Author Topic: NESV leaning towards a 'new stadium' and facilities (Read 222200 times)

CraigDS · « **Reply #240 on:** March 9, 2011, 10:59:37 am »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on March 9, 2011, 10:39:08 am

They are no grounds for that statement. Pure speculation - one might even say, a guess.

Not strictly true - JH has been quoted in saying they arent interested in making short term profits by taking money out of the club but would rather build the value of the club and make money from a future (long term future) sale.

xerxes1 · « **Reply #241 on:** March 9, 2011, 11:49:00 am »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on March 9, 2011, 10:39:08 am

They are no grounds for that statement.(FSG have bought us to sell us for as much money as they can) Pure speculation - one might even say, a guess.

Your first sentence is not true, the second is true.

Owners buy football clubs overwhelmingly to make money,or they do it for vanity (Abrahamovic, Whelan,Walker).

FSG are foreign owners with no substantive previous association with England, football, UK Business or Liverpool - my guess is that they fall into the former category.

Given the above, I think that there is no evidence that FSG's motives are not primarily commercial ( of course I hope they have some fun with the sport too). In fact I am grateful that we have been spared tales of how Rush was Henry's boyhood hero, that linda always fancied Shaggy, and that Werner used to sneak under the turnstiles to get into the Kop as a kid. Rather a well run business than a fan playing at it (Purslow).

Zeb · « **Reply #242 on:** March 9, 2011, 12:38:43 pm »

Xerxes, you're posting some absolute bollocks all over the shop today.

Making money =/= profit from selling on the asset above purchase price

Peter's right on this one. You're making assumptions which can't be substantiated.

xerxes1 · « **Reply #243 on:** March 9, 2011, 02:49:09 pm »

Quote from: Zeb on March 9, 2011, 12:38:43 pm

Xerxes, you're posting some absolute bollocks all over the shop today.Making money =/= profit from selling on the asset above purchase price.
Peter's right on this one. You're making assumptions which can't be substantiated.

Your opinion is as good as the next mans.

I don't think that there has ever been any doubt as to what making money means.Anything which is projected for the future is a guess, and based on some assumptions which may, or may not, prove to be correct. What's your point?

If you do not believe that FSG have bought us with a view to selling us, at some point, for the maximum possible profit - good for you.

LiamG · « **Reply #244 on:** March 9, 2011, 03:29:47 pm »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on March 9, 2011, 10:27:33 am

Not sure this is the right thread for that question but thanks for it anyway... there are a lot of pluses and minuses but on balance, no.

You can make both existing stands into great and appropriate facilities (there is a main stand option for that shown elsewhere). The upper Annie Road has great views (the worst-kept secret of Anfield) but unfortunately it screws up the lower stand and it would have to go.

Other than that I think it is vital to keep the value of the existing ground more than anything else (you can’t separate the design from the finances). Anfield earns a lot of money - a lot of money - without obligations (or debt) to other parties. To go back to the big 'debt' days for a new stadium is such a backward step.

But would it not be easier to re-build these stans from scratch to improve seating,facilities and all that, to me it just dosent seem right to just plonka another tier on top of these stands

But i do know nothing about architecture/engineering lol

SP · « **Reply #245 on:** March 9, 2011, 06:21:03 pm »

Quote from: xerxes1 on March 9, 2011, 11:49:00 am

Your first sentence is not true, the second is true.

Owners buy football clubs overwhelmingly to make money,or they do it for vanity (Abrahamovic, Whelan,Walker).

FSG are foreign owners with no substantive previous association with England, football, UK Business or Liverpool - my guess is that they fall into the former category.

Given the above, I think that there is no evidence that FSG's motives are not primarily commercial ( of course I hope they have some fun with the sport too). In fact I am grateful that we have been spared tales of how Rush was Henry's boyhood hero, that linda always fancied Shaggy, and that Werner used to sneak under the turnstiles to get into the Kop as a kid. Rather a well run business than a fan playing at it (Purslow).

I think it is fair to assume that NESV do not want to lose money. But their stated aim to make money by increasing the value of the club by improving the facilities and team, and winning things, coincides pretty well with what the fan base want.

Profit is import, but it is not the sole motivation. NESV appear to at least partially be a vanity project, but with business steel underlying it preventing it being loss making.

