Kop Faithful update on the stadium issue and Anfield Regeneration

[scous3r]

Something people tend to forget. they will stick with tradition but as already pointed out, the FFP rules will be our undoing if the wrong decision is made (or even made too late?).

 

Does FFP apply to stadium building cost?

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Ok here's my two bobs worth.

The silence from FSG on what their intentions could mean a host of things.

They could be:

 

They favour the redeveopment.

 

Given NESV/FSG's history they seem to prefer redevlopment, so to preserve the teams history. It is also the cheaper option. However It is not just the stands that needs modernising, it is the interior as well, plus the need to include more corporate boxes which pay more (won't go into details as thats been done to death here). There is also the factor that with modernising the ground it opens other avenues such as making the ground available for concerts and Cup Finals. At the moment even if we make it back into the CL we can not fill Anfield to capacity as we have to scarifice about 3 rows of seats as they are too close to the pitch for UEFA's liking. Thats yet more cash lost due to stadium not being up to scratch. Due to the fact Andfield is enclosed by houses wasn't there talk of specilist equipment having to be used for any possible build? Thats yet more expense.

 

 

They favour Groundshare

 

They may have toyed with the idea but with every passing day I think that possibility is dying in John Henry's mind IMO. There is also the fact that Everton don't have anything like the means to even go 50:50 with us in terms of build responisbility. They've sold the Peoples Club badge to the extent that no cunt outside of England has heard of them so getting finance is impossible. Pressure from the council I think is begining to piss them off as they didn't cause our present situation the previous two ownerships did, so why be pushed into making a quick decision, its obvious Moores & Parry, Hicks & Gillet did! It is also obvious that the council favours a groundshare as they'd rather have two clubs in the PL bringing in revenue then have one at the business end of the PL table and another scratching for coppers under the bed or worse. Expecting one team to put aside the growing hatred (displayed at the last derby) just to to help out a fallen giant, knowing damn well they would not extend the same coutesy must grate with FSG. I think the fact the fans love Anfield and will not share a ground old or new with Everton is not only putting off a groundshare but also dissuading them from the final option

 

A New Ground.

 

This IMO is the stickiest wicket out of the lot.

If we had won even one PL title FSG would've gone for this (then again if we had could they even have been able to afford us?) as they could've sold the naming rights for a high price easily, and quickly. Now, its a hard sell, so I think they are waiting to see how we do this season, if CL qualification looks more realistic (especially if Arsenal continue to stink the gaff out) then they may push for this. Naming rights could account for half the build leaving the remaining costs to FSG and the club (their end possibly being the equivalent of the stay-at-Anfield mordenisation costs). I don't think they are happy about what was originally agreed with the council or the provisions we had to meet in order to build a 70K stadium (plaza, rail links etc). Will they look to other areas, even possibly on the outskirts, if they are more favourable, possibly, I would if I were them. They are buisnessmen afterall.

Something people tend to forget. they will stick with tradition but as already pointed out, the FFP rules will be our undoing if the wrong decision is made (or even made too late?).

They maybe stuck with either financing another big recruitment drive next summer or use the majority of those funds for modernisation/a new stadium.

In short I expect movement after Christmas, normally the time when the table starts to take shape. Also if we are still in both cups that may convince them that Kenny is going in the right direction

 

I got to admit my original thought on this was it was going towards the ground share.

 

However I would also right that off as a total non starter now.I would go for the redevelopment as the one they want to do.

 

But circumstances as they stand and how long they are prepared to wait to make the re development happen,may well lead to them building a new stadium further away from that area.

 

I dont think the naming issue is a problem,to be honest I would be more amazed if they didnt already have it sorted.Standard Charter said straight away about throwing there hat into the naming rights.

[xerxes]

It's down to council seeing the light - that it's actually better for the city and the community to redevelop Anfield. ie., that it is in the compelling public interest..

