Topic: The most expensive drawing in history

[royhendo]

I reckon you could remove "in the eyes of Liverpool fans" from the OP, Roy. It is the world's most expensive drawing.

I think I might do that mate - it seems maybe it is eh?

[OddEel]

That second most expensive drawing is outrageously expensive as well, but at least it's art.

[Alan_X]

Any chance of some of these HKS fees being filtered off into H&G's pockets via backhanders?

Highly unlikely.

[ThepepeReina]

put in a way every liverpool fan can understand, even the young ones. brilliant. yanks out!

[Alan_X]

So how much do we think they've creamed off?

I'm certainly no expert but how much would the a project of this size usually cost for the design and working drawings £10m (ish)? even including downgrading and re-hashing.

Excellent work by Roy (apologies for not sending those pics Roy - may try and upload tomorrow). There are a lot of deeply depressing things about the whole stadium saga and I have been critical of the current design but the likelihood of a major architectural practice like HKS creaming off fees and bunging them to Hicks is so small it's not worth considering.

The fees on a £300 million project will be correspondingly large. I don't work in sports (mostly retail, commercial and the arts) but architectural fees depend on the scale and complexity of the project and can range from 3% to 10% or more. Say the architects were charging 5% that would be £15,000,000 with a fair chunk being charged before work starts on site. There would also be written off costs for the AFL scheme. The cost-saving re-design was actually a competition between AFL and HKS and it's possible that both were paid to produce their designs.

And it's not just architect's fees. The design team will include structural engineers, service engineers, quantity surveyors and project managers. There will be traffic consultants, acoustic consultants, planning consultants, fire engineers, pitch specialists, landscape architects and civil engineers. There will be approved inspectors and quite probably lobbyists at local and government level. Site investigations and surveys would be included and there would be a substantial legal team to deal with the land-swap negotiations for example, 3D visualisation (either external or additional fee if in-house)... and so it goes on.

15% to cover all design fees for a single design wouldn't be excessive and that would equate to £45 million on a £300 million project. Allowing for redesigns and the complexity of the land-swap and travel plans = £50+ million.

The actual figures aren't actually that massive when you take everything into consideration (and probably not that large a part of HKS's turnover). What is appalling for me is the complete waste on an ego-driven scheme designed by very good American architects who know fuck all about either Liverpool Football Club or "soccer"(one visit to a European night doesn't make you an expert on how we watch Liverpool and what we need from a stadium).

It's the fact that Hicks (and it was mostly Hicks) pissed way fees and time when we had a scheme that wasn't anywhere near as bad as a lot made out and with a few modifications would have been a hell of a lot better than the white elephant that those drawings represent.

[royhendo]

I'll say it again - there was never any assertion that money was being creamed off or bunged anywhere, so we should drop that focus. Clearly HKS had an advantage in terms of winning the business, but 'such is life' you might say.

The problems is putting the club in the position where it's paid that kind of money by this stage of the project, I'd argue. But then maybe it's natural to have done what they've done. If that's the case I think every fan would need to understand why. Is it natural to have spent £45m at this stage of the proposed project? If we concede that the plans needed to be redone, then we forget the money written off at the outset. But is it natural to have spent the two tranches of £20+ million while barely having even seen a hard hat on the site?

[royhendo]

Just to say: feel free to use any part of this for your own stuff, or to post it on other forums. No copyright's asserted etc - I'd much rather you all helped yourselves and spread a little happiness.

[Alan_X]

I'll say it again - there was never any assertion that money was being creamed off or bunged anywhere, so we should drop that focus. Clearly HKS had an advantage in terms of winning the business, but 'such is life' you might say.

The problems is putting the club in the position where it's paid that kind of money by this stage of the project, I'd argue. But then maybe it's natural to have done what they've done. If that's the case I think every fan would need to understand why. Is it natural to have spent £45m at this stage of the proposed project? If we concede that the plans needed to be redone, then we forget the money written off at the outset. But is it natural to have spent the two tranches of £20+ million while barely having even seen a hard hat on the site?

It's normal to spend 75% or more of the total fees before  you start on site. 

