Anfield or New Anfield

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

As in most businesses, the owners are only as good as their advisors. The issue that makes me nervous is that the owners do not necessarily even know who to go to for advice on advisors. Those will a footprint in the US and/or good marketing, but not necessarily with the required credentials, could find themselves hired by FSG for key roles at the club that they are not equipped to deliver.

 

David Dein has definitely advised the owners, so that's a bloody good start. I'd love to see him on board. He's a football man and he 'gets' it. Who knows, we could start next season with DD as CEO and Cruyff as DoF. Future would look a lot rosier with those on board.

[stringvest]

That would be a fantastic result for us. Though, given his age, I'd be happy if DD merely took the role of 'chief counsel' to FSG. As you say, he's a football man, and he would understand the characteristics and 'specialness' of this club.

[xerxes]

David Dein has definitely advised the owners, so that's a bloody good start. I'd love to see him on board. He's a football man and he 'gets' it. Who knows, we could start next season with DD as CEO and Cruyff as DoF. Future would look a lot rosier with those on board.

In football speak, "I agree 110%".

 

Dein,Barwick and Kenyon are the Administrative men with the credentials,and are all available, Cruyff (unlikely), Van Gaal possible, would transform the upper echelons of the club.

 

None of the first three would allow the FA to piss all over us the way they have this season, Cruyff and Van Gaal both are international figures of enormous repute ( although they wouldn't work togther obviously!).

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

In football speak, "I agree 110%".

 

Dein,Barwick and Kenyon are the Administrative men with the credentials,and are all available, Cruyff (unlikely), Van Gaal possible, would transform the upper echelons of the club.

 

None of the first three would allow the FA to piss all over us the way they have this season, Cruyff and Van Gaal both are international figures of enormous repute ( although they wouldn't work togther obviously!).

 

They have 'pull' too. If Cruyff says Liverpool are looking to build a legacy, people are going to listen. We've not got the CL to entice players, but we're still a huge club and with the right people, we might get a player or two yet.

[PaulMcC]

They've been shit imo.

 

They haven't a clue about football and should've had the stadium plans sorted by now.

[coop]

We are coming to the end of the season and should now be thinking of making our moves in the transfer market ready for the summer.

 

We have no DOF, our CEO is under fire and maybe going back to his old role (which is available in the summer) and pressure mounting on the manager.

 

Are we confident someone is steering the ship.

[Captain]

No worries, the Titanic can't sink.

[PaulMcC]

We are coming to the end of the season and should now be thinking of making our moves in the transfer market ready for the summer.

 

We have no DOF, our CEO is under fire and maybe going back to his old role (which is available in the summer) and pressure mounting on the manager.

 

Are we confident someone is steering the ship.

 

No. They haven't really a clue what they're doing except trying to get good sponsorship deals.

[Geraghty]

A decision plus how to implement that with the funding sourced should have all been sorted.Its a major failing from the owners.Who the fuck have they even working on it,as they should be on it 24/7.We 100% take a back seat to the Red Sox which is fair enough but they are well out of the depth and haven't implemented the right people to do the job so it's not good enough.

 

Promoting Ayre was a mistake and their mishandling of key situations are far outweighing their good decisions.

[redasever]

Debate? I've done little else. You left yourself open and I knocked it home.

 

I've followed your 'debate' for a bit in the hope it might get above the spitting and kicking but to no avail. Sometimes there are some to whom it's not just not worth the effort of explaining anything.

 

However and to return to the point (which is to say, if the owners went to Wembley, they'd understand why we need a new stadium), I now have this to hand...

 

"...as we've gaily tripped our way into the Premier League and embraced the luxury of modern stadia we forgotten a few things.

 

It's slipped our minds that this is our church and the fans are its followers. We've shamelessly enjoyed the ride as the game has raced away from its support - ever since the Premier League began. And, there are one or two pushing it ever further. FFP must rein them in or the game will implode. We managed by the skin of our teeth (and the grace of FSG) to escape but others haven't. They won't be the last. Meantime we must compete with the richest there is. Yes, we trust on a levelling playing field but if we you want to make your stadium pay, you need to build it cost effectively and keep prices within reach of your customers.

 

That's not to say build cheaply or go back to the good old days of the 80s but look again at the 'European Elite' of stadium design and see if you can spot the frills expected here. There are none. And not everyone has the property advantages at the Emirates. Or in the extreme, the kind of nonsense we have at Wembley that means that all cup finals and games of any significance have to be booked by corporates and hangers-on from here to eternity to pay for it and each club only gets 25% of the seats for its fans.

 

Clearly then , the most cost-effective way of building a stadium and gaining the greatest financial reward has to be, to hang on to the one you've got and bought and paid for and add the appropriate number of seats as necessary. Precisely in the fashion followed at the Camp Nou, the Bernabéu and the San Siro and Westfalen and others - and, even Old Trafford."

.

[WaltonRed]

adding seats is all well and good but those clubs you mention were accomodated, even encouraged to do where as we've been blocked in the vain attempt to get us to share with the shite

[lifetime fan]

adding seats is all well and good but those clubs you mention were accomodated, even encouraged to do where as we've been blocked in the vain attempt to get us to share with the shite

 

With shit loads of available land around them.

[WaltonRed]

Granted but they still accomodated them

 

The council should of knocked streets down in anfield years ago, end of story

[xerxes]

adding seats is all well and good but those clubs you mention were accomodated, even encouraged to do where as we've been blocked in the vain attempt to get us to share with the shite

The Council has made protected public open space available (Stanley Park) on the dubious grounds of a land swap with Anfield.

