Topic: Bollocks to the new stadium

[nidgemo]

You like to take the opposite view eh Cally.

Drama queen alert, how will moving over the road look when Chelsea and Man United are still out spending us while Arsenal out perform us with a fraction of our current spending and we're wobbling with a massive debt programme while the mancs still get 16,000 more than us?

Is that the massive debt programme that will be easily funded by the new stadium and gives us upwards of £10 million a season more for the transfer kitty than we currently have?

[nidgemo]

Meanwhile, a question...

I found this while browsing about.

How recent is this model, because the original designs had open corners and two same sized goal ends...

Would I be right in saying that this is a much newer model than any of us has seen, or does it only date back to the time of the last set of closed corner impressions?

This one appears to have the fabled increased size kop end, closed corners and some other recent improvements which have been mentioned in relation to the latest planning submission but never seen... (such as the underground parking entrance to te right side)

[Paul]

How recent is this model, because the original designs had open corners and two same sized goal ends...

That is the original, open cornered, Estadio da Luz / Jose Alvalade rip off design.

The next revision is pretty much the same, but with the corners filled in. .tv have a few images

[nidgemo]

That is the original, open cornered, Estadio da Luz / Jose Alvalade rip off design.

The next revision is pretty much the same, but with the corners filled in. .tv have a few images

The corners ARE filled in with terracing on that one...

Plus, even the revised design still had identical sized goal ends - this one definately has a significantly increased kop end (at the right hand side - the anny road is on the left hand side)

looking at that, the kop end will be even bigger than either of the side stands - easily 20-25,000 in there. Which is nice.

[ttnbd]

The corners ARE filled in with terracing on that one...

Plus, even the revised design still had identical sized goal ends - this one definately has a significantly increased kop end (at the right hand side - the anny road is on the left hand side)

looking at that, the kop end will be even bigger than either of the side stands - easily 20-25,000 in there. Which is nice.

Problem is that the Anny Road stand and the opposite side aren't the goal ends.

[GibletII]

Is that the massive debt programme that will be easily funded by the new stadium and gives us upwards of £10 million a season more for the transfer kitty than we currently have?

You may have had a point when the stadium was 'only' costing £110 million or whatever.

Someone do the maths and let us know how the increased amount can be financed and still have healthy cash flow inwards. Not assuming ticket prices will be £45 like.

[GibletII]

The corners ARE filled in with terracing on that one...

Plus, even the revised design still had identical sized goal ends - this one definately has a significantly increased kop end (at the right hand side - the anny road is on the left hand side)

looking at that, the kop end will be even bigger than either of the side stands - easily 20-25,000 in there. Which is nice.

Arf.

Do you ever go to the match or pay any attention?

[ttnbd]

You may have had a point when the stadium was 'only' costing £110 million or whatever.

Someone do the maths and let us know how the increased amount can be financed and still have healthy cash flow inwards. Not assuming ticket prices will be £45 like.

Been done many times, do a search.

[GibletII]

No it hasn't.

You've made woolly statements, no credible answers.

What will 15,000 extra seats and the new corporate and 'executive' facilities contribute in cash terms to Liverpool FCs turnover?

How much will the stadium cost?

How will it be financed?

Does Liverpool FC have the werewithall to sell the extra tickets/box's/padded seats etc., bearing in mind they consistantly fail to service an under supplied market?

Do a search my arse, what for, to read presumed bluster and second guesses?

[rednich85]

I've read somewhere that because of Arsenals matchday bookings executive stuff at the Emirates, they have already equalled 1 years sales receipts for Highbury

Then again, it could be a load of c*nt

[Rushian]

Do a search my arse, what for, to read presumed bluster and second guesses?

But isn't that all you're coming out with?

[Ben S]

The whole stand was rebuilt from scratch actually Paul. and when you consider the restricted views in the lower tier it makes you realise what a crap job they did!

They had no choice, the council wouldn't give permission to build it over the road or to redirect the road so we ended up with shite because the council would only let us have shite.

If it had been Everton, the council would probably have let it be done properly and paid for it.

[Joe Rogans Chin]

I want a new stadium. We need a new stadium. Christ! We're only moving across the road, hardly the deLiverpooling of Liverpool some negative drama queens would have you believe.

If you could redevelop Anfield to have the same capacity as the new stadium at the same projected cost or even cheaper then i'd choose that a million times out of a million.

The point is that at the srart of the Millenium the new ground was going to cost 80 million, now it's 180 million and rising.

If what the lad said about a new feasability study being true, I'd be over the moon.

