Topic: Ayre: 'We're making stadium progress'

[Alan_X]

I'm not sure what the obvious is?

But anyway, I think the problem is you'd have to rebuild all the stands.

If you lower the pitch, you'd mess up the sightlines of all the existing seats - a section of pitch closest to each stand wouldn't be visible.

Secondly, as Craig says, you'd also have to move at least some of the stands in order to have space to put in the new rows at the front.

A lot of people find it hard to visualise that because stands are on an angle, building down means building in towards the pitch. You might leave two stands in place (say the Kop and the Kemlyn) but the sightlines would be adversly affected. The pitch would need to be moved over and the retained stands would not be centred on it any more so would need to be extended. Because of the roof construction you'd need a new roof. The new Annie Road and Main Stands would be further away meaning land for construction as you'd be looking to get the additional capacity all in those directions.
 
And the pitch doesn't meet UEFA regs anyway at the moment (4 metres too short) so before you start the new Annie Road stand is 4 metres into the road.

There is no benefit in building down with the current stadium.

[Alan_X]

Peter - I had a look in Stadium Atlas and although Dortmund feels compact it's actually larger than the Allianz and is one of the few German World Cup stadia to have seats outside the maximum viwing distance - the two others have running tracks. The upper tier is 80 cm tread depth again with a linear rake of 60 degrees

The tread depth in the lower tiers is 80cm but the rake is quite steep at 27.5 degrees. The ascent is 40/44 cms and is linear. That's at the bottom end for the stadia in the book.

[Peter McGurk]

Peter - I had a look in Stadium Atlas and although Dortmund feels compact it's actually larger than the Allianz and is one of the few German World Cup stadia to have seats outside the maximum viwing distance - the two others have running tracks. The upper tier is 80 cm tread depth again with a linear rake of 60 degrees

The tread depth in the lower tiers is 80cm but the rake is quite steep at 27.5 degrees. The ascent is 40/44 cms and is linear. That's at the bottom end for the stadia in the book.

No, it's not 60 degrees. 30 degrees maybe (more like 37 degrees) but that doesn't affect tread depth...

.

[Alan_X]

No, it's not 60 degrees. 30 degrees maybe (more like 37 degrees) but that doesn't affect tread depth...

.

That's the way it's written Peter but you're right 60 degrees wouldn't work. Left the office now but will check tomorrow.

[swordfishtrombone]

Right to light? Does it denote the basic natural lighting?

Surely a stadium wont block the basic natural lighting to a row of houses. Or am I missing something here?

I think a big bloody stand would block a fair bit of direct sunlight that the houses currently get.

"n effect, the owner of a building with windows that have received natural daylight for 20 years or more is entitled to forbid any construction or other obstruction that would deprive him or her of that illumination."

[reds88]

Should Anfield be redeveloped until the process begins in buying up the houses on land needed for the stadium nobody knows for sure if this could be a show-stopper.  What is the likelihood of the club being able to buy the land that is needed?

Right to light.  What is the impact and are there viable solutions to this?  If there an't does it mean that the possibility?

Of course I might be over simplying things, if the redevelopment of Anfield is not feasible than should the decision making process of what to do be straightforward?

Regards of redevelopment or new build, I don't think those interest parties would commit to anything until FSG commits to a final decision. 

[Peter McGurk]

Should Anfield be redeveloped until the process begins in buying up the houses on land needed for the stadium nobody knows for sure if this could be a show-stopper.  What is the likelihood of the club being able to buy the land that is needed?

Right to light.  What is the impact and are there viable solutions to this?  If there an't does it mean that the possibility?

Of course I might be over simplying things, if the redevelopment of Anfield is not feasible than should the decision making process of what to do be straightforward?

Regards of redevelopment or new build, I don't think those interest parties would commit to anything until FSG commits to a final decision.

For whatever reason offers are being made and even accepted as we speak and as Ayre says, the club has never had greater dialogue with the local residents.

If you go to the local residents' website you can see reports of rights of light surveys being done for the club http://anfieldsrockfieldtriangle.weebly.com/residents-forum.html (3D Laser Scanning SURVEY (Lothair Road, Alroy Road))

I think a big bloody stand would block a fair bit of direct sunlight that the houses currently get.

