Topic: Main Stand Expansion (U/C) Pics and Progress in here

[Peter McGurk]

Annie Road will be all general admission.

The percentage applies to the total capacity including ARE. ARE will be all standard.

[Peter McGurk]

The pay back is over 5 and a half years.

Well that would be a dumb deal. No additional net income for 5 and a half years and a pretty shit and high risk return on investment.

[Draex]

Well that would be a dumb deal. No additional net income for 5 and a half years and a pretty shit and high risk return on investment.

It's interest free? Where is the risk?

[Peter McGurk]

It's interest free? Where is the risk?

Err. You put £100m on the table on a promise and you can call it risk free.

It is low interest not interest free in any event and still, no additional net income for five and a half years.

[Draex]

Err. You put £100m on the table  on a promise and you can call it risk free.

It is low interest not interest free in any event and still, no additional net income for five and a half years.

It clearly says interest free, so therefore I will take that information of yours thanks.

[Peter McGurk]

It clearly says interest free, so therefore I will take that information of yours thanks.

Ayre said low interest. Take it where you like. Still a dumb deal.

[Draex]

Ayre said low interest. Take it where you like. Still a dumb deal.

Why would FSG (who own Liverpool) loan us moan then pay themselves interest in said loan? Doesn't make sense.

[CraigDS]

No reason FSG wouldn't do it interest free (not saying they are). If they have that sort of cash readily available via their other interests then makes sense to divert it to one in need for 5 or so years for that investment to then find an additional £30m in revenue per season.

to be honest I expect they'll take some extra back, even if it comes once the full amount has been paid, but just saying there is no reason why not. I mean they've put in what, £50m ish interest free so far.

[Peter McGurk]

No reason FSG wouldn't do it interest free (not saying they are). If they have that sort of cash readily available via their other interests then makes sense to divert it to one in need for 5 or so years for that investment to then find an additional £30m in revenue per season.

to be honest I expect they'll take some extra back, even if it comes once the full amount has been paid, but just saying there is no reason why not. I mean they've put in what, £50m ish interest free so far.

As far as FSG are concerned, there may be any number of  reasons why they'd put cash in but it's still a lousy investment and a terrible use of capital. At very low interest rates you're putting money in just to take it back - at the same time at the risk of losing it. Meanwhile losing the opportunity to earn more with it. It would earn more in a bank.

As far as the club is concerned, there's no extra money to invest in players for five and a half years. I'm not saying they had a choice but it's still dumb.

[Peter McGurk]

Why would FSG (who own Liverpool) loan us moan then pay themselves interest in said loan? Doesn't make sense.

Because wherever it comes from money devalues while earning  nothing.

[CraigDS]

As far as FSG are concerned, there may be any number of  reasons why they'd put cash in but it's still a lousy investment and a terrible use of capital. At very low interest rates you're putting money in just to take it back - at the same time at the risk of losing it. Meanwhile losing the opportunity to earn more with it. It would earn more in a bank.

As far as the club is concerned, there's no extra money to invest in players for five and a half years. I'm not saying they had a choice but it's still dumb.

No offence Peter, but I'd assume the self made finance billionaire that is John Henry and the many self made finance guys that make up FSG have a little better idea as to what is dumb or not when it comes to funding the investment.

I'm not sure it is that dumb either, I mean (and this is looking at it very simply) if they could earn £10m whilst the £100m was sat in the bank, but the bank loan would cost their investment (LFC) £20m over the life of it then it makes complete sense.

[Peter McGurk]

No offence Peter, but I'd assume the self made finance billionaire that is John Henry and the many self made finance guys that make up FSG have a little better idea as to what is dumb or not when it comes to funding the investment.

I'm not sure it is that dumb either, I mean (and this is looking at it very simply) if they could earn £10m whilst the £100m was sat in the bank, but the bank loan would cost their investment (LFC) £20m over the life of it then it makes complete sense.

It doesn't make sense as an investment. The return on cash spent isn't good enough. John Henry said much the same thing in October 2010.

...We view stadiums as separate from clubs.  They are separate entities.

We have some very successful partners – some of whom are big EPL fans – and we are well-financed internally.  But NESV has always had debt from the first day we purchased the Red Sox.  We have some partners who look at Internal Rate of Return and almost demand that we have debt as a consequence.  Debt increases IRR....

