Topic: Tomkins Times article on new Stadium

[montysmum]

Decent read of the possibilities.

]Redevelop Anfield or build a new stadium?

Let’s get one thing we can all agree on out of the way first – staying as we are at Anfield is not an option. Club accounts for the 2008-09 financial year showed Liverpool made £42m from gate and matchday income, while Arsenal were taking £100m at the Emirates turnstiles £109m came through the Old Trafford toilets. That means they have between £58 and £67 million more than us sloshing around their wallets.

Also, Anfield’s capacity currently lies behind United, City, Arsenal, Newcastle and Sunderland, with Villa and Chelsea quite close. Others may pass us soon – Spurs with a new stadium, even West Ham if they can come close to filling the new Olympic Stadium. Our average home gate is behind United, Arsenal, Newcastle, City, even Sunderland are close. Whichever way you look at, we’re stunted for growth.

Failure to compete financially means failure to compete on the pitch either. And sitting still means getting left behind by those in front of us, and maybe overtaken by those coming up behind.

So how do we increase match day revenues? The most obvious way would be just to charge lots more in admission prices – but that would also be the quickest way to empty the ground, especially in the current economic climate. Most fans would agree we’re paying more than enough already.

Another major potential income boost – perhaps the daddy of them all – lies in the exploitation of personalised on-demand TV worldwide, with the match beamed straight into your home, for a fee. In England, probably only United could rival Liverpool’s global reach and potential in this – something FSG will be well aware of. Hell, even Hicks and Gillett were. But that’s years down the line. With the income gap between us and the others widening all the time, we need to act sooner to reduce that gap. The big question is how – or more precisely, where – with a new, improved Anfield or by building a shiny new stadium?

Having been ruled out during the awful reign of Hicks and Gillett, the redevelopment of Anfield seems back on the agenda. We fans may be hopelessly romantic about it, but if John Henry and co. are seriously considering this option, as recently suggested, they must be confident that it would make financial sense. After all, nostalgia is one thing, making us top-level competitive quite another.

But could we get the 15,000 increase needed to bring the capacity of Anfield up to around the desired 60,000? Could redeveloping or expanding Anfield end up costing more than building a new stadium?

Assuming the Kop is sacrosanct, aside perhaps from a bit of in-filling in the corners to join the Centenary and the Main Stand, and the Centenary is already as high as it can go, it’s the Main Stand and the Anfield Road End that will most interest the developers. The latter has the complication of its eponymous road running right behind it – curse those Victorians who built their football grounds right in the heart of their communities, hemmed in by housing, factories, railway lines and roads. And you wonder whether it is possible to add sufficiently to the capacity of Anfield without prompting objections from the council, which may object to any developments that would tower over local properties or proposals to block or re-route Anfield Road.

It might be instructive to look at what FSG did with Fenway Park, home of the Red Sox in Boston. After all there are some close comparisons – like Anfield, Fenway Park is hemmed in by buildings, has plenty of heritage as arguably the oldest baseball shrine, and has a reputation for hosting passionate and vociferous fans. Preserving heritage seems to rank high on FSG’s agenda. At Fenway they made modernisation the priority rather than capacity, and added significantly to corporate hospitality capacity. The net result was a substantial increase in profit and income, but crucially, not as much as if they’d opted for maximising income and profit, the approach Hicks and Gillett would almost certainly have taken. If that had meant bringing in the wrecking ball and replacing the old shrine with a soulless concrete bowl without the fans’ backing, so be it. Mercifully that does not seem to be part of FSG’s philosophy.

Which brings us rather neatly to the issue of corporate hospitality. We may feel that prawn sandwich-eating fat cats may have little to do with following football, but there’s no doubt they’re a generous cash point for the clubs. Arsenal have a band of them circumnavigating the stadium, paying London prices for their Chateau Lafitte and hand-dived scallops in a white wine jus whilst glancing over for an occasional glimpse of Cesc and claiming to be Gooners born and bred. Meanwhile, Utd advertised for a head of catering at silly money to manage their team of Michelin-starred chefs (actually they’re not, but you get the idea. Actually the advert intro said ‘working for the world’s most glamorous football club’, which would have had a greater sense of honesty about it if it had said ‘working for the second most successful football club in the north west of England.’)

At the moment we have about 30 boxes along the Centenary Stand. We’re miles behind. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating that corporate business should be first priority or anywhere near it, but it is an easy way to boost match day revenue quickly.

Of course, Anfield is so much more than its mere physical attributes. It has a personality too, quite a big, blousy, sentimental one, sometimes perhaps overly so, one that wears its heart on its sleeve, occasionally achieving an exuberant ecstasy like no other, always playing by its own rules. The emotional hold of Anfield is hard to overstate; the very name resonates way beyond the English game, across the whole football world community. ‘You’ll Never Walk Alone’, ‘This Is Anfield’, they’re part of football folklore. For the fans themselves, Anfield is church. It holds so many special memories, either experienced personally or passed down in song and tale across the generations. The pitch at the Kop end even hosts any amount of supporters’ ashes. Presumably none of them expected their final resting place to be the foundations for some city apartments or a new retail development. Project forward to the moment when the referee’s whistle blows at the end of the very last game at Anfield. The thought of that moment turns my inside to liquid mush. The wrench of leaving will be gut-twisting, no question. Staying at a new improved Anfield is unquestionably the emotional choice, though that’s by no means the only advocate for taking this option, there may be hard business and financial reasons too – and maybe also the absence of a viable alternative, of which more later. I take it as guaranteed that the Shankly Gates, the Shankly statue and of course the Hillsborough eternal flame will travel with us if we move.

Of course if we opt for the redevelopment route, we will need the co-operation of the local council and public authorities. Staying may give the immediate area a much needed boost – if you think the area by the ground is run down now, imagine it without its supporting life force. The businesses that rely on match day income – the pubs, shops and chippys – would also be mighty relieved. But that co-operation may not be forthcoming. They see a new build, rather than redevelopment, as the catalyst for the regeneration of north Liverpool. As recently as October 2010, the council leader Joe Anderson said that redeveloping Anfield instead of building a new stadium would be unlikely to gain approval. “I would encourage them to stick to the commitment that is already in place because I think that is the best solution for everyone – for the club and the city”, he said. I also seem to recall Hicks’ and Gillett’s proposals for extending the imaginary new stadium in Stanley Park beyond its initial 60/65,000 capacity meeting opposition over the inability of the public transport infrastructure to cope with crowds of 75,000. This may not be a smooth ride.

Whether we stay or move, you have to ask whether we’d fill all those thousands of extra seats. As our detractors and unhealthily obsessive LFC watchers (otherwise known as mancs) are so quick to point out, what do you need a bigger ground for when you can’t even fill the one you’ve got? Well there are plenty answers to why we’ve been below capacity occasionally, not least the uniquely excruciating pain of watching a Roy Hodgson team or the less-than-pulse-quickening prospect of Wigan at home on a cold winter’s night when there’s nothing much to play for. If we were title challengers you could forget about even trying to get a ticket, even for that game. No club will fill a stadium for every match if they’re playing mid-table dross with no prospect of winning or qualifying for anything – including the mancs. They’ve barely had a meaningless league fixture at Old Trafford for 20 years, testimony to their consistency at the top end.

But there’s a strange phenomenon that attaches itself to bigger new grounds, a sort of law of physics – attendances seem to expand to fill the space available. Look at Arsenal – OK they filled their 37-odd thousand Highbury, but did anyone seriously think they had another 23,000 tucked away, ready to wriggle out of their pupas as soon as they moved to the Emirates? Nothing before the move suggested so. Although it’s substantial, they don’t seem to have a fan base to compare with Liverpool’s or United’s. The same happened at Sunderland, and Derby. More go because more can. When people who had grown used to being excluded suddenly aren’t, it’s like removing a dam, a torrent follows. Presumably there are many who feel Anfield is impenetrable, they’ve no chance of getting tickets and have given up trying. So they’re not really ‘in the loop’ when one of that tiny handful of games that aren’t sold out comes around, they’re out of the habit and out of touch. But with extra capacity, they can get back into the habit. Assuming they’ve got the cash, of course. I have no qualms about us filling a 60,000+ capacity, assuming we’re a half-decent side with a chance of achieving something, I think we’ve got the unmet demand for it.

A Spade in the Ground?


