Topic: Ian Ayre interview on stadium

[Zlen]

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/ian-ayre-interview-on-stadium

Ian Ayre interview on stadium


Managing Director Ian Ayre speaks to Liverpoolfc.tv in China about the latest news regarding the stadium plans.

Can you give us an overview of the latest on the stadium?

It's been a much discussed topic for a long time now and I think of late there has been a lot in the media and a lot of pressure to make a statement on where we are. What's important to us has been finding the right solution and that's always been the case, certainly in the last nine months. We've looked at both options. One is a refurbishment of Anfield, the other is a new stadium in Stanley Park. With regards the refurbishment, the type of work that's been going on (in the last nine months) has been developing plans and drawings that look at what is possible with Anfield, and that has incorporated a study into the extension of the Main Stand and a study into the extension of the Anfield Road End. Both of these, if successful, could deliver an 60,000-plus seater, which would be great, but it comes with whole other challenges and whole other areas we have to investigate. There has been a lot of frustration around that because there are lots of other people who have to come together or be a part of the process in order for us to deliver. That's been very challenging, particularly property acquisition and other areas of red tape, as most people would call it.

On the new stadium it's been about finding the right economic model. I know a lot of our fans and other people have said to me personally - why can't we just build it? We get lots of people who are desperate to come and watch Liverpool, but what people don't think of a lot of the time is that we don't get 60,000 new seats when we build a stadium - we only get the difference between Anfield currently and whatever we build. The economics of that difference don't really stack up in the medium term for a return for Liverpool. It would be a huge investment with very little financial gain. On its own that doesn't look like a viable proposition, so what we're having to do is explore an opportunity for naming rights. Naming rights is something that's been in the media recently for a number of reasons and it's something we're very actively looking at but it just takes time. Our deal with Standard Chartered, which was a ground breaking deal, took over a year to put together, and other similar types of deals we've been involved in have taken time. The pressure is there with people wanting an answer, but it's not an answer we can give right now.

Is it fair to say there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes to progress the naming rights if you do go with the new stadium model?

Yes, absolutely. We have a big team, a big partnership team at the club and we also utilise the services of Fenway Sports Management, our ownership group, who have a sales team in that category as well. Many, many people are working on it but it's not just about finding a partner, it's about finding the right partner - somebody who fits with the football club, as our other partners do. While our business development has been strong, we've been very selective, and that would also be the case with naming rights. It just takes time. It's a big world, there are a lot of brands - we just have to find the right one.

You mention the frustration, but since the new owners have come in, do you feel like significant progress has and is being made?

Yes, absolutely. In a way it's been a little bit disappointing for them because they've come in and done a fantastic thing in the first place by bringing the club back together. Their first few months was about getting feet under the table, understanding what they'd bought and the direction we were taking. There were all manner of things going on, like changes in managers and all kinds of things. So the real work in earnest probably was six or seven months ago when we started looking at this. Anyone out there who has ever been involved in a major construction project would, I think, pretty much determine seven months to be a very short time. That's all it's really been, because if you go buy a new house, you don't look at what the previous owner had in terms of his ideas for it. They are their own people and so they should be. They'll do what they think is right for Liverpool Football Club. While a lot of people, particularly residents, feel a little bit aggrieved that it's been a long process, and we understand that, for these people who are now trying to make this happen, it's been a very short time.

Whenever we hear about a new stadium project we always hear about the redevelopment of Anfield. What's Liverpool's view of the regeneration project?

Regeneration is a much wider issue, I think. It's wider than just Anfield and wider than Liverpool Football Club, certainly. We've always been committed to playing our part in it but I think some people think our part is a bigger one than it really is. Our commitment is to make sure we provide something in the area and make sure that whatever we do is commensurate with the development of that area. Whether that's bringing more jobs because we're bringing more people, whether it's bringing a better facility that attracts more people - this is all in our mind. We've made a huge investment with everyone else in regenerating Stanley Park itself - many millions were invested into that. We are committed to the regeneration but it's important that people understand what Liverpool's part is, what small part Liverpool plays in that big opportunity.

You mention there is always a clamour for answers in terms of when is it going to happen and disappointment over the delay so far but in terms of making this decision, how important is it to get it right, to make sure it's the correct one for Liverpool going forward?

It can only be the right one. No amount of pressure will force Liverpool Football Club to make a decision quickly for the wrong reasons. We've all seen and felt and discovered how the wheels can come off if you make the wrong decisions at a football club, particularly this one. So we'll make the right decision at the right time, whatever that is and whenever that is. It has to be in the long-term interests of Liverpool Football Club. That's what everybody here is focused on.

[TepidT2O]

Thanks for posting that.


So redevelopment makes more sense financially.


A new stadium only makes sense if we can get a lucrative naming deal.

[Mal]

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/ian-ayre-interview-on-stadium

Ian Ayre interview on stadium


Managing Director Ian Ayre speaks to Liverpoolfc.tv in China about the latest news regarding the stadium plans.


