Anfield or New Anfield

[redasever]

Simon, I've no wish to take away from the point you're trying to make, and I like the fact you've kept a record of the discussions with KF etc. Things like ....

 

If you want to list the flaws as you see them, I'll try to answer you. If I can't I'll try to fix them.

[redasever]

Better arguments than what?

 

The suggestion that an attendance at a champions league final will transfer itself to a leage match?

 

Go back to last season and look at the figures and pick out those matches which where sell outs! We do not sell out on a number of occassions, so that suggest this 'demand' is for specific matches.

 

And lets get one thing straight, under no circumstances do you build a 70'000 seater stadium based on reaching that number 4 or 5 times per season. You build that stadium when, and only when you can fill it week in week out. Because a 70'000 seater stadium will pretty much have to be financed by 70'000 attendees, not 60'000. You do not build a 70'000 seater stadium so that day trippers can be guaranteed a ticket for the big matches, which I suspect is motivation for your point of view!

 

Manchester United sell out 70'000 9 times out of 10, that is why they have that capacity. Manchester is also a business city, with huge support, we are a cultural city with huge support. There is a huge difference between the population, demographic and economic situations which people arguing for a 70'000 stadium are either ignorant off or just choosing to ignore.

 

Well said.

[redasever]

 

For example, if you can fill a 60k stadium, it makes sense to build to 65k or thereabouts for the times you will get more than 60k.

 

 

I'm afraid it doesn't. If you have a ground significantly bigger than you generally need you can never catch up with the cost on the basis of a few games you actually fill it.

[redasever]

...I have said, we should build a 65k seat stadium as Im convinced we'll get 60k more often than not with all the pricing options and 'deals' we'll be able to offer. You build above your target capacity, in this case by less than 10%, on account of expansion....

 

Price options, deals and over-capacity put downward pressure on prices - just when you need higher prices to cover the cost.

 

45,000 seats at Anfield are already paid for - no huge upward pressure on cost there and very much in our favour and suits the club better too (it makes more money) - and it can be expanded. What's not to like?

[Trumo]

If you want to list the flaws as you see them, I'll try to answer you. If I can't I'll try to fix them.

 

It's Friday and it's late so I need some time to formulate an argument.

 

Out of interest, you mentioned earlier how relatively easy it would be to make the Main Stand more corporate friendly by adding boxes and so on, within the "existing building envelope" as you put it. Do you have any drawings or ways in which this would be possible - let's ignore the cost element for a moment and consider the practicalities and feasibility of the idea - because I'm struggling to envision it. Earlier on in this thread I mentioned how we would need to increase the pitch dimensions, add more space around the pitch and so on to enable Anfield to be considered for future showpiece events. Would your suggestion for a simple Main Stand upgrade factor this in?*

 

*I realise I'm firing a lot of questions in your direction but not really answering anything you ask!

[lifetime fan]

How much do you reckon a Millenium stadium with a single tiered 'Kop' would cost to build in todays current climate?

[redasever]

Could an expanded 60,000 be upgraded again to 70,000?

 

If the answer is no then we need to move in my opinion.

 

There's two ways to go. Decide a certain figure is it (we all assume that's 60k) or decide to go for unlimited (to all intents and purposes) expansion. In both cases you build to the maximum in any given stand, so in the first you going to have a 'complete' stadium at 60k (option A) and in the second you're going to have, say two stands developed to get to 60k and two stands available to be developed to get more (option C).

 

 

 

(There's also a messy middle ground where you start taking new roofs off in the future to make stuff bigger)

[redasever]

It's Friday and it's late so I need some time to formulate an argument.

 

Out of interest, you mentioned earlier how relatively easy it would be to make the Main Stand more corporate friendly by adding boxes and so on, within the "existing building envelope" as you put it. Do you have any drawings or ways in which this would be possible - let's ignore the cost element for a moment and consider the practicalities and feasibility of the idea - because I'm struggling to envision it. Earlier on in this thread I mentioned how we would need to increase the pitch dimensions, add more space around the pitch and so on to enable Anfield to be considered for future showpiece events. Would your suggestion for a simple Main Stand upgrade factor this in?*

 

*I realise I'm firing a lot of questions in your direction but not really answering anything you ask!