A new stadium project formed part of negotiations right from when FSG first took over. In fact, that and the creation of a new Anfield Plaza on the site of the existing stadium, containing shops, offices and restaurants and providing a public link to the new arena, was a key condition in Liverpool getting permission to build on public land in Stanley Park. Crucially, building a new stadium and the Anfield Plaza are estimated to create 1,000 jobs in one of the most deprived local authority wards in Britain.

Meanwhile, Hicks and Gillett’s plans for a new arena on Stanley Park are still lodged, although I understand planning permission is due to expire in April. Of course, unlike their bombastic braying predecessors, FSG have made no rash promises about “spades being put in the ground within 60 days”, or even whether a spade will be put in the Stanley Park ground at all.

If it was, and a new stadium did indeed deliver on the 60,000 capacity, the extra 15,000 seats would produce, at £40 a seat, an extra £600,000 a match, or around £12/15 million a season, depending on cup games. There’d also presumably be a big uplift in corporate revenue, sponsorship and commercial deals. Even then, according to my maths we’ll still be some way behind Utd and Arsenal, but a lot closer. Offsetting that, it seems highly likely that, although the takeover itself left us debt-free, the new stadium (or indeed the redevelopment of Anfield) would not. The £350-400 million costs quoted for a new stadium would surely place the club in debt again, although this time with the additional earnings to service the debt. But isn’t the point of extra income being able to strengthen the squad and make us competitive with the super-rich and super-earners, not pay off debt?

Of course, there is one more issue associated with building a new ground, and it’s the elephant in the room. A curious blue one.

Sharing With the Other Lot

Ask a red. Or a blue, if you must. ‘No chance la’ might be the censored reply. As recently as last December, John Henry made it clear that if the fans don’t want a ground share, then the idea is a non-starter – and by the notoriously fickle vox pop method, most don’t. Even admitting you think it might be worth looking more closely at would be to bring about your social ostracism from fellow fans, not quite on a par with saying you are a Sun reader but getting there.

It’s not just that we can’t stand each other these days. Football in England’s nothing if not territorial, and Anfield and Goodison are our homes, integral parts of our identity for well over a century. Besides, who wants to see a compromise arena, with a red Kop at one end, a blue Gwladys Street ‘home end’ at the other, and all the other seats in between a vomit-inducing purple compromise hybrid? Maybe there’d even be two home changing rooms, one red and one blue, as well as an away changing room? (Also, corrugated iron panelling at the blue end so they feel at home? And isn’t it going to be half-empty every other week when they’re at home? – sorry, you see the problem.) Although it won’t mean sitting next to an Evertonian, you’d have to accept that one will be sitting in your seat next match.

Yet the idea is not without support. The Council has thrown its weight behind it, seeing the economic and tourism potential that an iconic new stadium could bring. And some icons of Merseyside football have come out in cautious support. In September 2010, in his then-capacity as Liverpool Ambassador, none other than Mr K Dalglish wrote “Whoever is in a position of responsibility at Liverpool and Everton are only custodians for the next generation of supporter. They owe it to the fans to look at every possibility to help their respective clubs.” Two months later, David Moyes said “I wouldn’t say we’d be definitely for it but we’d be very interested if we got an opportunity. I don’t know if that’s how Liverpool would view it.”

Last year, our chief executive, good ol’ Cec Purslow, met Everton counterpart Robert Elstone and other interested parties to discuss the options, but it went no further. What’s attractive about it, if indeed there is anything, lies in the reduced costs to both clubs compared to finding their own new homes – assuming that translates into an increased ability to compete on the playing field. Both clubs could also make profits on selling their current land, as Arsenal did with Highbury.

Of course the ideal solution would be for each club to have its own fantastic new stadium, but neither has had the financial infrastructure in place to do it so far. Whether FSG have remains to be seen.

The deal breaker is whether this route is better than the two clubs acting independently, whether it is the best way for both to ensure they challenge for honours year on year, and whether it is the route best equipped to deliver success for OUR club for the foreseeable future? If the others happen to get successful as well as a result, well it’ll only be like the ‘80s again and I’d settle for that. (As long as Thatcher doesn’t come back, that is. Oh, she sort of has, OK …)

The truth is, I don’t know. I don’t instinctively warm to the idea of ground sharing and I’m not an advocate of it, but I don’t dismiss it out of hand either. Don’t we owe it to ourselves to at least explore the possibilities?


http://tomkinstimes.com/2011/03/should-we-stay-or-should-we-go/

[Dirkismydad]

Interesting read as always from tomkins, the guy always makes sense

[Zeb]

The truth is, I don’t know. I don’t instinctively warm to the idea of ground sharing and I’m not an advocate of it, but I don’t dismiss it out of hand either. Don’t we owe it to ourselves to at least explore the possibilities?

People have looked at it though; and the answer was still 'no'. It's really not a kneejerk reaction for anyone who has looked at the issues and looked at the examples of supposed success stories of shared stadia in detail. With one major exception - it makes a lot of sense if a third party (eg the taxpayer - whether local or national) foots the entire bill.

Love Paul's stuff, but a lot of the reaction isn't kneejerk or instinctive but because the option has been discussed ad nauseam for years and no-one has yet found the mysterious benefactor who'll pay for a stadium.

[xerxes1]

Although he is sometimes plain barmy- this is a good, and fair, read.

[scottishRED]

It's a guest article by Chris Rowland; not Paul Tomkins.

That said, it's a good piece with some sensible analysis of the issues / difficult questions.

My personal order of preference (taking all factors into account, not just the emotional ones) is:

1. redevelop anfield and get a bigger capacity

2. ground share

3. new LFC only stadium

If anfield can be redeveloped to give us an extra 10,000-20,000 through the doors at every match, then great.  The history of the ground and character of the place are massive selling points with overseas / armchair fans, and credit to FSG for recognising that and investigating the possibilities.

Option 3. I loathe because I really don't want us plunged into debt again.  The whole premise of FSG's ownership is for us to be self-funding, and to use revenues and operating profits to invest in and improve the football team.  If there is a way to do it without reducing the funds available to invest in the football side of the business, then great, but fundamentally we are a football team, and that should always be our focus and where we concentrate our resources.

[The Flying Pig]

How would Everton ever manage to pay their half of the cost of a shared ground?

In the present circumstances funding from central or local government is not happening.

[xerxes1]

How would Everton ever manage to pay their half of the cost of a shared ground?

In the present circumstances funding from central or local government is not happening.

The curious thing about Groundshare is that if the practicalities could be overcome ( doubtful) it would be to our benefit and Evertons disadvantage in my opinion, they would always be the de facto junior partner.As such, when this dawns on them, even if the problems could be ironed out, i dont think they would proceed.

[18 yard line]

I would really resent Groundshare, for me a huge part of Liverpool Football Club has always been our stadium and its history, what it means and represents.  Both a thoughtful redevelopment of Anfield and a shiny new stadium can preserve at least some of what makes Anfield so special to me.  Groundshare will never achieve that.

Secondly, a shared new stadium would mean shared and therefore reduced costs.  But also shared revenue from income streams such as Naming Rights and concerts etc. not to mention increased overheads and a continual battle to maintain a decent playing surface.    No thanks!

[LiverBirdKop]

Interesting read. To me it will come down to what extent Anfield could be redeveloped and at what cost.

Is it a fact that the planning permission expires in April?

[xerxes1]

Interesting read. To me it will come down to what extent Anfield could be redeveloped and at what cost.

Is it a fact that the planning permission expires in April?

July I think for both New Anfield and Anfield Plaza.

With the FFP rules imminnent, it appears that our competitiveness is set to deteriorate with a stadium punching well below the weight of the club.

[Aitken Drum]

Decent read of the possibilities.

]Redevelop Anfield or build a new stadium? 