[GibletII]

But isn't that all you're coming out with?

Not wholly true but certainly not inaccurate on your behalf.

Does anyone outside the inner circle really know what's happened to get to this point or what will happen?

I doubt it, that's why I'm amazed we still have people with such tunnel vision that they can't even talk about the issue without getting uber defensive or snidey.

[Cally77 v2.0]

I'm amazed we still have people with such tunnel vision that they can't even talk about the issue without getting uber defensive or snidey.

Sounds like you 

[ttnbd]

Do a search my arse, what for, to read presumed bluster and second guesses?

So you are saying that no one can give an informed opinion on matters relating to the new stadium?

I deal with financial forecasts every day, have looked at the financial aspects of LFC in great depth, which I believe entitles me to give an informed opinion on how the stadium is likely to be financed.  If you don't want to know then that's your perogative, but don't just dismiss everything as being garbage just because you don't agree with it.

It doesn't matter if someone has inside knowledge or not, it doesn't mean it should stop people making an educated cost/benefit analysis of the new stadium.

[richmiller1]

Hi all. Having been a silent viewer on this forum for a fair number of years now I've decided to poke my head above the parapet and make my first post which I hope is not too controversial.

I've read numerous rumours and opinions on a matter very close to my heart concerning the latest developments of the new stadium. I've also seen many posts questioning why the existing stadium could not be redeveloped…many of which have usually been ridiculed.

It appears most of you are aware that a feasibility study on the redevelopment of Anfield was carried out several years back. However how many of you are aware that it was only this time last year that the club revisited the idea yet again. I do not know the specifics of the original feasibility study but I am aware that a number of the design constraints had been (or in some cases potentially could have been) removed during the intervening period. Coupled with the fact that the estimated cost of the new development was spiralling out of control (rumours at the time had this at £200mil+ & now I hear that figure is between £250 and £300mil…but hey these are only rumours and I’m no QS...though arguably that probably means I'm quite accurate ) this prompted the club to once again cast their eye over the potential redevelopment of Anfield.

In short this is what I do know is possible regarding the redevelopment of Anfield:

I) It is possible to redevelop with no loss of capacity during construction. It would be carried out in a series of phases over 3-4 seasons. Critical works (e.g. Roof installation) would be carried out in the close season.

II) A simple structural solution is adopted so not much risk associated there. The complexity and cost is in the programming and extent of the temporary works required to ensure continued circulation around the ground is maintained.

III) The fundamental concept involved extending the Anfield Rd and Main stand. The removal of the upper tier of the Anfield road and option of replacing the existing Main stand follow the completion of these extensions to ensure no loss of revenue. This would create an extra 15000 seats taking the capacity up to the 60000 figure.

IV) Corporate boxes & suites would be incorporated within these new developments.

V) The roof to the Kop and Centenary stand would be removed. Works behind the Kop and Centenary stand would bring the external façade in line with the architectural language of the new developments to the Anfield road and Main stand.

VI) A single roof would then be installed encompassing the entire stadium. This roof takes the shape of a simple elegant form ensuring the rights of light to the properties on Skerries Rd and Walton Breck Rd would not be compromised.

VII) The phasing of the redevelopment would also allow the club to build as and when they could afford to so say for example the performance of the team did not meet that forecast by the club the financial risks would be reduced.

The club are aware of this solution and also the costs estimations being circa 120-130 as of autumn 2005. What had been tabled was only an initial feasibility study. They were not shown any scheme design as such detailing the potential appearance of the roof; however initial scheme designs had been done in anticipation of the club requesting that the study be taken further. One example is to imagine a similar form to that of the Allianz stadium roof sloping down towards flagpole corner. This particular design may have added a few more pennies to the original estimate but it has never been costed.

It is understood that a new consulting engineer in the form of SKM Anthony Hunt has now been appointed to replace the previous engineers Arup (ironically these being the designers of Valencia's stadium being praised on this forum). I can only assume this was an attempt by the club to seek a cheaper structural solution to the new stadium based on the current scheme design produced by AFL (…or, thinking wishfully , is another study looking at the redevelopment of Anfield).

I have not read anything on this forum which has presented a valid reason why the redevelopment is not feasible. I can only assume that the removal of some of those constraints that prompted the new study did not actually come to fruition, i.e. the club could not purchase the property they required behind the Main stand and Anfield road. Admittedly the planning applications etc would have to be have been reprocessed but that is by no means an insurmountable hurdle in the grand scheme of things.

