Topic: Liverpool pick up extension for new Stanley Park stadium from council

[-Nay-]

This been posted?

Liverpool have been granted a reprieve over plans for a 60,000-plus-seat stadium at Stanley Park after planning consents expired last month. The local‑authority deadline for approved works to take place elapsed on 19 June.

A council spokesman, however, said it considers that the club has undertaken "sufficient works" in the three years since the decision to approve development was taken in 2008. The spokesman said it is now waiting on the club to take up the £300,000-a-year lease on the park site but he would not discuss when it must do that by.

It seems the council set a low threshold for what it considered sufficient development, since only enabling works to local infrastructure and the demolition of a row of 100‑year‑old houses behind the Anfield Road stand have so far taken place. This would also assist the club in expanding the existing stadium at Anfield, without having to move to Stanley Park.

"Work continues on examining both options open to us: refurbishment of Anfield and Stanley Park," a club spokesman said. However, there is no planning consent for an Anfield development and last October the council leader, Joe Anderson, made clear the council's opposition to the expansion of the existing ground. "I would discourage [Liverpool] from redeveloping Anfield and would encourage them to stick to the commitment that is already in place," he said.

Digger heard on Wednesday that the 19 June deadline had been enforced, obliging the club to open talks requesting a 12-month extension to the current Stanley Park consents. This is said to have been refused, along with a six-month extension, leading the council to wave through a three-month extension to September this year.

The council denied this is the case, saying: "A condition of the planning decision was that Liverpool had to start work by 19 June but we've accepted they have done sufficient work."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/06/liverpool-extension-stanley-park-stadium?CMP=twt_gu

[-Willo-]

Just about to post this, quality!!

[-Nay-]

Ahhh, was in The Times last week anyway I think..

[xerxes1]

The Council, and community, have everything to gain from a new stadium, and nothing to gain from redevelopment. It is in the Council's and community's interests that the new stadium alternative option remains open for FSG.

Nonetheless, FSG will need to make their decision in the best interests of their Investors. I would not like to call this.

[TepidT2O]

The Council, and community, have everything to gain from a new stadium, and nothing to gain from redevelopment. It is in the Council's and community's interests that the new stadium alternative option remains open for FSG.

Nonetheless, FSG will need to make their decision in the best interests of their Investors. I would not like to call this.

Well that's not true....you'd love to call it!

[xerxes1]

Well that's not true....you'd love to call it!

I genuinely can't.

IF we can redevelop Anfield to 55k AND upgrade corporate/hospitality/conference/banquetting sufficiently AND get some naming rights for stands to help pay for it  ( and all of that may be possible) I think the financial argument in the short to medium term may be in favour of redevelopment.

If not - then its a new stadium.

[-Willo-]

Which ever one will provide us with the biggest allocation is what I want, purely because I want a season ticket before I'm effin 30 minimum

Let''s get a 60k stadium with option to renovate further and wipe out a couple a' thousand of the waiting list again.

[Red Beret]

Liverpool FC has a responsibility to its local community and the Anfield area has been held in something of a regeneration limbo whilst the club dithered under Moores and Parry and was later paralysed under G&H.  Big promises have been made to the council on this in the past but I sincerely hope that if the club does opt to redevelop Anfield that Joe Anderson doesn't try to put the skids under it.  That would only cause further unnecessary delays.

[gorgepir]

I think that this news and the fact that almost all of the 2000 ST holders took up the option may have pushed FSG to build a new stadium instead of redeveloping Anfield. I hope they can get at least the 100m£ that Arsenal got for the Emirates, which would mean they would have to find about 200-250m£.

[Alan_X]

Hmm...

Are we all certain that no "commencement" works have taken place? You don't need to do much to keep a planning application live.

Interesting...

[paulrazor]

is there scope for eventually going to a 65-75k stadium

[xerxes1]

Hmm...Interesting...

I agree Alan.

 I continue to believe that any new stadium that is built will be sufficiently different from the original one to require a new planning application anyway, so why keep the existing consent alive?

I also believe that the Council is right to see the economic benefits that a New Stadium would bring trump anything that a redevelopment might reasonably offer.

So did the club ask for a three month extension, or did the Council offer it? And in both cases, why? Do the club want more time to work through the ST waiting list to determine demand? Do the Council want to remove any obstacle to the Club going ahead with a new stadium?

[gorgepir]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2011/07/07/liverpool-fc-to-decide-on-whether-to-take-up-stanley-park-stadium-lease-100252-29011683/

Seems if we don't move to Stanley Park, we would have to pay back 8m£.

[xerxes1]

Thanks for that gorgpir.

I was unaware that the Club had receieved, and spent, an £8.2m Euro grant on this project. If they have, on what has it been spent?

The feel of that story is of a Council briefing, with the emphasis being on the club signing up to the SP lease ( at £300,000 a year!) to increase commitment levels.

