When are we likely to get definitive stadium news?

[Antynwa]

Remember when we saw the first pictures of the 'Parrybowl'?

How long ago was that? 10 years? 12?

I remember the article and Parry said that expanding Anfield wasn't an option but here we are, a minimum of 10 years years later doing exactly that.

 

The first time we heard about the Parry Bowl, Sterling was barely out his nappies.

[Whelan]

It is a fact that increasing the prices for something that you have already built reqires no capital invested, a new stadium/redevelopment does.

 

Well that isn't what you said, nor what you implied - but we will leave it there as you clearly won't admit you were wrong. Which you are.

 

Remember when we saw the first pictures of the 'Parrybowl'?

How long ago was that? 10 years? 12?

I remember the article and Parry said that expanding Anfield wasn't an option but here we are, a minimum of 10 years years later doing exactly that.

 

The Parry bowl was estimated to cost £90m - so in that context, with house prices rising he was probably right. Whereas now the costs are £150m or £450m - for an extra 15,000 fans.

[xerxes]

Well that isn't what you said, nor what you implied - but we will leave it there as you clearly won't admit you were wrong. Which you are.

 

I enjoyed that, so you think that I am right, but what you thought I said was wrong!

 

If you stuck to what is, or is not, going on, you would be on firm ground.

 

As it stands, we have an ageing ground of insufficient capacity and revenue generating ability. There are no plans to move to a new stadium. There is no commitment to a specific redevelopment plan, or a timetable- because we don't own the land on which to build it.

 

Meanwhile FFP allows for new stadium/stand development revenue to be counted, but not the costs, which would enable us to catch up on our rivals.

 

That, after 20 years, is a pretty sorry state of affairs.

[xerxes]

The Parry bowl was estimated to cost £90m - so in that context, with house prices rising he was probably right. Whereas now the costs are £150m or £450m - for an extra 15,000 fans.

 

The consented

 

New Anfield has never been given a current cost, adjusted for naming rights and Anfield Plaza revenues.

 

Equally, no plans have been made public of what a redevelopment might look like, what capacity and amenities it might offer, what the prospects for planning are,how the build would be phased, and what it might cost.

 

To date the Club has played the sentimentality card- at some point, reality will bite. And every day we lose, we are that little bit further behind our peers.

[Whelan]

I enjoyed that, so you think that I am right, but what you thought I said was wrong!

 

If you stuck to what is, or is not, going on, you would be on firm ground.

 

As it stands, we have an ageing ground of insufficient capacity and revenue generating ability. There are no plans to move to a new stadium. There is no commitment to a specific redevelopment plan, or a timetable- because we don't own the land on which to build it.

 

Meanwhile FFP allows for new stadium/stand development revenue to be counted, but not the costs, which would enable us to catch up on our rivals.

 

That, after 20 years, is a pretty sorry state of affairs.

 

The consented

 

New Anfield has never been given a current cost, adjusted for naming rights and Anfield Plaza revenues.

 

Equally, no plans have been made public of what a redevelopment might look like, what capacity and amenities it might offer, what the prospects for planning are,how the build would be phased, and what it might cost.

 

To date the Club has played the sentimentality card- at some point, reality will bite. And every day we lose, we are that little bit further behind our peers.

 

What!

 

I've just ran those posts through BabelFish - it translates as 'I'm a manager of a Supermarket and use business language to provide a veneer of knowledge on subjects that I have little knowledge'. The estimated costs for a new stadium have been common knowledge - designs were drawn up, and from that costs were estimated - it was about £450m. And forgive me if I don't take the word of someone who provided a costing for this stadium without factoring in interest into their calculations! I think that example is on this thread.

 

If no plans have been made public then, equally you have no basis for your insinuation that 'they will just increase ticket prices'. I like you, you are polite and generally good natured - but you know as much about this as me - which is based on subjective reasoning and a little bit of hope. Your dislike of Ayre is not objective, neither is my belief that it will be redeveloped.

[Guest San Don]

The consented

 

New Anfield has never been given a current cost, adjusted for naming rights and Anfield Plaza revenues.

 

Equally, no plans have been made public of what a redevelopment might look like, what capacity and amenities it might offer, what the prospects for planning are,how the build would be phased, and what it might cost.

