevelopment may cost only half that of a new stadium. If naming rights are going to make the difference they have to equal half the cost, or about £15m a year.

 

Reducing the specification of the stadium to the 2003 design may reduce costs but would also reduce income if it has less facilities. You get what you pay for.

 

.

[xerxes]

1. (You realize that the building materials are cheaper, now, right?) Unfortunately that is not true.

 

2.We already earn about £40m a year from Anfield. We might expect about £72m from a full 60k stadium at an average of £1200 per seat (currently £940 - so includes 'corporates'). It may very well cost about £30m a year.

 

3.So, an additional income of £32m may cost us £30m.

 

4.A redevelopment may cost only half that of a new stadium. If naming rights are going to make the difference they have to equal half the cost, or about £15m a year.

 

5.Reducing the specification of the stadium to the 2003 design may reduce costs but would also reduce income if it has less facilities. You get what you pay for.

 

On 1., it’s a difficult call. I agree with Redasever that a number of building materials, specifically all oil based products, of which there are a surprisingly high number, are significantly higher. Post the Olympics, steel demand in this country has plummeted ( and it is reducing in China) reducing cost, and labour costs are down as post Olympics contractors look for work. Interest rates are lower than they were before, but the equity stake required higher on finance – overall these things don’t tend to go down in cost, although if there is a moment – it is now. how those numbers look at the moment is anyone’s guess.

 

On2+3., I agree with those income figures. The start point is an improved income. How much it costs depends upon how you want to pay for it.If £30m a year would pay down a debt of £300m (pick any sum including interest you fancy) in ten years, why not pay it down over 20 or 25 years to free up more money for the team? Whether FSG are prepared to put ANY money in is unknown.

 

On 4, redevelopment is undoubtedly cheaper. The problem is two fold. Firstly we do not own the land on which to do so (over and beyond a modest increase).Secondly, realistically it would only involve the Main and Annie Rd stands. End stand amenities are strictly limited. The Main Stand redevelopment will also require greatly improved dressing room, directors and media facilities – none of which earn money. So whether a two stand redevelopment will be “enough” is unclear.

 

The club has never been transparent on how much land needs to be acquired, for what, and what is owned. I have seen figures of up to 110 houses requiring demolition , and as few as 8 houses being outstanding to secure redevelopment. A club that can afford to pay £100k a week to a player that is loaned out to Lille can afford to do a deal with owners – but so far has chosen not to.

 

Naming Rights continue to be an enigma don't they? Maybe a deal will surprise us all, maybe it won't.CL status will help.

 

On 5, I think it is a really good point. Whether we redevelop, or build new, I want something that the fans, and the City can be proud of, not something cobbled together at Poundland.

Edited February 14, 2012 by xerxes

[redasever]

...it’s a difficult call. ...

 

Of course, you are aware as any lender would be that the longer the payback period, the greater the total amount paid. Any commercial lender will also attach a premium to a shorter period. Heads you don’t win. Tails you lose.

 

The difference between 110 and 8 houses is no doubt down to a different approach to design. If the Main Stand is demolished and re-built rather than ‘simply’ extended, more than the houses in Lothair Road will be needed.

 

.

[RedRazor]

Based the construction costs on £6,000 per seat. Wembley was close to £9,000 per seat (including stupid arch but no land costs) while the Emirates was around £8,000 per seat (debateable as it includes lots of other redevelopment costs and was at London prices). So, with a wave of my builders magic wand, I pulled £6,000 per seat out of the hat. As you can see a technically foolproof approach used by all the vuilders I know. :)

 

vuilders is a uruguayan word for builders.

Edited February 14, 2012 by RedRazor
typo

[RedRazor]

Unfortunately that is not true.

 

Anyway... we already earn about £40m a year from Anfield. We might expect about £72m from a full 60k stadium at an average of £1200 per seat (currently £940 - so includes 'corporates'). It may very well cost about £30m a year.

 

So, an additional income of £32m may cost us £30m.

 

A redevelopment may cost only half that of a new stadium. If naming rights are going to make the difference they have to equal half the cost, or about £15m a year.

 

Reducing the specification of the stadium to the 2003 design may reduce costs but would also reduce income if it has less facilities. You get what you pay for.

 

.

Good numbers red. Are these from a recent season? £940 per seat is a handy number to know.

I know the Emirates was paid for in part with a number of bond issues that paid a variable return over base rate (approx 5% over base). There were several bonds of different terms with slightly different rates. What they put down as a "deposit" and how much is funded through the various channels I have no idea. The stadium naming was bundled in with shirt sponsorhip and earned them £100 over 15 years - £6.6m per year.

