Topic: *Poll* Redevelop Anfield or a new stadium ?

[Peter McGurk]

It is a matter for the council, I can assure you that the Highways Agency couldn't give a rat's arse about Anfield Road and would never, under any circumstances be consulted about it. By the way I'm not arguing the point about whether or not it can be closed, re-routed or bridged just that it is LCC that will make that decision.

You may be absolutely right. Be that as it may and on the face of it, Anfield Road satisfies the criteria for bridging, deviation or closure (under-use/alternatives available).

[Redric1970]

I'm 100% for redeveloping anfield, but I attended the Olympic stadium today and was very impressed, the atmosphere was fantastic, made me forget yesterday's debacle. Any idea when our owners are going to tell us what's going on, I tell you what we can drag things out, this stadium will be completed in 2075 the way we are going.

[Peter McGurk]

I'm 100% for redeveloping anfield, but I attended the Olympic stadium today and was very impressed, the atmosphere was fantastic, made me forget yesterday's debacle. Any idea when our owners are going to tell us what's going on, I tell you what we can drag things out, this stadium will be completed in 2075 the way we are going.

We won't hear until the land, park and road issues are nailed on certainties. Meanwhile we're going to see short term/low cost/high return enhancements and adjustments at Anfield (fan zone, family park, family/corporate marquee, better hospitality, tv screens, ticket deals, wider price range, more beer, bigger boot room....) to maximise/make the most of what we've got.

Eventually there will have to be an application for major works at Anfield and that will be public knowledge. The club won't put that application in until they're pretty sure it will get consent and the success of the team justifies the expansion of a stadium that's already doing a lot more than it does now.

When that will be depends on all those things.

[CraigDS]

FYI those TV screens that were meant to be going up at either end of the Centenary havent been intalled yet.

[Rob Dylan]

We won't hear until the land, park and road issues are nailed on certainties. Meanwhile we're going to see short term/low cost/high return enhancements and adjustments at Anfield (fan zone, family park, family/corporate marquee, better hospitality, tv screens, ticket deals, wider price range, more beer, bigger boot room....) to maximise/make the most of what we've got.

Eventually there will have to be an application for major works at Anfield and that will be public knowledge. The club won't put that application in until they're pretty sure it will get consent and the success of the team justifies the expansion of a stadium that's already doing a lot more than it does now.

When that will be depends on all those things.

Could you hazard a guess on when, roughly, they might be able to put in that application, assuming everything goes more or less to plan and there are no major hiccups along the way? And once such an application is made, what would be the approximate timescale for the Council to accept / reject it? I realise that it is far from an exact science, but are we looking at it being submitted in the next six months, twelve months, two years?

[Peter McGurk]

Could you hazard a guess on when, roughly, they might be able to put in that application, assuming everything goes more or less to plan and there are no major hiccups along the way? And once such an application is made, what would be the approximate timescale for the Council to accept / reject it? I realise that it is far from an exact science, but are we looking at it being submitted in the next six months, twelve months, two years?

No. As I said, it depends on all those things and there isn't a time scale for any of them.

[Redric1970]

Thanks Peter, at least things seem to be happening.

[Rob Dylan]

No. As I said, it depends on all those things and there isn't a time scale for any of them.

So, sometime in the next ten years then

Do you think there might come a point in the future, if it drags on too long and they can't make progress with the Council, where the owners will just abandon the whole idea? They don't seem keen on a brand new stadium (and I understand the reasons why), but if redevelopment ultimately does not seem feasible, is doing nothing an option?

[CraigDS]

So, sometime in the next ten years then

Do you think there might come a point in the future, if it drags on too long and they can't make progress with the Council, where the owners will just abandon the whole idea? They don't seem keen on a brand new stadium (and I understand the reasons why), but if redevelopment ultimately does not seem feasible, is doing nothing an option?

They are making progress with the council. It is more a matter of time, not if.

[Rob Dylan]

They are making progress with the council. It is more a matter of time, not if.

Fair enough, they must be pretty confident they can ultimately get approval if they're going to the trouble of buying up houses, etc...but like you say, they just don't know how long it will all take.

Makes you wonder why Moores / Parry were so convinced that redvelopment was impossible. Did they just not investigate it thoroughly, or has the Council's opinion changed since the new stadium was first proposed?  Apologies if this has already been covered earlier in the thread.

[Peter McGurk]

So, sometime in the next ten years then

Do you think there might come a point in the future, if it drags on too long and they can't make progress with the Council, where the owners will just abandon the whole idea? They don't seem keen on a brand new stadium (and I understand the reasons why), but if redevelopment ultimately does not seem feasible, is doing nothing an option?

Doing nothing obviously is an option if you're ready to abandon the financial top four (currently Real Madrid, Barcelona, United, Bayern Munich) and hence (so the model goes) giving up on being great again. Clearly Man City are anomalies. They don't make so much money (as yet).

Chelsea may struggle when/if FFP bites but despite it being ‘all down to Abramovitch’, they’re already sixth behind Arsenal in terms of revenue.

I’ve nothing to base it on but intuitively, Arsenal seems to be maxed out. Having done the stadium and sold the flats and the city in a spin, you have to wonder where the growth is coming from.

City have already laid the ground for future revenue increase and will go from strength to strength financially.

United are going to have a difficult (financial) season and the Glaziers may yet lose their grip on the money.

So, you'd like to think that Bayern could be the example to follow. Massive commercial revenues and relatively low matchday revenue ie., still got plenty but have cheap tickets - ideal for the fan. But as it is Bayern don't quite compete for players at the same level as the big spenders.

