Topic: Anfield Road Redevelopment

[TepidT2O]

I’ve never expected it to be built or started until the main has been paid off.

No way.

The planning lasts until 2019. It would need to start before then

[Anfield89]

No way.

The planning lasts until 2019. It would need to start before then

That’s just my personal opinion on how I think the owners will go about it. I know the planning runs out in 2019 but I’m sure I have read from maybe Alan or Peter that the footings/foundation (don’t know the technical term) had been put in place at the back of Annie road so that the reapplying wouldn’t be a problem..

[CraigDS]

Moore....

“As you know we have a permit for the Anfield Road end for September 2019 to add maybe another 6,000 seats which will bring us up to 60,000 here.

“I also know from living here, for every Liverpool ticket there is 10 people who want to buy it. We totally get what we need to do. We’re going to do what we did with the Main Stand, which is look at what we need to do in a measured manner.

“We’ll look at what investment the ownership needs to put in. We’re a fan first organisation, I can assure people we’re going to look at this on top of everything else we are doing.”

[Anfield89]

That’s positive, we aren’t a “fan first organisation” but other than that it sound positive. Done a good job since he’s come in. Especially with ticket sales.

[Peter McGurk]

That’s just my personal opinion on how I think the owners will go about it. I know the planning runs out in 2019 but I’m sure I have read from maybe Alan or Peter that the footings/foundation (don’t know the technical term) had been put in place at the back of Annie road so that the reapplying wouldn’t be a problem..

There's no new footings or whatever at the back of the Anfield Road but as long as you make a 'meaningful start' within the period, the consent carries on.

Even if you don't, it is normally a matter of paying a relatively nominal renewal fee as long as it is paid before the consent expires. So the planning consent is not the issue at all.

If what we are led to believe about the main stand financing (pay back in five years) is true, absolutely no additional income will be available for paying or buying players for five years. It therefore makes no sense to start before the main stand is paid off because they'd be even less than there is not from matchday income - particularly if the income v the outgoings is not as good (and it won't be).

.

[CraigDS]

If what we are led to believe about the main stand financing (pay back in five years) is true, absolutely no additional income will be available for paying or buying players for five years. It therefore makes no sense to start before the main stand is paid off - particularly if the income v the outgoings is not as good (and it won't be).

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the Main has been performing at above the expected level and the additional income is covering the yearly cost (assuming it's split over 5 years) and then some.

[Peter McGurk]

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the Main has been performing at above the expected level and the additional income is covering the yearly cost (assuming it's split over 5 years) and then some.

We've heard that but we do we know it? And we don't actually know if it's five years or three or ten - interest-free or not? On balance a start when the main stand is paid off makes most sense, if it makes any sense at all (financially).

[Anfield89]

There's no new footings or whatever at the back of the Anfield Road but as long as you make a 'meaningful start' within the period, the consent carries on.

Even if you don't, it is normally a matter of paying a relatively nominal renewal fee as long as it is paid before the consent expires. So the planning consent is not the issue at all.

If what we are led to believe about the main stand financing (pay back in five years) is true, absolutely no additional income will be available for paying or buying players for five years. It therefore makes no sense to start before the main stand is paid off because they'd be even less than there is not from matchday income - particularly if the income v the outgoings is not as good (and it won't be).

.

Not new footings but didn't they do some form of work at the back of Anfield road end when they were building the Main Stand?
I'm sure it was commented on at the time and pictures at somewhere in the Main Stand thread.

[CraigDS]

Not new footings but didn't they do some form of work at the back of Anfield road end when they were building the Main Stand?
I'm sure it was commented on at the time and pictures at somewhere in the Main Stand thread.

They flattened it all and created various areas (parking, food, fanzone, etc).

[Anfield89]

They flattened it all and created various areas (parking, food, fanzone, etc).

I mean under the ground pipe work, I had a quick scan through the pictures thread when I originally posted I will have another look but the amount of pages its going be a pain in the arse find especially if they never did anything 

[Peter McGurk]

I mean under the ground pipe work, I had a quick scan through the pictures thread when I originally posted I will have another look but the amount of pages its going be a pain in the arse find especially if they never did anything 

I think you'd find nothing specific to the ARE.