[redasever]

Good numbers red. Are these from a recent season? £940 per seat is a handy number to know.

I know the Emirates was paid for in part with a number of bond issues that paid a variable return over base rate (approx 5% over base). There were several bonds of different terms with slightly different rates. What they put down as a "deposit" and how much is funded through the various channels I have no idea. The stadium naming was bundled in with shirt sponsorhip and earned them £100 over 15 years - £6.6m per year.

 

The £940 is from Deloitte Money League 2011. It has had dropped slightly this last year.

 

Emirates naming rights were about £3.4m a year (without shirts). Front-loaded amounts but no lump sum upfront.

 

The source of their deposit (from memory about £95m?) is a bit of a mystery... no doubt someone knows.

 

.

[xerxes]

Of course, you are aware as any lender would be that the longer the payback period, the greater the total amount paid. Any commercial lender will also attach a premium to a shorter period. Heads you don’t win. Tails you lose.

Not so- on your figures.

 

If a new stadium is generating £32m income, and is costing £30m to finance, that is still a £2m win per annum. I think that your rough estimates on the income are very reasonable.

 

I agree that if you stretch the payment term you will increase your charges. BUT, you increase working capital (hopefully to invest in the team which in turn will improve attendance and inflate what people will pay per ticket) and inflation over that period will offset those increased charges- another win. But of course an expensive stadium with falling crowds could run at a loss................

 

However, since we don’t know the costs of a new stadium, how it will be financed, or what the capacity will be I certainly would not want to put my name to any profit or loss equation without numbers.

 

It should also be pointed out that having an extra 15,000 match-going Reds has a value to the club as a football club, not specifically financial, which should not be underestimated. Many of the 20 something fans in today’s crowds are the children of fans who were in 45-50,000 crowds in the 60s and 70s. We have an obligation to the future.

 

Of course it is possible that a redevelopment might also deliver that extra capacity.

[xerxes]

The difference between 110 and 8 houses is no doubt down to a different approach to design. If the Main Stand is demolished and re-built rather than ‘simply’ extended, more than the houses in Lothair Road will be needed.

 

I suspect that 110 houses represents the maximum ownerships required for the optimum Main Stand redevelopment. How many are in our ownership I do not believe has ever been revealed. You probably have a pro-map handy where it would be possible to identify the exact peripheral unit numbers. Allow for ROL, and it may even be possible to reverse engineer the scale, and have a pitch at capacity.

 

I am uncertain of the relevance of the eight houses as it is unclear what proportion of existing ownerships they represent.

[redasever]

Not so- on your figures.

 

If a new stadium is generating £32m income, and is costing £30m to finance, that is still a £2m win per annum. ...

 

Everyone has to agree that securing future income and support via the ‘kids’ is vital to the long term success of any business but increasing prices via ‘performance enhancement’ is not good news for that group.

 

And allowance for increases of revenue based on inflation is a dangerous road to follow and could just as easily be swamped by inflationary increases in expenditure on player costs.

 

You should have no qualms about evaluating numbers based on known scenarios. They are fine for the purposes of comparison, when based on like-for-like either way (the same interest rates, funding schemes, bond issues etc etc).

 

Not knowing precisely how it will be done doesn't mean you can't make the comparison.

 

***

 

Or in short and barring naming rights, whatever you can do for a new stadium works just as well for a redevelopment, if not better, for being half the ask for the same income. Less to ask of a lender, less risk to take, the same income.

 

***

 

To be clear we are comparing two stadia each with exactly the same facilities; one half the cost of the other. At this stage, there is no point in the comparison between a 50k or 55k redevelopment (say) and a 60k new stadium.

 

***

 

However, there may come a point in the future when a lower capacity might be considered to be enough to avoid the three-quarter full disaster scenario.

 

You can only do this with a redevelopment. A new stadium commits the club to the cost of the full capacity on day one - a potentially lethal risk (for the stadium)

 

And a £2m additional net on a £300m stadium is a shockingly poor return.

 

.

[redasever]

I suspect that 110 houses represents the maximum ownerships required for the optimum Main Stand redevelopment. How many are in our ownership I do not believe has ever been revealed. You probably have a pro-map handy where it would be possible to identify the exact peripheral unit numbers. Allow for ROL, and it may even be possible to reverse engineer the scale, and have a pitch at capacity.

 

I am uncertain of the relevance of the eight houses as it is unclear what proportion of existing ownerships they represent.

 

Rather more than that can be done. A coherent and pragmatic design for the expansion of the ground can be produced in sufficient detail to establish the property and ROL consequences in principle (ie., subject to detail property-by-property calculation)

 

I believe the '8 houses' are those in Lothair Road that are not owned by council or the club.