[royhendo]

That's interesting Alan. How much would, say, Arsenal have paid at the corresponding stage of the Emirates development?

[Alan_X]

That's interesting Alan. How much would, say, Arsenal have paid at the corresponding stage of the Emirates development?

Not sure I've a few contacts who were involved in the Emirates and the Anfield development. I also had a couple of PMs from someone who was at the HKS/AFL competition presentation a while back - I'll see if there's anything in them that can be posted now.

My beef with all this is the waste of time and money on an overblown and over-designed piece of shite stadium that is all about Hick's ego when we had a perfectly good stadium ready to go.

[royhendo]

Well, I agree that it's a waste of money we don't have, that's for sure. It's not Hicks who's footed the bill for this. It's the top line debt on the club's balance sheet.

[Biotech Scouser]

Could only read up to halfway down the second page, it was starting to make me feel sick how these two yanks have just raped our clubs in front of everyone's eyes and no one in a position of power could give a flying **** as long as they all get their money in the end.

[Jonny J]

Unbelievable work pulling this together Roy.

There are no excuses for not getting your head around the facts when people like Roy are putting work like this together.

[Pete Bird]

Great work, Roy!

However, it reminded me how horrible our current owners are...  Of course, I knew all that stuff but for some reason I didn't remember that there is so much bullsh*t during last 3 years.

On the other hand, all those lies Yanks have told us gathered in one article  made me join SOS... I have thought about it at least a year but not until now I have done it!

Save Liverpool FC - Hicks & Gillett out!

[redmark]

Excellent work by Roy (apologies for not sending those pics Roy - may try and upload tomorrow). There are a lot of deeply depressing things about the whole stadium saga and I have been critical of the current design but the likelihood of a major architectural practice like HKS creaming off fees and bunging them to Hicks is so small it's not worth considering.

The fees on a £300 million project will be correspondingly large. I don't work in sports (mostly retail, commercial and the arts) but architectural fees depend on the scale and complexity of the project and can range from 3% to 10% or more. Say the architects were charging 5% that would be £15,000,000 with a fair chunk being charged before work starts on site. There would also be written off costs for the AFL scheme. The cost-saving re-design was actually a competition between AFL and HKS and it's possible that both were paid to produce their designs.

And it's not just architect's fees. The design team will include structural engineers, service engineers, quantity surveyors and project managers. There will be traffic consultants, acoustic consultants, planning consultants, fire engineers, pitch specialists, landscape architects and civil engineers. There will be approved inspectors and quite probably lobbyists at local and government level. Site investigations and surveys would be included and there would be a substantial legal team to deal with the land-swap negotiations for example, 3D visualisation (either external or additional fee if in-house)... and so it goes on.

15% to cover all design fees for a single design wouldn't be excessive and that would equate to £45 million on a £300 million project. Allowing for redesigns and the complexity of the land-swap and travel plans = £50+ million.

The actual figures aren't actually that massive when you take everything into consideration (and probably not that large a part of HKS's turnover). What is appalling for me is the complete waste on an ego-driven scheme designed by very good American architects who know fuck all about either Liverpool Football Club or "soccer"(one visit to a European night doesn't make you an expert on how we watch Liverpool and what we need from a stadium).

It's the fact that Hicks (and it was mostly Hicks) pissed way fees and time when we had a scheme that wasn't anywhere near as bad as a lot made out and with a few modifications would have been a hell of a lot better than the white elephant that those drawings represent.

To some extent I don't care whether our owners (and their relationship with HKS, rather than HKS themselves) are corrupt or simply incompetent. Corruption, if proven, would be handier for publicity purposes, but incompetence is at least as expensive when it's our club's money being flushed away. There can be cosy business relationships between friends (particularly in Texas, which seems to have a rather incestuous business climate between companies with certain social and political ties) which see fees not reflect true market value or the work done, without necessarily involving paper bags or siphon accounts.

