Topic: DLA leads for Liverpool FC on £260m Anfield regeneration plan

[phillypool]

DLA Piper has scored a lead role advising Liverpool Football Club on plans for a £260m regeneration of the area surrounding the Premier League club's famous Anfield stadium.

The proposals, which are subject to an ongoing public consultation, could see the iconic stadium expanded, as well as the potential development of more than 550 new homes.

The club has formed a partnership with Liverpool City Council and social housing provider Your Housing Group to draw up the development plans, which also include a 10,000 sq ft food hub, new offices, a public square and a hotel.

A large DLA team advising Liverpool FC is being led by UK head of construction and engineering Jim Pinsent, with support from real estate partner Mark Beardwood and intellectual property and technology partner Sarah Bell.

The team is working closely with Liverpool FC's in-house legal team on the project, which includes general counsel Natalie Wignall and legal executive Joanne Roberts.

Liverpool City Council and Your Housing Group are both using their in-house legal teams.

DLA also advised Liverpool FC in 2009 on its £80m shirt sponsorship agreement with Standard Chartered Bank. Other law firms to have worked with the club in the past include Slaughter and May, which advised the club's board during the protracted 2010 takeover battle that eventually saw US co-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett relinquish control of the club to Fenway Sports Group in a closely watched £300m deal

http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/news/2280977/dla-leads-for-liverpool-fc-on-gbp260m-anfield-regeneration-plan

[CraigDS]

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=294764.msg11815360#msg11815360

[iamrobk]

Oddly enough I'll be interviewing with them for a job in a month. Maybe I should mention Liverpool during the interview haha.

[Andy]

This was on the Estates Gazette website. They've no axe to grind so sounds promising?



Score for Anfield regen plans

By Chris Berkin  |   05-09-2013  |  10:45  |  Print

More than 80% of residents in the Anfield area of Liverpool are backing the £260m regeneration plans for Liverpool FC’s stadium.

A survey of 1,700 people were consulted on proposals, unveiled in June, to overhaul the area and expand the club.

A consortium led by the city council and supported by Your Housing Group, Liverpool FC and Keepmoat is planning new homes, offices and major public realm changes.

These include the creation of a wide avenue through Stanley Park and a new public square.

Liverpool FC also intends to expand its stadium as part of the scheme, subject to local support and detailed feasibility studies.

Shopping facilities and a 100-bedroom hotel are also planned as part of the programme.

The survey results follow a six-week community engagement programme, with the feedback now to be considered as more detailed plans are created.

Any plans will be subject to formal consultation before planning applications are submitted next year.

Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson said: “People have given us invaluable information about the entire range of regeneration ideas and concepts which we unveiled. In the coming weeks we will use this information to refine our proposals and to undertake another listening and consultation exercise. We believe the plans are exciting and will deliver a massive improvement in quality of life for many thousands of people and be of major benefit to the city, not just Anfield.”

chris.berkin@estatesgazette.com

 

[Redric1970]

Some news at last, it was complete silence for a while.

[TepidT2O]

Liverpool owner John W Henry says finance is in place for Anfield revamp | Football | The Guardian

John W Henry, Liverpool's principal owner, has said there will be no repeat of the stalled stadium projects of Tom Hicks and George Gillett because Fenway Sports Group has the financial backing to redevelop Anfield.

Liverpool announced last October that plans for a new stadium on Stanley Park had been scrapped in favour of refurbishing the club's historic home into a 60,000-capacity stadium, costing approximately £154m. Henry insists "good progress" has been made by Liverpool city council in purchasing the few remaining privately owned properties around Anfield, although a planning application will be submitted only once those deals are complete.

Tom Werner, the Liverpool chairman, held further talks with council officials during a visit to Merseyside last week and the club hope a breakthrough is close in the long-running, controversial stadium saga. FSG's predecessors, Hicks and Gillett, prolonged the delay during their near-ruinous tenure by scrapping stadium designs and then failing to secure funding for their preferred project. But Henry insists the finances are in place for FSG to redevelop Anfield, believed to be via the club's own banking facilities, and there will be no detrimental effect on Brendan Rodgers's transfer budget once work begins.

Henry said: "They [Hicks and Gillett] were talking about going out and borrowing an enormous amount of money for an enormous facility. That's not what we are doing here. One of their problems is that they weren't able to get financing.

"When this [project] happens, that won't be the problem. We just need certainty with regard to these properties. The number of properties is being reduced. The city council is doing everything they can and that's all we can ask. Not just the city council but Your Housing [a social housing developer] and everyone associated with this are all on the same page. The regeneration as well; we're all on the same page."

