Topic: Ian Ayre interview on stadium

[west_london_red]

You are right to say we don't need to spend 15 years paying back a stadium. Until the Naming Rights results come in we simply don't know what the financial dynamics will be.

That so little has happened over the past twenty years as the football world as progressed and we have stood still has reflected an unwillingness to grasp the nettle. If we can redevelop successfully do it, if we can't  we move , or stagnate.

The cuurent Ayres position is coy and disingenuous. We have had two decades of pople telling us what people would like to do, but can't.

The bit in bold pretty much sums up where we are in my opinion.

[Peter McGurk]

I would love nothing more then a 60,000 seater Anfield, IF its possible (which seems far from guranteed), I have never disagreed with you there. My only concern is that we just do nothing for another 20 years while we argue this out with the council while costs continue to rise if we are forced to move and we carry on falling behind our rivals. If Moores and Parry had got their arse in gear when plans for a new stadium were first revealed, we could have paid for the damn thing by now. I just dont want that to repeat itself.

The study into a new stadium is dated 2002.  Thank God we didn't start building then, as it happens we would probably have gone bust with the extra load on the H&G finances but even if all had gone well, we'd still be paying for it and for many years to come.

You are right to say we don't need to spend 15 years paying back a stadium. Until the Naming Rights results come in we simply don't know what the financial dynamics will be.

That so little has happened over the past twenty years as the football world as progressed and we have stood still has reflected an unwillingness to grasp the nettle. If we can redevelop successfully do it, if we can't  we move , or stagnate.

The cuurent Ayres position is coy and disingenuous. We have had two decades of pople telling us what people would like to do, but can't.

We simply can't move back to your position of 'we don't know'.  This is prevarication beyond the measure of Moores and Parry.  We do know.  We do know that a redevelopment is better for us.  We do know that (of course) there are obstacles to be overcome.  We do know that naming rights will only make a second rate job out of a 'non-starter'.

We know what's best.  The club are on with it. We should help them, not call them.

[west_london_red]

The study into a new stadium is dated 2002.  Thank God we didn't start building then, as it happens we would probably have gone bust with the extra load on the H&G finances but even if all had gone well, we'd still be paying for it and for many years to come.

The 2002 stadium (although a horrid design from what I remember) cost only £120 million, and would have easily been paying for itself G&H or no G&H. If anything, if the stadium had been built in 2002 I very much doubt G&H would have ever crossed our paths.

[west_london_red]

We simply can't move back to your position of 'we don't know'.  This is prevarication beyond the measure of Moores and Parry.  We do know.  We do know that a redevelopment is better for us.  We do know that (of course) there are obstacles to be overcome.  We do know that naming rights will only make a second rate job out of a 'non-starter'.

We know what's best.  The club are on with it. We should help them, not call them.

You know thats only half true. Ayers comments were along the lines redevlopment is best, a new stadium isnt viable, we will have to look at naming rights. I can keep quoting that same line from Ayers to death, but it doesnt change things.

As for helping the club, is there anything we can practically do to help?

[xerxes1]

We simply can't move back to your position of 'we don't know'.  This is prevarication beyond the measure of Moores and Parry.  We do know.  We do know that a redevelopment is better for us.  We do know that (of course) there are obstacles to be overcome.  We do know that naming rights will only make a second rate job out of a 'non-starter'.We know what's best.  The club are on with it. We should help them, not call them.

You are right to expose the flaw in Ayre's statement.

He has said that redevelopment is preferable, but not possible at the moment, maybe ever. But that naming rights are being actively pursued.

So the practicalities of redevelopment and level of  naming rights remain unknown.

If there are obstacles to redevelopment that can be overcome, we should do so. If they cannot be overcome - he should say that too.

I have much sympathy for the club, in advance of bottoming out whether redevelopment is a dead end, or that Naming Rights will, or will not be suficient, any statment is a hostage to fortune.

The current mystery lies in extending the PP by three months. I do not believe that any obstacles to redevelopment will be resolved within three months, which appear unresolvable now.

[Peter McGurk]

You are right to expose the flaw in Ayre's statement.

He has said that redevelopment is preferable, but not possible at the moment, maybe ever. But that naming rights are being actively pursued.

So the practicalities of redevelopment and level of  naming rights remain unknown.

If there are obstacles to redevelopment that can be overcome, we should do so. If they cannot be overcome - he should say that too.

I have much sympathy for the club, in advance of bottoming out whether redevelopment is a dead end, or that Naming Rights will, or will not be suficient, any statment is a hostage to fortune.

The current mystery lies in extending the PP by three months. I do not believe that any obstacles to redevelopment will be resolved within three months, which appear unresolvable now.