Anyway. There are still some problems with the figures and 'normal architect practice', aren't there? I can agree on some of your points about the jettisoning of a half-decent initial stadium plan and that if we want a new design, we have to pay for it. Of course, we didn't necessarily need a stadium designed by one of the world's leading architects firms. If you want a top-end product, you pay top-end fees of course. But the costs for that are all (or almost all) in the first set of accounts (Feb 07 to July 08) aren't they? The HKS design was revealed to the world in summer 07. The planning process ran through autumn/winter 07/08. Even the single main review of the plans was completed by April 2008, well within that first financial period. I can't believe that the review involved a team as large or for as long as the initial design. And it was completed in April. Final planning approval was given in June. Done. All within the first financial period as listed in the OP. So - leaving aside the write off of the costs of the Parrybowl - the original HKS stadium design and the (minor) review during the planning process cost us £23m. Fair enough.

What did we spend £22m on in the following financial year, when the only work done on the stadium (or the plans) was to regularly delay building work? I don't recall us ever announcing (or hearing about) contracts with construction companies being deferred and us having to pay any penalties. I don't recall us ever announcing (or hearing about) actually spending money on steel. Do we actually "own" the stadium plans, or if we don't build it are HKS free to use the design elsewhere? Are we paying them an ongoing retainer for exclusive use? Sounds ridiculous, but I'm at a loss as to what we spent £22m on between 1st August 2008 and 31st July 2009. I wonder how much we've spent on it since then?

Regardless even of the mystery year two £22m, the OP point stands: we have spent £55.8m on new stadium costs and have a drawing (ok, a few drawings) to show for it.

[RedinExile]

It's normal to spend 75% or more of the total fees before  you start on site. 

So what you're saying is architects and their ilk are filthy, money-grabbing hos?  

[Alan_X]

To some extent I don't care whether our owners (and their relationship with HKS, rather than HKS themselves) are corrupt or simply incompetent. Corruption, if proven, would be handier for publicity purposes, but incompetence is at least as expensive when it's our club's money being flushed away. There can be cosy business relationships between friends (particularly in Texas, which seems to have a rather incestuous business climate between companies with certain social and political ties) which see fees not reflect true market value or the work done, without necessarily involving paper bags or siphon accounts.

Anyway. There are still some problems with the figures and 'normal architect practice', aren't there? I can agree on some of your points about the jettisoning of a half-decent initial stadium plan and that if we want a new design, we have to pay for it. Of course, we didn't necessarily need a stadium designed by one of the world's leading architects firms. If you want a top-end product, you pay top-end fees of course. But the costs for that are all (or almost all) in the first set of accounts (Feb 07 to July 08) aren't they? The HKS design was revealed to the world in summer 07. The planning process ran through autumn/winter 07/08. Even the single main review of the plans was completed by April 2008, well within that first financial period. I can't believe that the review involved a team as large or for as long as the initial design. And it was completed in April. Final planning approval was given in June. Done. All within the first financial period as listed in the OP. So - leaving aside the write off of the costs of the Parrybowl - the original HKS stadium design and the (minor) review during the planning process cost us £23m. Fair enough.

What did we spend £22m on in the following financial year, when the only work done on the stadium (or the plans) was to regularly delay building work? I don't recall us ever announcing (or hearing about) contracts with construction companies being deferred and us having to pay any penalties. I don't recall us ever announcing (or hearing about) actually spending money on steel. Do we actually "own" the stadium plans, or if we don't build it are HKS free to use the design elsewhere? Are we paying them an ongoing retainer for exclusive use? Sounds ridiculous, but I'm at a loss as to what we spent £22m on between 1st August 2008 and 31st July 2009. I wonder how much we've spent on it since then?

Regardless even of the mystery year two £22m, the OP point stands: we have spent £55.8m on new stadium costs and have a drawing (ok, a few drawings) to show for it.

There's a misconception about what the "plans" represent. Most people's experience of "plans" will be at the domestic scale where the planning drawings can be taken on by a decent builder. Architects fees to planning on a large project would be around 15-30% of the overall fee. That would be to Stage C (Outline proposals) or Stage D (Detailed proposals) depending on a wide range of factors. The level of detail required for planning is a long way short of what is required to tender and construct a complex building project.