It might be instructive to look at what FSG did with Fenway Park, home of the Red Sox in Boston. After all there are some close comparisons – like Anfield, Fenway Park is hemmed in by buildings, has plenty of heritage as arguably the oldest baseball shrine, and has a reputation for hosting passionate and vociferous fans. Preserving heritage seems to rank high on FSG’s agenda. At Fenway they made modernisation the priority rather than capacity, and added significantly to corporate hospitality capacity. The net result was a substantial increase in profit and income, but crucially, not as much as if they’d opted for maximising income and profit, the approach Hicks and Gillett would almost certainly have taken. If that had meant bringing in the wrecking ball and replacing the old shrine with a soulless concrete bowl without the fans’ backing, so be it. Mercifully that does not seem to be part of FSG’s philosophy.


http://tomkinstimes.com/2011/03/should-we-stay-or-should-we-go/

FSG had limited options with regard a new ballpark in Boston.   FSG did consider the opinions of the community. However, they didn't have much choice but to do so.  The previous owners had stirred up a hornets nest from a local neighborhood group when a new stadium adjacent to the old was proposed. The Fenway Action Coalition was against a new ballpark and was set to use every legal means at their disposal to prevent it.  When FSG acquired the Red Sox they fairly quickly decided to refurbish Fenway. There were, and still are, many fans who want a new ballpark. The situation with Anfield is different. I would guess from the boarded houses that there isn't much of a community surrounding the Anfield grounds at present and, despite affection for the history of Anfield, there isn't much opposition to a new stadium.

[Peter McGurk]

FSG had limited options with regard a new ballpark in Boston.   FSG did consider the opinions of the community. However, they didn't have much choice but to do so.  The previous owners had stirred up a hornets nest from a local neighborhood group when a new stadium adjacent to the old was proposed. The Fenway Action Coalition was against a new ballpark and was set to use every legal means at their disposal to prevent it.  When FSG acquired the Red Sox they fairly quickly decided to refurbish Fenway. There were, and still are, many fans who want a new ballpark. The situation with Anfield is different. I would guess from the boarded houses that there isn't much of a community surrounding the Anfield grounds at present and, despite affection for the history of Anfield, there isn't much opposition to a new stadium.

I've read here that JWH would have built a new stadium if the city had committed $500m to build a $600m stadium (who wouldn't?!) but without that input the scheme was 'almost impossible'. 

The local community objected to  redevelopment in 2002 and the Victorian Society objected to use of the park for the new stadium! (no pleasing some people).  As you say local opposition seems to have softened somewhat in the meantime (the VS are still upset about the park)

Up until FSG bought it, the club had been pumping the idea of a new stadium as the only way forward 'to the next level'.  Of course this suited a lot of people for other reasons.  Most would have 'wanted' to stay but most accepted new only because everyone was told categorically that redevelopment was neither possible nor feasible.  Since it's become evident that that might not actually be true it seems to have moved from being decidely against to about 60/40 for a redevelopment.

[Aitken Drum]

I've read here that JWH would have built a new stadium if the city had committed $500m to build a $600m stadium (who wouldn't?!) but without that input the scheme was 'almost impossible'. 

 The previous owner of the Red Sox, the Yawkey Trust, had commitments from the city to improve infrastructure such as access roads and parking garages, which might have cost over $100 million, but I don't think anyone in Boston expected the city to provide funding toward the stadium itself. The parking garages would have been a big moneymaker for the city and quite desirable for people working in the area.

Despite it's name, the Fenway Action Coalition was dedicated to inaction.  The Fenway area, unlike the Anfield area, is threatened by growth, not abandonment.  The Fenway as a community of permanent residents has been under siege from various universities and from commercial developers. The Fenway Action Coalition was an attemption to prevent further change.

[Aitken Drum]

I've read here that JWH would have built a new stadium if the city had committed $500m to build a $600m stadium (who wouldn't?!) but without that input the scheme was 'almost impossible'.  ] against to about 60/40 for a redevelopment.

Prior to John Henry taking over the Red Sox, Bob Kraft had built Gillette Stadium for the NE Patriots (and NE Revolution) and the Boston Bruins ownership had built a new hockey arena. Neither received any government money except for infrastructure such as access roads. Both organizations were widely applauded for funding their own projects. The precedents had been set. It would have been foolish for the Red Sox to try to get public money.  It is interesting to note that both the Yawkey Trust plans for a new Fenway Park and Bob Kraft's plan for Gillette Stadium incorporated large shopping malls.  Perhaps the same could be done by FSG in rejuvenating Anfield. 

[Peter McGurk]

The previous owner of the Red Sox, the Yawkey Trust, had commitments ...

Prior to John Henry taking over the Red Sox....

Both very interesting.  I was looking at these quotes from JWH:

"With public funding, would you have built a new park that would have been more spacious and that would have had a traditional look?

"…I don’t know. I think it was a $600 million ballpark, something along those lines. And I think the Red Sox were going to be on the hook for something like [only] $100 million. It probably would have been more. It’s hard to speculate, going back. But to try to answer your question, it would have been a difficult decision if we could have gone large enough, if taxpayers were willing to pay those kinds of dollars, it probably would have been economically beneficial for us to go that route."

"Would it have been impossible to do something like that privately?

"I don’t know about impossible, but..."


As for supporting retail development, Grovesnor Estates have recently completed the £1bn Liverpool One project in the city centre in a joint venture with the city (the city put in the land).  This pretty much fills the bill on upgrading the regional retail offer and is naturally enough enshrined in planning policy for the region as a whole - it’s a main reason Everton’s appeal in Kirkby was kicked into touch by the minister (their new stadium was supported by a massive and competitve retail development).  So anything of any size would be against regional planning policy supporting by a planning decision at appeal and the city would effectively have government backing to stomp on anything that looks like competition for ‘their’ scheme in town. If they didn’t do it, Grovesnor would - no doubt.

However something the size of the Anfield Plaza - essentially non-competitive football-related businesses and retail - has the backing of the city and outline consent.  In my view it’s just in the wrong place (being on the site of Anfield) and I’d rather see it on the adjacent Walton Breck Road.  Even in Urban Regeneration (Renewal) and Environmental terms a much more satisfactory outcome.

[BIGdavalad]

It is interesting to note that both the Yawkey Trust plans for a new Fenway Park and Bob Kraft's plan for Gillette Stadium incorporated large shopping malls.  Perhaps the same could be done by FSG in rejuvenating Anfield.

Can't imagine it would be worth the time or money to build a large shopping complex in Anfield considering Liverpool One's about ten minutes away.

[xerxes1]

  So anything of any size would be against regional planning policy supporting by a planning decision at appeal and the city would effectively have government backing to stomp on anything that looks like competition for ‘their’ scheme in town. If they didn’t do it, Grovesnor would - no doubt.

Anfield Plaza already has consent for mixed use development.

However something the size of the Anfield Plaza - essentially non-competitive football-related businesses and retail - has the backing of the city and outline consent.  In my view it’s just in the wrong place (being on the site of Anfield) and I’d rather see it on the adjacent Walton Breck Road.  Even in Urban Regeneration (Renewal) and Environmental terms a much more satisfactory outcome.

The existing consent specifies neither non-competitive football-related businesses nor retail (see above). WBR is in multi-ownership. Assembling a site of sufficient size, with willing vendors and willing buyers could happen now.It hasn't. There is no obvious case for CPO's. There is no case for it representing a more satisfactory development in Urban Regeneration (Renewal) or  Environmental terms.

[Aitken Drum]

Both very interesting.  I was looking at these quotes from JWH:

"With public funding, would you have built a new park that would have been more spacious and that would have had a traditional look?

"…I don’t know. I think it was a $600 million ballpark, something along those lines. And I think the Red Sox were going to be on the hook for something like [only] $100 million. It probably would have been more. It’s hard to speculate, going back. But to try to answer your question, it would have been a difficult decision if we could have gone large enough, if taxpayers were willing to pay those kinds of dollars, it probably would have been economically beneficial for us to go that route."

I think the following is an accurate description of the situation when the Yawkey Trust was trying to build a new stadium.

“Citing the economic obsolescence of Fenway Park as the reason, the Boston Red Sox wanted to be in a new stadium by 2003. Without the addition of 10,000 seats, including more luxury suites and other premium seats, the team said it would fall behind other teams in paying the player salaries needed to stay competitive on the field. The Red Sox were willing to pay the entire cost of a 44,130 seat replacement for Fenway Park, which was built in 1912 and seated 33,871 in 1999, but wanted public funds for such upgrades as improved transportation. The Red Sox were not considering selling private seat licenses in a new stadium and expected construction to cost about $350 million. In 1999, Massachusetts was the only state where there were four professional teams playing in privately financed facilities, so the Red Sox didn't expect public funds to be available for the stadium.”