No plans have been unveiled for the refurbished Anfield, although it is understood to involve a new main stand and Anfield Road end being built behind the existing structures to minimise the impact on revenue. Asked if the work would have an effect on team rebuilding, Henry responded: "No, because it will pay for itself. It's actually a positive. It's one of the reasons we are doing it. It still provides excess cash. This is the direction that makes financial sense for the club in the long term." Liverpool initially hoped to apply for planning permission this spring but a handful of home owners have not agreed a deal with the city council and Your Housing.

"That's why we are where we are," confirmed Henry. Compulsory purchase orders remain an option, should the impasse continue, but legal disputes would add to the stadium delay and FSG want a resolution soon.

"We are making good progress," added Henry. "We have a lot of different groups working very well together and having everybody on the same page is the key to a big project like this happening and pretty much everyone is on the same page. The obstacles are not completely out of the way but we seem to be moving in that direction. The obstacles are being overcome. We don't have all the houses but we are making progress."

Liverpool's principal owner insisted he could not place a timeframe on a planning application for Anfield. He said: "We've always said you have to have certainty with regards to the properties because of the height of the stands and all the issues regarding that. That has been the biggest issue. We need certainty on that."

[TepidT2O]

Couple of crucial bits there.


1. Funding is in place to the tune of £154m

2. The stands will be built behind the main stand and Annie road to avoid impact on revenue streams.


Should start to pay for itself quite quickly....

Seems a step closer

[CraigDS]

Interesting comments there from JH.

The amount and the building behind the current stands aren't quotes though so not sure if just something assumed by the journo or something told during the interview but not quoted.

[west_london_red]

Just need to get a move on, interest rates are at a historic low so now is as good as a time as you are going to get to borrow £150 million!

[Nessy76]

Interesting comments there from JH.

The amount and the building behind the current stands aren't quotes though so not sure if just something assumed by the journo or something told during the interview but not quoted.

Says it's "understood" - which is usually journo speak for "I was told off the record"

[artanis]

Reading this, it implies when he says "It still provides excess cash" that the calculation is that the revenue from extra seats will cover the payments on the new stadium expansion debt and that there will even be some cash left over. So it will not reduce or impact transfers, salaries etc. unlike Arsenal's stadium. Nice.

[Zeb]

Slowly coming together. Building behind the current stands would mean that the playing area would also be expanded?

[CraigDS]

Slowly coming together. Building behind the current stands would mean that the playing area would also be expanded?

I take it to mean that they will build whilst the current stands are in use, to minimise the amount of time they are out of action. Something Peter has gone on about doing a fair bit.

Suppose it could also mean expanding the playing area, but think there are issues with the stands that will remain and sight lines.

[Red_Rich]

Suppose it could also mean expanding the playing area, but think there are issues with the stands that will remain and sight lines.

I don't imagine the playing area will change nor will the existing main stand seats/paddock etc.

All I see is the extention continuing up above the existing MR and AR stands and new roofs on both.

In other words, I don't see them demolishing what is already there .... just adding exec boxes and more tiers higher up.

[CraigDS]

I don't imagine the playing area will change nor will the existing main stand seats/paddock etc.

All I see is the extention continuing up above the existing MR and AR stands and new roofs on both.

In other words, I don't see them demolishing what is already there .... just adding exec boxes and more tiers higher up.

It's certainly an option I think, although could be issues on the Anny Rd end given the poor view from the lower currently as it is, plus the supports that had to be put in.

I would create a strange looking Main Stand too given how tall it is currently by throwing another tier on top, if thats possible.

[The Lord Admiral]

If I remember, I think Peter McGurk posted some pics on how they could do the Main stand in that way, building up from behind and then linking it all to the old stand.

Someone with better search function skills might be able to find a link!

[CraigDS]

If I remember, I think Peter McGurk posted some pics on how they could do the Main stand in that way, building up from behind and then linking it all to the old stand.

Someone with better search function skills might be able to find a link!

I think it involved losing some of what is there now though, re profiling it and it effectively becomes a whole new stand - he'll be on soon enough to clear it up though. I imagine there are ways to do it with either keeping all thats there now, or adding another tier, but not sure they will go that way.

To use the Centenary as an example, it is already taller (or at least as tall as) than the Main Stand, yet is smaller capacity wise by nearly 1,000 seats. Just throwing a new tier on top of the Main Stand would make the height absolutely huge, would dwarf the rest of the ground. I'm also unsure how much that would add capacity wise given the Upper Centenary only holds 4,600 - something similar on the main would leave having to produce a near 20k capacity end stand.

