Topic: Liverpool confirm decision to redevelop Anfield

[Mr Kipling]

Great news

[snowlion]

Interesting news!  Glad the owners are doing things behind the scenes.

[lfc1984]

Great news.

[oojason]

Seems there's not too much new as Peter Mc has posted this and other detailed and impressive info of late re the possibilities of a redeveloped ground and the different scenarios for the adjoining roads/area.

Forcing people out of their homes (IF it comes to that) - so we can play in an enlarged stadium doesn't quite sit right with me.

Nor does FSG apparently promising Broughton as a condition of sale to build a new ground - only to 'soon after' change their minds.

[CraigDS]

Forcing people out of their homes (if it comes to that) - so we can play in an enlarged stadium doesn't quite sit right with me.

Nor does FSG apparently promising Broughton as a condition of sale to build a new ground - only to 'soon after' change their minds.

I think all but 8 houses are owned by either LFC or the council anyway, plus all those 8 are not lived in, so wouldn't be too many people being 'forced out'. And to be honest if you've seen that area recently getting what is being proposed would be a hell of a lot more than the houses are worth.

And what did you want FSG to do, run out and build the shitty HKS stadium?

[SalifSaysShutIt]

Wow, if this is true then all the FSG bashers need to swallow a huge piece of humble pie. IMO this would be absolutely joyous news, Anfield is the soul of this club.

[Stussy]

Nor does FSG apparently promising Broughton as a condition of sale to build a new ground - only to 'soon after' change their minds.

So if we get a redeveloped Anfield and meet our capacity and commercial needs to make us competitive with our rivals, meaning FSG have saved our sacred home, you'll be indignant?

Wow.

[c0burn]

[Peter McGurk]

As I said in the other thread...

Peter, I guess the news is that someone at the council ...is quoted as saying "they have said this will accommodate their needs if they stay at Anfield and refurbish the current stadium"

That's news because all along we've had the impression that the council were in some way 'blocking' LFC's proposed redevelopment of Anfield, now they're saying, 'not only can we deliver what they want but we could help with CPO's'...

On balance, I think this article is provocative and just a little bit unhelpful. We've always known that clearances would suit the needs of redevelopment if the club decided to redevelop. We've always known the possibility (and difficulties) of CPO. We always known that there are other and less confrontational ways of going about it. Kitts is stating the facts - the slant is seemingly coming from the Guardian.

Council original insistence on a new stadium was a statement of the obvious to incoming owners. There has been a kind of 'negotiation' since but they have not been blocking the club. In fact, they've had nothing to block - and lots of reasons to help (for the benefit of the residents).

.

[No Appreciation of Liverpool Opposition]

if 10000 plus seats can be added great news
if not bad news

[igors_revenge]

Obviously if this is true it's good news for the club/fans, not necessarily such good news for residents and the local area though. Mixed feelings to be honest.

[oojason]

I think all but 8 houses are owned by either LFC or the council anyway, plus all those 8 are not lived in, so wouldn't be too many people being 'forced out'. And to be honest if you've seen that area recently getting what is being proposed would be a hell of a lot more than the houses are worth.

And what did you want FSG to do, run out and build the shitty HKS stadium?

One person being forced out - IF it came to that - would be enough for it to not sit right with me. If you feel differently, then ok.

And, no, I didn't want FSG to run and build the shitty HKS stadium - but then I didn't say that.


Stussy - I'd be indignant if it led to getting what a lot of us want - what you mentioned - if the cost was forcing people out of their homes. I'd prefer us to have to build a new ground rather than that happen.

[CraigDS]

Obviously if this is true it's good news for the club/fans, not necessarily such good news for residents and the local area though. Mixed feelings to be honest.

Either a redev or new stadium would be a catalyst for the whole surrounding area, so if it means a few (90% derelict already) houses going then so be it.

Doing nothing on the stadium has seen nothing happen in the local area.

[CraigDS]

One person being forced out - IF it came to that - would be enough for it to not sit right with me. If you feel differently, then ok.

And, no, I didn't want FSG to run and build the shitty HKS stadium - but then I didn't say that.


Stussy - I'd be indignant if it led to getting what a lot of us want - what you mentioned - if the cost was forcing people out of their homes. I'd prefer us to have to build a new ground rather than that happen.

If it comes down to having to move 8 lots of people out of those houses then so be it. Fact is no movement on the stadium is causing the whole area to suffer, and if the only choice we have is a new stadium then I think you'll see nothing happen for years as its jut too expensive.