Now, I thought we'd stopped playing silly games.  I made no case for a flaw in Ayres' statement and any attempt to re-open the options debate is futile and will waste more time.  We've moved on from the what, to the how.  Then we'll get to the when.

[LiverBirdKop]

The 2002 stadium (although a horrid design from what I remember) cost only £120 million, and would have easily been paying for itself G&H or no G&H. If anything, if the stadium had been built in 2002 I very much doubt G&H would have ever crossed our paths.

Imagine that. £120 million.....  And in 10- 15 years when we need a bigger stadium -again- how much will a new stadium cost then? £800m.? £1 Billion?

Yet to hear from anyone if it would be possible to go past 60k at a redeveloped Anfield in the future.

[helmboy_nige]

You are right to expose the flaw in Ayre's statement.

He has said that redevelopment is preferable, but not possible at the moment, maybe ever. But that naming rights are being actively pursued.

So the practicalities of redevelopment and level of  naming rights remain unknown.

If there are obstacles to redevelopment that can be overcome, we should do so. If they cannot be overcome - he should say that too.

I have much sympathy for the club, in advance of bottoming out whether redevelopment is a dead end, or that Naming Rights will, or will not be suficient, any statment is a hostage to fortune.

The current mystery lies in extending the PP by three months. I do not believe that any obstacles to redevelopment will be resolved within three months, which appear unresolvable now.

That's probably very true.  Which gets me wondering about which is taking priority.  Finding a naming partner for a new stadium or resolving the redevelopment issues.  Am sure they are working on both, but is there one they are actively pursuing more?

[Red Beret]

If we are looking to redevelop be prepared to wait another three years.  The council doesn't want to wait three years - in fairness they've been waiting ten already - but clearly FSG are in no mood to be bullied on the issue.  Who can tell if extending the PP deadline by three months is a gesture of goodwill or an attempt to turn the screw, or even a sign of someone who's bluff has been called?

[xerxes1]

If we are looking to redevelop be prepared to wait another three years.  The council doesn't want to wait three years - in fairness they've been waiting ten already - but clearly FSG are in no mood to be bullied on the issue.  Who can tell if extending the PP deadline by three months is a gesture of goodwill or an attempt to turn the screw, or even a sign of someone who's bluff has been called?

I agree.

If an obstacle to redevelopment is land ownership, it may never be resolves , in thre months, three years or three decades.

I believe the three month extension was a gesture of goodwill by the council- and a welcome one.

[Easy]

Quite simply there are obstacles to both options. Both sets of obstacles may never be overcome. We may not get sufficient naming rights income to make a new stadium viable and we not get the necessary permissions / land aquisitions etc to make large scale redevelopment an option.

And I thought staying at an un-redeveloped Anfield was not an option either?

The simpler/quicker option seems to be a new stadium IF they can get the naming rights sorted. Obviously FSG have a limit as to how much they want to borrow and what figure they need to make it viable - but in all honesty, I'd have hoped that they'd have had pretty good business cases drawn up before they bought the club for action on the new/redeveloped stadium of some sort.

Doing nothing, for whatever business reasons the owners may have, isn't an option for the club in the longer term. If the new owners don't have the means of increasing capacity (with whichever scheme) then they are not the owners I thought they were.

[Red Beret]

I think another point is an implication by Ayre that it is not economical to build a 60k stadium.  Modern facilities and increased capacity are welcome but the improved corporate facilities could in no way offset the extra cost of a brand new build. 

Building a bigger capacity seems a logical attempt to at least partially offset the economics - if you're spending, say, £350m on a 60k stadium but for an extra £20m you could get an extra 5,000 seats, why not?  But I doubt FSG see there being a viable economic case to do so.  And of course, it's not just the stadium.  We all know infrastructure overhaul needed to handle even an extra 15,000 fans turning up every other week.  They wont build it if they're not confident they can fill it and can build a transport system that can handle it.

If FSG sit down and say, "look we really feel redevelopment is the best way forward", will the council help resolve the obstacles on the table or will they just try and pile on the pressure for a move by threatening to drag it out?

[wiresnreds]

I wonder if it a ruse by the club to maybe get grants for a new stadium off the council by standing firm (ish) over redev instead of brand spanker !!!!   

[Zeb]

Yet to hear from anyone if it would be possible to go past 60k at a redeveloped Anfield in the future.

It would be. But we'd be running into exactly the same issues as would plague eg the HKS stadium should we ever decide to have a proper 'Anfield Road' end in it. Namely those around transportation links and who gets to pay for them and if it's us, whether the increased capacity would actually pay for opening up what would essentially be a new railway line. Fun stuff.

[mark82]

You are right to expose the flaw in Ayre's statement.