[mjjason]

How many properties remain?

Curious to now if the owners are people actually living there or have lived there or simply property investors that bought with the hope that one day the club will buy them out.

Not making a judgement on either but just curious how far off is this from officially happening.

[Zeb]

Ah thanks. Just the way it was phrased and a curious day reading things wrongly.

believed to be via the club's own banking facilities

Is an interesting line. Guess we should get a clearer idea Easter time, if not before.

[Eeyore]

I don't imagine the playing area will change nor will the existing main stand seats/paddock etc.

All I see is the extention continuing up above the existing MR and AR stands and new roofs on both.

In other words, I don't see them demolishing what is already there .... just adding exec boxes and more tiers higher up.

Don't they need to increase the size of the pitch to meet requirements to hold UEFA games.

[artanis]

Don't they need to increase the size of the pitch to meet requirements to hold UEFA games.

No, we've had plenty of UEFA games there already.
The issue is behind the goals, per UEFA regulations there's not enough space so the first 4-5 rows must remain empty. That's the issue, not the pitch size.

[naka]

How many properties remain?

an article in the belfast telegraph says 8 properties remain 5 of which are derelict and there are 4 landlords haggling for the best price.

[CraigDS]

an article in the belfast telegraph says 8 properties remain 5 of which are derelict and there are 4 landlords haggling for the best price.

It depends what roads were talking about.

If Lothair then last time I saw a figure it was less than 6 with deals agreed for a number of those. That was a good 2 months now.

It's a mix of long lived families and landlords iirc.

[Sgt. Pepper]

What happens after 5-10 years when 60k won't be enough? Will we be able to expand further or will have to look at the possibilities of new stadium?
Has anyone read anything about the ability to expand Anfield to ~70k down the line in articles about the redevelopment?

[Snaily]

Don't they need to increase the size of the pitch to meet requirements to hold UEFA games.

They would need to lengthen the pitch by 5m to hold a uefa final.  The pitch is wide enough but too short

[CraigDS]

What happens after 5-10 years when 60k won't be enough? Will we be able to expand further or will have to look at the possibilities of new stadium?
Has anyone read anything about the ability to expand Anfield to ~70k down the line in articles about the redevelopment?

Anything beyond 60k will be subject to transport improvements, most notably the train services to Anfield, however that won't happen without LCC putting in some big money.

Let's get to 60k and see if we have more demand.

[Sgt. Pepper]

Anything beyond 60k will be subject to transport improvements, most notably the train services to Anfield, however that won't happen without LCC putting in some big money.

Let's get to 60k and see if we have more demand.

The owners see themselves as long term planners. I can't see them sharing this line of thinking nor should they.
If there are structural issues that need to be addressed during this redevelopment in order to allow the stadium to be expanded beyond 60k someday then now's the time to find out, don't you think? 

[CraigDS]

The owners see themselves as long term planners. I can't see them sharing this line of thinking nor should they.
If there are structural issues that need to be addressed during this redevelopment in order to allow the stadium to be expanded beyond 60k someday then now's the time to find out, don't you think?

If they are small issues then yes, however they won't spend millions now on something which could never come to fruition - you're getting into realms of Hick's tiny away end in the HKS design.

Even if we had demand for 90k, we'd need the council to help fund a £100m+ rail plan, which just isn't going to happen until the area itself can fund it 24/7.

[Sgt. Pepper]

If they are small issues then yes, however they won't spend millions now on something which could never come to fruition - you're getting into realms of Hick's tiny away end in the HKS design.

Even if we had demand for 90k, we'd need the council to help fund a £100m+ rail plan, which just isn't going to happen until the area itself can fund it 24/7.

I'm not suggesting we must have everything set in place for when we'll need a +70k stadium out of pure ego trip. I'm aware we might not even need it.
There's got to be a place in the middle where we check all options, with a view not just for the next 5-10 years but the next several decades, and choose the right one.
Maybe a 60k Anfield redevelopment is the only viable option even if we won't be able to expand further, but the extra revenues will help (partially) to fund a new/bigger stadium, if needed.

Anyway, I was merely asking if anyone knows about the possibility of expanding Anfield beyond 60k, if it has been mentioned anywhere recently or not.

[Alan_X]

The owners see themselves as long term planners. I can't see them sharing this line of thinking nor should they.
If there are structural issues that need to be addressed during this redevelopment in order to allow the stadium to be expanded beyond 60k someday then now's the time to find out, don't you think? 