That’s just prior to John Henry’s time and I don’t believe John Henry was ever involved in any proposals to build a new Fenway. John Henry’s memory seems faulty on the funding issues. 

 John Henry decided Fenway could be expanded and  that building a new stadium was unnecessary. Expansion wasn’t an original idea. There was an organization called “Save Fenway” which made suggestions for increasing Fenway Parks seating. John Henry is probably right about the Yawkey Trust having difficulties in raising money for a new stadium.  The Yawkey Trust is a charitable trust which used  profits from the Red Sox to support various charities.  It shouldn’t have owned a sports team let alone be building stadiums. (The trust originated from the will of the late owner, Jean Yawkey, with the intention that the team be sold at an appropriate time). If I were a banker, I wouldn’t have lent them money because stadium building wasn’t part of the Trusts stated purpose. 

I previously mentioned the Fenway Action Coalition as the chief opponent of building a new stadium in the Fens.  FAC was a nebulous organization of unknown membership.  It purported to be “the only independent, all-volunteer, community activist group in Boston's Fenway neighborhood.”  However, its only public issue seems to have been opposition to a new stadium in the Fens.  The area around Fenway Park is not a residential neighborhood. It is entirely commercial.  I’ve wondered if the purpose of the FAC was to get the Red Sox to build the new stadium elsewhere and thus make the stadium site available for development.

FSG  probably has the ability to build a new stadium.  With respect to Fenway Park's refurbishment, “With a 2010-2011 off-season investment estimated at $40 million, the investment for the 10-year program is estimated to total approximately $285 million, the largest investment in the history of the almost 99-year-old iconic ballpark.”   To the best of my knowledge this was done without outside financing.  Assuming this is an accurate statement, one would think FSG would be able to finance a new stadium for LFC, but only FSG knows for certain. 

[crazeehorse]

ok article, summarises what we have all read and argued about for the last 15 years...

Maybe Qatar could drop one of theres off in anfield once there done? S.A. has some amazing white elephants left over from the WC too.Maybe we could play a few friendlies in in Jburg in our offseason in exchange

[Peter McGurk]

I think the following is an accurate description of the situation when the Yawkey Trust was trying to build a new stadium.

“Citing the economic obsolescence of Fenway Park as the reason, the Boston Red Sox wanted to be in a new stadium by 2003. Without the addition of 10,000 seats, including more luxury suites and other premium seats, the team said it would fall behind other teams in paying the player salaries needed to stay competitive on the field. The Red Sox were willing to pay the entire cost of a 44,130 seat replacement for Fenway Park, which was built in 1912 and seated 33,871 in 1999, but wanted public funds for such upgrades as improved transportation. The Red Sox were not considering selling private seat licenses in a new stadium and expected construction to cost about $350 million. In 1999, Massachusetts was the only state where there were four professional teams playing in privately financed facilities, so the Red Sox didn't expect public funds to be available for the stadium.”

That’s just prior to John Henry’s time and I don’t believe John Henry was ever involved in any proposals to build a new Fenway. John Henry’s memory seems faulty on the funding issues. 

 John Henry decided Fenway could be expanded and  that building a new stadium was unnecessary. Expansion wasn’t an original idea. There was an organization called “Save Fenway” which made suggestions for increasing Fenway Parks seating. John Henry is probably right about the Yawkey Trust having difficulties in raising money for a new stadium.  The Yawkey Trust is a charitable trust which used  profits from the Red Sox to support various charities.  It shouldn’t have owned a sports team let alone be building stadiums. (The trust originated from the will of the late owner, Jean Yawkey, with the intention that the team be sold at an appropriate time). If I were a banker, I wouldn’t have lent them money because stadium building wasn’t part of the Trusts stated purpose. 

I previously mentioned the Fenway Action Coalition as the chief opponent of building a new stadium in the Fens.  FAC was a nebulous organization of unknown membership.  It purported to be “the only independent, all-volunteer, community activist group in Boston's Fenway neighborhood.”  However, its only public issue seems to have been opposition to a new stadium in the Fens.  The area around Fenway Park is not a residential neighborhood. It is entirely commercial.  I’ve wondered if the purpose of the FAC was to get the Red Sox to build the new stadium elsewhere and thus make the stadium site available for development.

FSG  probably has the ability to build a new stadium.  With respect to Fenway Park's refurbishment, “With a 2010-2011 off-season investment estimated at $40 million, the investment for the 10-year program is estimated to total approximately $285 million, the largest investment in the history of the almost 99-year-old iconic ballpark.”   To the best of my knowledge this was done without outside financing.  Assuming this is an accurate statement, one would think FSG would be able to finance a new stadium for LFC, but only FSG knows for certain.

I can see it would be easy to read the comments about Red Sox actions as participation, since NESV now own Red Sox (although it didn’t then).

Still, it would be reasonable to deduce that JWH wasn’t sure about the economics of a new stadium and felt it almost impossible without public finance?

What is a “private seat license”? - a debenture?  I also read that Baseball itself owns most stadium rights (??) or stadia?

[Peter McGurk]

Anfield Plaza already has consent for mixed use development.
The existing consent specifies neither non-competitive football-related businesses nor retail (see above). WBR is in multi-ownership. Assembling a site of sufficient size, with willing vendors and willing buyers could happen now.It hasn't. There is no obvious case for CPO's. There is no case for it representing a more satisfactory development in Urban Regeneration (Renewal) or  Environmental terms.

From the application and committee report:

"(ii) OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION - To erect a new
development of Anfield Plaza for mixed uses including
offices, retail and food & drink uses, community uses, a
residential scheme, a hotel, and public open space
(subject to an illustrative masterplan and development
brief)"

The scale of the development indicated on the illustrative masterplan is somewhat less than would trouble or compete with the likes of Grovesnor at Liverpool One - or Tesco in Kirkby - and appreciably less value than 2000 luxury apartments in Highbury & Islington, without which Arsenal would have made a loss in first half of this year.

From an Urban Regeneration point of view, it makes less sense to demolish existing urban fabric, scale and content in favour of new development.  There is an appreciable difference in quality of life between 'grown' communities and new introductions/ transplants - see... let's see, millions of examples - St Paul's London and it's return to the historic street pattern post-post-war redevelopment (Peter Ackroyd is entertertaining on the subject) and compare it with mmm... Milton Keynes - or in Liverpool, Speke or Cantril Farm, Netherley or any number of schemes in Everton Valley, including that estate I can never remember the name of, that came and went in the 70s - supposed to be a 'fishing village'.

Even assuming CPO and site assembly would be required and that is not necessarily so (area redevelopment and management may be more productive than a single developer-led scheme - see the BIDs or the Commercial District Partnership in St Paul’s Liverpool for example): as 50% of the carbon footprint in the built environment is bound up in material and construction processes (25% in running operations, heat, water and light etc) and 25% in travel to and from buildings), it follows that the environmental case for retention of existing building stock is almost self-evident (incidentally, this would apply to Anfield - the football ground - too).

[xerxes1]

I'm not sure where you are coming from with that post,Peter

The planning consent is correct. There is no specific masterplan for this site, just designation in the UDP, the consent is for what was applied for, there is no detail.

The Arsenal scheme provides for 711 units, not 2000. Last accounting year debt was paid down in excess of what was paid for. Your "half year" (of what) figures are an invention.

The final two paragraphs bear no relation to anything inparticular.

[west_london_red]

I can see it would be easy to read the comments about Red Sox actions as participation, since NESV now own Red Sox (although it didn’t then).

Still, it would be reasonable to deduce that JWH wasn’t sure about the economics of a new stadium and felt it almost impossible without public finance?

What is a “private seat license”? - a debenture?  I also read that Baseball itself owns most stadium rights (??) or stadia?

Worth baring in mind that public financing of stadiums is very common in the US, so for JWH to want help isnt just a case of 'I cant afford it' but could be a case of 'x, y, z team got public financing, why shouldnt I?'

[Peter McGurk]

I'm not sure where you are coming from with that post,Peter

The planning consent is correct. There is no specific masterplan for this site, just designation in the UDP, the consent is for what was applied for, there is no detail.

The Arsenal scheme provides for 711 units, not 2000. Last accounting year debt was paid down in excess of what was paid for. Your "half year" (of what) figures are an invention.

The final two paragraphs bear no relation to anything inparticular.