On the new stadium it's been about finding the right economic model. I know a lot of our fans and other people have said to me personally - why can't we just build it? We get lots of people who are desperate to come and watch Liverpool, but what people don't think of a lot of the time is that we don't get 60,000 new seats when we build a stadium - we only get the difference between Anfield currently and whatever we build. The economics of that difference don't really stack up in the medium term for a return for Liverpool. It would be a huge investment with very little financial gain. On its own that doesn't look like a viable proposition, so what we're having to do is explore an opportunity for naming rights. Naming rights is something that's been in the media recently for a number of reasons and it's something we're very actively looking at but it just takes time. Our deal with Standard Chartered, which was a ground breaking deal, took over a year to put together, and other similar types of deals we've been involved in have taken time. The pressure is there with people wanting an answer, but it's not an answer we can give right now.

I've emboldened the bit I think is most important, building 60,000 doesn't generate 60,000 new seats, it generates about 15,500 new seats at the cost for the cost of an entirely new stadia.

It doesn't help my view of the council that Joe Anderson is a dyed-in-the-wool bitter. Obstacle, obstruction & obfuscation?

[LiverBirdKop]

Although it's true that we'd just be getting an extra 16,000 seats either way, you'd think we'd also be getting bigger and better corporate amenities with a new stadium. Parking, restrooms, concessions, access, more premium seats, ability to further increase capacity if need be etc etc.

Here's one of the parts that stood out for me the most:

The economics of that difference don't really stack up in the medium term for a return for Liverpool.

Medium term. I go back to what's been bugging me since FSG acquired the club considering John Henry has said, even recently, that there is no money in sports(for ownership).

Why are the group of -investors- now known as FSG investing money in ownership of a sports club and in a sport they admittedly knew very little about? What is their strategy?



John Henry: Unless you are a player, manager or agent, there is NO money in the sports business. (Quoted tweet)

[west_london_red]

"On its own that doesn't look like a viable proposition, so what we're having to do is explore an opportunity for naming rights"

Thats the key line to me. The new stadium doesnt make sense, but with naming rights...

[xerxes1]

Ayre's is not covering himself in glory on this one, is he? By contrast Joe Anderson's statement was more informative - and robust.

The question has never been about whether redeveloping Anfield is the cheaper option, it self evidently is - it is whether you CAN redevelop it to the requisite level of capacity and facility.
What IS the problem? Land acquisition COULD be a deal breaker. Red tape is a smoke sceen. Either a scheme is consistent with current legislative requirements, or it is not.

That Naming Rights will make of break this I have long since predicted. I am delighted that the formidable resources of FSG in this regard are available.

Ayre's is right to say that FSG have no responsibility for regeneration, it si first and foremeost to their investors, which made his "medium term" comment telling. This decision affects the long term future of our club - it should not be about  a get rich quick scheme for FSG (although it might be).

His comments about them starting from scratch suggest, as I suspected, that there is no chance of the G&H scheme being implemented - which begs the question regarding the significance of the three month extension on planning. Why bother?

[helmboy_nige]

The comment about only getting 15000 more seats if you build a new stadium are misleading.  Surely a both a new stadium or a redevelopment offers the scope to also add more corporate boxes.  Anfield currently has 30 (or is it 31?) boxes while the likes of the emirates has 150.

Now I don't have any wish to see any LFC stadium become all about corporate hospitality, but naturally, a new stadium will include a significant increase in this.  At £60,000 per box it is a big increase.  Of course this increase could also happen in a redeveloped anfield, but any increase in seats at either location will surely also include an increase in the corporate provision.

[Red Beret]

Echo's take on things:

LIVERPOOL FC’s managing director Ian Ayre said the club will not be rushed into reaching a decision on their stadium.

In his latest interview, the Kirkdale-born executive said that the club would not bow to pressure and make a snap decision for the “wrong reasons.”

Mr Ayre also said that building a new stadium with increased capacity “does not stack up” in the medium term, due to the massive investment required.

He said: "It's been about finding the right economic model. I know a lot of our fans and other people have said to me personally – why can't we just build it?

"We get lots of people who are desperate to come and watch Liverpool, but what people don't think of a lot of the time is that we don't get 60,000 new seats when we build a stadium – we only get the difference between Anfield currently and whatever we build.

"The economics of that difference don't really stack up in the medium term for a return for Liverpool. It would be a huge investment with very little financial gain."

Mr Ayre also discussed the option of extending the Main Stand and the Anfield Road End at the club’s current home but recognised the mass of red tape that would need to be cut through.

He said: “Both of these, if successful, could deliver a 60,000-plus seater, which would be great, but it comes with whole other challenges and whole other areas we have to investigate.

“There has been a lot of frustration around that because there are lots of other people who have to come together or be a part of the process in order for us to deliver. That's been very challenging, particularly property acquisition and other areas of red tape, as most people would call it.”

The former Litherland High pupil recognised the flurry of media interest in Liverpool FC’s next naming rights contract and said that the next deal would be crucial to the club’s future.

He said: “Naming rights is something that's been in the media recently for a number of reasons, and it's something we're very actively looking at but it just takes time.

“Many, many people are working on it but it's not just about finding a partner, it's about finding the right partner – somebody who fits with the football club, as our other partners do.