Not really. Anything is possible in theory as long as there is adequate finance but more importantly available land. Many stadiums have been extended in ways that were not planned. A perfect example is Dortmund that looks the way it does precisely because the original stadium and early extensions hadn't planned for 'final' ground in its current format. The San Siro is actually three structurally independent tiers.  I have no doubt that the feasibility studies and business analysis would have looked at the maximum planning envelope and come to a decision on the optimum stadium size in terms of cost and revenue. Putting in structural groundworks for a potential expansion that might never happen would not be cost effective and may not even be possible if an extension up to 70K required land that the club doesn't own.

I've made my position clear in the "70,000 seats my arse" thread and based on the way they have gone about this I think FSG have done their homework.

[Alan_X]

Has anyone read anything about the ability to expand Anfield to ~70k down the line in articles about the redevelopment?

Not in the redevelopment plans but there have been plenty of reports that FSG carried out an extensive review of the options to build Tom Hicks' white elephant, a version of the AFL scheme (The Parrybowl) and redevelopment of Anfield. That included analysis of the potential capacity, impact on potential matchday income and cost. That study concluded that redevelopment of Anfield was a better option than either of the Stanley Park schemes and that the optimum capacity was in the region of 60,000.

These BBC stories (there are plenty more) show how the club was initially being pushed to just get on with the Hicks plan, but quite rightly took the time to review what was actually required.

October 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19935925

June 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18461597

July 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14077470

[alvaro]

Is Liverpool going to be able to play its home games on Anfield during the construction?

[Alan_X]

Is Liverpool going to be able to play its home games on Anfield during the construction?

Yes, that's the whole point. Centenary Stand and Kop will be in continuous use during the season and some or all of the Anfield Road and Main Stand will also be in use. Work that might affect the existing stands would be done during the off season as far as possible.

This is the Centenary going up behind the old Kemlyn Road stand:

[Sgt. Pepper]

Not really. Anything is possible in theory as long as there is adequate finance but more importantly available land. Many stadiums have been extended in ways that were not planned. A perfect example is Dortmund that looks the way it does precisely because the original stadium and early extensions hadn't planned for 'final' ground in its current format. The San Siro is actually three structurally independent tiers.  I have no doubt that the feasibility studies and business analysis would have looked at the maximum planning envelope and come to a decision on the optimum stadium size in terms of cost and revenue. Putting in structural groundworks for a potential expansion that might never happen would not be cost effective and may not even be possible if an extension up to 70K required land that the club doesn't own.

I've made my position clear in the "70,000 seats my arse" thread and based on the way they have gone about this I think FSG have done their homework.

Had to check the thread, out of curiosity. I agree with your position but not with some of your reasoning/timing.
You wrote in the OP: "I don't give a fuck if it's a Monday night. Let's have a stadium that suits our needs not the ego of some here today gone tomorrow c*nt from Texas."
The low attendance against West Ham came when we were already knocked out of CL, 7th in the league (below Spurs, City & Villa) after a season in which we were fighting for the league title.
IIRC fans were also trying to make a stance against the former owners and trying to hurt them in their pockets by not turning up to games. So Monday night probably wasn't the top reason.

Ideally, the best way to go about it is to expand Anfield to 60k and if the club will NEED to expand further then we'll cross that bridge once we get to it.
At the same time there's also a fear that by the time we'll get around to it the club will again find itself behind the rest and play catch up.
The club has worked hard to be the new pace setters in the marketing department, we strive to the pace setters on the field (which we currently are! ) but with the stadium we are more withdrawn/careful/calculated/whatever you want to call it. It's definitely a good thing, though after watching the amazing 100k support in Australia this summer (for example) you can't help but wish every matchday was like that or somewhat closer, I guess.

[Sgt. Pepper]

Not in the redevelopment plans but there have been plenty of reports that FSG carried out an extensive review of the options to build Tom Hicks' white elephant, a version of the AFL scheme (The Parrybowl) and redevelopment of Anfield. That included analysis of the potential capacity, impact on potential matchday income and cost. That study concluded that redevelopment of Anfield was a better option than either of the Stanley Park schemes and that the optimum capacity was in the region of 60,000.

These BBC stories (there are plenty more) show how the club was initially being pushed to just get on with the Hicks plan, but quite rightly took the time to review what was actually required.

October 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19935925

June 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18461597

July 2012: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14077470

Thanks for the info! Much appreciated! 

Can't wait to see the official simulation pictures.

