Topic: New stadium when we get new owners?

[Mad Men]

The Arsenal deal is a little odd. It was a combined deal, but the shirt sponsorship was for 7 years, the naming rights for 15 years.
Apparently, the shirt deal was £7 million a year. That would mean the naming rights being £3.4 million a year.

So that isn't a massive amount. However, Liverpool's shirt sponsorship is worth much more than Arsenal's. So there's the possibility of naming rights being similarly more valuable. If so, then an overall figure of £100 million wouldn't be unrealistic.
That's a big "if" in there though.

The difference in this arrangement was that Emirates paid the 100k up front instead of in staggered payments which helped with the start up construction costs for the new stadium.

[Aitken Drum]

There's a lot of issues involved in the build a new stadium/keep the old stadium question.  I'd be surprised if John Henry and associates move quickly on the issue. They could prove me wrong. Their first concern will be to set up an effective football organization. However, one of the NESV partners, Larry Lucchino, has built two baseball parks, Petco Park in San Diego and Camden Yards in Baltimore, as well as being in charge of the renovation of Fenway Park in Boston, all of which have been well done. Petco and Camden Yards veered away from modernism to parks with a "retro" ie throwback feeling.  Camden Yards in particularly has been widely praised for returning to the days of yesteryear.  To me, the HKS design is art, but looks sterile and lonely, something devoid of humanity. It looks cold.

When John Henry et al were trying to get  the Red Sox, another bidder, a Boston multimillionaire named Frank McCourt, proposed a new ballpark on the harbour on land he owned.  I was glad his bid lost because it would have been hard to get to. It was an area reachable primarily by car while Fenway in the inner city can be reached by bus, subway and train. I wonder if Anfield, old or new, has adequate transportation for an additional 15,000 supporters.  I don't know whether Anfield at present has adequate public transportation. Fenway has the advantage of being reachable by bus, subway or rail.  The area around Fenway Park has greatly  improved since John Henry took over, to some extent because of John Henry. He has gotten some streets turned into pedestrian malls and Fenway has become surrounded by restaurants and bars.   If McCourt had purchased the Sox, his new stadium would have been surrounded by parking lots.  I know the area around Anfield is in need of rejuvenation. Could the existing Anfield become part of that rejuvenation? Moving to Stanley Park seems to somewhat set it apart from the city.

I wish Liverpool FC luck and was glad to see my favourite team rise out of the relegation zone this weekend. Yes. Partick Thistle won! Stop that laughing! That's serious stuff. 

 

[Alan_X]

There's a lot of issues involved in the build a new stadium/keep the old stadium question.  I'd be surprised if John Henry and associates move quickly on the issue. They could prove me wrong. Their first concern will be to set up an effective football organization. However, one of the NESV partners, Larry Lucchino, has built two baseball parks, Petco Park in San Diego and Camden Yards in Baltimore, as well as being in charge of the renovation of Fenway Park in Boston, all of which have been well done. Petco and Camden Yards veered away from modernism to parks with a "retro" ie throwback feeling.  Camden Yards in particularly has been widely praised for returning to the days of yesteryear.  To me, the HKS design is art, but looks sterile and lonely, something devoid of humanity. It looks cold.

When John Henry et al were trying to get  the Red Sox, another bidder, a Boston multimillionaire named Frank McCourt, proposed a new ballpark on the harbour on land he owned.  I was glad his bid lost because it would have been hard to get to. It was an area reachable primarily by car while Fenway in the inner city can be reached by bus, subway and train. I wonder if Anfield, old or new, has adequate transportation for an additional 15,000 supporters.  I don't know whether Anfield at present has adequate public transportation. Fenway has the advantage of being reachable by bus, subway or rail.  The area around Fenway Park has greatly  improved since John Henry took over, to some extent because of John Henry. He has gotten some streets turned into pedestrian malls and Fenway has become surrounded by restaurants and bars.   If McCourt had purchased the Sox, his new stadium would have been surrounded by parking lots.  I know the area around Anfield is in need of rejuvenation. Could the existing Anfield become part of that rejuvenation? Moving to Stanley Park seems to somewhat set it apart from the city.

I wish Liverpool FC luck and was glad to see my favourite team rise out of the relegation zone this weekend. Yes. Partick Thistle won! Stop that laughing! That's serious stuff. 

 

Interesting points. I assume you don't know too much about the new stadium proposals. The HKS design is crap but Stanley Park is next door to the current stadium. The planning permission for the AFL and HKS designs included infrastructure improvements and redevelopment of the old ground as the centrepoint of the Anfield regeneration plans.