“We've been very selective and that would also be the case with naming rights. It just takes time. It's a big world, there are a lot of brands – we just have to find the right one.”

Speaking to Liverpoolfc.tv in China, Mr Ayre also acknowledged the club’s commitment to the regeneration of the wider Anfield area.

He said: “Regeneration is a much wider issue I think. It's wider than just Anfield and wider than Liverpool Football Club certainly. We've always been committed to playing our part in it but I think some people think our part is a bigger one than it really is. Our commitment is to make sure we provide something in the area and make sure that whatever we do is commensurate with the development of that area.

“Whether that's bringing more jobs because we're bringing more people whether it's bringing a better facility that attracts more people.”

As I see it, Ayre is acknowledging that the club is prepared to do a lot of legwork on expanding Anfield; legwork the previous regimes - Moores and Parry especially - were never prepared to do.  But they're only prepared to do it if they feel there is widespread support for that decision.  Certainly the response from the council on the matter has been lukewarm.  Joe Anderson may have been honest enough in his assessment and merely pointing out the potential hurdles but he is also trying to pressure the club into a quick decision and I don't think FSG like that.

[Peter McGurk]

The comment about only getting 15000 more seats if you build a new stadium are misleading.  Surely a both a new stadium or a redevelopment offers the scope to also add more corporate boxes.  Anfield currently has 30 (or is it 31?) boxes while the likes of the emirates has 150.

Now I don't have any wish to see any LFC stadium become all about corporate hospitality, but naturally, a new stadium will include a significant increase in this.  At £60,000 per box it is a big increase.  Of course this increase could also happen in a redeveloped anfield, but any increase in seats at either location will surely also include an increase in the corporate provision.

Although it's true that we'd just be getting an extra 16,000 seats either way, you'd think we'd also be getting bigger and better corporate amenities with a new stadium. Parking, restrooms, concessions, access, more premium seats, ability to further increase capacity if need be etc etc.

Here's one of the parts that stood out for me the most: Medium term. I go back to what's been bugging me since FSG acquired the club considering John Henry has said, even recently, that there is no money in sports(for ownership).

Why are the group of -investors- now known as FSG investing money in ownership of a sports club and in a sport they admittedly knew very little about? What is their strategy?

John Henry: Unless you are a player, manager or agent, there is NO money in the sports business. (Quoted tweet)

We all know, yes we all know that the corporate facilities at Anfield can match a new stadium.  Yes, we do.  How else could Ayres say that the income from both is roughly equal?

It doesn't take a massive leap to work out that the medium term lack of return to the club from a new stadium is down to having to pay off the significant debt.

[richmiller1]

We all know, yes we all know that the corporate facilities at Anfield can match a new stadium.  Yes, we do.  How else could Ayres say that the income from both is roughly equal?

Because he is being glib in the extreme?

[Peter McGurk]

Because he is being glib in the extreme?

Is he??  In that case you could say dangerously and about to lose his job glib!!!

[richmiller1]

Is he??  In that case you could say dangerously and about to lose his job glib!!!

More like 'pushing for a certain public reaction' glib.

I can just about buy the notion that on a NPV basis in the medium to long term that redevelopment is the best option.

I struggle more with the suggestion that a new stadium and a redeveloped anfield will provide the same levels of income. Maybe if you design the new stadium purposefully so that it provides that exact limited income level then I guess its possible........... I would however be left questioning the competence of those in charge in that case

[LiverBirdKop]

We all know, yes we all know that the corporate facilities at Anfield can match a new stadium.  Yes, we do.  How else could Ayres say that the income from both is roughly equal?

Well, he is an employee of FSG so he's toeing the company line. How many boxes would the new stadium have and how many can realistically be added to Anfield? I believe Anfield has around 30 now?

It doesn't take a massive leap to work out that the medium term lack of return to the club from a new stadium is down to having to pay off the significant debt.

Refurbishment also has to be paid back. It's going to be less obviously, but how much less would it be than a new stadium with naming rights like the one Ayre is suggesting for eg/?

And one more question for you Peter. Let's say we redevelop Anfield to 60,000 seats. 10 years from now, after a couple Premier Leagues and a CL, would it be possible to add another 10k at Anfield if needed? Be honest.

[Peter McGurk]

Well, he is an employee of FSG so he's toeing the company line. How many boxes would the new stadium have and how many can realistically be added to Anfield? I believe Anfield has around 30 now?
Refurbishment also has to be paid back. It's going to be less obviously, but how much less would it be than a new stadium with naming rights like the one Ayre is suggesting for eg/?

And one more question for you Peter. Let's say we redevelop Anfield to 60,000 seats. 10 years from now, after a couple Premier Leagues and a CL, would it be possible to add another 10k at Anfield if needed? Be honest.

Be honest!!!  No mate, i just make up this shit to keep myself amused.

[Peter McGurk]

More like 'pushing for a certain public reaction' glib.

I can just about buy the notion that on a NPV basis in the medium to long term that redevelopment is the best option.

