Topic: Anfield naming rights worth £100m

[xerxes1]

I’ve not changed one bit and so I was very nearly tempted to stop at your first line.  However, the rest of your post is such preposterous nonsense...
You clearly have no clue as to the geometry of the lower AR and what the actual problem is and are determined to see fault where there is none.  It’s pointless arguing on this basis.  If anyone genuinely wants to know, I would be happy to oblige.The valuable conference space to which you refer would NOT be on the ground (or first ) floor in any event.  The bridging is therefore irrelevant.Widening’ legroom is not based on conjecture. It is based on design and has nothing whatsoever do with demolition.Your interpretation of the effects of FFP on the stadium is such arrant rubbish, I don’t know where to start.I understand eight (only) houses in Lothair Road remain outside of control of the club and council.  You must concede there is also considerable momentum behind a resolution of the current impasse in the area.There are no compromises.  The facilities can and will be first rate, by design not wishful thinking.I’m not interested in any attempts to drag the argument into sticky wicket of sentimentality and ‘dewy-eyed’ rhetoric. I don’t think many others are either.I’m sorry but you have to be the least open-minded and most partial, impartial commentator on the subject.  In my view it is more honest to state a case and make it rather than hid behind pretence and feigned ignorance. And which would you rather do? - be an Archibald Leitch of the 21st Century or do the best for the club?Which still leaves the question - all things being equal, why would anyone prefer a new stadium?

I thought it was too good to last.

Retaining the Lower Annie terrace as is, and an overhang as is, retains a poor lower tier. That is just how it is.No geometry set required.

A bridge solution means that you cannot use the void for conference/hospitality space as is used at the Holte End - fact. You could use first floor space, but you would still have lost the void space.

Widening seat/leg space takes room - in an existing structure.You cannot alter the laws of space.It isnt the Tardis.

It is  absurd to suggest that a redevelopment, using existing structures, on a confined site will not involve compromise.

The FFP rules are as stated, they are not mine.

I do not know what the ownership status is of the relevant houses in Lothair Rd. If as you believe, the Council own some of those houses, the Council is under no obligation to make that land available to the Club, and if they do, would be obliged to secure a commercial rate, if it is a ransom, that could be considerable.

I should remind you that I am happy to accept a redevelopment, or new stadium, on their commercial merits without pre-conception.Unlike yourself.
I only expose spurious points, not preferences.

[Peter McGurk]

I thought it was too good to last.

Retaining the Lower Annie terrace as is, and an overhang as is, retains a poor lower tier. That is just how it is.No geometry set required.

A bridge solution means that you cannot use the void for conference/hospitality space as is used at the Holte End - fact. You could use first floor space, but you would still have lost the void space.

Widening seat/leg space takes room - in an existing structure.You cannot alter the laws of space.It isnt the Tardis.

It is  absurd to suggest that a redevelopment, using existing structures, on a confined site will not involve compromise.

The FFP rules are as stated, they are not mine.

I do not know what the ownership status is of the relevant houses in Lothair Rd. If as you believe, the Council own some of those houses, the Council is under no obligation to make that land available to the Club, and if they do, would be obliged to secure a commercial rate, if it is a ransom, that could be considerable.

I should remind you that I am happy to accept a redevelopment, or new stadium, on their commercial merits without pre-conception.Unlike yourself.
I only expose spurious points, not preferences.

If you want to know how the design works, put aside your preconceptions and ask.

I'm afraid I don't hold out much hope that you will. For someone who says they're prepared to look at both sides, you’re a pretty determined advocate of a new stadium.  I'm a pretty determined advocate of a redevelopment, but then I'm not afraid to admit it.

[babraham]

You’re right that it should be a ‘head’ decision but I question the basis on which you think that means a new stadium.

If capacity is what it’s about, a redevelopment can be as big as a new stadium.  There are consequences (eg., clearing Lothair Road) but they are just that, consequences. 

The new capacity can be built at Anfield without losing income or disrupting the season. 

No estimate of cost of redevelopment was given in the recently published schemes.  All costs other than new were, ‘tbc’. 

Naming rights don’t come as cash.  They are annual payments.  Perhaps the best UK deal could be bettered but the market isn’t strong and the only comparison in the market at the moment is less than £4m a year (Arsenal). 

There is no reason why a redevelopment cannot hold as much corporate facilities as a new stadium, in fact £ for £, rather more.

