Topic: 70,000 seats my arse

[Peter McGurk]

One thing that's interesting reading that again is this:

...the relocation of the stadium from its present position will remove an imposing structure, with a site area of approximately 30,000 m2, which extends close up to residential properties in Lake Street, Lothair Road, Skerries Road and Walton Breck Road. This will create opportunities for more appropriate building in terms of scale and massing in their place and will in all likelihood complement and enliven other regeneration work that is being carried out in this area.

From that it's easy to see why there would be resistance to the idea of an extended Anfield as a new Main Stand/Anfield Road and possible extra tier on the Centenary Stand? would increase the massing substantially. The height of the new stands would be significantly higher to achieve a 60,000+ capacity.

But if it wasn't necessary to make the centenary higher and Lothair Road were gone... (it's under review).  Also the whole area the other side of WBR (1800 homes is slated) for clearance.

The club has clearly identified that the AR end and Main stand are the 'softer targets'; the necessary land acquisition and road bridging being the 'obstacles' before them.

[Alan_X]

Yes - I noticed that on re-reading. It mentions a Joint Venture Company:

4.8 Joint Venture Company: Liverpool FC and the City Council are in the process of agreeing terms on a new private, limited company with 50/50 shareholdings. The objectives of the Joint Venture Company are:

(i)   to facilitate the development of the new Anfield Stadium as a catalyst for the regeneration of the wider area, and
(ii)   to generate an income stream to maintain the public open spaces at Stanley Park and Anfield Plaza;

4.8.1. The mechanics call for the freeholds of the sites needed for the project, e.g. the existing stadium site and the site upon which the new stadium will be built, to be placed within the joint venture company. Revenue will be obtained by a ground rent for the new stadium site, the maintenance budget for Stanley Park from the City Council, and service charges/ground rents from the developments on Anfield Plaza.

4.8.2. The primary activity of the Joint Venture Company will be to oversee the management and maintenance of the open spaces within the defined area of Stanley Park and Anfield Plaza. It will contract with suitable companies to carry out these functions.

4.8.3. The revenues generated through the Joint Venture Company may, over time, exceed the costs of the primary activities referred to above. It is anticipated that those revenues will be eligible as "match" to draw down other funding streams that could be used in support of wider regeneration activity in Anfield and Breckfield. It will be the ambition of the company to use its revenues as match to access to such funding as may be available. It is the intention that the company will delegate to the Strategy Committee referred to below the task of working with others to identify qualifying regeneration projects that would benefit from the available funding.

4.8.4. The Club intends to manage and maintain the area surrounding the stadium and to assist in the maintenance of the soccer pitches on Stanley Park. Also, as the Club will be maintaining a 24-hour security operation relating to the stadium, it has offered to monitor CCTV footage from cameras in the park.

4.8.5. The Board of the Joint Venture Company will consist of two directors from the City Council and two directors from the Club. Reporting to the Board will be an Operations Committee consisting of nominated representatives of the City Council and the Club. This Committee will deal with the day-to-day issues of management and maintenance and monitor performance to ensure high standards.

4.8.6. There will also be a Strategy Committee consisting of nominated representatives of the City Council, the Club and the Anfield Breckfield Community Steering Group. This Committee will consider how the restored Stanley Park and open spaces of Anfield Plaza can best serve the community and contribute to regeneration. This would include users’ issues, events, services, etc. The Committee will also be the vehicle through which the Company will seek to consult on any potential regeneration projects as described in Paragraph 4.8.3 above.

4.8.7.The Joint Venture Company will be agreed subject to planning permission being granted for the applications currently under consideration and would be activated thereafter.

[Alan_X]

But if it wasn't necessary to make the centenary higher and Lothair Road were gone... (it's under review).  Also the whole area the other side of WBR (1800 homes is slated) for clearance.

The club has clearly identified that the AR end and Main stand are the 'softer targets'; the necessary land acquisition and road bridging being the 'obstacles' before them.

But that wording refers to removing the imposing structure of the ground from the general area, which will remain as primarily residential.

When I've been looking at options for extending the ground I've only really considered the immediate vicinity of the ground and the impact on the surrounding streets in the way you describe.

