Topic: Liverpool confirm decision to redevelop Anfield

[Peter McGurk]

I would guess that provided Macca's mate can back up the money he has spent on it, he'll have a decent case. If he's done all the work himself it'll be harder to prove, but he could still get quotes from builders on what it will have costed.

A risky investment? Maybe so, but he could equally argue that there had been two separate applications for planning permission for new stadia that that the reasonable person would have relied upon in making the decision he did.

No idea what kind of difference in valuation we're talking here though. 10-20K you'd think it was do-able. 30-50K, all the more difficult. As for market valuation, is that for Lothair road, or Anfield?

Your missing my point - what you spend is not directly reflected in the value. I could spend twice as much as I need to on any given bath  - it's still the same bath.

There's hundreds of dormant consents all over every city.  If you want to rely on someone else's planning applications, you shouldn't be 'in property'. It's a very risky business. If you want the rewards, you have to take the losses.

The valuations for Lothair Road will be for Lothair Road, in Anfield. There is a degree of judgement in the calculation but they have to stand up to potentially legal scrutiny of the evidence for the calculation. Adding a few tens of thousands for the hell of it is not an option.

I've no idea of the figures offered but I have heard (third-hand), they are reasonable and are being accepted.

[Eeyore]

Your missing my point - what you spend is not directly reflected in the value. I could spend twice as much as I need to on any given bath  - it's still the same bath.

There's hundreds of dormant consents all over every city.  If you want to rely on someone else's planning applications, you shouldn't be 'in property'. It's a very risky business. If you want the rewards, you have to take the losses.

The valuations for Lothair Road will be for Lothair Road, in Anfield. There is a degree of judgement in the calculation but they have to stand up to potentially legal scrutiny of the evidence for the calculation. Adding a few tens of thousands for the hell of it is not an option.

I've no idea of the figures offered but I have heard (third-hand), they are reasonable and are being accepted.

I think people should read this http://anfieldsrockfieldtriangle.weebly.com/uploads/4/4/3/8/4438297/life_in_lothair_road_ynwa.pdf and then decide if the valuations are fair.

[macca888]

Couple of things though Peter that has a bit of relevance to my mate in particular. Firstly, my mate bought the house 20 years ago when most of if not all the houses were occupied. Secondly, he started paying for the refurbishments once the planning permission for the new ground was given, when they were given certain assurances that the whole of Lothair Road was to be refurbished. Once the discussions about refurbishing Anfield started after the meeting in the Isla Gladstone a few months back, all the owners were told that the offers would reflect the condition and decorative state of the property as they were and all valuations would not take the state of the street and the immediate area into consideration.

Most importantly, the offer he has received is significanlty lower than one received by a couple of other owner occupiers of houses in Lothair that were both smaller and in much worse condition. It's also lower than a similar property around the corner that is literally falling apart. Without going into detail, they've recently set their own precedent for a valuation based on Tancred Road properties and are not offering him nearly the same. He's not daft enough to think that he'll get back every penny of the total refurbishment costs, but I know that he simply won't be bullied by them into accepting the offer that's on the table because it's not a fair one. And to be honest I 100% agree with him because the way he's been treated at present is a bit shitty to say the least.

[Peter McGurk]

I think people should read this http://anfieldsrockfieldtriangle.weebly.com/uploads/4/4/3/8/4438297/life_in_lothair_road_ynwa.pdf and then decide if the valuations are fair.

The only thing 'fair' about 'fair' market property value is an assumed 'fair' condition of the property. If you want council to pay more, you're going to have to change the rules.

Couple of things though Peter that has a bit of relevance to my mate in particular. Firstly, my mate bought the house 20 years ago when most of if not all the houses were occupied. Secondly, he started paying for the refurbishments once the planning permission for the new ground was given, when they were given certain assurances that the whole of Lothair Road was to be refurbished. Once the discussions about refurbishing Anfield started after the meeting in the Isla Gladstone a few months back, all the owners were told that the offers would reflect the condition and decorative state of the property as they were and all valuations would not take the state of the street and the immediate area into consideration.