 

.

[xerxes]

What intrigues me about redevelopment is how little progress has been made on what is purported to be the preferred option.

 

Ian Ayre’s statement that it is our preferred option, but that we don’t own the land on which to do it, was not his finest hour ( and there have been a few of those recently).

 

I would like to see the Club present three redevelopment proposals. An in situ one on owned land. A scheme requiring modest, but attainable, acquisition, and a scheme which delivered us the best possible redeveloped answer, but may require substantial acquisition. Then at least the fans, and community, would have the full picture.

 

I often see talk of Compulsory Purchase Orders from fans. The Club has never suggested this as an option, or answer, in any statement or interview, and with good reason.

 

A CPO demands an overwhelming public interest. It would be very difficult to imagine that a new stand for a private company whose shareholders are foreign nationals would pass that test. If it were part of a regeneration project it would stand a better chance. But the chances of a redeveloped stand providing the catalyst for local regeneration are negligible.

 

The numbers of unacquired ownerships for redevelopment is unknown. It is likely to include a few owner occupiers of whom some will sell for a price, and a few grannies who won’t sell whatever the price, owners who have acquired houses speculatively in the hope of making money out of selling to the club, the council and housing associations.

 

We are fortunate that the Council have already offered us Stanley park and consented a scheme there and on Anfield Plaza. Even if it were possible to persuade a benign Council that they should ignore the previous points and press ahead with seeking CPO’s that would not be the end of it. Firstly any CPO on unfavourable (or unwanted ) terms may be appealed for an independent adjudication – we would not get lucky twice. However there is a problem even before that.

 

The Council own land on our behalf, Housing Associations receive public funding. Both are under a statutory duty to get best value for their land assets – that means ransoming the club for millions, not selling for hundreds of thousands. So the Council would be in a position of ransoming its own CPO! And of course in the first instance public money is used to purchase that land – in these austere times could that be justified to Liverpool City taxpayers? Then there is the question of, once acquired, what the Council should sell the site onto the Club for. Again it is under a statutory duty to acquire best value. It could hardly make a profit for the taxpayer having underpaid to the original ownerships. So even if CPO were a route – it would be no cheap option. Which leads to an interesting thought.

 

If CPO is not about acquiring property on the cheap (shafting local people)and you are going to end up paying the ransomed rate anyway – why not do it?

 

Let us assume that there are thirty houses outstanding at an average unit open market housing value of £100k- that is £3m. If each owner was paid £500,000 each that would be £15m – or three years worth of wages to Joe Cole.

 

So is it a case of can’t pay........................or don’t really want to do it and looking for an excuse?

[xerxes]

Rather more than that can be done. A coherent and pragmatic design for the expansion of the ground can be produced in sufficient detail to establish the property and ROL consequences in principle (ie., subject to detail property-by-property calculation)

 

I believe the '8 houses' are those in Lothair Road that are not owned by council or the club.

 

.

 

On the first para, it would be interesting for that to be made public.

 

On the latter, if it is just eight, I do not believe that we cannot offer sufficient money to do a deal. Even a million pounds a house would stack at £8m when an extra 7000 main stand seats at £50 a seat generates £350,000 a game, that is £8.75m a season over 25 games.

 

As per my previous post,can't pay? Or looking for an excuse not to?

[Guest alantkayll]

Rather more than that can be done. A coherent and pragmatic design for the expansion of the ground can be produced in sufficient detail to establish the property and ROL consequences in principle (ie., subject to detail property-by-property calculation)

 

I believe the '8 houses' are those in Lothair Road that are not owned by council or the club.

 

.

 

We own less than 10% of the 150 houses needed to redevelop the main stand.

[xerxes]

Everyone has to agree.......etc

 

You make the siren calls perfectly fairly – it comes to a judgement.

 

A redevelopment is lower risk- whether it provides us with the right physical and financial answer, or is even practically possible through ownership, as yet is unknown.

 

On the issue of return, this is a football club. £35m on Andy Carroll and £4m so far in wages, £18m on Aquilani and £4m on wages THAT is a “shockingly low return” (£61m!).

[Trucker Paddy]

 

You make the siren calls perfectly fairly – it comes to a judgement.

 

A redevelopment is lower risk- whether it provides us with the right physical and financial answer, or is even practically possible through ownership, as yet is unknown.

 

On the issue of return, this is a football club. £35m on Andy Carroll and £4m so far in wages, £18m on Aquilani and £4m on wages THAT is a “shockingly low return” (£61m!).

 

What the fuck has that got to do with stadium redevelopment

[xerxes]

What the fuck has that got to do with stadium redevelopment

 

It illustrates the financial madhouse of football finances.