redasever

Many people didn't think anything would get done.

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

My own view is that the squandered New Anfield option was a wasted opportunity to build a statement 70k stadium fit for a world class club.The chance to do so was a once in a generation window, now gone.I accept that we will now have to make do with a half new, half old, stadium, which still undersupplies our fanbase.

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.

Of course a new stadium has to be paid for, The New Anfield offered short, medium and long term profits, as I have demonstrated. The Club has opted for squeezing more cash, for no expenditure, from a capacity deliberately kept low to keep demand high. The archetypal capitalist, FSG ,model. Why spend for more when you can get more for no spend?

 

As for the significance of FFP, the impact of a £30m signing EVERY SEASON would clearly be considerable upon our fortunes, and revenue, on the pitch.That DOES matter.

 

There is a sentimental case for remaining at Anfield, and it is a valid one. Beyond that the Club has signally failed to present any measurable plans, or make a financial case for them. The so-called “saving” of developing in situ may already have been wiped out by the delay in building versus the extra income we would have had, and will continue to receive, from a New Anfield. Meanwhile we wait, and wait, and wait...

 

A redeveloped Anfield, in situ, could be fantastic. So let’s see the plans. A half new/half old stadium, putting off the day when two stands have to be upgraded, for a capacity which still falls short of what we are capable of, would be a fudge, and a missed opportunity.

 

I understand how FSG will see the ticket price squeeze which they have effected over the past few years as the most profitable, low risk route. I also understand how managing a large construction project in the UK is beyond the capabilities of the current team. But in order to replicate our success of the late 20th century into the 21st century we need a Board with vision, and modern facilities which maximise our potential are essential.

 

Recent regimes have drawn down on the success and goodwill of the past for a long time now. That does not last forever as our modest, but significant, slip in the Deloitte money list shows. In the PL era, we have done pretty much nothing save seat the Kop, whilst Chelsea have rebuilt three sides of Stamford Bridge, Man U have increased the capacity of OT by around 50%, Man City have moved AND are increasing capacity, and Arsenal have moved increasing capacity by 50% - whilst our share of increased home attendance is the worst in the NW, and amongst the worst anywhere.To date there is no evidence of when that will change, or what that change will be.

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

It is your post which is complete nonsense.

 

 

Under FFP revenue counts, expenditure on loans doesn’t. That is where the advantage lies.

 

Your claim that “A new stadium never made money” is demonstrably untrue. Our current matchday revenue is around £45m a season. Man U and Arsenal from a 76k and 60k stadium respectively are grossing around £105m. Let us conservatively assume that we would do only half as well as the aforementioned for reasons of larger capacity and ticket prices respectively. That equals an extra £30m a season. Over 20 years that is £600m, more than enough to pay off a new stadium, with something to spare, and of course as the years go on, the more you make, until it is paid down, and it is all bunce. ( The above does not allow for ticket price inflation or the opportunity to offset increased tv revenues against loan payments)

 

You have swallowed Ayre’s PR whole- which is quite an achievement.

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

It is the lack of transparency, facts and debate which grates.

 

If FSG had approved a New Anfield on arrival it would have been open by now, and contributing, conservatively, around £30m a season to the coffers under FFP.

 

IF, a redeveloped Anfield goes ahead, by the time it is built, the lost revenue would have covered the money "saved" with a half new/half old stadium the likely result, rather than a new one.

 

Rodgers has done all that could have been asked of him on the field, FSG have not matched that off 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.

Redasever, third rate architect, with second hand ideas, locked in an era of bovril and hovis, happy to pay inflated prices as FSG squeeze excess demand from undersupply,fellow traveller in the ultimate capitalist squeeze.

 

All I have predicted has come true, watch this space.

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.

 

 

As you know I... know a modest amount about construction, development and football stadia.

Not a chance.

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

.

I have long since argued that the lower Centenary has unacceptably cramped leg space and poor facilities. The Kop too is falling behind. Any idea that retaining the lower eleavtions of the ARE or Main Stand has any merit other than cheapness is extraordinary.