Most importantly, the offer he has received is significanlty lower than one received by a couple of other owner occupiers of houses in Lothair that were both smaller and in much worse condition. It's also lower than a similar property around the corner that is literally falling apart. Without going into detail, they've recently set their own precedent for a valuation based on Tancred Road properties and are not offering him nearly the same. He's not daft enough to think that he'll get back every penny of the total refurbishment costs, but I know that he simply won't be bullied by them into accepting the offer that's on the table because it's not a fair one. And to be honest I 100% agree with him because the way he's been treated at present is a bit shitty to say the least.

See above.

Anyone who relies on other people's plans and planning permissions is taking a massive risk.

Property is not a nice world.

But I thought you said council hadn't spoken to him directly?

[Eeyore]

Peter if the acquisition and demolition of the properties in Lothair Rd is just about regeneration of the Rockfield triangle and has nothing to do with the expansion of the Stadium will the houses owned by the Club be bought by the Council with tax payers money as well.

[Peter McGurk]

Peter if the acquisition and demolition of the properties in Lothair Rd is just about regeneration of the Rockfield triangle and has nothing to do with the expansion of the Stadium will the houses owned by the Club be bought by the Council with tax payers money as well.

Logically, yes. But the club has neither confirmed nor denied that they will 'donate' them to council...

“Our proposals are viable regardless of whether Liverpool FC decide to move to Stanley Park.” A key issue now is whether or not the houses in Lothair Road which face demolition – a number of which are owned by the club – will be compulsorily purchased by the council or handed over by Liverpool.

Read more: Liverpool Echo http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/08/17/demolition-renovation-and-hotel-plans-for-anfield-pave-way-for-liverpool-fc-to-stay-put-100252-31641040/#ixzz2MqvjwC13

[macca888]

Property is not a nice world. But I thought you said council hadn't spoken to him directly?

Where have I said they have spoken to him directly? I don't think I've made a single mention of the council, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The only people he has dealt with are 20/20 Liverpool. 20/20 Liverpool made an offer to him that was unacceptable. They have basically left him since that time without negotiating, after he provided documentary evidence that was in the public domain that their valuation was below what he deemed acceptable. The information regarding other valuations he has received from other tenants and owners. It seems that 20/20 are the ones that are not actively looking to negotiate at this moment in time. I think there are three properties left to purchase, but they certainly aren't busting a gut to achieve it.

[Peter McGurk]

Where have I said they have spoken to him directly? I don't think I've made a single mention of the council, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. The only people he has dealt with are 20/20 Liverpool. 20/20 Liverpool made an offer to him that was unacceptable. They have basically left him since that time without negotiating, after he provided documentary evidence that was in the public domain that their valuation was below what he deemed acceptable. The information regarding other valuations he has received from other tenants and owners. It seems that they are the ones that are not actively looking to negotiate.

So they haven't spoken to him directly (which is what I said). 20/20 are a consultancy partner with council ie., they are it seems acting for council.

Putting documents in the public domain doesn't make them any more credible but since I haven't seen them or his valuation or anyone else's valuation, I have no idea what the comparison is and you'd have to go through the valuation process to assess whether it's reasonable or not. Not that it would be wise to do that.

Without knowing the basis of the valuation (is the roof about to fall in...?)  how can anyone have any idea whether it's reasonable? Other than... if it can be identified that the valuer got it wrong, he'll no doubt be calling his insurer.

[Snaily]

Grinch, i'm not sure where you really stand, do you really object to public money being used to help facilitate private investment in an area to aid regeneration.  there are public/private investment projects all over the country.

macca, it sounds tough for your mate and by the sounds of it his valuation is far higher than the amounts being offered, especially as there are higher offers.  Though i have to agree with peter that unfortunately your friend has speculated and looks like losing out, i do have sympathy.  i guess he would not be willing to accept the same amount that others have already accepted.

[Nessy76]

Maybe he should sue Tom Hicks.