I struggle more with the suggestion that a new stadium and a redeveloped anfield will provide the same levels of income. Maybe if you design the new stadium purposefully so that it provides that exact limited income level then I guess its possible........... I would however be left questioning the competence of those in charge in that case

This is terribly old ground.  Why can you not accept that the club has looked at it and come to a conclusion?  In the real and serious world whre 1oos of millions are kicking about, serious people do not make glib or devious statements that can be so easily exposed.

There is only so much the market can stand (here we go again), the most it might be is about £1430 per seat or £85m for a 60k stadium.  This is based on best case in the region (OT). There is a commonly used ratio, borne out by experience that about 10-12% of the attendance generates about 50% of the income.  At 60k, you're looking at about 6,000 to 7,200 premium seats including boxes.  You can build as many boxes as you think you can sell within that number.  OT has about 150.  On the same ratio we'd be thinking about 140.  Some we hear think this is too many - nevertheless they can be fitted in and a lot more besides (there are currently 31).  To give you an idea, the Main Stand can accommodate 96 boxes (sic) on three separate levels if you really wanted it too.  Boxes can be in the corners but are best left out of the ends as are the premium seats.  It's all do-able.  There is no question about it.

There is ample space behind on a number of levels for corporate and hospitality suites, bars and snack bars.  There's even room for parking.  It really is not a problem.

[LiverBirdKop]

Be honest!!!  No mate, i just make up this shit to keep myself amused.

Oooh, so touchy. So what was your answer again?

[xerxes1]

Echo banner headline tonight"Reds Will Not Be Rushed on New Stadium"......................................................................just the twenty years....................

[richmiller1]

There is a commonly used ratio, borne out by experience that about 10-12% of the attendance generates about 50% of the income.  At 60k, you're looking at about 6,000 to 7,200 premium seats including boxes.  You can build as many boxes as you think you can sell within that number.  OT has about 150.  On the same ratio we'd be thinking about 140.  Some we hear think this is too many - nevertheless they can be fitted in and a lot more besides (there are currently 31).  To give you an idea, the Main Stand can accommodate 96 boxes (sic) on three separate levels if you really wanted it too.  Boxes can be in the corners but are best left out of the ends as are the premium seats. It's all do-able.  There is no question about it

Ah......I see you can pull off this whole ‘glib’ thing with aplomb too!

Now as much as you might like to pretend otherwise, you know full well there is a big big difference between what is achievable in theory and then what is actually achievable in reality. You are also more than intelligent enough to understand that the gap between the two is a damn sight smaller if you start from scratch.

So yes, in theory it would be possible to give Anfield 140 boxes like in a sunken, built from scratch stadium one hundred yards away. Trouble is this nasty thing called reality starts to impinge on such plans.

AFL and HKS didn’t have half their Stanley Park stadiums nestled underground because we quite like digging. Its enormously expensive and really wasn’t included in the design brief lightly. It was done to help secure planning permission and if it wasn’t felt necessary it wouldn’t have been done. A 60k stadium isn’t just big, its enormous and the light issues that arise from building it in a residential area are equally sizeable.

Just adding 16,000 seats to the mainstand and Annie road is probably going to result in a height increase of at least a third to each stand. If you want to start adding three floors of executive boxes the problem gets even worse. And this is no relatively slender tower block we are talking about here. The main stand alone is going to be circa 100m long and probably the best part of 50M deep .On top of all of this you are looking at one of the largest roof spans of any stand in the country.  Make no mistake they are going to be monolithically huge buildings when finished. The north stand at Old Trafford is probably the most reasonable comparison in terms of size.

Plonk a building like that in a residential area and the light issues are frightening. Not only are the houses already affected going to be affected for considerably longer each day, you also bring hundreds of houses that were previously unaffected into play. For most they will probably only be affected for less than an hour a day, but compensation would likely still be payable. Those houses closer to the ground could be plunged into shadow for almost half a day during the winter months. Compensation for that sort of thing is, as you might imagine, not all that minor. Make no mistake also that there will be plenty of people whom compensation will not placate.

Getting the Kemlyn redevelopment off the ground took and age. Getting the new stadium design approved was equally torturous both times, despite our efforts to minimize its impact. It doesn’t take much to see that a redevelopment on this scale is unlikely to win planning permission in anything less than the medium term and is certain to be called in for review by the government.


And even if I join you and Ayre in glossing over reality and agree that:

• planning permission is achievable in the near future and that compensation claims and objections won’t be an issue
• that we can put in three levels of exec boxes on the main stand and on match day there will be no appreciable difference in income with 60k capacity
• that this won’t leave Anfield looking ridiculous
• that capacity in a new stadium would never increase beyond 60k; and
• that an ‘Anfield Plaza’ and the revenue it could generate should be completely ignored from match day analysis

........ there is still the elephant in the room of non match day income.

• Can a redeveloped Main Stand realistically fit in features like a large underground car park without the budget starting to rival a new stadium?  Really?
• With only two stands being redeveloped can you design in as much multiuse space or revenue earning potential as would be possible if building four stands from scratch?
• Would a redeveloped stadium be entirely surrounded by a landscaped park and make an attractive venue for those that don’t like views of an empty football stadium?
• Is there an Anfield Plaza equivalent in the club’s redevelopment plan?

   


My conclusion........ if you can’t make more revenue out of a new stadium then you’re just not trying hard enough.

