redasever

The stadium won't fund anything. The FANS will pay and if it costs more for a new stadium and you want to be competitive WE WILL PAY MORE. If we pay the same we will be less competitive - jeez. The new stadium is limited to 60k - absolutely. If you want more, put your hand in your pocket for a new railway line. This statement clearly tells us which is the best option and who's court the ball is in. -

Yep and unless you can get someone to pay for it, it's still worth bugger all. -

Everything on the planet is worth precisely what someone paid for it. Someone might be able to make it worth more after but which owners of which clubs have made money??? For the sport but don't lose your shirt seems to be his motto. I like it. -

Xerxes, I agree with this. Although it's got better on RAWK lately, can we have a different discussion here. I've always kept them separate - no cut and paste. -

As JWH says, there's no money in sport(s) unless you're a player, a manager or an agent. I think the guy's doing it for sport. He doesn't want to lose money for sure and he knows the club needs money for success but it's not ever been money he's been after for itself. H&G were the men for 'value of the asset' and that's all it seems they wanted to know. As ever, if the fundamentals are wrong, everything is wrong.

Hello Xerxes. Whatever this post might be, it is slanted one particular way. We are all aware of the inadequacies of Anfield and we are all aware of the emotional and sentimental attachments to it. We are all also aware of the vanities of the situation. This issue is about none of those. The issue is about the wherewithal to win trophies and affordability for the fans. The responsibility of this generation is to itself and to future generations to provide that wherewithal. A redeveloped Anfield meets the need better than a new stadium. As it happens, it also maintains the continuity of the soul and spirit of the club, without which we may as well be Arsenal. Incidentally the old farts of my generation know the value of a quid and are keen to see Anfield stay and to avoid sinking loads of cash into someone else’s vanity project. And I remember the kop end at Villa in the seventies. It was awesome then, bigger but never as 'great' as the Spion Kop. -

Sketchup .

oops. sorry .

Thanks .

Land value. .

I'm a teeny bit nervous of breaking some rule by posting the link but I think it's been done before so... here rollover the images to find 'main stand' and click on that. .

Absolutely true. .

Yep the paddock snack bars/hospitality/bars are still a mess (even after the work done) and the access from the paddock is a disaster, the middle ‘concourses’ are narrow and cramped and the kiosks woefully inadequate and as for the upper level - it’s just a corridor but if you extend under the new section of seating above (over the existing car park) all that shit can be sorted - give you several levels of hospitality with concourse, sports bars, executive lounges, private dining and a sky bar accessed from successive levels of the stand (with new entry points as required) and directly by lift from new parking levels. The structure is sound - remember it’s not all original - the Archibald Leitch stand was extended in my memory. A new roof would lose the columns and with Lothair Road gone, a new access and one-way servicing boulevard would be added. Oh yeah and fan buses and coaches would be on the other side of the park. The fucking point would be to keep the value of all that viable structure (which for the ground as a whole currently earns £42m a year without debt) and make a world class facility out of it. .

Er... hang on. I was born in Liverpool and supported them since my Dad took me in... can't remember the year, but Dave Mackay was playing (was it Derby County??? - I was very young). I had a pie at half time - it was my first and last. I've been in the ground more times than I've been to church and I can tell you I have a plan that includes keeping the Main Stand with boxes and corporates added (and with more legroom). .

After all, the Kop would still be the Kop - it could even be the Spion Kop... worth thinking about. .

Can do all that but no need to knock down the Main Stand and yes, the cashflow would be hugely better. Instead of waiting and paying out for four more years, new money could be flowing in after year one. .

Now, there's a talent for the language! .

Sorry, that's not strictly correct, the difference is about £20m a year (it depends on the interest rate). .

The revenue from tickets and hospitality would be the same in both cases. The difference would be the naming rights. You could assume the stand naming rights would be about nil - particularly since the club isn't even bothering to find out. So the revenue including naming rights is higher with a new stadium but the cost is about twice as much. They both have the same 'profit' if the naming rights are about £25m a year. The current world record is £15m a year. no. .

If we have a 'fair' ticket policy of the likes I think you're talking about (ie., a cheap ticket policy), we might just manage only to pay for the stadium and nothing for the team. .

It's really pretty clear to anyone what the Localism Bill is up to. Half-pissed at noon in Hove??? or have you just got up? .

Build more. .

Try this: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1818597.pdf or in summary this: The planning and regeneration provisions will abolish Regional Spatial Strategies abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission and return to a position where the Secretary of State takes the final decision on major infrastructure proposals of national importance amend the Community Infrastructure Levy, which allows councils to charge developers to pay for infrastructure. Some of the revenue will be available for the local community provide for neighbourhood plans, which would be approved if they received 50% of the votes cast in a referendum provide for neighbourhood development orders to allow communities to approve development without requiring normal planning consent give new housing and regeneration powers to the Greater London Authority, while abolishing the London Development Agency. Not a lot of scope for screwing more money from developers there and the bill isn't law yet. It's on its second reading in the House of Lords. -

Warrior was a deal via Red Sox not Ayre. It's too much to ask him to beat the world record naming rights of £15m a year into a cocked-hat with £25m... ...even if he did, we'd still be paying for a new stadium that we would have to fill every game - yes, every game, win, lose, draw, Saturday at 3pm v Man U or Monday at 8 v Stoke. -

Simplistically put (possibly too simplistic) - the finances are finely balanced. The cost of a new stadium less naming rights on one side and the cost of a redevelopment on the other. Whichever is the greater wins; but to swing the balance, naming rights would have to be very huge indeed - bigger than anything we've seen. -