Topic: Bascombe Story - let's wait for confirmation before discussing it ok?

[paulrazor]

Yes it maybe grasping at straws, just seems a decision according to the echo maybe closer than thought. As I said though in my post in no way am I an expert or even remotely knowledgeable about this subject but had seen this article in the echo hadn't been posted and just wanted to see what the regular posters on his thread thought and whether they could infer or read between the lines as to  e.g. the effect of where the demolition is taking place what homes are remaining etc, in relation to light or elevation if redevelopment was still an option?

yeah im no expert myself

i know as much or as little as anyone else

[Peter McGurk]

Yes it maybe grasping at straws, just seems a decision according to the echo maybe closer than thought. As I said though in my post in no way am I an expert or even remotely knowledgeable about this subject but had seen this article in the echo hadn't been posted and just wanted to see what the regular posters on his thread thought and whether they could infer or read between the lines as to  e.g. the effect of where the demolition is taking place what homes are remaining etc, in relation to light or elevation if redevelopment was still an option?

They are not the houses needed to redevelop Anfield:


Picture 17 by Peter McGurk, on Flickr

[Peter McGurk]

I do get the feeling that FSG are dodging a few questions on the new stadium. We are now 18 months into their tenure and they are still at the 'exploring all options stage'. At some point this turns into deliberate prevarication. As things currently stand I think it is fair to say the council has a bias towards 'new build' - hence the obstacles to redevelopment and FSG has a bias to redevelopment hence their wish for the obstacles to be removed. And what we have is a stalemate.

Of course this stalemate, is an excuse for FSG to do nothing except scour the earth in pursuit of a hopelessly optimistic sponsorship deal (that they even might know is unrealistic.) It is only once they get off the fence and say that a new build is unviable that the council will take a redevelopment proposal more seriously as the 'only option' and pressure can be brought to bear to compromise or remove the obstacles that currently stand in its way.

There are forthcoming changes in local government and their potential ability to work with the club on the redevelopment of Anfield and the regeneration of Anfield/Breckfield (essentially an elected mayor and partnership with private business with greater powers to buy, sell and invest). The new mayor may agree that is the right thing to do or he or she may not. In that context it may be better to wait till that happens. The elections are in May, so it may not be long to wait. On the other hand the 'Local Enterprise Partnership' may take longer to gel.

The alternative would be to decide. To announce that there's going to be a bag-load of premium seats in and hospitality suites under, the Main Stand next season without further land acquisitions and within the existing building 'envelope'. This, as a first step in a programme of redevelopment for the next four years, say (obviously that is the time it would take to build a new stadium anyway). In all probability (ie., it's not for me to say), that first step would not constitute 'development' and planning consent would not be required. However anything that goes beyond the current building 'envelope' clearly would.

You could say that would leave us as a hostage to future fortune but really, it would simply acknowledge that the new stadium cannot work for us and give us the time to get our shit together for a 60k (or 65k) Anfield.


.

[The Lord Admiral]

They are not the houses needed to redevelop Anfield:


Picture 17 by Peter McGurk, on Flickr

Do you think the that story and the stadium/redevelopment are linked though Peter?

[Peter McGurk]

Do you think the that story and the stadium/redevelopment are linked though Peter?

Everything is connected to everything else...

One option to move forward on a redevelopment would be to move the phasing of the Anfield/Breckfield Housing Regeneration around, to bring the houses behind the main stand up front - thus potentially releasing land for the redevelopment of Anfield. This came close - but no cigar.

While the area behind the main stand is not actually in the re-housing area, it might have been difficult to pull that off and who knows if there's any more money in the pot for council to try.

Which begs the question, why move any plans around at all?  - perhaps because these houses are ok to keep and it's about keeping houses rather than demolishing them. This is the original phasing for clearance. The article is about phases 6 and 7:


StanleyParkPhasingPlan by Peter McGurk, on Flickr




.

[Zeb]

Seems neutral as far as new ground or redevelopment is concerned then?

Interesting bit is that tiny little snippet about the Echo expecting a decision soon. "Are we nearly there yet?"

[Peter McGurk]

Seems neutral as far as new ground or redevelopment is concerned then?

Interesting bit is that tiny little snippet about the Echo expecting a decision soon. "Are we nearly there yet?"

Can you smell it?

.

[JCM]

The article states there will be 90 houses (presumably empty ones) demolished near to Anfield.  Surely this increases the prospects for any redevelopement plan ?

[Peter McGurk]

The article states there will be 90 houses (presumably empty ones) demolished near to Anfield.  Surely this increases the prospects for any redevelopement plan ?

Assuming the 90 demolished homes are 90 houses rather than 90 flats, it would about two to three streets (Bagnall, Baltic and Gillman Streets). But you would have to assume the intention was to re-build in due course.

[Zeb]

Can you smell it?

.

Nah, but I am being deafened by the sound of so many throats being cleared on both sides of the Atlantic.

[chuckberry]

Redevelopment is the best idea. Money wise. If we can't redevelop then a shared stadium with Everton is the second best. Building a new stand-alone stadium can work if enough cashes tipped in from the owners. WHich it won't be.

[CraigDS]

Redevelopment is the best idea. Money wise. If we can't redevelop then a shared stadium with Everton is the second best. Building a new stand-alone stadium can work if enough cashes tipped in from the owners. WHich it won't be.