That’s not to say that the increased costs associated with a new stadium couldn’t render it economically the weaker option in the long run, or less affordable initially when compared to redevelopment..........but that isn’t the argument here. The bone of contention is revenue and in reality neither you nor Ayre has a leg to stand on in peddling that line.

[helmboy_nige]

Agree.  While I'm sure it's completely possible to add 140 boxes to Anfield and increase capacity to 60,000, that's not a small overhaul and you would imagine would affect at least 3 sides of the stadium.  While it is cheaper to work with what you have, you are left with inevitable compromises that you don't have with a new stadium.

I should add that I would prefer to stay at Anfield if all of these things (increased capacity, opportunities for further increases in 10/20/30 years etc) are all worked out and not just possible in theory, but completely practical.

[Peter McGurk]

Ah......I see you can pull off this whole ‘glib’ thing with aplomb too!...

...The bone of contention is revenue and in reality neither you nor Ayre has a leg to stand on in peddling that line.

Nothing glib here, lots of study, lots of research, lots of work and not only from the club!

There are many people who spend their lives closing the gap between theory and ‘accepted’ reality.  These are the people who do things, the rest don’t.  Having said that I would say that the gap between financial expectation and reality is a lot wider in a new stadium and that’s why the club don’t want to go there either.

As I recall, only HKS wanted to bury a significant part of the stadium below ground.  That’s because their design was huge and bigger than it needed be.  AFL’s design simply took advantage of the slope, which is significant - about 14m Anfield Road to Priory Road (and yes it is, don’t anyone even bother to say otherwise!)

Adding 16,000 seats will not add a third - take a look at option A on the website - it’s about 58,400 but keeps everything within the height of the existing highest stand (the Centenary).  That’s your comparison - look at the Centenary.

Boxes do not add height per se - this is old territory - I'm sorry, you’ll have to look it up.

As to ROL, we’ve also been through this and recently but there’s a scheme to be done that satisfies club and community, bearing in mind that ALL of the houses to the North and the West are either gone, due to be gone or are under review.  Shadow has nothing whatsoever to do with rights of light - it’s about daylight and the proportion of sky ‘you’ can see from your window (I say ‘you’ because the vast majority of the houses concerned are empty!!!)

If the application is called in it will only be because one side is not being as helpful as they might be.  Now who would that be?  Well, the owners of all this vacant property are council (big way), council via Arena, LFC and a few (8 out of 72 in Lothair Road for example) ‘independents’.

In my view and lots of people have agreed with me (and thank you again for your comments), there has been at least one scheme where a redeveloped Anfield looks pretty ok thank you very much.

There has been a plan within council strategy for the regeneration of Walton Breck Road akin to the Anfield Plaza since before 2002.  Only since the deal for the park came along was that plan sidelined.  Now that the club doesn’t want the park any more, it’s about time this was looked at again.

Non-match day income is an issue for a redevelopment and for a new stadium.  Both can have massive banqueting facilities but the pitch cannot be used for concerts and the like in a new stadium (while it currently can at Anfield).

There are six or seven levels of structure in a developed stand - you don't need three of them for hospitality.  It’s ‘cheap’ (you have to build it anyway) - might as well use it for parking (but NOT underground)

You can build as much ‘multi-use space’ stand for stand as you can in a new stadium.  You can even add it to ‘un-redeveloped’ stands, including the Kop (although you would be mad to do it).

It’s pretty tough to tell whether a stadium is full or not by looking at it from the outside!  Anfield is part of the city.  It’s an urban place.  Keep the trees for the parks (with a redevelopment, you could even keep the trees that are in the park...)

My (and seemingly the club’s) conclusion is that if you can’t make money from a new stadium, it either costs too much or it costs too much for the people who are meant to afford to go there.  Or, it just costs too much.  No matter how hard you try you can’t ‘over-capitalise’ the market.  Or, if you want to build a house in... say Kirkdale (sorry) that you need to sell for half a million to cover costs, you’re going to lose your arse.

And this is a vitally important point - the most revenue you can get is the most that we can collectively afford.  You can build a stadium to get the most you can out of that but you can’t build one that will get you one penny more.  These are the legs any sound proposition stands on.



One (only) question for you.  if the man with all the support, knowledge and expertise at his disposal has looked at it and says redevelopment is the more economically viable option despite the obvious obstacles, why would you hanker for a new stadium???

[richmiller1]

One (only) question for you.  if the man with all the support, knowledge and expertise at his disposal has looked at it and says redevelopment is the more economically viable option despite the obvious obstacles, why would you hanker for a new stadium???

If at the end of the day that is the genuine conclusion and the result isn't a half arsed compromise which limits us from here to eternity then I will accept it gladly......... i'm just going to want to see some evidence that that really is the case and that it is genuinely deliverable and finally that FSG aren't using this as a way of maximising the value of the club in the medium term (5-15 years), when as investors they might rationally be looking to sell, rather than what is best for the club in the long term (30 years +). Some detail from the club would be nice at this point.

You might need to point me the direction of your website btw......