The principal financial benefit of redevelopment is the retention of the value of the existing capacity.  Those seats are bought and paid for and earn about £42m a year gross.  If you want to pay the price, they can be upgraded with more legroom and wider seats at relatively low cost.  It can also include much improved concourses and as much and as many hospitality facilities as the market will stand. 

The financial return is that much greater as a consequence, with greater financial flexibility to invest in the team and to hope to win trophies.  As I say - a head decision.

My knowledge of construction is average at best but I wouldn't have thought it possible to build without severely restricting capacity during construction and therefore revenue. You seem clued up so if you say it's possible, who am I to argue otherwise?

The cost does say "tbc" but if you look under the cons for "Redeveloped Anfield", it says "• Potentially more expensive compared to the New Anfield Stadium". Admittedly it sounds like guesswork but it's still obviously a scenario to contemplate if the sole basis of the decision is financial, all be it long term.

Similarly, the loan repayments (assuming a loan is required to build a new stadium) would be in annual payments too. The naming rights income would still decrease the cost of building a new stadium. Such a decrease wouldn't exist for redevelopment, given Ayre's interview about naming rights.

Once again I'll admit to having limited knowledge of construction but I would have thought that a redevelopment without compromise would be a massively tricky task. I would have thought it cheaper and quicker to build from scratch rather than have to maneuver, knock down and build around things - if the redevelopment is as major as one without compromise would be.

Then there's the issue of expansion. I'm assuming that a redevelopment would increase capacity/facilities to the max given the limited space. A new stadium in Stanley Park would allow the room for further expansion should it be necessary (I would guess). People may question what use the ability to expand would be if a 70 000 seater was built in Stanley Park (for example) but we don't know what the demand will be like 50 or 100 years from now (both for capacity and facilities). The whole issue with Anfield is space and limited options for expansion. We don't want the same issues we're having now in the future because "redeveloped Anfield is too small or the facilities are out of date". 100 years ago, they didn't foresee what a modern football stadium of today would require and didn't allow the room for expansion. We can't even comprehend what the world will be like in another 100 years so lets make sure there's enough space for the stadium to evolve and help us keep up financially.

[silver 5 star]

Then there's the issue of expansion. I'm assuming that a redevelopment would increase capacity/facilities to the max given the limited space. A new stadium in Stanley Park would allow the room for further expansion should it be necessary (I would guess). People may question what use the ability to expand would be if a 70 000 seater was built in Stanley Park (for example) but we don't know what the demand will be like 50 or 100 years from now (both for capacity and facilities). The whole issue with Anfield is space and limited options for expansion. We don't want the same issues we're having now in the future because "redeveloped Anfield is too small or the facilities are out of date". 100 years ago, they didn't foresee what a modern football stadium of today would require and didn't allow the room for expansion. We can't even comprehend what the world will be like in another 100 years so lets make sure there's enough space for the stadium to evolve and help us keep up financially.


Spot on.

[Peter McGurk]

My knowledge of construction is average at best but I wouldn't have thought it possible to build without severely restricting capacity during construction and therefore revenue. You seem clued up so if you say it's possible, who am I to argue otherwise?

The cost does say "tbc" but if you look under the cons for "Redeveloped Anfield", it says "• Potentially more expensive compared to the New Anfield Stadium". Admittedly it sounds like guesswork but it's still obviously a scenario to contemplate if the sole basis of the decision is financial, all be it long term.

Similarly, the loan repayments (assuming a loan is required to build a new stadium) would be in annual payments too. The naming rights income would still decrease the cost of building a new stadium. Such a decrease wouldn't exist for redevelopment, given Ayre's interview about naming rights.

Once again I'll admit to having limited knowledge of construction but I would have thought that a redevelopment without compromise would be a massively tricky task. I would have thought it cheaper and quicker to build from scratch rather than have to maneuver, knock down and build around things - if the redevelopment is as major as one without compromise would be.

Then there's the issue of expansion. I'm assuming that a redevelopment would increase capacity/facilities to the max given the limited space. A new stadium in Stanley Park would allow the room for further expansion should it be necessary (I would guess). People may question what use the ability to expand would be if a 70 000 seater was built in Stanley Park (for example) but we don't know what the demand will be like 50 or 100 years from now (both for capacity and facilities). The whole issue with Anfield is space and limited options for expansion. We don't want the same issues we're having now in the future because "redeveloped Anfield is too small or the facilities are out of date". 100 years ago, they didn't foresee what a modern football stadium of today would require and didn't allow the room for expansion. We can't even comprehend what the world will be like in another 100 years so lets make sure there's enough space for the stadium to evolve and help us keep up financially.