 

Perhaps the community might feel that there is a greater benefit from the jobs created from the Anfield Plaza development (42,000sq ft) plus housing, than the few that will be created from two developed stands?

 

Perhaps the work that a brand new stadium and Anfield Plaza will bring are greater than those offered by two stands?

 

Perhaps the community and public interest is therfore greater served than by making private investors richer?

 

Perhaps the interests (as suggested by Alan) of 93 local famlies who would be made homeless are also important to the community?

 

Perhaps the community feel that a stand that will need to be bigger than the North Stand at Old Trafford will adveresly affect the surrounding area?

 

Perhaps it is not the Council who need to see the light?

[Guest ShoePiss]

Does FFP apply to stadium building cost?

 

No.

 

I got to admit my original thought on this was it was going towards the ground share.

 

However I would also right that off as a total non starter now.I would go for the redevelopment as the one they want to do.

 

But circumstances as they stand and how long they are prepared to wait to make the re development happen,may well lead to them building a new stadium further away from that area.

 

I dont think the naming issue is a problem,to be honest I would be more amazed if they didnt already have it sorted.Standard Charter said straight away about throwing there hat into the naming rights.

 

I don't think naming rights are sorted at all, there may well be a host of interested parties but making the project financially viable is another matter all together. Also disagree with FSG's motives to redevelop being to preserve the club's history, it's about maximum return on investment, simple as that.

[redasever]

Your discomforture with the flaws in your position being laid bare is understandable.

 

Whether a redeveloped stadium can be delivered that generates the same income at half the cost of a new stadium, is a question not a statement.

 

Mate. Nobody interested in an old spat between two old farts. Least of all me. We've heard it all before. Just go away.

 

.

[redasever]

Ok here's my two bobs worth.

The silence from FSG on what their intentions could mean a host of things.

They could be:

 

They favour the redeveopment.

Given NESV/FSG's history they seem to prefer redevlopment...

 

They favour Groundshare

They may have toyed with the idea but with every passing day...

 

A New Ground.

This IMO is the stickiest wicket out of the lot. If we had won even one PL title ...

 

I don’t think FSG have been silent. In fact they’ve said a lot. They wavered a bit in March (??) when I think council twigged they were going to lose their Planning Gain contributions from the club. Other than that they’ve be quietly ticking boxes and telling us so, as and when.

 

I don’t think they prefer redevelopment per se but the situation favours it. The do-nothing option seems to be completely out of the question if it was ever in. I think they’ve always considered a bigger pitch is a must and from what we hear about numbers of houses required, it seems they are considering demolition (of Main Stand and Anfield) rather than extension. No special equipment necessary. There would be a very large working area with two streets down.

 

I suspected FSG might have kept the door open on groundshare, for if all else fails. It’s as dead as a dodo now because as long as council thought it might happen, negotiations were going nowhere. Not only that but Everton haven't got the cash and they can't attract the cash, who wants to buy in to either a club with no plan or one that commits one club to pay to another club for the use of their ground - not much money to be made there for a new owner.

 

No matter where it’s located within Merseyside, the economics of a new stadium are highly suspect even with naming rights. There’s been a lot of hype but they aren’t going to touch half the cost, so moving will never be as good as staying.

 

I agree with you on the timing. If it weren’t for FSG the ‘window of opportunity’ created by Istanbul would have already slammed shut. They’ve kept the global interest pot on the boil but this won’t last indefinitely.

 

I think they’re well pissed with the previous agreements but the new ownership and the economic situation has given them the perfect opportunity to say “well, that was then, this is now”.

 

I suspect council were pushing for a decision in the ’three or four weeks’ that we’ve heard about. I imagine FSG won’t budge until they’re good and ready.

 

There is benefit in a redevelopment for all concerned. Council ‘just’ have to see it.

 

.

[xerxes]

Just go away..

You are so far behind the curve that most of us, including myself, will indeed be beyond your sight.

[xerxes]

Ok here's my two bobs worth.