 

To date the Club has played the sentimentality card- at some point, reality will bite. And every day we lose, we are that little bit further behind our peers.

 

What!? Not costed? No plans?

 

The club has played the sentimentality card? So what was it doing regarding the new stadium build?

 

Where have you been hiding these last 10 years?

 

You seriously are deluded.

[xerxes]

What!

 

I've just ran those posts through BabelFish - it translates as 'I'm a manager of a Supermarket and use business language to provide a veneer of knowledge on subjects that I have little knowledge'. The estimated costs for a new stadium have been common knowledge - designs were drawn up, and from that costs were estimated - it was about £450m. And forgive me if I don't take the word of someone who provided a costing for this stadium without factoring in interest into their calculations! I think that example is on this thread.

 

If no plans have been made public then, equally you have no basis for your insinuation that 'they will just increase ticket prices'. I like you, you are polite and generally good natured - but you know as much about this as me - which is based on subjective reasoning and a little bit of hope. Your dislike of Ayre is not objective, neither is my belief that it will be redeveloped.

 

There is no up to date costing for New Anfield that has been made public. If you think there is, and it is public, quote it, sourced.

 

I have provided no costing for a stadium, as I have insufficient information to do so. The figure of £450m included interest as an indicative figure- but it was an example. Could be more, could be less.

 

No indicative plans have been made public. Prices have been hiked. QED.

 

I have nothing against Ayre whatsoever. I think he has done a good job as a Commercial manager, I think we could do better for an MD.

 

As for expert knowledge on the stadium I don’t know what you know, and it is not a contest. What I do know is that historically we have been let down by the Board on the stadium. My experience is that assuming that people who are good at one thing ( running a football team) will be good at another ( a large scale construction project) is dangerous. I don’t believe in the sancitity of the experts, I do believe in asking good questions. From those, you tend to find out who the experts are anyway.

[xerxes]

 

1.What!? Not costed? No plans?

 

2.The club has played the sentimentality card? So what was it doing regarding the new stadium build?

 

Where have you been hiding these last 10 years?

 

You seriously are deluded.

 

1. Correct. There is no publicly divulged cost for New Anfield including construction, finance and Anfield Plaza. Fact.

 

There are no publicly available indicative plans for what a redeveloped Anfield might comprise. Fact.

 

(Rafa would have enjoyed that!)

 

2. It is my view that FSG have relied on the natural, and understandable, reluctance of most of our support (including me) to leave Anfield in order that they can prevaricate and fudge on a redevelopment.

 

To date that goodwill has been borne out of sentiment. Lets see what a redeveloped Anfield will look like, what capacity it will have, what facilities it will offer, what it will cost, and over what period it is likely to be completed.

 

San Don, I love your on the pitch stuff, it is as clinical as a Suarez strike, your off the field stuff is pure Milan Baros.

[Pureblood]

Judging by your figures and the current economic climate you must work in banking xerxes.

 

It definitely rhymes with "banker".

[xerxes]

It definitely rhymes with "banker".

 

That's right, you do the abuse, I'll do the football and detail, its better that way;)

[Guest San Don]

1. Correct. There is no publicly divulged cost for New Anfield including construction, finance and Anfield Plaza. Fact.

 

Since the project isnt signed off yet ie planning permission granted, architects and builders signed up, there are no firm costs. In any event, even if they were, the full cost will never be publically divulged. Its called commercial confidence.

 

As you say Fact

 

There are no publicly available indicative plans for what a redeveloped Anfield might comprise. Fact.

 

You were blabbing on about 'New Anfield' which is the generally accepted term for the new build. Now, you're moving the goal posts and trying to make it out a redeveloped Anfield.

 

Of course there are no indicative plans available. The club doesnt know how much space it has to develop in. Course, it could just put out plans (as you seem to wish) with scant regard for the residents who may be affected by them. No doubt you'd then accuse the club of riding roughshod over the residents, discarding them as if they dont care yadda, yadda, yadda. Fact

 

(Rafa would have enjoyed that!)

 

Yes, but he would have made sure he was talking sense first. Fact

 

2. It is my view that FSG have relied on the natural, and understandable, reluctance of most of our support (including me) to leave Anfield in order that they can prevaricate and fudge on a redevelopment.

