Topic: Liverpool confirm decision to redevelop Anfield

[Tepid water]

I think we've got to remember that the new stadium was believed to be the ONLY option until recently.

Now we can see that a redevelopment is an option (after 15 years of noways) surely it is churlish to pick people up on a choice of phrase referring to what was believed to be the only option available.

[swordfishtrombone]

All they`ve done is yap yap yap on about the stadium/redevelopment since they`ve come.They`re here nearly 22 months now.Talk is cheap and i`m sick to me teeth of hearing it.

Excuse me for being so cynical but could anybody blame me?

I suppose you could be excused for being cynical if you'd spent the last 22 months just waiting for an announcement. If you'd spent that time reading this board I think it'd be clear that, although there hasn't been an official announcement, there does seem to be progress behind the scenes. A properly redeveloped Anfield would be amazing, and would be a solution that most people felt was impossible. I'm prepared to give them a bit of time to come up with the right solution.

[LiamG]

Nearly 2 years is a long time to wait for any news, surely they must be very close to announcing something?!

[shelovesyou]

Cant we just do this. Then expand.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18168278

[helmboy_nige]

Cant we just do this. Then expand.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18168278

We have a winner.  What are you thinking?  Move the whole stadium into stanley park and then expand?  I like it.

[shelovesyou]

We have a winner.  What are you thinking?  Move the whole stadium into stanley park and then expand?  I like it.

Yeh.
Its mental sure, but it'd be fucking cool.

[dylman]

Yeh.
Its mental sure, but it'd be fucking cool.

Such a great plan.  I have this mental image of us "accidentally" reversing into Goodison on the way across the park.  "Sorry lads, had no idea you were there."

[CraigDS]

Can we not just offer Bellamy in part ex for the Millenium Stadium and move that up here?!

[AKABillyGee]

Do you happen to have £300m sitting round doing fuck all that you could send to John Henry to pay for a stadium?

Personally not quite - but any bank would snap your hands off for a capital investment that gives a return on the capital employed (ROCE) of in excess of 22%  and with a capital payback of less than ten years.  Put that business strategy to four or five banks and see loan rates tumbling as they pitch for the business.

[CraigDS]

Personally not quite - but any bank would snap your hands off for a capital investment that gives a return on the capital employed (ROCE) of in excess of 22%  and with a capital payback of less than ten years.  Put that business strategy to four or five banks and see loan rates tumbling as they pitch for the business.

The bank might not mind, but the club might. Especially when there is an option which costs half the amount for the same return.

[Peter McGurk]

Personally not quite - but any bank would snap your hands off for a capital investment that gives a return on the capital employed (ROCE) of in excess of 22%  and with a capital payback of less than ten years.  Put that business strategy to four or five banks and see loan rates tumbling as they pitch for the business.

What a pity then that a new stadium doesn't do that. Or rather, the return on capital employed to create a further 15,000 seats is so poor.

Any bank with any sense would look at that and question the marbles of the people they would be about to invest in.

Put the old dream away. It was just a myth. If Moores and Parry had had a bit more will to face the issues of redevelopment, one of them might still own the club (but perhaps the club still wouldn't have the bottle and nouse to rebuild it).

.

[conman]

We've just designed the fit-out for one of the Olymp[ic Hospitality Centres and the temporary buildings (marquees) are really high quality.

but the olympics are a short term event. Shouldn't we be looking to build hospitality suites for med/long term use?

[CraigDS]

but the olympics are a short term event. Shouldn't we be looking to build hospitality suites for med/long term use?

Within a new stadium/redev - yes.

But why build permanent structures now (which probably wouldn't get permission for) when we will hopefully have them in 2-3yrs within a new stadium/stand of some sort?

[conman]

Within a new stadium/redev - yes.

But why build permanent structures now (which probably wouldn't get permission for) when we will hopefully have them in 2-3yrs within a new stadium/stand of some sort?

If we are to use these hospitality suites for 2-3 years, then that's cool with me.
Then incorporate a permanent hospitality area into the redevlopment of Anfield or a new stadium.

[CraigDS]

If we are to use these hospitality suites for 2-3 years, then that's cool with me.
Then incorporate a permanent hospitality area into the redevlopment of Anfield or a new stadium.

Planning permission is for these being up for 2 years I believe so would suggest that.

[Tepid water]

I happened to drive past ascot racecourse the other day.


They had a 3 story temporary building (I think it was a press centre), and it was very good quality indeed.

[Peter McGurk]

I happened to drive past ascot racecourse the other day.


