redasever

Aye, it's not bad for a 'lick of paint'

Still it’s not so bad for what was never viable and couldn’t be done, on a site that could never be acquired, in a surrounding development that was in too many bits and was just a splash of paint anyway. Don’t worry Xerxes lad, you’re safe. Your mega money-hungry flop will never be built and never will crash. You can bitch forever. Enjoy.

Nothing new of substance other than the rather silly and wholly unsubstantiated slur on the owners' development expertise. Have you thought about the stage?

Oh dear... doesn't matter whether it's material to FFP or not, expenditure always counts for those who pay for it.

Because under FFP, you don't have to find the money, you don't have to pay back loans and you don't have to pay back interest on loans? Complete nonsense. A new stadium never made money - it was either a dying administration clutching at straws or a paper exercise to increase the value of the club to sell it on the turn. Still, there's one born every minute.

If only you could name one. Just one. It was interesting reading a couple of your recent posts. Nothing has changed with you. I would have thought you would have picked up something over time. Sadly not. Meanwhile, everyone else has moved on. The new stadium has been exposed for the dead weight that it was. The Anfield Plaza, a weak and pathetic sop to planning. The total absence of any tangible or intangible benefit to the area of community. The complete lack of action on housing. And a redeveloped Anfield emerges at or about 60k costing £150m (should be a fine job) and more... a reinvigorated High Street, a food plaza in the park (whether you like or not) and more, very much more indeed - a 20-year housing stalemate unlocked and transforming the area - all the things you said couldn't happen, or even shouldn't happen. Never mind mate. I suppose you had fun while it lasted. I did.

There's every chance to introduce wider pricing. Particularly for lesser category games and 'junior' competitions. The flat pricing structure is turning people away. .

Anyone who imagines that the lower portions of the ARE and Main Stand will stay as they are, would be extraordinary. Anyone who wants to pay more for a better seat or improved facilities in the lower centenary (or any part of the ground) will get their chance. Some will even get the chance to pay less. .

None of those columns would stay. The Anfield Road End upper tier will not stay. All of these poor views can go. .

If regeneration and redevelopment are intertwined, each will fail. When I say gutted, I mean back to structure and go again. Potentially a place or seat under the stand for every seat in it (plus parking) - that's a big 'bolt-on': anfield_mainsection1 by redasever, on Flickr “The club's plan is to build over the existing stands during a close season in order to avoid the dip in revenue that would be suffered by playing in a ground with a reduced capacity.” This strongly implies that the existing stand is retained. Else why do it that way? Bearing in mind the existing 12,000 seats earn probably in excess of £12m a year. Brave man to bulldoze it. We don’t need boxes. We have enough. They're too expensive to build. We need premium seats. Premium seats make more money. .

There's no economic argument for dumping the cost of 12,000 seats in the skip. The Main Stand can stay - gutted, refitted and extended and will if this is to be believed: The club's plan is to build over the existing stands during a close season in order to avoid the dip in revenue that would be suffered by playing in a ground with a reduced capacity. http://soccernet.esp...ts-deal?cc=5901 If you really want boxes, they can go in at the required height. If you really want more legroom it can be extended. As long as you're ready to pay the increase in ticket price. It's only money. .

Procedurally, they are separate entities and it's important that they be so for the success of each. There will be no regeneration that depends on a stadium. A stadium may benefit from regeneration but there will be no stadium that depends on CPOs. .

Xerxes lad, I don’t know where your expertise really is but you are seldom right in any area. As noted below the residents are indeed broadly in agreement. That is what public consultation is all about. The owners, occupiers and tenants (including the multi-owners) have been made offers of market value plus 10%, compensation for moving, moving expenses, assisted mortgages for what has to be said are properties no-one else wants. That’s the offer. Take it or take less via CPO. I am sorry for you but the ‘rules’ here takes no cogniscance of the concept of the value of ‘enabling space’ - cute phrase, I must throw it in the bin some time. It refers to the market value of a house, simply as a house in the market. That’s all. And whether lawyers wish to bush-whack unsuspecting residents or not, it is just. That’s all any of us get. The stadium, new or redeveloped has nothing to do with that process. Which is just what is in place. Council have a plan which is tangible. It is one of three that has the support of the majority of participants in a public consultation of the residents of the area. Any lawyer will note that the procedure followed is careful, correct and robust. Council are keeping what has been refurbished already, refurbishing what can economically be refurbished and clearing what can not. The plan is thus based on an assessment of the condition of the houses themselves, the prevailing economic conditions/ financial balance between cost and price to pay for it and the financial constraints of council itself. They have the money to fund it. They have the developer to develop it (Your Housing). It IS happening. .