 

So they are damned if they do and damned if they dont. You cant have your cake twice and eat it. Despite what you say, their track record is to develop existing stadium as they did with the red sox. I guess they just played on people's 'natural' reluctance there, too.

 

To date that goodwill has been borne out of sentiment. Lets see what a redeveloped Anfield will look like, what capacity it will have, what facilities it will offer, what it will cost, and over what period it is likely to be completed.

 

San Don, I love your on the pitch stuff, it is as clinical as a Suarez strike, your off the field stuff is pure Milan Baros.

 

You keep saying about the sentiment ideology. Maybe it is, maybe its based on projected income v cost, maybe its a mixture of both, who knows? :P

[TheHowieLama]

Back from the bank - in haste.

[Code]

But we are not paying the players - it would be some bloke with a house in a poor area, who quite frankly has struck lucky because the club want his house. Take the club out of the equation and he wouldn't be asking for that.

 

Which is the point - it is irrelevant as to what we pay/paid Joe Cole.

 

he is not selling his house because he wants to either, he is selling it because someone forces him to do so so why should he ask for less?

 

if he dont sell it, the club will have to look elsewhere for the stadium, then its up to them to decide what will be the cheapest for them.

 

Pay the asking price, which is the price asked from those directly involved in this or fuck off and look elsewhere.

 

Its not his problem the clubs wants to buy his house, its the clubs problem.

 

I'd rather people refuse to sell so we can get a new stadium.

 

[Code]

Remember when we saw the first pictures of the 'Parrybowl'?

How long ago was that? 10 years? 12?

I remember the article and Parry said that expanding Anfield wasn't an option but here we are, a minimum of 10 years years later doing exactly that.

 

 

 

 

I have not seen a spade in the ground yet.

[xerxes]

Since the project isnt signed off yet ....etc

Any project needs to be costed simply to test its viability. An estimated cost is all I am suggesting should be made public. As a private company FSG are not required to make these figures available. However we are talking about the future of LFC here. Is it not reasonable that the financial dynamics of where we play, and in what surroundings should be made public to those who frequent the stadium?

 

It is nothing to do with commercial confidence.

 

Now if you are saying that you are happy for our owners to “do the right thing”, fine.

 

New Anfield has a detailed planning consent, the plans are a matter of public record. There are no proposals for a redeveloped Anfield in the public domain.

You are right to say that the club does not own the land on which to redevelop. However if it has no proposals to redevelop, how can FSG say that it is their preference to do so? An indicative proposal shows respect to all involved, if the land is bought it happens, if it isn’t it doesn’t, that is understood.

 

What does show scant regard for the residents is an ongoing strategy of allowing, and creating, dereliction in the area in order that ownerships should be bought for as little as possible and a refusal to pay a commercial rate for ownerships in the (probable) hope that a CPO ( if granted) would get them for less.

 

I draw no conclusions between an American Baseball team and LFC.

 

Your faith in the Board of LFC to get things right is touching. its been ok since 1990, hasn't it?

[coop]

The thing about a new stadium is who pays for it.

 

Any new build would have to be done via a loan so who makes these repayments.

 

FSG won't make these payments so the only people left is the football club.

 

Now this is great if you have money coming in from the Champions League and with the increase in TV money you put all that to one side and pay the stadium off asap.

 

The problem is we don't have the extra revenue from the CL and as the recent accounts tell you whilst we are an improving picture we are still in debt and not in a position to commit to a £350-400m project.

 

I would imagine cost wise we are in a position to maybe afford a £150-200m project which had we been able to fine a naming rights partner for the new build willing to pay £200m then it may well have gone ahead but after extensive searching that hasn't happened.

 

Personally i trust the views of people like redasever when he says redevelopment can be an attractive proposition to the club and generate the much needed extra funds.

 

For me though the biggest importance if 'on the field' matters and i would rather the money spent on building a top class squad before turning our attentions to the stadium.

[Pureblood]

It's all because of non-domicile owners and a rookie MD and so forth and stuff. That's how these things work. I'm a professional so I know.

[xerxes]

The thing about a new stadium is who pays for it.

 

Any new build would have to be done via a loan so who makes these repayments.

 

FSG won't make these payments so the only people left is the football club.

 

Now this is great if you have money coming in from the Champions League and with the increase in TV money you put all that to one side and pay the stadium off asap.

