http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9020351/Liverpool-look-to-end-legacy-of-false-promises-over-new-stadium-but-finance-remains-the-stumbling-block.htmlIt is not meant to be like this. Lavish new stadium plans, supposedly the catalyst for regeneration of one of the poorest areas of Britain, have stalled for over ten years.
While Liverpool FC's home plays hosts to its millionaire players and benefactors, its neighbours’ continue to wonder when the ageing promises will be kept.
Fenway Sports Group were left a shambolic inheritance by their predecessors, and if they underestimated the scale of the problem when they bought the club they are still coming to terms with it.
It was as far back as 2000 when Liverpool announced intentions to move to Stanley Park and committed itself to improving the surrounding areas. It is eight years since Liverpool City Council first granted them permission to do so.
The aspiration then was to move by 2007. Five years ago, a second planning application by ex-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr was also given the go-ahead.
Liverpool’s new owners are eager to end the legacy of false promises but are still unable to offer any timescale to residents or supporters as to when work can begin. They’ve avoided making any pledges of their own since day one.
By adopting the original, 2003 architects designs of Manchester-based AFL, they have at least ensured, technically, Liverpool could start constructing a new arena on Stanley Park tomorrow morning if the money was there. There is at least a promise, of sorts, to cling onto.
Liverpool supporters less than impressed with the favouring of the older plans need a reality check. Too many jump to the wrong conclusions based on a photograph. Any lack of enthusiasm would be churlish given the saga the club and residents have endured and dire need for a practical solution.
A new stadium is essential for the club and the surrounding area for a multitude of reasons, and although FSG must stick to the dimensions they’ve been given when they eventually build it, there is still plenty of scope to make it modern, unique and worthy of its association with Liverpool.
The problem for FSG is they’ve always been limited to one of the two designs for which the council granted planning permission. The AFL design with planning permission was dismissed by Hicks. A second AFL design in 2006 was also rejected by the Texan and never submitted to planners. His vision, championed by Dallas architects HKS, had an estimated cost of £400m three years ago and has been rising ever since.
Although the council gave it the green light, among its many flaws are 200 executive boxes covering two tiers of the stadium. Try filling them outside of London.
A spade did go into the turf of Stanley Park, ensuring that technically work began and the planning permission on both schemes has still not run out. That has bought the new owners time.
John W. Henry decided upon taking over Anfield he’d rather redevelop the existing ground. Liverpool fans cheered, but residents and city councillors did not join the applause.
Feasibility studies have focused purely on the architecture suggested redeveloping Anfield would be cheaper, while universally more popular among Liverpool fans. Another tier on the Anfield Road and Main Stand could extend the stadium to 60,000.
To suggest those plans encountered an obstacle would be an understatement. Think of several Olympic steeplechases and a few Grand Nationals and you may begin to brush the surface the hurdles FSG have been faced with.
Firstly, Liverpool City Council do not want Liverpool to stay put. They have maintained a firm position they want the move to Stanley Park and commitments to assist regeneration of Anfield to go ahead.
They still regularly float the idea of a groundshare on the park with Everton, and had Liverpool tried to pursue another new set of plans they’d undoubtedly be under more pressure to negotiate with the Goodison hierarchy.
Whatever the logical arguments are for this, they are repelled by severe emotional resistance and a brutal economic fact. Liverpool can afford to pay for half a new stadium. Everton cannot, unless they’re prepared to accept a tenancy (they have made it clear they never will).
Extending the current ground also has severe geographical disadvantages.
The terraced streets of Lothair Road, Alroy Road, Rockfield Road and on Anfield Road – referred to as the 'Rockfield Triangle' – are directly behind Liverpool's Main Stand. It is here where you will encounter the worst conditions, with ‘tinned up’ properties which have been empty for years.
For Liverpool to rebuild they will need most of these properties demolished, and that goes against a pledge to retain and renovate all the dwellings made by the council in their own redevelopment plans.
Liverpool could try to buy all the properties in vicinity themselves, but this brought more problems.
The cost of entering private negotiations with each home-owner or landlord is incalculable in terms of price and time.
One solution was the compulsory purchase of the properties by Liverpool City Council, but they have no wish to pursue this and it would be subject to a legal challenge if they tried to.
So Liverpool find themselves back where they were in 2004, when ex-Chairman David Moores decided to sell the club. They have the AFL stadium design and the permission to build it.
Now they just need the money.