[Peter McGurk]

If it comes down to having to move 8 lots of people out of those houses then so be it. Fact is no movement on the stadium is causing the whole area to suffer, and if the only choice we have is a new stadium then I think you'll see nothing happen for years as its jut too expensive.

This is why the article is unhelpful. It is not an 'either or'. People need decent housing. A redevelopment can help.

.

[Paragon]

I find it just as interesting if not more how defensive some newbies are about FSG. I don't know about the "insane" part. I guess we'll know soon enough how much work has been truly taking place behind the scenes.

Newbies? Is somebody less or a Liverpool fan because they haven't been on rawk (an internet forum) as long?

[Timbo0151]

How many seriously believe FSG will be around long enough to see any redevelopment happen?

We sold the club to build a new stadium.

Talk of redevelopment of Anfield allows at least another 3 years of "talk".

Meanwhile, a new shirt every season and TV rights abroad are amongst the easier marketing options to increase revenue for FSG.

A redeveloped Anfield will bring in an extra 10-15,000 seats at best. It's not in FSG's interests to do anything with Anfield, or to build a new ground.

Frankly, it's complete, and utter Bullshit.

[Alf]

I'll believe our stadium solution when I see it. I remember going to the opening game of the 04/05 season against Man City and reading in the programme about how we'd be in a new stadium 3 years later.

[LiverBirdKop]

Newbies? Is somebody less or a Liverpool fan because they haven't been on rawk (an internet forum) as long?

You took a wrong turn there but I will not derail the thread explaining it. Just to answer your question, no.

[LiverBirdKop]

I'll believe our stadium solution when I see it. I remember going to the opening game of the 04/05 season against Man City and reading in the programme about how we'd be in a new stadium 3 years later.

Under G&H, weren't we supposed to be in that new stadium by this next season? Or was it 2011. I'll believe it when I see it as well.

[Paul-LFC]

It's not in FSG's interests to do anything with Anfield, or to build a new ground.

Frankly, it's complete, and utter Bullshit.

A further way of increasing revenues and ensuring we stay competitive "isn't in FSG's interests"? Also, what's with the recent trend of people posting their opinion phrased as if it's an undisputable fact?

[oojason]

If it comes down to having to move 8 lots of people out of those houses then so be it. Fact is no movement on the stadium is causing the whole area to suffer, and if the only choice we have is a new stadium then I think you'll see nothing happen for years as its jut too expensive.

I'd say the club buying those houses and then boarding them up (along with the council) has caused the area to suffer more than it would have otherwise. To then force out the last remaining 8 - or even 1 - just does not sit right with me.

I know this doesn't help our need for greater revenue from a redevelopment or new ground - and it may take years to address that whilst we lose ground (or revenue) to compete with our rivals, but these are people's homes we're talking about.

Nuts, stubborn, idiotic, dreamer, twat, moron, out of touch - however I come across, that's just my two penneth on it. It won't matter a jot in the grand scheme of things, and I do think that the club/council will get those CPOs in the end - whether along with the council PR promising regeneration and that actually happens - or not.

[Peter McGurk]

I'd say the club buying those houses and then boarding them up (along with the council) has caused the area to suffer more than it would have otherwise. To then force out the last remaining 8 - or even 1 - just does not sit right with me.

I know this doesn't help our need for greater revenue from a redevelopment or new ground - and it may take years to address that whilst we lose ground (or revenue) to compete with our rivals, but these are people's homes we're talking about.

Nuts, stubborn, idiotic, dreamer, twat, moron, out of touch - however I come across, that's just my two penneth on it. It won't matter a jot in the grand scheme of things, and I do think that the club/council will get those CPOs in the end - whether along with the council PR promising regeneration and that actually happens - or not.

It's not going to sit well with anyone if any resident gets 'forced out'. But nobody's being forced anywhere. And getting a new home in a fixed up area has got to be better than what's there now. A new stadium isn't going to do it.

.

[BEAST]

How many seriously believe FSG will be around long enough to see any redevelopment happen?

We sold the club to build a new stadium.

Talk of redevelopment of Anfield allows at least another 3 years of "talk".

Meanwhile, a new shirt every season and TV rights abroad are amongst the easier marketing options to increase revenue for FSG.

A redeveloped Anfield will bring in an extra 10-15,000 seats at best. It's not in FSG's interests to do anything with Anfield, or to build a new ground.