Stage D would describe the main architectural and engineering principles with a general description of materials, finishes and a cost plan. It's possible to tender and appoint a contractor at that stage on a design and construct basis it's more likely that the design wold go to Stage E at least (Final proposals) where key details would be worked out and the design coordination developed further. Stage E could be around 20% of the overall fee. There will be architects fees for Stages F to J (either paid direct by the client or the contractor if the design team is novated) say another 25%. That would leave around 25% for site supervision.

Bottom line is that architect's fees post-planning are generally higher than pre-planning. That's basic commercial sense as you don't want to spend money until you're sure you have permission to build.

As an example - a £12 million project we're working on at the moment required forty-five A1 architectural drawings for planning submission (submitted at stage C) plus a 200 page design and access statement. For Stage D we're producing 190 A1 and A3 drawings plus an outline specification. For tender that will be supplemented by another 200-odd A3 details at 1:5 and 1:1. We'll also produce a full NBS specification.

I'd expect we have a lot more than a few drawings to show for the money spent. What's shown publicly will be a tiny part of the work that goes into it.

As for "owning the plans" it all depends on HKS's appointment but at a minimum as long as they're paid for Liverpool will own a licence to use the plans to erect the stadium and depending on the appointment, they could bring in another architect at any point to detail and build it. The copyright usually rests with the architect - not that relevant for a project of this type.

The issue here is not the level of development costs (they do seem a bit high but without detail there's no way of knowing) but the waste of time and money on a stadium that is designed by people who know fuck-all about us for a man who understands even less about us. This is Hicks private dream which is a good enough reason for me to fuck it off. Gillett preferred the revised (and cheaper) AFL scheme.

The incompetence and waste was in binning a perfectly good design (with modifications) and spending fees on designing a £450 million NFL stadium, spending more fees on a competition to value-engineer it down to £300 million and causing delays that left us in the middle of a recession with a pair of cash-strapped c*nts and an over-specified, over-priced white elephant.

[T-Bone]

Well, I must admit it was a pretty clever scheme by Hicks. Unveil an impressive and original stadium design to make us shut up and sit eagerly on the edge of our seats, waiting for the actual building to begin. I guess he bought himself an extra year that way, the c*nt.

[redmark]

There's a misconception about what the "plans" represent. Most people's experience of "plans" will be at the domestic scale where the planning drawings can be taken on by a decent builder. Architects fees to planning on a large project would be around 15-30% of the overall fee. That would be to Stage C (Outline proposals) or Stage D (Detailed proposals) depending on a wide range of factors. The level of detail required for planning is a long way short of what is required to tender and construct a complex building project.

Stage D would describe the main architectural and engineering principles with a general description of materials, finishes and a cost plan. It's possible to tender and appoint a contractor at that stage on a design and construct basis it's more likely that the design wold go to Stage E at least (Final proposals) where key details would be worked out and the design coordination developed further. Stage E could be around 20% of the overall fee. There will be architects fees for Stages F to J (either paid direct by the client or the contractor if the design team is novated) say another 25%. That would leave around 25% for site supervision.

Bottom line is that architect's fees post-planning are generally higher than pre-planning. That's basic commercial sense as you don't want to spend money until you're sure you have permission to build.

As an example - a £12 million project we're working on at the moment required forty-five A1 architectural drawings for planning submission (submitted at stage C) plus a 200 page design and access statement. For Stage D we're producing 190 A1 and A3 drawings plus an outline specification. For tender that will be supplemented by another 200-odd A3 details at 1:5 and 1:1. We'll also produce a full NBS specification.

I'd expect we have a lot more than a few drawings to show for the money spent. What's shown publicly will be a tiny part of the work that goes into it.

As for "owning the plans" it all depends on HKS's appointment but at a minimum as long as they're paid for Liverpool will own a licence to use the plans to erect the stadium and depending on the appointment, they could bring in another architect at any point to detail and build it. The copyright usually rests with the architect - not that relevant for a project of this type.

The issue here is not the level of development costs (they do seem a bit high but without detail there's no way of knowing) but the waste of time and money on a stadium that is designed by people who know fuck-all about us for a man who understands even less about us. This is Hicks private dream which is a good enough reason for me to fuck it off. Gillett preferred the revised (and cheaper) AFL scheme.