 

No specific drawings - it’s part of the option A model. As I said, it would only be a first stage but you could start under the stands with better hobnobbing space to get more out of the existing seats we’ve got; in the Main Stand certainly and possibly in the Lower Centenary (in the ‘undercroft’ under the Upper ). Premium seats and boxes (about two-thirds of the way up) in the Main Stand would be a very lucrative move but would reduce capacity slightly. Then fill in the kop corners (above the corners that are already filled in and relocating the commentary box and replacing the corner roof supports). It may sound fiddly but there’s nothing there that would stop you going further...

 

...ahis would lead you into redeveloping the AR but that’s beyond the existing building envelope.

 

The pitch expansion comes later; by raising the pitch you can make it bigger - you lose about 3 rows at the bottom of each stand, so you have to have already built extra capacity elsewhere to make up for it. That would bring you to EUFA standards but not FIFA standards but since we didn’t get the World Cup... FIFA standards are in any event, mental IMO.

[redasever]

How much do you reckon a Millenium stadium with a single tiered 'Kop' would cost to build in todays current climate?

 

Like most, I do like the Millenium Stadium. Despite all the rules and regs they've got something right there. I believe it's the closed in and compact feel that comes from the roof - even when it's open. Of course it's always great because it's always a big occasion.

 

I don't know what's in it in detail and I don't know how much it would cost. 'National' stadia are supposed to cost about £5,000 per seat, so £375m without the closeable roof??? but then the Emirates was £360m for 60k and Wembley cost £9,000 per seat.

Edited July 22, 2011 by redasever

[Trumo]

No specific drawings - it’s part of the option A model. As I said, it would only be a first stage but you could start under the stands with better hobnobbing space to get more out of the existing seats we’ve got; in the Main Stand certainly and possibly in the Lower Centenary (in the ‘undercroft’ under the Upper ). Premium seats and boxes (about two-thirds of the way up) in the Main Stand would be a very lucrative move but would reduce capacity slightly. Then fill in the kop corners (above the corners that are already filled in and relocating the commentary box and replacing the corner roof supports). It may sound fiddly but there’s nothing there that would stop you going further...

 

...ahis would lead you into redeveloping the AR but that’s beyond the existing building envelope.

 

The pitch expansion comes later; by raising the pitch you can make it bigger - you lose about 3 rows at the bottom of each stand, so you have to have already built extra capacity elsewhere to make up for it. That would bring you to EUFA standards but not FIFA standards but since we didn’t get the World Cup... FIFA standards are in any event, mental IMO.

 

Cheers for that Peter. At least it gives me scope to visualise what you meant. And I agree about the FIFA standards being "mental" because the stands seem too far away. I love that Anfield is so enclosed but if more space was required around the pitch, I wouldn't go beyond what Real Madrid have at the Bernabeu. Basically anything to stop the first few rows from being covered on a European night.

[lifetime fan]

Cheers for that Peter. At least it gives me scope to visualise what you meant. And I agree about the FIFA standards being "mental" because the stands seem too far away. I love that Anfield is so enclosed but if more space was required around the pitch, I wouldn't go beyond what Real Madrid have at the Bernabeu. Basically anything to stop the first few rows from being covered on a European night.

 

I'd expect a clever architect to be looking at ways around things like this but enhancing the 'fan experience' (I feel dirty even typing that).

 

Does the 'distance from the pitch' from the first row have to be measured horizontally?

 

Could you have the first row slightly above pitch level so you still meet the UEFA criteria but increase the feeling of the fans being close to the pitch and 'on top of' the opposition.

[redasever]

I'd expect a clever architect to be looking at ways around things like this but enhancing the 'fan experience' (I feel dirty even typing that).

 

Does the 'distance from the pitch' from the first row have to be measured horizontally?

 

Could you have the first row slightly above pitch level so you still meet the UEFA criteria but increase the feeling of the fans being close to the pitch and 'on top of' the opposition.

 

This clever architect (sorry!) has already suggested raising the pitch to give you the extra length and width you need. By raising the pitch, you can extend it because the stands are raked. You lose the first three rows permanently but you make up for it by expanding at the back. Everybody moves up three.

 

.

[lifetime fan]

This clever architect (sorry!) has already suggested raising the pitch to give you the extra length and width you need. By raising the pitch, you can extend it because the stands are raked. You lose the first three rows permanently but you make up for it by expanding at the back. Everybody moves up three.

 

.