[CraigDS]

I mean under the ground pipe work, I had a quick scan through the pictures thread when I originally posted I will have another look but the amount of pages its going be a pain in the arse find especially if they never did anything 

I don’t think so mate. The design isn’t even finalised (and personally think they’ll go for something bigger than what we have outline planning for) so doubt they put anything in.

[Anfield89]

Must not remember it correctly then, saves me going through hundreds of pages. As said don't expect movement until the Main is paid off and if that's the way the owners want to go I don't see a problem with that as long as it does go ahead.

[Peter McGurk]

I don’t think so mate. The design isn’t even finalised (and personally think they’ll go for something bigger than what we have outline planning for) so doubt they put anything in.

Additional capacity would be a new application. Clock to zero, public consultation, traffic reports, the whole toot.

[Alan_X]

Wow. I've been on the waiting list since I was 11 years old. I'm now 32. I made a decision long ago to play football as much as I can over watching football. So I go the game as and when I can which is probably only about 4 games a season due to my own playing commitments. When I finally get offered a season ticket it will probably be time for me to stop playing anyways, so ill then be able to go.

And if they extend the Anny Road while you are still playing when you get a season ticket what will you do? Pass it on to someone who's going to the other 15 home games already? When you're ready to go to 19 games a season it will easy enough to get back on the ladder.

I'll get to eight homes this season, a couple of European homes and some aways through the exchange and other contacts. I'm not on the waiting list because I don't think I should be when there are people who put the effort into getting tickets for most games, home and away. 

[Macred]

Additional capacity would be a new application. Clock to zero, public consultation, traffic reports, the whole toot.

The outline planning allowed for 'circa 60,000'... accounting for the 'circa' how much do you think they could go over before requiring a new permission? It was Andrew Parkinson(?) who is said to have said at a supporter's meeting I  that they were perhaps looking at something between 62 and 63k - would that fall within the 'circa' ambit, say if they can show that the traffic management improvements and other transport improvements have worked even with the increase from 45k to 54k?  And, didnt the old H and G design have permission to expand to 70k? How much could that be relied on in this scenario i.e. to get the council to say yes again without needing to go back to point zero again.

[Macred]

Must not remember it correctly then, saves me going through hundreds of pages. As said don't expect movement until the Main is paid off and if that's the way the owners want to go I don't see a problem with that as long as it does go ahead.

I've got a vague, possibly imagined recollection of something, might have been drains going in when they were redoing the car park? Whether they were bigger or made to cope with a bigger ARE, who knows?

[Alan_X]

The outline planning allowed for 'circa 60,000'... accounting for the 'circa' how much do you think they could go over before requiring a new permission? It was Andrew Parkinson(?) who is said to have said at a supporter's meeting I  that they were perhaps looking at something between 62 and 63k - would that fall within the 'circa' ambit, say if they can show that the traffic management improvements and other transport improvements have worked even with the increase from 45k to 54k?  And, didnt the old H and G design have permission to expand to 70k? How much could that be relied on in this scenario i.e. to get the council to say yes again without needing to go back to point zero again.

The H&G bowl was designed as a 70,000 monstrosity but with a massive gap where 10,000 seats should have been.  In terms of planning, it wouldn't have been an expansion, it would have been the completion of the approved design. However the transport plan would have to have been updated to accommodate the extra numbers.

[Peter McGurk]

The outline planning allowed for 'circa 60,000'... accounting for the 'circa' how much do you think they could go over before requiring a new permission? It was Andrew Parkinson(?) who is said to have said at a supporter's meeting I  that they were perhaps looking at something between 62 and 63k - would that fall within the 'circa' ambit, say if they can show that the traffic management improvements and other transport improvements have worked even with the increase from 45k to 54k?  And, didnt the old H and G design have permission to expand to 70k? How much could that be relied on in this scenario i.e. to get the council to say yes again without needing to go back to point zero again.