The incompetence and waste was in binning a perfectly good design (with modifications) and spending fees on designing a £450 million NFL stadium, spending more fees on a competition to value-engineer it down to £300 million and causing delays that left us in the middle of a recession with a pair of cash-strapped c*nts and an over-specified, over-priced white elephant.

Cheers for some of the background detail. I think we all knew we had more than a few drawings, but it's a handy shorthand to summarise the lack of an actual stadium . I'm still not entirely convinced on the costs in 08/09 so long after the design stage, but it's not an area I have any actual knowledge of .

[Alan_X]

Cheers for some of the background detail. I think we all knew we had more than a few drawings, but it's a handy shorthand to summarise the lack of an actual stadium . I'm still not entirely convinced on the costs in 08/09 so long after the design stage, but it's not an area I have any actual knowledge of .

No problem mate - the money is a scandal but the delays in many ways are even worse.

[redmark]

No problem mate - the money is a scandal but the delays in many ways are even worse.

Absolutely agreed. If we'd spent £56m on 'drawings' but were now eagerly awaiting the stadium opening ahead of the new season, I don't think many people would give a toss about the £56m. It's what we don't have that's so shocking.

[Kennys Right Boot]

Very interesting research Roy, well worth my first post to complement you.

The worlds most expensive drawing.... but you forgot to state it's resale value is zero.

There is no market for unused stadium design sheets.

[rossipersempre]

Alan, I don't know your exact background although you are obviously informed in this area, but for the sake of my own curiosity I put this whole scenario to a good mate of mine earlier today, an architect based out of Lisbon. Suffice to say he's worked on some fairly major projects (including a couple in partnership with 'Norm' Foster) and I recall was involved in the 'new' Estadio da Luz a few years back (ironically he's a Sporting fan). So suffice to say he knows his shit.

Make of it what you will, but although similar in scope, interestingly his figures and conclusion are somewhat different to yours...


As for the football stadium well... usually the project fee corresponds to 4-8% of the estimated global value of construction.

That fee comprises not only the architectural, but also the structural, hydraulic, installations projects, etc...

Usually you split the project fee by the proposed project stages beginning with contract celebration, conceptual design, etc... and ending with architectural supervising during construction.

The early stages like contract celebration and conceptual design can sum together up to 25% of the project fee.

You can do the math from there... with 50 million pounds already burned on nothing but a few renders i believe somebody is making big money.


I can indeed do the math...

8% (worst case scenario) of the £300m = overall project fee = £24m total
No more than 25% of the fee incurred to date given the current stage of project = £6m

So I'd go along with Jack, in that whilst I'm in no way suggesting anything illegal is going on per se (the project has not been reconciled as yet), there's some highly questionable fee structuring going on here.

[Alan_X]

Alan, I don't know your exact background although you are obviously informed in this area, but for the sake of my own curiosity I put this whole scenario to a good mate of mine earlier today, an architect based out of Lisbon. Suffice to say he's worked on some fairly major projects (including a couple in partnership with 'Norm' Foster) and I recall was involved in the 'new' Estadio da Luz a few years back (ironically he's a Sporting fan). So suffice to say he knows his shit.

Make of it what you will, but although similar in scope, interestingly his figures and conclusion are somewhat different to yours...


As for the football stadium well... usually the project fee corresponds to 4-8% of the estimated global value of construction.

That fee comprises not only the architectural, but also the structural, hydraulic, installations projects, etc...

Usually you split the project fee by the proposed project stages beginning with contract celebration, conceptual design, etc... and ending with architectural supervising during construction.

The early stages like contract celebration and conceptual design can sum together up to 25% of the project fee.

You can do the math from there... with 50 million pounds already burned on nothing but a few renders i believe somebody is making big money.


I can indeed do the math...

8% (worst case scenario) of the £300m = overall project fee = £24m total
No more than 25% of the fee incurred to date given the current stage of project = £6m

So I'd go along with Jack, in that whilst I'm in no way suggesting anything illegal is going on per se (the project has not been reconciled as yet), there's some highly questionable fee structuring going on here.