The whole matter of what has been spent on the new stadium project remains shrouded in mystery. At various times a figure of £50m has been spoken about as having been "provided for." Whether that represents monies spent, monies contractually owed, or monies set aside for the project so far which if unspent are retained is unclear.

H&G were innocents abroad with football. In DiBenedetto, FSG have as part of their group someone who not only owns a European Football Club, but who also owns a Real Estate Company. they also now have Andrw Parkinson as Ops Director, an expert on retail who would be invaluable in guiding the expansion of LFC's commercial interests and the development of Anfield Plaza.

An unknown here is the extent to which FSG are "playing hard to get" in order to get maximum assistance from the Council on a stadium project that would benefit the entire community.

[Abrak]

While I generally agree with most of Xerxes comments I think you have to look at the structure of FSG to decide who is running the show. The reality is that DiBenedetto may have considerable property expertise but although he has a stake on FSG he has no voting rights. This applies to all the minority partners.

If you can imagine you handed over a modest portion of your wealth say US$1m to a hedge fund, the money is run by them, controlled by them and you hope they do a decent job in terms of capital appreciation. You dont get a say. At the same time, the hedge fund does not call upon your expertise, say being a lawyer, for free because you are part of their investment Group. These are passive investors in that they dont have a say in the running of the Group, as a quid pro quo, they are not expected to provide their expertise in order to enhance the NAV valuation just because they have it. Effectively the investors have a passive monetary investment where they have given up voting control in order that Henry has control and run it at he wishes. The quid pro quo is that you are not a partnership pooling resources and you do not offer your expertise to a management Group who you have given up your say in the business on the basis that you trust Henry to manage it in everyones best interests.

[xerxes1]

Abrak, I did not intend to suggest influence, just expertise.

[CraigDS]

I was unaware that the Club had receieved, and spent, an £8.2m Euro grant on this project. If they have, on what has it been spent?

surely if we had received this then it would of been in the accounts which were just release, if not earlier?

[N11RED]

In the main all you need to do to implement a consent is to ensure you undertake sufficient 'works'(albeit clearance, complete strip out of services or, as in this case, sufficient demolition) to ensure a consent goes live. Once building control/regs have set up a file and have identified the consent as live, in theory LFC have as long as they want to build the new stadium.

[the 92A]

This is on News now http://www.building.co.uk/sectors/housing/shapps-pushes-liverpool-fc-for-‘urgent’-stadium-decision/5021014.article
 
I think you're allowed two free views

[xerxes1]

surely if we had received this then it would of been in the accounts which were just release, if not earlier?

As I understand a sum of arond £50m has been "provided for", as I have posted elsewhere, whether this means that it has been spent, contractually committed to, or simpy provided for as an anticpated expenditure, I do not know.

[xerxes1]

This is on News now http://www.building.co.uk/sectors/housing/shapps-pushes-liverpool-fc-for-‘urgent’-stadium-decision/5021014.article
 
I think you're allowed two free views

There's some briefing and politicking going on at the moment at local and national government level, isn't there? Cheers for that.

[Abrak]

Abrak, I did not intend to suggest influence, just expertise.

What I mean to say is that if I hand over my money to a hedge fund manager who has total control and influence over its spending (and of which I have no voting rights) I do so on the basis that he has certain knowledge and expertise in areas in which I wished to be invested.

If I am a property expert I do not hand my money over to someone who is not a property expert and in fact I do not expect him to invest in property over which he has no expertise. I have given him my vote because I acknowledge in the area I am investing (sports franchises) he understands them and will get better returns than most. If he happens to want to take my money and invest in stadium, an area in which he has little expertise, and despite giving me no say in the business he feels as though he is investing in something in which he has limited knowledge but would benefit from some input from my expertise. I will tell him to 'fuck off' on the basis that if I wanted to invest in property I wouldnt hand my money to someone who doesnt really know the first thing about it and I would be particularly pissed if the guy who took my money and gave me no say in how it was spent then came to me and said I am investing in something that I know nothing about with your money and lots of other peoples money and I could do with your expertise because I have none but you will still have no influence because I make all the decisions.

So in short in has no influence in that investment because it is an area he has no expertise. If Henry starts investing in areas that he has no expertise, he is too incompetent to expect people to give him influence in the first place.

[ttnbd]

the grant money was spent on the restoration works for Stanley Park etc.

[Peter McGurk]

A clear and unrelenting message from central government - we're only here to help those who help themselves.

the grant money was spent on the restoration works for Stanley Park etc.

To be clear, the club neither received the money nor would it therefore show in the club's accounts.  I understand there was match-funding from council but stand to be corrected.  The grant was awarded on the basis that the park would be restored and a new stadium would be developed in Stanley Park.  I do not know what the position is in terms of default on that proviso. ie., I don't know whether council has to pay it back to the EU or not or whether the club is on the hook for it.