You don’t have to take my word for it, there’s a number of places it’s been done more or less effectively.  Old Trafford doesn’t seem to have come to any harm financially for one.

It would be just as easy to say ‘potentially’ less expensive than a New Anfield Stadium or anything you like on price particularly when you’re prepared to put your balls to the wall on a guaranteed maximum price for a new stadium and that’s clearly what you want to build!

All the circles of debate on naming rights comes to this... if I had to risk double the money on a new stadium to get those naming rights, I just wouldn’t bother.  If I was contemplating spending that kind of money in any event, then I would look at it.

Looking at the detail of the redevelopment, it’s not tinkering and modifying per se.  In essence it is building new behind the existing.  Even as a simplification, this is true.

No we don’t know what the future holds but Anfield can be expanded to whatever size we are ever likely to need.  We have only to live with the consequences (which grow weaker daily it would seem).  That’s why it’s better to plan accordingly and take it forward step by step, tweaking the overall plan as you go to suit changes in circumstance rather than throwing away a football ground worth £42m a year to jump blindly into the future.

[xerxes1]

If you want to know how the design works, put aside your preconceptions and ask.I'm afraid I don't hold out much hope that you will. For someone who says they're prepared to look at both sides, you’re a pretty determined advocate of a new stadium.  I'm a pretty determined advocate of a redevelopment, but then I'm not afraid to admit it.

I was not making reference to your design for the Annie Rd. The issue of the sight lines and the overhang in themselves are easily resolved.Your drawings are always interesting - it is their practical application which is wholly unknown.

I consider the redevelopment versus new merits without prejudice. The conclusion that, for a variety of reasons, redevelopment may be the most expedient solution I acknowledege, and in part, anticipate, and would accept. But anyone who produces flawed evidence to support either position will have it debunked by me.

[xerxes1]

My knowledge of construction is average at best but I wouldn't have thought it possible to build without severely restricting capacity during construction and therefore revenue. You seem clued up so if you say it's possible, who am I to argue otherwise?

It is true that although there would be costs and restrictions associated with redevelopment they should not be prohibitive. If a point was reached where capacity wa severely restricted and Health & safety concerns became significant. the option of playing some games at Goodison also exists.

The cost does say "tbc" but if you look under the cons for "Redeveloped Anfield", it says "• Potentially more expensive compared to the New Anfield Stadium". Admittedly it sounds like guesswork but it's still obviously a scenario to contemplate if the sole basis of the decision is financial, all be it long term.

"How redeveloped is redeveloped ?" is the key question. There is little doubt that replacing the Main and Annie Rd Stands would be commercial in their own right. Whether that is enough is another matter. The Centenary Upper is fine, it is the Lower that is inadequate, and to get to that would be very expensive, and if you cant go up because of height restrictions, it becomes prohibitive. Whether the Kop should/could be retained in its existing form is open to debate.

Similarly, the loan repayments (assuming a loan is required to build a new stadium) would be in annual payments too. The naming rights income would still decrease the cost of building a new stadium. Such a decrease wouldn't exist for redevelopment, given Ayre's interview about naming rights.

Naming rights for a new stadium have the potential to determine whether it is, or is not built. But it should also be pointed out that the naming rights for the existing (or redeveloped) stands at Anfield (whilst being lesser) could be significant too.

Once again I'll admit to having limited knowledge of construction but I would have thought that a redevelopment without compromise would be a massively tricky task. I would have thought it cheaper and quicker to build from scratch rather than have to maneuver, knock down and build around things - if the redevelopment is as major as one without compromise would be.

A restricted site, requiring uncertain land acquisition to expand, uncertain planning approval to increase in height delivering a solution which may still not be enough versus a consented virgin site with room to expand within land already in our prospective control - you decide.

