Topic: Bradley says building work to start in April 2010 !!

[Brian Blessed]

Dunno how it'll go down in the home prefecture.

[scatman]

to the last post on previous page you mean like Allianz Arena, AOL Arena, Reebok Stadium, The Emirates, Naming Rights Stadium, Coca-cola Park, Britannia stadium, goldenpalace.com monkey (a new species apparently).

you mean along those sort of brands? well known and liked?

[Billy1561]

I would have been totally against renaming Anfield if we had stayed because it just wouldn't work imo, however the new (if it's ever built) stadium will inevitably get some ridiculous name because we are all slaves to cold hard cash. If you can't beat em join em unfortunately.

[Dirkydirkdirk]

I'm happy for the club to take the cash. Whatever the stadium is called, most fans will still call it Anfield. Most of the lads round by me still call that new stand the Kemlyn...

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

[fivein05]

I think the builder we origionally employed to do the job may need to update his portfolio!

[JetmirLFC]

Ian Ayre has revealed that Liverpool's new stadium be sponsored, with an Asian company expected to win the naming rights.

Can anyone highlight me the part of this article where Ayre says what is quoted above?!

[TommyW]

think its unlikely we'll ever get £250m to name something that doesnt and wont ever exist but hey, if the yanks can pull it off maybe I'll cut them some slack

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

Liverpool FC managing director says banks won’t loan club cash for stadium without new ownership

18 January 2010
By Adam Fraser

Christian Purslow, the managing director of English soccer club Liverpool FC, has revealed that the banks with which the club hopes to secure financing for a new stadium will only deal with the club if new investment can be attracted.

Liverpool's owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, are keen to sell a stake in the club, in what Purslow says "could be part ownership or it could be complete ownership". Either way, it appears that the club's plan to build a new stadium and move from its current home of Anfield has no chance of success while Hicks and Gillett remain the two co-owners of the club.

"Late last year, the bank market was essentially shut," said Purslow. "It's now very much open for business and a number of banks are very interested in financing our new stadium. However, a condition of all those banks' interest is that in the first instance, we have brought new investment into the club. So I see it as a two step process - new investment in the next couple of months which reduces our existing debt to a very low level, to enable us then to push on with discussions with banks about financing the stadium."

Purslow, whose time at Liverpool has been marked with some significant off-field success, including a record shirt sponsorship deal with Standard Chartered that will begin in the summer, is confident that the team's on-pitch struggles would be a thing of the past in a new ground. "It's that stadium which holds the key to us transforming our fortunes both economically and in football terms," he added.

"The stadium is absolutely central to the club's strategic development because with a new stadium comes a transformation in the financial resources of Liverpool that can be ploughed back into the core of our activity - which is our playing squad."

Liverpool hope to build the new ground close to Anfield, the club's current home, in the city's Stanley Park.

http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/_a/liverpool_fc_managing_director_says_banks_wont_loan_club_cash_for_stadium_w

[frosty]

and pigs also fly

[Coady]

http://www.fan590.com/media.jsp?content=20100119_192916_2888

Gillett speaking 13 minutes in about the stadium, apparently we still need planning approval, i thought Hicks and Purslow said we have all the planning in place.

[Paul Gardner]

http://www.fan590.com/media.jsp?content=20100119_192916_2888

Gillett speaking 13 minutes in about the stadium, apparently we still need planning approval, i thought Hicks and Purslow said we have all the planning in place.

We have planning permission for the 60k stadium, but not the full 73k that they ideally want.

[TSC]

We have planning permission for the 60k stadium, but not the full 73k that they ideally want.

Is it not just a teeny bit ridiculous to have outstanding planning issues after three years since the infamous 'spade in the ground' quote?

Not surprised though - there's always a reason not to.

[CraigDS]

Is it not just a teeny bit ridiculous to have outstanding planning issues after three years since the infamous 'spade in the ground' quote?

Not surprised though - there's always a reason not to.

Why go spending money they dont have on a stadium that may or may not get built? Makes much more sense to wait until construction starts and then use the years it'll take to build to submit a plan and get it accepted.

[TSC]

Why go spending money they dont have on a stadium that may or may not get built? Makes much more sense to wait until construction starts and then use the years it'll take to build to submit a plan and get it accepted.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not?

On the basis that you're not I think the whole purpose of getting planning permission is to be able to actually start the build.  Be a bit like me whacking up an extension & fucking off planning permission on the basis I'll get it at some point before finishing.

What happens if I don't get it?  Yep, it has to be torn down.

[CraigDS]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not?

On the basis that you're not I think the whole purpose of getting planning permission is to be able to actually start the build.  Be a bit like me whacking up an extension & fucking off planning permission on the basis I'll get it at some point before finishing.

What happens if I don't get it?  Yep, it has to be torn down.

No I wasnt being. I dont think you understand the situation fully.

They have permission for the 60,000 seater, the only difference between the 60,000 and 73,000 is internal. This means building work can begin as if we were building the 60k seater, and then (hopefully) permission then gained for the larger internal seating structure to be built to make it 73k by the time it opens.