The conditions of the consent (including the section 106 agreements) do not seem to mention it at all.  In short, payback may be in the terms of the grant but not in terms of the consent.   Oops.

[benn25]

http://fcbusiness.co.uk/news/article/newsitem=1294/title=liverpool+to+decide+on+stadium+plans+

Thu 7th Jul 2011 | Football Stadiums & Facilities

Liverpool Football Club have been granted an extension over plans for a 60,000-plus-seat stadium at Stanley Park after planning consents expired last month.

The club must now decide whether or not to take up a lease on Stanley Park in order to build a new stadium.

Liverpool has planning permission to build a state-of-the-art 60,000-plus seater ground in the park, but has not yet started work in the park itself and does not have a lease on the land.

A spokesman for the local council told the Guardian newspaper that it is now waiting on the club to take up the £300,000-a-year lease on the park site but there was no indication as to when this must be done by.

Liverpool received £8.2m of European funding towards the Stanley Park project which will have to be paid back should they decide not to make the move.

It’s understood that council leader Cllr Joe Anderson has held talks with club bosses within the last two months.

A council spokesman said: “The club is still considering the options, and we are working with them and are waiting to hear from them as to their decisions on which option they will pursue.”

[xerxes1]

To be clear, the club neither received the money nor would it therefore show in the club's accounts.  I understand there was match-funding from council but stand to be corrected.  The grant was awarded on the basis that the park would be restored and a new stadium would be developed in Stanley Park.  I do not know what the position is in terms of default on that proviso. ie., I don't know whether council has to pay it back to the EU or not or whether the club is on the hook for it.The conditions of the consent (including the section 106 agreements) do not seem to mention it at all.  In short, payback may be in the terms of the grant but not in terms of the consent.   Oops.

An interesting take, which does stack. There is no doubt that the well placed briefing on this has come from Local Government sources. Just maybe this is being driven by the possibility that the Council could be liable alone to pay back the EC if the Club redevelop.

It should be noted that this also provides FSG with maximum leverage to secure the best terms with the Council on any matters still subject to negotiation.

[Lolo]

As an ex Anfield resident I keep hearing of these 'advance stadium works' that are suppose to have  been carried out on the new site.
The original Guardian article above quotes, 'A council spokesman, however, said it considers that the club has undertaken "sufficient works" in the three years since the decision to approve development was taken in 2008'.

Can somebody please tell me.....are these 'sufficient works' noticable? For example have they started digging up huge areas of the old car park or are we talking about a few holes to test the thickness of the soil?

In a nutshell......can you see anything actually happening or is this just paper shuffling?

[Alan_X]

As the opening article says, the threshold of what constitutes sufficient work seems to have been set quite low but In my experience you don't need to do a lot anyway. Typically you have to do a bit of demolition, a bit of excavation/foundation work and a bit of drainage to be sure of securing commencement, but it really comes down to what suits all parties.

[CraigDS]

From just what I have noticed...

- Houses on Anfield Rd were knocked down.
- Roads and Pavements on Utting Avenue leading right down to where the school used to be (basically down one side of what would of been the new stadium) have been redone.
- Vernon Sangster Sports Centre was knocked down.

Not sure if further works were carried out to drainage and other utilities when the roads/pavements were done as didnt really see the work being carried out.

[Gili Gulu]

Story in The Mirror by David Maddock, about the lease of the parkland.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-news-Club-could-be-forced-scrap-all-stadium-development-plans-because-dispute-with-Liverpool-City-Council-article780037.html

Liverpool face the prospect of being forced to scrap ALL their stadium development plans.

And that could see the Merseyside club being stuck at Anfield, without any increase in the famous old ground's capacity, because of rigid and unsympathetic deadlines set by the local council.

Those deadlines - over a lease needed on the parkland that sits alongside Anfield - have inspired claims from angry fans' groups that the council want to railroad through a shared stadium for the Reds and neighbours Everton.

Although Liverpool City Council leader Joe Anderson has rubbished the suggestion that he is intent on a shared stadium because he is an Everton supporter, it is true his hardline stance is threatening the Reds' attempts to expand their current capacity, which stands at less than 45,000.

Liverpool's owners, Fenway Sports Group, are currently studying two methods of increasing capacity: either re-develop Anfield or build a new stadium on Stanley Park, which lies between their ground and Everton's Goodison Park stadium.

They face a looming deadline, however, over a lease for the parkland, and have been threatened by the City Council with the removal of that lease if they don't make their mind up by September.

That leaves the club with a massive dilemma that poses a threat to their future.

They know they MUST increase capacity dramatically to stand any chance of competing with the likes of Manchester United and even Arsenal.