There is an outline consent in terms of the... well the outline consent.  It's as stated.  It includes football-related business (why else would you put as new hotel in Anfield/Breckfield? - come on!) and retail, as I said. It is what it is, move on.

711 are being built at Highbury but "the remainder of the Lough Road site is being used for new housing, as are the surplus areas around the stadium at Ashburton Grove. Highbury is currently being converted into apartments, most of which have been sold. In total, more than 2,000 homes will be built at the three sites", having said that, I would like a more definitive/ more concise yet still-specific source - perhaps you can help. 

This could help you in: "In one of the largest developments taken on in the UK, Arsenal is also funding 2,300 homes and facilities for local communities on several sites around the stadium. In March 2003, the club's representatives signed the final building contracts and acquisition papers. Work is now almost complete on these regeneration projects and housing developments after delays due to objections from Islington Borough Council and residents. The majority of the houses have been sold including a number of apartments constructed on the old Highbury ground." http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/ashburton/

or this: http://www.islington.gov.uk/leisure/arsenal_new/arsenalstadium/1404.asp

or this: http://www.islington.gov.uk/downloadabledocuments/environment/pdf/planningcommitteereport.pdf

or perhaps this will do: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/property/hot-spot-highbury-london-488206.html

Pick any one of multiple sources for the half-year results, but here’s one to be getting on with: http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/183165/arsenal-registers-half-year-loss

The final two paragraphs are illustrations by example of very specific counter arguments to your statement concerning environmental benefits and urban regeneration.  I’m sorry you can’t understand that, or perhaps you just choose not to.

[LiverBirdKop]

Worth baring in mind that public financing of stadiums is very common in the US, so for JWH to want help isnt just a case of 'I cant afford it' but could be a case of 'x, y, z team got public financing, why shouldnt I?'

Foxboro was built with no public funding (in the early 70s). So was TD Garden (Celtics basketball). Gillett stadium was privately funded as well.
The New Fenway proposal depended on eminent domain land takings. Buying out businesses/land to make room for the park.

[xerxes1]

There is an outline consent in terms of the... well the outline consent.  It's as stated.  It includes football-related business (why else would you put as new hotel in Anfield/Breckfield? - come on!) and retail, as I said. It is what it is, move on.etc....

Peter, you mean well, and your desire to stay at Anfield is an honourable one.But with the rest of the material you have quoted, you simply do not not know what points you are making. There are so many haphazard snippets which you have cobbled together there it really is impossible to know where to start.

The planning consent simply does not specify football related business, as you correctly quote, , although it can be, nor does it specify retail only or what proportion should be retail as your accurate quote again demonstrated.

Ashburton Properties has taken a development brief as a separate entity over and beyond the Highbury site as a subsidiary of Arsenal Fc involving a significant amount of social housing on land which Arsenal Fc did not and do not own, its a stand alone enterprise.Nonetheless it has no bearing on New Anfield/Anfield Plaza.

Your own quote on the half year figures explicitly says that the half year return reflected a decline in property sales ( which are always higher in the first half of the year) AND player sales - not "and appreciably less value than 2000 luxury apartments in Highbury & Islington (an incorrect number, on three sites, not all of which Arseald Fc own, and not all of which are luxury apartments, many of which are social housing), without which Arsenal would have made a loss in first half of this year".Your claim is an invention by your own quote.

The final two paragraphs do not say what you claim, and almost entirely subvert the argument you think you are making.Your opening line says:"it makes less sense to demolish existing urban fabric, scale and content in favour of new development". Which supports Anfield Plaza, but not WBR development.

Claiming that others do not understand what you do not is foolishness, this is only exacerbated by unwittingly quoting against yourself.

I continue to be happy to respect the "lets stay at Anfield " argument. But if you keep on trying to invent evidence to support what in itself is a reasonable position, I am going to keep on demolishing your specious claims.

[Peter McGurk]

Peter, you mean well, and your desire to stay at Anfield is an honourable one.But with the rest of the material you have quoted, you simply do not not know what points you are making. There are so many haphazard snippets which you have cobbled together there it really is impossible to know where to start.

The planning consent simply does not specify football related business, as you correctky quote, , although it can be, nor does it specify retail only or what proportion should be retail as your accurate quote again demonstrated.

Ashburton Properties has taken a development brief as a separate entity over and beyond the Highbury site as a subsidiary of Arsenal Fc involving a significant amount of social housing on land which Arsenal Fc did not and do not own, its a stand alone enterprise.Nonetheless it has no bearing on New Anfield/Anfield Plaza.

Your own quote on the half year figures explicitly says that the half year return reflected a decline in property sales ( which are always higher in the first half of the year) AND player sales - not "and appreciably less value than 2000 luxury apartments in Highbury & Islington (an incorrect number, on three sites, not all of which Arseald Fc own, and not all of which are luxury apartments, many of which are social housing), without which Arsenal would have made a loss in first half of this year".Your claim is an invention by your own quote.

The final two paragraphs do not say what you claim, and almost entirely subvert the argument you think you are making.Your opening line says:"it makes less sense to demolish existing urban fabric, scale and content in favour of new development". Which supports Anfield Plaza, but not WBR development.

Claiming that others do not understand what you do not is foolishness, this is only exacerbated by unwittingly quoting against yourself.

I continue to be happy to respect the "lets stay at Anfield " argument. But if you keep on trying to invent evidence to support what in itself is a reasonable position, I am going to keep on demolishing your specious claims.

I cobble nothing together - I gave you some clues together with a request for better/ more concise sources (if you had them).

I said the scheme included those things and it does.

I am well aware what the housing development consists of. Prices start at about £125k and rise to £450k - by comparison a lot more help than any Anfield Plaza will give a scheme.

The housing has a bearing on our situation as an example of a supporting development.  Despite that support, Arsenal made a loss in the first half - that is undeniable.

Demolition of WBR or large parts of it would not be necessary and only demonstrates an hasty assumption to suit your argument.  Bearing that in mind, do you have a view of what I said about urban regeneration and sustainability or do you still prefer not to understand it?

When you've demolished something, I'll let you know.

[xerxes1]

Peter ,you said: "However something the size of the Anfield Plaza - essentially non-competitive football-related businesses and retail"

Your accurate quote from the consent reads:""(ii) OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION - To erect a new
development of Anfield Plaza for mixed uses including
offices, retail and food & drink uses, community uses, a
residential scheme, a hotel, and public open space
(subject to an illustrative masterplan and development
brief)"


As you can see there is no reference to football-related businesses whatsoever, and retail is only a part of the consent,not all of it, or the other part in addition to the non-existent "football related businesses". If you thought that I meant that no retail was included, I apologise for poor expression. I meant that it was just a part, size undetermined , not as you claimed "essentially non-competitive football related businesses and retail" ,as your own planning quote makes crystal clear.Your words, your quotes.

The housing scheme at Highbury has no relevance to Anfield whatsoever in terms of scale, value or mix. If your point is that Arsenal showed a half year loss- fine. Your own quoted source headlines with: "Arsenal has posted a loss of £2.5 million for the six months through to November 30 after reporting a decline in property income and player sales." The significance of a half year figure you wisely fail to specify.The full year one, within the context of the schedule of paydown for the Emirates will be the interesting one.


Anfield Plaza ( the existing Anfield site) is a stand alone site with one owner.WBR is a linear site under multi-ownership. The financial, planning and practical advantages of one site over the other are plain. Your own words are: "From an Urban Regeneration point of view, it makes less sense to demolish existing urban fabric, scale and content in favour of new development". So on the one hand is a site, in single ownership with a disused football stadium, on the other there is WBR - which opportunity do you think fits that brief?

I repeat that the "stay at Anfield" position is an honourable and defendable one, and one which may prove to be the right answer for the club. But I don't understand why you go to such lengths to create arguments which do not support your cause, when there are so many which do, and no-one would argue with.

[Johnny Foreigner]

Let’s get one thing we can all agree on out of the way first – staying as we are at Anfield is not an option. Club accounts for the 2008-09 financial year showed Liverpool made £42m from gate and matchday income, while Arsenal were taking £100m at the Emirates turnstiles £109m came through the Old Trafford toilets. That means they have between £58 and £67 million more than us sloshing around their wallets.

Pointless to use 5000 words to impress, when you show in in your opening sentence that you don't have a clue about financials..