Then there's the issue of expansion. I'm assuming that a redevelopment would increase capacity/facilities to the max given the limited space. A new stadium in Stanley Park would allow the room for further expansion should it be necessary (I would guess). People may question what use the ability to expand would be if a 70 000 seater was built in Stanley Park (for example) but we don't know what the demand will be like 50 or 100 years from now (both for capacity and facilities). The whole issue with Anfield is space and limited options for expansion. We don't want the same issues we're having now in the future because "redeveloped Anfield is too small or the facilities are out of date". 100 years ago, they didn't foresee what a modern football stadium of today would require and didn't allow the room for expansion. We can't even comprehend what the world will be like in another 100 years so lets make sure there's enough space for the stadium to evolve and help us keep up financially.

You are right that this is not simply about expansion, it is also about legacy. It may be possible to deliver it on a redeveloped site. It is certain that is possible in a new stadium.

[Peter McGurk]

I was not making reference to your design for the Annie Rd. The issue of the sight lines and the overhang in themselves are easily resolved.Your drawings are always interesting - it is their practical application which is wholly unknown.

I consider the redevelopment versus new merits without prejudice. The conclusion that, for a variety of reasons, redevelopment may be the most expedient solution I acknowledege, and in part, anticipate, and would accept. But anyone who produces flawed evidence to support either position will have it debunked by me.

So the technical questions are easy but the answers don't suit a new stadium.  Whatever mate.

[xerxes1]

So the technical questions are easy but the answers don't suit a new stadium.  Whatever mate.

No.

It means that anyone, can draw whatever they like (and I like your drawings).Whether they are commercial, will get a consent and can be built within land available to the Club is another matter.

This really is at the heart of the debate. A consented site with no practical physical constraints versus unconsented, uncosted schemes on land which may not even be availble. That is just how it is.

It is certainly possible to redevelop Anfield modestly, and commercially. That is not the point. The point is will it be enough? That is a valid debate.

It may be possible to redevelop Anfield to a level that at least matches commercially and in capacity what a new stadium may offer - but it is no cheap, easy or quick option, and has an uncertain end result in itself.

I would be delighted with a redeveloped Anfield that could compete financially , and in capacity, with the best, as much as our potential allows. However it is easier to cost a new stadium project than a redeveloped one ( though not a limited redevelopment).

Until FSG have a handle on latent ST/premium seat demand, and which way the wind is blowing on naming rights, they probably are not certain what is best. It should be pointed out that selling the naming rights to all four Anfied stands, yet deveoping only the Main Stand/Annie Rd end might offer the best commercial answer of all. Whether that is in our best long term interests is another question.

[Peter McGurk]

It means that anyone, can draw whatever they like (and I like your drawings).Whether they are commercial, will get a consent and can be built within land available to the Club is another matter.

If you assume I’ve ‘drawn’ whatever I have designed without commercial or planning justification ie., just pretty pictures - that explains a lot about where you're coming from.

[xerxes1]

If you assume I’ve ‘drawn’ whatever I have designed without commercial or planning justification ie., just pretty pictures - that explains a lot about where you're coming from.

I assume only what I see.

I know that your illustrations have no commercial or planning status, as would be the case with all others at this stage. By all means present them as what may be possible, and I like much of what you create.

[Maldini]

Don't the club already own all but 5 or 6 of the houses on Lothair Rd? I read that online somewhere. If you look on Google Streetview there are only 2 or 3 of them still occupied so getting use of Lothair Rd shouldn't be a problem.

[xerxes1]

Don't the club already own all but 5 or 6 of the houses on Lothair Rd? I read that online somewhere. If you look on Google Streetview there are only 2 or 3 of them still occupied so getting use of Lothair Rd shouldn't be a problem.

I am aware of no definitive statement on who owns what in Lothair Rd. How many of the houses are in the ownership of the club, owner occupiers and speculators is unclear.

But it should be remembred that going back also means going up, and the height of a new Main Stand which will be acceptable to the planners is unclear. So the houses in Lothair Rd may not be required anyway.

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

But it should be remembered that going back also means going up

Not necessarily ... You could decrease the angle of the new Main stand, compared to the present one, and still get significant expansion, without going up ... Of course, you also make it double-tiered ...



This is only a rough sketch, but I think you will get the general idea ...

[ultimatewarrior]

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.

[Peter McGurk]

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.

Thanks for that. 

There has never been an application for redevelopment.  We are led to believe there have been pre-application discussions, which will have expressed planning officers’ view.  These are not binding, but tell you ‘which way the wind blows’ (or blew).