I own an architects practice and ave worked on high profile projects for over twenty years. To be fair I'm not in sports as I said at the beginning so the fee levels could be lower for a stadium than a commercial development.

The problem is that there are loads of variables - it depends on the type of contract and architects appointment - design and build, construction management or traditional. Each one would have a different fee level and the proportion of fee at each stage would be different. I was describing a traditional contract based on RIBA fee stages (reasonable as the project is based on the UK). I've not worked in Portugal so I have no idea how their fee scales work - from his description it doesn't bear much relation to the RIBA stages. I know that the US is different as we are currently advising on a design competition (just outside Dallas ironically) for a new town.

Estadio da Luz was a straightforward design exercise - new build and to my knowledge wasn't situated in a listed park.

As I pointed out - the development costs include a lot more than just design team fees (architect, cost advice, structure and services). I don't know whether your friend included project management fees, planning consultants, legal fees, surveys, land searches etc.

You know what - I really can't be arsed with this anymore mate. If you all want to believe the all-in design fees for a £300 million stadium are £6 million carry on.

I'm finished with this shite.

[rossipersempre]

I own an architects practice and ave worked on high profile projects for over twenty years. To be fair I'm not in sports as I said at the beginning so the fee levels could be lower for a stadium than a commercial development.

The problem is that there are loads of variables - it depends on the type of contract and architects appointment - design and build, construction management or traditional. Each one would have a different fee level and the proportion of fee at each stage would be different. I was describing a traditional contract based on RIBA fee stages (reasonable as the project is based on the UK). I've not worked in Portugal so I have no idea how their fee scales work - from his description it doesn't bear much relation to the RIBA stages. I know that the US is different as we are currently advising on a design competition (just outside Dallas ironically) for a new town.

Estadio da Luz was a straightforward design exercise - new build and to my knowledge wasn't situated in a listed park.

As I pointed out - the development costs include a lot more than just design team fees (architect, cost advice, structure and services). I don't know whether your friend included project management fees, planning consultants, legal fees, surveys, land searches etc.

You know what - I really can't be arsed with this anymore mate. If you all want to believe the all-in design fees for a £300 million stadium are £6 million carry on.

I'm finished with this shite.

Whoah there. What's with that last para Mr Grumpy? Like you say I'm well aware that how things work here with RIBA are probably very different to a country like Portugal (although he has worked in London and elsewhere, so I'm not sure his figures are just based on Benfica's stadium). Just offering another perspective that's all, wasn't questioning yours as such, particularly as you're in the profession.

But where did I say the total design fee was £6m? £24m I said (plus usual disbursements) with around £6m invoiced at this stage given the daisies and buttercups lie undisturbed in Stanley Park. £50m-plus just reeks to me, and crucially it does to my mate as well. I'm not sure why you're giving them the benefit of the doubt to be honest, Hicks in particular is a liar, a debtor and a cowboy whichever way you look at it.

However, we had one of your lot virtually help herself to our bank account re. fees on the renovation of our old place, and she cracked the whip over the contractors too (they've just ironically gone bust three years later) so I suspect you're right in that UK fees are proportionately higher. Either that or she was ripping us off to pay for her own fucking pile up on the Hill. Probably somewhere in between.

I too can't be arsed mate if we're going to have a bit of row over this. I've stayed away from posting on RAWK these past couple of months for precisely this reason (still very active mind behind certain scenes), so I'll gladly retreat back into my self-imposed shell. No offence meant, apologies duly offered for rankled feelings

[flashman]

The interest capitalised and included within stadium costs is 4.3m alone

[LiamG]

Tottally agree with Alan as i have done in various other posts about the new Stadium

We had a good design to begin with but the yanks and there ego's wanted something big and bold, I liked the new designs when they first came out dont get me wrong, but then i started looking at other stadiums and realised yes it would look fine in america with NFL playing every week or whatever

But "Soccer"? Not a chance, Why get an Architect firm like HKS who have NO history whatsoever in designing a "Soccer" stadium, pay them so much money to get designs drawn up etc, then even more on revised plans when they could of just gone with what he had before and revised that?!

Its stupid and its all part of the yans and there stupid ego's!