Zeb · « **Reply #246 on:** March 9, 2011, 07:43:04 pm »

Quote from: xerxes1 on March 9, 2011, 02:49:09 pm

Your opinion is as good as the next mans.

I don't think that there has ever been any doubt as to what making money means.Anything which is projected for the future is a guess, and based on some assumptions which may, or may not, prove to be correct. What's your point?

If you do not believe that FSG have bought us with a view to selling us, at some point, for the maximum possible profit - good for you.

My point really, Xerxes, is that you're passing off unsubstantiated speculation as 'truth' yet again and your posts have been stinking worse than usual today in all parts of the forum. When called out on it you dissemble and then come out with truisms.

We, frankly, have no idea of what the business plan is. Could you be right that the prime motivating factor is the resale value? Sure. But, until you can back it up with something other than posturing then you're speculating (and what's even better without any sort of time frame - sell us next year, the year after, five years, ten years, twenty, thirty?) and should at least have the honesty to hold your hands up to that rather than trying to pass yourself off as some kind of Mystic Mog.

Henry's statement of intent: "We regard our role as that of stewards for the club with a primary focus on returning the club to greatness on and off the field for the long-term. We are committed first and foremost to winning. We have a history of winning, and we want Liverpool supporters to know that this approach is what we intend to bring to this great club." (Source).

If anything, the indications are of a long-term business plan in which initial outlay for success will play a part in self-sustaining success with increased revenues (the same ones which Hicks and Gillett were desperate to be able to exploit) providing returns on the purchase price. What this isn't is an LBO where the rise in value of the asset must outstrip the interest charged on the 'investment' and where the 'investor' will take his cut on the resale.

LiverBirdKop · « **Reply #247 on:** March 9, 2011, 09:10:49 pm »

Quote from: Zeb on March 9, 2011, 07:43:04 pm

If anything, the indications are of a long-term business plan in which initial outlay for success will play a part in self-sustaining success with increased revenues (the same ones which Hicks and Gillett were desperate to be able to exploit) providing returns on the purchase price. What this isn't is an LBO where the rise in value of the asset must outstrip the interest charged on the 'investment' and where the 'investor' will take his cut on the resale.

To be fair to every poster in this thread, we just don't know very much except that we're all mostly speculating. Some have a more open mind, some say "you're either with them(owners) or against them" like it's not possible to have a different opinion on how to reach the same goal. Some are more cautious and want to see more. Some choose to believe everything that comes from them.

These guys had probably never heard of LFC until a few months before th purchase was finalized, so I have a hard time believing this is just a romantic/challenging acquisition. Will be extremely happy to be proven wrong on this one for sure.

If FSG decide redeveloping is the best way to go -because it makes more economic sense for the club short term or they have an exit strategy and the expense of a stadium won't work out, whatever- I hope we see some good investment on the squad this summer without first having to sell players. That's just my short term wish. Maybe we'll even have a CEO by then.

Zeb · « **Reply #248 on:** March 9, 2011, 11:48:29 pm »

Quote from: LiverBirdKop on March 9, 2011, 09:10:49 pm

To be fair to every poster in this thread, we just don't know very much except that we're all mostly speculating. Some have a more open mind, some say "you're either with them(owners) or against them" like it's not possible to have a different opinion on how to reach the same goal. Some are more cautious and want to see more. Some choose to believe everything that comes from them.

Point I'm trying to make is that speculating is all well and good, but when someone is trying to pass something off as 'truth' when there's not a shred of substance to back them up, then it's only fair to point that out. It's actually honest to say 'hey, I may be pissing in the wind but...' rather than trying to portray yourself as being the font of all knowledge. We don't know their business plan in detail - they told SOS to fuck off (in a polite but pointed way) when SOS asked.

Ultimately, they will look to make a profit on selling on the club. The level of that profit will depend on a whole host of factors, not least on whether or not they have managed to make the club even more successful. But I doubt that will be the sole motivating factor behind the purchase as there are other areas where profit can be made with a sensible long-term business plan which strengthens the club's revenues rather than tens of millions vanishing in loan fees and interest every year. If they are genuinely in this with a long-term plan, then they are pretty much the owners which many of us hoped to get - not some altruistic fan with billions to throw at the club, but hard-nosed businessmen who recognise the link between success on the pitch and profit off it for a club of our size.