[filthy1980]

Interesting points. I assume you don't know too much about the new stadium proposals. The HKS design is crap but Stanley Park is next door to the current stadium. The planning permission for the AFL and HKS designs included infrastructure improvements and redevelopment of the old ground as the centrepoint of the Anfield regeneration plans.

and from what i remember about the original plans, it was limited to around 60k because of transportation infrastructure, i don't think LCC will give permission to a 70k+ without infrastructure upgrades

i think H&G plan was to start building and with 70k in mind and then upgrade either half way through the build or a few years after completion (thats assuming they ever really intended building a stadium)

[Alan_X]

and from what i remember about the original plans, it was limited to around 60k because of transportation infrastructure, i don't think LCC will give permission to a 70k+ without infrastructure upgrades

i think H&G plan was to start building and with 70k in mind and then upgrade either half way through the build or a few years after completion (thats assuming they ever really intended building a stadium)

Correct. The HKS design would start out as 60,000 with that ridiculous 4,000 away stand - the extra 12,000 seats would all have been added at that end by extending the lower tier and building an upper tier above.

It's a ridiculous strategy.

[Paul Gardner]

Correct. The HKS design would start out as 60,000 with that ridiculous 4,000 away stand - the extra 12,000 seats would all have been added at that end by extending the lower tier and building an upper tier above.

It's a ridiculous strategy.

Yep. You have the potential of making the freight railway line a passenger line and adding in stations to help with any required transpoprt infrstructure for a larger stadium. Something which could be used for Everton games and also for the benefit of the local community on non match days.

[filthy1980]

Yep. You have the potential of making the freight railway line a passenger line and adding in stations to help with any required transpoprt infrstructure for a larger stadium. Something which could be used for Everton games and also for the benefit of the local community on non match days.

if thats the case were everton ever planning on making a contribution to those infrastructure upgrades or is that what the grants that LFC got for?

[Paul Gardner]

if thats the case were everton ever planning on making a contribution to those infrastructure upgrades or is that what the grants that LFC got for?

LFC Grants weren't for that I don't think. That is where The Football Quarter could come in though by being a larger regeneration scheme across the area.

[xerxes1]

LFC Grants weren't for that I don't think. That is where The Football Quarter could come in though by being a larger regeneration scheme across the area.

Superficially, I am attracted to the idea of a Football Quarter, but I suspect that in practise the practical issues  may strangle it.

The Goodison site is tight, both main stands will be incredibly expensive to redevelop with little gain in overall capacity likely with improved Corporate facilities the main result. But firstly I don't think they can afford to do it, and secondly I doubt the  commercial benefits of them doing so. So without moving ground, what has a Football Quarter got to offer Everton?

The consented New Anfield is made possible only on the slightly tenuous argument that it is a sports facility. Stanley Park is going to see no residential or commercial development under any forseeable circumstances. So if we stay at Anfield, what would this "Football Quarter" be, and where physically would it go?

The outline consent only for the existing Anfield site provides for the pitch to be retained as open space, and mixed residential and commercial development on the remainder of the site. And that is it.

The consented New Anfield had conditions which required the Club to pay for Highways and transport improvements ( quite normal)- but I do not think they were ever costed. The assumption of Grants bothers me on several counts. Firstly a scheme (New Anfield) which generates private profit would normally be expected to pay its way. There are no free hand outs there. There is an argument for urban regeneration around the ground, but what and where? What is going to be demolished for what? IF Everton and us stay where we are why would privately owned clubs chip into a Public Scheme? And who would agree to a Publicly funded development that the Clubs had not supported benefiting privately owned Clubs?

An independent proposal may well conclude that a shared stadium on SP, thereby freeing up land at Anfield AND Goodison, was the only way to make a Football Quarter work in terms of available redevelopable land AND finance (the SP site has already been freed up so Goodison is a "gimmee" for the scheme).

Generally, projects follow the line of minumum resistance. In this instance that is likley to mean implementing the existing SP site ( although the actual design will almost certainly change) and Goodison staying as is. No public money in, extra public money out from the rent at New Anfield and business rates from the existing Anfield site. (Qualified by saying that true minimum resistance is us staying where we are too, but making improvements to the ground which do not require a contentious planning application, main stand only replacement at prevailing elevations and refurbishment).

[Paul Gardner]

Superficially, I am attracted to the idea of a Football Quarter, but I suspect that in practise the practical issues  may strangle it.

