Topic: NESV leaning towards a 'new stadium' and facilities

[Zeb]

But that's not what's been said.  Clearly the costs of the new stadium don't make it viable - regardless of availability of funds.

You're right, what I wrote is the bit that is being left unsaid.

Here's what Levy was officially saying just three months ago:

"Clearly we are delighted with this unanimous decision and are grateful to all those who expressed such clear support for the plans. I should stress that there is still much work to be done. We shall continue to work with Haringey Council and the application will now be considered by the Mayor of London and referred to the Secretary of State.

"In the meantime I can also confirm we have registered an interest in the Olympic Stadium site within the deadline of 30 September, in conjunction with AEG (Europe), the world's largest entertainment and facilities management company.

"It is only prudent and good management that we ensure that we investigate all possible options for the Club. We were informed by the Olympic Park Legacy Company that were we not to register an interest at this time, there would not be an opportunity at any future date.

"We have always maintained that we wouldn't undertake any project that could undermine the overall financial stability and future success of the Club and this shall remain our guiding principle going forward and in determining our best option in the interests of the Club and all its fans and stakeholders.

And here's Levy just a couple of weeks ago (coincidentally just when Spurs were ramping up their bid for the Olympic stadium):

In respect of the NDP, the S106, the planning agreement required before full planning consent can be issued, has been signed by ourselves, Haringey Council and Transport for London and is in the process of being signed by the relevant financial institutions.

That said, I must once again repeat the concerns we have about the viability and deliverability of the NDP. The cost of consent has been high. This is not attributable to any one stakeholder, but is rather the result of the cumulative nature of the various obligations. We have worked well in partnership with Haringey Council and I should like to thank them for their support in reaching this stage in the process.

No progress has been made with the remaining land owners and this is a potentially costly issue. As such, we have yet to conclude the site assembly. Compulsory Purchase Orders are of course one route to resolving this, but that process is uncertain and can take years to conclude.

So just to clarify, this sudden increase in costing which makes the whole project unviable is that Spurs haven't yet been granted compulsory purchase orders on the bits of land they knew they needed to have at the very start of their project. What a shocker that must have been in the boardroom, eh?

Levy can pull the other one. It's got bells.

[west_london_red]

At a probable cost up to £130m, we'll get more than a lick of paint at Anfield.  You'll be looking at state of the art and 'brand value'.  No one thinks Old Trafford or Stamford Bridge are even starting to show their age [repeated]

For me its not about state of the art facilities, i really dont care too much about them as i wont be enjoying the corporate boxes etc, I just want more seats to be honest so that I can go to more games and something that puts a few more quid in the clubs coffers and closes the gap to our rivals. How the club does that, im open minded about.

[Coady]

Thats my main concern - hope we dont go down the option of expending Anfield (by no means a cheap option) by a few thousand seats only to realise in 10 years that we still need a new stadium and wasted a load of money in the expansion. If they can get Anfield up to 60k, then I would like to see us stay there.

Agreed, We built two new stands in the 90s, but by 2001 we were designing a new stadium.

[xerxes1]

So just to clarify, this sudden increase in costing which makes the whole project unviable is that Spurs haven't yet been granted compulsory purchase orders on the bits of land they knew they needed to have at the very start of their project. What a shocker that must have been in the boardroom, eh?Levy can pull the other one. It's got bells.

No, it doesn't clarify it. Levy skilfully mitigated the original 106 obligations down by presenting the Olympic option, exactly the same process is being replicated witht the landowners. It's the usual game of bluff, and counter bluff.

[Zeb]

You could be right, but it's stretching it a bit to suggest that a caution on the scheme going forward is also just made up to strengthen a bid for something else.

Maybe, but I'd not take Levy's statements at face value for all the tea in China. Especially not considering the way that they've muscled into the top four with a fairly dramatic increase in spending and with a relatively inexpensive stadium up for grabs.

Xerxes - as I said, he can pull the other one.

