When are we likely to get definitive stadium news?

[xerxes]

They've already decided it's a refurb so why don't the club start on the Anfield road end while this is going on? Seems the easier of the two stands.

 

A very good question.

 

And if FSG needs land to redevelop the main stand ( as it does) why does it not buy it at a commercial rate rather than continue to run the area into the ground by semi dereliction hoping that public money will do the job for them?

[Guest San Don]

Yeah you were and yeah there has. So now it's a money issue, great.

 

Everything they do is great, even when they're wrong they're right.

 

Okay.

 

And it was purchase debt plus debt already incurred for the 'new stadium'. We haven't been here before, you're confused.

 

Now you're sounding like xerxes. Im ambivalent to the owners. Unlike some, I dont have an agenda on them either. Neither is everything great but, carry on down your blind alley.

 

You can use semantics all you want. The debt is a debt is a debt. It doesnt matter if that debt is purchase debt or redevelopment debt. It carries interest and both it (interest) and the original sum have to be repaid.

[Guest San Don]

A very good question.

 

And if FSG needs land to redevelop the main stand ( as it does) why does it not buy it at a commercial rate rather than continue to run the area into the ground by semi dereliction hoping that public money will do the job for them?

 

Probably because it doesnt matter whether the club \ FSG buys 'at a commercial rate' or not if, owners dont want to sell.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Now you're sounding like xerxes. Im ambivalent to the owners. Unlike some, I dont have an agenda on them either. Neither is everything great but, carry on down your blind alley.

 

You can use semantics all you want. The debt is a debt is a debt. It doesnt matter if that debt is purchase debt or redevelopment debt. It carries interest and both it (interest) and the original sum have to be repaid.

 

It does matter, one you get a return on investment (extra capacity) and the other is just paying for the owners to own us.

 

So are you suggesting that an expanded Anfield can only be supported via some form of sponsorship and we cannot afford to finance it without?

[xerxes]

Probably because it doesnt matter whether the club \ FSG buys 'at a commercial rate' or not if, owners dont want to sell.

The debt is a debt is a debt. It doesnt matter if that debt is purchase debt or redevelopment debt. It carries interest and both it (interest) and the original sum have to be repaid.

 

Much of the detail is anecdotal, but what has emerged indicates that the problem is what the club is prepared to pay, rather than owners who won’t sell. In these situations there will always be the odd refusenik, but not dozens. Almost everyone will sell, at a price. The point at which CPO’s may be applied for is a long way off, the likelihood that they will be obtained, by no means certain. It is no silver bullet.

 

Shoepiss is absolutely right to question why the ARE is not being redeveloped now. It’s not about land, the planning is much more straight forwards ( apart from whether the road is bridged or blocked), and the money is there ( The new TV money would finance it easily).

 

You are wrong to say “debt is a debt”. Debt as leveraged buyout is a debt, going into debt to buy players is debt, spending money on a new stadium which will generate extra revenue is an investment.

 

As we drift into our third decade without a league title win, we find Anfield below 6oth place in the largest stadia in Europe and below 20th as the best supported club in Europe by average home league attendance. Too many have just accepted that.

 

Too many have also been suckered by the redevelopment argument. All of us would rather stay at Anfield IF the capacity and facilities fit for an elite 21st century club can be provided. But FSG have not even started to make the latter case. Meanwhile, the plans for a consented new stadium at 60k, with potential to extend to 70k, which we could have been moving into for the start of next season, gather dust.

 

Would a redeveoped Anfield in effect be a half new (Main Stand/ARE) half old ( Centenary/Kop) stadium? What would the new capacity be? What are the planning issues for what will need to be a massive new main Stand? What proportion of new capacity will be premium seating? What new facilities will be available?

 

The problem now is the same problem that existed in the Parry/Morgan era. An increased capacity to 55,000 ( which is on) is probably more physical trouble than it is worth, an increase to 60,000 ( which will have planning issues) is financialy worth it but may not be possible ( and further expansion may be impossible). Which brings us back to a new stadium...........

 

My own view is that I don't care whether we have a new, or redeveloped stadium which delivers a 21st century standard. I do care that plans for a new stadium are in mothballs in favour of a scheme which has no established merit other than that we don't have to move a few hundred yards.

[Guest San Don]

It does matter, one you get a return on investment (extra capacity) and the other is just paying for the owners to own us.

 

So are you suggesting that an expanded Anfield can only be supported via some form of sponsorship and we cannot afford to finance it without?

 

as I have said, its just semantics and it doesnt matter. Debt is debt and has to be repaid. You dont get a positive gain on the debt until its paid off. In other words, you may get more money coming through the door but you're still paying of the debt and its interest.