[Eeyore]

Grinch, i'm not sure where you really stand, do you really object to public money being used to help facilitate private investment in an area to aid regeneration.  there are public/private investment projects all over the country.

macca, it sounds tough for your mate and by the sounds of it his valuation is far higher than the amounts being offered, especially as there are higher offers.  Though i have to agree with peter that unfortunately your friend has speculated and looks like losing out, i do have sympathy.  i guess he would not be willing to accept the same amount that others have already accepted.

I don't have a problem with a public/private regeneration project, In fact I think it is the best solution to both the problems the Club faces and the problems the residents face. The problem is that isn't what we are seeing here, there is no transparency and to me it seems the area is being carved up behind close doors. Public money is being used to buy and destroy properties in preparation for a development that may or may not happen.

The area has been actively destroyed and home owners have had tens of thousands of pounds knocked off the value of their houses, residents have been left to live in absolutely disgusting conditions and for me the public purse has been raided to facilitate a private companies needs. It is wrong, if it was the likes of Tesco's that were secretly plotting and planning with public bodies then people would be up in arms.

If LFC wants to expand then do the right thing, pay a fair price for the houses you need, be honest with people and do it openly and transparently and above all don't use the council's money to buy properties when the Council budget is being slashed, essential services are being cut to the bone and hundreds of people are being made redundant.

Maybe I am just being naive but one of the things I loved about the Club was that it always sought to do things the right way.

[CraigDS]

I don't have a problem with a public/private regeneration project, In fact I think it is the best solution to both the problems the Club faces and the problems the residents face. The problem is that isn't what we are seeing here, there is no transparency and to me it seems the area is being carved up behind close doors. Public money is being used to buy and destroy properties in preparation for a development that may or may not happen.

The area has been actively destroyed and home owners have had tens of thousands of pounds knocked off the value of their houses, residents have been left to live in absolutely disgusting conditions and for me the public purse has been raided to facilitate a private companies needs. It is wrong, if it was the likes of Tesco's that were secretly plotting and planning with public bodies then people would be up in arms.

If LFC wants to expand then do the right thing, pay a fair price for the houses you need, be honest with people and do it openly and transparently and above all don't use the council's money to buy properties when the Council budget is being slashed, essential services are being cut to the bone and hundreds of people are being made redundant.

Maybe I am just being naive but one of the things I loved about the Club was that it always sought to do things the right way.

I thought LCC (or whoever on whoevers behalf) are paying a value at a rate which would represent the area not being in the state it is? Obviously this doesn't account for the years they have lived in the state the area is, but it should mean they aren't receiving bottom dollar due to the area being deliberately (or not) run down.

It is all well and good saying if LFC want to expand then LFC need to pay a fair price - but do you honestly think some (not all) of those residents would demand a fair price? What happens when you get down to the last house, that person if they wanted could hold the club over a barrel.

The stadium is clearly going to be the driver of regeneration in the whole area, I think if the club wasn't interested in expanding then I don't think LCC would of been as quick to try and sort the area out finally - and the home owners should get a fair value (plus some, plus compensation, etc) - and that is what they are meant to be getting. And given out the 8 about 5 of them have agreed to sell already then it may suggest this is what they think they have been offered.

You're also ignoring the fact that the council will own the land, and I presume the club will lease it for a similar amount as they were going to the park land, so about £300k a year. Now that is a good income for the council and certainly brings more to the coffers than it'll cost to get the houses.

[Rox]

You're also ignoring the fact that the council will own the land, and I presume the club will lease it for a similar amount as they were going to the park land, so about £300k a year. Now that is a good income for the council and certainly brings more to the coffers than it'll cost to get the houses.

Presumably there will be a huge increase in the Business rates.  The Business rates for that footprint will easily be higher than a private individual's Council Tax in that area.

[Eeyore]

I thought LCC (or whoever on whoevers behalf) are paying a value at a rate which would represent the area not being in the state it is? Obviously this doesn't account for the years they have lived in the state the area is, but it should mean they aren't receiving bottom dollar due to the area being deliberately (or not) run down.