[scouse29]

Peter

Can you help on this?

For arguments sake lets say a new ground will cost 300m and give us 15k extra seats plus a host of various corporate options. With the option to add another 15k seats.

We some how by hook or by crook manage to get a company happy to pay naming rights. Based on curent shirt deal with SC were gaining 20m over a 4 year period. So again for arguments sake, whats  a stadium worth over 10 years? 10m or more a year? in my eyes a stadium worth just as much but we will say 10m a year?

With the loss of revenue at Anfield over a 2 year period whilst re developoing will see us loose what? maybe 20m to 30m?

So were at 300m - 100 for naming rights = 200 - 30 for loss of revene and were at 170.

Are we talking about re develpoing Anfield for 5-10 extas seats for 130m? Re develop Main Stand & Anfield Road?

Seems we at set of cross roads where another 40m will see us well set for a new stadium?

[helmboy_nige]

I think te wider problem is the local area.  I'd much prefer to see Anfield redeveloped into a 60,000+ stadium with corporate facilities etc.  However, if we go down this route we may lose all support within the council and we can kiss goodbye to the regeneration of the area.  The Anfield plaza idea was nice and offered a legacy.

I still think we are a long long way from a decision on this.

[xerxes1]

@Peter McGurk
You are right to say that the value of a stadium is determined by income over costs, profit over a fixed period.

Your second main para is nonsense and not true in this specific regard. Naming rights ( anything from £50-£300m)is a one off windfall contingent on a new stadium. It is not a cost. You cannot spend it on anything else – because without the stadium to name you have no money to spend.

It is simply not true  that  you would expect the return on investment (and ultimately the value) of a redevelopment to be twice that of a new stadium, that is a grotesque distortion. In fact rebuild/refurb tends to be more expensive than new build. It hinges on scale.  You have to compare like for like. Specifically what profits could we expect over a 25 year period for a 60k New Anfield (the consented one) v a redeveloped one. There is no question that minor redevelopment will be the most cost effective. The unanswered question is whether a redeveloped Anfield can match what a new stadium can deliver financially. It is a simple as that.

 Man Utds NE Quadrant cost £1m in 2006 to provide 7000 seats. Excellent value. That does not mean that Laings could or would have done the whole stadium for £7m though.......

[xerxes1]

I think te wider problem is the local area.  I'd much prefer to see Anfield redeveloped into a 60,000+ stadium with corporate facilities etc.  However, if we go down this route we may lose all support within the council and we can kiss goodbye to the regeneration of the area.  The Anfield plaza idea was nice and offered a legacy.I still think we are a long long way from a decision on this.

IF it is possible to expand to 60k where we are and deliver  increased hospitality facilities to match demand, that is the right answer for the Club.

I hope we can, but doubt we can. The Council and Community's interests lie in a NewAnfield, not a redeveloped one.The Council are well placed to thwart a planning application which sought to replicate the new scheme on the existing site.

The current consent expires this summer. I see little evidence that the existing scheme will be implemented, and think there is little chance it will commence within the period of the currency of the existing consent.

[xerxes1]

It's not nonsense.  We've had that debate endlessly.  All you have ever said is "it just ain't so' and it's getting just a bit dull.

It just isn't true. I can't help that. That's not my fault.Much of this is opinion. But this is not. It is fact. Sorry if the truth is dull. A naming rights payment is NOT a cost. No-naming rights, no money.You cannot spend it on something else- because you havent got it.  If you wish to put a case to the contrary fine, but you havent, and will not be able to.

I am happy to swap opinions on the merits of different schemes, and respect not only the redevelopment case, but the possibility that it may prove demonstrably to be the right financial answer. I am not a "new Stadium Absolutist", my opinion is determined by the evidence.Much of what you say is fair comment.