Why waste the millions it would cost to gain the permission when the stadium may not even get built for the next few years, it makes much better business sense to wait until things get going on the stadium and then get the extended permission, as it wouldnt delay things.

[Billy1561]

Craig, Is the extended permission guaranteed? Subject to certain conditions like financing the rail link etc..

[west_london_red]

Craig, Is the extended permission guaranteed? Subject to certain conditions like financing the rail link etc..

I think thats the situation, however im a little weary about the club being able to finance the building of rail link as such things are never cheap.

[Billy1561]

I think thats the situation, however im a little weary about the club being able to finance the building of rail link as such things are never cheap.

I guess i will start worrying about the ifs and buts once i see the stadium being built. With these pair at the helm who can tell?

[CraigDS]

As WLR said, its more or less a given that with a decent transport plan in place that we would get the larger capacity - I think the sticking point would be the way the cost is split between us and the council to implement that plan, as after all a greatly increased transport system from around Anfield to the centre and beyond would help the area economically.

[TSC]

No I wasnt being. I dont think you understand the situation fully.

They have permission for the 60,000 seater, the only difference between the 60,000 and 73,000 is internal. This means building work can begin as if we were building the 60k seater, and then (hopefully) permission then gained for the larger internal seating structure to be built to make it 73k by the time it opens.

Why waste the millions it would cost to gain the permission when the stadium may not even get built for the next few years, it makes much better business sense to wait until things get going on the stadium and then get the extended permission, as it wouldnt delay things.

I just assumed they had planning permission as they'd already spent a fair few million on designs for the larger stadium hadn't they?  That's what the images on the official site (and on here somewhere) were based on (I think, though I could be wrong).  Why waste that money if there was never any planning permission?

Anyway, I don't think obtaining planning permission is that expensive in the context of total costs or even against costs expended so far in prep for the stadium (Ie design costs, architect fees etc).

Anyway, pie in the sky as usual, so all moot points.  No buyers/investors = no money = no stadium.

[Alan_X]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not?

On the basis that you're not I think the whole purpose of getting planning permission is to be able to actually start the build.  Be a bit like me whacking up an extension & fucking off planning permission on the basis I'll get it at some point before finishing.

What happens if I don't get it?  Yep, it has to be torn down.

Nothing has to be torn down. The building envelope which has approval is the same for the 60,000 and 72,000 seater. The planning application is for reserved matters - mostly the transport plan - that needs to be in place for the additional seats.

There is nothing odd or unusual about submitting details during construction, particularly in this case.

[TSC]

Nothing has to be torn down. The building envelope which has approval is the same for the 60,000 and 72,000 seater. The planning application is for reserved matters - mostly the transport plan - that needs to be in place for the additional seats.

There is nothing odd or unusual about submitting details during construction, particularly in this case.

Yeah as I said above I assumed they'd planning approval in place for the 73k capacity for the last few years.  There was little mention made about not having it previously.  Maybe i missed it.  Anyway I don't believe they'll build a stadium.  That's only a personal opinion. 

There is always an excuse, this is merely the latest.

[CraigDS]

Yeah as I said above I assumed they'd planning approval in place for the 73k capacity for the last few years.  There was little mention made about not having it previously.  Maybe i missed it.  Anyway I don't believe they'll build a stadium.  That's only a personal opinion. 

There is always an excuse, this is merely the latest.

I think its fairly well documented that its only 60k so far and a transport plan/further capacity plan would be submitted once construction commences.

[gazzathered]

We have planning permission for the 60k stadium, but not the full 73k that they ideally want.

Need 73k to keep up with the likes of the mancs with revenue

[TSC]

I think its fairly well documented that its only 60k so far and a transport plan/further capacity plan would be submitted once construction commences.

Where is it well documented?  Nah forget it anyway.  As I said I'll take more of an interest when something actually happens.  Three year anniversary coming up next month don't forget, and fuck all evidence that anything will happen re construction of a stadium.

[west_london_red]

Need 73k to keep up with the likes of the mancs with revenue

We need a team that 73,000 will be willing to watch. If they are assuming 73,000 people will come a watch a mid-table team I think the club and owners might be in for a shock.

[CraigDS]

Where is it well documented?  Nah forget it anyway.  As I said I'll take more of an interest when something actually happens.  Three year anniversary coming up next month don't forget, and fuck all evidence that anything will happen re construction of a stadium.

Go and look at any of the articles when the new plans were announced, or when either Hicks or Gillett have spoken since about it. Ive heard/seen it mentioned loads of times, as it appears everyone else in here has.

[Tonyh]

We need a team that 73,000 will be willing to watch. If they are assuming 73,000 people will come a watch a mid-table team I think the club and owners might be in for a shock.

There have been several times this season when we have struggled to fill the stadium, numerous last minute texts etc saying tickets on general sale, 31000 v Reading. There is no guarantee of filling a 73000 stadium week in week out. I would rather guarantee to fill a 60000 stadium than have 1000's of empty seats with the subsequent loss of atmosphere.

