Kop Faithful update on the stadium issue and Anfield Regeneration

[Antynwa]

LFC do not want to Ground-share. About time Ian Ayre had the balls to say so.

 

I'm just saying, if it's a case of the council hounding us with this. The club could easily turn around and say 'Right then, if you won't let us move forward with our own plans, we're doing fuck all till 2015'. By then Everton could be relegated, and the council would be bending over backwards for us.

 

I was going to say that Alan. The club NEED to make their stance clear in black and white. Otherwise there is no point, Werner has all but said No to groundshare, the club need to come out sometime soon, preferably before December saying two things.

 

1. This is what we want to do

 

2. This is when we want to do it by

 

Otherwise the fans are just pissing in the wind.

[Guest ShoePiss]

I'm just saying, if it's a case of the council hounding us with this. The club could easily turn around and say 'Right then, if you won't let us move forward with our own plans, we're doing fuck all till 2015'. By then Everton could be relegated, and the council would be bending over backwards for us.

 

I was going to say that Alan. The club NEED to make their stance clear in black and white. Otherwise there is no point, Werner has all but said No to groundshare, the club need to come out sometime soon, preferably before December saying two things.

 

1. This is what we want to do

 

2. This is when we want to do it by

 

Otherwise the fans are just pissing in the wind.

 

I wonder why they haven't already? Personally I think they prefer the grey area.

[Antynwa]

I wonder why they haven't already? Personally I think they prefer the grey area.

 

But this is the thing so much shit bollocks has come out, if the club want us to fight on their behalf we need to know what we're fighting for.

[xerxes]

But this is the thing so much shit bollocks has come out, if the club want us to fight on their behalf we need to know what we're fighting for.

I agree.

[xerxes]

Absolute Bollocks. Fucking rubbish, Can you ask Uncle Joe why the council will not do CPO'S on the property needed? Can you ask him why he keeps asking LFC "what about ground share" can you ask him why he asked LFC "would you consider EFC to be your tenant"Anderson will get this tomorrow.

 

The points were a matter of fact- not opinion.

 

There is no evidence that the Club have requested CPO assitance. Should they do so, I have seen no evidence that there are legal grounds for such an Order being granted (they are applied for, not awarded by the council).

 

The Council are responsible for job creation and investment in the City. Ground share puts Goodison into the redevelopment pot too, increasing investment, jobs, and the critical mass of redevelopment. That's the Council's job - and answers your question.

 

Jobs and investment are not , however, the responsibility of LFC.

[redasever]

You would be wrong to infer that.

 

A planning application that does not meet planning standards is doomed to failure - that is no fault of the Council.

 

No-one (not least the club) has suggested that a CPO could be obtained.

 

There is virtually no benefit to the local area in the limited revelopment of Anfield. the immediate neighbours may indeed feel worse off as a result of increased massing /elevation. There is considerably greater benefit to the area by a SP/AP redevelopment.

 

The reasons why landowners may not want to sell are many. Some may simply want to stay where they are- it is their home. Some may actively want to see the improvements that a SP/AP redevelopment may bring. Some may be owner occupiers wishing to ransom the club. Some may be speculators wanting to ransom the club. The case that someone living in their home should be forced to sell to make a foreign investor richer is a poor one. The Club have been bad neighbours in many respects. The surrounding area has been allowed to deteriorate by piecemeal purchase by the club and there have been rumours of third parties attempting/succeeding in buying up property on the club's behalf without disclosing whom they were acting for.

 

There is no evidence of the Council having been guilty of anything. It is the Club, not the Council, who hold the cards. If FSG do not want to front up the capital required for a new stadium, they should say so. If there are specific impediments to a redevelopment they should say what they.

 

My guess? They don't want to put the capital up for a new stadium. A redevelopment of Anfield on land owned by the Club is relatively a lot of work for not much return. An in situ redevelopment of Anfield using acquired land is uncertain because firstly the ownerships may not be secured, and secondly if they are, the massing and elevation of the new stands may not get planning permisssion.

 

This is out-an-out bollocks.