He has said that redevelopment is preferable, but not possible at the moment, maybe ever. But that naming rights are being actively pursued.

So the practicalities of redevelopment and level of  naming rights remain unknown.

If there are obstacles to redevelopment that can be overcome, we should do so. If they cannot be overcome - he should say that too.

I have much sympathy for the club, in advance of bottoming out whether redevelopment is a dead end, or that Naming Rights will, or will not be suficient, any statment is a hostage to fortune.

The current mystery lies in extending the PP by three months. I do not believe that any obstacles to redevelopment will be resolved within three months, which appear unresolvable now.

Think about how that would affect our naming rights negotiation position if we announced our only option is a new stadium. We are weakening our position with the 'right partner' approach (rightly so imho) so we still need a bargaining position.

You seem certain Peter that we will be redeveloping, I think you could be in for a huge disappointment.

[larrikin]

Redevelopment of two sides would take at least two seasons, possibly even three, so during that time the ground's capacity would be markedly reduced, with a consequent decrease in matchday revenue.
Playing in the middle of a building site in front of 30,000 or thereabouts would also not get the best out of our team. Just imagine the loss of atmosphere after huge chunks of the ground are levelled. The players would love that.
On the other hand, if a new stadium is built, there would be no loss of revenue at Anfield while construction takes place and all existing season-ticket holders would be able to continue watching games.
It's all very well making do with two new stands at Anfield but that would leave the smallish Kop and the dreadfully cramped Centenary, where no one over 5 foot has any chance to be comfortable. Kneeroom is a disgrace there and I for one am tired of standing up and down during a game to let people in and out.
Much as I love Anfield, we need a completely new stadium worthy of the 21st century, not a mishmash of a redevelopment that will look what it is, a second-rate, make-do-and-mend ground that will be obsolete in 20 years or less.
I just hope someone buys the naming rights and we can have a brand-new stadium with an awesome Kop.Then perhaps I'll be able to get the season ticket I've been waiting 20 years for.

 

[redhot-robbie]

Redevelopment of two sides would take at least two seasons, possibly even three, so during that time the ground's capacity would be markedly reduced, with a consequent decrease in matchday revenue.
Playing in the middle of a building site in front of 30,000 or thereabouts would also not get the best out of our team. Just imagine the loss of atmosphere after huge chunks of the ground are levelled. The players would love that.
On the other hand, if a new stadium is built, there would be no loss of revenue at Anfield while construction takes place and all existing season-ticket holders would be able to continue watching games.
It's all very well making do with two new stands at Anfield but that would leave the smallish Kop and the dreadfully cramped Centenary, where no one over 5 foot has any chance to be comfortable. Kneeroom is a disgrace there and I for one am tired of standing up and down during a game to let people in and out.
Much as I love Anfield, we need a completely new stadium worthy of the 21st century, not a mishmash of a redevelopment that will look what it is, a second-rate, make-do-and-mend ground that will be obsolete in 20 years or less.
I just hope someone buys the naming rights and we can have a brand-new stadium with an awesome Kop.Then perhaps I'll be able to get the season ticket I've been waiting 20 years for.

 

Can't agree with you.  most of the work can be done in the summer with little dissruption (exact details in another thread)  The main point as Ayre said is that revenues won't be massivley increased with a new stadium and the costs alot more.

With regards to waiting for a season ticket for 20 years, I'd check with the club that you are on the list because I know people who have only been on for 12 years who have got a ticket. 

[free_at_last]

Question for the architects(then I'll duck for cover). What sort of an increase(in boxes or seats) could be garnered from the Kop without running into the redevelopment issues we've got?
If we can't redevelop because of land/height issues with the other sides of the ground and a new stadium will cripple us with debt for the foreseeable future could anything be done with the Kop while leaving it's central core intact?. A Kop amended around the edges but which gave us an additional capacity could be preferable to moving to a new stadium(no Kop) or doing nothing especially if it's capacity was increased.

[itsgunnabebarnes!]

Just out of curiosity, but is there any other options that FSG may be looking into? other locations?

[larrikin]

Can't agree with you.  most of the work can be done in the summer with little dissruption (exact details in another thread)  The main point as Ayre said is that revenues won't be massivley increased with a new stadium and the costs alot more.

So two new stands can be built in a couple of months to the latest specifications and regulations with little disruption? I think not. The demolition work alone could take that much time, especially in the middle of such a cramped little site.
No, we need a spanking new stadium with a huge Kop that will be good for the next 50 years, not a higgledy-piggedly abortion of a redeveloped Anfield that will look dated the minute it's completed. 

