Author Topic: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.  (Read 14038 times)

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 49,784
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #120 on: February 23, 2020, 12:22:44 pm »
I just don’t understand why a club would go ahead and get all that work done to accommodate an NFL team without actually having a deal in the bag with an actual NFL team or other potential team / franchise (whatever the fuck they’re called) to use those facilities.

Maybe they could host the London Ravens...

There are some things, like 3D TV and flying cars, that loads of people assume must happen, but are probably just never going to be viable. A London/British NFL team has been tried on and off for decades and never really taken off. At the moment, Spirs are down to get two out of four NFL games a season. The other two at Wembley.

If they got a franchise they'd have to play eight home games between September and December with the possibility of play off games after that. That would have to be scheduled to fit into the Premier League season, domestic cups and European games.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Fromola

  • Lomola... “The sky is falling and I’m off to tell the King!...” Places stock in the wrong opinions. Miserable F*cker! Could have done with Grujic and even Chirivella to tide us over this season
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,738
  • Could have done with Grujic and even Chirivella to
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #121 on: February 23, 2020, 01:00:52 pm »
And their own players

Well that's the other side of it, it can work against you if the fans are on your back rather than the opponents.
Could have done with Grujic and even Chirivella to tide us over this season

Offline Peabee

  • SKPB! Is goin' down der Asd.....der Waitrose.....anyone wannany hummus?
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,686
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #122 on: February 23, 2020, 10:21:33 pm »
Bring back this bad boy I tells ya!



That’s horrific. I’m glad that never went ahead.
“We aren't walking through the storm now - we are the storm.“ Zlen, 30/12/18

Online WhereAngelsPlay

  • Rockwool Marketing Board Spokesman. Cracker Wanker. Fucking calmest man on RAWK, alright? ALRIGHT?!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,442
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #123 on: February 24, 2020, 12:35:16 am »
You must have a really big arse. ;)

He looks like a hippo from behind.
My cup, it runneth over, I'll never get my fill

Offline kaesarsosei

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,002
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #124 on: February 25, 2020, 02:25:01 pm »
Not sure which thread this belongs in, but amid all the talk of expanding the Kenny stand (which is a complete non-starter IMO) or moving to a new stadium there's one important thing I haven't seen brought up. If we were to knock down the Kenny Stand now and rebuild to the exact same capacity under current building regulations, it would need to be about 50% bigger. That's also a huge reason why both the Main and Anfield Road rebuilds went down the route of keeping the bottom tier. Obviously doing that helps keep capacity up during the work, but I also think they knew that if they had to rebuild the lower tiers on both they would lose a few thousand in capacity.

This is another reason why the atmosphere at older stadiums, IMO, will always be better than new-builds - because the fans are packed in much tighter to each other and closer to the pitch than you can get away with in a new-build.


Offline paulrazor

  • Dreams of a handjob from Timmy Mallett. Chronicler of seasons past. Cares more than Prelude Nr 5, or does he?
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 25,694
  • Take me 2 the magic of the moment on a glory night
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #125 on: February 25, 2020, 02:33:11 pm »
That’s horrific. I’m glad that never went ahead.
i never knew what to make of it that

side of it looked weird

i was away at the time with little coverage and no wifi (bliss i tells ya) and my brother text me about that saying something along the lines of "pics of the new stadium online, its erm,,,,,weird"

said he felt the club wouldnt be the same with it

all i could think was 71000 great!

yer ma should have called you Paolo Zico Gerry Socrates HELLRAZOR

Offline Craig 🤔

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 55,847
  • YNWA
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #126 on: February 25, 2020, 03:07:31 pm »
I was all for the underground bunkers  ;D

Offline Al 666

  • "I haven't got a clue." 23/03/2020......Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,522
  • JFT 96
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #127 on: February 25, 2020, 03:23:24 pm »
I was all for the underground bunkers  ;D

It would certainly make a round of golf less stressful.
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline paulrazor

  • Dreams of a handjob from Timmy Mallett. Chronicler of seasons past. Cares more than Prelude Nr 5, or does he?
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 25,694
  • Take me 2 the magic of the moment on a glory night
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #128 on: February 25, 2020, 03:23:47 pm »
I was all for the underground bunkers  ;D
I was saying wheeta-booooo-hicks
yer ma should have called you Paolo Zico Gerry Socrates HELLRAZOR

