Jump to content
Nathanzx

When are we likely to get definitive stadium news?

Recommended Posts

Guest ShoePiss

I don't have a fixation with a new stadium, I just don't think comparing to Old Trafford is in any way 'proof' that it can be done at Anfield.

 

Peter McGurk/Redsever has done some designs that include what you're suggesting. Some of them look very good. They're in the "Anfield or New Anfield" thread on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the design of St James Park more closely resemble what I was thinking by increasing the size of a side and end stand. I still think a refurbed anfield will be more than enough to see us right into the future. A major issue is the parking spaces which are needed to increase capacity. Without further parking we can't go above 52k capacity.

 

That said it looks like a third tier around the main stand, anfield road and centenary is a very real possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anfield can and will be redeveloped. Old Trafford is proof that you do not need to move to a new stadium.

 

Henry is on record as saying the cost of a new stadium cannot justify the returns an extra 15,000 seats would bring. Any development of the Main Stand and Anfield road would mean more corporate boxes as well.

 

The footballing factors you cite are all relevant but the one prevailing factor out of everybody's control is the economic climate now, which makes lending for this type of venture nigh on impossible. A naming rights deal would be the only way funding of any kind could be made available but that alone will not be enough.

 

The surrounding area of Anfield can also be developed but problems of development are not ours alone. If the council is to move residents on from those homes which are occupied nearby then they too need funding to re-house and build new homes. In a nutshell, until the lenders start lending again we are stuck where we are in which is in Anfield in its current form.

 

Just picking off your points 109_ Ultra.

 

The issue is not whether Anfield can be redeveloped, it is whether it can be redeveloped sufficiently to compete with the Euro elite.

 

Old Trafford is proof that you can redevelop in situ if you have the space. There is no evidence that we can acquire land sufficient to enable us to compete, and if we can, that it will meet planning regulations. It might, it might not.

 

A 60k new stadium might double our match day revenue to around £80m, twice current levels, £20m less than Man u/Arsenal. Borrowing costs are low, UK construction costs are falling in terms of raw material and labour, the quantum of Naming Rights has not been established. Henry is in no position, as we write, to make the claim you ascribe to him.

 

The economy is a worry. I acknowledged that OOT support is likely to suffer nationwide as travelling costs soar. Perversely pay tv subscriptions for sport increase in a recession as Bolton Wanderers fans decide that a Sky Sports/ ESPN football subscription is better value than a season ticket at the ground.

 

The area required to develop the Main Stand is not fully in the Clubs ownership- and may never be. There is no legal case for compulsory purchase.

 

I happen to agree with you that the most likely outcome is that our competitiveness will continue to erode as we do either nothing, or not enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just picking off your points 109_ Ultra.

 

The issue is not whether Anfield can be redeveloped, it is whether it can be redeveloped sufficiently to compete with the Euro elite.

 

Old Trafford is proof that you can redevelop in situ if you have the space. There is no evidence that we can acquire land sufficient to enable us to compete, and if we can, that it will meet planning regulations. It might, it might not.

 

A 60k new stadium might double our match day revenue to around £80m, twice current levels, £20m less than Man u/Arsenal. Borrowing costs are low, UK construction costs are falling in terms of raw material and labour, the quantum of Naming Rights has not been established. Henry is in no position, as we write, to make the claim you ascribe to him.

 

The economy is a worry. I acknowledged that OOT support is likely to suffer nationwide as travelling costs soar. Perversely pay tv subscriptions for sport increase in a recession as Bolton Wanderers fans decide that a Sky Sports/ ESPN football subscription is better value than a season ticket at the ground.

 

The area required to develop the Main Stand is not fully in the Clubs ownership- and may never be. There is no legal case for compulsory purchase.

 

I happen to agree with you that the most likely outcome is that our competitiveness will continue to erode as we do either nothing, or not enough.

 

I think your post succinctly highlights the many obstacles in the clubs way of not just a new ground, but moving forward by retaining or indeed building a competetive edge.

 

Anfield can only be redeveloped if there is sufficient space to facilitate not just an expansion of existing features but the construction of everything else required to take the club forward. I havn't seen land registry plans but surely the boundary adjoining Lothair Road at the back of the Main Stand is club owned. I'm not convinced that much more space beyond this (save for another row of houses perhaps) is required to develop the main stand sufficiently. Directly behind the Anfield Road stand you then have a square piece of land between Utting Avenue and Priory Road. This land is unoccupied. Why can the club not construct the other major facilities it needs to take the club forward?