From the application:

Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Ltd (LFC) has made a hybrid application
for full planning permission to expand the existing Main Stand and outline planning
permission to expand the Anfield Road Stand to increase the capacity at the current
Anfield stadium to c. 58,500. The application also seeks full planning permission for
extensive public realm associated with the development.

I would say 58,400 to 58,600 is 'circa 58,500' and the H&G scheme is entirely irrelevant now.

[Cork Red]

If they ever look at an Anfield Road redevelopment, will they be able to substantially alter the lower tier or will it be the case of just removing the upper tier and replacing it with a larger upper tier?

Both the lower Kenny Dalglish stand and the lower Anfield Road are extremely uncomfortable for anyone approaching 6ft.

I know there would be a major temporary loss of capacity, but when they knocked the old Kop terrace and built the current structure I seem to remember us having the first third or so of the Kop open for the start of the 94/95 season, with the rest coming on stream as the season progressed.

[Anfield89]

If they ever look at an Anfield Road redevelopment, will they be able to substantially alter the lower tier or will it be the case of just removing the upper tier and replacing it with a larger upper tier?

Both the lower Kenny Dalglish stand and the lower Anfield Road are extremely uncomfortable for anyone approaching 6ft.

I know there would be a major temporary loss of capacity, but when they knocked the old Kop terrace and built the current structure I seem to remember us having the first third or so of the Kop open for the start of the 94/95 season, with the rest coming on stream as the season progressed.

Leave what’s there of the bottom tier no sense in replacing it if u don’t need to but the seats and steps will be changed to meet the latest regulations anyway.

[Peter McGurk]

Leave what’s there of the bottom tier no sense in replacing it if u don’t need to but the seats and steps will be changed to meet the latest regulations anyway.

As it will be a completely separate tier with its own fire escapes and access etc etc, I can see an argument for keeping the same seats in the lower tier (whereas a kop would be one tier top to bottom, we have to assume) but as I said elsewhere, Building Control is likely to err on the conservative side and ask for all bigger seats.

I know at one point there was a debate on the Main Stand and how to justify the cost of upgrading the lower tier (ie., would making the seats bigger be a good reason to increase ticket prices?).

Not sure how the debate ended but at the end of the day, all the seats were bigger.

[RedorRed]

If they ever look at an Anfield Road redevelopment, will they be able to substantially alter the lower tier or will it be the case of just removing the upper tier and replacing it with a larger upper tier?

Both the lower Kenny Dalglish stand and the lower Anfield Road are extremely uncomfortable for anyone approaching 6ft.

I know there would be a major temporary loss of capacity, but when they knocked the old Kop terrace and built the current structure I seem to remember us having the first third or so of the Kop open for the start of the 94/95 season, with the rest coming on stream as the season progressed.

You’re absolutely right I had one of the first 4,000 season tickets when it opened. the roof was not on and only half of the concrete terracing was in place. You could walk up half way and look down into the Kop...... only some orange netting stopping you from falling in. They’d never get away with that these days with health and safety.

[CraigDS]

I know at one point there was a debate on the Main Stand and how to justify the cost of upgrading the lower tier (ie., would making the seats bigger be a good reason to increase ticket prices?).

Not sure how the debate ended but at the end of the day, all the seats were bigger.

I know some of the areas were reprofiled to create one (more or less) matching lower tier, but not sure they were all changed to bigger seats and sure a lot of it is the same as it used to be.

[Michaelanscombe]

Some of the ARE upper tier is hospitality.  The Bootroom packages include a ticket in the upper tier so some of them seats are already being paid for at premium prices.  I know this as i have done it a few times when i had a few mates coming with me.

[whiteboots]

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the Main has been performing at above the expected level and the additional income is covering the yearly cost (assuming it's split over 5 years) and then some.

The fixation with five years bemuses me. Why five years? If it was twenty five, there would be a surplus now to put into the team. The windfall increase in PL rights more than covers the payments, and the revenue counts towards FFP, the expenditure doesn't.

Ever since the PL/ Taylor we have been behind the curve on stadium  development.