The Goodison site is tight, both main stands will be incredibly expensive to redevelop with little gain in overall capacity likely with improved Corporate facilities the main result. But firstly I don't think they can afford to do it, and secondly I doubt the  commercial benefits of them doing so. So without moving ground, what has a Football Quarter got to offer Everton?

The consented New Anfield is made possible only on the slightly tenuous argument that it is a sports facility. Stanley Park is going to see no residential or commercial development under any forseeable circumstances. So if we stay at Anfield, what would this "Football Quarter" be, and where physically would it go?

The outline consent only for the existing Anfield site provides for the pitch to be retained as open space, and mixed residential and commercial development on the remainder of the site. And that is it.

The consented New Anfield had conditions which required the Club to pay for Highways and transport improvements ( quite normal)- but I do not think they were ever costed. The assumption of Grants bothers me on several counts. Firstly a scheme (New Anfield) which generates private profit would normally be expected to pay its way. There are no free hand outs there. There is an argument for urban regeneration around the ground, but what and where? What is going to be demolished for what? IF Everton and us stay where we are why would privately owned clubs chip into a Public Scheme? And who would agree to a Publicly funded development that the Clubs had not supported benefiting privately owned Clubs?

An independent proposal may well conclude that a shared stadium on SP, thereby freeing up land at Anfield AND Goodison, was the only way to make a Football Quarter work in terms of available redevelopable land AND finance (the SP site has already been freed up so Goodison is a "gimmee" for the scheme).

Generally, projects follow the line of minumum resistance. In this instance that is likley to mean implementing the existing SP site ( although the actual design will almost certainly change) and Goodison staying as is. No public money in, extra public money out from the rent at New Anfield and business rates from the existing Anfield site. (Qualified by saying that true minimum resistance is us staying where we are too, but making improvements to the ground which do not require a contentious planning application, main stand only replacement at prevailing elevations and refurbishment).

Essentially the Football Quarter is not the football stadia as such, but the area between and around them. The two football stadums basically provide the anchors to such an area whether they are the same, redeveloped or in Liverpool's case, new. Wouldn't just be public funding for the Football Quarter, has the opportunity to bring in private investment as well to help regenerate the whole of North Liverpool as the Football Quarter's size does not have to be restricted to Stanley Park, but can hopefully allow for wider regeneration and build on the initial ideas surrounding the Anfield Plaza. We were pushing for a feasibility study into the Football Quarter which would be able to properly look at the best ways of extending the city centre and allowing investment in North Liverpool were it is desparately needed.

[Paul Gardner]

KEIOC put together this video on a redevelopment option -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwgCvO8-6fM

[paul j]

KEIOC put together this video on a redevelopment option -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwgCvO8-6fM

i got bored watching that.

[LiamG]

KEIOC put together this video on a redevelopment option -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwgCvO8-6fM

That will never happen

[xerxes1]

Essentially the Football Quarter is not the football stadia as such, but the area between and around them. The two football stadums basically provide the anchors to such an area whether they are the same, redeveloped or in Liverpool's case, new. Wouldn't just be public funding for the Football Quarter, has the opportunity to bring in private investment as well to help regenerate the whole of North Liverpool as the Football Quarter's size does not have to be restricted to Stanley Park, but can hopefully allow for wider regeneration and build on the initial ideas surrounding the Anfield Plaza. We were pushing for a feasibility study into the Football Quarter which would be able to properly look at the best ways of extending the city centre and allowing investment in North Liverpool were it is desparately needed.

It is difficult to see how any sense of a Football Quarter is going to get off the ground without the kick start  of a New Anfield and Anfield Plaza.

[Paul Gardner]

It is difficult to see how any sense of a Football Quarter is going to get off the ground without the kick start  of a New Anfield and Anfield Plaza.

That is where civic leadership comes in and everyone working together towards the best solution for everyone.

[Peter McGurk]

That is where civic leadership comes in and everyone working together towards the best solution for everyone.

The Football Quarter can be 'greater than the sum of its parts'. I don't think it needs a new stadium to kick it off. I do think it needs both clubs, the park, the fans and the communities... and civic leadership to pull them together.

[xerxes1]

The Football Quarter can be 'greater than the sum of its parts'. I don't think it needs a new stadium to kick it off. I do think it needs both clubs, the park, the fans and the communities... and civic leadership to pull them together.

It does. The Park cannot be built upon for commercial purposes ( the new stadium is a sporting facility).

So, what is, and where is your "Football Quarter"? What are you going to demolish, what are you going to replace it with? How does it become viable? And who pays for it?

[Peter McGurk]

It does. The Park cannot be built upon for commercial purposes ( the new stadium is a sporting facility).