Frankly, it's complete, and utter Bullshit.

If that's the case, what are you complaining about?  You seem to imply that it is not economically viable to build a new stadium OR redevelop.

If it's not viable - why would we do it? 

[Stussy]

Some people just want to be indignant no matter what.

[Z e u s]

A redeveloped Anfield will bring in an extra 10-15,000 seats at best. It's not in FSG's interests to do anything with Anfield, or to build a new ground.

How do you know?

[Paragon]

You took a wrong turn there but I will not derail the thread explaining it. Just to answer your question, no.

Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick there mate.

[LiverBirdKop]

Apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick there mate.

No problem at all.

[kenworthy]

Would be delighted if true. But not holding my breath.

[blood.red]

if we decide to redevelop anfield , whats the max capacity the council will allow us to expand upto .

[BFM]

The best bit was this

Liverpool declined to comment on the revelation of the housing demolition blueprint, saying: "The private discussions and plans that Liverpool Football Club has or may have with residents or other stakeholders are, in our opinion, exactly that: 'private'."

Love it

[RedPross]

Wow, if this is true then all the FSG bashers need to swallow a huge piece of humble pie. IMO this would be absolutely joyous news, Anfield is the soul of this club.

The name Anfield is part of our soul.... But the stadium itself no longer is..... The oldest part of the ground is the Main Stand and the rest has been replaced with boring cheap out the box stands not dissimilar to other grounds.

The fans make the difference but in recent seasons even this has become diluted!

[eirwen]

I would love it if we can expand Anfield. Don't know how big it can be though with just adding a new tier.

[-Q-]

Nothing concrete in this news really.  Perhaps are indication that redeveloping Anfield is more likely.  If that is the most cost-effective solution then great.  The club should meet with residents and landlords who own the properties we need, they should pay whatever they ask and crack on with this as soon as possible. I'll be very disappointed if the club are going to ride roughshod over the property rights of residents and landlords to further their own interests.

If it comes down to having to move 8 lots of people out of those houses then so be it. Fact is no movement on the stadium is causing the whole area to suffer, and if the only choice we have is a new stadium then I think you'll see nothing happen for years as its jut too expensive.

So you are happy with a private company getting the council to force people to move out of their homes and surrender their property, for commercial gain? 

[soxfan]

I think for "the greater good" it would be best for those folks to move, as a redeveloped Anfield and revitalized surrounding area would be great for the city. But I would hope that FSG would pay them more than 110% of the value of the homes. Let's face it, we've blown money on Cole, Aquilani, Downing, etc.    so I think we can find a few million more to make the moving residents truly happy with the situation. Let's get it done!

[Alan_X]

How many seriously believe FSG will be around long enough to see any redevelopment happen?

We sold the club to build a new stadium.

Talk of redevelopment of Anfield allows at least another 3 years of "talk".

Meanwhile, a new shirt every season and TV rights abroad are amongst the easier marketing options to increase revenue for FSG.

A redeveloped Anfield will bring in an extra 10-15,000 seats at best. It's not in FSG's interests to do anything with Anfield, or to build a new ground.

Frankly, it's complete, and utter Bullshit.

Frankly that's complete and utter err... opinion. 10,000 to 15,000 extra seats and improved corporate facilities will generate a massive increase in matchday revenue. It's the one area where there's a real opportunity for improvement. United have an average matchday revenue of £3.7m, Arsenal £3.3m. Chelsea want to expand because they only bring in £2.5m on average. Ours was £1.5m in 2010/11. That's £2m a match that we're behind. Even if we only got it up to Chelsea's current level that would be around £30 million a year extra.

TV money and shirt deals are out of FSG's control, why on earth would they not want to redevelop? It has to be right financially but they are not Tom Hicks.

Hicks was a complete weapon with a monstrous ego and no money (of his own). He commissioned a design that was too big, too complicated and too expensive to ever be viable. FSG are picking up the pieces of that debacle and it looks like they are going about things the right way - pursuing a dual strategy and will select the one that makes the best sense for the club (and of course themselves as owners of the club).

[Alan_X]

if we decide to redevelop anfield , whats the max capacity the council will allow us to expand upto .

There are two key issues:

The limit at the moment in terms of numbers is 60,000 which is to do with the approved travel plan. Any increase over that would need significant infrastructure improvements.

The other limit would be physical: the available footprint and the height and scale of the new/redeveloped stands. So even though 60,000 is the maximum in theory, it may not be physically possible or allowable from a planning point of view.