 

It has consented the applications on Stanley Park and to redevelop Anfield Plaza.

 

It has blocked nothing.

 

If land/houses immediately around the existing stadium had been redeveloped it would be game over, there would be no chance of building on it.

 

The Club have never submitted a planning application for redvelopment.

 

Compulsory purchase is not used to allow private companies and individuals to make profit.No-one has ever tabled a scheme which incorporates public housing and commercial development aroud the stadium- no-one is interested.

 

The club are free to buy the land we require to extend the stadium, but have chosen not to do so.

[Russ Atmosphere]

Clearly then , the most cost-effective way of building a stadium and gaining the greatest financial reward has to be, to hang on to the one you've got and bought and paid for and add the appropriate number of seats as necessary. Precisely in the fashion followed at the Camp Nou, the Bernabéu and the San Siro and Westfalen and others - and, even Old Trafford."

 

It's not very scientific to present a fact without anything to back it up. If it was always the most cost-effective method of development you'd be able to list more clubs that do it instead of cherry-picking the ones that did.

[redasever]

It's not very scientific to present a fact without anything to back it up. If it was always the most cost-effective method of development you'd be able to list more clubs that do it instead of cherry-picking the ones that did.

 

I've simply taken the stadia of the clubs at the 'top of the list'. Seven out of the ten richest clubs have redevelopments. I mention Westfalen simply because it's a great stadium and caters most effectively for the fans, not the suits.

 

There's a huge amount of back-up to the statement that a redevelopment would always be the most cost-effective for us and anyone else like us, who does not have the benefit of supporting developments (Emirates), alternative uses (Veltins-Arena) or government aid (Allianz Arena).

 

Anyone who believes that paying £300m for a new stadium for an extra 15,000 seats is more cost effective than paying even as much as £150m for the same thing in a redevelopment needs their head examined.

.

[redasever]

...The club are free to buy the land we require to extend the stadium, but have chosen not to do so.

 

Bit of ITK there mate? How do you know FSG have chosen not to buy? How do you know Arena/Council are willing (or able) to sell? Or the independents? And at what price is that exactly?

.

[Russ Atmosphere]

I've simply taken the stadia of the clubs at the 'top of the list'. Seven out of the ten richest clubs have redevelopments. I mention Westfalen simply because it's a great stadium and caters most effectively for the fans, not the suits.

 

There's a huge amount of back-up to the statement that a redevelopment would always be the most cost-effective for us and anyone else like us, who does not have the benefit of supporting developments (Emirates), alternative uses (Veltins-Arena) or government aid (Allianz Arena).

 

Anyone who believes that paying £300m for a new stadium for an extra 15,000 seats is more cost effective than paying even as much as £150m for the same thing in a redevelopment needs their head examined.

 

Clubs move into new stadiums with just modest increases in capacity all the time. They cost it. Sometimes they bugger it up just like they do in the transfer market. That's business. I've no idea why you propose to know concretely, without any of the research, that a new stadium can't work for Liverpool. Such is the nature of the internet.

[xerxes]

Bit of ITK there mate? How do you know FSG have chosen not to buy? How do you know Arena/Council are willing (or able) to sell? Or the independents? And at what price is that exactly?

[/color]

Because they haven't.

 

If the Council, or Arena, are unable to sell, redevelopment outside the existing curtilage and above existing elevations is not a preferred option - it is a fantasy.

 

If the club want to buy land and houses, they will have to pay what it takes.If they are not prepared to do that, redevelopment is not a preferred option - it is a fantasy.

 

If the club wants to position a redeveloped Anfield as part of a broader regeneration it is free to do so - but it has not. The Council has provided land and consents, it can do no more.

 

Sadly the hopes of those who want the Club to have a stadium fit for the 21st century either by redevelopment, or new build, are as moribund as the JCB's.

 

The debate is no longer about cash - it is about will.

[redasever]

Because they haven't...

 

As insightful and incisive as ever. A dog is an animal. A cat is an animal. Therefore a dog is a cat. Thanks.

.

[Bjornebye]

wonder what rafa thinks about all this.

[redasever]

Clubs move into new stadiums with just modest increases in capacity all the time. They cost it. Sometimes they bugger it up just like they do in the transfer market. That's business. I've no idea why you propose to know concretely, without any of the research, that a new stadium can't work for Liverpool. Such is the nature of the internet.

 

Like many others, I've had the benefit of much research, discussion and personal exploration and investigation into the relative benefits of the designs and various method of finance and feasibility. I'm sorry you come to it so late. You could find it if you took the same trouble to look.

 

Bugger-up as a plan has its drawbacks, no? But perhaps you know more. Which stadia are the ones that have moved new into modest increases in capacity and what was the circumstance of their funding that so accurately mirrors our own? And what was the outcome of their feasibilities? Do tell. That's the proper internet.

.

[redasever]

wonder what rafa thinks about all this.

 

Yeah. Ask him. He knows soooo much about it. May as well ask the afore-mentioned cat (or dog)...

.

[Russ Atmosphere]

Like many others, I've had the benefit of much research, discussion and personal exploration and investigation into the relative benefits of the designs and various method of finance and feasibility. I'm sorry you come to it so late. You could find it if you took the same trouble to look.

 

What pompous guff, it's clear you know nothing.

[redasever]

What pompous guff, it's clear you know nothing.

 

What? You say that without backing it up with any scientific evidence?

 

Seriously, if you want to know, just google it. Read some articles, gather some information. Have a think for yourself. Clearly, it would make a change.

.