 

Can the club afford it without some form of sponsorship? Of course the club can spend money from the increased tv deal (as xerxes is always suggesting, how quaint you repeat it) but what you take from one pot means there is none or less to pay for something else.

 

However, the reality is since neither you nor I know how much it is going to cost to redevelop Anfield, I suggest your question is pretty irrelevant anyway until we do know.

 

How can you ask 'can we afford this without some form of sponsorship?' when you dont know the cost involved? oh, I know, its because you go to the xerxes school of economics!

[xerxes]

as I have said, its just semantics and it doesnt matter. Debt is debt and has to be repaid. You dont get a positive gain on the debt until its paid off. In other words, you may get more money coming through the door but you're still paying of the debt and its interest.

 

Can the club afford it without some form of sponsorship? Of course the club can spend money from the increased tv deal (as xerxes is always suggesting, how quaint you repeat it) but what you take from one pot means there is none or less to pay for something else.

 

However, the reality is since neither you nor I know how much it is going to cost to redevelop Anfield, I suggest your question is pretty irrelevant anyway until we do know.

 

How can you ask 'can we afford this without some form of sponsorship?' when you dont know the cost involved? oh, I know, its because you go to the xerxes school of economics!

 

It is not true that, “ You don’t get a positive gain on the debt until it’s paid off.”

 

FSG have given no figures, but a figure of around £120m has been bandied around for a two stand redevelopment which sounds realistic. Our current gate income is around £46m annually , the Mancs and the Arse are banking £100m. Let’s assume that a 60k redevelopment delivers £76m, about half way. That is a £30m premium. A £120m loan over twenty years would cost £6m a year over twenty years, that produces a £24m surplus per annum.

 

Secondly the club generating £76m a year at the gate is worth more than a club generating £46m a year, so there is a capital appreciation as well.

 

The above answers your question;” Can the club afford it without some form of sponsorship?” Indeed the position is improved by ANY sponsorship AND the natural inflation there will be in ticket prices over that twenty year period.

 

The pertinent question is “Are FSG serious about investing in the stadium as a redevelopment or new enterprise?” The evidence to date is no. IF the Council will do the leg work for them AND CPO’s do the financial work for them AND the result will get planning then they will, but it will hardly be as a result of them driving for it.

 

We do agree that until the scheme and cost are revealed it is impossible to pass judgement.

[Tyler Durden]

Even if someone would sponsor it they surely wouldn't get the money until the stand/stadium was redeveloped/built would they? So wouldn't the club have to finance it regardless through borrowings?

 

Can't see someone handing the money over to sponsor any part of the ground until its finished.

[Guest San Don]

 

We do agree that until the scheme and cost are revealed it is impossible to pass judgement.

 

Yet you pontificate in your post as if it was not.

[Guest ShoePiss]

as I have said, its just semantics and it doesnt matter. Debt is debt and has to be repaid. You dont get a positive gain on the debt until its paid off. In other words, you may get more money coming through the door but you're still paying of the debt and its interest.

 

Can the club afford it without some form of sponsorship? Of course the club can spend money from the increased tv deal (as xerxes is always suggesting, how quaint you repeat it) but what you take from one pot means there is none or less to pay for something else.

 

However, the reality is since neither you nor I know how much it is going to cost to redevelop Anfield, I suggest your question is pretty irrelevant anyway until we do know.

 

How can you ask 'can we afford this without some form of sponsorship?' when you dont know the cost involved? oh, I know, its because you go to the xerxes school of economics!

 

The difference between stadium debt and club purchase debt has been explained to you many times, it's not semantics at all. It's very different.

 

This conversation stemmed from me asking why don't they start on the Anny road end. At first you came up with the 'curved stand problem' (haha). Then you tried to compare financing a piecemeal stadium expansion to the Hicks & Gillett days of debt burden.

 

You're a fucking mess.

 

It's two years now and there's nothing but manoeuvring to avoid blame and responsibility. They've done a fucking great job in that respect, they've promised nothing and delivered nothing. Well done FSG.

[Guest San Don]

The difference between stadium debt and club purchase debt has been explained to you many times, it's not semantics at all. It's very different.

 

This conversation stemmed from me asking why don't they start on the Anny road end. At first you came up with the 'curved stand problem' (haha). Then you tried to compare financing a piecemeal stadium expansion to the Hicks & Gillett days of debt burden.

 

You're a fucking mess.

 

It's two years now and there's nothing but manoeuvring to avoid blame and responsibility. They've done a fucking great job in that respect, they've promised nothing and delivered nothing. Well done FSG.