 

Only the council can tell us the answer to this. The legal issues as to ownership of the land behind the mainstand are very easily dealt with. In this property market i think anyone but the council owning a property there would bite the clubs hand off for a price. As for CPO's we have to ask why this challenge has not been taken up? Regeneration is a valid reason for such and the Council if they wished could quite easily apply to the Secretary of State tomorrow for permission to take title of that land for regeneration. As already pointed out this creates problems of re-housing which any Council worth its salt would deal with. I look at Manchester and see the help the Council gives to a thriving redevelopment initiative. CPO's were used to develop an old mill called Ancoats for nothing more than a very bad tourist attraction and apartments. Yet here we have a club known world over, a symbol of the city it has inhabited for more than 100 years crying out for help from its political leaders.

 

As for the potential of falling attendances I cannot envisage that being a problem for us as things stand. I can see a contingency plan though whereby a smaller ground could in some ways be more profitable if you like...and it comes in the form of PPV. If fans in the future are given the option of buying their own teams games (as I envisage) then those not at anfield will elect to pay and watch at home. In this way a smaller capacity could not be as hard hitting as first thought. That said, we need to at least make up some ground on the likes of Arsenal by doing what we can, now.

 

You note borrowing costs are low, but equity is required if financiers will lend. FSG may need to bring a large lump sum to the table to make that happen but that involves risk, one the banks will no longer take.

 

I'm just worried that we're standing still at the moment...because we have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Picking up your points 109_Ultra:

The detail of how much land is required to be bought by the club behind the Main Stand, which is not in the club’s ownership, has never been revealed. It appears to be enough to stop redevelopment.

 

Land Registry only gets you so far. Some land may have been bought by speculators to ransom the club, other land may have been bought by third parties on behalf of the club. Option agreements may be in place in favour of both the club, and speculators, the names on their own will not tell the full story.

 

I agree that physically the land behind the Annie Rd End presents no physical obstacle. The practical issues are as follows. To maximise the benefits of the development the stand would need to be built with no void providing a bridge over a vehicular tunnel. That would require the Annie Rd to be closed. That would require the permission of the Council (whose interests and those of the community at large are best served by the Stanley park consent and Anfield Plaza). The incentive for the Council to play ball is nil. The Annie Rd could be bridged, but that leaves an expensive void underneath. The Holte End would be a virtually identical sized stand, the ground floor Holte Banqueting Suite generates hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in football and non-football related hospitality income. Not having that dents the profitability of the stand. Finally, traditionally boxes at ends of grounds are not popular and generate inferior levels of income.

 

The reason why CPO’s have not been pursued is that they would not be secured. There is no public interest served by a private, foreign owned, company increasing the wealth of foreign investors by using public money to help them acquire land for their own gain. When publicly owned land has been offered as an alternative combined with a scheme(Anfield Plaza) which would create many more jobs, it would not even be worth risking the price of a postage stamp. Regeneration is served by a new stadium and Anfield Plaza, not by a bigger Main Stand.

 

Although I am in favour of a larger stadium, I disagree with you that the economic forces currently in play ( reduced disposable incomes and increased travelling costs for OOTs) may not adversely affect our attendances in the future. No-one is immune.

 

The equity stake required for a new stadium could be provided by Naming Rights alone, or FSG themselves, or a combination of the two, quite easily. The issue is not whether the balance can be borrowed, it is whether the FSG Consortium want to inject more cash into this investment.

 

The Council has offered help - a green field site, in public ownership which via Anfield Plaza provides jobs and a catalyst for redevelopment. The Club has only itself to blame for its current predicament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible a naming rights deal can be done in a similar vein to how the shirt sponsorship deal was done i.e. Coca-Cola agree to pay us a minimum of 15 million per year over the next ten years, but will add 5 million for any year we enter the champions league group stages?