Although a new stadium is ready to go in terms of planning, there are very significant doubts as to its financial feasibility.  To cut a long story short, the paying customer is unlikely to be able to afford the tickets in sufficient numbers and at the prices necessary to make money for the club and the team.

As you’ve seen, there’s been a fractious debate about naming rights - essentially whether this is ‘free money’ (does not require a payback with interest) or not.  In fact many developments take different views on this but the more prudent and rewarding is that it does need payback if reinvested in the scheme or to put it another way, if you need naming rights to make the investment side work, the risk is too high - you need to look for a cheaper scheme that the feasibility can afford.  Given that if you’re going to do anything at all about creating competitive income from the ground, you going to have to hope for about £2.5bn of revenue over the next 30 years.  To put this further at risk to get funding from the relatively small ‘revenue’ out of naming rights seems a bit ‘adventurous’. Naming rights are however useful as guarantees for the loans.

Dealing with H&S and the designer’s responsibilities under the regulations is about managing risk and is onerous.

Option ‘A’ does not involve demolition of the main stand.  Construction is not limited to 3 months - it carries on all year round (remember there’s no one but staff there the whole of the working week).  The kop corner does stand on the pavement at one point (not fixing it is deliberate arsiness!)

I can't give you the costs and there are too many variables (seat size, numbers of premium v standard seats etc etc) to be specific about capacity without being misleading (and once stated, the numbers do tend to ‘stick’ in people’s minds)

You are right.  To a degree option A and option C are mutually exclusive because of the roof.  You might think of clever ways of re-using demountable sections but really the likely outcome is either all of option A, all of option C or a deliberate decision to mix the two at the outset.

I’m not sure where the 76k is coming from unless it’s from cached pages from the website - you may want to clear your cache or wait for google to clear theirs. 

As I said I can’t be specific but I can tell you that the costs are anticipated to be between 50% and 70% of a new stadium on a like-for-like (same capacity etc) basis and subject to information publicly available.

[Peter McGurk]

Not necessarily ... You could decrease the angle of the new Main stand, compared to the present one, and still get significant expansion, without going up ... Of course, you also make it double-tiered ...



This is only a rough sketch, but I think you will get the general idea ...

Sorry Ливерпул, the existing stands look more like the (lower) red line as is.

[ultimatewarrior]

Thanks for that. 

There has never been an application for redevelopment.  We are led to believe there have been pre-application discussions, which will have expressed planning officers’ view.  These are not binding, but tell you ‘which way the wind blows’ (or blew).

Although a new stadium is ready to go in terms of planning, there are very significant doubts as to its financial feasibility.  To cut a long story short, the paying customer is unlikely to be able to afford the tickets in sufficient numbers and at the prices necessary to make money for the club and the team.

As you’ve seen, there’s been a fractious debate about naming rights - essentially whether this is ‘free money’ (does not require a payback with interest) or not.  In fact many developments take different views on this but the more prudent and rewarding is that it does need payback if reinvested in the scheme or to put it another way, if you need naming rights to make the investment side work, the risk is too high - you need to look for a cheaper scheme that the feasibility can afford.  Naming rights are however useful as guarantees for the loans.

Dealing with H&S and the designer’s responsibilities under the regulations is about managing risk and is onerous.

Option ‘A’ does not involve demolition of the main stand.  Construction is not limited to 3 months - it carries on all year round (remember there’s no one but staff there the whole of the working week).  The kop corner does stand on the pavement at one point ( - this is deliberate arsiness!)

I can't give you the costs.  There are too many variables (seat size, numbers of premium v standard seats etc etc) to be specific about capacity without being misleading (and once stated, the numbers do tend to ‘stick’ in people’s minds)

You are right.  To a degree option A and option C are mutually exclusive because of the roof.  You might think of clever ways of re-using demountable sections but really the likely outcome is either all of option A, all of option C or a deliberate decision to mix the two at the outset.

I’m not sure where the 76k is coming from unless it’s from cached pages from the website - you may want to clear your cache or wait for google to clear theirs. 

As I said I can’t be specific on costs but I can tell you that the costs are anticipated to be between 50% and 70% of a new stadium on a like-for-like (same capacity etc) basis and subject to information publicly available.