[Spongebob Redpants]

Just saw this on TIA website - all specualtion at the moment so have to wait and see :

Liverpool City Council have denied reports that Liverpool FC have chosen to redevelop Anfield, rather than build a new stadium on Stanley Park.
 
The council used Twitter to describe a report from The Guardian as “unhelpful”, and that the plans to remove houses surrounding the stadium is “not indicative” of a final decision on the club’s stadium plans.
 


It has been widely reported previously that owners FSG favour remaining at Anfield, and The Guardian claim that LFC’s plan is “understood to involve adding an extra tier, plus corporate facilities, to the Anfield Road and main stands”.
 
Previously, managing director Ian Ayre has explained that the club were exploring both the redevelopment of Anfield, and naming rights for a possible new stadium.
 
Supporters will be hoping that a decision is made sooner, rather than later.
 
A redeveloped Anfield would see the capacity increasing to around 60,000

[Spongebob Redpants]

This has just been put up on the Echo website also :

LIVERPOOL FC has been given until the end of the month to make its mind up over whether to move to a new stadium or stay at Anfield.
 
The ECHO can reveal Liverpool council has given the club the deadline in the hope of ending months of uncertainty over owner John W Henry’s plans for the club’s stadium requirements.
 
But the club may be moving towards finally confirming Mr Henry’s preferred option of remaining at Anfield.
 
The council’s assistant director of regeneration Mark Kitts has revealed the local authority’s own plans to regenerate the local area would enable the redevelopment of Anfield stadium to go ahead.
 
The city council has already announced plans to demolish homes near to Anfield in Lothair Road, which it insists are in no way connected to any decision that the club may or may not take.
 
Mr Kitts said: "We have been working with the club very closely and they have said this will accommodate their needs if they stay at Anfield and refurbish the current stadium."
 
The main issue standing in the way of the Reds expanding Anfield has been the "right to light" of nearby residents.
 
Mr Kitts has said that the demolitions would solve those issues.
 
Today Liverpool council was keen to stress that its plans to regenerate Anfield are not linked to those of the club.
 
A spokesman said: "No decision has yet been made by Liverpool Football Club about their stadium plans. The city council continues to work closely with the club, but the club will determine which option is best for them.
 
"The city council plans to demolish and refurbish properties in the surrounding streets to Anfield stadium are about driving forward much needed housing renewal in the area.
 
"They are not indicative of any decision Liverpool Football Club may or may not make in relation to their stadium."

The council controls the lease of Stanley Park – where the club still has the option to build a new ground – and would also be needed to drive forward any Compulsory Purchase Orders the club would require if they prefer redevelopment.
 
Although keen to leave the club to manage its own affairs, the council believes it has already shown patience and is eager to see progress. Last week club managing director Ian Ayre said the Reds were getting close to making a decision but were continuing to explore both options.
 
The fact there has been no solution some 20 months after Fenway Sports Group’s takeover is a source of frustration for supporters.
 
Publication of the club’s accounts last month highlighted that the failure to relocate to a new stadium during the previous regime of Tom Hicks and George Gillett had left Liverpool with a bill for £49.6m.
 
Hicks and Gillett had vowed to have ‘a spade in the ground within 60 days’ following their arrival in February 2007 but it never happened. Their expensive plans have since been written off Planning permission still exists to build the stadium designed by Manchester architects AFL but obtaining a lucrative naming rights deal is crucial to subsidising the £300m project.
 
Mr Ayre said talks with interested major companies are ongoing, while Liverpool are also continuing to assess whether refurbishing Anfield to a 60,000 capacity is financially viable.


Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/06/01/liverpool-fc-given-council-ultimatum-over-anfield-future-100252-31091366/2/#ixzz1wWVz3Iqt


Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/06/01/liverpool-fc-given-council-ultimatum-over-anfield-future-100252-31091366/#ixzz1wWVphUho

[The Lord Admiral]

So has that Guardian story been leaked by the council to try and kibosh staying?

That LFC have only been to one of the residents meetings either suggests they are not committed, or they are keeping a cold detached stance to drive through the expansion plans.

Question though - would a new stadium have a significantly greater effect in terms of changing the area? I live not far from the Emirates, and remember what it was like around there before. There are a few more flats etc, but really all it's done is put a massive big stadium on a plot of land - it's not changed that area of Highbury/Finsbury Park much at all, and when you go past on non Match days, it's pretty deserted.