 

You imply that an application that hasn’t been made yet doesn’t meet planning policy (standards)! Crystal ball?

 

Council is at liberty (some would say had a duty) to exercise compulsory purchase powers in the compelling public interest. If an application was in the compelling public interest....

 

The tangible benefits of a new stadium are, a. the replacement of a sports centre and b. the provision (only) of a site for a very modest amount of shops, small offices and hotel. The club doesn’t even have to build it. A redevelopment must, must, deal with the surrounding streets.

 

The club has been a bad neighbour!!!??? What - as bad as all the other homeowners in the area (including council)? What about all the other semi-derelict houses in other semi-derelict parts of the city - get real. The economics have not sustained these areas. Housing Market Renewal is false and economically unsustainable. People can’t afford the houses they occupy. Those are the hard facts of social deprivation in this city and many other city.

The housing market is too high for the population; pushed there by the single beneficiary - the banks. It’s obscene.

 

Perhaps the club would be stupid to ‘front up the costs of a new stadium’ because a new stadium doesn’t make money. That’s their business don’t you think? or would you think that “listen mate, I want you to spend a couple of hundred grand on a new house. I know you won’t get it back but hey, we think it would be nice” is any better?

 

Your last para is complete and utter sh.... the return on the ‘lot of work’ for a redevelopment is much, much better than a new stadium - the same income for half the cost, durr. If the houses are bought and cleared, then there’ll be no massing and elevation problems for them to worry about - they’ll be in the skip.

 

.

[redasever]

Good advice.

 

Having been a regular match goer and rate payer since the 70's and knowing the planning process to a professional level, best leave the serious stuff to the rest of us.

 

Thank-you for your contribution.

 

Jeez. You patronising load of... and while I'm at - don't tell us FSG haven't done this or haven't done that. You have no idea what they have or have not done.

 

.

[Tepid water]

The points were a matter of fact- not opinion.

 

There is no evidence that the Club have requested CPO assitance. Should they do so, I have seen no evidence that there are legal grounds for such an Order being granted (they are applied for, not awarded by the council).

 

The Council are responsible for job creation and investment in the City. Ground share puts Goodison into the redevelopment pot too, increasing investment, jobs, and the critical mass of redevelopment. That's the Council's job - and answers your question.

 

Jobs and investment are not , however, the responsibility of LFC.

Ahhhhhh the forum may change but the tenacious ability to pursue an argument no matter what the facts appear to be remains undiluted :eek::yes:

[Tommy Lawrence]

But this is the thing so much shit bollocks has come out, if the club want us to fight on their behalf we need to know what we're fighting for.

 

This is correct,it's difficult to get fans to man the barricades when they don't know what they're doing it for.

 

As we already found out in the not too distant past.

[redasever]

This is correct,it's difficult to get fans to man the barricades when they don't know what they're doing it for.

 

As we already found out in the not too distant past.

 

Fair-dos, I don't think the club has made its own decision yet

 

.

[xerxes]

This is out-an-out bollocks. You imply that an application that hasn’t been made yet doesn’t meet planning policy (standards)! Crystal ball?

 

You are wrong. I pointed out that no application had been made – the Council have turned down nothing. I further pointed out that any application has to meet legislated standards. It is the Clubs responsibility to ensure that those standards are met – not the Council’s

 

Council is at liberty (some would say had a duty) to exercise compulsory purchase powers in the compelling public interest. If an application was in the compelling public interest.

 

It is difficult to see how increasing the size of the main stand, probably by as little as 5,500 seats, would be regarded as being in the “compelling public interest” by an Independent Inspector. Few extra jobs would be created and objectors would claim that the increased elevation and massing negatively impacts the surroundings. Using public money to buy land against the will of some landowners for private profit by foreign investors is about as weak a case as you can muster in the circumstances.

 

The tangible benefits of a new stadium are, a. the replacement of a sports centre and b. the provision (only) of a site for a very modest amount of shops, small offices and hotel. The club doesn’t even have to build it. A redevelopment must, must, deal with the surrounding streets.