The stadium question is really going to shape our short to medium term future. If they don't go for the Hicks' plan (and I honestly hope they don't - Alan F has done some cracking posts on just the basic design problems with the plan), then that's £40m or so they'll have to write off straight away. That's a huge decision to take so I'm willing to be patient while they doublecheck and triplecheck the numbers.

CEO issue remains in the air, doesn't it? Will be interesting to see who they do eventually go for. Ayres has got a lot of plaudits for his work as commercial director (and rightly so) but is there an outstanding external candidate who would be willing and able to take the job? There's usually gardening leave requirements to allow commercially sensitive information to cool down when headhunting at that level of business so I personally wouldn't worry too much if one wasn't appointed until the summer.

LiamG · « **Reply #249 on:** March 9, 2011, 11:50:11 pm »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on March 9, 2011, 07:50:16 pm

I don’t know about easier. It would be more work to demolish and build new and more disruptive for us and the club.

Once a ‘crash deck’ is built, work can go on all-year round without interrupting the football, after all, there’s hardly anyone there six days a week.

It’s not building on top - it’s building behind, but higher. There’s a choice with the existing seats - leave them as they are or upgrade them, but little of that work is structural.

Ok ok i dont know much about this but would leaving the stands not restrict the steepness of other tiers etc and effect seating spaces etc?

xerxes1 · « **Reply #250 on:** March 10, 2011, 09:37:20 am »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on March 9, 2011, 09:39:46 pm

They are here for the money. To get the money we need to win trophies. That's our purpose and our joy and our common interest.

They are here for profit, not money.

The level of capital investment that is required to win moneymaking trophies, (CL/League title)is unlikely to equal maximum profit.That is where the business and sporting interests diverge.

A new tv/media deal with solus deals allowed and 4th place may facilitate a far greater profit on the club's sale, than stadium redevelopment/ new stadium, team investment to win the title and challenge for the CL.

xerxes1 · « **Reply #251 on:** March 10, 2011, 11:21:41 am »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on March 10, 2011, 10:58:54 am

Ok, bite me.So... to... win... trophies... is... likely... to... mean... less... profit...? ? ? ? ? ?Yes, so?

No bite required. You shrewdly identitify the breakpoint between what we want as fans from our club (trophies), and what owners may want (profit).

So, not so much of a bite- more a kiss!

xerxes1 · « **Reply #252 on:** March 10, 2011, 05:02:35 pm »

You've got it - I am happy!

LiamG · « **Reply #253 on:** March 11, 2011, 10:38:55 am »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on March 10, 2011, 10:52:55 am

Yes, it would restrict the steepness (and consequently the distance away from the pitch that would have acceptable sightlines) but it wouldn't affect seat spacings (it would just make the stands higher for the same capacity - clear as mud, I know - I didn't make the rules!).

So we would get a better facility with a brand new stand, correct?

xerxes1 · « **Reply #254 on:** March 14, 2011, 09:07:15 am »

Quote from: LiamG on March 11, 2011, 10:38:55 am

So we would get a better facility with a brand new stand, correct?

A new stadium provides for capacity, and rake, unrestricted by the physical constraints of an existing enclosed site.New Anfield has a deliverable, consented result in this regard.

What capacity on the existing site would get a consent is unknown.

LiamG · « **Reply #255 on:** March 14, 2011, 09:10:54 am »

Yeah thats why im open to a new stadium, yes we can go on about being able to have the facilities,views,rake etc at a redeveloped anfield but would not be as good as a new well designed new stadium

xerxes1 · « **Reply #256 on:** March 14, 2011, 09:23:01 am »

Quote from: LiamG on March 14, 2011, 09:10:54 am

Yeah thats why im open to a new stadium, yes we can go on about being able to have the facilities,views,rake etc at a redeveloped anfield but would not be as good as a new well designed new stadium .

To be fair, a redeveloped Anfield might be able to deliver a perfectly satisfactory result. But we do not know what is structurally and physically possible that would get a planning consent.