...In nine years of operation our partnership has yet to make a profit distribution.  We’ve only made tax distributions

So perhaps FSG no longer see it as a property investment. Still if paid back in 5 and half years that's a five and a half year wait for the club for additional income to spend on developing the team.

[CraigDS]

It doesn't make sense as an investment. The return on cash spent isn't good enough. John Henry said much the same thing in October 2010.

If they're doing it, I imagine they've found a way for it to make perfect sense as an investment.

[Peter McGurk]

If they're doing it, I imagine they've found a way for it to make perfect sense as an investment.

Sometimes people do funny things in sport. Sometimes people don't have a choice.

[CraigDS]

Sometimes people do funny things in sport. Sometimes people don't have a choice.

And sometimes billionaire finance guys with a whole load of experience in finding funding make the best decision.

[Peter McGurk]

And sometimes billionaire finance guys with a whole load of experience in finding funding make the best decision.

Who knows what's in their mind. From an investment in property point of view, it makes no sense. And the club still waits five and half years for additional income to the club to bear fruit.

[OOS]

Club doesn't own them, and they've not long been refurbished and are fully lived in.

They do. Maritime Housing Association redid them on behalf of Liverpool Football Club. LFC used to own the houses adjacent to the Kop, before they moved out the residents (rented) and knocked the houses down apparently for new offices which didn't happen.

As you said, they have been refurbished and in good nick. I don't think LFC own all the houses on that side of the road though.

[CraigDS]

They do. Maritime Housing Association redid them on behalf of Liverpool Football Club. LFC used to own the houses adjacent to the Kop, before they moved out the residents (rented) and knocked the houses down apparently for new offices which didn't happen.

As you said, they have been refurbished and in good nick. I don't think LFC own all the houses on that side of the road though.

I thought we sold them for a nominal fee (£1 each) so they could be refurbed.

Pretty certain we own none down Skerries anymore, although once did.

[CraigDS]

Who knows what's in their mind. From an investment in property point of view, it makes no sense. And the club still waits five and half years for additional income to the club to bear fruit.

Surely that depends on what the costs are, what the extra income is, what a potential sponsorship is, etc.

We don't accurately know any of those.

For all we know we can easily pay back the X amount over 5.5yrs with a nice excess over that time which will be used by the club.

[The Mule]

Who knows what's in their mind. From an investment in property point of view, it makes no sense. And the club still waits five and half years for additional income to the club to bear fruit.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you mate, but are you suggesting they should use the money they would've spent on the stadium on investing in the team directly? Surely that is not sustainable? Not to mention, not allowed (FFP).

If you are saying it is a 'dumb' deal just because it doesn't pay off in the the short term, then aren't you ignoring the (roughly translated) Suarez/Torres sized transfer fee money which would be added to the coffers every season once the loan is paid off after 5 years. Which would mean their (FSG) asset would be in a much better position to compete and grow and therefore would be much more valuable. What is dumb about that?

Again, sorry if I've misinterpreted what you're trying to say, but you've said the investment is dumb but what is the alternative (even in an ideal world)?

[Draex]

Surely that depends on what the costs are, what the extra income is, what a potential sponsorship is, etc.

We don't accurately know any of those.

For all we know we can easily pay back the X amount over 5.5yrs with a nice excess over that time which will be used by the club.

With sponsorship that is easily possible.

[FlashingBlade]

Ive just read the Headline article in the Echo bannered " Anfield small traders need more information on Anfield expansion plans (  http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/we-need-more-information---8237912 )

Reading the article I was surprised to read quotes such as “No-one has spoken to me about when I’m coming down or what kind of compensation I will get"... “The last contact I had was three years ago, since then I’ve heard nothing"... “There’s been no explanation to us about the extension to the stand and what it will mean for us.”.....surprised because its well....how to put it nicely....utter shite!....these people are at best 'naeive' ....or at worst , idiots....or just angling to sell their ailing business and make money out of LFC.

The Club and Council undertook massive consultation where all plans and proposals where available...6,000 letters went out to the local area..it was in national media for fucks sake never mind the blitzing of local news...it has been the number one point of conversation in the Anfield area for the past year or more...where have these people been!!

The expansion will not cause any demolition of businesses refered to in the article,,.... everything that's needs to be demolished has been....so where are they getting their information from? the club , the Council, the local resident groups...........or maybe Mrs.Jones who knows someone who heard something in the pub!