 

The problem is we don't have the extra revenue from the CL and as the recent accounts tell you whilst we are an improving picture we are still in debt and not in a position to commit to a £350-400m project.

 

I would imagine cost wise we are in a position to maybe afford a £150-200m project which had we been able to fine a naming rights partner for the new build willing to pay £200m then it may well have gone ahead but after extensive searching that hasn't happened.

 

Personally i trust the views of people like redasever when he says redevelopment can be an attractive proposition to the club and generate the much needed extra funds.

 

For me though the biggest importance if 'on the field' matters and i would rather the money spent on building a top class squad before turning our attentions to the stadium.

 

Any figures are a hostage to fortune. But some rough figures show how manageable a new stadium could be. The Hicks dome was estimated, several years ago, at £300m. Let’s call that £450m including interest now ( interest rates and construction costs are at historic lows). That could be paid down at £30m a year over 15 years. The new tv deal is worth around £30m a year to us- no new money has to be found. Now of course other clubs will spend that money on players fees and wages putting us at a disadvantage? No. Because our matchday income is currently around £45m a year, the Mancs and arse around £100m, if our revenues improved you just £75m, that £30m would be made up, and in 15 years time we are in clover to the tune of £60m per annum.

 

Naming rights at, say, £100m, kicks around £6.5m back into the pot. Rangers plan to do it, City, Arsenal , Bayern and numerous lesser lights have done it, it’s coming our way, like it or not.

 

Redevelopment CAN work, if you own the land on which to redevelop , you have the space to do what you want to do, and deliver a solution which generates the failities and cash that a new stadium would. That case has not been made.

[Whelan]

It's all because of non-domicile owners and a rookie MD and so forth and stuff. That's how these things work. I'm a professional so I know.

 

Your ideas interest me, and i'd like to subscribe to your Newsletter!

 

You do have a Newsletter? Please tell me you do?

[coop]

At the moment the last i heard was the council was in the process of CPO the houses in the surrounding area of Anfield therefore allowing us to redevelop i presume further then our current footprint.

 

I thought the new TV deal was worth about an extra £20m to us but even so would it not make sense to spend £150-200m to redevelop and keep the history of the club.

 

I can fully understand the logistics surrounding a new stadium but i honestly feel its a commitment we don't necessarily need when we already have one of the most iconic stadiums in the world already.

 

Personally i have no problem with the club selling the naming rights to Anfield because quite simply, its Anfield.

 

Any sponsor that paid cash for that would still i imagine want to keep the name but add their company ie The Coco Cola Anfield stadium or Anfield sponsored by Coco Cola.

 

Any redevelopment will be for the benefit of corporate's and i bet a large percentage of any increase in capacity is taken up by even more expensive seats.

[zigackly]

The thing about a new stadium is who pays for it.

 

Any new build would have to be done via a loan so who makes these repayments.

 

FSG won't make these payments so the only people left is the football club.

 

Now this is great if you have money coming in from the Champions League and with the increase in TV money you put all that to one side and pay the stadium off asap.

 

The problem is we don't have the extra revenue from the CL and as the recent accounts tell you whilst we are an improving picture we are still in debt and not in a position to commit to a £350-400m project.

 

I would imagine cost wise we are in a position to maybe afford a £150-200m project which had we been able to fine a naming rights partner for the new build willing to pay £200m then it may well have gone ahead but after extensive searching that hasn't happened.

 

Personally i trust the views of people like redasever when he says redevelopment can be an attractive proposition to the club and generate the much needed extra funds.

 

For me though the biggest importance if 'on the field' matters and i would rather the money spent on building a top class squad before turning our attentions to the stadium.

 

This post ignores the fact that at least some of the investment would be borrowed against future earnings, so you don't start paying it back until you're filling it up, and then it effectively pays for itself. That's what Arsenal did very successfully.

 

The problem for Hicks and Gillett (if we believe they ever intended to build it) was that it became rapidly more difficult to get credit and more expensive to buy steel at the same time, so the price was rising and since they were already leveraged to the hilt and couldn't even continue to make the payments on what they had borrowed, no-one would lend them the money. They took a big gamble with leveraging the purchase debt in the very short term, and got bit on the arse by the credit crunch right at the point they needed to refinance it, which killed them dead.