If the club is pressing ahead with the new stadium, as appears to be the case, clearly they do not wish to divulge the reason(s) why they can't redevelop Anfield particularly as they are being told by experienced professionals that there is a feasible, cheaper...and arguably more popular solution out there for the taking. Whilst I wait with baited breath for the club to reveal all if anyone cares to offer that single mind-blowingly obvious reason that I and many others have overlooked then fire away.

Unfeasable  in itself for one reason.

 Planning permission. It may have escaped your attention but getting to this point with the new stadium has been tough enough.

A fairly well organised group of local opponents managed to push a scheme that

• regenerated a local park
• provided brand new lesuire facillities for the local population to replace the vernon sangster
  
• offered an enourmous new car park for the area
• on top of everything else offered Anfield plaza

all the way.

 Seriously what chance do you think the redevelopment scheme had when it offered nothing to the local community aside from an extra 10,000 bodies once a week to worsen all the problems they were complaining about ?


Undesirable in comparrison for one reason

It's earnings potential.

The main financial driver here is corporate income rather than simply an extra 5000 bums on seats. Yes a redeveloped main stand would have up to date corporate facillities but speaking as someone who has been in boxes in both the centenary stand and OT the two just don't compare (and that is in the sense of prices charged too). No redevelopment plan involved altering the kemlyn. Consequently matchday corporate revenue wise we'd automatically be down on the position a new stadium would provide. Also non matchday corporate revenue has to be taken into account. Like it or not views of Lothair road are not particuarly appealing to the corporate market for courses, lunches and the like, neither is having any form of corporate event in anfield or everton as areas generally when the football isn't on.

Put a brand new stadium in a done up victorian park not only are the views and general ambience more appealing but when put alongside a well developed anfield plaza suddenly the area as a whole becomes a hell of a lot more attractive as a venue for any kind of event. Long and short of it is better facillities in nicer area = increased demand = higher price and income.

A redeveloped anfield just can't compete

[Jonny-B]

Thats the standard bowl design - the two end stands are the same size - the reason they look different is because of the windowed plexi on one end *i think its the "Kop"* to allow for enough light to get on the pitch. As far as i know this is the last design that anyone has seen and it came before claims by Parry that there would be a larger Kop.

People feel free to correct me if i'm wrong here.

[GibletII]

So you are saying that no one can give an informed opinion on matters relating to the new stadium?

I deal with financial forecasts every day, have looked at the financial aspects of LFC in great depth, which I believe entitles me to give an informed opinion on how the stadium is likely to be financed.  If you don't want to know then that's your perogative, but don't just dismiss everything as being garbage just because you don't agree with it.

It doesn't matter if someone has inside knowledge or not, it doesn't mean it should stop people making an educated cost/benefit analysis of the new stadium.

I've never dismissed anything as garbage.

Search and look for yourself.

So how do Liverpool FC finance this project based upon your educated opinion? I could understand the business case when costs were £90, even up to £115/120 million.

I'm not convinced anymore, the way I see it the club will need a massive dollop of capital to make it stack up. That could and probably will happen whether it be sponsorship/partnership or someone taking the unissued share capital. Is that the self financing project we were promised?

[Rushian]

I'm not convinced anymore, the way I see it the club will need a massive dollop of capital to make it stack up. That could and probably will happen whether it be sponsorship/partnership or someone taking the unissued share capital. Is that the self financing project we were promised?

I wouldn't disagree much with that - it's become less "self-financing" as time has gone on but is still a necessity for the future of the club. Other factors have eased the rise in costs such as the vastly improved TV deal and the better shirt sponsorship we'll sign next time.

It was almost two years ago that Parry mentioned the fact that we'd look at stadium naming rights which if followed through would deliver the sort of capital injection you're talking about, before any investment/buy out deal for the club is explored (as it seems to be this week).

As for this:

Stanley Park is a comprimise, not a great one either in my opinion, being cynical I'd say ego's of those in decision making positions have been as much a factor as the economic case.

if you believe redevelopment of the current ground was unfeasible, surely the club should be praised for coming up with a solution that retains much of the Anfield experience yet delivers a new stadium?

[ttnbd]

So how do Liverpool FC finance this project based upon your educated opinion? I could understand the business case when costs were £90, even up to £115/120 million.

I'm not convinced anymore, the way I see it the club will need a massive dollop of capital to make it stack up. That could and probably will happen whether it be sponsorship/partnership or someone taking the unissued share capital. Is that the self financing project we were promised?