[Peter McGurk]

I think it involved losing some of what is there now though, re profiling it and it effectively becomes a whole new stand - he'll be on soon enough to clear it up though. I imagine there are ways to do it with either keeping all thats there now, or adding another tier, but not sure they will go that way.

To use the Centenary as an example, it is already taller (or at least as tall as) than the Main Stand, yet is smaller capacity wise by nearly 1,000 seats. Just throwing a new tier on top of the Main Stand would make the height absolutely huge, would dwarf the rest of the ground. I'm also unsure how much that would add capacity wise given the Upper Centenary only holds 4,600 - something similar on the main would leave having to produce a near 20k capacity end stand.

Keeping the structure and seating of the existing stands is a major dollop of common sense. Why demolish a 45,000 seat stadium and build 60,000 new or why demolish 12,000 in the main stand and build 20,000 new? It's the same logic.

The facilities under the stands can be gutted and re-fit all year round. They can be extended over the car park as new (as the lower floors of the new section of stand. It's a matter of sequencing the work. The site is after all available all but one or two days a fortnight, 24 hours a day (if necessary).

Building to the maximum behind each stand, stand by stand, gives you the option of increasing capacity as demand dictates.

However, 60k or maybe just above it is the number. The downside of building bigger is significant (transport/unfilled but expensive seats to build...)

[annieroader]

Is there something in this ? 

I bleed Red. ‏@LFC_news_YNWA_ 14h
If, and it's a big if, the said company do agree terms, #LFC could earn "richest club in the world" status overnight.
Expand

I bleed Red. ‏@LFC_news_YNWA_ 14h
Expect potential investment to gather pace, investors hope to conclude deal quickly. To be clear negotiations resumed 9th Sept. #LFC
Expand

I bleed Red. ‏@LFC_news_YNWA_ 14h
Qatar wants to invest money in #LFC & across Europe. New hotels, companies etc. They want to buy Liverpool to gain visibility & prestige.
Expand

I bleed Red. ‏@LFC_news_YNWA_ 14h
The talks are with another multi billion £ Qatar investment company, although FSG not looking to sell. Some deals are to good to turn down.
Expand

I bleed Red. ‏@LFC_news_YNWA_ 14h
NEWS: WHO? I can say this, talks with Ooredoo are ongoing. However they want Anfield renamed. Hence no deal was struck in July. #LFC
Expand

I bleed Red. ‏@LFC_news_YNWA_ 15h
REGARDING #LFC INVESTMENT: It will be going into the Club, via share sales (diluting FSG shares) rather than buying a % of FSG ownership.

I bleed Red. ‏@LFC_news_YNWA_ 15h
investors see the full package, to use the brand to develop the city, tourism & and potential growth

I bleed Red. ‏@LFC_news_YNWA_ 15h
Anfield and surrounding areas. To develop the community also. Create jobs. PR & revenue

I bleed Red. ‏@LFC_news_YNWA_ 15h
The investment is initially for plot development around Anfield, then ground & expansion

I bleed Red. ‏@LFC_news_YNWA_ 15h
Apparently we should have big Investment from the Middle East soon, stadium plans and written forms progressing well [@LFC_news_YNWA_] #LFC

Trevor Gerrard ‏@TrevorPGerrard 13h
fsg plan is for outside body to fund stadium, this frees up the money in that pot for the club. Investors want big city hotels @lfcl4
View conversation

Trevor Gerrard ‏@TrevorPGerrard 13h
As I said months ago, the investors want the stadium & surrounding area. Hotel, sports complex etc etc. Need planning first though #lfc

[CraigDS]

There isn't really the land around Anfield for a sports complex, multiple hotels, etc, is there? It's already ear marked for house, as part of the regen.

[annieroader]

There isn't really the land around Anfield for a sports complex, multiple hotels, etc, is there? It's already ear marked for house, as part of the regen.

Yeah there is mate as the houses/business that are there now would disappear mate,I was talking to Linda from the cafe the other week and they have been told where the hotel,food outlets ect will all be going.
She also said it looks like it is happening soon too as some of the businesses have took the money on offer too.

[CraigDS]

Yeah there is mate as the houses/business that are there now would disappear mate,I was talking to Linda from the cafe the other week and they have been told where the hotel,food outlets ect will all be going.
She also said it looks like it is happening soon too as some of the businesses have took the money on offer too.

There are going to be 30 odd food outlets coming through the park on the new avenue they are proposing. Plus loads of space for business premises along Walton Breck.

And there is no way permission would be given for an even wider demolition area to make a sports complex.

Can't see that happening myself.