Offline paulrazor

  • Dreams of a handjob from Timmy Mallett. Chronicler of seasons past. Cares more than Prelude Nr 5, or does he?
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 25,694
  • Take me 2 the magic of the moment on a glory night
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #129 on: February 25, 2020, 04:21:35 pm »
some old images for pig iron

the proposed 2002 ground that would have been 55000 for a cost of 70m financially this made a lot of sense but probably would have escalated in cost and would probably have been quite dated by now, would have been paid off by now but how and ever



more rumoured proposals of this




another of the hicks bowl

another of the hicks bowl

and another pie in the sky from them, in 2008 apparently

yer ma should have called you Paolo Zico Gerry Socrates HELLRAZOR

Offline Craig 🤔

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 55,847
  • YNWA
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #130 on: February 25, 2020, 04:22:38 pm »
Yeah that bottom one was from the same architects who designed the top one if I remember correctly.

Offline paulrazor

  • Dreams of a handjob from Timmy Mallett. Chronicler of seasons past. Cares more than Prelude Nr 5, or does he?
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 25,694
  • Take me 2 the magic of the moment on a glory night
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #131 on: February 25, 2020, 04:24:16 pm »
Yeah that bottom one was from the same architects who designed the top one if I remember correctly.
HKS

first one you could be forgiven for getting excited over a new super duper ground

second one was about as believable as the guy who says he can get tickets for any game he want when you need them

IE you wanna believe it but you know its bull

edit

just looked up HKS design of the lucas oil stadium in Indianapolis, thats a weird looking stadium imo
« Last Edit: February 25, 2020, 04:28:39 pm by Hellrazor »
yer ma should have called you Paolo Zico Gerry Socrates HELLRAZOR

Offline Craig 🤔

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 55,847
  • YNWA
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #132 on: February 25, 2020, 04:33:32 pm »
HKS

Don't think HKS designed that bottom one mate. KSS I think it is - who also designed the one at the top under Moores.

Also, when searching for that, I saw some quotes on BBC from 2002 saying the club decided against spending £120m on a new 70k stadium as felt it would take money away from Houllier  ;D ;D

Offline paulrazor

  • Dreams of a handjob from Timmy Mallett. Chronicler of seasons past. Cares more than Prelude Nr 5, or does he?
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 25,694
  • Take me 2 the magic of the moment on a glory night
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #133 on: February 25, 2020, 04:43:55 pm »
Don't think HKS designed that bottom one mate. KSS I think it is - who also designed the one at the top under Moores.

Also, when searching for that, I saw some quotes on BBC from 2002 saying the club decided against spending £120m on a new 70k stadium as felt it would take money away from Houllier  ;D ;D
i very much remember the talk was we would not proceed with the ground if it impacted transfers and over a certain price we would pull out

we didnt want it to effect transfer budgets etc.

Arsenals costs were sky rocketing at time

a company called AFL appeared to have had ideas for us in 2008 but never got near planning permission stage
yer ma should have called you Paolo Zico Gerry Socrates HELLRAZOR

Offline rob1966

  • YORKIE bar-munching, hedgehog-squashing (well-)articulated road-hog-litter-bug. Sleeping With The Enemy. Has felt the wind and shed his anger..... did you know I drive a Jag?
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 26,026
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #134 on: February 25, 2020, 08:26:06 pm »
£50 fucking million those c*nts stole from the club to have Hicks sons company to draw up those plans. :no

some old images for pig iron

the proposed 2002 ground that would have been 55000 for a cost of 70m financially this made a lot of sense but probably would have escalated in cost and would probably have been quite dated by now, would have been paid off by now but how and ever



more rumoured proposals of this






That at least would have been extendable, reminds me of the City of Manchester stadium in design.

Offline Scouser-Tommy

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,670
  • Allez, Allez, Allez...
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #135 on: February 26, 2020, 11:26:46 am »
just looked up HKS design of the lucas oil stadium in Indianapolis, thats a weird looking stadium imo
I've never seen that before but I quite like the different design of it with the window type open end looking at the city.

Offline Craig 🤔

  • Lite. Smelt it and dealt it. Worrawhopper.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 55,847
  • YNWA
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #136 on: February 26, 2020, 11:27:56 am »
£50 fucking million those c*nts stole from the club to have Hicks sons company to draw up those plans. :no

Don't think his son had anything to do with HKS did he?