You said in post 576 in the new anfield pictures and rumours thread, that " you can visualise 76000 as a solution at anfield". I thought that figure coexisted with your visualisation of your redevelopment option C.
I was thinking about the FFP rules and was wondering if we get, for arguements sake £100m for stadium rights. Can that money be used to strenghten the squad and keep the loan for the stadium as  a seperate cost , hence not interfering with our budget. If so, then it is free money because its £100m invested in players and nothing to do with loan repayments.
Peter if you dont know about the cost of your stadium, how can you say it will cost between 50% and 70% of the total cost of a new stadium. I dont know the cost of the new stadium and either does anyone else on here, but if you are an architect surely you should know the capacity and cost of your designs.
If the new stadium costs £300m then your plan costs between £150m and £210m,  the club have stated that they wont rename anfield but are lookin for naming rights for a new stadium. So eventually if we take the 100m free money away from the £300m cost we are left with £200m for a 60000 seater new ground and your redevelopment "could" cost more for a stadium thats 75% old and 25% new (Capacity-wise) .
All of that granted and you get PP in the near future so aren't waiting years resulting in lost revenue. I really cant see H&S allowing fans to sit in a building site. Every site i've past is surrounded by boarding or railings and have a notice for safety hats and shoes. So maybe if the fans wear the gear they can watch the game. Or if they put up a safety net, that could work.

[ultimatewarrior]

Then when we have better transport and we increase to 70000+ we have to take your roof off , extend and put the new roof back on. At the new stadium we would just have to finish the section behind the goal. I think therefore the new stadium is cheaper in the long run. Plus the club have the option to resell the naming rights for years to come. Makes sense to me , in saying that. I'm in a poorly state in bed with flu but as have not taken any meds.

[xerxes1]

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.

[ultimatewarrior]

Aghhh! my poor head,Thanks for the summery xerxes, maybe i should have stayed away until i was better but ok i'm in now. I dont mind if we stay at anfield either and it would be great if we could build Peters option c. My eh  , fear or worry is that the council are an obstical we could really do without. They have the power to tell us to Fudge Off or they could make it very easy for us. I like to be in control of a situation and at the moment we are not in control when it comes to redevelopment but we are ready to go with a new build. I dont love the new design but it has potential. No obsticals , open space and finished in 2 years. By 2013 we could have a new stadium. We could on the other hand be waiting years trying to twist arms in the council and still be screwed (taylorwimpey style). this results in lost funds and we watch Utd and Arsenal go from strength. I think everybody agrees that is possible. I dont see why a stadium loan is so frightning. We have some stadium debt something like £50m, this figure would have been included in the overall cost of the stadium and with so much competition in the construction industry nowadays we could shave another few million of the cost. Like when you extend your house , the price of the upgrade is added to the value of the house . So immediatley LFC goes from being worth £300m to 600m or maybe more.I think you are right about the naming rights thing. If a company gives me 100m to sponsor me then i can spend it how i want.

[Peter McGurk]

You said in post 576 in the new anfield pictures and rumours thread, that " you can visualise 76000 as a solution at anfield". I thought that figure coexisted with your visualisation of your redevelopment option C.
I was thinking about the FFP rules and was wondering if we get, for arguements sake £100m for stadium rights. Can that money be used to strenghten the squad and keep the loan for the stadium as  a seperate cost , hence not interfering with our budget. If so, then it is free money because its £100m invested in players and nothing to do with loan repayments.
Peter if you dont know about the cost of your stadium, how can you say it will cost between 50% and 70% of the total cost of a new stadium. I dont know the cost of the new stadium and either does anyone else on here, but if you are an architect surely you should know the capacity and cost of your designs.
If the new stadium costs £300m then your plan costs between £150m and £210m,  the club have stated that they wont rename anfield but are lookin for naming rights for a new stadium. So eventually if we take the 100m free money away from the £300m cost we are left with £200m for a 60000 seater new ground and your redevelopment "could" cost more for a stadium thats 75% old and 25% new (Capacity-wise) .
All of that granted and you get PP in the near future so aren't waiting years resulting in lost revenue. I really cant see H&S allowing fans to sit in a building site. Every site i've past is surrounded by boarding or railings and have a notice for safety hats and shoes. So maybe if the fans wear the gear they can watch the game. Or if they put up a safety net, that could work.

Then when we have better transport and we increase to 70000+ we have to take your roof off , extend and put the new roof back on. At the new stadium we would just have to finish the section behind the goal. I think therefore the new stadium is cheaper in the long run. Plus the club have the option to resell the naming rights for years to come. Makes sense to me , in saying that. I'm in a poorly state in bed with flu but as have not taken any meds.