 

So any fears that we are not an attractive proposition for a corporation could well be unfounded as all we need to do is be a tad flexible with regard to our negotiating strategy

 

 

at the moment we have three choices

 

a) do nothing

 

b) redevelop anfield

 

c) develop a new stadium

 

likely cost of b = 200 million less naming rights

 

likely cost of c = 350 million less naming rights

 

likely yield from b = 20 million per year

 

likely yield from c = 35 million per year

 

increase in value of club from b = 100 million

 

increase in value of club from c = 250 million

 

yes, the above figures are simplistic and speculative but they give you a rough idea of the choice FSG faces

 

 

In short, investing in a new stadium is a much bigger risk and will require a greater capital outlay and possibly add huge debt to the club if indeed the enormous loans can even be secured in the first place, however the likely yield from this investment and value it would add to the club is quite the nugget - i believe fsg will ultimately plump for this option

 

reasons for delay

 

1) securing best possible naming rights deal

 

2) securing best possible terms on loan

 

3) fsg contains a large pool of investors, to reach consensus on what is essentially a huge investment risk will take time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

got to laugh the way some think its so simple to take out cpos to move people from there property so that we can redevlope anfield.its not as if the club could take out a cpo on tuesday and the tenant is out by the end of the week,a new stadium could be built in the time takes for a cpo to come into effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
got to laugh the way some think its so simple to take out cpos to move people from there property so that we can redevlope anfield.its not as if the club could take out a cpo on tuesday and the tenant is out by the end of the week,a new stadium could be built in the time takes for a cpo to come into effect.

 

There apppears to be no case for a CPO being granted. It is a blind alley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There apppears to be no case for a CPO being granted. It is a blind alley.

 

 

That makes no sense at all. How can there be no case for knocking down boarded up houses in an an area which has more boarded up houses than those that are lived in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible a naming rights deal can be done in a similar vein to how the shirt sponsorship deal was done i.e. Coca-Cola agree to pay us a minimum of 15 million per year over the next ten years, but will add 5 million for any year we enter the champions league group stages?

etc...........

 

 

On your first point most commercial deals are incentivised, that will be incorporated into any stadium deal.

 

Our current problem is our start point. Out of the CL, out of Europe, poor recent cup performances. All these equal a loss of “brand exposure” for a named stadium. The difference between what we are worth now, and what we would be as a CL title challenging club is vast.

 

I disagree with you on the practicalities of securing finance. A combination of naming rights and FSG Investor contribution can easily address that. The factor which is consistently under-considered is the will of FSG.

 

I agree with you that FSG as an investment body is an unknown quantity. Henry fronts it up, he does not control it. The evidence, such that it is, suggests a very cautious approach. My concern is that what is right for the FSG consortium, and what is right for LFC, may be very different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the council decided to CPO the land for the purposes of a redevelopment they could do it. It might take a couple of years but it would happen. Many urban redevelopments involve the Council using CPO powers to tidy up land ownership issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That makes no sense at all. How can there be no case for knocking down boarded up houses in an an area which has more boarded up houses than those that are lived in.

 

I agree.

 

I ask how there cannot be a public interest in scrapping these houses to make way for a major regeneration, which would serve to increase economic growth, increase job opportunities and provide for better housing?

 

It has been suggested that the Council have zero incentive to let us stay and rebuild. Well I put it to the leaders of this city that they are stunting the growth of an institution and cultural icon upon which the very foundations of this city was built.

 

Adopting the socialist doctrine of the great Bill Shankly, do not what is best for you alone, but for the greater good of us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That makes no sense at all. How can there be no case for knocking down boarded up houses in an an area which has more boarded up houses than those that are lived in.

 

This is a pretty good summary of Compulsory Purchase orders.

Compulsory purchase

 

There is provision within the T&C Planning Act for CPO’s for Development and Regeneration. A bigger main stand for a privately owned company will not fall within that definition.

 

Why should public money be used to buy land/houses for a private company to make itself richer? It’s a non-starter.

 

Juxtapose that with the fact that the Council have made public land available for redevelopment which does facilitate commercial and redevelopment on Anfield Plaza and the case against is watertight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree.

 

I ask how there cannot be a public interest in scrapping these houses to make way for a major regeneration, which would serve to increase economic growth, increase job opportunities and provide for better housing?

 

It has been suggested that the Council have zero incentive to let us stay and rebuild. Well I put it to the leaders of this city that they are stunting the growth of an institution and cultural icon upon which the very foundations of this city was built.

 

Adopting the socialist doctrine of the great Bill Shankly, do not what is best for you alone, but for the greater good of us all.

The acquisition of land/houses to build a larger Main Stand is not major regeneration – it facilitates a larger main stand, probably an extra 5000 seats or so. It affords minimal economic growth, and few jobs.