"n effect, the owner of a building with windows that have received natural daylight for 20 years or more is entitled to forbid any construction or other obstruction that would deprive him or her of that illumination."

No-one has a right to direct sunlight. If they did, we'd all be suing God in the UK (ok, not to-day... but it's only 9 o'clock). And no-one has an absolute right to the level of light they've enjoyed for 20 years.

We do have a right to daylight at an 'appropriate' level. ie., it can come from any direction in an open sky and must reach a required level. If you can see 1/50th of an otherwise open sky from half of any habitable room - you have an appropriate level of light. If you previously enjoyed more light than that, you may be compensated but you are not entitled to forbid any construction simply because it has been reduced to the appropriate level.

If streets are acquired for expansion, clearly the issue no longer applies to the cleared street (unless you want to sue yourself).

Because the streets that remain would be further away, a taller stand may have the same daylight relationship to Alroy Road as the existing stand has to Lothair Road (for example).

.

[Zeb]

For whatever reason offers are being made and even accepted as we speak and as Ayre says, the club has never had greater dialogue with the local residents.

If you go to the local residents' website you can see reports of rights of light surveys being done for the club http://anfieldsrockfieldtriangle.weebly.com/residents-forum.html (3D Laser Scanning SURVEY (Lothair Road, Alroy Road))

You always said that where there's a will there's a way. This is big progress isn't it? At least in terms of getting to grips with what is possible?

[JohnHobbes]

You always said that where there's a will there's a way. This is big progress isn't it? At least in terms of getting to grips with what is possible?

It does suggest that things are happening behind the scenes rather than just being a bluff as some have suggested. Even simple things like better dialogue with the residents is a good improvement. Let's hope that things keep progressing and we have some tangible announcement soon

[reds88]

Peter McGurk, thanks for the clarification.

With the dialogue with residents and the process in buying the homes near Anfield, it seems clear FSG are planning to opt for redevelopment.  At the same time, it makes sense not to commit to it officially.

[CraigDS]

They are actively following both options - looking for a sponsor which makes a new stadium possible, and looking if they can solve the issues regarding redev.

[Alan_X]

They are actively following both options - looking for a sponsor which makes a new stadium possible, and looking if they can solve the issues regarding redev.

Exactly. It would be suicidal to put all your eggs in one basket at the moment: no naming rights deal and the new ground is financially unviable while planning land ownership and  neighbour issues need to be resolved before redevelopment is a goer.

Keeping both options open also makes sense from a business point of view. If the adjacent landowners know LFC are committed to redevelopment then they have the club over a barrel and will charge a premium. The same is true of naming rights deals - if a new ground is a necessity rather than an option it hands cards to possible sponsors.

We often have situations like that with rights of light issues. You can buy someone's right to light. The best time to do that is at feasibility stage. If you wait until you put in a planning application then the price goes up. If you wait until you're on site to finalize the agreement the costs can suddenly skyrocket as they have you by the short and curlies. I wouldn't read too much into events either way.

While it's entirely possible they're doing fuck all in the background in one of the most important issues for the club, I really doubt that's the case.
 

[JohnHobbes]

Exactly. It would be suicidal to put all your eggs in one basket at the moment: no naming rights deal and the new ground is financially unviable while planning land ownership and  neighbour issues need to be resolved before redevelopment is a goer.

Keeping both options open also makes sense from a business point of view. If the adjacent landowners know LFC are committed to redevelopment then they have the club over a barrel and will charge a premium. The same is true of naming rights deals - if a new ground is a necessity rather than an option it hands cards to possible sponsors.

We often have situations like that with rights of light issues. You can buy someone's right to light. The best time to do that is at feasibility stage. If you wait until you put in a planning application then the price goes up. If you wait until you're on site to finalize the agreement the costs can suddenly skyrocket as they have you by the short and curlies. I wouldn't read too much into events either way.

While it's entirely possible they're doing fuck all in the background in one of the most important issues for the club, I really doubt that's the case.
 

That's the key and why there will be no announcement for a while. Especially as you say, either sponsors get an easy ride or the home owners know redevelopment is the option or even just that the club is buying up homes to give them the option then their price will rocket.