So, what is, and where is your "Football Quarter"? What are you going to demolish, what are you going to replace it with? How does it become viable? And who pays for it?

There would be no commercial development in the park. Nothing would be demolished. The restoration of the park would be completed with sports facilities (football pitches, training track, gym, changing rooms...).

The main 'other' activity of the park would be the use of the middle section for outdoor music/sports events (a 'fanzone') for events like the world cup. There would be a temporary stage/screen for each event, temporary toilets - like any event in a big park.

The clubs would fund and develop their own grounds as you would expect and the immediate surrounding area - an Anfield Plaza on Walton Breck Road, a Goodison Plaza on Goodison Road (if they're up for it).

LFC are already committed to help with community regeneration (housing), maybe Everton might do the same but the housing is the only bit that has come to rely on any other (because of previous commitments).

The point is the bits work (or don't) independently, so there's no loss if one of them doesn't get off the ground, but together they will be greater.





Outside the park (possibly on Anfield Road or the other side of Walton Lane), the university are interested in a feasibility study for a sports science campus. That's unlikely to happen soon with budget cuts. 

And if the clubs go for bigger (than 60,000) capacities in the future, the regeneration of County Road would be boosted by a privately funded commercial development around a new rail station (around about Romley Street). There are links to a suggested 'University of Life' - an adult education centre necessarily funded by the education budget (but again unlikely at present)

[scouse29]

http://www.hannan-uk.com/liverpool.html

Seems they are still looking into our new stadium

[plasterered]

http://www.hannan-uk.com/liverpool.html

Seems they are still looking into our new stadium

Some one from the council was on the radio yesterday saying how they would prefer them to continue with the plans to move into stanley park as much planning work has already been done including roads layouts etc and obviously as a regeneration programme the council already had plans for that corner of anfield. Problem is at the moment it is still a bad time to build anything as the other two muppets (H&G) constantly reminded us whenever quized why they uturned on the stadium they promised

[helmboy_nige]

I think whatever happens we will be looking at a 60,000 seater with possible expansion options.  As other people have said infrastructure is key and if the council is unhappy about the lack of services for 70,000 plus they won't go for it.

[AshTJ]

Whoever asked about odds of United going the season unbeaten. PP are offering 9/1.

[xerxes1]

Some one from the council was on the radio yesterday saying how they would prefer them to continue with the plans to move into stanley park as much planning work has already been done including roads layouts etc and obviously as a regeneration programme the council already had plans for that corner of anfield. Problem is at the moment it is still a bad time to build anything as the other two muppets (H&G) constantly reminded us whenever quized why they uturned on the stadium they promised

If you have the cash it's a great time.Low interest rates and plenty of construction firms after the work.

[Alan_X]

If you have the cash it's a great time.Low interest rates and plenty of construction firms after the work.

Exactly - perfect time to build if you are cash rich.

[annieroader]

Put money on us doin the redevolpment route as i have said for a long time now.

[xerxes1]

from: xerxes1 on Yesterday at 04:45:54 PM
If you have the cash it's a great time.Low interest rates and plenty of construction firms after the work.

Exactly - perfect time to build if you are cash rich.

The unknown is how FSG play this. They found £200m to buy us in addition to their Nascar/Baseball commitments. that is serious firepower.

With the record naming rights deal currently sitting at $400m, around £250m, if the New Anfield cost £350m, that is omly £100m over 25 years - £4m a year! IF, that naming rights deal can be matched (jointly held by Citi fields AND Barclys centre , new York).

The significance of Tom Werner, one of the top media men in the US being our Chairman, is often underestimated.

The New Stadium option is not nearly as tough an ask as some make out.

[Peter McGurk]

The unknown is how FSG play this. They found £200m to buy us in addition to their Nascar/Baseball commitments. that is serious firepower.

With the record naming rights deal currently sitting at $400m, around £250m, if the New Anfield cost £350m, that is omly £100m over 25 years - £4m a year! IF, that naming rights deal can be matched (jointly held by Citi fields AND Barclys centre , new York).

The significance of Tom Werner, one of the top media men in the US being our Chairman, is often underestimated.

The New Stadium option is not nearly as tough an ask as some make out.

And it doesn't make as much money as some people make out.

[xerxes1]

And it doesn't make as much money as some people make out.

When neither the costs, nor revenues of redevelopment versus new stadium are known, no-one knows anything.

What I can predict is that our status for the next generation will be determined by the decision.It will also define FSG's ownership.