A new stadium has no boundary constraints, no physical constraints, and stand for stand is not restricted physically, nor encumbered financially, by what is there. The two key questions are, does it offer a more profitable solution than a redevelopment, and can FSG afford it?

All that any of us ask for is an open statement by FSG on what stadium solution they think is required, and why.

LiamG · « **Reply #257 on:** March 14, 2011, 09:30:36 am »

I have doubts as to whether FSG have the funds for a new stadium to be ohnest

LiamG · « **Reply #258 on:** March 14, 2011, 11:02:25 am »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on March 14, 2011, 10:22:55 am

ADon't imagine anyone is going to put their hands in their pockets for any kind of stadium just because they've got the money. They'll do it because it works financially or not at all.

I agree with that

xerxes1 · « **Reply #259 on:** March 14, 2011, 12:25:05 pm »

Quote from: LiamG on March 14, 2011, 09:30:36 am

I have doubts as to whether FSG have the funds for a new stadium to be honest

We simply don't know. They raised the funds to buy us independent of their Baseball / Nascar interests. How that money was raised is unknown.Henry and Werner own us 50/50, the status of the other American Directors holdings in either of those 50/50 stakes is equally unknown.

We don't know whether they have / can raise the cash, and if they have/can, whether that money would be deployed at LFC or elsewhere.

The likilhood that the existing consents on New Anfield/Anfield Plaza will lapse, and the timeframe of the season ticket list rationalisation suggests that no decision is imminent. Make of that what you will.

xerxes1 · « **Reply #260 on:** March 14, 2011, 10:27:06 pm »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on March 14, 2011, 03:54:31 pm

Much as I believe you would like to re-invent a decision against a new stadium as a stick to beat the owners with:

You can't reinvent a decision which has not been made.

Any decision which FSG make, or defer, wll stand or fall on its own merits.

Paddock77 · « **Reply #261 on:** March 15, 2011, 09:00:14 am »

Peter - What will your view be if FSG come out and state that they have reviewed the options and due to commercial and practical issues a redeveloped Anfield does not make sense so therefore money is to be committed to a new Stadium?

Paddock77 · « **Reply #262 on:** March 15, 2011, 10:06:49 am »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on March 15, 2011, 09:50:10 am

A clever and seductive question! - but I don't think they will.

You flatter me!!!

But anyway.... What would your position be on the above scenario?

Paddock77 · « **Reply #263 on:** March 15, 2011, 11:23:40 am »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on March 15, 2011, 11:14:15 am

I would think that Henry and Werner had been replaced by Martians.

So you are open to the idea then!

LiamG · « **Reply #264 on:** March 15, 2011, 11:55:38 am »

Peter will go into hiding if FSG come out and say we are getting a new stadium lol

Paddock77 · « **Reply #265 on:** March 15, 2011, 12:07:49 pm »

Quote from: LiamG on March 15, 2011, 11:55:38 am

Peter will go into hiding if FSG come out and say we are getting a new stadium lol

Well given his response to my question it would appear that he will not have anything to say.

LiamG · « **Reply #266 on:** March 15, 2011, 02:53:09 pm »

You cant be 100% sure though Peter, thas what i dont understand about some of your arguments, you seem 100% convinced that they will not go down the new stadium route when really you know no more than the rest of us about what FSG are thinking

LiamG · « **Reply #267 on:** March 15, 2011, 03:47:58 pm »

Fair enough i guess we are all entitled to our own argument, Its just that most people on here arnt as 100% sure as what you are

Anyway the debate over will they wont they bores me lol

Lets talk about possibly redevelopment! I think it would be intresting to read something from you about the plabs you came up with, i enjoyed reading your blogs

LiverBirdKop · « **Reply #268 on:** March 15, 2011, 04:40:31 pm »

All this speculation is fun isn't it? If only they'd throw us a bone so we could speculate better since outside of FSG's inner circle, no one really knows anything.

xerxes1 · « **Reply #269 on:** March 15, 2011, 10:30:23 pm »

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/03/15/new-liverpool-council-chief-executive-ged-fitzgerald-says-city-will-become-cruise-liners-home-port-92534-28335312/

It's encouraging to see that discussions are live.

