Hello guys! Long time lurker, first time poster. This stadium debate is a very interesting one and has been rambling on for years now. I have read nearly every post on the subject since the HKS plans were released. I'd first like to say well done to Peter on his remodelling work, i'm sure a lot of time and effort went into it. There is a huge amount of lfc fans who would love to stay at anfield and I would too but in my opinion we just can't. The debate between xerxes an Peter is full of valid points but if we take the facts as they stand at the moment, we have a design in place which has planing permission and we could start building provided we have the funds . I assume they would be generated through , a loan ,investment and naming rights.
On the redevelopment side , some say we wont be given permission and some say PP has never be sought. I really dont know whats going on in the council but surely there is someone on record stating PP could be granted if applied for.
Ok so lets take Peters design. He says throughout the whole project, there will be no loss in revenue , i strugggle to belive that its possible because of one main factor. It being health and safety. I doubt any one would be allowed sit in a stand with a buildind directly behind them. All it takes is a builder to leave something unfixed and the wind catches it and next thing the club has a court case on its hands. And suppose we dont have a problem with H&S, I was wondering RE: Peters drawings, in what stages does his design proceed.
We all know lfc cant build or redevelop to more than 60000 capacity because of lack of sufficient transport. So again i assume Peter would increase capacity by carrying out his "Option A". This would involve PP to be granted, the desruction of part of the main stand and rebuilt with roof in 3 months.
This process would be repeated the following year exept more work involved because of the destruction of AR second tier and roof, temparorary closer of the Anfield road and the new stand with corners to be build in 3 months( I dont understand the inclusion of extra legroom). Is it possible in 3 months?
The kop seems to be untouched except for the corners being filled (one corner seems to be on the road but its probably a minor error).
So out of curiosity Peter . How much would Option A cost and what is the finished capacity.
My second point is, if we actually get PP to increase to "Option C", does that mean we get rid of the roof we just paid for and extend upward and then pay for another bigger more expensive new roof?
All in all, we have to think to ourselves, if lfc can aquire the houses behind both main and centenary stands, if we can build over An Rd, if we get PP, if H&S dont have any problems and if the owners think its better financially for the club, how much will it eventually cost and when will it be finished? And my last asumption is we are stuck at 76000.
On the negative for the new stadium, we are leaving our home for the past 100+ years, some fans wont be happy, may cost up to £300m.
Welcome Ultimate warrior.
The McGurk/Xerxes divide is as follows. Peter is a passionate advocate of redevelopment and an arch new stadium sceptic. I am a passionate advocate of whatever stadium solution gives LFC the best commercial prospects for the 21st century ,but an arch sceptic of redevelopment ( although I can be persuaded,) you decide.
You are right to say that there is a consented scheme on the table, and the prospects for redevelopment are largely uncertain. But to be fair, I see no prospect of the consented scheme being built for numerous reasons. Any new scheme will need to be redesigned and recosted, LFC are in the process of establishing untapped ST demand, Ayres is in the process of establishing naming rights. That’s quite a job. The financial feasibility will remain unknown until the component parts have been bottomed out.
We simply don’t know the extent of consultation/ draft proposals for redevelopment. I am critical of this. Although pre-submission discussions, in private, are commonplace, you never know until the Quantity Surveyors and Architects have signed off the submission, and the application has been lodged how it is going to go. (I witnessed TaylorWimpey win a substantial land deal, a Council disposal, in which the Council had specified what was required in the tender documents. The application as submitted was rejected even though it followed exactly what the council specified!).Furthermore, land may need to be acquired with an uncertain outcome, and Rights of Light negotiations concluded which could be very lengthy.
Peter’s design is coherent and attractive. It is also unconsented in planning, and uncosted in commercial, terms. It’s an illustration. Furthermore cost over runs statistically on redevelopments/ refurbs always exceed new build, there is always an element of “deal with it as you find it” in the former.
All practicalities regarding redevelopment at Anfield are overcomeable, the option of playing some games (in extremis) at Goodison is also there.
Parry indicated that 60,000 was the breakpoint in terms of capacity before substantial further payments were going to be required of the Club to upgrade transport links.
You are right to be concerned that piecemeal redevelopment creates its own problems. (Villa Park’s recently reconstructed Trinity and Witton Lane Stands pose an uneasy fit with a redeveloped North Stand). Furthermore there is the sceptre of whether the scheme IS ever completed (Chelsea and Leeds East Stands were supposed to be the start of full redevelopment which in Leeds case never happened, and In Chelsea’s took thirty years!). As G&H discovered, predicting the financial future can be an uncertain science.
The naming rights debate is straight forwards. The level will be determined by the market, and has yet to be established, we all agree. All money has a cost. If a sponsor wants to name a stadium to the tune of say £100m, they carry “the cost”. There is no “cost” to the club as there is no either or. You can’t spend the money on Lionel Messi or Ferraris for all the staff. If you could there would be a cost, but as you can’t, there isn’t. Peter claims there is. You may wish to double the numbers if you are persuaded.
As for the costs. No-one knows what a redevelopment will cost because no firm proposals have emerged. They could be 50 -70% of a new stadium – they could be anything. A limited redevelopment would definitely be cheaper, and would certainly be profitable. Whether the size of those profits would match those of a new stadium, and whether they will be enough financially to enable us to compete at the euro Top table, and whether the end physical result has us ship-shape for the next fifty years is at the heart of the debate.
I look forwards to your thoughts as you make up your own mind.