No news unfortunately at present is always assumed to be no progress when it just means there is no announcement that can be made. Patience is key but this'll just be another stick to beat up FSG.

[Peter McGurk]

That's the key and why there will be no announcement for a while. Especially as you say, either sponsors get an easy ride or the home owners know redevelopment is the option or even just that the club is buying up homes to give them the option then their price will rocket.

No news unfortunately at present is always assumed to be no progress when it just means there is no announcement that can be made. Patience is key but this'll just be another stick to beat up FSG.

I think they've shown they're pretty thick skinned.

.

[royhendo]

Interesting stuff as always gents, cheers. Quietly encouraging would you say? That's the gut feeling it gives you.

[royhendo]

If you go to the local residents' website you can see reports of rights of light surveys being done for the club http://anfieldsrockfieldtriangle.weebly.com/residents-forum.html (3D Laser Scanning SURVEY (Lothair Road, Alroy Road))

Here's the post by the way.

[west_london_red]

Whats 3D laser scanning?

[CraigDS]

I believe it's used to determine ROL and stuff like that, no doubt giving some sort of 3D picture of the surrounding houses and allowing clever people to run computer programs to determine what could and couldnt be built.

[Peter McGurk]

Quietly encouraging would you say? That's the gut feeling it gives you.

There's that gut thing again. I suspect FSG don't do gut feeling.

I believe it's used to determine ROL and stuff like that, no doubt giving some sort of 3D picture of the surrounding houses and allowing clever people to run computer programs to determine what could and couldnt be built.

)))

Clearly you have to know where the windows are (and how they relate to all of the surrounding buildings) to work out how much light goes through them. You also need the plan of the rooms but no doubt they are much of a muchness.

.

[royhendo]

There's that gut thing again. I suspect FSG don't do gut feeling.

FSG don't really need to care one way or another from an emotional perspective. Encouraging in that, emotionally, I want every reassurance possible they're looking seriously at the renovation option, as espoused by your good self.

[Peter McGurk]

FSG don't really need to care one way or another from an emotional perspective. Encouraging in that, emotionally, I want every reassurance possible they're looking seriously at the renovation option, as espoused by your good self.

What? You want an emotional reassurance? We need the right commercial decision for the club and the fans. We don't need the club or us to get ripped off by a new stadium - whatever emotions might say.

.

[Espresso Bar]

FSG got Liverpool for a song.

I get the impression that they just want to make as much money out of the club before selling it on.

This could mean talking sweet on a stadium to keep the fans happy, but never actually building a new one or extending Anfield, before selling the club on at a profit.

Alternatively, they could go for the cheapest option to increase revenue, without actually spending enough to take us to the top table in Europe. This is my interpretation of 'the sweet spot'.

Just my gut feeling.

[TepidT2O]

FSG got Liverpool for a song.

I get the impression that they just want to make as much money out of the club before selling it on.

This could mean talking sweet on a stadium to keep the fans happy, but never actually building a new one or extending Anfield, before selling the club on at a profit.

Alternatively, they could go for the cheapest option to increase revenue, without actually spending enough to take us to the top table in Europe. This is my interpretation of 'the sweet spot'.

Just my gut feeling.

They will be bloody hard pressed to make a cent out of us without a new stadium and without champions league football.

If they got us so cheap, why did no one else want us?

[CraigDS]

It's not really the thread for this but will bite for one reply - we are no quick buck making investment. Without either CL football, or a paid for (sponsored) new stadium or redev bringing in a lot more per season than we currently do.

If they wanted a quick buck, with less risk, then they could of invested upwards of £200m elsewhere.

[filopastry]

FSG got Liverpool for a song.

I get the impression that they just want to make as much money out of the club before selling it on.

This could mean talking sweet on a stadium to keep the fans happy, but never actually building a new one or extending Anfield, before selling the club on at a profit.

Alternatively, they could go for the cheapest option to increase revenue, without actually spending enough to take us to the top table in Europe. This is my interpretation of 'the sweet spot'.

Just my gut feeling.

Only in the world of football could £300m for a club that basically never makes a profit be considered a bargain.