Online WhereAngelsPlay

  • Rockwool Marketing Board Spokesman. Cracker Wanker. Fucking calmest man on RAWK, alright? ALRIGHT?!
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,442
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #137 on: February 26, 2020, 11:49:36 am »
£50 fucking million those c*nts stole from the club to have Hicks sons company to draw up those plans. :no

That at least would have been extendable, reminds me of the City of Manchester stadium in design.


It cost them a lot more in the end though mate  ;D
My cup, it runneth over, I'll never get my fill

Offline Al 666

  • "I haven't got a clue." 23/03/2020......Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,522
  • JFT 96
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #138 on: February 26, 2020, 03:13:48 pm »
Don't think his son had anything to do with HKS did he?

IIRC the link between Hicks and HKS was that they built the Stadium for Hicks Hockey team the Dallas stars.
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline Keith Lard

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,764
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #139 on: February 27, 2020, 12:19:14 pm »
some old images for pig iron

the proposed 2002 ground that would have been 55000 for a cost of 70m financially this made a lot of sense but probably would have escalated in cost and would probably have been quite dated by now, would have been paid off by now but how and ever



more rumoured proposals of this




another of the hicks bowl

another of the hicks bowl

and another pie in the sky from them, in 2008 apparently



In the second pic, I was always in two minds about the fairly lights hanging between the giant toothpicks.
Pour yourself a drink and enjoy watching a genius in red - John Barnes || https://youtu.be/XEJfzUSH4e4

Offline rob1966

  • YORKIE bar-munching, hedgehog-squashing (well-)articulated road-hog-litter-bug. Sleeping With The Enemy. Has felt the wind and shed his anger..... did you know I drive a Jag?
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 26,026
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #140 on: February 27, 2020, 06:47:30 pm »
Don't think his son had anything to do with HKS did he?

I can't really remember that far back, but besides being in Texas, I could have sworn there was a tie in.

Offline Al 666

  • "I haven't got a clue." 23/03/2020......Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,522
  • JFT 96
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #141 on: February 27, 2020, 07:05:33 pm »
I can't really remember that far back, but besides being in Texas, I could have sworn there was a tie in.

HKS built the American Airlines Center which is the home of the Dallas Mavericks Baseball team and the team which Hicks owned the Dallas Stars Ice Hockey team.
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,647
Re: Re: Echo Update on Anfield Road Extension
« Reply #142 on: February 27, 2020, 07:36:53 pm »
Firstly I am not sure United and Spurs Stadium's are now comparable. Secondly given the plot Spurs had I am not sure it would of been possible for them to redevelop their Old ground and got the same sort of capacity and facilities, plus it would still of been more expensive because it is in the Capital.

Thirdly Anfield plus the plan to redevelop the main stand and the ARE end has taken over thirty years and still hasn't come fully to fruition. You don't seem to mind the incredible loss of income we have suffered over three decades. You also don't seem to mind the destruction of a community and hundreds of homes. Your arrogance is breathtaking, your view is that redevelopment is always better than a new build but you have absolutely no problem destroying peoples homes and then rebuilding new ones when it fits with your agenda.


The main stand might of worked and the ARE may work but they will still of taken 3 decades to come to fruition. What do you suggest now buying and tinning up homes that might make the Kenny or Kop possible in 2050 ?

A remarkably dumb argument and frankly, an incredible thread. And utter bollocks talked about money. £25m a year to pay back a billion pound debt? interest AND capital? Or just do interest only, until it falls down and you have to start again with now double the debt (plus inflation). Think about it for more than two seconds. It's absolutely laughable.

We waited 14 years from 2002 for redevelopment. Not 30. And why did we wait? Because fools couldn't contemplate the benefits for the community or the club of redeveloping Anfield. Idiots like Councillor Kemp.

We wasted our time dreaming shit and bigging up paper value. Actually, massive debt and nothing for the community. The club spent £250m on the Main Stand. Or rather the Main Stand and everything about it. New stadium? Two fingers to the community (and half a park gone).

As for houses in Anfield. If I'd had a house in Anfield tinned up or otherwise and got 10% over market rate plus expenses - minimum - I'd bite your hand off.

Just relax. It's over. Enjoy staying at Anfield. More tickets. Some okies in the big boxes paying the big bucks. A prosperous and growing club on and off the pitch. Just what is not to like for Christ's sake.

« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 08:04:07 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline Al 666

  • "I haven't got a clue." 23/03/2020......Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,522
  • JFT 96
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #143 on: February 27, 2020, 08:25:14 pm »
A remarkably dumb argument and frankly, an incredible thread. And utter bollocks talked about money. £25m a year to pay back a billion pound debt? interest AND capital? Or just do interest only, until it falls down and you have to start again with now double the debt (plus inflation). Think about it for more than two seconds. It's absolutely laughable. How old are you? Six?

Peter, Peter, Peter.

I think if you are going to call someone remarkably dumb and accuse them of being 6 you should at least get your facts straight. Spurs do not have a £1bn Stadium debt. We are not talking about you getting it slightly wrong either. You are talking absolute garbage. Their Stadium debt is £637m, £525m of that is in bonds with a repayment range between 15 and 30 years and the remaining £112m is in a fixed loan with Merrill Lynch. The average rate of interest is 2.66%. So if that is interest only then the annual cost to service the debt is £17m if it is an amortised loan then the repayments are around £45m.


We waited 14 years from 2002 for redevelopment. Not 30. And why did we wait? Because fools like yourself, couldn't contemplate the benefits for the community or the club of redeveloping Anfield. Are you Councillor Kemp? No. You preferred a new stadium.

Of course it was 30 years ago, redevelopment didn't start until Joan and Nora Mason left 26 Kemlyn Rd in November 1990. Even that is a conservative figure considering we had to buy all the houses around theirs in the preceding years, demolished the whole street and then left one either side to prop up their home.

As for houses in Anfield. If I'd had a house in Anfield tinned up or otherwise and got 10% over market rate plus expenses - minimum - I'd bite your hand off.

You really are a nasty piece of work.

The reality is that hard working people who had done everything right and had bought their own house ended up in massive amounts of negative equity because the value of their houses plummeted when their neighbourhood was destroyed. Who the hell is going to buy a house in a street in which 90% of the houses are tinned up, when vandals are breaking in to those properties and setting fire to them. 

People ended up trapped in the remaining properties because they couldn't sell up and move on. 10% plus expenses means absolutely nothing when property values go through the floor.

We have now ended up in situation in which the only way to expand the stadium is destroy another generation of peoples lives. We should of moved 30 years ago but the Club lacked ambition. This is not a slight on FSG for me they made the best of a bad situation. The blame lies with Coco and Parry. 
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,647
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #144 on: February 27, 2020, 08:34:53 pm »
Peter, Peter, Peter.

I think if you are going to call someone remarkably dumb and accuse them of being 6 you should at least get your facts straight. Spurs do not have a £1bn Stadium debt. We are not talking about you getting it slightly wrong either. You are talking absolute garbage. Their Stadium debt is £637m, £525m of that is in bonds with a repayment range between 15 and 30 years and the remaining £112m is in a fixed loan with Merrill Lynch. The average rate of interest is 2.66%. So if that is interest only then the annual cost to service the debt is £17m if it is an amortised loan then the repayments are around £45m.


Of course it was 30 years ago, redevelopment didn't start until Joan and Nora Mason left 26 Kemlyn Rd in November 1990. Even that is a conservative figure considering we had to buy all the houses around theirs in the preceding years, demolished the whole street and then left one either side to prop up their home.

You really are a nasty piece of work.

The reality is that hard working people who had done everything right and had bought their own house ended up in massive amounts of negative equity because the value of their houses plummeted when their neighbourhood was destroyed. Who the hell is going to buy a house in a street in which 90% of the houses are tinned up, when vandals are breaking in to those properties and setting fire to them. 

People ended up trapped in the remaining properties because they couldn't sell up and move on. 10% plus expenses means absolutely nothing when property values go through the floor.

We have now ended up in situation in which the only way to expand the stadium is destroy another generation of peoples lives. We should of moved 30 years ago but the Club lacked ambition. This is not a slight on FSG for me they made the best of a bad situation. The blame lies with Coco and Parry.

Nasty piece of work?

If you had your way, the club would have been saddled with massive debt as the local area slid into oblivion.

There was nothing coming from a new stadium for the community. Nothing. Oh wait, an Anfield Plaza the club didn't even bother to cost.


« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 09:31:27 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline Al 666

  • "I haven't got a clue." 23/03/2020......Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,522
  • JFT 96
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #145 on: February 27, 2020, 09:08:55 pm »
Nasty piece of work?

Yes for stating that the people who got market value +10% after the market crashed got a good deal.


If you had your way, the club would have been saddled with massive debt as the local area slid into oblivion.

