redasever
-
Posts
484 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Articles
Forums
Store
Everything posted by redasever
-
I think the quote from Werner above pretty much establishes the club's priority as redevelopment
-
On a more central tack, I think these are worth repeating: "what people don't think of a lot of the time is that we don't get 60,000 new seats when we build a stadium - we only get the difference between Anfield currently and whatever we build. The economics of that difference don't really stack up in the medium term for a return for Liverpool. It would be a huge investment with very little financial gain." Ian Ayre interview on stadium - Liverpool FC "[Werner] has revealed for the first time that if Liverpool are not able to modernise Anfield, they will design new plans for a stadium on Stanley Park rather than pursue either of the two existing schemes left by previous owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.That would require a fresh planning application which could take a minimum of two more years before construction began." Everton v Liverpool: Anfield chairman Tom Werner says groundshare idea is 'dead' - Telegraph .
-
Nope. The condition of the council giving up the park was that the club paid them £300k a year for the privilege. A separate condition of the consent was that the existing ground MUST be demolished to avoid overdevelopment of the area and offered for redevelopment as commercial/retail space with the pitch as public open space in 'mitigation' of loss of the park. The area lost from the park is about 8 times bigger than the pitch. Call me picky but... .
-
No, I said that the park is neither a gift from council nor a swap for the pitch as public open space. I also said we would already be paying for the park via a lease and we shouldn't make it even worse by moving to more expensive land elsewhere. .
-
Ermm. We're paying £300k a year for the park (for 999 years). That is what a lease is. The lease is on the park. What else is the lease for? The Anfield site will still belong to the club. The pitch would be public open space. .
-
We're not exactly 'getting' the land from council either. We are paying for it. But I suspect we'd pay more elsewhere .
-
I'll send you a message. Everyone else has had enough of this nonsense. .
-
Because you disagree with what I say? Each to his own. .
-
See what you've done Xerxes? You did it elsewhere and now you're doing it here. I'll leave you to it - give every one a break. .
-
I completely fucking agree. .
-
I'm sorry mate, I didn't read either of those posts but now that I have, if you make any further references to my family, I'm going to ask for your contact details and that you be removed from the site. OK? .
-
Me??? Nooooo. .
-
:lol::lol::lol:
-
Quoting the whole article would put this in context. He said that it didn't make sense to spend £300m for an extra 15,000 seats when you could do the same thing for half the cost at Anfield. That's what he said. He also said, that the club was looking for naming rights to help make up the difference in the event that they couldn't redevelop Anfield, and, that that may well happen. *** Which only makes sense... if they did build a 60000, 70000 or 80000 seat stadium, how much do you think that would cost? An additional 15000 seats would cost about £300m as he said. Taking that as a starting point, an additional 25000 seats would cost about £360m. And an additional 35000 seats about £425m. So the cost per additional seat is starting at 20k, then 36k, then a truly disastrous 42k. At Anfield the cost would 10k, 17k and 20k I'm really glad someone at the club obviously has a calculator and knows how to use it. .
-
Pretty much, but I believe the £45m was for the shirts. Just over £3m a year for naming rights. .
-
So you're coming forward with the stunning revelation that more people will visit the city if more people come to football matches. There's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. .
-
I get it. You don't understand it. Give up if you like. Feel free. No one's stopping you. I'd be well interested to see a football club that's going to have any significant effect on up to 3 million additional passenger movements per year and the 18 or so hotel applications currently stalled for want of a market in the city. The Anfield Plaza is a non-starter. That is what we're talking about right? the stadium? LFC? remember them? .
-
Really? The current capacity of JLA is about 6m passengers per annum and runs at about 80% of that ie., there's about a million spare capacity per year. The current expansion plans already take it to a capacity of 8.3mppa by 2030. Of course that was before the shit hit the fan in the world economy. And yes the hotels are struggling, hence the weakness of an argument to add another one in a remote location for anything other than football for 1 or 2 nights a week (if you're lucky) for 10 months of the year. You think the 'lending' banks don't know this?? .
