Anfield or New Anfield

[WaltonRed]

So why bother trying to sort the list out then?

[Guest davelfc]

So why bother trying to sort the list out then?

 

The list has been a mess for a long time, now people know where they are.

 

I'm not saying they won't give some seats to us ordinary folk, but I am pretty sure they will be looking to make as many as possible corporate for as much return as possible in the shortest time.

[Brownie]

I hope they release some more this summer.

[s(k)aturation]

65,000 I was thinking. We know there are more than 25,000 names (a lot more in all likelyhood) on the season ticket waiting list, so if it becomes 65,000, just offer all of them a ticket, bringing the season ticket holders up to circa 50,000, leaving around 15,000 to be sold on a match to match basis.

 

Or am I missing something?

 

No. Above all sounds good to me.

Especially if I can occasionally be one of the 15,000.

It's hard from Australia, but I hold out hope to make a pilgrimage again someday.

[WaltonRed]

I dint even move much and you seemed to move loads brownie on the last updates people gave

[Brownie]

I dint even move much and you seemed to move loads brownie on the last updates people gave

 

Yeah I was 327 the last time I checked.

[WaltonRed]

and i'm stuck in the 2000's

 

wonder whats gone on there

[Brownie]

and i'm stuck in the 2000's

 

wonder whats gone on there

 

Don't know mate, it's weird and I don't trust them in the slightest. You'll get one when the stadium situation is sorted out then. I'm just hoping they follow suit from last year when they released 500.

[WaltonRed]

Yeh i'm too far behind to get one in the next batch

 

I've got one for next season in the same situation I had one this year, i just want one in my own name

[Brownie]

Yeh i'm too far behind to get one in the next batch

 

I've got one for next season in the same situation I had one this year, i just want one in my own name

 

I got offered one last season but couldn't really justify it at the time, would have pushed the boat out if it was in my name though obviously! I'd take one this year though even if it's not in my name.

[WaltonRed]

I share mine with a mate and then we help the other get one a ticket elsewhere in the ground whens it not his or my go

 

Faustus on here has helped me out a few times which i'm eternally grateful for.

 

Just want that day to come when I walk out of anfield with my name on my own season ticket! I'd dance home I reckon

[ratcatcher]

Latest on redevelopment from the guardian

 

Henry and Werner have still to reach a decision on a new stadium but, in an indication they favour a redeveloped Anfield over a new build on Stanley Park, the club's managing director, Ian Ayre, has revealed that progress has been made with local residents regarding the existing stadium. The "right to light" is one of the major obstacles in the way of a redeveloped Anfield, as the necessity to build upwards would have an impact on nearby housing. That has been the focus of protracted negotiations between the club and residents in recent months, with the possibility that the "right to light" can be sold offering Liverpool hope of staying at their historic home.

 

Ayre said: "People assume that because we haven't made a major announcement, or can show any spade in the ground, that nothing has gone on and no progress has been made. There is progress. The most important thing for us, especially under this owner, has been about certainty on the stadium. We are not going to make comments that we're doing something until we've got certainty. And that certainty quite often is in other people's hands.

 

"In the case of staying at Anfield that certainty is with residents in and around that area that we would need to convince. We're having some great dialogue with them. When we have that certainty we will make the announcement and move on it. It's all right for people to say Liverpool is a big football club – 60,000 seats, why don't you just go and get on with it? But look at the economics of that, of a £300m build for 15,000 new seats. It's pretty hard to make that stack up. The work is going on and a decision will be announced when we've got certainty."

 

Ayre has not ruled out a new development on Stanley Park, for which naming rights would have to be sold. "We are fairly well down the line with a couple of major brands who have shown significant rights in naming rights for a new stadium."

 

Louis van Gaal in line for a senior managerial position at Liverpool | Football | The Guardian

[ratcatcher]

So, they are in advance talks about a naming rights deal for the new build plus also making 'great' progress with residents about extending Anfield.

 

So what happens when both the naming irghts sponsor and residents say righty ho, let's get it built? The sponsor will want new Anfield built and the residents will be wanting this money for selling 'right to light' Someone is going to be mighty pissed off when the club turns around and says, sorry, you lost afterall?

 

No wonder they cant pick a bleedin manager if they cant decide which stadium option to go for!

[BringbackBiscan]

So, they are in advance talks about a naming rights deal for the new build plus also making 'great' progress with residents about extending Anfield.

 

So what happens when both the naming irghts sponsor and residents say righty ho, let's get it built? The sponsor will want new Anfield built and the residents will be wanting this money for selling 'right to light' Someone is going to be mighty pissed off when the club turns around and says, sorry, you lost afterall?