[Macred]

The fixation with five years bemuses me. Why five years? If it was twenty five, there would be a surplus now to put into the team. The windfall increase in PL rights more than covers the payments, and the revenue counts towards FFP, the expenditure doesn't.

Ever since the PL/ Taylor we have been behind the curve on stadium  development.

Because that it was what Ian Ayre said 5 years pay back and that it has to pay for itself i.e. it does not come from any other income source. Like it is not even saying that match day revenue in its entirety can be used to assist with the cost of stadium development, each stand has to pay for itself....  sounds daft and short sighted to me but that is what was said.

[Alf]

Interested in people's thought's if we increase the capacity to 60k. A decent chunk of those extra seats would be corporate, would people have objections if they had less general admission tickets in the main stand to have more corporate in there with more general tickets in the new Anny Road.

[dudleyred]

Interested in people's thought's if we increase the capacity to 60k. A decent chunk of those extra seats would be corporate, would people have objections if they had less general admission tickets in the main stand to have more corporate in there with more general tickets in the new Anny Road.

Not at all as long as number of general tickets increased and at the very worst increased corporate tickets saved general price rises- would hope for a reduction

[Peter McGurk]

I know some of the areas were reprofiled to create one (more or less) matching lower tier, but not sure they were all changed to bigger seats and sure a lot of it is the same as it used to be.

I take it back. Apparently the seats in the old paddock are actually closer together but then it is a separate tier to the rest of the stand.

Interested in people's thought's if we increase the capacity to 60k. A decent chunk of those extra seats would be corporate, would people have objections if they had less general admission tickets in the main stand to have more corporate in there with more general tickets in the new Anny Road.

As said above, there's already a number of ARE sold with hospitality packages. There can't be limitless demand for hospitality and who's to say that the limit hasn't already been reached? Anyway, I can't see prices coming down any time soon for anything other than safe standing, maybe.

[newterp]

We spent the redevelopment money on VvD!

[Alan_X]

Interested in people's thought's if we increase the capacity to 60k. A decent chunk of those extra seats would be corporate, would people have objections if they had less general admission tickets in the main stand to have more corporate in there with more general tickets in the new Anny Road.

Why the additional seats be corporate? They don't always sell out the existing hospitality seats - that's why blocks like 227 and 228 regularly come up in late sales. The club can double the number of seats allocated to hospitality but it's meaningless if no one buys them.

The Main Stand works pretty well as it is. The Middle tier is hospitality and the Upper mostly general admission. The Anfield Road should be general admission as originally proposed.

[Alan_X]

We spent the redevelopment money on VvD!

Different budgets.

Spending big on Van Dyck probably makes the Anfield Road extension more likely in my view not less. It suggests FSG are looking long term.

[RedorRed]

I still think the club should also look at the feasibility of making the Annie Road End a new Uber 18,000 Single tier Kop. This could then allow us to change the configuration of the current Kop to a 2 tiered stand to house away fans within a similar footprint to the current stand.

We have the space behind the Annie Road to build in the same style as the Main Stand...... under the podium could be a really good sized themed bar and restaurant open non match days. And taking it to the height of the Main Stand and restaurant (with aspirations of being the first to be awarded a Michelin star....... why not be awarded winning of the pitch as well as on it) over looking Stanley Park.

And then in the old Kop....... corporate hospitality suites for away fans.... might as well take as much of their money also. The suites could be changed in terms of colours and pictures etc to match the away team we’re playing and have an away team merchandise shop full of fucking half n half scarves!!!

The idea being we go big with our Kop, building behind the current stand like we did with the Main Stand...... and then add a tier to the current Kop up to the Main Stand height..... and then finally a 3rd tier to the Kenny Dalglish and Anfield would be huge...... steep....... imposing...... and be getting the most from the away fans also.

[Alan_X]

I still think the club should also look at the feasibility of making the Annie Road End a new Uber 18,000 Single tier Kop. This could then allow us to change the configuration of the current Kop to a 2 tiered stand to house away fans within a similar footprint to the current stand.