[Azi]

If they got us so cheap, why did no one else want us?

Fsg werent the only people in for us their were 3/4 other parties aswell

[CraigDS]

Fsg werent the only people in for us their were 3/4 other parties aswell

I think when it came down to it only one other offer was actually on the table, and given RBS's reluctance to deal with them
I don't know just how serious or credible that offer was.

[Peter McGurk]

"Call me old fashioned but if you owe more than you earn - you're worth nothing" - a lawyer mate, August 2010.

.

[royhendo]

What? You want an emotional reassurance? We need the right commercial decision for the club and the fans. We don't need the club or us to get ripped off by a new stadium - whatever emotions might say.

Christ you're an argumentative sort at times. I can recommend a poultice.

[LiverBirdKop]

They will be bloody hard pressed to make a cent out of us without a new stadium and without champions league football.

If they got us so cheap, why did no one else want us?

Getting into a potentially long legal battle with G&H may have discouraged other parties from bidding.

[CraigDS]

Getting into a potentially long legal battle with G&H may have discouraged other parties from bidding.

There was no battle to be had, anyone paying £200m+ for something would of had some of the best legal advice out there and would of know this.

[Alan_X]

Whats 3D laser scanning?

It's basically the way surveys are done in the 21st century. You set up the laser scanner and it works like radar. The laser hits anything solid and bounces back to give a point in space. The data cloud can then be used to create 2D and 3D drawings and models. It's not just used for rights of light but that's the most probable in this case.

[Alan_X]

Interesting stuff as always gents, cheers. Quietly encouraging would you say? That's the gut feeling it gives you.

It's reassuring they aren't blowing their wad by announcing the biggestest and bestest stadium ever, but we (and they) are in the hands of third parties (sponsors, land-owners, neighbors and planners). So yeah, keeping options open until the deal is done, either way, makes commercial sense.

[owens_2k]

A friend tells me that a firm called Capita Symonds have been approached to do some site surveys of the surrounding area of Anfield.

[Peter McGurk]

A friend tells me that a firm called Capita Symonds have been approached to do some site surveys of the surrounding area of Anfield.

Capita Symonds are a multi-disciplinary firm but they have a particular expertise in infrastructure (and traffic studies...)

.

[Paddock77]

Capita Symonds are a multi-disciplinary firm but they have a particular expertise in infrastructure (and traffic studies...)

.

Who also undertake a lot of modelling works including laser scanning. But they have not been commissioned.

[Peter McGurk]

Who also undertake a lot of modelling works including laser scanning. But they have not been commissioned.

I can't say one way or the other. I take your word for it.

.

[vblfc]

FSG got Liverpool for a song.

I get the impression that they just want to make as much money out of the club before selling it on.

This could mean talking sweet on a stadium to keep the fans happy, but never actually building a new one or extending Anfield, before selling the club on at a profit.

Alternatively, they could go for the cheapest option to increase revenue, without actually spending enough to take us to the top table in Europe. This is my interpretation of 'the sweet spot'.

Just my gut feeling.

Surely redeveloment of Anfield will increase the value for their best cost to invest?  As businessmen thats ok and as fans thats ok?  I hope they take this route, its progressive, suits everyone, and can be phased to allow us to keep investing in the team as well.
FSG now need to be fair to the residents that need to relocate. 
The stay at Anfield option looks like best for club, supporters, FSG and , (if they are fair and generous to the residents) then I see this as the way. 

[Lothairio]

Surely redeveloment of Anfield will increase the value for their best cost to invest?  As businessmen thats ok and as fans thats ok?  I hope they take this route, its progressive, suits everyone, and can be phased to allow us to keep investing in the team as well.
FSG now need to be fair to the residents that need to relocate. 
The stay at Anfield option looks like best for club, supporters, FSG and , (if they are fair and generous to the residents) then I see this as the way. 

Agree with this, doing nothing is definitely not an option.

[Pheel]

Questions, Apologies if its been covered as there are multiple threads / Pages.

How many properties are we talking about that are "blocking" the development of Anfield? 

What is the "market" Value of said properties?

Thanks in advance for any answers

Phill