 

You sound like an exact copy of xerxes. Wonder why? :whistle:

 

I'd suggest you're a mess and as has been explained to you many times, debt is debt and has to be repaid.

 

You want to be careful what you wish for with such banal comments.

[Guest ShoePiss]

You sound like an exact copy of xerxes. Wonder why? :whistle:

 

I'd suggest you're a mess and as has been explained to you many times, debt is debt and has to be repaid.

 

You want to be careful what you wish for with such banal comments.

 

Not worthy of a further response. Have a good day.

[Guest San Don]

Not worthy of a further response. Have a good day.

 

Nail. On. Head.

[xerxes]

Even if someone would sponsor it they surely wouldn't get the money until the stand/stadium was redeveloped/built would they? So wouldn't the club have to finance it regardless through borrowings?

 

Can't see someone handing the money over to sponsor any part of the ground until its finished.

 

Stadium sponsorship deals are staged. How, is up to negotiation.

 

The greatest publicity is at the start, so front loading the sponsorship is not uncommon (it happened at the Emirates and Allianz).

 

Furthermore, repayments can be deferred until stadium revenue comes on stream.

 

A two stand redevelopment should be profitable from day one. However it is a major construction project. The concern is that the club has appointed no-one to oversee it. It is not something that Ian Ayre can do in his spare time ( or at all).

[xerxes]

debt is debt and has to be repaid.

 

How you can be so sharp on your on field analysis, and so clueless on off the field affairs is one of life's great mysteries.

 

You simply don't understand commercial finance do you? I would get back to the football now if I were you.

[Chippo]

Financially it is NOT as lucrative do redevelop (or build new) as Xerxes and others may think. Given that the club has to loan £150M to expand with 15000 seats thats around £16M in interest annually. with 25 homegames and todays ticket prices thats £15M in increased income from ticket sales. Ofcourse you get more income from corporate boxesbut you also have to take into consideration decreased capasity during the building.

 

In short it wont affect our economy much before the loans are fully paid.

[xerxes]

Financially it is NOT as lucrative do redevelop (or build new) as Xerxes and others may think. Given that the club has to loan £150M to expand with 15000 seats thats around £16M in interest annually. with 25 homegames and todays ticket prices thats £15M in increased income from ticket sales. Ofcourse you get more income from corporate boxesbut you also have to take into consideration decreased capasity during the building.

 

In short it wont affect our economy much before the loans are fully paid.

 

Your figures do not stack, Chippo.

 

Let us assume your £150m redevelopment cost is right. Over twenty years that is £7.5m a year, not £16m.

 

We currently have around 4000 premium seats. Arsenal have around 9000, Man U 10,700, in both cases they deliver around 40% of match day revenue. The extra 4000 premium seats ( to say 8000) deliver a disproportionately higher return than 15,000 extra seats on the existing 45,000, pro rata.

 

The lost revenue from reduced capacity is not crippling. In practise, it is likely that it would be possible to phase construction so that part capacity would certainly be available within the season. Indeed at the ARE it may be possible to build the bigger stand behind the existing structure while that existing structure is in use. The ARE in total only represents around 20% of capacity, with no premium seating. On £46m that is £9m for an entire season IF the stand was out of action for an entire season (which it probably woudn’t) and the figure would be less because there is no discount for there being no premium seating. Then there is the offset against the naming rights.

 

You claim “In short it wont affect our economy much before the loans are fully paid.” How?

 

Enhanced annual revnues of £76m ( 25% less than Man U /Arsenal) produce an annual increase of £30m, less £7.5m interest, that is a surplus of £22.5m PER SEASON from season one, NOT from before when the loans are fully paid. That does not allow for naming rights and ticket price inflation.

 

You are wrong.

[Son of L8]

Your figures do not stack, Chippo.

 

Let us assume your £150m redevelopment cost is right. Over twenty years that is £7.5m a year, not £16m.

 

So where do you go to borrow 150 million over twenty years without paying interest? I'd like a slice of that action.

[xerxes]

So where do you go to borrow 150 million over twenty years without paying interest? I'd like a slice of that action.

 

Me too, but the question is irrelevant.

 

The assumption was that the £150m includes rolled up interest. £75m per stand as a capital cost would be extraordinarily expensive.

[Chippo]

If you say £120M thats about £13M of interest annually.

And your increase in revenue are far too optimistic I`m afraid. If its as lucrative as you think the club would have done it a long time ago.

[Guest San Don]

Me too, but the question is irrelevant.

 

Only to a cornered dullard who doesnt want to answer the question

 

The assumption was that the £150m includes rolled up interest. £75m per stand as a capital cost would be extraordinarily expensive.

