Anfield redevelopment announcement

[Guest San Don]

So let me try and understand this. We are going to keep the Main Stand as it is and build on top of it?

 

No, we're only keeping the name, the Main Stand for now!

 

Seriously, I very much doubt they will add another tier to the existing structure. For starters, theere isnt the space inside to markedly increase hospitality and comfort for a Main stand in the 21st century.

 

Yes, they could just lob another teir on it but it would be easier to tear most of it down.

 

In any event, I think the clue is in the projected spend, £150m. If they are to spend that much or near as damn it, it will be a new build.

[Guest San Don]

The Anny Road End development was stalled for years by them sisters living opposite who wouldn't move. Til they pegged it I think.

 

We were also trying for years to buy up the houses around Anfield but couldn't manage it. The announcement by the Council and Your Housing finally means that the regeneration scheme can go ahead so what the fuck is wrong with that? Why shouldn't the Council act as the catalyst to drive regeneration, isn't that what they are supposed to do?

 

Xerxes makes my fuckin head hurt, perverse cunt argues shite just for the sake of it and can't help being patronising & condescending with every word he posts.

 

Not as far as Im aware mate, that was the Kemlyn \ Centenary which was held up for years. The ARE was never held up as far as Im aware except for the club wanted to build higher than it currently is. The club had to revise the plans due to the right to light issue which neighbours raised.

[xerxes]

Your figures regarding LFC are out of date.Again!

 

On the contrary, I invariably get the detail right, you play catch up. Club finances and redevelopment are my specialist areas, combining work with pleasure- I always respect your views on pitchside matters though.

 

 

Professionally, and in my writing on LFC, I have to get the detail right. Swiss ramble, whom I respect and periodically liaise with verifies my figures in this blog:

 

 

The Swiss Ramble: Liverpool

[xerxes]

No, we're only keeping the name, the Main Stand for now!

 

Seriously, I very much doubt they will add another tier to the existing structure. For starters, theere isnt the space inside to markedly increase hospitality and comfort for a Main stand in the 21st century.

 

Yes, they could just lob another teir on it but it would be easier to tear most of it down.

 

In any event, I think the clue is in the projected spend, £150m. If they are to spend that much or near as damn it, it will be a new build.

 

It's an interesting question, and I broadly agree with the thrust of what you are saying.

 

Peter McGurk has argued that the Main Stand and ARE can be redeveloped with no loss of capacity. The basis for that is that the lower tier of the ARE is retained and the bigger stand built behind, ditto for the Main Stand. However that pre-supposes that we would want to keep the lower tiers of both stands, that structurally they can take the larger structure bolted on, and that the guts of the existing structures can provide the facilities that we require. I look forwards to seeing the evidence for all three question marks when the detail is announced ( if it ever is).

 

Refurb can be more expensive than new build, and offers less compromise. Whether we get two genuinely new stands or a bodged job ( as the ARE and lower Centenary are now) remains to be seen.

 

I have argued consistently that the benefits of redevelopment have been grossly misrepresented ( although there are some). I will take no satisfaction from watching the grim reality play out.

[FanchesterCity]

Your matchday revenues are very impressive. I'm not sure if merchandise sold on matchday is counted as matchday revenue, or if it's purely ticket prices / food & drink and hospitality ?

 

Your ticket prices, whilst not extortionate are higher than ours and that must be contributing considerably.

 

The Swiss Ramble article you posted makes for harrowing reading. Putting aside all rivalry, it's more than clear that the common view of most fans (about the 'elite' maintaining the status quo) is actually true. Liverpool of course are generally in that elite, but are (arguably) one of the clubs under threat of dropping out. Whilst other clubs (City, PSG etc) are scrambling to try and get in, and more importantly stay in. If you're not a big club already, you'll never become one... because the drawbridge is being raised. It's not comfortable reading.

 

It also illustrates the absolute priority of success on the pitch. Although Liverpool have a particularly impressive revenue, and seemingly could improve it further with stadium expansion, optimised fan / corporate split, and arguably FSG's sponsorship acumen... it is still Champions League and the associated knock on revenues that reap the largest rewards.

 

Why UEFA don't address one of the chief causes of the 'haves' and 'have nots' (CL) is scandalous. It's not beyond any of us to understand why they don't address it, but still, it (along with TV revenues) is a significant culprit.

 

It's abundantly clear (at least to my eyes) that FSG must be treading a tightrope on actually committing to stadium expansion. The on pitch performances are the necessary safety net for them to commit. If Rodgers can't deliver, I suspect FSG will fail to deliver the expansion.