 

There was no element of an insult in my post, just that some architects tend to have a 'mindset' on how things can/should be done. When they have done a number of similar projects it can be difficult to appraoch a 'related' project with a completely fresh outlook.

 

Well this is what my old dears husband tells me and he's been knocking around a bit.

 

I must be slow, or pissed, or both mate. But how does raising the pitch increase distance from the stands? I know other stadia have dug down but I'm confused.

[redasever]

There was no element of an insult in my post, just that some architects tend to have a 'mindset' on how things can/should be done. When they have done a number of similar projects it can be difficult to appraoch a 'related' project with a completely fresh outlook.

 

Well this is what my old dears husband tells me and he's been knocking around a bit.

 

I must be slow, or pissed, or both mate. But how does raising the pitch increase distance from the stands? I know other stadia have dug down but I'm confused.

 

No offence taken (I'll have to start using smilies!)

 

No, not down - up! Maybe think about it this way.... row 3 is higher than the pitch, so imagine the distance of row 3 on one side to row 3 on the other side of the ground. Then compare it to the width of the pitch. It's obviously bigger. So if the pitch was at the higher level it would be bigger. too.

[lifetime fan]

No offence taken (I'll have to start using smilies!)

 

No, not down - up! Maybe think about it this way.... row 3 is higher than the pitch, so imagine the distance of row 3 on one side to row 3 on the other side of the ground. Then compare it to the width of the pitch. It's obviously bigger. So if the pitch was at the higher level it would be bigger. too.

 

You can fuck that shit off straight away, just tell me I'm pissed and stupid.

 

I can see the logic of raising the pitch for a bigger playing surface but this then entails more expensive work i'd imagine to create just the same number of seats.

 

EDIT: I assume UEFA have a minimum pitch size for 'major finals'?

[Mathewbet1]

How much do you reckon a Millenium stadium with a single tiered 'Kop' would cost to build in todays current climate?

 

The millenium stadium has a great atmosphere and would be great with a single tear kop - It would be perfect fo us.

 

The total construction cost of the millenium stadium was stadium was £121 million in 1999. Think in todays money you'ld be looking at least 250 mil.

[redasever]

You can fuck that shit off straight away, just tell me I'm pissed and stupid.

 

I can see the logic of raising the pitch for a bigger playing surface but this then entails more expensive work i'd imagine to create just the same number of seats.

 

EDIT: I assume UEFA have a minimum pitch size for 'major finals'?

 

Never liked them myself.

 

Making the pitch bigger isn't about capacity. It's just about fitting EUFA standards for the CL which are a pitch size of 105 x 68m. Plus a surround for TV cameras.

[redasever]

The millenium stadium has a great atmosphere and would be great with a single tear kop - It would be perfect fo us.

 

The total construction cost of the millenium stadium was stadium was £121 million in 1999. Think in todays money you'ld be looking at least 250 mil.

 

It's not a club stadium but it does hold all kinds of other events, conferences and concerts. Still, 21 years to pay off the debt....

 

 

 

WRU restructures debt repayments for Millenium Stadium Rugby

Thursday, 22 July 2010 10:32

 

 

The Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) has restructured the repayments of the debts for the Millenium Stadium, it has been revealed.

 

The stadium, which opened in 1999, was financed by a loan of more than £60 million (US$91.6 million). And now the WRU has reduced the remaining debt from £33[.]2 (US$48.9 million) to £25 million (US$38.2 million) thanks to a new arrangement with Barclays bank, and aims to pay off the sum by 2021.

 

WRU group chief executive, Roger Lewis, said: "We work extremely hard to maximise our income and it is now right and proper for us to extend that ability into a renewed and rigorous formula to manage and control our debt.

 

"We work to a clear, rolling five-year financial strategic plan for the operation of the group and the management of our debt is a high priority within that.

 

"We could have taken the easy option and left things the same, but just like anyone who wants t reduce their home loan we have had to spend a significant amount of cash to rework the debt facility.

 

"But in the longer term it will free up our ability to manage the debt and help us fast track its repayment."

 

WRU restructures debt repayments for Millenium Stadium

 

 

 

I believe the remainder of the funding came from the Millennium Fund and debentures.

 

.

Edited July 23, 2011 by redasever

[The Bugged Out]

The WRU generates far less cash than LFC, hence it takes them longer to pay off their debts.