But your Naming Rights as Cost argument is not an argument, or an opinion, it is an accounting principle which is either right, or wrong. And it is wrong. If someone was giving us £100m a year for shirt sponsorship, you would be right, because if that £100m was spent on the stadium, it could have been spent elsewhere. It is income where you can choose how it is spent. If you are given £100m for the naming rights you have it because of the naming rights. You have nothing without it.

You cannot question that since the two alternatives can have the same facilities, they can generate the same income - and one being approximately half the cost would be hugely more cost effective and more valuable.

IF it were half the cost, AND you could do it, we would agree.

And if you think adding 15k to Anfield will cost the same as 60k new, I'll show my backside in Lewis's window.... and then you contradict yourself by saying it IS more cost effective (but you sneak in the word 'minor'). Come on Xerxes, you can do better than that.

I have never said that. I have said that I don't think (my opinion) that we will be able to get a consented scheme for a 60k stadium and sufficient premium seating at the existing Anfield. I hope I am wrong.

So if both of the latter statements are true, they'll be no new stadium, no redevelopment and no regeneration and we can all go home and stop worrying about it.

Ouch! There is insufficient information to second guess what is going to happen at the moment, isn't there? Whatever decision they come to, i don't think it will be before the existing consent expires.

[xerxes1]

It would be normal development practice to say that anything you put in, is a cost of investment regardless of where the funds come from.  It requires a return, it is not free money, whether it’s from naming rights or catering deals - you could buy players with it; you could buy your granny’s old socks with it; anything you like with it - but it’s a very effective guarantee and that’s what should be done with it, in practice.

I’m glad you agree that the business case for a redevelopment would be better than a new stadium.  I wonder how council could refuse an application for consent for a redevelopment - or not to have such refusal very quickly turned over on appeal.  Each application as no doubt you know is on its own merits.  It’s not about council preference or even reference to a previous consent or any previous deals on regeneration or 106 agreements - particularly when the alternative you have perhaps inadvertently pointed out, is to do nothing - yes, ouch.

First, thanks for taking up the challenge.

(It might bore others, but we both agree it is an important point)

We may just be disputing semantics. We both agree that any amount of money has  a value. I hope that we also agree that in this specific case – no new stadium, no new stadium naming rights. So there is no transferable cost.

If a new stadium costs £300m, and the naming rights are £100m, that is a windfall. It is as a result of “itself”.
If a new stadium costs £300m, and you choose to spend £100m from shirt sponsorship/catering there is indeed a cost associated with that. Agreed.

So although we agree that  there is no such thing as free money. In this instance, if the interest payable was let’s just say £5m pa, and that is the cost theoretically, it just reduces the windfall down to £95m. That s because it is self generated and does not call upon other income or cash. If that makes your point, fine. But it is a cost in theoretic al, not practical terms. You could choose to spend it on Messi instead – then you WOULD have a cost.

But it would be practically, and financially, irresponsible to argue that the self-generating windfall of new stadium naming rights, and its theoretical cost should be accounted for, because the cost of replacing that cash on the money markets would be greater.

I did not say that the business case for a redevelopment would be better than a new stadium. I said that IF it were half the cost, AND you could do it,( same capacity and facilities) it would be.

The Council have the power to approve or reject any application in law. The point in question is whether an application at Anfield which rivalled the New Anfield would get a consent. I doubt it .You think it would. We will see.

 There is no material advantage to the Council in consenting to a redeveloped Anfield over doing nothing. Indeed arguably they are worse off through increased infrastructure burdens..

[SP]

We may just be disputing semantics. We both agree that any amount of money has  a value. I hope that we also agree that in this specific case – no new stadium, no new stadium naming rights. So there is no transferable cost.

If a new stadium costs £300m, and the naming rights are £100m, that is a windfall. It is as a result of “itself”.
If a new stadium costs £300m, and you choose to spend £100m from shirt sponsorship/catering there is indeed a cost associated with that. Agreed.

Irrelevant to your argument, but you are implying that a redeveloped stadium has no value in naming rights. Why couldn't the naming rights for a redeveloped 60K stadium be sold? Granted the value may be down on a green field site, but it is not a £100M windfall for a new stadium.