They had a 3 story temporary building (I think it was a press centre), and it was very good quality indeed.

People are impatient and calling for action NOW. This is action now. That will bring in more funds now without compromising any plans for the immediate future. Good and clever.

.

[Peter McGurk]

The point is not to pay more for longer for ‘better’ facilities. The point is to have facilities that are better at making more money.

That’s for now, tomorrow and for the distant and foreseeable future. And in the short, medium and long term, premium seats clearly return more after costs than boxes. Even ignoring the knock-on effect on the cost of the stadium itself, it’s a much better proposition.

‘Pricing it right’ (ie., lowering the price) clearly goes the wrong way in terms of increased cost. Lower revenue, higher cost, mmmm...

***

Some use ’pay back’ as a short-hand to compare cost benefit but it is in fact irrelevant. The ‘value’ is averaged out over the whole life of the stadium and is effectively the same on the first day as it is on the last. To do otherwise is to gamble on the state of the economy and the game for the next 30 years or so. No thanks.

The premium seats at Wembley have been sold for up to 15 years in advance. That’s every single premium seat for every single game has been pre-sold for years in advance. This isn’t Wembley but we can manage to pre-sell premium seats just as much as we can pre-sell boxes. Perhaps better...

...As FSG have suggested, in Liverpool there isn’t that strong a market for groups of 10 at £65k a go as there might be for individuals or smaller groups at £6.5k a head.

***

About 600 upgraded seats from standard to premium would cover the £3m costs with a nice, healthy surplus over 5 years. They’ll do ok.

***

The atmosphere comes from all four sides of the ground theses days (such as it is - other than high feast and holidays). The Kop could and should be louder. The problem is the old farts who sit on their hands are the ones who can afford it http://petermcgurk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/money-means-and-menaces.html

EDIT:

This quick comparison shows the potential for cost reduction (for the same income). Another no-brainer...



stadiumsection by Peter McGurk, on Flickr

.

[oojason]

EDIT:

This quick comparison shows the potential for cost reduction (for the same income). Another no-brainer...

It also shows that we'd be losing out on people who want corporate boxes from that long waiting list for them - even in these economic times - the one that for some reason the club seems to ignore when it states there 'isn’t that strong a market for groups of 10 at £65k'.

Suppose we could always tell them it's not cost-effective and watch them go reluctantly elsewhere - or wait for more years like they've been doing already for one to be come available in the Centenary, whilst they spend the money at our competitor and other clubs.

I'd have thought a re-development or new stadium would take into account all supporters and their needs and requirements - and bring in those increased revenues from the more corporate side of services which we currently do not provide enough of.

[CraigDS]

It also shows that we'd be losing out on people who want corporate boxes from that long waiting list for them - even in these economic times - the one that for some reason the club seems to ignore when it states there 'isn’t that strong a market for groups of 10 at £65k'.

Suppose we could always tell them it's not cost-effective and watch them go reluctantly elsewhere - or wait for more years like they've been doing already for one to be come available in the Centenary, whilst they spend the money at our competitor and other clubs.

I'd have thought a re-development or new stadium would take into account all supporters and their needs and requirements - and bring in those increased revenues from the more corporate side of services which we currently do not provide enough of.

Out of interest how long is the waiting list for one and how many people are actually on it? Considering that's what this argument is based on.

By removing the need to build boxes into the design it means construction costs would be lower, and the income the boxes provide can be matched by the added premium seats in their place. These also have the added benefit of being sold on a match by match basis without the hospitality so can limit the amount of times space is sat there earning nothing (which unsold boxes would do).

And no, a new stadium is designed to take into account the best way to make the most money whilst providing a certain level of service to as many price brackets as possible. It isn't about providing something for everyone no matter what the costs or income it may (or may not) generate.

[oojason]

Out of interest how long is the waiting list for one and how many people are actually on it? Considering that's what this argument is based on.

By removing the need to build boxes into the design it means construction costs would be lower, and the income the boxes provide can be matched by the added premium seats in their place. These also have the added benefit of being sold on a match by match basis without the hospitality so can limit the amount of times space is sat there earning nothing (which unsold boxes would do).

And no, a new stadium is designed to take into account the best way to make the most money whilst providing a certain level of service to as many price brackets as possible. It isn't about providing something for everyone no matter what the costs or income it may (or may not) generate.

^ as of last year the people I mainly sub for were told it was 'highly unlikely you'd get one in next 8 years' (boxes were taken in 3 year blocks), and that there wasn't a electronic waiting list (like there wasn't for the regular STH list) but there were details for 'several hundred companies on file' - and there were around 150 serious inquiries per year for them - not bad as they haven't been advertised on .tv anymore (bar the tv suite box)?