 

A new stadium represents a £350m+ injection into the economy directly with significant secondary work. It also creates more permanent stadium jobs as a new stadium offers “four side” redevelopment, an Anfield redevelopment, at best offers two sides. I understand that Anfield Plaza will offer around 42,000 sq ft of retail alone. A detailed consent consent does not exist let alone detail of who the occupiers would be, but that sort of mixed use commercial is likely to generate around 200 jobs.

 

An in situ part redevelopment of Anfield offers nothing to the surrounding streets, we agree that is vital and is one of the significant benefits of Anfield Plaza.

 

The club has been a bad neighbour!!!??? What - as bad as all the other homeowners in the area (including council)? What about all the other semi-derelict houses in other semi-derelict parts of the city - get real. The economics have not sustained these areas. Housing Market Renewal is false and economically unsustainable. People can’t afford the houses they occupy. Those are the hard facts of social deprivation in this city and many other city. The housing market is too high for the population; pushed there by the single beneficiary - the banks. It’s obscene.

 

The economic privations of Anfield ( and many inner city areas) are a given. The uncertainty regarding the Clubs intentions and the piecemeal acquisition of land by the Club and Council are part of the problem ( but but no means THE problem or the predominant one), fact.

 

Perhaps the club would be stupid to ‘front up the costs of a new stadium’ because a new stadium doesn’t make money. That’s their business don’t you think? or would you think that “listen mate, I want you to spend a couple of hundred grand on a new house. I know you won’t get it back but hey, we think it would be nice” is any better?

 

There are two separate issues here. What is in FSG’s best short term investment interest? What is in the best long term interests of LFC. The two may not be the same.

 

I am in favour of the optimum solution for the club combining finances with football, whether that is partial redevelopment or a new stadium.. I wholly agree with you that FSG are, and should be, free to take whatever commercial decision they see fit.

 

I despair of some who blame the Council for the Club not being able to build on land that the Club doesn’t own or for being unable to consent to a scheme which does not meet legislative standards ( especially when no scheme has been presented to the Council nor has any statement been made on what land might be required).

 

Your last para is complete and utter sh.... the return on the ‘lot of work’ for a redevelopment is much, much better than a new stadium - the same income for half the cost, durr. If the houses are bought and cleared, then there’ll be no massing and elevation problems for them to worry about - they’ll be in the skip.

 

In the absence of a specific, practicable scheme, we are both guessing. Using land already in the Clubs ownership and with elevations and massing which are likely to be consented the likely revised capacity at Anfield would be around 55,000. Take out what is likely to be around 4000 premium seats and you have an additional 6000 ordinary seats and a ground half redeveloped. Will 55,000 be enough? Maybe, maybe not.

 

The financial comparisons have never been laid out. Naming rights on a new stadium could have a hugely positive effect. Your assumption that the increased costs of a new stadium would be double, allowing for naming rights, is a guess, as is the assumption that matchday revenue would be the same. You are entitled to your guess, my guess is that you are wrong.

 

The clearance of existing land to make way for a new stand does not mean that the problems of elevation and massing are then removed for those new properties in “the front line” both legally n terms of rights of light, and in terms of policy as objectors may claim that what would be the tallest building around (bar flats) was unnecessarily obtrusive.

[xerxes]

Jeez. You patronising load of... and while I'm at - don't tell us FSG haven't done this or haven't done that. You have no idea what they have or have not done.

What FSG have publicly done, and not publicly done, is a matter of record.

 

What they have done but have not told anyone is anyones guess. What they have done in secret but not revelaed they are accountable for.

[Guest alantkayll]

In the past four months the club have bought ten houses. They need to buy 150 for the redeveloped anfield. They know arena own 93 and the others that are privately owned are quoted at silly money. They have plans to turn anfield into a 63000 seater stadium. But whilst the council wont cpo those houses needed the club stands still. Yes the club will pay over the odds but not at the prices quoted. Maybe the council should help us out a little?