[Peter McGurk]

Yes - I noticed that on re-reading. It mentions a Joint Venture Company:

4.8 Joint Venture Company: Liverpool FC and the City Council are in the process of agreeing terms on a new private, limited company with 50/50 shareholdings. The objectives of the Joint Venture Company are:

(i)   to facilitate the development of the new Anfield Stadium as a catalyst for the regeneration of the wider area, and
(ii)   to generate an income stream to maintain the public open spaces at Stanley Park and Anfield Plaza;

4.8.1. The mechanics call for the freeholds of the sites needed for the project, e.g. the existing stadium site and the site upon which the new stadium will be built, to be placed within the joint venture company. Revenue will be obtained by a ground rent for the new stadium site, the maintenance budget for Stanley Park from the City Council, and service charges/ground rents from the developments on Anfield Plaza.

4.8.2. The primary activity of the Joint Venture Company will be to oversee the management and maintenance of the open spaces within the defined area of Stanley Park and Anfield Plaza. It will contract with suitable companies to carry out these functions.

4.8.3. The revenues generated through the Joint Venture Company may, over time, exceed the costs of the primary activities referred to above. It is anticipated that those revenues will be eligible as "match" to draw down other funding streams that could be used in support of wider regeneration activity in Anfield and Breckfield. It will be the ambition of the company to use its revenues as match to access to such funding as may be available. It is the intention that the company will delegate to the Strategy Committee referred to below the task of working with others to identify qualifying regeneration projects that would benefit from the available funding.

4.8.4. The Club intends to manage and maintain the area surrounding the stadium and to assist in the maintenance of the soccer pitches on Stanley Park. Also, as the Club will be maintaining a 24-hour security operation relating to the stadium, it has offered to monitor CCTV footage from cameras in the park.

4.8.5. The Board of the Joint Venture Company will consist of two directors from the City Council and two directors from the Club. Reporting to the Board will be an Operations Committee consisting of nominated representatives of the City Council and the Club. This Committee will deal with the day-to-day issues of management and maintenance and monitor performance to ensure high standards.

4.8.6. There will also be a Strategy Committee consisting of nominated representatives of the City Council, the Club and the Anfield Breckfield Community Steering Group. This Committee will consider how the restored Stanley Park and open spaces of Anfield Plaza can best serve the community and contribute to regeneration. This would include users’ issues, events, services, etc. The Committee will also be the vehicle through which the Company will seek to consult on any potential regeneration projects as described in Paragraph 4.8.3 above.

4.8.7.The Joint Venture Company will be agreed subject to planning permission being granted for the applications currently under consideration and would be activated thereafter.

Effectively a maintenance/management company for the public realm with any surplus up for distribution to regeneration initiatives but not a devco - big blank space there.

[Peter McGurk]

But that wording refers to removing the imposing structure of the ground from the general area, which will remain as primarily residential.

When I've been looking at options for extending the ground I've only really considered the immediate vicinity of the ground and the impact on the surrounding streets in the way you describe.

I do think the wording is very reasonable in terms of what's there now (as it must be) but of course it cannot reflect what other circumstances there might be in the future.  These 'other circumstances' could form an enabling context for a redevelopment.  A scheme that encompasses a wider area in collaboration with the city could move the goal posts radically (sic).

[Alan_X]

Not what I remembered at all, but it's a while since I read through it.

[LiamG]

Just out of intrest, What were Arsenals average attendances like compared to ours during the past?

[Alan_X]

Just out of intrest, What were Arsenals average attendances like compared to ours during the past?

Can't find the information in one place.

[lfc79]

Arsenal attedance are hard to find, they go by ticket sales rather than actual attendance, I went with my old man to a game in December last year, absolutly freezing upper tier empty seats everywhere and half the box seats not being used but attendance still came up a 60,000 on the screen.
It is true about cost though the upper level seats even right at the back are much more expensive than the lower tier.

[west_london_red]

I do think the wording is very reasonable in terms of what's there now (as it must be) but of course it cannot reflect what other circumstances there might be in the future.  These 'other circumstances' could form an enabling context for a redevelopment.  A scheme that encompasses a wider area in collaboration with the city could move the goal posts radically (sic).

Can the City ie the council, afford it though?

[Alan_X]

Arsenal attedance are hard to find, they go by ticket sales rather than actual attendance, I went with my old man to a game in December last year, absolutly freezing upper tier empty seats everywhere and half the box seats not being used but attendance still came up a 60,000 on the screen.
It is true about cost though the upper level seats even right at the back are much more expensive than the lower tier.