[xerxes1]

One (only) question for you.  if the man with all the support, knowledge and expertise at his disposal has looked at it and says redevelopment is the more economically viable option despite the obvious obstacles, why would you hanker for a new stadium???

I think the answer is in your question. A solution which is only economically viable when obstacles are overcome is not viable if those obstacles cannot be overcome.

[Peter McGurk]

If at the end of the day that is the genuine conclusion and the result isn't a half arsed compromise which limits us from here to eternity then I will accept it gladly......... i'm just going to want to see some evidence that that really is the case and that it is genuinely deliverable and finally that FSG aren't using this as a way of maximising the value of the club in the medium term (5-15 years), when as investors they might rationally be looking to sell, rather than what is best for the club in the long term (30 years +). Some detail from the club would be nice at this point.

You might need to point me the direction of your website btw......

I can see that risk but I don't think that in this instance it particularly matters or that there would be terribly dire consequences.

For the long term, even in the context of the falling importance of matchday revenue (it is), right now 60k is the absolute limit by legal and binding consent on a new stadium.  Not one seat more.  Should we ever think we need more than that, we must re-apply and do all those good and expensive things with railway lines and the rest.  This is the legacy of the previous consent, like or lump it.  We might never want to or need to, go beyond that but if we do, we have an opportunity now to put the principles in place.

That said, we have a long overdue and burning issue concerning matchday revenue that requires at least a very short term resolution and certainly a mid term solution (with very good to rock solid prospects for the long term). Certainly a new stadium fails in the short and medium term for want of building it and then paying for it.  This is a very real and pressing problem and it seems mostly why it is not preferred.

Whereas very rapid improvements in revenue can be made at Anfield without necessarily lengthy planning wrangles (I'm talking about make the hospitality better and adding the first phase of new capacity and boxes within the existing building envelope, NOW).  Progressive redevelopment in the short term would be at both less cost and less burden of debt.  The cash going out is less and for a shorter period and the income coming in is quicker and surer.  In short, the short term is very much better and the medium term is shorter and more fruitful.

Now it could be FSG's aim to sell out in the medium term (I really do doubt it but maybe they will) but so what?  Our very immediate and overdue problems have been met, we are not waiting another 15 years for the financial benefit to help us to win stuff without which we need not have bothered at all and we have a plan in place for the future.


here

[xerxes1]

Whereas very rapid improvements in revenue can be made at Anfield without necessarily lengthy planning wrangles (I'm talking about make the hospitality better and adding the first phase of new capacity and boxes within the existing building envelope, NOW).  Progressive redevelopment in the short term would be at both less cost and less burden of debt.  The cash going out is less and for a shorter period and the income coming in is quicker and surer.  In short, the short term is very much better and the medium term is shorter and more fruitful.

I accept much of what you say there, apart from the last sentence which does not allow for the unknown contribution which naming rights might offer.

In your always interesting CGI's on the link you make one claim which is incorrect. It would be impossible to rebuild two stands without loss of matchday revenue.

Could you confirm the existing height of the Main Stand, and the height of the new Main stand in your illustration? Also could you confirm if land outside of the existing ownership around the Main Stand and pedestrian thorough fare would be required for your illustration for the Main Stand, and if so, how much more?

[Peter McGurk]

I accept much of what you say there, apart from the last sentence which does not allow for the unknown contribution which naming rights might offer.

In your always interesting CGI's on the link you make one claim which is incorrect. It would be impossible to rebuild two stands without loss of matchday revenue.

Could you confirm the existing height of the Main Stand, and the height of the new Main stand in your illustration? Also could you confirm if land outside of the existing ownership around the Main Stand and pedestrian thorough fare would be required for your illustration for the Main Stand, and if so, how much more?

I'm sure Ian Ayre is fully up to speed with any negotiations and discussions concerning naming rights.  He will be aware what the likely level will be and seemingly he still believes that a redevelopment is more economically viable.  From the horse's mouth to you.

As you well know, these are more than CGis or pretty pictures.  The construction methodology has been independently and authoritatively verified and can permit construction all year round without disruption of matchday revenue. 

Since there are any number of combinations of variations even within the three options put forward, I am very reluctant to release data that might mislead.  However I have already said Option A is within the height of the existing Centenary Stand.  Other options are higher.  I have also said that Lothair Road would need to be cleared both with respect to safety and ROL but not for actual space for the stand itself. 

The stand itself is (relatively) low profile (also being added to an existing relatively low profile stand) whilst maintaining a 'c-value' of 90 or greater and being within the maximum permitted angle of rake.  Whilst each private box has a very reasonable entertainment area behind its (external) seats, the resultant additional height is minimal.

As I said, quite high but not as high as you would think.

[Zeb]

Peter - are you willing to put a very rough approximation of the difference in cost between redevelopment and new build? Appreciate you may not want or be willing to, so know it's cheeky to ask.

[xerxes1]

I'm sure Ian Ayre is fully up to speed with any negotiations and discussions concerning naming rights.  He will be aware what the likely level will be and seemingly he still believes that a redevelopment is more economically viable.  From the horse's mouth to you.

As you well know, these are more than CGis or pretty pictures.  The construction methodology has been independently and authoritatively verified and can permit construction all year round without disruption of matchday revenue. 