Politically, it would be a nightmare, but I would be inclined to take the money invest it in the squad and then still call it Anfield.

[scouse29]

Seems nothing happening in the short term as either way it looks like a new planning application unless you can extend an existing one?

Plus the construction time.

What we looking at another 2 years for work to commence either way?

[mercury]

We can debate fine points all day but no matter - development is not known for niceties and nuance and people just don’t stick naming rights in. 

Putting naming rights in is a poor use of capital, ties it down long term and sucks the return out of the deal.  The Anfield name probably adds more national and international ‘brand value’ to the club than any naming rights deal.  At the end of the day and even accepting the windfall argument at the optimistic level of £100m, a new stadium has a poorer return and greater risk than a redeveloped Anfield, so it really isn't material to a decision or even that important. I'll leave it there.

It would be useful for you experts to put in some real numbers there that support the above conclusion.

We have gone through the whole stadium debate 3 or 4 years before.  It was a thorough debate, with a lot of numbers as well as supporting rationale, leading to the reluctant acceptance of the need of the new stadium.  And accepted we have.  Of course things have changed since then, not the least the financial landscape and the opportunity for re-developing the Annie Stand now.  So some "new numbers" perhaps are called for. 

[DonkeyWan]

One thing that bothers me here is if the owners go ahead with redevelopment, will there be scope for further redevelopment at a later date? I mean the question of how good re-development is is one thing, but if improving the existing stadium absolutely maxs out the potential of the area, what happens then?

[helmboy_nige]

One thing that bothers me here is if the owners go ahead with redevelopment, will there be scope for further redevelopment at a later date? I mean the question of how good re-development is is one thing, but if improving the existing stadium absolutely maxs out the potential of the area, what happens then?

Exactly.  For me the issue is both this and the regeneration of the area around the ground.  If we redevelop then the plan still needs to include agreements with the council for regeneration and I'm not sure this is on the table.

[mercury]

Could do that, and we could debate a quid or a squillion here and there till the cows come home. 

A Quantity Surveyor friend of mine once told me - "what do you want me to say? I can make any numbers work".  In other words, you have to ask the right question to get the right answer. 

Maybe the question in the past was "how do we build the biggest stadium to make the most money?" instead of "how do we make the most money for the biggest benefit to the club?"

Today, I notice our matchday revenue went up this last year.  Only by a little bit but that's without a single seat being added to Anfield.

Of course, we need to ask the right questions and do the right assumptions for the numbers to be meaningful.  However if you aren't arsed to back up your conclusions, so be it.

[Coady]

Would this have any effect on the new stadium?

Liverpool's regeneration screeches to a halt following coalition cuts.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/08/liverpool-regeneration-cuts

[mercury]

Of course, yes 'of course' but not many have done it so far.  It's amazing when you look at what people think about H&G, Rick Parry and all but when it comes to the stadium the overwhelming feeling HAS BEEN "Yeah that's right, go on. Splash [our] cash - get building".  It doesn't seem to have occurred to many to ask whether the ordinary fans will be able to afford it or could we lose money for the team - now those are the right questions.

Worse, people deflect the debate away from the central issues (like desirability) by dwelling on things like whether the interest rate would be 6.3% or 8.4% - putting off the fateful day when they just maybe have to admit that having one seat more than the mancs isn't going to help anyone.

And we can talk about desirability and even practicality here.  We CAN say what we want, we can get an idea of how it can be done. We can say we love the ground and we don't want to move or wouldn't it be great to have an architectural masterpiece the envy of the world.  We can understand the principles of the money (and there's plenty of that info here already) but can we really have a sensible debate about amortisation, depreciation, tax structure and LIBOR rates here?  If you think so, that's up to you.

You cannot be more wrong or more condescending, especially in your first para, matey. 