 

A company with the footprint of FSG should have much less trouble getting credit for a new stadium build in the current climate, but they may also have a point that the returns on a redeveloped Anfield make more sense for the investment required. I'll be interested to eventually see their proposals, if they're not just stringing us along.

[Whelan]

A full 60k stadium will deliver around £60m ish pro rata plus enhanced premium seat revenue (which is heavily distorted by the fact that at Arsenal and OT premium seating delivers 40% of matchday revenue from around 9,500 and 10,700 premium seats respectively, about £40m from around £100m ). We currently only offer 4000 premium seats, that is likely to double, and is likely to contribute to a total yield of around £75m ish from a 60k stadium.

 

So that means that a new (full) is likely to produce around £33m pa more. Crudely that means that it pays for itself in 10 years (if the new stadium cost around £300m), over so years it would yield a transfer surplus of £16.5m a season.

 

Any figures are a hostage to fortune. But some rough figures show how manageable a new stadium could be. The Hicks dome was estimated, several years ago, at £300m. Let’s call that £450m including interest now ( interest rates and construction costs are at historic lows). That could be paid down at £30m a year over 15 years. The new tv deal is worth around £30m a year to us- no new money has to be found. Now of course other clubs will spend that money on players fees and wages putting us at a disadvantage? No. Because our matchday income is currently around £45m a year, the Mancs and arse around £100m, if our revenues improved you just £75m, that £30m would be made up, and in 15 years time we are in clover to the tune of £60m per annum.

 

Christ Xerxes you really have underestimed the interest rates - you had it down as £300m a year ago - now its £450m!

[Whelan]

I think Arsenal's capacity at Highbury was 36k - so for them a move to the Emirates added an extra 30,000 to their capacity - for us, we are talking 15,000! Add in the fact that they are in London, and can charge accordingly - any comparison is weak.

 

A stadium costing upwards of £400-450m - would only bring in the extra finance of 15,000 seats - however they are distributed. Unless those 15,000 (not the 30,000 that Arsenal have) can bring in an extra £40-50m a year then a new stadium is not viable. A redevelopment costing £150-200m for those same 15,000 is far more viable. I am struggling to see why anyone would argue against this.

[zigackly]

I think Arsenal's capacity at Highbury was 36k - so for them a move to the Emirates added an extra 30,000 to their capacity - for us, we are talking 15,000! Add in the fact that they are in London, and can charge accordingly - any comparison is weak.

 

If I was making a comparison based on ticket prices and the cost of living, or if I was saying we can expect to make as much revenue as they do, then yes it would, but the only comparison I am actually making is that presumably we would need credit to build, and they were able to borrow against future earnings, just as we would be able to.

 

A stadium costing upwards of £400-450m - would only bring in the extra finance of 15,000 seats - however they are distributed. Unless those 15,000 (not the 30,000 that Arsenal have) can bring in an extra £40-50m a year then a new stadium is not viable. A redevelopment costing £150-200m for those same 15,000 is far more viable. I am struggling to see why anyone would argue against this.

 

I'm not arguing for or against a new stadium. I'm just pointing out that the finance scheme would have an element of borrowing against future earnings, so coop's idea that we would have to make repayment out of existing revenues whilst it was being developed is missing something.

 

I also wanted to point out the differences between us and Arsenal in that the cost of finance and steel has grown exponentially since they built theirs so we may have missed the boat.

 

I did go on to say that FSG might have a good point about redevelopment.

[Whelan]

If I was making a comparison based on ticket prices and the cost of living, or if I was saying we can expect to make as much revenue as they do, then yes it would, but the only comparison I am actually making is that presumably we would need credit to build, and they were able to borrow against future earnings, just as we would be able to.

 

 

 

I'm not arguing for or against a new stadium. I'm just pointing out that the finance scheme would have an element of borrowing against future earnings, so coop's idea that we would have to make repayment out of existing revenues whilst it was being developed is missing something.

 

I also wanted to point out the differences between us and Arsenal in that the cost of finance and steel has grown exponentially since they built theirs so we may have missed the boat.

 

I did go on to say that FSG might have a good point about redevelopment.

 

Not everything I post is about you Zig!

 

They're about Xerxes.