Sorry about the flu.  Your writing seems ok to me!

The full Option C is very, very ambitious and considerably more than 76k.  There is a scheme for 76k (but obviously it’s not as difficult to do).

I don’t know of anything in the FFP that would stop you doing that and it would indeed be ‘free money’ in that sense.  Buying players could indeed be a better use for it.  Unfortunately naming rights tend to come in instalments rather than lump sums.

I do know the broad costs and pretty accurate capacities but for various reasons I cannot make the numbers public.  Similarly it’s tricky to make public statements about H&S.  However I’ve given the example of every city centre construction site that has scaffolding built over a pavement that’s still in use.  Clearly no members of the public are issued with high-vis jackets and goggles!  Even the old Highbury was developed with useable seats only a couple of metres away.

I can see ‘reduce the cost with naming rights’ argument but it doesn’t do to mix up the ‘free money’ idea with its investment in a new stadium.  As soon as it’s reinvested in the construction, it requires a ‘return’ and is therefore no longer ‘free’.  In that way, and whatever the fluctuations in construction costs, the likely differential between new and redevelopment is relatively constant or - if it’s half as much, it’ll always be half as much. 

Having said that, the risk element heavily skews the logic towards redevelopment  (if we only ever needed 50k or 55k or 60k, we can do that incrementally until the empty spaces start to appear - it would be a disaster to commit the finances to build 60k or 70k or 80k and have a white elephant to feed).

Decisions have to be made about the need for going beyond 70k (or to whatever capacity) at the outset.  A very long term ‘masterplan’ is needed to cater for all likely eventualities without having to back track out of a cul-de-sac at any stage (by taking roofs off and all).  This can be in one of two forms - either there’s a fixed and final design that you work towards or there’s a more flexible ‘framework’ with ‘gateways’ in the design process which progressively limit your options. 

Whatever the plan, you also need to fit within planning policy (which changes less frequently than planning design guidelines or controls).  I imagine defining that planning envelope is one of the places the club is currently at.

[ultimatewarrior]

Peter you  of course have valid points as does xerxes. I think it might be best we all wait for the club to announce something so we have more info to work with. My gut and brain say move so that my opinion for now. Mean time lets hope the club do all of their homework and make the right decision. Peter and xerxes , please continue to debate if needs be, but i'm going to watch The Green Mile .

[Peter McGurk]

Peter you  of course have valid points as does xerxes. I think it might be best we all wait for the club to announce something so we have more info to work with. My gut and brain say move so that my opinion for now. Mean time lets hope the club do all of their homework and make the right decision. Peter and xerxes , please continue to debate if needs be, but i'm going to watch The Green Mile .

What's the Green Mile?   

[ultimatewarrior]

A film.

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

Sorry Ливерпул, the existing stands look more like the (lower) red line as is.

As I have said, it is a rough sketch, with intention to visualize my idea ... Personally, I think that the actual angle of the main stand is somewhere in between those two examples, but as I have said, I've been there only once, so I might have got the wrong impression and would take your word for it ...

[Peter McGurk]

As I have said, it is a rough sketch, with intention to visualize my idea ... Personally, I think that the actual angle of the main stand is somewhere in between those two examples, but as I have said, I've been there only once, so I might have got the wrong impression and would take your word for it ...

Your absolutely right about the principle (and it might work if you demolish the stand) but I believe the existing main stand is about 27/28degrees.

[xerxes1]

What's the Green Mile? 

New build or refurb?

[Liver4pool Rubberbandit]

Anfield Warrior Road

[scouse29]

New shirt deal is surely food for thought in line with the thread title

[west_london_red]

New shirt deal is surely food for thought in line with the thread title

Yup, we have the highest shirt sponsorship deal from Standard Charter, and now the largest kit manufacturing deal (while we 6th in the league FFS!), can only bode well for naming rights if we go down the new stadium route.

[incredibleL4ever]

Given what FSG has said about scouring the globe for a stadium sponsor and the they wont sell the naming rights if we remain at anfield, it surely means the new stadium is their preferred option if the naming rights generates enough money.  I dont think they would be sending Ayre around the world on a wild goose chase.