-
Indeed, this does look like bollocks .
-
Did I upset you in some way? Take a pill. You brought up the issue of hotels in a stadium thread. It is however an excellent illustration of why an Anfield Plaza won't work. The existing hotels do snap up the weekday demand. That's why they're still in business. The arse-backward thinking that got us here was asking the question "how do we build a new stadium?" instead of "how do we make most money for the club?" .
-
Yes there will be increased demand but the existing hotels will snap it up. The reason why the Malmaison and the Hilton and all the rest of them are where they are is what business is done is done in the city centre (and no one on exxies wants to stay in a Formula 1 in Anfield). They need every market to stay open - business during the week, close to offices, close to conference centre; close to attractions, tourism, leisure and football at the weekend. Any day empty is a nail in the coffin. Fact of the matter is, a hotel needs about 60% occupancy 365 days a year to even break even. Any hotel basically empty for 5 days out of 7, and 7 days out of 7 two months of the year, is a dead duck. .
-
I often forget how far back this goes, but Philip Nash came in well after the evaluation of the two options, the decision to go for a new stadium in 2002 and the subsequent planning application. He was certainly at Arsenal in 2006. He was appointed to the LFC board in 2010. There's a huge difference between being brought in to assist after a decision has already been made and being asked to evaluate options to make that decision. He is after all an accountant, not a property specialist. I understand he carried out a similar function at the Emirates. Experience not to be sniffed at but not specifically a property expert as I'm sure he would agree. .
-
Prior to FSG, no-one at the club has had any significant property/development expertise. Yet they were ready to spend hundreds of millions on it. Stunning, just absolutely bloody stunning. .
-
Unless you've got cash you're ready to spend, you're not going to get the money for a hotel in Anfield, which has no proven demand. Sorry Code but the banks aren't interested just now (not known for their visionary outlook) and articles like the one above don't exactly help either. There's people in the city failing to finance hotels already. .
-
The development of the ‘Visitor Economy’ is a big part of what this city’s going to be doing for the foreseeable future. You can get more clarity on what that means (and hotel demand) here. The City has identified that Football is a key part of that economy. They have provided the evidence in support of their plans for that economy. From memory, the target for that industry is £2.2bn into the local economy by the year 2020. The plans for the Visitor Economy (and any ‘Football Quarter’ ideas) can only be led by the City. It’s the club’s job to look after the club. Full stop. Like any other business, it must look to itself. *** Council must look to its own responsibilities. And those specifically include housing and more loosely, ‘regeneration’. They have no mandate to arm-wrestle any private business into helping them out. Council have a plan for Anfield/Breckfield and the procedures in place for land assembly and delivery of that plan. That plan includes regeneration of the retail in Walton Breck Road. There are six phases to that plan. The first phase is underway. Anyone can go and have a look. It's being built as we speak. There is only so much retail the area can stand and the case for more is weak or at least uncertain and it has been admitted as such in the planning documentation. That could explain why the Anfield Plaza hasn’t even been costed or the proposals even finalised. In my personal view, it is and always has looked like a sop to the community as a promise of regeneration - jam tomorrow. *** It is not unexpected that the bulk of support is ‘within a 10-mile radius’. It’s also not unexpected that big clubs attract large numbers of away fans and OOTs, who may or may not stay but will spend money, if only a few jars and the cost of the tickets and hospitality. On the other hand there also fans from nearby countries (Holland, Ireland, Norway) who do stay and do contribute to the local economy via travel packages, bed nights etc (and getting slaughtered in town). *** The Football Quarter is not code for anything. It’s a proposal that builds on the success and history of football in the city, which would also contribute to the targets for numbers of tourists set out by the The Mersey Partnership. It expressly ‘vetoes’ groundshare. BTW: I am sorry (I’m not) if some people find that kind of shit boring but if you want to make fire you’ve got to chop wood. If you don’t think so, send in your magic wand, we could all do with it. .