I said "reluctant acceptance" for a new stadium, as the majority of the fanbase had wanted and still would love to stay at Anfield. 

We went through those complicated stuff you listed, and more, last round on RAWK, thanks to some fantastic contributions and patient explanations from fellow rawkites.  People did read, ask questions and try to understand the issues and there was a lively debate.  With it came a general consensus on building a new stadium as the best way forward. 

Now you are saying a new stadium is not worth it or necessary anymore.  Of course ( ) we want to dig deeper - a more cohesive case of which numbers is an important part.  Simply put, what you have said so far is not enough to support your assertion.

[LiverBirdKop]

I'd love to have a brand new iconic stadium that could revitalize the area around it. Attract foot traffic, tourism, etc to generate more revenue 7 days a week from parking, food, pubs, corporate events, museum visits, merchandising, team tours and expose the club to new fans.

That said, here's my gut feeling: FSG will decide to stay at Anfield and refurbish it very slowly, little by little. Corporate boxes and 3k premium seats one year. 4k more seats a couple years later. And a further few years later another 4k-5k  seats.

[west_london_red]

Of course, yes 'of course' but not many have done it so far.  It's amazing when you look at what people think about H&G, Rick Parry and all but when it comes to the stadium the overwhelming feeling HAS BEEN "Yeah that's right, go on. Splash [our] cash - get building".  It doesn't seem to have occurred to many to ask whether the ordinary fans will be able to afford it or could we lose money for the team - now those are the right questions.

Peter, the same could be said about your posts, that you are so single minded in your belief that we should stay at Anfield under any circumstances that you fail to take into account the revenue we could lose/miss out on by not considering all the posibilities such as moving.

As I have said before (and i suspect 90% of fans will agree with me) if we can get Anfield to 60k we should stay there. If we cant, we need to move.

[xerxes1]

Of course, yes 'of course' but not many have done it so far.  It's amazing when you look at what people think about H&G, Rick Parry and all but when it comes to the stadium the overwhelming feeling HAS BEEN "Yeah that's right, go on. Splash [our] cash - get building".  It doesn't seem to have occurred to many to ask whether the ordinary fans will be able to afford it or could we lose money for the team - now those are the right questions.

Or perhaps they have? Perhaps some of our support think that having the 64th largest stadium in Europe  and the 23rd largest support by average attendance is a disgaceful dereliction of duty by successive ownerships? Perhaps some think that £43 to sit on the Kop in a stadium with ageing inadequate facilities is taking the piss and that that is not acceptable either? Perhaps some seek the leadership and vision that has deserted our club over the past two decades without a league title to our name?

[scouse29]

I'd love to have a brand new iconic stadium that could revitalize the area around it. Attract foot traffic, tourism, etc to generate more revenue 7 days a week from parking, food, pubs, corporate events, museum visits, merchandising, team tours and expose the club to new fans.

That said, here's my gut feeling: FSG will decide to stay at Anfield and refurbish it very slowly, little by little. Corporate boxes and 3k premium seats one year. 4k more seats a couple years later. And a further few years later another 4k-5k  seats.

I hope your gut feeling is wrong as it addresses nothing. For me its all about getting to Anfield week in week out without the hassle of getting tickets via email or phone.

Over a period of time all four sides of the ground will need replacing in my eyes.

[MPowerYNWA]

LFC earn 55% less revenues than Man Utd and more than half that gap is due to match day revenues (no one knows the profit figures but united are not going to sell seats at an overall marginal loss).

No matter what that has to be addressed - whichever way NESV choose to do it.

NESV have information we're not privvy to, they're shrewd capitalists and they have concluded we need a bigger stadium - if they shared their analysis we would all probably conclude the same (at the moment we've got half-baked arguments based on conjecture so let's appreciate we haven't got all the facts that NESV have).

The only question therefore that remains is whether anfield will suffice in terms of absorbing additional capacity or if a new stadium will be required (given current and future ticket demand). Again NESV will have the information to hand, which we don't, to conclude correctly.