Based on current ticket prices the increased capacity would bring in upto £25m a season in extra ticket revenue from league matches alone.   This would put total ticket revenue at about £50m a season with approx £16m coming from corporate sales.

Assuming £200m of loans required (not likely as the club would have to have some capital of their own, but indulge me for just a moment) for 100% of the cost of the stadium to be repaid over a 25 year period with a (worse case scenario) interest rate of 8% it would require approx £18.75m per year in repayments (capital and interest).

The main issues I believe the club have needed to look at these past couple of years are raising an initial capital injection and ensuring that the clubs current cashflow is not hurt during the period of construction (thus not harming transfer budgets).  With regards to the cashflow during construction the burden on this has been massively reduced with the new tv deal looking to be worth approx £15m a season more for the club.  That would cover any initial interest payments on initial debt taken out.  Add to that the potential for a significant increase in shirt sponsorship deal and the burden is reduced even further (those two alone can bring in as much cash as the club currently does from operating activities).

That leaves the capital injection required from the club for the stadium, which I believe this search for investment has been about.  For every £5m the club injects with capital instead of loans, saves the club (before tax) upto £500k per year in debt repayments.  So if the club can get those remaining 15,000 shares issued with £60m coming into the club it can save upto £5m a season in debt repayments and reduces the risk on the breakeven point of the stadium capacity.

[Ste G]

The model above is not new. It's the same one that was on display in Millenium House 3 years ago.

It's just used to illustrate how it'll fit into the area anyway. And in any case the Kop end is the one nearest to us as you look at it - the same size as the other goal end....

[nidgemo]

Based on current ticket prices the increased capacity would bring in upto £25m a season in extra ticket revenue from league matches alone.   This would put total ticket revenue at about £50m a season with approx £16m coming from corporate sales.

Assuming £200m of loans required (not likely as the club would have to have some capital of their own, but indulge me for just a moment) for 100% of the cost of the stadium to be repaid over a 25 year period with a (worse case scenario) interest rate of 8% it would require approx £18.75m per year in repayments (capital and interest).

So Tim, just to clarify, what you're saying is, even in a worst case scenario, if the club have to borrow the entire £200 million and get no investment, that AFTER financing the stadium, the club would have an EXTRA 6 million a season for transfer budget etc than we do at the minute.

If the extra shares are sold, the club secures a naming rights deal etc, then this figure will only increase.

Therefore meaning that even in a worst case scenario, the stadium is completely self financing and actually will make the club richer.

Would that be about it?

[ttnbd]

That is if the stadium is full for league games. The break even average attendance for the league is around 52,000 mark depending on corporate sales and if my assumptions are accurate

[Rushian]

rumour has it the main contractor and sub-contractors have now been appointed.

[GibletII]

Getting the extra £16 million from the executive/corporates is the key to Stanley park stacking up then.

Or shared risk with raised ticket prices.

Sentimentally the move across the road, retaining the Anfield presence and the culture of travelling to and from the match, the pub/cafe you use, the chippy you go to etc. should be applauded. Is that the best business model for the club though?

I'd be interested to see how a redevolped Anfield would stack up, only interested mind since there's next to no chance of it happening, I'd be suprised if the club couldn't have developed a model to give them £6 million + per season extra.

Ideally I'd like to see an 'oversized' stadium with diverse and flexible pricing, affordable for swarms of hat robbing etc. rats - the next generattion. It's a shame we can't follow the German model of adaptable terracing - 60k all seater up to 70/75k with terracing.

I'd also like to think that the club are looking at the next step, Man United have followed 20 year masterplans since the 1960's that's enabled them to redevelop Old Trafford twice and enhance it further. They didn't wait to see what the market did they planned for future. When Liverpool FC seated the Anfield Road End and Paddock they ended up cutting capacity to the level of and below the recent average gates while they hoped the Kemlyn Road extension would be approved. That's crap planning that's dogged teh club off the field and the effects are still being felt. It's vital that we don't sit back - plans, bridge building with the local population, transport bodies and corpy have to be underway now to ensure we have the right stadium in 5, 10, 15, 20 years etc.     

[nidgemo]

Getting the extra £16 million from the executive/corporates is the key to Stanley park stacking up then.

Or shared risk with raised ticket prices.

Sentimentally the move across the road, retaining the Anfield presence and the culture of travelling to and from the match, the pub/cafe you use, the chippy you go to etc. should be applauded. Is that the best business model for the club though?

I'd be interested to see how a redevolped Anfield would stack up, only interested mind since there's next to no chance of it happening, I'd be suprised if the club couldn't have developed a model to give them £6 million + per season extra.