According to Peter legally all the Council can offer is the market value +10% so the owners of the properties will receive bottom dollar.

It is all well and good saying if LFC want to expand then LFC need to pay a fair price - but do you honestly think some (not all) of those residents would demand a fair price? What happens when you get down to the last house, that person if they wanted could hold the club over a barrel.

Isn't that the nature of business, it doesn't make it okay to pretend the schemes are separate so that you can get the council to issue CPO's. Not to mention the bollocks about Lothair Rd having to go so a Housing association could build a hotel.

The stadium is clearly going to be the driver of regeneration in the whole area, I think if the club wasn't interested in expanding then I don't think LCC would of been as quick to try and sort the area out finally - and the home owners should get a fair value (plus some, plus compensation, etc) - and that is what they are meant to be getting. And given out the 8 about 5 of them have agreed to sell already then it may suggest this is what they think they have been offered.

You're also ignoring the fact that the council will own the land, and I presume the club will lease it for a similar amount as they were going to the park land, so about £300k a year. Now that is a good income for the council and certainly brings more to the coffers than it'll cost to get the houses.

What happens if the Stadium expansion doesn't happen and the Council has wasted millions buying and knocking down houses because there is no planning permission and even if it is granted we can't be sure it will go ahead. Is that really what the council should be doing at a time of budget crisis.

[CraigDS]

According to Peter legally all the Council can offer is the market value +10% so the owners of the properties will receive bottom dollar.

Is that not for CPO?

I'm sure they are offering a value based on if the area wasn't run down, plus something like 10%, plus some other add ons like moving compo, etc.

Isn't that the nature of business, it doesn't make it okay to pretend the schemes are separate so that you can get the council to issue CPO's. Not to mention the bollocks about Lothair Rd having to go so a Housing association could build a hotel.

The council isn't issuing CPO's for starters.

Secondly yes it is the nature of business, but then is it in the wider residents interests, who LCC represent also, that LFC don't do move and don't expand and therefore make zero investment in the area whilst also leaving the houses they own (majority) in the state they are?

The council have to represent the majority, and sometimes that means the minority (the 8 or so house owners) don't get what would be best for them.

And the publically agreed plan is for the opposite side of Lothair to become the training hotel, Your Housing has set up the Oakfield Project already which is expected to move into that training hotel.

What happens if the Stadium expansion doesn't happen and the Council has wasted millions buying and knocking down houses because there is no planning permission and even if it is granted we can't be sure it will go ahead. Is that really what the council should be doing at a time of budget crisis.

It's a risk for the council, but my bet is they have some sort of agreement with LFC that if they land is available then it will go ahead, or at least they will agree a lease on it no matter what the decision.

And it is not going to cost millions. It is 8 houses that are required for the stadium which I doubt will be much more than £1m in total.

And as said, they will receive a pretty income from the lease, as well as the added income from the rates (as Rox just said).

[Peter McGurk]

According to Peter legally all the Council can offer is the market value +10% so the owners of the properties will receive bottom dollar.

Isn't that the nature of business, it doesn't make it okay to pretend the schemes are separate so that you can get the council to issue CPO's. Not to mention the bollocks about Lothair Rd having to go so a Housing association could build a hotel.

What happens if the Stadium expansion doesn't happen and the Council has wasted millions buying and knocking down houses because there is no planning permission and even if it is granted we can't be sure it will go ahead. Is that really what the council should be doing at a time of budget crisis.

It's not bottom dollar. It's market value plus 10% plus other expenses. If I was Macca's mate I'd face facts and at least be lucky enough to be well out of it. I'd have lost money presumably (I don't know how long he has let it) or maybe even broke even.

And everyone has to face facts regarding the regeneration of the area. It doesn't matter one bit whether the stadium goes ahead or not - the area will be regenerated after decades of neglect. That's what council are doing with the money - not making way for a stadium which may never happen.