The silence from FSG on what their intentions could mean a host of things.

They could be:

 

They favour the redeveopment.

 

 

They favour Groundshare

 

A New Ground.

 

 

You are right that FSG have not been transparent in their approach to this. They have failed to comment on whether they would build the consented scheme if it was commercial. We do not know whether that scheme has been re-costed- and if it has, what it would be. We do not know what alternative schemes have been considered, if at all. We do not know whether a commercial new stadium would even be backed by FSG Investors – they may prefer to keep their hands in their pockets. We have not been told what specific redevelopment is being considered, what land is required to effect that ( and what would be needed to secure that land), and whether they are satisfied that it meets current planning legislation. What are the results of the first 20k trawl of the 70k list? When is the trawl going to be completed? Is it going to be completed? Are the results going to be made public? What happens if there are 30k who want season tickets alone- and FSG go for a cheap 55k redevelopment on existing land only? That is a pretty lengthy list.

 

Regarding redevelopment, as above, we could do with an open dialogue. What is a big enough capacity? What are sufficient extra hospitality facilities? Will a developed Annie Rd End and a Main Stand that needs to house modern press, Directors and dressing room facilities be enough? It cannot compete with those at the Emirates, Ethiad and Old Trafford. Tellingly Spurs and now Chelsea seek 360 degree redevelopment that only a new stadium can offer. Are we being offered second best?

 

Groundshare in theory has economic attractions. In practise it depends upon an equilibrium of mutual circumstance that does not exist. The terms which we would want to command from Everton would be unacceptable to them. Those that refuse to discuss groundshare because they fear the outcome are wrong. Those that , like myself, see it as a dead –end should welcome those who want to explore it, the result is predictable. It is true that the longer that nothing happens, and the relative financial position of LFC and EFC deteriorates compared to the Euro elite – the longer the flicker of the light of groundshare remains.

 

On the new ground- see my opening para. My assessment of FSG is that without a substantial slug of Naming Rights cash, FSG will see better and quicker returns for their cash elsewhere. It is a mistake to see whether “make do and mend” will do. At Arsenal, Man U/City it’s job done, at Spurs its where, not if, at Chelsea they, with welcome transparency have said , having spent £700k, only a move will provide the right solution. Sadly with us out of the CL, out of Europe, pot-less for six years and with much to do to be realistic Title/CL challengers we are in the weakest position of modern times to command a bumper naming rights deal.

 

 

After twenty years many around the Club lack confidence. A bold new stadium that the City, as well as the fans, could be proud of is possible. There are some brilliant and exciting Architects out there who could do the club, the fans and the City proud – if there is a will. And an Anfield Plaza that kick-started the regeneration of the area would be a fantastic legacy.

 

A redevelopment is favourite. But, it offers nothing in terms of regeneration, and little in terms of jobs. Redevelopment using CPO’s can only work with a substantial regeneration cash commitment from the club. Will FSG be interested in making it? The “compelling public interest” argument is a non-starter without it. No regeneration, a handful of jobs – after the club has been given POS to develop on and a cash windfall from Anfield Plaza.

 

Alan appears to have established that 150 houses still need to be acquired for a 63,000 seater half redevelopment. At £100k a house as a rough (including costs and compo) that means that £15m of public money would need to be used to buy – there is no way that the council could justify fronting up that money, or the subsequent holding costs. Furthermore the revelation that 93 of the houses are owned by Arena is a bombshell. The cost of relocating 93 families and replacing that stock elsewhere would be as difficult, as it would be expensive, as it would be time consuming.

 

And another key question remains outstanding. Upwards of £50m has been provided for in the Club accounts in respect of Stanley Park. No-one has ever accounted for such an outrageous sum. FSG accepted it on acquisition and are now accountable. How that money was spent, when, by whom, on what are answers that all LFC fans will want.

[redasever]

Also disagree with FSG's motives to redevelop being to preserve the club's history, it's about maximum return on investment, simple as that.