Ideally I'd like to see an 'oversized' stadium with diverse and flexible pricing, affordable for swarms of hat robbing etc. rats - the next generattion. It's a shame we can't follow the German model of adaptable terracing - 60k all seater up to 70/75k with terracing.

I'd also like to think that the club are looking at the next step, Man United have followed 20 year masterplans since the 1960's that's enabled them to redevelop Old Trafford twice and enhance it further. They didn't wait to see what the market did they planned for future. When Liverpool FC seated the Anfield Road End and Paddock they ended up cutting capacity to the level of and below the recent average gates while they hoped the Kemlyn Road extension would be approved. That's crap planning that's dogged teh club off the field and the effects are still being felt. It's vital that we don't sit back - plans, bridge building with the local population, transport bodies and corpy have to be underway now to ensure we have the right stadium in 5, 10, 15, 20 years etc.     

Just for a change, I completely agree with you.

[nidgemo]

rumour has it the main contractor and sub-contractors have now been appointed.

Any word on who they are?

[Rushian]

Any word on who they are?

Been told who the main contractor is but waiting to see whether I can post their name.

On other contracts, the structural design contract was awarded to SKM:

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=147717.0

I'm sure the names of the sub-contractors will drift out soon.

[nidgemo]

Been told who the main contractor is but waiting to see whether I can post their name.

Just tell me it's not multiplex

[Rushian]

Just tell me it's not multiplex

It's not Multiplex

[Rushian]

It's Laing O'Rourke.

Laing built the Millennium Stadium, built the Man City Commonwealth Stadium and and when bought out by O'Rourke the new Ascot Racecourse Redevelopment, Coventry's new stadium etc. Think they're also part of the London Olympic build.

[Cally77 v2.0]

Think someone mentioned Laing on here a while back.

[nidgemo]

It's Laing O'Rourke.

Laing built the Millennium Stadium, built the Man City Commonwealth Stadium and and when bought out by O'Rourke the new Ascot Racecourse Redevelopment, Coventry's new stadium etc.

Then that's a record of builing quality developments, on time, and on budget.

Good.

[Paul]

They are also currently completing the two new stands at Aintree

[iancr7]

  capacity of the new stadium should be 90000 and it should be from 10---20 entry max

[anon-y-mouse]

capacity of the new stadium should be 90000 and it should be from 10---20 entry max

Cloud cuckoo land.

[Ned Kelly]

Based on current ticket prices the increased capacity would bring in upto £25m a season in extra ticket revenue from league matches alone.   This would put total ticket revenue at about £50m a season with approx £16m coming from corporate sales.

Assuming £200m of loans required (not likely as the club would have to have some capital of their own, but indulge me for just a moment) for 100% of the cost of the stadium to be repaid over a 25 year period with a (worse case scenario) interest rate of 8% it would require approx £18.75m per year in repayments (capital and interest).

The main issues I believe the club have needed to look at these past couple of years are raising an initial capital injection and ensuring that the clubs current cashflow is not hurt during the period of construction (thus not harming transfer budgets).  With regards to the cashflow during construction the burden on this has been massively reduced with the new tv deal looking to be worth approx £15m a season more for the club.  That would cover any initial interest payments on initial debt taken out.  Add to that the potential for a significant increase in shirt sponsorship deal and the burden is reduced even further (those two alone can bring in as much cash as the club currently does from operating activities).

That leaves the capital injection required from the club for the stadium, which I believe this search for investment has been about.  For every £5m the club injects with capital instead of loans, saves the club (before tax) upto £500k per year in debt repayments.  So if the club can get those remaining 15,000 shares issued with £60m coming into the club it can save upto £5m a season in debt repayments and reduces the risk on the breakeven point of the stadium capacity.

Tim , if this is the case and the stadium is self-funding why are Parry and Moores insisting that the club needs major investment? Surely with the extra TV / shirt / stadium sponsership cash there is no reason why Moores would have to sell.

[ttnbd]

That is for them to answer. My opinion is that getting external investment in reduces the financial risk on the club. As i have shown above the club can save £5m per season if they can get in just £60m of investment. That is the equivalent of 25% of our normal net annual transfer budget. So instead of only having a potential £7m extra per season while debts are repaid there is an extra £12m or the debts repaid much quicker.

[GibletII]

Putting my cynical hat on again, if Liverpool FC attracts investment that reduces the risk and enables cash to flow more quickly in to the business, what will the investors want in return?