 

All conjecture of course, but the expansion doesn't feel like a 'sure thing' regardless of on pitch performances. Quite the opposite.

[Tyler Durden]

No, we're only keeping the name, the Main Stand for now!

 

Seriously, I very much doubt they will add another tier to the existing structure. For starters, theere isnt the space inside to markedly increase hospitality and comfort for a Main stand in the 21st century.

 

Yes, they could just lob another teir on it but it would be easier to tear most of it down.

 

In any event, I think the clue is in the projected spend, £150m. If they are to spend that much or near as damn it, it will be a new build.

 

I think the confusion might have been in the article saying how we wouldn't lose any capacity while the works where on going which probably means the Annie road getting done first leaving us with a similar capacity to existing while we do the main stand.

[FanchesterCity]

I think the confusion might have been in the article saying how we wouldn't lose any capacity while the works where on going which probably means the Annie road getting done first leaving us with a similar capacity to existing while we do the main stand.

 

That would be amazing if a 150M development didn't cause some disruption and loss of capacity for a period.

Not saying it can't be done, but it's hard to countenance.

[xerxes]

The Swiss Ramble article you posted makes for harrowing reading.

 

I am first and foremost a fan, always have been since standing at the front of the Kop and getting run on the Popside at Derby ( which taught me the advantages of sticking together!).

 

And although I still retain the blind faith of my youth in my loyalty to Gerrard and Carra, my fleeting associations with our club's, and football's decision makers leaves me pretty jaundiced about the credentials and motivation of many involved now.

 

The money is indeed in the CL. Getting back to the Cl, and staying there, will require an investment in excess of self generated revenues- an excess FSG will not fund. Frankly, if we are going to be an also ran, we might as well just stay at Anfield and tart the old girl up a bit- which I suspect is what is planned. It will be kinder to everyone.

 

Sometimes our club seems consumed by retromania;a revived, reformed, restaged, reissued, remade, re-enacted, returned, re-launched, re-animated,recycled, renovated, reprocessed, repossessed,revisited reunion, a recombinant, revenant nightmare. Looking backwards through the distorted perspective of a rear view mirror in which objects may appear closer than they really are. The 1980's Anfield bore little relation to 1970's Anfield, the 1990's all seated Anfield bears little relation to either, yet a fascination exists amongst some for a golden era which has gone. The new ARE will almost certainly be bigger than the Kop, the new main Stand will be almost twice the size of the Kop. Whatever some think we will be holding onto will be pretty tenuous indeed. It is the equivalent of your mum handing over a much loved family car, a good runner, to her teenage son, who then gleefully bolts on spoilers and skirts- and feels proud of himself.

 

And then there is the £50m new stadium provision inherited, and accepted from G&H. A provision for which no-one will offer any detail, like how much of it has been spent, on what, by whom and when. It is ironic that tens of dozens of pages appear on Andy Carroll, cost £35m, but no-one is interested in what has happened to a sum half as much again.

 

Some of us will keep asking the questions.

[moof]

 

I imagine xerxes to look like this fella.

[moof]

On the contrary, I invariably get the detail right, you play catch up. Club finances and redevelopment are my specialist areas, combining work with pleasure- I always respect your views on pitchside matters though.

 

 

Professionally, and in my writing on LFC, I have to get the detail right. Swiss ramble, whom I respect and periodically liaise with verifies my figures in this blog:

 

 

The Swiss Ramble: Liverpool

 

Cock, piss, xerxes.

[Iceman]

 

Some of us will keep asking the questions.

 

 

Like why is it that after over 3,500 posts you still haven't put your hand in your pocket to support the site?

[Unrighteous]

Like why is it that after over 3,500 posts you still haven't put your hand in your pocket to support the site?

 

Cus it's the type of person that he is...

[Iceman]

Yeah finance is his specialist area.

[Unrighteous]

Yeah finance is his specialist area.

 

I'm one of the tightest bastards you'll ever meet... (I still get my round in, though!) and I've dipped my hand in my pocket for the site.

 

You'd think everyone who spends a decent bit of time would, too.

[xerxes]

Yeah finance is his specialist area.

 

Thank you.

 

You don't have to agree with the conclusions, but the detail is right.I don't think that anyone should be obliged to take an interest in it. We support the team on the pitch, not the balance sheet.But currently the financial decisions off the pitch which are, and are not, being taken, will affect the fortunes of our club for decades.

[Magic Sponge]

Who the fuck put xerxes in charge of redevelopment?

[Magic Sponge]

 

Thank you.