 

No wonder they cant pick a bleedin manager if they cant decide which stadium option to go for!

 

That'll be way down the line, when FSG care no more about stringing the fans along about their 'stadium plans'.

 

Why so many fall for them doing the square root of fa is a better question. They're lucky they didn't say spade in the ground, cause as far as I see that's all that separates them and the last lot on this issue.

[Horus]

Can I just inform everyone that I'm considering whether to bang Angelina Jollie. But progress is being made.

 

Just once, why doesn't a journalist ask the question:

 

It may be 15,000 seats initially, but surely the important thing is to make the stadium open for further expansion so it could potentially be for 30,000 seats if the club grows.

 

If you spend £300m and limit the stadium to 60,000 capacity, then you are a clueless mong.

 

Step forward FSG.

[xerxes]

So, they are in advance talks about a naming rights deal for the new build plus also making 'great' progress with residents about extending Anfield................

 

No wonder they cant pick a bleedin manager if they cant decide which stadium option to go for!

 

Quite.

[Hooch]

The stadium will never happen, we'll still be where we are now in 10 years time.

[Horus]

The stadium will never happen, we'll still be where we are now in 10 years time.

 

I agree.

 

 

One of the biggest loads of shite, was FSG's insistence that they would have to grow revenues rather than invest their own money, because of FFP.

 

Stadiums and facilities are not taken into consideration for FFP. I'm not saying they should buy us the whole stadium, but they got us for fuck all, so they could front some cash up, and with some more sponsorships and naming rights etc, it wouldn't actually hit us that much.

 

But they switch between saying that we have to get it right on the pitch before we get a stadium, but they are looking at ways to scrape together £20-30m for transfer funds for a new manager.

 

They've set us a series of unattainable conditions.

[nickjt]

I could be way off the mark here, but I don't think a stadium has ever been on the cards since Moores left. Its took big an investment for yank, business gamblers, to make. It means you have to sit around years to get your cash back and recession hit uk and europe is not a good place for pumping large sums into for the next 10 years. The fact that unemployments rising and fuel costs are only going to rise makes it even more daunting to speculate to accumulate. If we did build upto 65k then I reckon for at least a 1/4 of our games some of those tickets would go for next to nothing. Ive got a ST but since the Everton semi Ive been in SE Asia, it hasn't been that easy for my dad to get rid of the ticket for some of the end of season dead rubbers.

 

Personally I think the main reason these guys are in it is to exploit markets in the east, as its getting a wealthy middle class, who already or will soon all own ipads. My thinking is that all their waiting for is to get some personal hold on the broadcasting rights and to sell it round the world through an app. Its the only reason I can see for american investors knocking round the premier league, making returns on football clubs is too difficult at the moment, they must have seen or been sold the potential on something. No way these fellas are here to build something for the good of the club for the next 50 years, theyll more than likely be gone in 5.

[Guest davelfc]

If we did build upto 65k then I reckon for at least a 1/4 of our games some of those tickets would go for next to nothing. Ive got a ST but since the Everton semi Ive been in SE Asia, it hasn't been that easy for my dad to get rid of the ticket for some of the end of season dead rubbers.

.

 

 

If your dad has a ST then he's already paid for the games, so the club won't lose a penny. Haven't they also introduced a system like a half season ticket, where members have to buy in advance? I get what you are saying but I doubt there will be many unsold tickets for those games. Even the returns system won't give you a penny back if the club fail to sell on your ticket.

 

I believe the extra seats will be mainly for corporate, these start at £100 and are usually all sold before the start of the season in packages that include all cup and league games. So again, cash banked and more than double the money from a normal ticket. It doesn't take a genius to work out 15000 at £50 or 15000 at £100+

 

Of course in order to sell these we need to be up near the top, hence a 4th place would do it for corporates.

[LFC64]

If your dad has a ST then he's already paid for the games, so the club won't lose a penny. Haven't they also introduced a system like a half season ticket, where members have to buy in advance? I get what you are saying but I doubt there will be many unsold tickets for those games. Even the returns system won't give you a penny back if the club fail to sell on your ticket.

 

I believe the extra seats will be mainly for corporate, these start at £100 and are usually all sold before the start of the season in packages that include all cup and league games. So again, cash banked and more than double the money from a normal ticket. It doesn't take a genius to work out 15000 at £50 or 15000 at £100+

 

Of course in order to sell these we need to be up near the top, hence a 4th place would do it for corporates.

 

Yes, members have buy as many as they can on-line in a 2 day window up to new year then another window in november for the 2nd half of the season.

 

They want the seats sold upfront. Some of the attendances when Hodgson's style of football became apparent saw to that.