 

I have witnessed some momentous occasions at Anfield over the decades,but the seated Kop stripped most of the romantic links between the past and the present. The practicalities of a redveloped half new/half old stadium will come as quite a shock to those currently enthusiastic for an undefined design,.

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.

.

No news to report, but just a few pics to show why simply extending the current stands won't resolve all the issues we have. The amazing thing is that you still get restricted view seats in some newly-designed stadiums, and I find that unacceptable for the outlay.

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

.

Procedurally they may be but that's just semantics. The reality is they are intertwined.

 

 

 

Yes, they could do that but I doubt it. They are talking of a redevelopment of upto £150m. If we are talking simple 'bolt ons,' serious questions need to be asked if we end up paying anything like that for what would in effect be 2 refurbished stands.

 

The reality is, the majority of the Main Stand infrastructure is ancient. The stairways to access the seating is unbelievably dated and cramped. The facilities for getting food and drink never mind eating \ drinking on a concours is non existent.

 

Imo, they wont just gut it, refit and extend. They need more leg room. They need more entrances \ exists to the aisles and seating.

 

 

 

This is what I have advocated from the off although I'd start with the ARE first simply because the space is already there vaccant of any tennants to bother about moving.

 

 

 

Yes, I know they can put boxes in at any height. But the reality ties in with practicalities. Those pictures show boxes in the MS and current situated at the very back of the stand.

 

Id be surprised if the club went this way for obvious reasons. To position these boxes at the same height as those in the centenary is doable but again, why bother given the current structure?

 

Again, this is another consideration why they'll pull the whole thing down and start effectively from scratch.

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.

.

I'd be more than surprised, I'd be flabbergasted if they didnt. The guts of the Main Stand just arent compatible with the demands and space requirements of a modern stadium ie access, egress and knee room not to mention concourse facilities.

 

If anything is left untouched, it will be the paddock. In any event, if you look at those mock ups of the stadium, the executive boxes in the Main Stand have a poorer viewing position than those in the Centenary and those shown for the ARE since they are higher up (equivalent to being at the very back of the existing Main Stand structure).

 

I dont think the club would find this an acceptable solution. IMHO, any executive boxes in the Main Stand will be at the same height as those in the centenary and ARE. This will ensure that corporates in those boxes have as good a view but more importantly, the club can charge the same prices as those for the Centenary.

 

They wont be able to do this is the boxes are higher and further from the pitch. What this means is that the existing main tier of the stand would have to be radically altered ergo, it would make more sense to pull it down and rebuild to modern specs.

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.

.

There is no confusion. The council wants this to happen. It wants to move forward with regenerating the area and resolve the stadium issue, either new build or redevelopment, one way or another.

 

Your goodself and xerxes can attempt to cloud the issue regarding CPO's or not. The fact of the matter will be if the council want to regenerate and resolve the stadium issue, if needed they will be used.

 

The stadium development and regeneration are intertwined. There is no 'regeneration of the area' or 'stadium redevelopment.' It is both and both in the same time frame.

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.

.

San Don, I am invariably right. As usual your expertise lies on the pitch- not off it.

 

I have explained that the value in the landowners holdings lies not as a house or bit of land, but as enabling space to facilitate £100m's for the Club. That is just fact.

 

If you don't understand that, or choose to ignore it, that is fine- but it makes you look foolish.

 

I make no assumption that "the residents are broadly in agreement". With what? With what offers? Which is part of the problem.

 

I can tell you that local lawyers are salivating at the propsect of acting for residents determined to secure a just settlement.

 

Of course a new stadium poses no such problems.

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.

 

The only realistic way they'll get them is by having a tangible plan to regenerate the area, and demonstrate that certain homes are in the way of that progress. It can't be some wishy washy notion of redevelopment either, it has to be a concrete plan that WILL happen.

 

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.

.

And if LFC cannot demonstrate a physical and financial commitment to the regeneration of the area the Council could apply for CPO's to acquire the club's derelict houses- and build proper modern houses on them.