There is further  massive redevelopment going on in the area which the stand will not impact on..new housing , businesses, which may impact and benefit some local business....this article is fucking lazy and misinformed journalism and lets be frank , if you don't know whats going on by now , it begs the question is it any wonder your business struggles!!

LFC has brought wealth into an economically deprived area for years, to label every fault at LFC is lazy and an easy to do when truths may lay elsewhere.....my experiance tells me someone who runs a small business doesn't neccesarily mean they have business acumen....just cos you run a business for 30 odd years doesn't mean you can ignore the economic realities around you that may change and say its someone elses fault so I should be compensated.

And if anyone thinks I'm being unfair please explain the logic in  comments from the very recent opened bakery ( joining LFC who have been in the area for 100 years plus ) “We benefit from the football supporters who come into the bakery on matchdays to buy their pies here, but not from the football club"

I wont be buying any bread or getting my hair cut today at the match . Maybe its LFC's fault.

Rant over.

[Jonny-B]

Ive just read the Headline article in the Echo bannered " Anfield small traders need more information on Anfield expansion plans (  http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/we-need-more-information---8237912 )

Reading the article I was surprised to read quotes such as “No-one has spoken to me about when I’m coming down or what kind of compensation I will get"... “The last contact I had was three years ago, since then I’ve heard nothing"... “There’s been no explanation to us about the extension to the stand and what it will mean for us.”.....surprised because its well....how to put it nicely....utter shite!....these people are at best 'naeive' ....or at worst , idiots....or just angling to sell their ailing business and make money out of LFC.

The Club and Council undertook massive consultation where all plans and proposals where available...6,000 letters went out to the local area..it was in national media for fucks sake never mind the blitzing of local news...it has been the number one point of conversation in the Anfield area for the past year or more...where have these people been!!

The expansion will not cause any demolition of businesses refered to in the article,,.... everything that's needs to be demolished has been....so where are they getting their information from? the club , the Council, the local resident groups...........or maybe Mrs.Jones who knows someone who heard something in the pub!

There is further  massive redevelopment going on in the area which the stand will not impact on..new housing , businesses, which may impact and benefit some local business....this article is fucking lazy and misinformed journalism and lets be frank , if you don't know whats going on by now , it begs the question is it any wonder your business struggles!!

LFC has brought wealth into an economicly deprived area for years, to label every fault at LFC is lazy and an easy to do when truths may lay elsewhere.....my experiance tells me someone who runs a small business doesn't neccesarily mean they have business acumen....just cos you run a business for 30 odde years doesn't mean you can ignore the economic realities around you that may change and say its someone elses fault so I should be compensated.

And if anyone thinks I'm being unfair please explain the logic in  comments from the very recent opened bakery ( joining LFC who have been in the area for 100 years plus ) “We benefit from the football supporters who come into the bakery on matchdays to buy their pies here, but not from the football club"

I wont be buying any bread or getting my hair cut today at the match . Maybe its LFC's fault.

Rant over.

All the properties for the stand that had to be demolished are gone. Stuff that is to be demolished on WBR is part of the council regeneration i thought? And thus not on the club?

[FlashingBlade]

All the properties for the stand that had to be demolished are gone. Stuff that is to be demolished on WBR is part of the council regeneration i thought? And thus not on the club?

Exactly!...so a mischiveous article maybe?.

[Jonny-B]

Also this is a particularly dumb quote:

“We benefit from the football supporters who come into the bakery on matchdays to buy their pies here, but not from the football club"

How is that not benefiting from the club?!?

[CraigDS]

Horribly written article which at best is written by an idiot and at worst by someone with a bit of an agenda.

The properties knocked down for the stand were 95% empty, so not like we've sent 100's of people out of the area as one suggestion in the article makes. The properties were also pretty much all residential, and no business premises on Walton Breck are being knocked down for the stadium, so again another incorrect suggestion in the article (in fact the whole basis for the article).

[JCM]

An example of the usual turgid lazy journalism that seems to follow the developement of Anfield. 

On the subject of investment, I think FSG are simply growing the club, its revenues and its income streams for the long term - with the new stands all part of that process.  In this case, the details of how each individual stand are funded are irrelevant - as long as their long term asset grows - which it will.