 

Anfield draws people into the the club and the city just to take the tour in an empty stadium let alone on a matchday. Anfield is known around the world.

 

The club history, the brand loyalty, the family we all belong to, is money in the bank to the club and something any business needs to look after to max return on investment.

 

.

[Guest alantkayll]

Whilst the two sets of planning permission include an anfield plaza i think that if we are to build a new stadium the new set of plans put forward would not include this as the new stadium design will make sure the match day revenue is all under the same roof. So the council will probably knock it back and blame that instead of the fact the new stadium does not include some shite from across the park. An anfield plaza paid for by the club does not work in this current climate. It would need an outside investor.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Anfield draws people into the the club and the city just to take the tour in an empty stadium let alone on a matchday. Anfield is known around the world.

 

The club history, the brand loyalty, the family we all belong to, is money in the bank to the club and something any business needs to look after to max return on investment.

 

.

 

I know all of that, my point was that FSG will go with the option that offers the greatest return on investment. Sentiment doesn't come into it.

[xerxes]

Whilst the two sets of planning permission include an anfield plaza i think that if we are to build a new stadium the new set of plans put forward would not include this as the new stadium design will make sure the match day revenue is all under the same roof. So the council will probably knock it back and blame that instead of the fact the new stadium does not include some shite from across the park. An anfield plaza paid for by the club does not work in this current climate. It would need an outside investor.

 

I disagree that any new application on Stanley Park would not involve developing Anfield Plaza.

 

A consented Anfield Plaza has a significant value with several options. The Club could sell the site and simply bank the capital receipt. It could develop the site as a joint venture and then sell the completed site for an enhanced sum, or retain the site and share in the rental income thereafter. It could contract out the build and retain full ownership of the site banking the rents in full.

 

The latter is the most likely option as under FFP it will generate vital extra income. Given that the club is still the freeholder, the proximity of the site, and some of the retail dovetails with the Club (hotel/bar/restaurant), there should be no problem in classifying it as football related income.Man City are leading the way with this in their acquisition of the 80 acres around the Ethiad – expect facilities to be rented out and “football related” income generated, we need to play the game and keep up.

 

Therefore I also disagree that “An anfield plaza paid for by the club does not work in this current climate.” We already own the land, and as discussed above it is a question of how much money we make.Because the land is "free" to LFC, the site actually has a considerable commercial competitive advantage to LFc over the competition. How FSG want to harvest that is up to them.

 

Far from “knocking back” AP, that is the cornerstone of a regeneration initiative.

Edited October 4, 2011 by xerxes

[Guest alantkayll]

Glad you came back with that answer. Just adds to the jigsaw.

[Guest alantkayll]

You seem to be forgetting that any new stadium application by lfc is for lfc only and does not include the shite across the park. That is a major stubbling block for everton city council to pass it.

[The Acolyte]

I dont think the naming issue is a problem,to be honest I would be more amazed if they didnt already have it sorted.Standard Charter said straight away about throwing there hat into the naming rights.

 

I think this is there biggest problem if a new stadium is there preferred choice.We can not command the sums the likes of Chelsea and even Spurs would command due to either

 

A. Current involvment in Europe (they are we aren't)

B. Location (London based clubs can command far more!)

 

History will become more and more a mute point as we continue to win nothing. A double cup win and being back in the CL at the end of the season would give FSG the ability to command a fair more than if they went into talks now. Thats why I can see them holding fire till we are at least 1/2 - 3/4 of the way into the season. If we need more investment in the team they will provide it but its that or the stadium, not both. It may come down to what do we want more, a successful team in a rapidly aging stadium which is leaving us 70M in profit behind the mancs. Or a spanking new stadium respected by UEFA and FIFA and used a venue for European finals and other events with the Plaza next door creating even more profit playing host to a team doing an Arsenal?