[Macedonian_Red]

Henry in a landmark debate

 

By Kevin Cullen

July 23, 2011

 

LIVERPOOL, England - Anfield, the storied ground that is home to Liverpool Football Club, has been compared with Fenway Park, even more so since the team was purchased by Red Sox owner John Henry.

 

Now Henry and his Fenway Sports Group are facing a question similar to when they bought the Red Sox a decade ago: build a modern stadium or upgrade the iconic old one?

 

Early sentiment here among Liverpool fans was that Henry will do at Anfield what he did at Fenway - upgrade and add on, but keep the basic confines of the original.

 

Last week, Ian Ayre, Liverpool’s chief executive, tried to downplay suggestions that the team has already decided that building a new stadium was more realistic than redeveloping Anfield. He told the BBC the team would not be rushed into making a decision.

 

Ayre’s insistence that a decision had not yet been made came after Henry noted on Twitter that there were “many obstacles’’ to adding on to Anfield.

 

Joe Anderson, leader of the Liverpool City Council, said Liverpool fans and residents simply want closure, one way or the other. Like other city officials, Anderson believes an improved Anfield, or a new stadium, will help regenerate the surrounding neighborhood.

 

Opened in 1884, Anfield originally was home field for Everton, the city’s other Premier League team. But after Everton decamped for nearby Goodison Park in 1892, Liverpool Football Club moved in and has been here ever since.

 

There’s more history, and certainly more human remains, scattered around Anfield than just about any other ground in English football. If it is still slightly unusual, and usually unsanctioned, for someone to have their ashes scattered at Fenway, it’s a regular and official occurrence at Anfield.

 

“We scatter someone’s ashes here at least once a week, sometimes more than one,’’ says Kevin O’Shea, an assistant manager at Anfield. “An awful lot of Liverpool supporters can only find eternal rest here.’’

 

But as much reverence as there might be for the dead - including the 96 Liverpool fans who died at the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 and who are remembered with a shrine at one entrance to Anfield - it is what to do with the living that is occupying the relatively new owners.

 

What’s noticeable walking around the stadium is the rather cramped confines. There’s no such thing as a bad seat among the 45,000. But neither is there much room to move around. During a match, there are no hawkers selling food, drink, or souvenirs. The aisles simply aren’t big enough.

 

More concerning to Henry, as he tries to increase revenue flow to pay for better players to get Liverpool back to the top four finishers in the Premier League, is the limited space for corporate boxes and hospitality.

 

Anfield has just 30 boxes. They’re small, with room for just 10 spectators. Compare that with Liverpool’s hated rival, and perpetual Top Four finisher, Manchester United. Old Trafford, Man U’s equally iconic ground, holds 76,000 spectators and is ringed with 200 corporate boxes. Even Chelsea, whose Stamford Bridge stadium holds just 42,000, has 100 corporate boxes. It doesn’t hurt that Chelsea’s owner, Russian businessman Roman Abramovich, is one of the richest men in the world.

 

Liverpool diehards get sensitive about talk of revenue streams.

 

“Chelsea has five-star chefs, but they don’t have five European Cups,’’ says O’Shea, who as a boy worshipped the Reds, as LFC is known, and can tell you the dates and every possible fact about those five European championships, not to mention Liverpool’s 18 league championships. Man U just won its 19th league championship, a sore subject here on Merseyside.

 

But O’Shea and other Liverpool diehards know that while you can relish history, it doesn’t put good teams on the pitch today.

 

“We turn away about 20,000 people for every game,’’ O’Shea said. That would pay for a decent midfielder or two.

 

The famous loyalty that Liverpool supporters show goes both ways. They limit season ticket-holders to 23,000, and there is a waiting list of 60,000.

 

“The club takes very seriously the notion of being able to get a ticket on game day,’’ said Stephen Done, the curator of the Liverpool Football Club museum, which is housed inside Anfield.

 

“We have season ticket-holders who live in Scandanavia and travel here for every home game,’’ he said.

 

It’s that kind of loyalty that makes replacing Anfield with a modern, bigger stadium more than a matter of mathematics.

 

Done said under a plan to build a 73,000-seat stadium in adjacent Stanley Park, “The old Anfield would disappear. The area around Anfield would be rejuvenated. It would help the locals.’’

 

But it would come at an emotional cost.

 

“A lot of people live for this team,’’ O’Shea explained. “For over 100 years, generations of the same family have been coming here. A lot of people’s ashes are spread here. Some clubs take payment to spread your ashes. We don’t do that. We’d never build on the pitch, no matter what happens regarding a new stadium. If I had to guess, 90 percent of supporters would want to stay here.’’