Cheers for the rest of the post - but it's repeating what Peter said, isn't it?

But as we're in repeat mode - I'd prefer a new ground/redevelopment to help us bring in those increased revenues from the more corporate side of services which we currently do not provide enough of.

[CraigDS]

^ as of last year the people I mainly sub for were told it was 'highly unlikely you'd get one in next 8 years' (boxes were taken in 3 year blocks), and that there wasn't a electronic waiting list (like there wasn't for the regular STH list) but there were details for 'several hundred companies on file' - and there were around 150 serious inquiries per year for them - not bad as they haven't been advertised on .tv anymore (bar the tv suite box)?

Cheers for the rest of the post - but it's repeating what Peter said, isn't it?

But as we're in repeat mode - I'd prefer a new ground/redevelopment to help us bring in those increased revenues from the more corporate side of services which we currently do not provide enough of.

Ask the same questions and get the same answers, hence repeat mode as you call it.

If, and it is a big if, the waiting list is so long for boxes then I'd expect the club will sell 10yr contracts in advance of any build. That would be reason enough to build them I'd expect. However I'm not so sure we have a waiting list so big.

And of course, we'd all want any new build (redev or new stadium) to cater for the cash cows that are corporates. It's just the best way to go about milking those without spending silly money developing the stadium around them (i.e. ring of silence).

[AKABillyGee]

What a pity then that a new stadium doesn't do that. Or rather, the return on capital employed to create a further 15,000 seats is so poor.

Any bank with any sense would look at that and question the marbles of the people they would be about to invest in.

Put the old dream away. It was just a myth. If Moores and Parry had had a bit more will to face the issues of redevelopment, one of them might still own the club (but perhaps the club still wouldn't have the bottle and nouse to rebuild it).

.

Peter I have worked all my life in strategy and money, not in dreams.  Adding another tier and around six thousand seats to the main and Annie Rd stands and selling them at premium rates will provide a decent/sensible short term return but it will not provide the platform for long term growth of LFC - a new stadium delivers that.

Imagine FSG had decided to buy another Nascar team instead of LFC.  A world famous team living on past glories but not generating wins or revenue to compete. They need new cars and increased revenues.  FSG come in and rather than supply new cars they convince fans that the present fleet is fine, only 45,000 on the clock.  Rather than replace with new competitive vehicles how about refurbished engines, new tyres, bang out the dents and bring in some new sponsors.

All looks nice and glossy.  The competitors unfortunately have nice new flashy, more powerful motors and continue to wipe the floor with all comers.  But we are in the top five and making money so what is the problem?  And no top driver wants to drive for a team living on past glories.

LFC have hung on to the past in more ways than one way for far too long and if we do not let go soon it will kill the club.  Time to move on. time to make money.

[CraigDS]

I'm sure Ayre has been quoted saying the revenue from a new stadium matches that from a redeveloped Anfield - so guess the plan would be slightly more than 6k seats.

I'd also think it provides more of a platform as allows us to move forward incrementally as and when demand dictates. Much like the plan United have (and are) followed.

[TSC]

So is anything happening here at all beyind the usual speculation?  Any firm news/plans, etc?

[CraigDS]

So is anything happening here at all beyind the usual speculation?  Any firm news/plans, etc?

Other than what's coming out from residents/council about buying up the land behind the Main Stand, nope.

Until that happens and we have a green light for a redev you won't see or hear anything though I'd guess.

[TSC]

Other than what's coming out from residents/council about buying up the land behind the Main Stand, nope.

Until that happens and we have a green light for a redev you won't see or hear anything though I'd guess.

No change then.  Same old since 2004/5 or thereabouts.

[CraigDS]

No change then.  Same old since 2004/5 or thereabouts.

Well pre-2002 really as that's when the club announced the original plans, so sometime before that had decided a redev wasn't an option.

A lot has changed since then, mainly due to shitloads of the houses being boarded up for the best part of a decade and the regeneration not happening around the ground as it should of. That's why the council have changed their opinion.

But yeah, officially from the club, not much has changed. Unofficially if you look what's changed, plenty has.

[geoffstrong]

Damned if they say too much, damned if they say too little.

do you believe every word they utter?

[CraigDS]

do you believe every word they utter?

Of course not, but with regards to the stadium issue they have said very little and it's the local residents and council who have said a lot.