When you look it at this way you can understand why they are taking their time. Arsenal were hailed as the blue print on how to build a stadium and still be competitive. What's happened? You can blame a host of things. The economic down turn leaving the houses they were supposed to make huge profits on sitting empty, the boards complete inertia, Wenger being tighter than a frigid nun, failing to adapte the team and tactics when things weren't working, the list goes on.

FSG must be seriously worried about the possibility of that happening to them as I doubt the fans will feel any sympathy and will want them out ASAP.

[xerxes]

You seem to be forgetting that any new stadium application by lfc is for lfc only and does not include the shite across the park. That is a major stubbling block for everton city council to pass it.

 

The Council have given a consent once, Alan. it would be difficult for them not to give a consent again, and in any case Anfield Plaza is the reason why the Council were able to make Stanley Park available.

 

Stanley Park is effectively a (dubious) land swap because the Anfield pitch is being retained as Public Open Space. A consent on Stanley Park alone would almost certainly never happen because of its current status as Public Open Space.

 

I also have another question for FSG. Why is the value of Anfield Plaza never discussed (and what is that value)?

 

There is currently an outline consent for a mixed use scheme incorporating around 42,000 sq ft of retail plus some offices and housing.

 

Because a detailed consent has never been applied for no-one knows exactly what would be put on there. Without that it is impossible to value what the completed project might be worth. If I was seriously wishing to compare and contrast the redevelopment versus new stadium options I would want to know. The cost of securing a detailed consent on an outline consent like this would be relatively modest ( a few tens of thousands). So why has a detailed consent not been applied for?

 

Guessing what rents would be is an inexact science. City centre commercial rents can be around £16 a sq ft as an example. Let’s say at Anfield they would be £10 a sq ft. That’s a rental income of £420,000 a year. What would that make the site worth? A commercial yield of 8% is good. That would make the value of the retail alone (excluding the rest) around £5.25m. That starts to give you some reference points (no more) from which to work. Interestingly the reported rent that we would pay the Council for Stanley Park is £300,000 pa. So on those figures we would be £120,000 a year up- courtesy of the Council. Clearly if we retained ownership of the businesses themselves – we would also retain the additional profits.

 

Not only does Anfield Plaza have a place in generating income and profits for the Club in an era of FFP. But also as a freehold asset, it is something that FSG could borrow against – on a site we already own. The problem is that this is non-core business for LFC, yet FSG have the option of cashing in their chips at several stages here (the site could be sold with outline consent for zero extra cost to the club). So the question is only whether the will exists to maximise Anfield Plaza to the maximum.

 

A twenty strong investment consortium is an ungainly beast prone to making cautious, conservative decisions, what the forces at work behind Henry ( who has a minority shareholding) are we do not know.

[xerxes]

I think this is there biggest problem if a new stadium is there preferred choice.We can not command the sums the likes of Chelsea and even Spurs would command due to either

 

A. Current involvment in Europe (they are we aren't)

B. Location (London based clubs can command far more!)

 

History will become more and more a mute point as we continue to win nothing. A double cup win and being back in the CL at the end of the season would give FSG the ability to command a fair more than if they went into talks now. Thats why I can see them holding fire till we are at least 1/2 - 3/4 of the way into the season. If we need more investment in the team they will provide it but its that or the stadium, not both. It may come down to what do we want more, a successful team in a rapidly aging stadium which is leaving us 70M in profit behind the mancs. Or a spanking new stadium respected by UEFA and FIFA and used a venue for European finals and other events with the Plaza next door creating even more profit playing host to a team doing an Arsenal?

When you look it at this way you can understand why they are taking their time. Arsenal were hailed as the blue print on how to build a stadium and still be competitive. What's happened? You can blame a host of things. The economic down turn leaving the houses they were supposed to make huge profits on sitting empty, the boards complete inertia, Wenger being tighter than a frigid nun, failing to adapte the team and tactics when things weren't working, the list goes on.