 

Even if Fenway Sports Group decides to build a stadium, the common local consensus is that politics and regulation would make it virtually impossible to get it done, at least any time soon.

 

Anfield’s amenities are spartan. The press box is just that: a box with a couple of dozen seats, smack dab in the middle of the main stand. The visitors’ dressing room looks impossibly small and basic. You can’t call it a locker room because there are no lockers.

 

Liverpool Football Club and its supporters are deeply aware and respectful of tradition, but they are not Pollyannaish. In 1978, the team became the first in the Premier League to splash a sponsor’s name across their jerseys.

 

Like left field at Fenway Park, Spion Kop, the famous section of Anfield named after a battle in the Boer War where more than 300 Liverpudlians were killed, used to be a green grassy hill.

 

Like Fenway, Anfield is a tourist attraction. More than 150,000 people take the stadium tour every year.

 

Beyond expanding the seating capacity, especially corporate boxes, Fenway Sports Group will be able to add advertising.

 

In the pubs that surround Anfield, fans worry that ticket prices will rise, as they did after Henry bought the Red Sox. Right now, the average ticket costs about $70.

 

“Look around,’’ said Jimmy Little, a Liverpool fan, an hour before a game against Manchester City. “No one here is rich.’’

 

But the history is, and that’s the balance that Henry will have to find. Liverpool fans hated the previous American owners, but he has has impressed the locals with his grasp of their history. Done said he was showing Henry around the museum and was surprised when Henry pointed at a photograph and knew that one of the men in it was Bill Shankly, the manager credited with bringing Liverpool back to the top after it had fallen to the bottom in the 1950s.

 

“Mr. Henry knows his stuff,’’ said Done.

 

Liverpool fans hope he knows his limits, and theirs, too.

 

Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at cullen@globe.com

 

Boston Red Sox - John Henry caught up in a landmark debate in Liverpool - The Boston Globe

[redasever]

The WRU generates far less cash than LFC, hence it takes them longer to pay off their debts.

 

 

Very true, but the amount (£60m) is smallish beer compared to our situation. We won't get any EU or Millenium Fund grants for the stadium itself (although I'm sure that debentures have been discussed).

[redasever]

Henry in a landmark debate

 

By Kevin Cullen

July 23, 2011

 

LIVERPOOL, England - Anfield, the storied ground that is ...

 

...What’s noticeable walking around the stadium is the rather cramped confines. There’s no such thing as a bad seat among the 45,000. But neither is there much room to move around...

 

...Like Fenway, Anfield is a tourist attraction. More than 150,000 people take the stadium tour every year...

 

...In the pubs that surround Anfield, fans worry that ticket prices will rise, as they did after Henry bought the Red Sox. Right now, the average ticket costs about $70.

 

“Look around,’’ said Jimmy Little, a Liverpool fan, an hour before a game against Manchester City. “No one here is rich.’’...

 

Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at cullen@globe.com

 

Boston Red Sox - John Henry caught up in a landmark debate in Liverpool - The Boston Globe

 

This is a well-briefed article (apart from the ‘green and grassy kop’ and ‘every seat has a good view’!).

 

Some indication of how much space we’re going to need. The area on the other side of WBR is due for clearance and the area behind the Main stand is 'under review':

 

[Durango]

This is a well-briefed article (apart from the ‘green and grassy kop’ and ‘every seat has a good view’!).

 

Some indication of how much space we’re going to need. The area on the other side of WBR is due for clearance and the area behind the Main stand is 'under review':

 

 

A investor who has properties in Lothair Road as on several occasions given Liverpool the option to buy his properties,the club have declined the offers.

[redasever]

A investor who has properties in Lothair Road as on several occasions given Liverpool the option to buy his properties,the club have declined the offers.

 

That was then I guess but I suppose it also depends on the price.

[Trumo]

A investor who has properties in Lothair Road as on several occasions given Liverpool the option to buy his properties,the club have declined the offers.

 

I'm just speculating here, but it could be that the investor was renting out those properties, and saw a way to try and make a quick buck on his investment and leave it for the club to deal with the tenants. I can see why the club would never be amenable to that. It took long enough to deal with the old ladies on Kemlyn Road.

 

Oh, for a 150m exclusion zone from the centre spot.