Since moving they claim to have 95% attendances. It's more the figures for Highbury post-war that would be interesting. Highbury had a capacity of 38,000 post-Taylor report but I think they used to have crowds of 50-60,000.

[Peter McGurk]

Can the City ie the council, afford it though?

Council has no money but has land and (more carefully regulated) Compulsory Purchase Order powers.  Since the scrapping of the central government-funded Housing Market Renewal Initiative, council has turned even more towards partnerships with private enterprise - notably house builders or developers such as Arena Housing.  These 'public-private partnerships' have worked well in the past in one form or another and for the foreseeable future this may be the only way forward in Anfield/Breckfield.

It's understood that Council (via Arena) and LFC own all but eight houses in Lothair Road (for example).  Council may be over-stating the case just a little to claim that they are protecting the rights of residents and home owners in the area.  The residents have mostly gone and cleared houses don't need a right to light (and after all, Council are one of the most significant home owners).  They plan to clear 1800 homes in the area (maybe 18 streets?) but they have held the area behind the Main Stand 'under review' to 'establish the best way forward'.  Tactical or otherwise, that is the current situation.

On the other side, LFC are currently committed to a range of expenditure arising from the current consent in Stanley Park including a lease of part of the park itself.  A redirection of those 'committed' funds towards land acquisition for expansion of the stadium, has the potential to satisfy Council's need to see that money come in - as much as the current financial circumstances allow, if not quite the same as a new stadium.  Faced with a real possibility of the do-nothing scenario actually happening, Council would need to be realistic and maybe give a little on that.

LFC can do only what it can do.  They are not in business to regenerate Anfield or to get involved in commercial partnership with the city.  However, they can yet satisfy Council with a little give and take - on both sides.

[Azi]

what would be the biggest anfield could get renovated to? 50k / 55k ? or would it be possible to increase it further ?

[redhot-robbie]

what would be the biggest anfield could get renovated to? 50k / 55k ? or would it be possible to increase it further ?

I am 99% sure that it has been said that 60k can be done with more possible in houses were cleared.  Peter or Alan will know the exact details I am sure.

[Mad Men]

Have a funny feeling we will end up re-developing and "upgrading' Anfield rather than building a brand new stadium....the cost to build a new stadia is mind boggling...

[Peter McGurk]

Council has no money but has land and (more carefully regulated) Compulsory Purchase Order powers.  Since the scrapping of the central government-funded Housing Market Renewal Initiative, council has turned even more towards partnerships with private enterprise - notably house builders or developers such as Arena Housing.  These 'public-private partnerships' have worked well in the past in one form or another and for the foreseeable future this may be the only way forward in Anfield/Breckfield.

It's understood that Council (via Arena) and LFC own all but eight houses in Lothair Road (for example).  Council may be over-stating the case just a little to claim that they are protecting the rights of residents and home owners in the area.  The residents have mostly gone and cleared houses don't need a right to light (and after all, Council are one of the most significant home owners).  They plan to clear 1800 homes in the area (maybe 18 streets?) but they have held the area behind the Main Stand 'under review' to 'establish the best way forward'.  Tactical or otherwise, that is the current situation.

On the other side, LFC are currently committed to a range of expenditure arising from the current consent in Stanley Park including a lease of part of the park itself.  A redirection of those 'committed' funds towards land acquisition for expansion of the stadium, has the potential to satisfy Council's need to see that money come in - as much as the current financial circumstances allow, if not quite the same as a new stadium.  Faced with a real possibility of the do-nothing scenario actually happening, Council would need to be realistic and maybe give a little on that.

LFC can do only what it can do.  They are not in business to regenerate Anfield or to get involved in commercial partnership with the city.  However, they can yet satisfy Council with a little give and take- on both sides.

what would be the biggest anfield could get renovated to? 50k / 55k ? or would it be possible to increase it further ?

In the scenario above, the clearance of Lothair Road and bridging Anfield Road could take you up to 70k.  But the infrastructure costs and timing for 70k is 'difficult'.  There are still costly and lengthy works associated with the Canada Dock Branch line even allowing for electrification of the Liverpool to Manchester line by 2016.  To all intents and purposes, the limit for both a new stadium and redevelopment is 60k.

