Kop Faithful update on the stadium issue and Anfield Regeneration

[Whelan]

It's still being discussed because the council are still trying to push their agenda of groundshare, whereas we and the club don't want it.

 

In all honesty, groundshare will never happen, but the council should be exposed for what they are and told in no uncertain terms to fuck off and stop making life difficult.

 

I hope so.

 

I can deal with being shite, I can deal with relegation but a groundshare would see me finished with football.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Is there any way you could add more detail to your "we consider this to be a more cost effective solution than building a new stadium in Stanley Park" comment?

[.G.]

A message sent by you has been automatically blocked because it breaches one or more of the policies set in the MessageLabs filtering system. The blocked message will be held for 14 days after which it will be automatically deleted.

 

 

The recipient address of the email was:

eddie.clein@liverpool.gov.uk

pat.moloney@liverpool.gov.uk

adele.dowling@liverpool.gov.uk

anna.rothery@liverpool.gov.uk

violet.bebb@liverpool.gov.uk

gerard.woodhouse@liverpool.gov.uk

richard.mclinden@liverpool.gov.uk

paul.brant@liverpool.gov.uk

john.mcintosh@liverpool.gov.uk

stephen.munby@liverpool.gov.uk

brian.dowling@liverpool.gov.uk

ian.francis@liverpool.gov.uk

tony.concepcion@liverpool.gov.uk

danny.clare@liverpool.gov.uk

irene.rainey@liverpool.gov.uk

 

The email was sent on Mon, 1 Aug 2011 02:28:18 +0100

Rule Breached: 8437 Quarantine due to Blocked Words IB

 

If you believe the message to be a legitimate business related communication and has been blocked in error, or you can reveal the password required to virus scan the attachment where appropriate, please forward this email to ict.servicecentre@liverpooldirectlimited.co.uk and state the email is for business purposes. Please note that attachments over 10MB are automatically deleted and can not be retrieved. Please resend as a smaller attachment.

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

you need to remove the swear words in that mail for it to get through

 

I got the same message and there's no swear words in the version I sent,copied from the op just now

[Kop Faithful]

Is there any way you could add more detail to your "we consider this to be a more cost effective solution than building a new stadium in Stanley Park" comment?

 

The feedback that we have received indicates that the cost of a new build stadium would be approximately £300m, while redevelopement would cost approx £130m.

[coop]

The feedback that we have received indicates that the cost of a new build stadium would be approximately £300m, while redevelopement would cost approx £130m.

 

What about if we secured a massive naming rights issue something that is unlikely to happen if we remained at Anfield.

[kalasoma]

I'm still puzzled as to:

1) why the council have been pushing for a groundshare since 2009. This only benefits on club on Merseyside and it isn't us

2) owners and supporters have been actively resistant to the groundshare proposal. Why are the council still not listening?

3) how many Evertonians sit on the council? There's an agenda here and it can't be just about alleged corruption in the council. Again, this groundshare only benefits one club.

4) why are they limiting the new stadium build to 60,000?

[TheHitman]

Does anyone know the exact issues that the club are having difficulties resolving with the council?. It would be good if these were in the public domain.

 

Also the council and the club do have a huge obligation, if not legal a moral obligation to keep those living in L4 informed.

[Kop Faithful]

What about if we secured a massive naming rights issue something that is unlikely to happen if we remained at Anfield.

 

That would certainly put a different spin on it. However we would still be committed to paying Laing O'Rourke or another contractor the £300m cost (less retention) once the project was completed and handed over. The revenue generated from naming rights would be spread out over a 10 year + period and we wouldn't get the money up front to offset the cost straight away. If we loan the money from the banks to build a new stadium could we be in a similar position as we were under H&G with crippling interest repayments? £300m + interest is a lot of money to repay even if you factor in naming rights. Would FSG & their investors consider covering half of the cost in the short-term and seek reimbursement at a later date perhaps?

[zigackly]

You can't really lump stadium debt in the same basket as purchase debt because it is structured for the long term and defrayed against future revenues, so that repayment is easily affordable and you don't start re-paying until you are earning more. Completely different scenario in my opinion. The only danger with stadium debt is that the arse drops out of football and no-one turns up.

[Kop Faithful]

Regneration of the Anfield area is of paramount importance and needs resolving asap, but if the club do move to a new stadium, from a commercial perspective would it be more beneficial for the club to move to the Docks rather than Stanley Pk where there are plans for a £10 billion Liverpool Waters and Wirral Waters scheme?

 

Would Liverpool FC be able to maximise its earning potential and attract a bigger naming rights deal at the docks or at Stanley Park?

 

Liverpool Waters News - Peel unveil plans for the North West’s tallest building at Liverpool Waters

[Kop Faithful]

You can't really lump stadium debt in the same basket as purchase debt because it is structured for the long term and defrayed against future revenues, so that repayment is easily affordable and you don't start re-paying until you are earning more. Completely different scenario in my opinion. The only danger with stadium debt is that the arse drops out of football and no-one turns up.