And they can't use housing money for 'essential services'. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. The law does not allow it.

Edit: The worst you could possibly accuse council of, is using housing money to regenerate a whole area in such a way that gets maximum benefit from the money spent.

We (and probably the club) don’t know for sure that LFC will use the properties on Lothair Road and if they do, whether they’ll sell or donate theirs to council and lease them back but if they did it’s positive for the club and council and the area and even for the residents who are getting out of a dump and into decent housing in the area.

[Nessy76]

I don't have a problem with a public/private regeneration project, In fact I think it is the best solution to both the problems the Club faces and the problems the residents face. The problem is that isn't what we are seeing here, there is no transparency and to me it seems the area is being carved up behind close doors. Public money is being used to buy and destroy properties in preparation for a development that may or may not happen.

That's regeneration, public money being used to redevelop a run-down area. It's something the Anfield region has needed for decades, and it would be happening regardless of the stadium redevelopment. That's what all the plans I've seen have said, if you have any evidence to the contrary it would be welcome.

What did the council say when you wrote to ask them about this?

The area has been actively destroyed and home owners have had tens of thousands of pounds knocked off the value of their houses, residents have been left to live in absolutely disgusting conditions and for me the public purse has been raided to facilitate a private companies needs. It is wrong, if it was the likes of Tesco's that were secretly plotting and planning with public bodies then people would be up in arms.

The treatment of the area has been shocking, but the causes of that are complex. You can't blame a football club for the standard of housing in the neighbourhood, it's nonsense.

I'm unclear what you want to happen here. You acknowledge the poor conditions in the area, but don't want public money spent to improve them?

If LFC wants to expand then do the right thing, pay a fair price for the houses you need, be honest with people and do it openly and transparently and above all don't use the council's money to buy properties when the Council budget is being slashed, essential services are being cut to the bone and hundreds of people are being made redundant.

It's been explained to you at length that the money for this is not coming from the council budget.

Maybe I am just being naive but one of the things I loved about the Club was that it always sought to do things the right way.

So why assume the worst possible interpretation of the situation over and over again?

[The Lord Admiral]

Your missing my point - what you spend is not directly reflected in the value. I could spend twice as much as I need to on any given bath  - it's still the same bath.

There's hundreds of dormant consents all over every city.  If you want to rely on someone else's planning applications, you shouldn't be 'in property'. It's a very risky business. If you want the rewards, you have to take the losses.

The valuations for Lothair Road will be for Lothair Road, in Anfield. There is a degree of judgement in the calculation but they have to stand up to potentially legal scrutiny of the evidence for the calculation. Adding a few tens of thousands for the hell of it is not an option.

I've no idea of the figures offered but I have heard (third-hand), they are reasonable and are being accepted.

No I got your point, the above was mitigation to it. Not disagreeing with anything you said in principal.

[s4ffy1]

According to JD77 (editor of anfield-online):
Revised plans for anfield are in. They reccommend both stands done at same time. Curved from Anny road to main stand

[CraigDS]

According to JD77 (editor of anfield-online):
Revised plans for anfield are in. They reccommend both stands done at same time. Curved from Anny road to main stand

Are 'in' where? As if they are in for planning then a. that's a bit presumptuous of having the land, and b. they will be able to be viewed online pretty soon.

If they are just in with the club, then I doubt this is anything new as surely they would of had basic ideas looked at already. However I can't imagine they will be final plans as Ayre said himself that a review about what is needed won't be in until April time.

[The Lord Admiral]

According to JD77 (editor of anfield-online):
Revised plans for anfield are in. They reccommend both stands done at same time. Curved from Anny road to main stand

Wonder what that'll look like. Intriguing, but could be made up at this point.

[Peter McGurk]

Wonder what that'll look like. Intriguing, but could be made up at this point.

I would be stunned if they did that. Remarkably stupid and hugely expensive...http://www.mcgurkmcgurk.com/_pps/anfield/pages/redeveloped_anfield_one_optionb.html

[CraigDS]

By curved could he not mean a totally filled in corner like OT is?