[geoffstrong]

Of course not, but with regards to the stadium issue they have said very little and it's the local residents and council who have said a lot.

good which is why i stand back and watch what they do, not what they say they will do. Local Council in their parlance appears to keep throwing them a curved ball though!

[CraigDS]

to be honest the council wouldn't be going round offering local residents what they are doing for their homes, and displaying the 3 options for the breckfield triangle unless the club had been on at them to acquire the land. Forcing people out there homes (all be it only about 4 owner lived in houses left in that street now) wouldn't exactly be the best PR unless it led to some pretty big regen in the area.

[Appreciator of former strikers]

so basically its all but official that we are expanding anfield in some way yes?

[CraigDS]

so basically its all but official that we are expanding anfield in some way yes?

Should the council be able to acquire the properties they are after (on behalf of the club) then yeah, I'd expect to see us announce a redev of Anfield.

[Paul Gardner]

Should the council be able to acquire the properties they are after (on behalf of the club) then yeah, I'd expect to see us announce a redev of Anfield.

Council plans are essentially separate to what the club will or won't do. Option 3 from those presented to Rockfield Triangle opens up possibilities of redevelopment for LFC, but doesn't mean it will happen.

[CraigDS]

Council plans are essentially separate to what the club will or won't do. Option 3 from those presented to Rockfield Triangle opens up possibilities of redevelopment for LFC, but doesn't mean it will happen.

It doesn't, but then you have to wonder why LCC would suddenly start to offer these options, and offers to residents, if it didn't have a pretty good idea that we would take up the option from them of the land so we could expand Anfield. Obviously no guarantees but seems likely.

[Paul Gardner]

It doesn't, but then you have to wonder why LCC would suddenly start to offer these options, and offers to residents, if it didn't have a pretty good idea that we would take up the option from them of the land so we could expand Anfield. Obviously no guarantees but seems likely.

LCC are doing it because they have to do something after HMRI was pulled. It lines up with Anfield Village also. LCC have dialogue with LFC obviously over the stadium issue, but work on the Rockfield Triangle doesn't imply either way. Rockfield and other areas desperately need regeneration and it can't just wait for LFC anymore hence why LCC are trying to address it regardless of what LFC are doing.

[CraigDS]

LCC are doing it because they have to do something after HMRI was pulled. It lines up with Anfield Village also. LCC have dialogue with LFC obviously over the stadium issue, but work on the Rockfield Triangle doesn't imply either way. Rockfield and other areas desperately need regeneration and it can't just wait for LFC anymore hence why LCC are trying to address it regardless of what LFC are doing.

It's a little more than a coincidence though, surely you see, that we come out saying we're looking at all options with regards to the stadium inc. redeveloping Anfield (infact we bring that option back to the table in a big way). Then all of a sudden LCC, and this is years after funding was pulled, and nearly a decade after they (and us, and Arena) decided to leave shit loads of houses boarded up, decide that they will offer certain options which just happen to include demolition plans which handily solve the right to light issue.

Now obviously I'm not saying its a cert, but it's highly likely this is all linked.

[Paul Gardner]

It's a little more than a coincidence though, surely you see, that we come out saying we're looking at all options with regards to the stadium inc. redeveloping Anfield (infact we bring that option back to the table in a big way). Then all of a sudden LCC, and this is years after funding was pulled, and nearly a decade after they (and us, and Arena) decided to leave shit loads of houses boarded up, decide that they will offer certain options which just happen to include demolition plans which handily solve the right to light issue.

Now obviously I'm not saying its a cert, but it's highly likely this is all linked.

It will have an impact of the scope. Got to take into account that even if LFC move option 3 would still supplement an Anfield Plaza. I'm saying all this as someone who has met with officers of the council to discuss 'The Football Quarter' and have asked the questions about what the plans mean and what they are about.

The areas bound by Walton Breck Road and Rockfield Triangle were later phases in the HMRI so were technically scheduled to see some action at some point until the HMRI was scrapped. With that being scrapped and various coalition cuts it will have took some more work to approach how to sort things. Of course LFC solving the stadium challenge would have acted as a catalyst to everything as well and still can.

[CraigDS]

Indeed, it will be us deciding on (and acting upon) plans for a new/redev stadium that will hopefully spark wider regeneration. It shouldn't really of been that way but will be.

And I know rockfield, etc. was a later phase hence why it's sudden jump to a priority along with the type of options (bearing in mind moving would also give the land Anfield was on so wouldn't really need Lothair Rd and beyond which is option 3) they are offering to me seems more like we are looking to expand Anfield.

Either way, until something official comes out the club it is all guess work trying to read into what is happening at the LCC and talk from the residents.