[xerxes]

In the past four months the club have bought ten houses. They need to buy 150 for the redeveloped anfield. They know arena own 93 and the others that are privately owned are quoted at silly money. They have plans to turn anfield into a 63000 seater stadium. But whilst the council wont cpo those houses needed the club stands still. Yes the club will pay over the odds but not at the prices quoted. Maybe the council should help us out a little?

 

 

 

Where did you get those numbers from Alan? They are very specific and I have never seen any numbers detailed before authoritatively. If they are right- good work.

 

Let’s assume they are right. 63,000 would be a good size. That is also bigger than the SP capacity.

 

63k breaches the exceptional costs point for exceptional transport infrastructure costs payments to the Council, but would still be a saving on SP.

 

I still doubt that new stands (Main/AR) are sufficient to get CPO’s. However, if the club is saving around £175m on the cost of SP, it could pledge £50m on regeneration initiatives and STILL save money as a means to securing CPO’s.

 

Equally, the Club could offer £500k a house for the remaining 57 and still save money wide of the Council.

 

Redeveloping two stands is unlikely to be enough to secure CPO’s on its own. Without CPO’s individual land owners can ransom the club, for millions. The Club offering regeneration money as a sweetener may assist CPO’s but has no certainty of success. The Club and Council would need to agree on a regeneration programme which was robust enough to first secure a CPO, and second to withstand any appeals against them. That process could take another few years, and who is to say what is “enough” when the CPO’s are appealed (as they will be)?

 

It is arguable that paying £1m a house, £57m might not only be the fastest solution, with the best chance of success, but would still be significantly cheaper than SP.

 

All of these figures are hypothetical and work from an assumed base, which might be wrong. It does however illustrate how uncertain redevelopment is.

[redasever]

You are wrong. I pointed out that no application had been made – the Council have turned down nothing. I further pointed out that any application has to meet legislated standards. It is the Clubs responsibility to ensure that those standards are met – not the Council’s

 

It is difficult to see how increasing the size of the main stand, probably by as little as 5,500 seats, would be regarded as being in the “compelling public interest” by an Independent Inspector. Few extra jobs would be created and objectors would claim that the increased elevation and massing negatively impacts the surroundings. Using public money to buy land against the will of some landowners for private profit by foreign investors is about as weak a case as you can muster in the circumstances.

 

A new stadium represents a £350m+ injection into the economy directly with significant secondary work. It also creates more permanent stadium jobs as a new stadium offers “four side” redevelopment, an Anfield redevelopment, at best offers two sides. I understand that Anfield Plaza will offer around 42,000 sq ft of retail alone. A detailed consent consent does not exist let alone detail of who the occupiers would be, but that sort of mixed use commercial is likely to generate around 200 jobs.

 

An in situ part redevelopment of Anfield offers nothing to the surrounding streets, we agree that is vital and is one of the significant benefits of Anfield Plaza.

 

The economic privations of Anfield ( and many inner city areas) are a given. The uncertainty regarding the Clubs intentions and the piecemeal acquisition of land by the Club and Council are part of the problem ( but but no means THE problem or the predominant one), fact.

 

There are two separate issues here. What is in FSG’s best short term investment interest? What is in the best long term interests of LFC. The two may not be the same.

 

I am in favour of the optimum solution for the club combining finances with football, whether that is partial redevelopment or a new stadium.. I wholly agree with you that FSG are, and should be, free to take whatever commercial decision they see fit.

 

I despair of some who blame the Council for the Club not being able to build on land that the Club doesn’t own or for being unable to consent to a scheme which does not meet legislative standards ( especially when no scheme has been presented to the Council nor has any statement been made on what land might be required).

 

In the absence of a specific, practicable scheme, we are both guessing. Using land already in the Clubs ownership and with elevations and massing which are likely to be consented the likely revised capacity at Anfield would be around 55,000. Take out what is likely to be around 4000 premium seats and you have an additional 6000 ordinary seats and a ground half redeveloped. Will 55,000 be enough? Maybe, maybe not.