There was nothing coming from a new stadium for the community. Nothing. Oh wait, an Anfield Plaza the club didn't even bother to cost.



Don't even have the cheek to talk about debt. In your preceding post you were talking about Spurs having a £1bn Stadium debt. Instead of apologising for basically chatting shit, you have blanked that and are now waffling on about a hypothetical debt Liverpool may of incurred.

Please show some evidence for your assertion that Spurs have a £1bn Stadium debt ?
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline TepidT2O

  • Deffo NOT 9"! MUFC bedwetter. Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of convicti
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 75,881
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #146 on: February 27, 2020, 09:09:50 pm »
Fucking shithouses
“Happiness can be found in the darkest of times, if one only remembers to turn on the light.”
“Generosity always pays off. Generosity in your effort, in your work, in your kindness, in the way you look after people and take care of people. In the long run, if you are generous with a heart, and with humanity, it always pays off.”
W

Offline Al 666

  • "I haven't got a clue." 23/03/2020......Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,522
  • JFT 96
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #147 on: February 27, 2020, 09:29:52 pm »
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,647
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #148 on: February 27, 2020, 09:31:43 pm »
Yes for stating that the people who got market value +10% after the market crashed got a good deal.

What did people elsewhere in the city get at the time? The shocking state redevelopment has left the area in...
https://twitter.com/Your_Housing/status/921663097563222016/photo/1



Don't even have the cheek to talk about debt. In your preceding post you were talking about Spurs having a £1bn Stadium debt. Instead of apologising for basically chatting shit, you have blanked that and are now waffling on about a hypothetical debt Liverpool may of incurred.

Please show some evidence for your assertion that Spurs have a £1bn Stadium debt ?

... As for finances, I assume you are referring to something like this:

" Tottenham refinance £637m stadium debt but purse strings will not loosen

• ‘It will have no bearing on how we run the club,’ says Daniel Levy
• Chairman defends his policy and says there is no quick fix

Daniel Levy has insisted he will continue to run Tottenham on the balanced and relatively frugal business plan that has characterised his 18-year chairmanship after he announced a refinancing of the club’s stadium loans.

Spurs borrowed £637m from Goldman Sachs, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and HSBC for the £1bn project and the money was due to be repaid by April 2022. But through US investors Levy has converted roughly £525m of the debt into a bond scheme, with staggered maturities of between 15 and 30 years.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch, which acted as lead placement agent and sole bookrunner on the bond issue, has provided a £112m term loan and HSBC has granted a revolving credit facility. The idea is to limit Spurs’ debt-servicing costs and the average annual interest rate on the new arrangement is 2.66%.


So a billion pounds is a billion pounds. And it's not the laughable £25m a year. Even £45m over a little over 20 years is a billion pounds to pay. Perhaps you can help me with the other £363m capital. Perhaps Levy or investors in the stadium or the hotel or the other things but bear in mind, there's no such thing as free money. There's always a return somewhere.

And the potential benefit? About £45m income in 2018 compared (with some Wembley thrown in) with a potential £110m from the new stadium or £65m after debt costs, if they get £110m or a massive leap to just short of £1800 per seat. All that grief and risk for £20m? God help them if they drop out of the Champions' League (currently 6th...).

If you want to know the most worrying part for them is this:

Levy was asked by the Financial Times whether the refinancing would release more money for Mauricio Pochettino, the manager, to spend on transfers or new contracts for existing players. Three key squad members – Jan Vertonghen, Toby Alderweireld and Christian Eriksen – have entered the final year on their deals.

“It will have no bearing on how we run the club … and no bearing on those types of short-term movements [like transfers],” Levy replied. “I understand as I am a fan, clearly you want to win on the pitch. But we have been trying to look at this slightly differently, in that we want to make sure we ensure an infrastructure here to stand the test of time.

“We could have easily spent more money on players. Who knows if that would have bought us more success or not. The right approach is to build from the bottom up. There is no quick fix to becoming a much more significant global club.


Cue discussion about naming rights....
« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 10:06:58 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline Al 666

  • "I haven't got a clue." 23/03/2020......Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,522
  • JFT 96
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #149 on: February 28, 2020, 03:17:03 pm »
What did people elsewhere in the city get at the time? The shocking state redevelopment has left the area in...
https://twitter.com/Your_Housing/status/921663097563222016/photo/1

What are you saying Peter that it was okay to destroy peoples lives, to leave ordinary working people in negative equity because you had targeted their property, as long as you build something nice at the end of it.