 

They are different scenarios of course, but what would the repayments be if we borrowed £300m with interest added on spread out over a 25 year period? It's a significant amount of money that we would repay annually, but perhaps with the extra revenue from tickets, sponsorship, corportate and naming rights factored in, it is manageable and affordable as you say.

[kalasoma]

I got the same message and there's no swear words in the version I sent,copied from the op just now

 

If people copied the whole script from the facebook group page, there is a quoted paragraph that ends: "chief arrogant bastard". That may be why the email was blocked? I don't know for sure, but I chose to remove that paragraph, just in case. My emails were sent succesfully. No bouncebacks yet.

[zigackly]

They are different scenarios of course, but what would the repayments be if we borrowed £300m with interest added on spread out over a 25 year period? It's a significant amount of money that we would repay annually, but perhaps with the extra revenue from tickets, sponsorship, corportate and naming rights factored in, it is manageable.

 

I think Arsenal have proved that it's manageable, if you structure it sensibly. You have to balance cost against the revenue increases.

 

I can't find the exact figures, but I believe the Mancs and Arsenal make more than a million more per match in gate receipts alone than we do. That's nearly £20M per year just from league games for starters. Add in the naming rights, sponsorship, concerts in the summer, etc, and you're laughing. I think we would easily repay it from that, and still have more coming in than we have now. It's not going to be a scenario where we're paying £30M a year in interest like the purchase debt was.

 

If it wasn't not only affordable but very profitable, FSG would not even consider it!

 

I think redevelopment can make even more sense, but an increased capacity is something we very much have to have to keep up with our rivals at the top of the table. We can't afford not to do something.

[WaltonRed]

We make about £1m-£1.5m per game, United get about £4m isnt it?

[kalasoma]

Do we know a consensus from the Evertonians of their opinion on the groundsharing proposal?

[zigackly]

We make about £1m-£1.5m per game, United get about £4m isnt it?

 

There we go then. Arsenal get even more than the Mancs now, I believe.

[WaltonRed]

They'd snap our hands off I reckon.

 

Thing is for me, if their board and our board decided to go for it there is fuck all we could do.

 

Someone will always take your seat, look at the boycotts trying to get the yanks out or the sit ins? It was the net campaign which stopped that not bums on seats.

[Whelan]

Arsenal get more per game than United because of costs and corporate i.e. the empty middle section 10 minutes either side of Half time.

 

They also do this without hosting any concerts, so therefore no concerts.

[zigackly]

We'd have a few corporates in there I reckon. Point being anyway, it makes much more sense to build it than not to build it, although redevelopment might be even better.

[Whelan]

We'd have a few corporates in there I reckon. Point being anyway, it makes much more sense to build it than not to build it, although redevelopment might be even better.

 

There is no reason why we cannot build one, as you say we should be okay. Another to factor in with the redevelopment is the loss of income, which would affect it, not sure where the £130m figure for redevelopment comes from either!

[coop]

There is no reason why we cannot build one, as you say we should be okay. Another to factor in with the redevelopment is the loss of income, which would affect it, not sure where the £130m figure for redevelopment comes from either!

 

Didn't redasever show how it can be done without any disruption at all to the matchday profits.

[Whelan]

Didn't redasever show how it can be done without any disruption at all to the matchday profits.

 

I think they need to be rebuilt, I disagree with him on that. The Main Stand certainly needs to be rebuilt.

[Chinandeler Bong]

OK I sent the email and had this back.

 

A message sent by you has been automatically blocked because it breaches one or more of the policies set in the MessageLabs filtering system. The blocked message will be held for 14 days after which it will be automatically deleted.

 

 

The recipient address of the email was:

eddie.clein@liverpool.gov.uk

pat.moloney@liverpool.gov.uk

adele.dowling@liverpool.gov.uk

anna.rothery@liverpool.gov.uk

violet.bebb@liverpool.gov.uk

gerard.woodhouse@liverpool.gov.uk

richard.mclinden@liverpool.gov.uk

paul.brant@liverpool.gov.uk

john.mcintosh@liverpool.gov.uk

stephen.munby@liverpool.gov.uk

brian.dowling@liverpool.gov.uk

ian.francis@liverpool.gov.uk

tony.concepcion@liverpool.gov.uk

danny.clare@liverpool.gov.uk

irene.rainey@liverpool.gov.uk

 

The email was sent on Mon, 1 Aug 2011 12:41:55 +0100

Rule Breached: 8437 Quarantine due to Blocked Words IB

[Chinandeler Bong]

Also had this back :

 

EEMA_GSHAPPS Grant.Shapps@communities.gsi.gov.uk

to

date 1 August 2011 12:42

subject Thank you for your email to the Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP

Important mainly because of the people in the conversation.

hide details 12:42 (38 minutes ago)

Thank you for your email to the Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, the Minister for Housing and Local Government at the Department for Communities and Local Government.

 

Our aim is to consider the issues you raise and to respond within 15 working days.

 

If we feel that the issues raised do not fall within the Department's responsibilities, we will try to transfer your email to the relevant government department and ask that they reply to you directly

[zigackly]

What's the betting the blocked words are "kop faithful"?