 

The financial comparisons have never been laid out. Naming rights on a new stadium could have a hugely positive effect. Your assumption that the increased costs of a new stadium would be double, allowing for naming rights, is a guess, as is the assumption that matchday revenue would be the same. You are entitled to your guess, my guess is that you are wrong.

 

The clearance of existing land to make way for a new stand does not mean that the problems of elevation and massing are then removed for those new properties in “the front line” both legally n terms of rights of light, and in terms of policy as objectors may claim that what would be the tallest building around (bar flats) was unnecessarily obtrusive.

 

 

 

You know what mate? Last time - after this talk, to yourself.

 

Boring bit:

 

You implied that a redevelopment would not comply with planning policy. Full stop. This needs a crystal ball.

 

Who said anything about only the Main Stand and only 5,000 seats? No-one.

 

Expenditure of any public funds (by no means certain) would be in the compelling public interest in respect of wider area regeneration.

 

60000 at Anfield would create just as many long term jobs as 60000 in a new stadium and even the planners’ report described the economic benefits and employment prospects from the Anfield Plaza as ‘uncertain’.

 

If you want to know what’s in the Anfield Plaza, read the application/consent. As a ‘planning expert’ I’m sure you can do that. While you’re at it, check out that the only commitment is to the open space where the pitch was and to provide the site - not to build it.

 

Don’t tell me what I agree to,.... a redevelopment must deal with the surrounding streets. Properties have to be acquired. The club must deal with properties it’s already got. The scheme must deal with the council properties.

 

Any do-able scheme must compensate owners and re-home those dispossessed and provide 10% extra for ‘moving allowance’. Just read the provisions within the Anfield/Breckfield Heartlands HMRI as an illustration and engage your brain before opening your mouth.

 

A new stadium can completely ignore the local streets and go it’s own sweet way in the park. What chance a shiny stadium with a patch of dug-up grass where the pitch was and railings round an empty site which no-one can make money on? Plenty.

 

Economic privations? So?

 

You’re telling us what FSG think. You do not have a clue what they think.

 

Who’s blaming council? Not me.

 

A specific and practicable scheme? Here’s one and that ain’t just nice CGIs.

 

Make up as many schemes to suit your arguments as you like. 55000? Who said?

 

The club have said (Ian Ayre) that the cost of a new stadium is double. I imagine they’ve looked at it don't you?. I don’t think they’re guessing.

 

The club has also 'laid out' that a redevelopment is more economically viable than a new stadium particularly in the medium, which is just where it matters. If we had to wait two years for a re-design, then four more to build it then 15 years to pay it off (ok half is to 7 years with naming rights), that would be 13 more years before we see any benefit. Thirteen, more, years

 

I’ll go slowly on the last one... the further away houses are, the less of a ‘problem’ rights of light are. The amount of (day)light is the issue. Height, in itself, is NOT the issue.

 

Now, you clearly don’t know how this works (despite you being an expert an' all), so do some research; but to help you - instead of the houses being 15m away, let’s say the main stand (for example) was built up to the car park wall. Let’s say Lothair Road was cleared. Let's say that left the houses in Alroy Road 30m away. How much higher do you think you could build without affecting their light? [Answer: about 15m]

 

You don’t know half as much about this subject as your condescending tone suggests.

 

I suggest you listen to what people say here (and eslewhere) - you might learn something. No-one is stupid, ok?

 

Most of all and if the welfare of the club really is your interest, I suggest you put aside the little chip that you’ve got on your shoulder about FSG and have a cool look at the situation. Bye now.

 

.

Edited October 3, 2011 by redasever

[Guest alantkayll]

Where did you get those numbers from Alan? They are very specific and I have never seen any numbers detailed before authoritatively. If they are right- good work.

 

Let’s assume they are right. 63,000 would be a good size. That is also bigger than the SP capacity.

 

63k breaches the exceptional costs point for exceptional transport infrastructure costs payments to the Council, but would still be a saving on SP.

 

I still doubt that new stands (Main/AR) are sufficient to get CPO’s. However, if the club is saving around £175m on the cost of SP, it could pledge £50m on regeneration initiatives and STILL save money as a means to securing CPO’s.