[Peter McGurk]

Peter ,you said: "However something the size of the Anfield Plaza - essentially non-competitive football-related businesses and retail"

Your accurate quote from the consent reads:""(ii) OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION - To erect a new
development of Anfield Plaza for mixed uses including
offices, retail and food & drink uses, community uses, a
residential scheme, a hotel, and public open space
(subject to an illustrative masterplan and development
brief)"


As you can see there is no reference to football-related businesses whatsoever, and retail is only a part of the consent,not all of it, or the other part in addition to the non-existent "football related businesses". If you thought that I meant that no retail was included, I apologise for poor expression. I meant that it was just a part, size undetermined , not as you claimed "essentially non-competitive football related businesses and retail" ,as your own planning quote makes crystal clear.Your words, your quotes.

The housing scheme at Highbury has no relevance to Anfield whatsoever in terms of scale, value or mix. If your point is that Arsenal showed a half year loss- fine. Your own quoted source headlines with: "Arsenal has posted a loss of £2.5 million for the six months through to November 30 after reporting a decline in property income and player sales." The significance of a half year figure you wisely fail to specify.The full year one, within the context of the schedule of paydown for the Emirates will be the interesting one.


Anfield Plaza ( the existing Anfield site) is a stand alone site with one owner.WBR is a linear site under multi-ownership. The financial, planning and practical advantages of one site over the other are plain. Your own words are: "From an Urban Regeneration point of view, it makes less sense to demolish existing urban fabric, scale and content in favour of new development". So on the one hand is a site, in single ownership with a disused football stadium, on the other there is WBR - which opportunity do you think fits that brief?

I repeat that the "stay at Anfield" position is an honourable and defendable one, and one which may prove to be the right answer for the club. But I don't understand why you go to such lengths to create arguments which do not support your cause, when there are so many which do, and no-one would argue with.

We can forgive each other for clumsy phrasing forever if you want.  Nevertheless the Anfield Plaza proposals are ‘essentially non-competitive football-related businesses and retail’.  Perhaps I could have put an extra comma or an ‘and’ in there to make you happy but, it is of its essence that it is not of a size or in a location to compete with other (regional or sub-regional) facilities of a similar nature. It does include football-related business and it does include retail.  It also includes other things. I hope that is clear.

The comparison with the Emirates (and it’s supporting developments) is often made in terms of a question - ‘they did it and they’re raking it in - why can’t we?’ and needs to be answered - the argument had no need of creation.  The stadium costs will be similar and a comparison can and has been made between the number and ability of the fans to pay in their respective locations.  Similarly a comparison can de drawn between the respective supporting developments.  Despite Arsenal doing rather better than we might on counts of numbers, affordability and value of supporting development, they still made an overall loss in the first half of the year which does indicate that they are heavily reliant on (a bigger and more prosperous market and) residential sales to pay down the debt - an advantage, by comparison, we will not enjoy and which goes a long way to answer the question.

I happen to believe that development ought to be distinct and self-sustaining - it must at least ‘wash its own face’ financially but that’s a debate for another day.

For the reasons stated in my ‘two paras’ the ‘regeneration’, ‘upgrading’, ‘renewal’, ‘refreshment’, ‘refurbishment’ or ‘rehabiliation’ of existing building stock on WBR is more beneficial to both an urban renewal and environmental sustainability brief than the demolition of the stadium and its immediate surroundings for new development.  I asked you what you thought of that (in terms of the reasons stated). I don’t think I can be any clearer - I’ve tried my best.

[silver 5 star]

Nice to see the usual debates going on re: groundshare on here. The Internet though remains only the Internet.

As much as there are those who like to push the groundshare agenda on here the reality is it has no chance.

The brutal reality is, the vast majority of supporters on both sides view groundshare as anathema.

This Is Anfield has to mean something.

[xerxes1]

We can forgive each other for clumsy phrasing forever if you want.  Nevertheless the Anfield Plaza proposals are ‘essentially non-competitive football-related businesses and retail’.  Perhaps I could have put an extra comma or an ‘and’ in there to make you happy but, it is of its essence that it is not of a size or in a location to compete with other (regional or sub-regional) facilities of a similar nature. It does include football-related business and it does include retail.  It also includes other things. I hope that is clear.

The comparison with the Emirates (and it’s supporting developments) is often made in terms of a question - ‘they did it and they’re raking it in - why can’t we?’ and needs to be answered - the argument had no need of creation.  The stadium costs will be similar and a comparison can and has been made between the number and ability of the fans to pay in their respective locations.  Similarly a comparison can de drawn between the respective supporting developments.  Despite Arsenal doing rather better than we might on counts of numbers, affordability and value of supporting development, they still made an overall loss in the first half of the year which does indicate that they are heavily reliant on (a bigger and more prosperous market and) residential sales to pay down the debt - an advantage, by comparison, we will not enjoy and which goes a long way to answer the question.

I happen to believe that development ought to be distinct and self-sustaining - it must at least ‘wash its own face’ financially but that’s a debate for another day.

For the reasons stated in my ‘two paras’ the ‘regeneration’, ‘upgrading’, ‘renewal’, ‘refreshment’, ‘refurbishment’ or ‘rehabiliation’ of existing building stock on WBR is more beneficial to both an urban renewal and environmental sustainability brief than the demolition of the stadium and its immediate surroundings for new development.  I asked you what you thought of that (in terms of the reasons stated). I don’t think I can be any clearer - I’ve tried my best.

Peter.Para one.The retail discussion is peripheral, we agree there is some .But nowhere does it say football related.

Para two.The Emirates project is different from the Anfield project in pretty much every respect is the answer to anyone who asks
for comparisons.The construction ( and site remediation) costs are not similar.The calibration of ticket pricing and nature of demand
 in central London to Merseyside is also different.There is no comparison whatsoever between the supporting developments.

Your conclusion on a £2.5m half year trading loss for a club with an  annual turnover last year of £380m (so just over half a percent),
who paid down additional debt through profits of £130m last year ,is unique.

No-one would dispute  that all developments should be commercial.

The WBR v Anfield Plaza debate  has two parts, deliverability and planning desirability.

Anfield Plaza is a one ownership, developable entity.Empty as a result of New Anfield,it is eminently suitable for all the uses the current
outline consent specifies.As such, it is impossible to beat on deliverability.Its planning desirability is a matter of record - it is consented.

WBR is in multi-ownership and of a scale and scope which is unknown.There is no reason for the council to use public money to compulsory purchase
holdings,nor are they in the business of speculative development.Private business has not chosen to take it on becuase it is not commercial.
Site assemblies are expensive, time consuming and uncertain both in terms of the holding you end up with, and what you can then end up doing with it.
So its deliverability is unknown.Planning desirability is equally unknown - because it is impossible to know what you are going to end up with, let alone what you can do with it.

I am very happy for others to draw their own conclusions from that.

We all agree that WBR and the area in general is in need of renewal and regeneration.Typically such renewal is sparked by an anchor development.
A new stadium / Anfield Plaza on its own would bring jobs and money into the area as a construction project alone for around three years.
Beyond that there is the permanent increase in employment and revenue that the two projects will continue to offer once constrcution is complete.
Ironically it is that which is likley to provide the catalyst for the regeneration of WBR/ the area in general.

A limited redevlopment of Anfield ( which I acknowledge could be the right commercial answer) cannot provide either the short term jobs/revenue
injection of a new stadium/Anfield plaza, nor can it offer the prospect of offering the catalyst for associated redevelopment on WBR and the area.
It provides neither the jobs nor increased revenue to kick start it.

[Peter McGurk]

Peter.Para one.The retail discussion is peripheral, we agree there is some .But nowhere does it say football related.

Para two.The Emirates project is different from the Anfield project in pretty much every respect is the answer to anyone who asks
for comparisons.The construction ( and site remediation) costs are not similar.The calibration of ticket pricing and nature of demand
 in central London to Merseyside is also different.There is no comparison whatsoever between the supporting developments.

Your conclusion on a £2.5m half year trading loss for a club with an  annual turnover last year of £380m (so just over half a percent),
who paid down additional debt through profits of £130m last year ,is unique.

No-one would dispute  that all developments should be commercial.

The WBR v Anfield Plaza debate  has two parts, deliverability and planning desirability.