[plasterered]

If you have the cash it's a great time.Low interest rates and plenty of construction firms after the work.

dead right IF you have the cash etc but I dont think fsg have all the cash they will need to secure loan deals and for now the borrowing market is knackered

[Peter McGurk]

When neither the costs, nor revenues of redevelopment versus new stadium are known, no-one knows anything.

What I can predict is that our status for the next generation will be determined by the decision.It will also define FSG's ownership.

That's absurd. If nobody knows anything, we would none of us have anything to say either way.

Your example is also hard to follow. Can you imagine borrowing £100m without having to pay any interest at all (25years = £4m a year!)? And even if you managed a quite staggering £250m deal for naming rights (quite a leap from Arsenal's £3.4m a year (£50m)), do you think that that is not required to earn a return or at least do better than leaving it in a bank?

Imagine you had the choice of two ways of earning £100. One way you have to put £70 in, in cash, the other way - £35 in instalments. Which would you do?

And I don't think NESV are going to let anyone hold them to ransom over their decision.

[scouse29]

When neither the costs, nor revenues of redevelopment versus new stadium are known, no-one knows anything.

What I can predict is that our status for the next generation will be determined by the decision.It will also define FSG's ownership.

To you may that not be known but it wont take long to put budget price against redevelopment.

[xerxes1]

That's absurd. If nobody knows anything, we would none of us have anything to say either way.

It is not absurd.It is fact. Until the comparative costs, which are presently unknown, are established, no decision can be made.Which is why no decision has been made.By all means guess.

Your example is also hard to follow. Can you imagine borrowing £100m without having to pay any interest at all (25years = £4m a year!)? And even if you managed a quite staggering £250m deal for naming rights (quite a leap from Arsenal's £3.4m a year (£50m)), do you think that that is not required to earn a return or at least do better than leaving it in a bank?

We have no idea what the new stadium will cost. The example was indicative only, with interest rolled into the £100m.

We have no idea what current naming rights may fetch.The market leading deals, two of them, are for £250m, in America for a sport with no world -wide appeal. It's a marker, fact.It is also arguable that a sport with worldwide appeal in football, with a world leading brand, LFC, might fetch more.Our Chairman is one of the US's leading sports media gurus, if anyone can squeeze maximum value out of a stadium naming deal, it's Werner.

Your final point is a non sequitur.There is no money to put in the bank if you don't have naming rights.It is not either or.

Imagine you had the choice of two ways of earning £100. One way you have to put £70 in, in cash, the other way - £35 in instalments. Which would you do?

That assumes that both deliver £100. In the case of the stadium the capacity of the respective schemes is unknown and unproven.

And I don't think NESV are going to let anyone hold them to ransom over their decision.

We have paid the price of indecision over the last twenty years.No-one is holding us to ransom.

[xerxes1]

To you may that not be known but it wont take long to put budget price against redevelopment.

It is not as easy as you may imagine.

The current scheme is almost four years old.
1.In that time construction techniques have moved- there may physically be a better/cheaper way of doing things technically.
2.Material costs have changed significantly. Changing materials may again save money.
3.The previous scheme met the business requirements of G&H. Did they get it right?  Could FSG do it better?
4.The existing Anfield site has outline consent only. It's value is unknown.That needs to be appraised as it has the potential to kick a significant sum back into the overall scheme reducing the cost of the end project.
5.The  consent came with Section 106 contributions, the cost of those, three years on, needs to be reappraised.
6.Finance costs have changed dramatically, and it is only when all of the above have been resolved that FSG can try to agree a finance package.

[scouse29]

It is not as easy as you may imagine.

The current scheme is almost four years old.
1.In that time construction techniques have moved- there may physically be a better/cheaper way of doing things technically.
2.Material costs have changed significantly. Changing materials may again save money.
3.The previous scheme met the business requirements of G&H. Did they get it right?  Could FSG do it better?
4.The existing Anfield site has outline consent only. It's value is unknown.That needs to be appraised as it has the potential to kick a significant sum back into the overall scheme reducing the cost of the end project.
5.The  consent came with Section 106 contributions, the cost of those, three years on, needs to be reappraised.
6.Finance costs have changed dramatically, and it is only when all of the above have been resolved that FSG can try to agree a finance package.

I never said it was easy!

Just that you dont know if a comparision has been made which you dont.

[xerxes1]

Just that you dont know if a comparision has been made which you don't.

No I don't.

I can tell you that such an exercise on similar projects takes several months.So the liklihood that it has been completed is very low.We all agree that the exercise needs to be done, and is no doubt being done as we speak.

My guess is that there is little propect of the existing consent being built, or of a decision, other than to defer a decision, being made prior to the expiry of the existing consent.