 

Equally, the Club could offer £500k a house for the remaining 57 and still save money wide of the Council.

 

Redeveloping two stands is unlikely to be enough to secure CPO’s on its own. Without CPO’s individual land owners can ransom the club, for millions. The Club offering regeneration money as a sweetener may assist CPO’s but has no certainty of success. The Club and Council would need to agree on a regeneration programme which was robust enough to first secure a CPO, and second to withstand any appeals against them. That process could take another few years, and who is to say what is “enough” when the CPO’s are appealed (as they will be)?

 

It is arguable that paying £1m a house, £57m might not only be the fastest solution, with the best chance of success, but would still be significantly cheaper than SP.

 

All of these figures are hypothetical and work from an assumed base, which might be wrong. It does however illustrate how uncertain redevelopment is.

 

 

We are a football club not developers. and don't be stupid regarding paying over the odds like £550k to £1m.

 

A new redeveloped Anfield for 63,000 costs as of 10 months ago £130m. This club is the biggest revenue earner for this city, It deserves help from the council not a council who keep telling it to ground-share.

[lifetime fan]

You know what mate? Last time - after this talk, to yourself.

 

Boring bit:

 

You implied that a redevelopment would not comply with planning policy. Full stop. This needs a crystal ball.

 

Who said anything about only the Main Stand and only 5,000 seats? No-one.

 

Expenditure of any public funds (by no means certain) would be in the compelling public interest in respect of wider area regeneration.

 

60000 at Anfield would create just as many long term jobs as 60000 in a new stadium and even the planners’ report described the economic benefits and employment prospects from the Anfield Plaza as ‘uncertain’.

 

If you want to know what’s in the Anfield Plaza, read the application/consent. As a ‘planning expert’ I’m sure you can do that. While you’re at it, check out that the only commitment is to the open space where the pitch was and to provide the site - not to build it.

 

Don’t tell me what I agree to,.... a redevelopment must deal with the surrounding streets. Properties have to be acquired. The club must deal with properties it’s already got. The scheme must deal with the council properties.

 

Any do-able scheme must compensate owners and re-home those dispossessed and provide 10% extra for ‘moving allowance’. Just read the provisions within the Anfield/Breckfield Heartlands HMRI as an illustration and engage your brain before opening your mouth.

 

A new stadium can completely ignore the local streets and go it’s own sweet way in the park. What chance a shiny stadium with a patch of dug-up grass where the pitch was and railings round an empty site which no-one can make money on? Plenty.

 

Economic privations? So?

 

You’re telling us what FSG think. You do not have a clue what they think.

 

Who’s blaming council? Not me.

 

A specific and practicable scheme? Here’s one and that ain’t just nice CGIs.

 

Make up as many schemes to suit your arguments as you like. 55000? Who said?

 

The club have said (Ian Ayre) that the cost of a new stadium is double. I imagine they’ve looked at it don't you?. I don’t think they’re guessing.

 

The club has also 'laid out' that a redevelopment is more economically viable than a new stadium particularly in the medium, which is just where it matters. If we had to wait two years for a re-design, then four more to build it then 15 years to pay it off (ok half is to 7 years with naming rights), that would be 13 more years before we see any benefit. Thirteen, more, years

 

I’ll go slowly on the last one... the further away houses are, the less of a ‘problem’ rights of light are. The amount of (day)light is the issue. Height, in itself, is NOT the issue.

 

Now, you clearly don’t know how this works (despite you being an expert an' all), so do some research; but to help you - instead of the houses being 15m away, let’s say the main stand (for example) was built up to the car park wall. Let’s say Lothair Road was cleared. Let's say that left the houses in Alroy Road 30m away. How much higher do you think you could build without affecting their light? [Answer: about 15m]

 

You don’t know half as much about this subject as your condescending tone suggests.

 

I suggest you listen to what people say here (and eslewhere) - you might learn something. No-one is stupid, ok?