We have the space behind the Annie Road to build in the same style as the Main Stand...... under the podium could be a really good sized themed bar and restaurant open non match days. And taking it to the height of the Main Stand and restaurant (with aspirations of being the first to be awarded a Michelin star....... why not be awarded winning of the pitch as well as on it) over looking Stanley Park.

And then in the old Kop....... corporate hospitality suites for away fans.... might as well take as much of their money also. The suites could be changed in terms of colours and pictures etc to match the away team we’re playing and have an away team merchandise shop full of fucking half n half scarves!!!

The idea being we go big with our Kop, building behind the current stand like we did with the Main Stand...... and then add a tier to the current Kop up to the Main Stand height..... and then finally a 3rd tier to the Kenny Dalglish and Anfield would be huge...... steep....... imposing...... and be getting the most from the away fans also.

You're looking for this thread. https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=327269.0

So many things that just don't make any sense.

A new 18,000 seat single-tier stand would take up a massive footprint because of seat spacing guidelines. It would not have the same feel as the old Kop.

A 'themed bar' for the Kop and a Michelin-starred restaurant, in L4? That makes no sense at all.

Extending behind the Kop would mean compulsory purchase of land around the Walton Breck Road and diverting WBR.

A second tier on the existing Kop would probably mean demolishing the existing seating and building from scratch and because of seat spacing guidelines would probably have the same or lower capacity.

Away fans don't want corporate hospitality suites or shops to buy half-and-half scarves.

A third tier on the Kenny stand would mean a new roof and might not even work because of the sight-lines.

Apart from that it's all good.

[Peter McGurk]

The corporate seats are maxed out with a few to spare - that includes the Main Stand, Kenny Dalglish and Anfield Road Ends (the latter using the Isla Gladstone, Sandon etc etc)

The available footprint within sight distances and without building in the corners would yield a stand at about 13,000 or less at new leg rooms. Same number of hospitality seats as now. A net increase of about 4,000 - all of which, General Admission. Maybe minus a few season tickets off the list.

The club has no appetite for cheaper seats for General Admission and at the same time cover the cost of a completely new stand.

***

The best option is to keep the ARE lower, build on the back (per the planning consent), continue to use the outsourced hospitality facilities or bring them into the ground.

If the lower ARE is kept, then theoretically there might just maybe be room for cheaper seats but it is highly unlikely because of the cost of losing the 2,440 seats in the ARE upper and the cost of building the new seats.

Going to the match is not going to get cheaper as long as the club has major works to pay for.

***

I've seen nothing to suggest that the club won't just build the existing planning consent as is, when it can afford to (when the main stand is paid for)

[Alf]

Why the additional seats be corporate? They don't always sell out the existing hospitality seats - that's why blocks like 227 and 228 regularly come up in late sales. The club can double the number of seats allocated to hospitality but it's meaningless if no one buys them.

The Main Stand works pretty well as it is. The Middle tier is hospitality and the Upper mostly general admission. The Anfield Road should be general admission as originally proposed.

Was just asking the question, as I know it's been stated previously that the new main stand pays for itself in 5-6 years and the ARE taking 15 years to do likewise.

[Peter McGurk]

Was just asking the question, as I know it's been stated previously that the new main stand pays for itself in 5-6 years and the ARE taking 15 years to do likewise.

They are only 4,000 seats additional seats in the ARE to get more revenue from at say, £4m additional income a year. You can do the maths yourself but it's a completely different proposition to the Main Stand with over 9,000 extra seats and hospitality at say, £15m additional income a year.

At a stated cost of £125m, to pay the Main Stand off in five years would stretch that target to £25m a year (the only way these numbers work is to take the whole stand into account as a new stand, which is a bit of 'football economics').

Not only that but the club has to recover the cost of replacing the 2,500 seats in the ARE upper tier for no more income than they're getting for it now - including hospitality packages in the Sandon etc. So the finances of the ARE are very tight indeed.

[Priest078]

It will never happen unfortunately

[Jake]

It will never happen unfortunately

Thank fuck I came to this thread all excited for new news and you were here to give this insightful tidbit.