Hok sport (Now known as populous http://www.populous.com/) are worldwide architects and have designed an impressive list of stadia (ignore reebok stadium but still its history in designing football grounds!) :

• Aviva Stadium, Dublin, Ireland
• Brit Oval, London, UK
• City of Birmingham Stadium, Birmingham, UK
• Croke Park, Dublin, Ireland
• Deportivo De La Corunia, Coruña, Spain
• Emirates Stadium, London, UK
• Estadio Algarve, Faro-Loule, Portugal
• Estadio da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal
• Everton Football Club Stadium, Liverpool, UK
• Galpharm Stadium, Huddersfield, UK
• Grand Stade de l'Olympique Lyonnais, Lyon, France
• Highbury Stadium North Stand, London, UK
• City of Manchester Stadium, Manchester, UK
• Millennium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales
• MK Stadium, Milton Keynes, UK
• Portman Road North Stand, Ipswich, UK
• Reebok Stadium, Bolton, UK
• Sochi 2014 Main Stadium, Sochi, Russia
• Stadium de Toulouse, Toulouse, France
• Stamford Bridge North Stand, London, UK
• Toulouse Stadium, Toulouse, France
• Wembley National Stadium, London, UK

Why were they not even contacted about building it?! all that knowledge of  UK and europe football stadiums but yet were overlooked 

[Beerbelly]

It is evident that they do proceed with paying design fees prior to having the finance in place. I think it is also fairly common practice as finance would be very much given based on the proposed end product. What gets me is that fifty five million is not reasonable to expend when the works are no where near proceeding. The designers and the soil investigation teams, transport consultants and all the rest have done their work upto a planning application stage from what can be gathered the first being based on a eighty million pound project cost then this goes upto one ninety million pounds and finally to three hundred million pounds. If we have three complete ready to build designs complete and fully prepared ready to build then maybe acceptable but have we got this or have we just got outline designs to satisfy planning. To me the amounts paid out would suggest that the person charged with overseeing the development of the stadium for the club is either corrupt or indeed incompetent and quiet possibly both.

Put it simply HKS claim to have a team of 50 to 60 Engineers working on designs in both UK and US. Let me just assume they have and let me  just assume that all off them cost HKS one hundred thousand pounds a head a year. (generous i would suggest.) so 60 x 100,000 = 6,000,000.00 per year. I know the design has dragged on and i know the company has to make money but are we really to believe that 60 designers have worked on this outline design for ten years or its equivalent or assuming they works 40 hours a week each that equates to (40 x 60 x 52 x 10 = 1,248,000 man hours) How many drawings we got again. I would hazard a guess we wont have that many mahours needed to build the thing. The Whole thing stinks. Rightly it has been pointed out that design fees are considerable but i would suggest 10% to 15 % be reasonable paid not just for intial design but for its supervision and completion. This would cover all disciplines. For outline design for to planning stage i think it would be reasonable to expect 25-30% of the total design fees to be paid. In my book that should mean

First design 80,000,000 x 15% = 12,000,000 say 30% would be 3.6 million

Fist H&G Design 190,000,000 x 15% = 28,500,000 say 30% would be 8.5 million

Second H&G Design 300,000,000 x 15% = 45,000,000 say 30% would be 13.5 million

This assumes H&G Design was completed to a reasonable level before they changed their minds again. I have my doubts reading the overview. So maximum in my view should be around 26 million. I suppose there may be other costs such as planning application oh and the rental of Stanley Park for no reason whatsoever.

[royhendo]

Regardless - the stadium was one of the key pillars of their push to buy the club, which underlines again the false pretences they bought it under. The waste and mismanagement is scandalous, and the club continues to trot out spin on the subject.

[Netherton Lad]

Well done Roy, appreciate the work you put in and should be a must read for everyone.

[vicgill]

Regardless - the stadium was one of the key pillars of their push to buy the club, which underlines again the false pretences they bought it under. The waste and mismanagement is scandalous, and the club continues to trot out spin on the subject.

Spot on again Roy

[RedinExile]

Anyone else got a ball?

[rafathegaffa83]

Regardless - the stadium was one of the key pillars of their push to buy the club, which underlines again the false pretences they bought it under. The waste and mismanagement is scandalous, and the club continues to trot out spin on the subject.