A shared stadium shouldn't even be considered an option.

[chuckberry]

shared stadium is more affordable therefore more chance of winning the league. Half the cost. Add a naming right sponsor who gets twice the coverage and you have dynamite. Call it Liverpool stadium. Personally think we should end all the dislike of everton and move on with winning. If it was shared a 65,000 seater would be terrific. Used every week during the season. Surrounded by shops to bring in some more cash. Terrific.

[CraigDS]

shared stadium is more affordable therefore more chance of winning the league. Half the cost. Add a naming right sponsor who gets twice the coverage and you have dynamite. Call it Liverpool stadium. Personally think we should end all the dislike of everton and move on with winning. If it was shared a 65,000 seater would be terrific. Used every week during the season. Surrounded by shops to bring in some more cash. Terrific.

Everton can't afford it for one. And they have no need for a 65k for another. Plus 99% of fans don't want it.

[west_london_red]

shared stadium is more affordable therefore more chance of winning the league. Half the cost. Add a naming right sponsor who gets twice the coverage and you have dynamite. Call it Liverpool stadium. Personally think we should end all the dislike of everton and move on with winning. If it was shared a 65,000 seater would be terrific. Used every week during the season. Surrounded by shops to bring in some more cash. Terrific.

There will be riots in the streets of Liverpool before there is a shared stadium.

[chuckberry]

Everton can just buy 25%. Plenty of stadiums operate with a certain level of excess capacity. The point is its used every week so the exposure and usage is way more. We are hoping LFC draws 65,000 every two weeks. Now if everton bought 25% of the stadium we could draw115,000 every two weeks. That's a way better deal and LFC would get half the Everton gate proceeds as we would own 75%.
Riots? I'm sure you exaggerate. What kind of person would riot to keep his mums team from sharing the same ground?

[CraigDS]

Everton can just buy 25%. Plenty of stadiums operate with a certain level of excess capacity. The point is its used every week so the exposure and usage is way more. We are hoping LFC draws 65,000 every two weeks. Now if everton bought 25% of the stadium we could draw115,000 every two weeks. That's a way better deal and LFC would get half the Everton gate proceeds as we would own 75%.
Riots? I'm sure you exaggerate. What kind of person would riot to keep his mums team from sharing the same ground?

So we subsidise Everton basically? Yeah that'll get the fans on side - theirs anyway.

Are you a local? Not wanting to turn this isn't a local vs OOT but the only fans I've heard in favour of a ground share so far are ones who are OOT and either never been and get to know the area and both sets of fans or have been and are ignorant to what the local fans in the city want.

[Peter McGurk]

Everton can just buy 25%. Plenty of stadiums operate with a certain level of excess capacity. The point is its used every week so the exposure and usage is way more. We are hoping LFC draws 65,000 every two weeks. Now if everton bought 25% of the stadium we could draw115,000 every two weeks. That's a way better deal and LFC would get half the Everton gate proceeds as we would own 75%.
Riots? I'm sure you exaggerate. What kind of person would riot to keep his mums team from sharing the same ground?

Everton can't buy 1% of anything. "LFC would get half the Everton gate proceeds...", so Everton will pay money they haven't got to effectively reduce the benefit of their attendance by half. Right.

[Zeb]

I like the idea of groundshare. Everton and Tranmere would make a really good fit.

Chuckleberry - your idea falls on its arse as soon as you realise Everton's most optimistic predictions for revenue from a 50k stadium are £30m a year. They currently get around £20m at Goodison. It doesn't add up mate if you spend a couple of minutes thinking about it.

[frosty]

What no announcement even though the owners were in town!

[Zeb]

Sooooo. Bascombe's story seems to have been correct, judging from Ayre's interview on LFC.tv? 2003 AFL design with tweaks is the option on the table for a new build should the naming rights boat come in, redevelopment still being investigated.

[Alan_X]

Everton can just buy 25%. Plenty of stadiums operate with a certain level of excess capacity. The point is its used every week so the exposure and usage is way more. We are hoping LFC draws 65,000 every two weeks. Now if everton bought 25% of the stadium we could draw115,000 every two weeks. That's a way better deal and LFC would get half the Everton gate proceeds as we would own 75%.
Riots? I'm sure you exaggerate. What kind of person would riot to keep his mums team from sharing the same ground?

Please don't take this the wrong way but that's utter shite.

[Alan_X]

Are you a local? Not wanting to turn this isn't a local vs OOT but the only fans I've heard in favour of a ground share so far are ones who are OOT and either never been and get to know the area and both sets of fans or have been and are ignorant to what the local fans in the city want.

He's not. And sadly it was entirely predictable. It's not OOT vs local though. It's whether you get to the match and understand the city.

[Suarez 7]

The fans should try raise some money for the stadium. There is 10s of millions worldwide, I am sure we could raise a lot.

[eirwen]

Can we actually raise the money? Like how the chelsea fans ended up owning their stadium? I'm sure the cost would be much more now but realistically is it an option?

[Brian Blessed]

Can we actually raise the money? Like how the chelsea fans ended up owning their stadium? I'm sure the cost would be much more now but realistically is it an option?

The Chelsea fans paid a total of a few million for the pitch and Chelsea name. Basically a pittance simply to ensure the club wouldn't lose the ground as they had come close to that previously.