 

A Stanley Park redevelopment and Anfield Plaza development DOES offer major investment, new housing, commercial enterprises and a significant uplift in jobs.

 

No guesses where Shanks loyalties would lie. Forcing people out of their houses for invariably insufficient compensation so that foreign investors get richer versus the aforementioned. It’s no contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ShoePiss
I agree.

 

I ask how there cannot be a public interest in scrapping these houses to make way for a major regeneration, which would serve to increase economic growth, increase job opportunities and provide for better housing?

 

It has been suggested that the Council have zero incentive to let us stay and rebuild. Well I put it to the leaders of this city that they are stunting the growth of an institution and cultural icon upon which the very foundations of this city was built.

 

Adopting the socialist doctrine of the great Bill Shankly, do not what is best for you alone, but for the greater good of us all.

 

Fucking hell that's comical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The acquisition of land/houses to build a larger Main Stand is not major regeneration – it facilitates a larger main stand, probably an extra 5000 seats or so. It affords minimal economic growth, and few jobs.

 

A Stanley Park redevelopment and Anfield Plaza development DOES offer major investment, new housing, commercial enterprises and a significant uplift in jobs.

 

No guesses where Shanks loyalties would lie. Forcing people out of their houses for invariably insufficient compensation so that foreign investors get richer versus the aforementioned. It’s no contest.

 

To whom has the land upon which the houses behind the main stand once stood gone to? I repeat this question in relation to the houses behind anfield road and again ask why have they gone?

 

Finally, who are we to adjudicate on what land this council is free to take or leave? As has been mentioned the majority of these homes are boarded up or unoccupied.

 

Your post suggests that the demolition of anfield is a good thing when really, all that is offered in exchange is a new stadium around the corner for an uplifted price and cost which in this climate is uneconomical. Development is not confined to the mainstand but anfield road also whilst giving us the chance to protect the heritage and build upon the platform anfield can provide as it stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A 70k new stadium may offer a better long term financial solution. Yet significant sectors of our support believe we cannot fill it

 

We could definately fill a 70k Stadium more often than not.

 

Ok, I'm not talking about mid week games against European minnows or lesser cup games perhaps or maybe even those mid week games in the dead of winter against bottom half sides but on the whole that stadium would be mostly full.

 

All the bleaters and moaners who claim to have been on the Season Ticket waiting list for the last 67 years finally get their chance to put up or shut up :-) and there is more tickets for general sale to keep the day trippers happy.

 

Also how many people don't even try to apply for tickets on a regualr basis because they have, in a sort of learned helplessness kind of way, come to the conclusion that tickets for LFC are generally very hard to come by?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To whom has the land upon which the houses behind the main stand once stood gone to? I repeat this question in relation to the houses behind anfield road and again ask why have they gone?

 

Finally, who are we to adjudicate on what land this council is free to take or leave? As has been mentioned the majority of these homes are boarded up or unoccupied.

 

Your post suggests that the demolition of anfield is a good thing when really, all that is offered in exchange is a new stadium around the corner for an uplifted price and cost which in this climate is uneconomical. Development is not confined to the mainstand but anfield road also whilst giving us the chance to protect the heritage and build upon the platform anfield can provide as it stands.

If you re-read recent posts in this thread you will have your question answered. It is unclear in whose ownerships the land /houses behind the main stand now falls. It is certainly in multi-ownership, and that not all wish to sell. The Club has never made a statement clarifying the matter.

 

The likelihood is that it is a combination of ownerships by the Club, Council, owner occupiers, absent landlords and speculators.

 

Some do not realise that with regard to any land in Council ownership, the Council is legally obliged to sell at best value for the Borough tax payers. That may involve a ransom payment of millions of pounds.

 

I have simply been offering an opinion on the law of the land with regards to CPO’s. I have yet to see any evidence that a CPO could be successfully applied for. Read the detail for yourself.

 

I don’t see the demolition of Anfield as a good, or bad thing. The best interests of the Club and its future are paramount for me. If it is possible to redevelop Anfield sufficient o offer 2st Century amenities and capacity , fine. If it is not, we should move. If that is not commercially viable and we cannot do what we need to do in situ we fall further behind our competitors. It is as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never imagined Shankly's brand of socialism involving booting people out of their homes against their wishes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a pretty good summary of Compulsory Purchase orders.

Compulsory purchase

 

There is provision within the T&C Planning Act for CPO’s for Development and Regeneration. A bigger main stand for a privately owned company will not fall within that definition.