[djschembri]

The biggest naming rights deal is worth $700M over 30 years, which amount to just under £15M a year.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/fortune/1103/gallery.stadium_names.fortune/index.html

Hard to ignore that big a deal, when a 400M new stadium is essentially all paid for by the sponsor

[Peter McGurk]

The biggest naming rights deal is worth $700M over 30 years, which amount to just under £15M a year.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/fortune/1103/gallery.stadium_names.fortune/index.html

Hard to ignore that big a deal, when a 400M new stadium is essentially all paid for by the sponsor

That huge deal (more than eight times bigger than the Emirates deal albeit for 30years) in a completely different market (six (?) times bigger than ours) would only cover the capital.  What's going to pay the interest and/or return to the investor (about £30m pa)?

The total to pay is more than we get now per season.  Assuming we manage to fill a new stadium at 60k (at good prices) we can expect about another £45m a year income - or more or less what we get now - so we'd be no better off after paying the bank/investor back - great deal...

[djschembri]

That huge deal (more than eight times bigger than the Emirates deal albeit for 30years) in a completely different market (six (?) times bigger than ours) would only cover the capital.  What's going to pay the interest and/or return to the investor (about £30m pa)?

The total to pay is more than we get now per season.  Assuming we manage to fill a new stadium at 60k (at good prices) we can expect about another £45m a year income - or more or less what we get now - so we'd be no better off after paying the bank/investor back - great deal...

Which market is that? The Premiership is the biggest global league in the world. Our main sponsor, Standard Chartered, spends 20M a year just to increase their brand exposure in Asia. Our new kit sponsor is virtually unknown in the U.K, but was willing to shell out 25M a year to increase its brand GLOBALLY, as well as improving our brand in the U.S.

So I find it very unlikely that we can't get a deal of that magnitude, seeing as Liverpool is a much bigger name worldwide than any NFL team.

[Peter McGurk]

Which market is that? The Premiership is the biggest global league in the world. Our main sponsor, Standard Chartered, spends 20M a year just to increase their brand exposure in Asia. Our new kit sponsor is virtually unknown in the U.K, but was willing to shell out 25M a year to increase its brand GLOBALLY, as well as improving our brand in the U.S.

So I find it very unlikely that we can't get a deal of that magnitude, seeing as Liverpool is a much bigger name worldwide than any NFL team.

You may be right - I doubt it.
 

[LiverBirdKop]

So I find it very unlikely that we can't get a deal of that magnitude, seeing as Liverpool is a much bigger name worldwide than any NFL team.

And they only play 8 home games per season in the NFL. That said, $700m. is insane money and extremely doubtful that we would get anything close to that.

[djschembri]

You may be right - I doubt it.
 

And they only play 8 home games per season in the NFL. That said, $700m. is insane money and extremely doubtful that we would get anything close to that.

All I'm saying is that it needs to be factored in and considered, because you can't just ignore the possibilities when there is that type of money lying around. I would love to stay at Anfield, even if it may make sense financially as much as a new stadium will, because I feel if we move we not only lose a lot of history and tradition, but also in terms of value. Hopefully it is possible.

[Peter McGurk]

All I'm saying is that it needs to be factored in and considered, because you can't just ignore the possibilities when there is that type of money lying around. I would love to stay at Anfield, even if it may make sense financially as much as a new stadium will, because I feel if we move we not only lose a lot of history and tradition, but also in terms of value. Hopefully it is possible.

But it isn't 'lying around' and even if it was and it was used to help with a new stadium, would we be better off when Anfield is already bought and paid for...?

The club owns this and it earns about £42m a year for 'free'.  Why on earth demolish it so you have to pay to build it all over again?:



It's not because it can't be expanded and made even better.

[djschembri]

But it isn't 'lying around' and even if it was and it was used to help with a new stadium, would we be better off when Anfield is already bought and paid for...?

The club owns this and it earns about £42m a year for 'free'.  Why on earth demolish it so you have to pay to build it all over again?:

It's not because it can't be expanded and made even better.

What I don't understand is, if it can easily be done as you're suggesting, why has nothing been announced yet?
John Henry made it clear that he would prefer redevelopment, as would all Liverpool fans I'd assume. And with each passing day, we are losing more and more money compared to our rivals, so it is something which requires urgent attention. In fact, the last thing we officially heard from the club was that they were looking for sponsors for a naming rights deal for a new stadium.
My guess is that it redevelopment not as easy, or simple, as you're making out to be.