 

Strange, you were calling for LFC \ FSG to start offering 'commercial valuations' for all the properties it has to buy up. Then there's the cost of demolishing the existing two structures (because you dont want anything 'old' left standing, do you?) and rebuilding them to modern standards. Presumably, you'd want them future proofing as well so as not to be out of date quickly.

 

Then there's undoubtedly other infrastructure around that part of the stadium such as roads,, improvements to other properties etc, etc. Of course these arent the actual cost for rebuilding the Main Stand and ARE but nevertheless have to be included in the overall total cost of redevelopment, loss of income during redevelopment which needs to be accounted for etc.

[xerxes]

If you say £120M thats about £13M of interest annually.

 

And your increase in revenue are far too optimistic I`m afraid. If its as lucrative as you think the club would have done it a long time ago.

 

Without figures for cost which the club have failed to provide, there will be no definitive answer on stadium cost. I believe that my view that a cost of £75m a stand all in is generous. is hard to counter.

 

The increase in revenue figures are 25% less than those at the Emirates, and do not allow for sponsorship or ticket price inflation- that is hardly "far too optimistic".

 

Our current matchday revenue is around £46m annually. Premium seat revenue represents around 40% of matchday revenue at Man U and Arsenal. We have 4000 premium seats, that would equal around £18.6m. If we doubled our premium seats ( which I think we would) that would double the premium seat income , another £18.6m.

 

41,000 generating £27.5m, equals £670 a seat. 52,000 “ordinary” seats would generate pro rata,£34.8m, plus £37.8m premium seat income, equals £72.63m. My estimate of £76m for 60,000 seats allows for new stadium ticket price inflation of only 5%, again hardly optimistic.

 

Why haven't the club done anything? The Moores era failed to grasp the PL/taylor opportunity. G&H had the plan and consent, but not the cash. FSG is predicated on spending as little money as possible, for the maximum return.

 

The ARE redevelopment now has nothing in its way- but nothing is happening even though it is FSG's "preferred option". This is about will, foresight, and vision, FSG have none of that.

[xerxes]

Only to a cornered dullard who doesnt want to answer the question

 

 

 

Strange, you were calling for LFC \ FSG to start offering 'commercial valuations' for all the properties it has to buy up. Then there's the cost of demolishing the existing two structures (because you dont want anything 'old' left standing, do you?) and rebuilding them to modern standards. Presumably, you'd want them future proofing as well so as not to be out of date quickly.

 

Then there's undoubtedly other infrastructure around that part of the stadium such as roads,, improvements to other properties etc, etc. Of course these arent the actual cost for rebuilding the Main Stand and ARE but nevertheless have to be included in the overall total cost of redevelopment, loss of income during redevelopment which needs to be accounted for etc.

 

San Don, you understand so little that you didn’t even spot the answer.

 

£75m PER STAND INCLUDES ROLLED UP INTEREST AND IS A GENEROUS FIGURE. ( hope you got that).

 

There is nothing strange about suggesting that the club pays a commercial rate to acquire property which gives it a commercial advantage. It can afford to do so.

 

Demo costs, planning obligations, and any loss of revenue have to be allowed for, it will be interesting to see how these all come out. They are unlikely to touch £75m a stand. If they do, maybe we should take the new stadium option?

 

My own view is still that the benefits of a new stadium have been grossly underestimated, and the benefits of redevelopment grossly overstated. I do not think that anyone at the Club has a handle on this at all. It requires the appointment of a specialist project director, none has been made. It is not something that Ayre can do in his spare time.

 

The conundrum is this. Redevelopment is the better option- if you can redevelop.

[Guest San Don]

San Don, you understand so little that you didn’t even spot the answer.

 

£75m PER STAND INCLUDES ROLLED UP INTEREST AND IS A GENEROUS FIGURE. ( hope you got that).

 

There is nothing strange about suggesting that the club pays a commercial rate to acquire property which gives it a commercial advantage. It can afford to do so.

 

Demo costs, planning obligations, and any loss of revenue have to be allowed for, it will be interesting to see how these all come out. They are unlikely to touch £75m a stand. If they do, maybe we should take the new stadium option?

 

My own view is still that the benefits of a new stadium have been grossly underestimated, and the benefits of redevelopment grossly overstated. I do not think that anyone at the Club has a handle on this at all. It requires the appointment of a specialist project director, none has been made. It is not something that Ayre can do in his spare time.

 

The conundrum is this. Redevelopment is the better option- if you can redevelop.

 

You contradict yourself constantly.

[xerxes]

You contradict yourself constantly.

When you don't understand, just ask.