Since there are any number of combinations of variations even within the three options put forward, I am very reluctant to release data that might mislead.  However I have already said Option A is within the height of the existing Centenary Stand.  Other options are higher.  I have also said that Lothair Road would need to be cleared both with respect to safety and ROL but not for actual space for the stand itself. 

The stand itself is (relatively) low profile (also being added to an existing relatively low profile stand) whilst maintaining a 'c-value' of 90 or greater and being within the maximum permitted angle of rake.  Whilst each private box has a very reasonable entertainment area behind its (external) seats, the resultant additional height is minimal.

As I said, quite high but not as high as you would think.

Regarding Naming Rights, that is not what he said. Negotiations are ongoing, result unknown and not to be anticipated. The economic viability observation was exclusive of Naming Rights

There is no chance whatsoever of two stands being constructed , offering 37,000 seats, which do not disrupt match day revenue. I should remind you that the close season is not even four months, you yourself refer to “construction all year round”. There is the clue. The idea that you could build around the existing structures ( a deeply flawed concept in itself)and maintain capacity whilst doing so is mistaken.

For clarity, are you suggesting that a 37,000 Main Stand/ Annie Rd combination , offering  37,000 seats, an additional 15,000 seats would have heights that don’t exceed the height of the current 11,762 capacity Centenary Stand? (Assuming a 13,500 capacity AR the Main Stand would need to offer 22,500 seats).

The key point here is the one you make about the need to acquire further land. If it is not possible to secure that land, the “viable option”, is not.

[Peter McGurk]

Regarding Naming Rights, that is not what he said. Negotiations are ongoing, result unknown and not to be anticipated. The economic viability observation was exclusive of Naming Rights

There is no chance whatsoever of two stands being constructed , offering 37,000 seats, which do not disrupt match day revenue. I should remind you that the close season is not even four months, you yourself refer to “construction all year round”. There is the clue. The idea that you could build around the existing structures ( a deeply flawed concept in itself)and maintain capacity whilst doing so is mistaken.

For clarity, are you suggesting that a 37,000 Main Stand/ Annie Rd combination , offering  37,000 seats, an additional 15,000 seats would have heights that don’t exceed the height of the current 11,762 capacity Centenary Stand? (Assuming a 13,500 capacity AR the Main Stand would need to offer 22,500 seats).

The key point here is the one you make about the need to acquire further land. If it is not possible to secure that land, the “viable option”, is not.

He did not offer the qualification of naming rights to his statement of economic viability and you well know it.

You think the concept of building around existing structures is deeply flawed but you clearly haven’t looked at it or where it has been done elsewhere and you have shown no expertise or knowledge in the matter.  I don't stand alone in putting this forward and I have some extremely well qualified judges as company.

I did not ever suggested that the development of two stands alone and within the height of the centenary would reach 60,000.  You are dreaming.

There are many things that would make an otherwise viable option, not.  It is ‘viable’ to build a new stadium but it won’t make money (or very little indeed), for example.

Peter - are you willing to put a very rough approximation of the difference in cost between redevelopment and new build? Appreciate you may not want or be willing to, so know it's cheeky to ask.

No, but I will give you some historic and general comparative information.  Option B is a complex and costly scheme, involving lots of curved 'terracing' and quite a 'bold' roof design.  It also has a new roof over the Centenary and Kop stands which really was only necessary to give it a unified appearance.  It also has underground facilities below the pitch.  Nevertheless that was costed at 'only' about 65% of the cost of a new stadium at the time.

New 'Regional' stadia run to about £3,500 a seat and national stadia about £5,000 a seat (source: Davis Langdon Quantity Surveyors).  From memory the last seats that Man U did, turned out at about that figure (in a similar redevelopment context), perhaps slightly less.  We will need to build about 18,000 seats.  To give you a very rough-as-a bear's-armpit idea, that equates to about £90m construction cost or an entirely theoretical 25% of the current known cost of a new stadium.  Personally, I've always been reasonably comfortable to say 50% to 70%.

[west_london_red]

He did not offer the qualification of naming rights to his statement of economic viability and you well know it.

To repeat what i posted earlier, from Ayers:

"On its own that doesn't look like a viable proposition, so what we're having to do is explore an opportunity for naming rights"

Thats suggests to me that he is qualifying the viability with naming rights, that without naming rights the new stadium is a non-starter, but with naming rights its possibily viable.

[Peter McGurk]

To repeat what i posted earlier, from Ayers:

"On its own that doesn't look like a viable proposition, so what we're having to do is explore an opportunity for naming rights"

Thats suggests to me that he is qualifying the viability with naming rights, that without naming rights the new stadium is a non-starter, but with naming rights its possibily viable.

Yes that is so, but the issue here is the statement that a redevelopment was the more economically viable option regardless of naming rights for a new stadium.

[its cold in the stands]

To repeat what i posted earlier, from Ayers:

"On its own that doesn't look like a viable proposition, so what we're having to do is explore an opportunity for naming rights"

Thats suggests to me that he is qualifying the viability with naming rights, that without naming rights the new stadium is a non-starter, but with naming rights its possibily viable.

even then the money from the naming rights isnt going to be enough to cover the cost of building a new stadium, the club will still be going into a lot of debt and it will take a long time to pay it off, we are only gaining 15,000 extra seats.