[redhot-robbie]

So two new stands can be built in a couple of months to the latest specifications and regulations with little disruption? I think not. The demolition work alone could take that much time, especially in the middle of such a cramped little site.
No, we need a spanking new stadium with a huge Kop that will be good for the next 50 years, not a higgledy-piggedly abortion of a redeveloped Anfield that will look dated the minute it's completed. 

Firstly I understand the reasons for a new stadium, but I think financially and emotionally it makes sense to stay.

Secondly I do think the 2 stands can be replaced with little dissruption to attendence and capacity.  I am 99% sure this has been covered in another thread but let me use a real life example for you.

In the summer of 2008 Work began on the construction of the new North Stand – called the "Caterpillar Stand" after the club's main sponsor. The work was completed for the first home game of the 2009/10 season against Newcastle Falcons. The Caterpillar Stand has room for 10,000 spectators along with a 1,000 seat hospitality suite. At the end of the 2008/09 season three home games were played at the Walkers Stadium due to demolition of the old north stand.

So it can be done, we might have to get permission from the PL to play our last 3 games away at the end of the season but it can be done.

[Peter McGurk]

Question for the architects(then I'll duck for cover). What sort of an increase(in boxes or seats) could be garnered from the Kop without running into the redevelopment issues we've got?
If we can't redevelop because of land/height issues with the other sides of the ground and a new stadium will cripple us with debt for the foreseeable future could anything be done with the Kop while leaving it's central core intact?. A Kop amended around the edges but which gave us an additional capacity could be preferable to moving to a new stadium(no Kop) or doing nothing especially if it's capacity was increased.

Staying 'within the rules' as we understand them (ie., no higher and not sticking out over WBR) you could get to about 14,500 in the kop (it's 12,400 now).  Most of that would come from infilling the corners as 'wings' (like it used to be).  You could get a surprisingly large number of boxes in if you wanted to (plugging in at the back of the kop (about 24) - obviously quite high - and again in the corners (about another 12, lower down). 

So an additional 36 boxes at a reduced price for being on the end/ in the corner (pick a number) say £45,000 each and an extra 2,100 standard seats in the kop at £1200 revenue per seat is about £4m a year in additional revenue.  So maybe you could spend as much as £14m on it - it could work.  Replacing corner supports for the roof is not insignificant work but there's proven methodology kicking about (see Westfalen).

Firstly I understand the reasons for a new stadium, but I think financially and emotionally it makes sense to stay.

Secondly I do think the 2 stands can be replaced with little dissruption to attendence and capacity.  I am 99% sure this has been covered in another thread but let me use a real life example for you.

In the summer of 2008 Work began on the construction of the new North Stand – called the "Caterpillar Stand" after the club's main sponsor. The work was completed for the first home game of the 2009/10 season against Newcastle Falcons. The Caterpillar Stand has room for 10,000 spectators along with a 1,000 seat hospitality suite. At the end of the 2008/09 season three home games were played at the Walkers Stadium due to demolition of the old north stand.

So it can be done, we might have to get permission from the PL to play our last 3 games away at the end of the season but it can be done.

Yes, it can be done but you wouldn't need to be in such an expensive rush.  There is a lot of discussion elsewhere on here but basically work can go on all year round by building behind the existing stands and the roof replaced in the closed season.

Think about how that would affect our naming rights negotiation position if we announced our only option is a new stadium. We are weakening our position with the 'right partner' approach (rightly so imho) so we still need a bargaining position.

You seem certain Peter that we will be redeveloping, I think you could be in for a huge disappointment.

I'm rather more certain that a new stadium doesn't work for us but if we can't find a way around the obstacles to redevelopment, we could all be in for a huge disappointment.

[redhot-robbie]

Thanks Peter,  I thought I was right about the fact we wouldn't lose much revenue through the redevelopment of Anfield.  People make the assumption that redevelopment would naturally mean loss of revenue and use that as a reason for backing a new stadium.

[free_at_last]

Staying 'within the rules' as we understand them (ie., no higher and not sticking out over WBR) you could get to about 14,500 in the kop (it's 12,400 now).  Most of that would come from infilling the corners as 'wings' (like it used to be).  You could get a surprisingly large number of boxes in if you wanted to (plugging in at the back of the kop (about 24) - obviously quite high - and again in the corners (about another 12, lower down). 

So an additional 36 boxes at a reduced price for being on the end/ in the corner (pick a number) say £45,000 each and an extra 2,100 standard seats in the kop at £1200 revenue per seat is about £4m a year in additional revenue.  So maybe you could spend as much as £14m on it - it could work.  Replacing corner supports for the roof is not insignificant work but there's proven methodology kicking about (see Westfalen).

So no game changer there. I suppose it could be included in a total redevrelopment package if we were struggling for numbers especially as filling the sides in and adding capacity
shouldn't hurt the atmospherics.