"Ged Fitzgerald also revealed the number of town hall jobs threatened with the axe has been revised – and confirmed the council was in talks with Liverpool FC about their desire for a new stadium.He said Everton FC could be invited to be part of any new ground after both clubs’ stadium plans stalled.
Regarding the stadium talks, he said: “There are conversations going on about a new football stadium and whether Everton FC want to join in. The question is whether they think they can afford not to join in. But there are still challenges.”

A Liverpool FC spokesman last night said the club was “reviewing all the options”, including a new stadium or a refurbished Anfield. Everton were unavailable for comment."

LiamG · « **Reply #270 on:** March 15, 2011, 11:22:24 pm »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on March 15, 2011, 07:52:13 pm

What do you want to know? It's pretty much all there (or on here).

Why your plans would be as good as having a new stadium, i cant really see the .gif files because the animation changes too quick! Option A is definatley my choice

xerxes1 · « **Reply #271 on:** March 16, 2011, 01:11:49 pm »

Quote from: LiamG on March 15, 2011, 11:22:24 pm

Why would your plans be as good as having a new stadium,

All hypothetical projects are subject to physical capacity, viability and planning considerations - and should be treated as such.

The givens are the existing Anfield, and a consented New Anfield, current cost not in the public domain.

Trada · « **Reply #272 on:** March 19, 2011, 11:52:48 pm »

Don't know how reliable this is.

Kopsource Exclusive: Anfield to be Redeveloped

Liverpool’s new owners have decided to redevelop Anfield and scrap plans for a new stadium in Stanley Park that were set in motion by the previous regime, our sources understand.

FSG have been in town this week to discuss their long-term strategy for the club, with the stadium issue being the first priority for the Americans. Having seen the club fall hundreds of millions of pounds behind the likes of Manchester Utd and Arsenal in ticket revenue, John Henry et al have concluded that increasing capacity is an absolute must, although they do not see it imperative that the club start from scratch with a new build.

Previous plans to redevelop Anfield had been scrapped due to the impracticality of undergoing building work in such a densely populated area. Now, though, the council has given the green light for the project to go ahead after reassurances that the redevelopment will be less intrusive than was first thought. It will also see the surrounding area regenerated, which will appease the concerns of local residents and committees.

It is believed that the target capacity for the new stadium is between 65,000 and 70,000 seats, although that figure could drop to an initial 60,000 with a possible extension in the coming years. The finer details will be announced by the club once Henry has concluded the rest of his business on Merseyside, which includes tying down Kenny Dalglish and Steve Clarke on permanent contracts.

It was only last month that John Henry hinted that we would be staying at Anfield when he declared that the Kop was “unrivalled” and that it would be “hard to replicate that feeling anywhere else”. While some would have bought into his starry-eyed gushings and concurred, we saw it as something of a propaganda move by the shrewd businessman who we don’t believe ever had the intentions or, indeed, the money to build a new stadium from scratch.

http://www.kopsource.com/kopsource-exclusive-anfield-to-be-redeveloped/

Strummer77 · « **Reply #273 on:** March 20, 2011, 12:31:22 am »

Quote from: Trada on March 19, 2011, 11:52:48 pm

Don't know how reliable this is.

http://www.kopsource.com/kopsource-exclusive-anfield-to-be-redeveloped/

Genuinely can't see us getting 65,000 out of Anfield.

Corcaigh · « **Reply #274 on:** March 20, 2011, 08:36:31 am »

Quote from: Trada on March 19, 2011, 11:52:48 pm

Don't know how reliable this is.

Kopsource Exclusive: Anfield to be Redeveloped

Liverpool’s new owners have decided to redevelop Anfield and scrap plans for a new stadium in Stanley Park that were set in motion by the previous regime, our sources understand.

FSG have been in town this week to discuss their long-term strategy for the club, with the stadium issue being the first priority for the Americans. Having seen the club fall hundreds of millions of pounds behind the likes of Manchester Utd and Arsenal in ticket revenue, John Henry et al have concluded that increasing capacity is an absolute must, although they do not see it imperative that the club start from scratch with a new build.

Previous plans to redevelop Anfield had been scrapped due to the impracticality of undergoing building work in such a densely populated area. Now, though, the council has given the green light for the project to go ahead after reassurances that the redevelopment will be less intrusive than was first thought. It will also see the surrounding area regenerated, which will appease the concerns of local residents and committees.