I'm sorry to piss on your parade but council can't afford new houses just now and if they could they can't build new houses that people can afford - refurbishment is the viable option but those particularly houses are beyond even that. .

I agree. The issue must come to a head. But the club doesn't need the land! Well, not to build on at any rate. The extended Main Stand (if there were one) can be contained within the Anfield Site. LCC's argument for clearing that land is robust and does not rely on the stadium. Those houses are in the worst condition and being the biggest are uneconomic to regenerate. You would not find a buyer at the price needed to cover costs. Back in the day, Tancred Road was done up and sold below true cost (or at any rate council put the properties in at nil value). That was what Housing Market Renewal was all about - a subsidy from government to get such houses back on the market at a price people could pay. That subsidy's all gone. The houses in Lothair are stuffed. There's nothing can be done with them and if left will become even more of a problem. Rats. Drugs. Fires. They must come down - stadium or no stadium. BTW - I don't think we'll see Xerxes for a bit. He normally likes to lay low when the boards get a bit hectic for him. .

Oh yeah, and bump. In your own time... no rush

You don't really get that the regeneration of the houses (and the potential use of CPO) is not dependent on the stadium do you? Poor lamb. .

Yes it is but as you say, it's not as good. But then you can make about 4,000 seats in the middle of the existing Main Stand into premium seats and extend the hospitality stuff out back (over the car park) without affecting anyone's right of light, so it's not so bad. .

Editing other people's quotes to make yourself look a bit better is just about the lowest form of life you can get on an internet forum. .

Oh dear. What tripe. Prior to the last two years, there has been NO plan - none whatsoever - for regeneration of the housing in the area behind the Main Stand - new stadium or not. The proposed Anfield Plaza was a planning patsy if ever you saw one. Not even costed and of ‘uncertain economic benefit’ (report to Planning Committee). The new stadium would have done nothing more than a redevelopment in terms of job creation and increased economic activity. Nothing. Whereas... the development of sports and leisure facilities in the park and community and football-related leisure and retail high street on Walton Breck Road together with the redevelopment of Anfield is a rather more productive and more realistic prospect for the area. That’s the reality of the matter. Thew new stadium was a dud where a redevelopment is a benefit. *** LFC bought empty homes that were in danger of being burnt down by local yobs and drug gangs (for a bit of a laugh) or filling up with rats and infestation. The club cleared jiggers and alleyways and got rid of rats. They bought them up and boarded them and kept them secure because no-one else wanted them because the area was going down the toilet all on its own thank you very much. How was that the fault of the club in the 80s and 90s? Nothing to do with the club and a hell of a lot to do with a city consigned to the bin by the powers that were elsewhere. There’s fellas in there with four or five houses complaining there going to lose their homes and livelihood. Who’s the ‘slum landlord’ there? And this with market rate plus 10% on offer plus moving compensation, assisted mortgages and removal expenses. They’ll be moving into ‘new’ homes at hugely advantageous cost. That’s pretty good treatment as it happens and quite a bit better than many private householders and tenants are expecting elsewhere in this and many other cities. *** But let’s say a few residents throw that back in council’s face and the council regeneration scheme fails. What then? And remember, as is - no-one wants to live in the empty and all-but derelict houses in private hands. You can’t give them away. The area will not stay just as it is. It will decline even further. Thanks to the few. And the club? No sweat - extend the Anfield Road End and fill in all four corners. 60,000. Done. Dusted. .

Another example of your ‘balanced and impartial’ presentation??? It’s the council’s job to look after housing. .

£1200 is a more reasonable target in the short to medium term. This from an increase in the numbers of premium seats - without any price hikes at all i.e.., at today's prices for standard and premium seats. If we want to get to £1450, we going to have to be more successful and play more home games. .

And, is in Euros. In any event, the people we're chasing have a revenue per seat of ₤1450 (ours ₤940). That's the gap to close. More money spent 'in' the ground. .

No, I didn't but yes, I tend to agree. .