[Mad Men]

In the scenario above, the clearance of Lothair Road and bridging Anfield Road could take you up to 70k.  But getting back on topic, the infrastructure costs and timing for 70k is 'difficult'.  There are still costly and lengthy works associated with the Canada Dock Branch line even allowing for electrification of the Liverpool to Manchester line by 2016.  To all intents and purposes, the limit for both a new stadium and redevelopment is 60k.

I could live with a re-developed Anfield with a 60,000 capacity...at least the debt wouldn't be enourmous.

[CraigDS]

Problems of further expansion in the future would still remain though unless the club bought even more land around the stadium during this initial phase.

[Mad Men]

Problems of further expansion in the future would still remain though unless the club bought even more land around the stadium during this initial phase.

Surely buying up property around the stadium and re-developing the existing stands would be significantly cheaper than spending 400 million
quid on buiding a new one.

Surely!

[CraigDS]

I don't think any of us are really in a position to say to be honest.

How much would the land/houses just to expand to 60k cost?

How much more space would be needed down the line to expand more? How much would that cost? Would the council allow this? That needs to be factored in because this wouldnt be a problem if we moved.

Can we get naming rights on a new stadium? If so how much would that take off the overall cost?

How much would a new stadium actually cost? Im fairly sure it was never fully costed unless someone knows otherwise? What design would it actually be?

How much would the expansion cost? To what design? How much, if any, disruption?

etc, etc....

[Peter McGurk]

I don't think any of us are really in a position to say to be honest.

How much would the land/houses just to expand to 60k cost?

How much more space would be needed down the line to expand more? How much would that cost? Would the council allow this? That needs to be factored in because this wouldnt be a problem if we moved.

Can we get naming rights on a new stadium? If so how much would that take off the overall cost?

How much would a new stadium actually cost? Im fairly sure it was never fully costed unless someone knows otherwise? What design would it actually be?

How much would the expansion cost? To what design? How much, if any, disruption?

etc, etc....

I believe there are eight house independently owned in Lothair Road / in Anfield/ at a fair market rate/ £60k-£70k each? If Lothair Road were gone and Anfield Road bridged, we can get to 70k.  70k is too much for the public transport.  It's going to be 60k.

There's plenty of water under all of those other bridges.  From a money point of view, clearly redevelopment has more than the edge - otherwise the club wouldn't have said so.

[CraigDS]

And you think the people will really sell for fair market rates when they have the club over a barrel!?

[Peter McGurk]

And you think the people will really sell for fair market rates when they have the club over a barrel!?

Compulsory purchase orders come at fair market rates.  If council want action...

[CraigDS]

We both know they won't be doing that.

[Peter McGurk]

We both know they won't be doing that.

Then there will be no action.  Next stop, groundshare

[west_london_red]

Then there will be no action.  Next stop, groundshare

or a decent naming rights deal and our own stadium... The club have at no stage mentioned groundshare, and its merely scare tactics and speculation on your part.

[Mad Men]

Every home/property has a price. It really comes down to negotiating a fair deal and maybe even throwing in some carrots to make it worth their while to sell/move....maybe cash plus a new home as a enticer...they come away richer and no mortgage to worry about.

It could work..IF they are fair minded people.

[Azi]

Every home/property has a price. It really comes down to negotiating a fair deal and maybe even throwing in some carrots to make it worth their while to sell/move....maybe cash plus a new home as a enticer...they come away richer and no mortgage to worry about.

It could work..IF they are fair minded people.

problem is not every one will be a football fan and will just see $$$$ in their eyes  Motherwell failed to get permission to extend their stand back in the 60s as the money used from the ian st john sale to liverpool was used to renovate the stands (shows how things have changed )  Instead of running the full length of the pitch, it only reaches  three quarters of the way. This was because of the residents  said it would overshadow the garden behind it and the occupants of the house and the directors of Motherwell could not come to terms regarding compensation. Rather than be held to ransom, the directors decided apon a shorter version which still stands today
 

[Peter McGurk]

or a decent naming rights deal and our own stadium... The club have at no stage mentioned groundshare, and its merely scare tactics and speculation on your part.

I'm not scaring anyone.  But I don't want to settle for second-best.  If a redevelopment is frustrated and a new stadium doesn't make as much money - even with naming rights, what else are the club to do??