It is believed that the target capacity for the new stadium is between 65,000 and 70,000 seats, although that figure could drop to an initial 60,000 with a possible extension in the coming years. The finer details will be announced by the club once Henry has concluded the rest of his business on Merseyside, which includes tying down Kenny Dalglish and Steve Clarke on permanent contracts.

It was only last month that John Henry hinted that we would be staying at Anfield when he declared that the Kop was “unrivalled” and that it would be “hard to replicate that feeling anywhere else”. While some would have bought into his starry-eyed gushings and concurred, we saw it as something of a propaganda move by the shrewd businessman who we don’t believe ever had the intentions or, indeed, the money to build a new stadium from scratch.

http://www.kopsource.com/kopsource-exclusive-anfield-to-be-redeveloped/

Whats interesting here is The Council has given the green light. To what? have they seen any drawn up plans that FSG have made? and all this when not even six months looking at their options. Might want to stay at Anfield but convincing the Council is another matter all together.

xerxes1 · « **Reply #275 on:** March 20, 2011, 09:39:11 am »

A self-contradictory nonsense of an article.

Abrak · « **Reply #276 on:** May 23, 2011, 04:41:38 pm »

I found this article which is admittedly well over a year old.

It is interesting though because it gives a different picture about what 'could' happen with stadium and match day attendance in the future. It basically reflects my view of what is Man City's best competitive strategy under FFP to compete with United and Arsenal in terms of match day revenues.

Essentially it involves a massive expansion of Eastlands (the costs of which will not count for FFP) and a massive reduction in the price of match day tickets.

It makes sense as a competitive strategy for Man City and it may move the goal posts going forward in terms of match day revenues, stadiums and their role within the whole club profit model. Whether it will actually happen or not is a different matter.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manchester-City-s-stadium-poised-to-become-bigger-than-Manchester-United-s-Old-Trafford-ground-and-spark-a-ticket-revolution-Exclusive-article379025.html

ttnbd · « **Reply #277 on:** May 23, 2011, 05:56:48 pm »

man city can't even fill the capacity they have at the moment, they ain't gonna fill a bigger one.

Also if they increase capacity but reduce ticket prices then that negates alot of the benefit from the bigger capacity which won't help them with FFP. They'd also lose a shit load of that extra revenue to the council unless they bought the council out, which will cost a load in itself. City won't do that plan.

xerxes1 · « **Reply #278 on:** May 23, 2011, 10:45:07 pm »

Quote from: Abrak on May 23, 2011, 04:41:38 pm

I found this article which is admittedly well over a year old.

It is interesting though because it gives a different picture about what 'could' happen with stadium and match day attendance in the future. It basically reflects my view of what is Man City's best competitive strategy under FFP to compete with United and Arsenal in terms of match day revenues.

Essentially it involves a massive expansion of Eastlands (the costs of which will not count for FFP) and a massive reduction in the price of match day tickets.

It makes sense as a competitive strategy for Man City and it may move the goal posts going forward in terms of match day revenues, stadiums and their role within the whole club profit model. Whether it will actually happen or not is a different matter.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manchester-City-s-stadium-poised-to-become-bigger-than-Manchester-United-s-Old-Trafford-ground-and-spark-a-ticket-revolution-Exclusive-article379025.html

The COM's complex and surrounds are impressive indeed. The space needed to offer facilities which may offer alternative income streams is simply not available on the existing Anfield site. Anfield Plaza and a green field development with "Football Quarter" ambitions can of course offer that.

xerxes1 · « **Reply #279 on:** May 24, 2011, 10:46:38 am »

Quote from: Peter McGurk on May 24, 2011, 09:37:24 am

And who said we were limited to the Anfield site? That's not very proactive old son.

It is always wise to build on cleared land which you own.

Stanley Park provides for development on defined, cleared owned (leased) space, and redevelopment on Anfield Plaza, already owned by the Club.

The current Anfield is what it is.Any development around the existing Anfield site is subject to ownership,planning, cost and acquisition considerations which are wholly unknown. You might be able to do something, you might not. Stanley park/Anfield Plaza is acquired - and consented.