Anfield Plaza is a one ownership, developable entity.Empty as a result of New Anfield,it is eminently suitable for all the uses the current
outline consent specifies.As such, it is impossible to beat on deliverability.Its planning desirability is a matter of record - it is consented.

WBR is in multi-ownership and of a scale and scope which is unknown.There is no reason for the council to use public money to compulsory purchase
holdings,nor are they in the business of speculative development.Private business has not chosen to take it on becuase it is not commercial.
Site assemblies are expensive, time consuming and uncertain both in terms of the holding you end up with, and what you can then end up doing with it.
So its deliverability is unknown.Planning desirability is equally unknown - because it is impossible to know what you are going to end up with, let alone what you can do with it.

I am very happy for others to draw their own conclusions from that.

We all agree that WBR and the area in general is in need of renewal and regeneration.Typically such renewal is sparked by an anchor development.
A new stadium / Anfield Plaza on its own would bring jobs and money into the area as a construction project alone for around three years.
Beyond that there is the permanent increase in employment and revenue that the two projects will continue to offer once constrcution is complete.
Ironically it is that which is likley to provide the catalyst for the regeneration of WBR/ the area in general.

A limited redevlopment of Anfield ( which I acknowledge could be the right commercial answer) cannot provide either the short term jobs/revenue
injection of a new stadium/Anfield plaza, nor can it offer the prospect of offering the catalyst for associated redevelopment on WBR and the area.
It provides neither the jobs nor increased revenue to kick start it.

I can see that yet again you’ve left out the stuff that you no doubt find difficult to answer and normally I would be at pains to answer you point-by-point - but this is such a partial and narrow view and your statements of the bleedin' (but nevertheless irrelevant) obvious and your deliberate misunderstandings and misinterpretations are so excruciating, I really can’t be bothered.  All I can say is if you don't want eggs, I don't care how easy they are to crack.

You appear to have an unusually strong attachment to the idea of an Anfield Plaza on the existing site.  I’ve no idea why.

[xerxes1]

I can see that yet again you’ve left out the stuff that you no doubt find difficult to answer and normally I would be at pains to answer you point-by-point - but this is such a partial and narrow view and your statements of the bleedin' (but nevertheless irrelevant) obvious and your deliberate misunderstandings and misinterpretations are so excruciating, I really can’t be bothered.  All I can say is if you don't want eggs, I don't care how easy they are to crack.You appear to have an unusually strong attachment to the idea of an Anfield Plaza on the existing site.  I've no idea why.

Your standard defence is to accuse others of that which you are guilty of. I omit or fail to address nothing that is relevant.My expertise lies in stripping away the frippery and identifying core problems and solutions.

My only agenda is the truth, my only attachment is to the facts.

The respective merits of Anfield Plaza v WBR are factual, as stated. That they expose your claims is not my fault. That you don't know why explains much. My views are always based upon the available evidence - perhaps it is time for you to follow suit?

If you think that an unassembled,multiownership road with no planning status is more viable and makes a better option than a single ownersip consented site - make your case.

[Peter McGurk]

Your standard defence is to accuse others of that which you are guilty of. I omit or fail to address nothing that is relevant.

My only agenda is the truth, my only attachment is to the facts.

The respective merits of Anfield Plaza v WBR are factual, as stated. That they expose your claims is not my fault. That you don't know why explains much. My views are always based upon the available evidence - perhaps it is time for you to follow suit?

If you think that an unassembled,multiownership road with no planning status is more viable and makes a better option than a single ownersip consented site - make your case.

So you don’t think environmental sustainability is relevant, or (to broaden it out a bit) you can’t answer whether naming rights ever lowered anyone’s prices, or substantiate £135 a seat construction cost at OT, or... well you can compare what you’ve answered to what you’ve replied at your leisure.

What you entirely miss or perhaps deliberately misconstrue is that you are comparing your version of what WBR would look like with Anfield Plaza (and at the same time you say you don’t have enough detail!).  It doesn’t expose my ‘claims’ as false but you’re just saying so and then agreeing with yourself exposes your predilections.

I’ve no wish to make the case that WBR is more ‘viable’ than Anfield Plaza.  I simply stated the environmental and urban benefits, which you have not demonstrated the foggiest idea of understanding.  As I said, if you don’t want it, it doesn’t matter how easy or possible it might be.

Your fixation, yes, on Anfield Plaza puts the cart before the horse don’t you think? - “hey look, the stadium’s rubbish but what a nice hotel (and did you see the yield on that office space?...”).

There’s a million people out there who invent a world to suit their dreams and then call everything therein a fact.  They see other people’s views in the same way.  They don’t give other people the credit of having looked at the arguments, come to a conclusion and argued their point or, of them continually re-visiting and testing that conclusion in the light of new information. 

I can see your point of view - I just happen to disagree with it, pretty strongly.  I try to answer as much as I can, in as much detail as I can; but with you, I’ve grown tired of it.

None of which personal spat contributes one iota to this debate and I’m sure is very boring for anyone else to read. So unless you have something new to add...

[xerxes1]

So you don’t think environmental sustainability is relevant, or (to broaden it out a bit) you can’t answer whether naming rights ever lowered anyone’s prices, or substantiate £135 a seat construction cost at OT, or... well you can compare what you’ve answered to what you’ve replied at your leisure.

We agree environmental sustainability is an important consideration- which Anfield Plaza meets,and is deliverable, as I explained.The means by which WBR could be regenerated and the scheme which might deliver it are both unkown and unproven.

Now if you want to claim that WBR might end up as being better than Anfield Plaza - your call.But the currnet respective advantages and disadvantages of the sites are a matter of fact.

Have naming rights ever lowered anyones prices? They represent a subsidy on the overall cost of the stadium. Would prices be higher without them? Might clubs just charge what they can anyway?
Do they represent a subsidy which allows other excessive expenditure? Your guess is certainly as good as mine. The Allianz arena has remarkably low prices for a state of the art stadium, the Emirates has high prices. Take your pick. Naming Rights offers no more than a chunk of cash,a subsudy on the overall cost of a stadium - what anyone, let alone FSG would do with it i wouldn't like to guess one way or the other.It could be used to keep ticket prices down - it could be used for many other things.

The OT construction cost links for the final quadrant,I had at the time, but am struggling to relocate at the moment.They were low but are of curiosity interest only, as they are now five years old and represent a bespoke infill. We both agree that a spot of infill could be done at Anfield cheaply, and profitably. We may disagree on whether the scale of what is possible is enough.

[xerxes1]

What you entirely miss or perhaps deliberately misconstrue is that you are comparing your version of what WBR would look like with Anfield Plaza (and at the same time you say you don’t have enough detail!).  It doesn’t expose my ‘claims’ as false but you’re just saying so and then agreeing with yourself exposes your predilections.

I have no version of WBR. It is a multiownership road with varying existing use consents. in order to be brought forwards it would need to have some form of unifying ownership in part, and a consent which is practical, viable and commercial. Those are the facts.

I've no wish to make the case that WBR is more ‘viable’ than Anfield Plaza.

Then stop there then!

  I simply stated the environmental and urban benefits, which you have not demonstrated the foggiest idea of understanding.  As I said, if you don’t want it, it doesn’t matter how easy or possible it might be.Your fixation, yes, on Anfield Plaza puts the cart before the horse don’t you think? - “hey look, the stadium’s rubbish but what a nice hotel (and did you see the yield on that office space?...”).There’s a million people out there who invent a world to suit their dreams and then call everything therein a fact.  They see other people’s views in the same way.  They don’t give other people the credit of having looked at the arguments, come to a conclusion and argued their point or, of them continually re-visiting and testing that conclusion in the light of new information.I can see your point of view - I just happen to disagree with it, pretty strongly.  I try to answer as much as I can, in as much detail as I can; but with you, I’ve grown tired of it.

Your statement of urban and environmental benefits are fine. The problem is that that very statement favours Anfield Plaza.

Once again you accuse me of that of which you are guilty yourself. I have no fixation on Anfield Plaza other than it demonstrably offers benefits, here and now, which WBR does not.

You simply  want to stay at Anfield. That is fine. When you invent reasons why we should. That is not.

I would stay at Anfield, or relocate to New Anfield, whichever option offered the Club the most profitable option over the short,medium and long term, combined. A minor redevelopment which offers short term returns, but denies us long term security and leads to us continuing to fall behind our key rivals on matchday income is unaccepable to me. A grandiose new stadium which strangles our ability to compete on the pitch in the short term is equally unacceptable.