[redhot-robbie]

I'm not scaring anyone.  But I don't want to settle for second-best.  If a redevelopment is frustrated and a new stadium doesn't make as much money - even with naming rights, what else are the club to do??

Only my opinion but I think the council want the clubs to share a ground.  Everton don't have any money and need a new ground because Goodison is falling to pieces, they don't have the funds or ability to attract a naming rights partner big enough to fund a move.  We need a new ground because we have the demand for match day tickets.

I still think the council want a groundshare, if not that I think they would like the Stanley Park option because of the whole regeneration aspects that come with it.  Redeveloping Anfield I think is at the bottom of their list because of the headaches involved in potential CPO's.  The biggest problem is their preferences are the opposite to ours, Redevelop, Stanley Park, Groundshare.

I get what you are saying Peter, options are limited and the council know that.. although I feel physically sick at the thought of a souless dome shared with the Bluenoses.

[CraigDS]

I'm not scaring anyone.  But I don't want to settle for second-best.  If a redevelopment is frustrated and a new stadium doesn't make as much money - even with naming rights, what else are the club to do??

So what's a ground share if it's not second best?

[west_london_red]

I'm not scaring anyone.  But I don't want to settle for second-best.  If a redevelopment is frustrated and a new stadium doesn't make as much money - even with naming rights, what else are the club to do??

Look at what you said earlier, if we cant get redevelopment the next step is groundshare, which isnt true as there is still the possibilty of building a new stadium. If that isnt possible, yes we may have to make some very hard decisions, but we are not there yet so im not going to make guesses as to what might happen.

[Mad Men]

I am going to assume the vast majority are against groundshare but if we can get financial help from the government or local council to build a stadium on the docks and groundshare with Everton that doesn't load the club up with massive debt but still allows us to sell the stadium name for naming rights and were allowed to develop the area surrounding the stadium for commercial and high end condominiums, would you go for it IF re-development was out of the question..rather than spending x amount on a new stadium and taking on a massive loan for the next 15-20 years?

[CraigDS]

No to groundshare

No to moving out of Anfield

[caronia]

Parry wades in.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/New-stadium-is-only-option-for-Liverpool-says-Rick-Parry-article782581.html

[Easy]

Parry would have been party to the business case and impact assessments done at the time, so surely these cannot have changed much since he was at LFC. Given he was an accountant by trade he more than anyone should have understood the numbers.

[Dave_the_Red]

Parry wades in.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/New-stadium-is-only-option-for-Liverpool-says-Rick-Parry-article782581.html

Patsy has a fucking  cheek opening his gob regards LFC,  Trust us  (he said) FUCKOFF I SAY   

[Visigoth33]

Parry wades in.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/New-stadium-is-only-option-for-Liverpool-says-Rick-Parry-article782581.html

Fucking hilarious stuff from the incompetent whopper.

[Peter McGurk]

Look at what you said earlier, if we cant get redevelopment the next step is groundshare, which isnt true as there is still the possibilty of building a new stadium. If that isnt possible, yes we may have to make some very hard decisions, but we are not there yet so im not going to make guesses as to what might happen.

If a redevelopment is blocked and the club have said a new stadium doesn't earn as much, a new stadium has to be second best.  If you don't want this second best, the next logical step has to be a groundshare.  No-one wants a groundshare but to be honest it's hard to argue against financially (after a redevelopment). 

In fact, in terms of financial preference, I wouldn't say a new stadium is even second best.  I would say the club already knows that it's 1. redevelopment, 2. shared stadium, 3. new stadium (with very big naming rights), 4. Do nothing.

And if anyone thinks they haven't looked at the option of a shared stadium...

[Peter McGurk]

I am going to assume the vast majority are against groundshare but if we can get financial help from the government or local council to build a stadium on the docks and groundshare with Everton that doesn't load the club up with massive debt but still allows us to sell the stadium name for naming rights and were allowed to develop the area surrounding the stadium for commercial and high end condominiums, would you go for it IF re-development was out of the question..rather than spending x amount on a new stadium and taking on a massive loan for the next 15-20 years?

Where are you from and where have you been!!  This council, this region, this country has no money at all.  And even this 'Europe' has no money whatsoever for a private enterprise like a football club, particularly in the only industry that is (currently) bucking the recession.  And LFC willing to indulge in as wildly non-core activity as residential development and being 'allowed' to develop 'high-end condos" on Peel Holdings property??  No mate.