[Peter McGurk]

even then the money from the naming rights isnt going to be enough to cover the cost of building a new stadium, the club will still be going into a lot of debt and it will take a long time to pay it off, we are only gaining 15,000 extra seats.

Which as I said earlier makes it dead in the water.  Who wants to wait 15 more years to improve the finances?

[Zeb]

No, but I will give you some historic and general comparative information.  Option B is a complex and costly scheme, involving lots of curved 'terracing' and quite a 'bold' roof design.  It also has a new roof over the Centenary and Kop stands which really was only necessary to give it a unified appearance.  It also has underground facilities below the pitch.  Nevertheless that was costed at 'only' about 65% of the cost of a new stadium at the time.

New 'Regional' stadia run to about £3,500 a seat and national stadia about £5,000 a seat (source: Davis Langdon Quantity Surveyors).  From memory the last seats that Man U did, turned out at about that figure (in a similar redevelopment context), perhaps slightly less.  We will need to build about 18,000 seats.  To give you a very rough-as-a bear's-armpit idea, that equates to about £90m construction cost or an entirely theoretical 25% of the current known cost of a new stadium.  Personally, I've always been reasonably comfortable to say 50% to 70%.

Appreciate that Peter. Thank you.

[west_london_red]

even then the money from the naming rights isnt going to be enough to cover the cost of building a new stadium, the club will still be going into a lot of debt and it will take a long time to pay it off, we are only gaining 15,000 extra seats.

None of us have a crystal ball to know how much we can raise in naming rights, and based on the deal with Standard Chartered and rumoured deal with Warrior I wouldnt underestimate what the club can achieve when it comes to naming rights, although I dont doubt that loans or additional investment from the owners will be required. We also do not know how much expansion of Anfield will cost, and that too will presumably be funded by debt.

Personally, if the increase in revenue from a new stadium covers any loan repayments ie its breaks even, then its worth building a new stadium assuming Anfield cannot be suffiently extended. We may not see any benefit of a new stadium, but future generations will at least.

[xerxes1]

The impasse is clear.

The redevelopement project is currently unproceedable.

The new stadium project requires a big naming rights deal.

Let's see what gives first.

[Peter McGurk]

The impasse is clear.

The redevelopement project is currently unproceedable.

The new stadium project requires a big naming rights deal.

Let's see what gives first.

Classic sales talk; a proposition that begs the pitch.

None of us have a crystal ball to know how much we can raise in naming rights, and based on the deal with Standard Chartered and rumoured deal with Warrior I wouldnt underestimate what the club can achieve when it comes to naming rights, although I dont doubt that loans or additional investment from the owners will be required. We also do not know how much expansion of Anfield will cost, and that too will presumably be funded by debt.

Personally, if the increase in revenue from a new stadium covers any loan repayments ie its breaks even, then its worth building a new stadium assuming Anfield cannot be suffiently extended. We may not see any benefit of a new stadium, but future generations will at least.

And a recipe for failure.  We could sit in our new stadium and watch the competition go by and by the time that future comes, we won't need it. 

Only a contractor or a bank would be happy, which is just about where 'I came in'.

[west_london_red]

...and a recipe for failure.  We could sit in our new stadium and watch the competition go by and by the time that future comes, we won't need it. 

Only a contractor or a bank would be happy, which is just about where 'I came in'.

Or we could dogmatically stay at a 45,000 seater Anfield and watch the competition go by and by the time that future comes, realise we did need it. 

Only a supporter of Manchester United, Everton, Arsenal, Chelsea or Manchester City would be happy.

[Peter McGurk]

Or we could dogmatically stay at a 45,000 seater Anfield and watch the competition go by and by the time that future comes, realise we did need it. 

Only a supporter of Manchester United, Everton, Arsenal, Chelsea or Manchester City would be happy.

We already know we don't need to spend 15 years paying back a stadium.

Rather we can front up to the obstacles and sit in a redeveloped Anfield and enjoy the fruits of our input and by the time the future comes, we’ll be ready for it.  Which seems to be precisely what the club is doing and for which they deserve our support not our continued scepticism.

Only we and the club would be happy, which is still just about where 'I came in'.

[west_london_red]

We already know we don't need to spend 15 years paying back a stadium.

Rather we can front up to the obstacles and sit in a redeveloped Anfield and enjoy the fruits of our input and by the time the future comes, we’ll be ready for it.  Which seems to be precisely what the club is doing and for which they deserve our support not our continued scepticism.

Only we and the club would be happy, which is still just about where 'I came in'.

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.

[xerxes1]

We already know we don't need to spend 15 years paying back a stadium.

Rather we can front up to the obstacles and sit in a redeveloped Anfield and enjoy the fruits of our input and by the time the future comes, we’ll be ready for it.  Which seems to be precisely what the club is doing and for which they deserve our support not our continued scepticism.

Only we and the club would be happy, which is still just about where 'I came in'.

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.