FSG must be seriously worried about the possibility of that happening to them as I doubt the fans will feel any sympathy and will want them out ASAP.

 

A good post.

 

Myself, and I suspect many, would have no problem in FSG saying that their strategy is to invest in the team first to secure CL status again, and then negotiate naming rights deals from a position of strength.

 

But that is no easy fix. If we get back into the CL spots and Man U/Arsenal are £60m a season ahead of us on gate income alone, that has to be made up somewhere, just to compete. Villa punted several tens of millions in the transfer market – and it wasn’t enough. City have had to commit £400m to get to where they are – will FSG be prepared to keep investing similarly?

 

The window of opportunity is that we can make fourth this season, at the expense of Arsenal ( who at some point will regroup), and invest again to stay ahead of them.

[Tyler Durden]

As of 6 month ago when I was dealing with them, alot of the housing that Arena had on Lothair and Alroy road and surrounding area was empty due to how run down the properties were, they were only then beginning to renovate some (which they were dragging their heels starting), I'm not sure how far they have got to now but they were in a bad state. It's ridiculous that after all these years they start them and then the club turns around wanting cpo's putting on them.

My main point though was that I'd be surprised if half their houses were occupied now.

[redasever]

Glad you came back with that answer. Just adds to the jigsaw.

 

 

To draw a parallel between Eastlands and Anfield Plaza is a little disingenuous.

 

Although the plausibility of the link between ‘allowable revenue’ under FFP has been mooted, it’s by no means accepted by UEFA. The latest is from July. Other than Ian Ayre and others raising a bit of a stink, it’s gone pretty quiet since as far as I know.

 

That aside, there’s a huge difference in scale. This from the committee report on Anfield Plaza:

 

“...the redevelopment of the existing Anfield site... assumes a mixed-use development comprising 16,660 m2 of commercial floorspace (hotel, offices, retail, food/drink and community facilities).”

 

Perhaps a £50m development for someone (not at this point the club), that might generate a revenue of say, £1.7m.

 

The report goes on to outline estimates of increased annual economic activity (£3.8m) and employment generation (343 permanent jobs in Merseyside). However it also notes:

 

“It must be carefully borne in mind that the precise form of development that will come forward on Anfiled Plaza is a matter for future determination and therefore a degree of caution must be applied to those figures.”

 

Compare this with the estimated £1bn (£1bn) of commercial development at Eastlands

 

As ever, the devil is in the detail.

 

 

To draw a comparison between the two as they are is plain bonkers. However if council could take the initiative on the whole or parts of the Football Quarter, notably the retail and commercial space already identified on Walton Breck Road in the New Heartlands plan for Anfield/ Breckfield, which has undergone extensive public consultation and is well down the line in terms of approval and delivery.

 

.

Edited October 5, 2011 by redasever

[Seemann]

Is there any real chance of the owners wanting another stadium design/a new stadium being put forward other than the one presented by Hicks and Gillet for Stanley Park?

 

It seems to me thay want to stay at Anfield.

[redasever]

Is there any real chance of the owners wanting another stadium design/a new stadium being put forward other than the one presented by Hicks and Gillet for Stanley Park?

 

It seems to me thay want to stay at Anfield.

 

Werner said they would NOT build the H&G scheme (Telegraph) and that a re-design would take two years.

 

.

[Guest alantkayll]

This anfield plaza may have looked good ten years ago but not now. It would be used once maybe twice a week. If i had a company i would not be looking for offices there. Lets get it right everybody is skint and this plaza would last five minutes with retail. Its a fact of life. No different to sticking a stadium in norris green then turning broadway into a plaza it just does not work. Liverpool will use a new stadium or redeveloped anfield to increase revenue not a plaza that will last five minutes and cost a fortune to maintain.