... As for finances, I assume you are referring to something like this:

" Tottenham refinance £637m stadium debt but purse strings will not loosen

• ‘It will have no bearing on how we run the club,’ says Daniel Levy
• Chairman defends his policy and says there is no quick fix

Daniel Levy has insisted he will continue to run Tottenham on the balanced and relatively frugal business plan that has characterised his 18-year chairmanship after he announced a refinancing of the club’s stadium loans.

Spurs borrowed £637m from Goldman Sachs, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and HSBC for the £1bn project and the money was due to be repaid by April 2022. But through US investors Levy has converted roughly £525m of the debt into a bond scheme, with staggered maturities of between 15 and 30 years.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch, which acted as lead placement agent and sole bookrunner on the bond issue, has provided a £112m term loan and HSBC has granted a revolving credit facility. The idea is to limit Spurs’ debt-servicing costs and the average annual interest rate on the new arrangement is 2.66%.


So a billion pounds is a billion pounds. And it's not the laughable £25m a year. Even £45m over a little over 20 years is a billion pounds to pay. Perhaps you can help me with the other £363m capital. Perhaps Levy or investors in the stadium or the hotel or the other things but bear in mind, there's no such thing as free money. There's always a return somewhere.

Errr No Peter the piece you have quoted quite clearly states that Spurs haven't got a billion pound Stadium debt. Their Stadium debt is £637m so stop saying they have a Billion pound Stadium debt.


And the potential benefit? About £45m income in 2018 compared (with some Wembley thrown in) with a potential £110m from the new stadium or £65m after debt costs, if they get £110m or a massive leap to just short of £1800 per seat. All that grief and risk for £20m? God help them if they drop out of the Champions' League (currently 6th...).

Again your figures are way out. The cost of their debt on an interest only basis is £17m so if you want to look at the uplift in revenue minus the cost of servicing their debt then it is £65m - £17m which is £48m a season. The £45m is to repay the debt but that isn't the cost of servicing their debt that is about in effect paying for a Stadium that is far more valuable than the one they left.

If you want to know the most worrying part for them is this:

Levy was asked by the Financial Times whether the refinancing would release more money for Mauricio Pochettino, the manager, to spend on transfers or new contracts for existing players. Three key squad members – Jan Vertonghen, Toby Alderweireld and Christian Eriksen – have entered the final year on their deals.

“It will have no bearing on how we run the club … and no bearing on those types of short-term movements [like transfers],” Levy replied. “I understand as I am a fan, clearly you want to win on the pitch. But we have been trying to look at this slightly differently, in that we want to make sure we ensure an infrastructure here to stand the test of time.

“We could have easily spent more money on players. Who knows if that would have bought us more success or not. The right approach is to build from the bottom up. There is no quick fix to becoming a much more significant global club.


Cue discussion about naming rights....


Far from being worrying is that exactly the same sort of thing FSG say. If you have a successful way of running a Club that has brought success then why would you stop acting prudently and intelligently just because your income has gone up.

As for naming rights if it does happen then it is likely to at least cover the cost of servicing the debt meaning Spurs will benefit from the entire financial uplift from their new stadium.
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline rob1966

  • YORKIE bar-munching, hedgehog-squashing (well-)articulated road-hog-litter-bug. Sleeping With The Enemy. Has felt the wind and shed his anger..... did you know I drive a Jag?
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 26,026
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #150 on: February 28, 2020, 05:16:48 pm »
What are you saying Peter that it was okay to destroy peoples lives, to leave ordinary working people in negative equity because you had targeted their property, as long as you build something nice at the end of it.


Genuine question, was anyone actually left in negative equity, did anyone buy a house in the streets that got demolished after the club started buying them up? The club started buying in 1996 until about 2000 and the sale price at the time was £33k to £35k - our house, which is now worth £250k in a nice middle class area was £37k in 1997.

My Dad sold his house in Varthen Street in around 1990 for £8k, he moved to Garston because the area around the ground was an absolute shit hole, with loads of fucking rats breaking into houses and shit and he refused to bring my sister up in such a place. A lad I worked with in the 90's was buying up houses in Anfield to rent out and paying under £12k

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 49,784
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Pros and cons of new stadiums vs redevelopment.
« Reply #151 on: February 28, 2020, 05:35:29 pm »
This is going nowhere. Locked.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.