Currently, Liverpool's match-day revenue lags at nearly £3million per game behind United, because the Manchester club has a capacity almost double that of Anfield, plus a massively greater corporate capacity.

Liverpool know they have to get the decision over the two ground options right, because of the importance to the future of the club.

But the council's deadline means they don't have the time explore each plan fully.

While building costs are an important element of those deliberations, the onus on regeneration of the area around Anfield is also a huge factor, with the club and council at odds over who must carry the financial burden of those plans.

Liverpool say the council is ultimately responsible for community regeneration, while they are responsible for the club's future and the best interests of their fans.

In what has become a high-stakes showdown with the first side to blink being the loser, the council are forcing the club into a corner, where the losers could be both the fans and the local residents.

Which such massive financial decisions at stake, the deadline for the park lease means LIverpool may be forced to let it pass... which would rule out any chance of building a new stadium.

That would also leave open the danger that redevelopment of Anfield would not be possible.

With the club already adamantly ruling out a move to another site - such as a docklands area identified by the council - it leaves the threat that development plans will collapse completely.

Influential observers point out that would damage the club, but also leave the area a desolate building site with no chance of the regeneration the council are hoping for.

Liverpool were hoping a stadium naming-rights deals would finance the building of a new ground, but there is not enough time left before the lease's deadline to put that into place.

They will plead with the council to extend their deadline and allow the process to exhaust all possibilities, but if that request is ignored, it could spark open political warfare in the city.

Already, one fans' group has started an email petition, demanding that Liverpool City Council drop any idea of a shared stadium with Everton, and also the kind of support for Liverpool Football Club they believe is warranted.

Kopfaithful, a group that played a major role in the departure of Tom Hicks and George Gillett from the club, have set up the campaign.

They are asking all supporters to join them into pressurising the council into backing the club.

[Smudgester]

Story in The Mirror by David Maddock, about the lease of the parkland.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-news-Club-could-be-forced-scrap-all-stadium-development-plans-because-dispute-with-Liverpool-City-Council-article780037.html
Liverpool were hoping a stadium naming-rights deals would finance the building of a new ground, but there is not enough time left before the lease's deadline to put that into place.

Call me Mr Thicky but why do the club need a naming rights deal on a new stadium in place before they they even decided to build one ?? And surely that should say "part finance" ? Unless we've found a similar dodgy sponsor to the one Man City got

[exiledintheUSA]

Time to move to St Helens.

[vasquez]

Time to move to St Helens.

Moving out of Anfield is an option that no one seems to mention, but may have to come into the picture with so many current contraints with the current two options.

[west_london_red]

Call me Mr Thicky but why do the club need a naming rights deal on a new stadium in place before they they even decided to build one ?? And surely that should say "part finance" ? Unless we've found a similar dodgy sponsor to the one Man City got

It would be risky to start building a stadium and then look for rights. What if we couldnt find someone to sump up enough money?

[LiamG]

So the council are basically saying decide by september or you arnt getting stanley park ever?

[Redman0151]

 Council are a bunch of top nob heads.

 
 £3m less income than United a game, that's just disgusting. That's £57m a year more that they're making than us not including European revenue and cup matches.

 Seems impossible to ever be able to keep up with them again unless we get more seats quickly.

[gorgepir]

May I ask (not being local and all) what the fuss is with relocating to Stanley Park? Wouldnt it be better to go to Speke with more space and better connections? I mean if we are moving from Anfield and can't call it Anfield, why would we want to stay in Anfield? A nice big stadium close with railroads and airport nearby, plus by the river? I don't understand the opposition. Could someone enlighten me why this is not accepted by fans?

[Alan_X]

May I ask (not being local and all) what the fuss is with relocating to Stanley Park? Wouldnt it be better to go to Speke with more space and better connections? I mean if we are moving from Anfield and can't call it Anfield, why would we want to stay in Anfield? A nice big stadium close with railroads and airport nearby, plus by the river? I don't understand the opposition. Could someone enlighten me why this is not accepted by fans?

Stanley Park is across Anfield Road. It would be connected to the old stadium in a way that a ground at Speke couldn't.

[paulrazor]

Call me Mr Thicky but why do the club need a naming rights deal on a new stadium in place before they they even decided to build one ?? And surely that should say "part finance" ? Unless we've found a similar dodgy sponsor to the one Man City got

well mr thicky

i reckon if someone did wanna stump up the money then simply have it written that they dont pay any money til its built

im sure both sides will be legally ok with one another. (also to prevent them from legging it leaving us with a 350m hole in our pocket)

least of our worries

[SMD]

What is the logic of the council trying to fuck us in the arse? Surely any regeneration of the Anfield area is a good thing and a new ground or expanded Anfield would be a good catalyst for that?

And a competitive, successful Liverpool FC is good for the city thus good for the council.