[CraigDS]

There have been several times this season when we have struggled to fill the stadium, numerous last minute texts etc saying tickets on general sale, 31000 v Reading. There is no guarantee of filling a 73000 stadium week in week out. I would rather guarantee to fill a 60000 stadium than have 1000's of empty seats with the subsequent loss of atmosphere.

We'd of got near enough capacity for the Reading game had the weather not been how it was imo.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

There have been several times this season when we have struggled to fill the stadium, numerous last minute texts etc saying tickets on general sale, 31000 v Reading. There is no guarantee of filling a 73000 stadium week in week out. I would rather guarantee to fill a 60000 stadium than have 1000's of empty seats with the subsequent loss of atmosphere.

Sensible ground design and ticket selling and you don't need to have a reduction in atmosphere.  Just make sure that the unsold tickets are in the upper corners of the ground.

[TSC]

Go and look at any of the articles when the new plans were announced, or when either Hicks or Gillett have spoken since about it. Ive heard/seen it mentioned loads of times, as it appears everyone else in here has.

Yeah I may do if and when it actually appears something may happen re the new stadium.  There are threads on here with shiny images of the supposed ground for example.  While it remains off the agenda it's difficult to get interested in a  debate over 60k v 73k capacity when there is no evidence of either happening.

[the_prodigal_s0n]

There have been several times this season when we have struggled to fill the stadium, numerous last minute texts etc saying tickets on general sale, 31000 v Reading. There is no guarantee of filling a 73000 stadium week in week out. I would rather guarantee to fill a 60000 stadium than have 1000's of empty seats with the subsequent loss of atmosphere.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to fill 73,000 seats provided we're marketed properly. Although I do think we should begin by building a 60,000 seater with the option of being able to extend it eventually.

[Alan_X]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to fill 73,000 seats provided we're marketed properly. Although I do think we should begin by building a 60,000 seater with the option of being able to extend it eventually.

If they build the stadium at 60,000 capacity it will look ridiculous. The "away" end only has 3,000 seats. Another indication that HKS have no fucking idea about what a football ground should be. They almost get the Kop but don't understand why anyone would want to sit in the "end-zone"...

If it ever does get built and stays at 60,000 for any length of time we won't be admired for our "unique" ground... opposition fans will be too busy pissing themselves laughing at our Blue Square Premier League style away end.

[west_london_red]

If they build the stadium at 60,000 capacity it will look ridiculous. The "away" end only has 3,000 seats. Another indication that HKS have no fucking idea about what a football ground should be. They almost get the Kop but don't understand why anyone would want to sit in the "end-zone"...

If it ever does get built and stays at 60,000 for any length of time we won't be admired for our "unique" ground... opposition fans will be too busy pissing themselves laughing at our Blue Square Premier League style away end.

Maybe they are just very confident that the 70 whatever thousand seater will definitly happen, although I still think the stadium design isnt great.

[CraigDS]

If they build the stadium at 60,000 capacity it will look ridiculous. The "away" end only has 3,000 seats. Another indication that HKS have no fucking idea about what a football ground should be. They almost get the Kop but don't understand why anyone would want to sit in the "end-zone"...

If it ever does get built and stays at 60,000 for any length of time we won't be admired for our "unique" ground... opposition fans will be too busy pissing themselves laughing at our Blue Square Premier League style away end.

I both agree and disagree with you!

I agree it would look ridiculous, but then again I like the thought of this tiny stand with the away fans in it and 55,000 Liverpool fans in towering stands dwarfing the away fans.

I also think its good planning from HKS and the club to allow very easy (and probably the cheapest way) to expand in the future, be it during construction or in the years after. If I remember rightly the old Parry bowl (along with most grounds of that sort of design) cant easily be expanded without a fair amount of work going in to it.

[Billy1561]

I both agree and disagree with you!

I agree it would look ridiculous, but then again I like the thought of this tiny stand with the away fans in it and 55,000 Liverpool fans in towering stands dwarfing the away fans.

I also think its good planning from HKS and the club to allow very easy (and probably the cheapest way) to expand in the future, be it during construction or in the years after. If I remember rightly the old Parry bowl (along with most grounds of that sort of design) cant easily be expanded without a fair amount of work going in to it.

Can't recall the parry bowl capacity but i agree that the capacity was limited to the initial design ie: no scope for expansion.

[west_london_red]

Can't recall the parry bowl capacity but i agree that the capacity was limited to the initial design ie: no scope for expansion.

60,000 and it was a 'bowl' ie no seperate stands hence expansion would be very tough.

[Billy1561]

60,000 and it was a 'bowl' ie no seperate stands hence expansion would be very tough.

Cheers Sanj, i had it in my head that it was 60 thou but i wasn't brave enough to type it 

[Alan_X]

60,000 and it was a 'bowl' ie no seperate stands hence expansion would be very tough.

Not going into detail but expansion would have been relatively straightforward - an extra tier like the expansion of the San Siro for Italia '90. Would have meant a new roof but otherwise not that difficult.