 

You don't have to agree with the conclusions' date=' but the detail is right.I don't think that anyone should be obliged to take an interest in it. We support the team on the pitch, not the balance sheet.But currently the financial decisions off the pitch which are, and are not, being taken, will affect the fortunes of our club for decades.[/quote']

 

He was being sarcastic you massive bullhead.

[redasever]

It's an interesting question, and I broadly agree with the thrust of what you are saying.

 

Peter McGurk has argued that the Main Stand and ARE can be redeveloped with no loss of capacity. The basis for that is that the lower tier of the ARE is retained and the bigger stand built behind, ditto for the Main Stand. However that pre-supposes that we would want to keep the lower tiers of both stands, that structurally they can take the larger structure bolted on, and that the guts of the existing structures can provide the facilities that we require. I look forwards to seeing the evidence for all three question marks when the detail is announced ( if it ever is).

 

Refurb can be more expensive than new build, and offers less compromise. Whether we get two genuinely new stands or a bodged job ( as the ARE and lower Centenary are now) remains to be seen.

 

I have argued consistently that the benefits of redevelopment have been grossly misrepresented ( although there are some). I will take no satisfaction from watching the grim reality play out.

 

1. The existing stand is worth the income from the existing 12,000 seats with little capital outlay. I say keep it. Further, upgrading the seats and facilities at minimal cost, would make it worth a LOT more (minimum input, maximum output)

 

2. The additions are behind the existing stand - not bolted on top if it.

 

3. The existing stand facilities can be gutted and re-fitted and extended into the new build.

 

anfield_mainsection1 by Peter McGurk, on Flickr

[coop]

Peter, looking at that illustration would you say the disruption is pretty minimal as well.

[robslappa]

On the contrary, I invariably get the detail right, you play catch up. Club finances and redevelopment are my specialist areas, combining work with pleasure- I always respect your views on pitchside matters though.

 

 

Professionally, and in my writing on LFC, I have to get the detail right. Swiss ramble, whom I respect and periodically liaise with verifies my figures in this blog:

 

 

The Swiss Ramble: Liverpool

 

Congratulations Xerxes because if there is a comment on the internet that is more lacking in self awareness than the one I've highlighted, I've yet to read it.

 

Xerxes = bellend extraordinaire.

[redasever]

The issue is FSG's refusal to put money into the club.

 

There is case for redevelopment, there is also a case for a new stadium, but FSG insist that the Club have to pay for it. They are not prepared to invest.

 

Club debt currently sits at around £65m, our wages to turnover ratio at 70% is 24% higher than Man U ( 15% higher than Arsenal, 14% higher than Spurs 9% higher than Newcastle). Our wage bill was £5m more than Arsenal,£38m more than Spurs, and a shocking £75m more than Newcastle. So not only are we in a situation where are owners won't invest, equally the Club's ability to finance anything is modest.

 

Again, as you are well aware, the club's ability to raise the finance for the stadium rest entirely on whether the stadium makes money or not and whether FSG can guarantee the money in the event it all going pear-shaped.

 

Do stop trying to blind us with irrelevant bs.

.

[redasever]

anfield_mainsection1 by Peter McGurk, on Flickr

 

Peter, looking at that illustration would you say the disruption is pretty minimal as well.

 

Yes. It was put together with that in mind - no loss of revenue during construction...

 

.

[FanchesterCity]

Whilst there is 'space' behind the main stand, on which you could feasibly extend, are there no extraneous factors getting in the way?... e.g. safety access, proximity the back of the existing terraces etc?

 

The free space around Anfield is tight already (by modern ground standards), so making the stadium footprint larger is obviously going to make matters worse. Does that then require demolition of some surrounding terraces BEFORE the stand is extended (which would feel sensible) or can demolition occur afterwards? or is it not required at all (even if desirable)?

[Antynwa]

I know this has been touched upon before, but why do some of the plans shown in this thread retain a lot of the original main stand structure?

[redasever]

Whilst there is 'space' behind the main stand, on which you could feasibly extend, are there no extraneous factors getting in the way?... e.g. safety access, proximity the back of the existing terraces etc?

 

The free space around Anfield is tight already (by modern ground standards), so making the stadium footprint larger is obviously going to make matters worse. Does that then require demolition of some surrounding terraces BEFORE the stand is extended (which would feel sensible) or can demolition occur afterwards? or is it not required at all (even if desirable)?

 

New build of the Main stand would bed contained within the existing property. Additional space is needed for site access. Whilst theoretically possible to access from the ends, doing it from the middle is easier.

.