[Peter McGurk]

By curved could he not mean a totally filled in corner like OT is?

I don't know what he means.

[Eeyore]

Are 'in' where? As if they are in for planning then a. that's a bit presumptuous of having the land, and b. they will be able to be viewed online pretty soon.

If they are just in with the club, then I doubt this is anything new as surely they would of had basic ideas looked at already. However I can't imagine they will be final plans as Ayre said himself that a review about what is needed won't be in until April time.

Didn't Ayre also say they couldn't make any decisions until they knew how much land they would have aswell. Could they of just had drawings done for a number of different designs and this is one of them.

[CraigDS]

Didn't Ayre also say they couldn't make any decisions until they knew how much land they would have aswell. Could they of just had drawings done for a number of different designs and this is one of them.

Indeed, but you'd of thought they would of had a fair few of these for a while now. I certainly wouldn't class any as 'revised plans for anfield' though.

EDIT - in fact hasn't Ayre already said they have had some drawings done in an interview a while back?

[Snaily]

picture st james park for an idea, however i thought ayre was expecting teh design study to be complete by the end of march, maybe this is what is being referred to. 

he also stated they would be going through a process to establish what the stadium will need to provide from April, prior to any application. 

I think someone is jumping the gun.

[Peter McGurk]

picture st james park for an idea, however i thought ayre was expecting teh design study to be complete by the end of march, maybe this is what is being referred to. 

he also stated they would be going through a process to establish what the stadium will need to provide from April, prior to any application. 

I think someone is jumping the gun.

He actually said they're working on the business case ie., what's in it, before what it is. But it's not a completely linear process and they'll be going back and forth between design and economics. Testing the one against the other.

[gorgepir]

Well they have announced new ticket pricing for Anfield.

http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/lfc-announce-new-6-tier-ticket-plan

This move will see some ticket prices reduce while other seats with the best match-day view and location will be priced more appropriately to reflect their position in the stadium and match view.

Also Kop prices remain the same or down, and £5 kid ticket prices for selected games. Junior season tickets down 30% as well.

[AKABillyGee]

Which will make a season ticket for the Kemlyn Road (sorry Lower Centenary Stand) a whopping £850 a year or around £45 a game. Wow.

[Eeyore]

Which will make a season ticket for the Kemlyn Road (sorry Lower Centenary Stand) a whopping £850 a year or around £45 a game. Wow.

That does include free Deep Vein thrombosis though. 

[Peter McGurk]

That does include free Deep Vein thrombosis though. 

Well, I have found the fatter my backside gets, the more my shins hurt.

[Eeyore]

Well, I have found the fatter my backside gets, the more my shins hurt.

I thought that was just me.

[CraigDS]

I've started a thread in the main forum about the ticket prices as not sure we want to derail this thread more than it already gets derailed 

[LiamG]

I want to see some designs damn it lol

[macca888]

I want to see some designs damn it lol

I've lifted this one off Peter's site for you

[CraigDS]

Clearly not Peters that Macca 


















That's obviously some highly experienced and professional stadium designers plan, much too good for Peter.

[AKABillyGee]

I thought that was just me.

No it's me as well - I'm 6' 2" and my next door neighbours in the KR are all similar sizes.  When there is any action we have to all move in unison, there is no option. After over 30 years with a season ticket my shins bear the imprint of the seat in front - and that is not a joke.

My better half comes to a lot of the games and spends the game digging me in the ribs saying  'stop leaning on me yer fat bastard!'. Charming.

[CraigDS]

My better half comes to a lot of the games and spends the game digging me in the ribs saying  'stop leaning on me yer fat bastard!'. Charming.

I've been doing that to my Dad in our seats which are in the upper. Thankfully we sit on the end of the row so he can edge over a little into the stairs and I can get a bit more room!

[Smudgester]

AFAIK exactly the same thing happened with the Red Sox; they could either move to a new stadium or upgrade the current one. They stayed and prices went up to make up the lost differential