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.

.

Hold on... I've just re-read Xerses post in a new light...

 

His argument seems to be this:

 

1) LFC want to expand.

2) Expansion will need houses to be demolished (in all probability).

3) LFC had a chance to buy the properties, but didn't - that's in the past now.

4) LFC could still 'buy out' the home owners - although this might be at an inflated cost.

5) LFC have no power to obtain CPOs

 

5) The council want to regenerate

6) The council do have the power to obtain CPOs (providing they can justify them)

7) IF the council obtained CPOs for the houses in question, plus many more for the overall regeneration project, 'handing over' the land to LFC might be seen as unethical.

8) The council will have to justify how selling (or handing over) parts of the land to LFC 'dovetailed' well, and was in the interests of the public, rather than in cahoots with LFC.

 

In theory therefore, the council COULD obtain CPO's and just press ahead with its own plan and build a lovely playground right next to the stadium... then LFC would be well and truly scuppered!. Of course, the council have no reason to do so, but this is where a sensible 'dovetailing' must occur.

 

But back to my own view... there comes a point at which the council's attempt to dovetail with LFC's plans must come to a head, and they can wait no longer. IF that means LFC forfeit their chance to expand (because they took too long to develop concrete plans and the council pressed ahead and built a playground next to the stadium) then that would just be tough luck.

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

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.

.

Since you do not know what I know, that is a worthless observation. I stick with the facts.

 

I have never doubted that FSG have been “working on” ways to increase capacity since buying us. I do query whether they have been very good at doing so. If, as you claim, the result of two years working twenty four hours a day seven days a week, is that they have decided not to build the consented new stadium but redevelop....oh but don’t own the land on which to do so, won’t pay a commercial rate for it , have no indicative stadium proposals, nor indication of how LFC’s plans dovetail with the Council’s regeneration plans. That is not very impressive.

 

CPO’s are not given to private companies to enable private investors to make cash. Hitherto there has been no basis on which to consider CPO’s. The Council have done a magnificent job in putting forwards their own proposals and securing finance themselves.

 

The club has never revealed how many ownerships need to be secured to advance expansion ( mainly because without an indicative proposal they don’t know). Those outstanding ownerships combine private house owners, the Council, Housing Associations, and ownerships acquired speculatively, which the Club could have bought if it wanted to. This is a commercial proposition. A 60k stadium should generate £30m extra a year, £300m over ten years. Even if it were thirty houses at £500k it would still make commercial sense.The Club can afford to pay whatever it takes to buy the outstanding land.

 

CPO’s are by no means a foregone conclusion. Unless the club can demonstrate that the stadium expansion, a private investment, is part of a broader regeneration initiative they are unlikely. The Club will most likely have to make a financial contribution to the regeneration project sufficient to demonstrate their involvement- it may be cheaper simply to pay what it takes to buy the houses.

 

CPO’s are not a device to enable private investors to buy land on the cheap.

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.

.

Is that really possible?

 

Why would the club go to the expense of building a new 'add on' to the main stand for just 3,000 seats if that's so simple?

 

I know you'd not have as much hospitality etc.

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.

.

Thank you Peter.

.

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.

.

 

The Council have stalled at nothing....

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.

.

 

If you are now representing FSG’s views this is a new low.

 

Another example of your ‘balanced and impartial’ presentation???

It’s the council’s job to look after housing.

.

50% is a lot to make up, esp when the media (and fan) vultures won't take kindly to price hikes. Admittedly, it's not all going to be through price hikes, but better utilisation / segmentation, but it's hard to make up 50% with hikes.

 

If you're having success, like United for 25 years, you can creep it up slowly and get away with it (although their prices aren't so bad really). Arsenal have a brass neck to charge what they do, and seemingly Arsenal fans have nothing above the neck given the prices they're prepared to pay!

£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.

.

That's globally! not at the OT shop!

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.

.

You probably know the club drew plans last year ie; marking out extended dressing rooms etc. With the council now on board its not a case of if, its when.

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

.