Well said.

[Ulke]

I've never been so informed and depressed at the same time in my life. Thanks?

[royhendo]

Is anyone aware of the exact nature of Hicks Real Estate Partners involvement with 'New Anfield'? They're currently facing at least two fraud suits (and have themselves countersued Hicks' former business partner) over their role in the failed Arlington development so just wondering how they're tied in to us. (NB: not hinting anything here over stadium cost, just genuinely wondering what role they've played).

[royhendo]

Hicks Real Estate Partners is part of Hicks Holdings and contains many completed and wishful-thinking projects in its portfolio. One of these is of course, the New Anfield Stadium and another, the GLORYPARK development.  The latter I know is currently involved in a legal battle with his former partners. The following may be of interest, but frankly should be consigned to posterity:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Hicks Real Estate Partners

Hicks Real Estate Partners was formed in April 2007 as the real estate arm of Hicks Holdings LLC, a holding company for the Hicks Family's assets, headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  Thomas O. Hicks formed Hicks Holdings in 2005, leveraging previous success in his founding of Hicks & Haas and later Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Incorporated.

We concentrate on the development and acquisition of sports venues, resorts, office, retail,  multifamily, and other opportunistic projects.  Our investment professionals possess a wide breadth of experience and prowess that facilitate maximal value creation and returns to our capital partners, regardless of short-term economic conditions. 

Hicks Real Estate Partners maintains relationships with various operating partners.  One such partnership lies with Gatehouse Capital, a Dallas-based hotel developer that has enjoyed nationwide success from a number of hospitality ventures.  Gatehouse Capital and Hicks Real Estate Partners have jointly developed several such projects, many of which stem from Gatehouse's close relationships with Starwood Hotels and their respective brands. 

We have also collaborated with such groups as AMAN Resorts to help extend AMAN's burgeoning success into such areas as the Caribbean and South America. AMAN has captured a loyal following in the ultra-luxurious travel market through creating standalone cultural experiences in relatively-untouched destinations.

Additionally, we have partnered with Mexican hotelier Grúpo Habita in their recent expansion into the United States.  Grúpo Habita specializes in operating boutique hotels that create value through a unique reflection of each project's surrounding society.

Hicks Real Estate Partners invests family and partner capital into projects with long-term horizons.
http://www.hicksrealestatepartners.com/

==================================

New Anfield Road Stadium
Hicks Real Estate Partners has engaged the exciting opportunity to develop the new home stadium for the winningest member of the English Premier League: the Liverpool Football Club. This project will not only provide an aesthetically-breathtaking, technologically-updated arena for Liverpool F.C. but will also lend a vital boost to local businesses that will directly benefit from the ancillary Liverpool Village development.
http://www.hicksrealestatepartners.com/portfolio/
VISIT WEBSITE >> (Page not found)

[royhendo]

Er, hello.

Does this mean that some of the 50 odd million pounds that LFC has spent has been paid to Hicks Real Estate Partners?

[royhendo]

A very interesting question that - and worthy of some attention. I for one would like a better understanding of how these guys have their business interests set up.

[manifest]

hicks real estate partners formed in 2007?

2007. The year that was the worst year in real estate ever in the states, ( well, before 2008, 2009, 2010 were even worse,) housing market collapsed, california realty went into negative equity for the first time in 50 years, 60% of realtors ( estate agents ) have left the profession, mountains of debt ridden properties that provoked the need for the "bail out". The only people needing a realty company were those buying up foreclosed properties for pennies, and Tom Hicks. Odd timing. Just another way to bait and switch. And, that piece of land that is attached to the Texas Rangers sale which has caused ALL the problems in that deal, a backdoor way for Hicks to get paid 70 million when he still owes his creditors 300. No wonder this economy is devastated with the likes of Hicks running around....does what he wants, when he wants, how he wants and never wants to face the consequences of his actions. Being a "winner" in America.     

[TepidT2O]

Is there anyway of getting company accounts in the US? it would be very interesting to look at the accounts of this company and also Kop Delaware?

Any US reds know about this?