I am at a loss as to why you have spent so long arguing  , only to then say "I've no wish to make the case that WBR is more ‘viable’ than Anfield Plaza." No wonder you are tired!

[Peter McGurk]

Oh dear, tired as I am...

We agree environmental sustainability is an important consideration- which Anfield Plaza meets,and is deliverable, as I explained.The means by which WBR could be regenerated and the scheme which might deliver it are both unkown and unproven.

Now if you want to claim that WBR might end up as being better than Anfield Plaza - your call.But the currnet respective advantages and disadvantages of the sites are a matter of fact.

Have naming rights ever lowered anyones prices? They represent a subsidy on the overall cost of the stadium. Would prices be higher without them? Might clubs just charge what they can anyway?
Do they represent a subsidy which allows other excessive expenditure? Your guess is certainly as good as mine. The Allianz arena has remarkably low prices for a state of the art stadium, the Emirates has high prices. Take your pick. Naming Rights offers no more than a chunk of cash,a subsudy on the overall cost of a stadium - what anyone, let alone FSG would do with it i wouldn't like to guess one way or the other.It could be used to keep ticket prices down - it could be used for many other things.

The OT construction cost links for the final quadrant,I had at the time, but am struggling to relocate at the moment.They were low but are of curiosity interest only, as they are now five years old and represent a bespoke infill. We both agree that a spot of infill could be done at Anfield cheaply, and profitably. We may disagree on whether the scale of what is possible is enough.

Please explain how demolishing Anfield and its immediate environs (and the sending of all that carbon-intensive material to hard-core/ landfill) to rebuild a new stadium with newly mined, sourced, produced, manufacture, transported and assembled materials - some of which shipped from God knows where - and largely constructed of, or encased in ‘high-emission’ materials such as concrete) and new buildings (like wise) in an Anfield Plaza meets the environment bill to lower carbon emissions. You can’t - good - I’ll move on.

Finally, an answer on naming rights, which is... they do not make a new stadium more affordable for us, the fans - terrific.  And you know damn fine that they do not offer huge chunks of cash - woah!!! I’m not going there again...

If you want help with OT - I can tell you the 7,000 seats were £35m which at about £5000 a seat would be about right and certainly not 135 quid each, which would be about wrong.  If you’re struggling to find the source, why didn’t you say so before instead of the bullshit.  Rumbled, you’re now telling us it doesn’t matter anyway... I await your link with interest.

You can disagree with the possible scale of redevelopment at Anfield all you like - I’m telling you what the potential for it is.

I have no version of WBR. It is a multiownership road with varying existing use consents. in order to be brought forwards it would need to have some form of unifying ownership in part, and a consent which is practical, viable and commercial. Those are the facts.
Then stop there then!
Your statement of urban and environmental benefits are fine. The problem is that that very statement favours Anfield Plaza.

Once again you accuse me of that of which you are guilty yourself. I have no fixation on Anfield Plaza other than it demonstrably offers benefits, here and now, which WBR does not.

You simply  want to stay at Anfield. That is fine. When you invent reasons why we should. That is not.

I would stay at Anfield, or relocate to New Anfield, whichever option offered the Club the most profitable option over the short,medium and long term, combined. A minor redevelopment which offers short term returns, but denies us long term security and leads to us continuing to fall behind our key rivals on matchday income is unaccepable to me. A grandiose new stadium which strangles our ability to compete on the pitch in the short term is equally unacceptable.

I am at a loss as to why you have spent so long arguing  , only to then say "I've no wish to make the case that WBR is more ‘viable’ than Anfield Plaza." No wonder you are tired!

You requirement to consolidate the sites into one occupancy is already a version of how you see it going.  It is entirely possible and even desirable (in terms of diversification of benefit to the greater number of participants) to develop the area in multiple occupancy.  Not only is the risk shared, so are the benefits.

Not only does the retention of existing building fabric better satisfy the environmental brief but ‘Area Development’ as such, creates a great deal of benefit to the local residents, producing true mixed use which in both urban design and planning terms is highly desirable.  As they say, mono-culture development in an urban context, my friend is coming to an end and this is increasingly reflected in planning policy, urban design and 'strategic regeneration frameworks'.

As to the financial viability of the 'Anfield Plazas', I do not wish to argue the comparison as I should think it would be a ‘saw’ - the stadium is the thing - and their very reason for being is regeneration and employment generation, which can be handled by either I am sure, albeit to a lesser degree on the Anfield site.

Those statements do not favour Anfield Plaza for the reasons give here and in response to earlier post.

No one is talking about a ‘minor development’ of Anfield... except you and you’re agreeing with yourself.

Me? fixated on Anfield Plaza? ok.

[LiamG]

All this debate between you lot has been going on for months lol

[xerxes1]

Please explain how demolishing Anfield and its immediate environs (and the sending of all that carbon-intensive material to hard-core/ landfill) to rebuild a new stadium with newly mined, sourced, produced, manufacture, transported and assembled materials - some of which shipped from God knows where - and largely constructed of, or encased in ‘high-emission’ materials such as concrete) and new buildings (like wise) in an Anfield Plaza meets the environment bill to lower carbon emissions. You can’t - good - I’ll move on.

A good idea. The Anfield Plaza site is consented. It is irrelevant.

Finally, an answer on naming rights, which is... they do not make a new stadium more affordable for us, the fans - terrific.  And you know damn fine that they do not offer huge chunks of cash - woah!!! I’m not going there again...

Again a good idea. Naming rights may or may not make a new stadium more affordable for us. Your inability to grasp figures like £100m and £267m has made you look ridiculous in the past- but you keep on coming.

If you want help with OT - I can tell you the 7,000 seats were £35m which at about £5000 a seat would be about right and certainly not 135 quid each, which would be about wrong.  If you’re struggling to find the source, why didn’t you say so before instead of the bullshit.  Rumbled, you’re now telling us it doesn’t matter anyway... I await your link with interest.

Your unsourced figure is different. What is the significance of the cost of the seats there anyway.,your point? At £35m it would still be good value – I was helping you make your point- not mine.

Your requirement to consolidate the sites into one occupancy is already a version of how you see it going.  It is entirely possible and even desirable (in terms of diversification of benefit to the greater number of participants) to develop the area in multiple occupancy.  Not only is the risk shared, so are the benefits.

I have never mentioned one occupancy- I said one ownership.It's quite different

Not only does the retention of existing building fabric better satisfy the environmental brief but ‘Area Development’ as such, creates a great deal of benefit to the local residents, producing true mixed use which in both urban design and planning terms is highly desirable.  As they say, mono-culture development in an urban context, my friend is coming to an end and this is increasingly reflected in planning policy, urban design and 'strategic regeneration frameworks'.

There is no brief for WBR.Check the UDP. The retention of the existing fabric may not better suit environmental guidelines. New build can be more environmentally friendly. Where you have dreamt up mono-culture in response to anything I have said is unknown.

As to the financial viability of the 'Anfield Plazas', I do not wish to argue the comparison as I should think it would be a ‘saw’ - the stadium is the thing - and their very reason for being is regeneration and employment generation, which can be handled by either I am sure, albeit to a lesser degree on the Anfield site

You are wise not to argue it. On the one hand you have a consented New Stadium offering three years worth of construction, enhanced employment, the construction jobs at a consented Anfield plaza and the long term new jobs associated with it. On the other there is..................... nothing. Just unconsented ideas, which may or may not come off to a greater, or lesser extent.

Those statements do not favour Anfield Plaza From an Urban Regeneration point of view, it makes less sense to demolish existing urban fabric, scale and content in favour of new development. - “

To remind you ,Anfield would be a derelict stadium.WBR contains existing property.Your own words  From an Urban Regeneration point of view, it makes less sense to demolish existing urban fabric, scale and content in favour of new development. are right. But you don’t even understand what you are quoting.
 

No one is talking about a ‘minor development’ of Anfield... except you and you’re agreeing with yourself.

So now you are ruling out a new Anfield AND an increase to say 52,000? The one thing you do have right is that if a modest increase is all FSG can afford – I do think we would have to run with it.

The distinction between a consented New Anfield / Anfield Plaza and the absence of any viable alternative proposal which comes anywhere near matching it (because there is none) is an important one, for jobs, and investment.