 

Why should public money be used to buy land/houses for a private company to make itself richer? It’s a non-starter.

 

Juxtapose that with the fact that the Council have made public land available for redevelopment which does facilitate commercial and redevelopment on Anfield Plaza and the case against is watertight.

 

Surely using those principles, regeneration and development would be a pretty good argument for knocking down the houses behind the Main Stand, regardless if it's for a private company. CPO's are done all the time on behalf of private businesses if there's a justifiable case.

 

There's certainly no other players, that we're aware of, looking to do something else in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The acquisition of land/houses to build a larger Main Stand is not major regeneration – it facilitates a larger main stand, probably an extra 5000 seats or so. It affords minimal economic growth, and few jobs.

 

A Stanley Park redevelopment and Anfield Plaza development DOES offer major investment, new housing, commercial enterprises and a significant uplift in jobs.

 

No guesses where Shanks loyalties would lie. Forcing people out of their houses for invariably insufficient compensation so that foreign investors get richer versus the aforementioned. It’s no contest.

 

Sorry, missed this before I replied.

 

What if any proposals earmarked for Anfield Plaza were moved to the Vernon Sangster Car Park. It would essentially be a similar project and would surely satisy the major investment etc. criteria you mention above.

 

At present the car park and the surrounding bit of park is a mess. It's not well looked after, presumably because of the uncertainty regarding the ground and there's no longer a sports centre there. Plus it's already ground the council said we could have on a long term lease, albeit for a new stadium.

 

Agree with you regarding Shankly's views, and to liken a CPO process to Shankly's view of socialism is way off the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What if any proposals earmarked for Anfield Plaza were moved to the Vernon Sangster Car Park. It would essentially be a similar project and would surely satisy the major investment etc. criteria you mention above.

 

At present the car park and the surrounding bit of park is a mess. It's not well looked after, presumably because of the uncertainty regarding the ground and there's no longer a sports centre there. Plus it's already ground the council said we could have on a long term lease, albeit for a new stadium.

 

 

The rules on CPO’s are there for all to see.

 

There is no public interest in LFC, a privately owned company, having a bigger main stand. It offers nothing in terms of regeneration, it does further blight the immediate surrounds by increased elevation and massing.

 

There is no legal case for public money to be used for such an action. If a private company wants to acquire land to make itself richer it is free to do so – out of its own pocket.

 

CPO’s are never used simply to enable private companies to get richer. They may be used where it is part of a regeneration/redevelopment project where the public benefits. A new main stand does not fit that criteria.

 

If LFC wants to use Club money to help finance broader regeneration in the surrounding streets there may be a case. However I doubt that FSG will want to become a property developer. If it is baulking at spending money on a new stadium at Stanley park, it is hard to see how it will want to invest in a non-football related project (nor should it in my opinion).

 

I agree with you that if the benefits of Anfield Plaza could be relocated as part of a stadium redevelopment the situation changes.

 

There really are no bad guys here. If I were FSG I would not want to spend Club money beyond land owned or leased by the Club for football purposes. Regeneration is the council’s job- not ours. I also do not blame the FSG Consortium for wanting to be cautious in further investment in difficult economic times. They are probably sitting on a reasonable profit at the moment- why risk it? The Council have offered planning on public land and granted consent on Anfield Plaza, what more can it do? The £300m plus cash injection on a new stadium and the regeneration and jobs created at Anfield Plaza would have a huge benefit on the area. A modestly redeveloped Anfield ( the most likely end solution) has no additional community benefit in an area which will simply decline further.

 

How this impasse is resolved I really don’t know. Windows of opportunity come and go, the Docks Scheme, Steve Morgan, the G&H debt which would have about covered a new stadium, and now new owners and a consented new stadium. There comes a point when life just moves on – and we are left on the sidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Haringey council are offering 17 million for infrastructure and local development to encourage spurs to opt to redevelop white harte lane.

 

Be interesting to see if a similar offer is on the table for Liverpool to redevelop Anfield.

Edited by TheHitman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for the response.

 

I don't like the way this is heading, there's obviously some sort of stale mate at present between ourselves and the council and if we are to redevelop Anfield then there will have to be some compromise with the council to address those issues or work around them.

 

My own view is that the longer this drags on, the more likely we are to see a groundshare, especially when you consider the economy could be ready to take a further nosedive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×