We are not at the same financial level as even Bayern, so one or two things might/must happen. Either player costs fall generally (in relative terms it is probably happening already - certainly on its peak in 2008) which will not affect our competitiveness (player costs will fall for all) or, we cut our own player costs (definitely happening) and still maintain quality (well, that was the plan) or, we build up the total business (Commercial, TV, Matchday).

The logic would be that we might do even better than Bayern’s commercial deals with our 'global fanbase' but passing RM say, would mean more than doubling total revenue...  ooh, er. Clearly we need increased matchday revenue (as a piece of the total picture) to get close, even in the EPL but global and commercial revenue must be the priority. And, matchday revenue is the hardest and most expensive to increase and can be a stunning risk to take. Done incorrectly it can ruin us.

So, no rush. Prioritise the other stuff, maximise matchday revenue from what we’ve got (ie., with all the bolt-on goodies, fan zones, marquees etc etc) and expand Anfield incrementally at lower cost and when justified by success on the pitch. Thus at significantly lower risk of it all going wrong and being stuck with unsustainable debt (again).

.

[Peter McGurk]

Fair enough, they must be pretty confident they can ultimately get approval if they're going to the trouble of buying up houses, etc...but like you say, they just don't know how long it will all take.

Makes you wonder why Moores / Parry were so convinced that redvelopment was impossible. Did they just not investigate it thoroughly, or has the Council's opinion changed since the new stadium was first proposed?  Apologies if this has already been covered earlier in the thread.

It's easy now to discount the resistance that Moores and Parry encountered to redevelopment then. The changes in attitude of all concerned has been massive.

[Rob Dylan]

Doing nothing obviously is an option if you're ready to abandon the financial top four (currently Real Madrid, Barcelona, United, Bayern Munich) and hence (so the model goes) giving up on being great again. Clearly Man City are anomalies. They don't make so much money (as yet).

Chelsea may struggle when/if FFP bites but despite it being ‘all down to Abramovitch’, they’re already sixth behind Arsenal in terms of revenue.

I’ve nothing to base it on but intuitively, Arsenal seems to be maxed out. Having done the stadium and sold the flats and the city in a spin, you have to wonder where the growth is coming from.

City have already laid the ground for future revenue increase and will go from strength to strength financially.

United are going to have a difficult (financial) season and the Glaziers may yet lose their grip on the money.

So, you'd like to think that Bayern could be the example to follow. Massive commercial revenues and relatively low matchday revenue ie., still got plenty but have cheap tickets - ideal for the fan. But as it is Bayern don't quite compete for players at the same level as the big spenders.

We are not at the same financial level as even Bayern, so one or two things might/must happen. Either player costs fall generally (in relative terms it is probably happening already - certainly on its peak in 2008) which will not affect our competitiveness (player costs will fall for all) or, we cut our own player costs (definitely happening) and still maintain quality (well, that was the plan) or, we build up the total business (Commercial, TV, Matchday).

The logic would be that we might do even better than Bayern’s commercial deals with our 'global fanbase' but passing RM say, would mean more than doubling total revenue...  ooh, er. Clearly we need increased matchday revenue (as a piece of the total picture) to get close, even in the EPL but global and commercial revenue must be the priority. And matchday revenue is the hardest and most expensive to increase and can be a stunning risk to take. Done incorrectly it can ruin us.

So, no rush. Prioritise the other stuff, maximise matchday revenue from what we’ve got (ie., with all the bolt-on goodies, fan zones, marquees etc etc) and expand Anfield incrementally at lower cost and when justified by success on the pitch and thus at significantly lower risk of it all going wrong and being stuck with unsustainable debt (again).

.

Thanks for that, that makes a lot of sense. So it's less a case of needing a bigger stadium urgently in order to get the money to compete (which is what we were told when this whole thing started), and more a case of maximising other revenues, staying competitive and then expanding when we can afford it.

[Coady]

Peter, would FSG have the plans and Designs for a redeveloped Anfield at 60-65k actually down on paper? Or would they get the land, then drag it out further by then getting the design done? Thanks.

[CraigDS]

Peter, would FSG have the plans and Designs for a redeveloped Anfield at 60-65k actually down on paper? Or would they get the land, then drag it out further by then getting the design done? Thanks.

I think Henry/Werner/Ayre has said in the past they have plans for a redevelopment. If they are solid plans is another thing, but would guess to do a proper analysis they would of got a fair way down the road with it.

[Peter McGurk]

Peter, would FSG have the plans and Designs for a redeveloped Anfield at 60-65k actually down on paper? Or would they get the land, then drag it out further by then getting the design done? Thanks.

FSG have no interest in dragging anything out beyond its time. They're being careful not stupid. They're looking after our club and their investment.

They would need only have a 'high-level' block plan for discussions with council, more for illustrative purposes, an assessment that redevelopment is technically feasible and an outline scheme for costing purposes. Why pay for detail plans (of both options) when one set would go in the bin? Why spend money on land you don't own or control?

[LiverpoolKopKings]

FSG have no interest in dragging anything out beyond its time. They're being careful not stupid. They're looking after our club and their investment.

They would need only have a 'high-level' block plan for discussions with council, more for illustrative purposes, an assessment that redevelopment is technically feasible and an outline scheme for costing purposes. Why pay for detail plans (of both options) when one set would go in the bin? Why spend money on land you don't own or control?

Sound reasoning that, not like the 2 cancers