[redasever]

This anfield plaza may have looked good ten years ago but not now. It would be used once maybe twice a week. If i had a company i would not be looking for offices there. Lets get it right everybody is skint and this plaza would last five minutes with retail. Its a fact of life. No different to sticking a stadium in norris green then turning broadway into a plaza it just does not work. Liverpool will use a new stadium or redeveloped anfield to increase revenue not a plaza that will last five minutes and cost a fortune to maintain.

 

It was bit of a sop even 10 years ago. Yes, maybe a Lidl and a(nother) chippie might work there. The existing 'High Street' is what needs fixing.

 

.

[xerxes]

The link between the 80 acres site around Eastlands and Anfield Plaza is that both are capable of generating revenue – and that is it.

 

I predicted some time ago that Man City would do an umbrella sponsorship deal which would be tricky to unpick – that prediction came true.Both with sponsorship and revenue generation we need to be in the vanguard of the FFP era.

 

Estimates of the value of Anfield Plaza are very difficult to make because we have insufficient detail, which is the point (why is there so little detail?). Have FSG approached UEFA for a view on how income from Anfield Plaza would be treated. If not, why not?

 

My view is that there is every chance that it would be included, but we are in uncharted territory. But I am not so much making the point as querying why we do not have the answer.

 

A £50m valuation for the site is possible, but bullish, the yield would be between £2.5m (5%) and £4.25m (8.5%) a reasonable spread (check the EG for comparables, £1.7m is uncommercial). Whether it is several hundred thousands ,or a few million, that is valuable income and an invaluable asset against which the club may borrow in the future.

 

343 new permanent jobs would be a fantastic boost to a deprived area - half that would be very welcome.

 

The problem with the Football Quarter/Walton Breck Rd is that there is no public money to finance it. An in situ redevelopment of Anfield contributes zero to that pot. Anyone, the Council and private enterprise is free to invest in that now, but they haven’t. A larger Main Stand will make no difference to that.

 

The only mechanism by which regeneration occurs as a result of an in situ redevelopment is if the Club offer a substantial sum towards regeneration sufficient to justify CPO’s ( therefore triggering compelling public interest). Whether FSG would be prepared to front up the necessary cash is unknown, an answer on that would be nice too. Furthermore, for reasons explained in earlier posts (and others) such a course of action would be protracted with an uncertain conclusion.

 

A new stadium has the question mark of affordability hanging over it with the benefit of deliverability. A redevelopment has the question mark of practicability and deliverability hanging over it with the benefit of affordability. Take your pick!

[xerxes]

This anfield plaza may have looked good ten years ago but not now. It would be used once maybe twice a week. If i had a company i would not be looking for offices there. Lets get it right everybody is skint and this plaza would last five minutes with retail. Its a fact of life. No different to sticking a stadium in norris green then turning broadway into a plaza it just does not work. Liverpool will use a new stadium or redeveloped anfield to increase revenue not a plaza that will last five minutes and cost a fortune to maintain.

 

The problem is Alan that there is no detailed scheme at Anfield Plaza to appraise and judge. Redsaver thinks that it may generate a development value of £50m and £1.7m income. I think that is optimistic (especially for a chippy and a Lidl!) but because the land is “free” it has a huge commercial advantage in lowering the development cost of the site. It works at much more modest figures.

 

The argument that the area is crying out for regeneration including jobs and houses – but that new jobs and houses would not work at Anfield Plaza is a curious one. If it can’t work at Anfield Plaza there is no chance in the surrounds because the land would have to be bought ,increasing the development costs.

 

This type of project is exactly what my company does, hence my interest. Your scepticism on the prospects for this site is fair enough, maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong. What I would have expected is for a commercial agent to be formally, and publicly, instructed to seek tenants/buyers for the site – subject to a detailed consent. The cost to the Club would be modest. At that point it would be possible to judge who is interested, doing what, it would also shape the detailed consent application. It would also determine at what point the Club would cash in on the site.

 

Once again this begs the question of why this has not happened? Over to FSG. Unless they have no intention of building at Stanley Park and Anfield Plaza.