 

Most of all and if the welfare of the club really is your interest, I suggest you put aside the little chip that you’ve got on your shoulder about FSG and have a cool look at the situation. Bye now.

 

.

 

 

Why do you always finish your posts with an extra full stop?

 

.

[Seemann]

A lot of really good information flying around in this thread, but can someone please tell me what CPO or CPO's stands for?

[redasever]

In the past four months the club have bought ten houses. They need to buy 150 for the redeveloped anfield. They know arena own 93 and the others that are privately owned are quoted at silly money. They have plans to turn anfield into a 63000 seater stadium. But whilst the council wont cpo those houses needed the club stands still. Yes the club will pay over the odds but not at the prices quoted. Maybe the council should help us out a little?

 

Council cannot use compulsory purchase powers unless it's in the compelling public interest. There has to be a scheme that includes the stadium but also provides that compelling public interest.

 

Anfield means a lot of money coming into the city. More visitors means more money for the city. A new stadium doesn't work financially for the club

 

Housing money is public money and Council just lost £120m of it - a scheme that gets the housing ball rolling and lets in private money to replace the lost government money ought to swing it. That isn't the club's concern but...

 

Three things. A big plan for the whole area that the club can be a part of, local authority powers and money from a private investor.

 

.

[redasever]

A lot of really good information flying around in this thread, but can someone please tell me what CPO or CPO's stands for?

 

Compulsory Purchase Order

 

. Full stop :whatever:

[Antynwa]

A lot of really good information flying around in this thread, but can someone please tell me what CPO or CPO's stands for?

 

Compulsory Purchase Order.

 

To be quite frank the club are best trying to act this out now because the premises are worth next to nothing.

 

Though that being said, as much as we all appreciate the info Alan has. The club need to come out with some concrete plans otherwise this is just all hearsay to many people.

 

63k is an improvement on capacity that has been mentioned previously, but I still believe we need something nearer 70k, otherwise it's just a pointless exercise. We had supposed 'concrete' plans from the last lot, and to be sitting here nearly a year down the line without so much as hearsay concerns me.

 

If the club have obstacles in their way put there by the council, come out and say so.

[redasever]

We are a football club not developers. and don't be stupid regarding paying over the odds like £550k to £1m.

 

A new redeveloped Anfield for 63,000 costs as of 10 months ago £130m. This club is the biggest revenue earner for this city, It deserves help from the council not a council who keep telling it to ground-share.

 

Yup. No developer is his right mind would go anywhere near that and neither will the club.

 

The club made some dumb commitments to get the use of the park (council wanted shot of it anyway). It doesn't need the park any more.

 

The club can do a lot for the city, but spending twice what it needs to on a stadium (with no extra benefit to the city) is not one of them.

 

Council can take the lead here and get something going. Do they have the imagination...?

 

 

.

[Seemann]

Compulsory Purchase Order

 

. Full stop :whatever:

 

Cheers - goes to all of you;)

[redasever]

Compulsory Purchase Order.

 

To be quite frank the club are best trying to act this out now because the premises are worth next to nothing.

 

Though that being said, as much as we all appreciate the info Alan has. The club need to come out with some concrete plans otherwise this is just all hearsay to many people.

 

63k is an improvement on capacity that has been mentioned previously, but I still believe we need something nearer 70k, otherwise it's just a pointless exercise. We had supposed 'concrete' plans from the last lot, and to be sitting here nearly a year down the line without so much as hearsay concerns me.

 

If the club have obstacles in their way put there by the council, come out and say so.

 

You're right, the time has never been better but it's all a negotiation - who wants to show their hand?.

 

But if each party said what they thought out loud, it might be the end of the discussion!

 

.

[TheHitman]

I would be happy with 63k, plus we get to stay at our glorious home at Anfield.

 

Lets hope the club can wrap this up, looks like a lot of work is going on in the background to make this happen.

 

We can get too caught up in number crunching, the bottom line is the club needs to make sure we are able to compete in the short-medium term.

 

For all the praise to Arsenals business model, they have not been able to achieve this. If you are successful on the pitch, hopefully increased financial rewards will come off it.