[Alan_X]

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you mate, but are you suggesting they should use the money they would've spent on the stadium on investing in the team directly? Surely that is not sustainable? Not to mention, not allowed (FFP).

If you are saying it is a 'dumb' deal just because it doesn't pay off in the the short term, then aren't you ignoring the (roughly translated) Suarez/Torres sized transfer fee money which would be added to the coffers every season once the loan is paid off after 5 years. Which would mean their (FSG) asset would be in a much better position to compete and grow and therefore would be much more valuable. What is dumb about that?

Again, sorry if I've misinterpreted what you're trying to say, but you've said the investment is dumb but what is the alternative (even in an ideal world)?

I think what Peter means is that if you pay back over a longer period there would be money available from the increased income to spend on the team. If you use all the income to pay back over a five year period then there's no benefit to the team until 2022 which is 7 or 8 years from now.

[CraigDS]

Does anyone (looking mainly at Peter and/or Alan here) know what the break down is currently between what general/ST brings in per season and what the corps bring in?

[Peter McGurk]

I think what Peter means is that if you pay back over a longer period there would be money available from the increased income to spend on the team. If you use all the income to pay back over a five year period then there's no benefit to the team until 2022 which is 7 or 8 years from now.

Yup

[Peter McGurk]

Does anyone (looking mainly at Peter and/or Alan here) know what the break down is currently between what general/ST brings in per season and what the corps bring in?

Nope.

It should be about 50% of income from about 10%-12% of capacity as premium seats but it's out of that conventional balance at Anfield. It might be 20% of income from about 5% corporate seats at Anfield hence the move to sell more corporate seats at better prices.

[Liamski-la]

So what's actually going to begin from Monday? Because you could of fooled me into thinking that they had started months ago.

Are they actually going to begin groundworks? Will there be some daft ceremony with JWH planting a shovel/spade in the ground?

[brownie 09]

So what's actually going to begin from Monday? Because you could of fooled me into thinking that they had started months ago.

Are they actually going to begin groundworks? Will there be some daft ceremony with JWH planting a shovel/spade in the ground?

hicks and gillett. When they said 60days it was in days on Pluto.

[Peter McGurk]

So what's actually going to begin from Monday? Because you could of fooled me into thinking that they had started months ago.

Are they actually going to begin groundworks? Will there be some daft ceremony with JWH planting a shovel/spade in the ground?

That was 'enabling works'. They'll start with site establishment. Tea huts ))

I'm sure there'll be a breaking ground ceremony when there's something to see - like some big holes in the ground... and a crane. Got to have a crane. And... a digger. And the Mayor in a hard hat.

[CraigDS]

Nope.

It should be about 50% of income from about 10%-12% of capacity as premium seats but it's out of that conventional balance at Anfield. It might be as much as 30% of income from about 5% corporate seats at Anfield hence the move to sell more corporate seats.

Is that roughly the corp amount, 5%? So 2,275 out of 45,500?

[redprodigal]

I think what Peter means is that if you pay back over a longer period there would be money available from the increased income to spend on the team. If you use all the income to pay back over a five year period then there's no benefit to the team until 2022 which is 7 or 8 years from now.

Ah, now I see. I wish he would have said that. It would have saved me 10 minutes of head scratching 

[Cork Red]

There's an excellent little video on the club website showing how the Main Stand will be rebuilt without disrupting match days.

http://www.liverpoolfc.com/stadium/stadium-expansion/21st-century-anfield

I was a little surprised to see that the new Main Stand roof is going to be constructed before the existing one is removed.  It must be quite a job to dismantle a roof that size with a massive new superstructure behind it? 

[Peter McGurk]

Is that roughly the corp amount, 5%? So 2,275 out of 45,500?

Guesstimate.

[Alan_X]

There's an excellent little video on the club website showing how the Main Stand will be rebuilt without disrupting match days.

http://www.liverpoolfc.com/stadium/stadium-expansion/21st-century-anfield

I was a little surprised to see that the new Main Stand roof is going to be constructed before the existing one is removed.  It must be quite a job to dismantle a roof that size with a massive new superstructure behind it? 

It's true that it would be easier to remove the old roof without the new structure in place but that would mean 12,000+ people sitting in the open for a year or so. Or closing the Main Stand completely. And there's quite a lot of clearance between the old roof and the new one.

[corbyRed]

for those asking about capacity breakdowns...