[lfc]

As you can probably tell I don't tend to post much on forums so slate me all you want, however thought there was interesting point raised in ayres interview. He mentions rights to light being a blocker on the afield redevelopment.

 

Without wanting to bore people too much on this it means that where someone's light is impacted from a development they are entitled to compensation. That sounds all fine but recent case law has (or in last 7 years) enabled people whos light is affected (assuming their window has been there for over 20 yrs) to injunct developments (I.e prevent from happening).

 

Further to this, there is now case law which enables people who are affected to claim up to 50% (usually 30%) of developers profit (combined), in return for giving up their right to light. Clearly this can sometimes constitute huge sums.

 

This clearly is highly onerous and it's a massive issue in property development at the minute as people are injuncting developers left right and centre.

 

Put very simply, it seems as if one of the main reasons anfield isn't being redeveloped is because surrounding or nearby property owners are ransoming the club (or threatening to) should they take forward redevelopment proposals.

 

All it takes is one person to injunct and the club wouldn't be able to redevelop even if they had planning consent to do so.

 

Anyway apologies for this thoroughly boring post, you know know why I don't post very much!

[Durango]

As you can probably tell I don't tend to post much on forums so slate me all you want, however thought there was interesting point raised in ayres interview. He mentions rights to light being a blocker on the afield redevelopment.

 

Without wanting to bore people too much on this it means that where someone's light is impacted from a development they are entitled to compensation. That sounds all fine but recent case law has (or in last 7 years) enabled people whos light is affected (assuming their window has been there for over 20 yrs) to injunct developments (I.e prevent from happening).

 

Further to this, there is now case law which enables people who are affected to claim up to 50% (usually 30%) of developers profit (combined), in return for giving up their right to light. Clearly this can sometimes constitute huge sums.

 

This clearly is highly onerous and it's a massive issue in property development at the minute as people are injuncting developers left right and centre.

 

Put very simply, it seems as if one of the main reasons anfield isn't being redeveloped is because surrounding or nearby property owners are ransoming the club (or threatening to) should they take forward redevelopment proposals.

 

All it takes is one person to injunct and the club wouldn't be able to redevelop even if they had planning consent to do so.

 

Anyway apologies for this thoroughly boring post, you know know why I don't post very much!

 

The club recently gave the council, houses they owned, free of charge,rather than pick up the tab of demolishing them.

 

The council or any of it's tenants are not holding the club to ransom in an any way shape or form

[Guest San Don]

As you can probably tell I don't tend to post much on forums so slate me all you want, however thought there was interesting point raised in ayres interview. He mentions rights to light being a blocker on the afield redevelopment.

 

Without wanting to bore people too much on this it means that where someone's light is impacted from a development they are entitled to compensation. That sounds all fine but recent case law has (or in last 7 years) enabled people whos light is affected (assuming their window has been there for over 20 yrs) to injunct developments (I.e prevent from happening).

 

Further to this, there is now case law which enables people who are affected to claim up to 50% (usually 30%) of developers profit (combined), in return for giving up their right to light. Clearly this can sometimes constitute huge sums.

 

This clearly is highly onerous and it's a massive issue in property development at the minute as people are injuncting developers left right and centre.

 

Put very simply, it seems as if one of the main reasons anfield isn't being redeveloped is because surrounding or nearby property owners are ransoming the club (or threatening to) should they take forward redevelopment proposals.

 

All it takes is one person to injunct and the club wouldn't be able to redevelop even if they had planning consent to do so.

 

Anyway apologies for this thoroughly boring post, you know know why I don't post very much!

 

What you're saying is correct. The club had to re design the upper tier on the Anny Road because resident behind and alongside it, objected to the proposed height (it was to have been steeper raked to allow another 4 or 5 rows).

 

However, Ayres says they are in negotiation to 'buy' affected resident's right to light to get around this and have made substantial progress with it. Clearly, the club arent actually buying the RTL, they are just going to give the residents compensation in agreement to allowing the club to build bigger stands. Hopefully, the legal eagles employed by the club wont be the same dullards we used for the Suarez defence and will make sure the deal to buy the RTL will be in perpetuity.

 

The suggestion is the club is negotiating with all affected residents and only if they all agree to the deal will redevelopment go ahead instead of a new build.

 

If there are any residents who dont agree, I'd expect the club to announce the naming rights package and that new build will go ahead instead.

[lfc]

The club recently gave the council, houses they owned, free of charge,rather than pick up the tab of demolishing them.

 

The council or any of it's tenants are not holding the club to ransom in an any way shape or form

 

I'm talking about the houses the club or the council don't own. Ayre wouldn't have mentioned it unless its an issue.