My point is we need to let NESV share their plans and analysis with us before we can critique.

[west_london_red]

I’ll take it on the chin for not being clear but you couldn’t have misunderstood me any more than you have. 

You’ve got to question how useful it would be to go to this level of detail when there are so many variables and so many different ways that NESV can go.  I remember looking at the graphs of LIBOR rates on here and thinking ‘does this really help to decide?’ - no, it didn’t.  It cleared up the possible interest rate but it would apply in either case - so, so what?  It’s more important to understand that the income from both options can be the same but that one is considerably cheaper than the other.  It’s not being blinkered or single-minded - it’s seeing the wood for the trees.

And no one is saying that the existing facilities are adequate or won’t be changed or that we shouldn’t maximise the support or get new owners (but really, what’s the point of fighting battles already won).

It’s more important than that to do decide what we WANT to do rather that what we CAN do.  We can’t come back from 3-0 down in a European Cup Final but we really wanted to.

And yeah, I do get pissed off when people say I can’t be arsed.

Peter, the only thing is that there is so much we dont know, but mainly can we extend Anfield sufficiently to make it worth while long term in terms of planning permision from Liverpool Council, and what the difference in projected revenue and cost will be from say a 60 refurbed Anfield vs a new 60k new stadium.

I would assume the answers to the above questions will determine what way we go.

[xerxes1]

It's more important to understand that the income from both options can be the same but that one is considerably cheaper than the other.

You remind me so much of TIMOI who made much sense, but always imploded at the finsihing line.

We know that a 60k stadium with specific facilities can be built (it is consented) and a cost ( currently unknown) determined.
We do not know whether that capacity and similar facilities can be replicated at Anfield because no such scheme has ever been submitted let alone improved.

It is true that a limited expansion of Anfield, because of its reduced capital costs, may produce at least as good income and profits in the short term. What such a reduced scheme may have to offer in terms of capacity and facilities we do not know.

It is also true that a new stadium may be more expensive than a limited expansion of Anfield in the short term (which might suit FSG but might leave us still unable to fight at the Euro stadium income top table) whilst a new stadium may deliver long term security and income for LFC, cementing our place at the Euro top table long after FSG have gone.

All this really hinges on your quoted question, and what the "it" is, as the above demonstrates.

[pewithree3]

I haven`t  read all of the posts so please bear with me but a big
factor in what the club do is how much blackmail the council will
use to regenerate the area. Of course some regeneration by the
club is required around the ground but I`m sure the council will
insert some extras as a proviso for planning consent, the cost
to be borne by the club.

[xerxes1]

We WANT the most financially productive football ground that suits the fans the best.

We will get the football ground that suits FSG best.

I would never be swayed from that, even if council’s first blush was to say you cannot have it if it meant redeveloping Anfield

Either a redeveloped ground will get a consent or it won’t consistent with prevailing legislation. Your ongoing assumption is that the redevelopment of Anfield which will financially better a New anfield is both physically possible, and will get a consent. Both are unknowns.

The motivation for a new stadium is so dubious and the dangers are so clearly so strong, that I would rather do nothing than build one

Quite how a desire for a new stadium that will allow us to compete in gate receipts with the Euro elite for the next fifty years, subject to its commerciality is hardly dangerous. We have already done nothing for the last 20 years. No title for two decades, no honours for four years, a stadium 64th largest in Europe and an attendance performance worse than all around us. Do nothing? Not for me.

You have to separate logic from emotion.  There’s no point ‘making sense', ignoring that and jumping to a predisposed answer.  I’ve spent time going back and I’ve read what you’re talking about but maybe the consistent thing is your particular predisposition to the arguments rather than the arguments themselves.  Maybe?If you start with what CAN be done, don’t be upset if you don’t get what you WANT to be done.

This makes no sense whatsoever. My position is clear, let the facts speak for themselves, i am relaxed about the conclusion then .
You just don’t want a new stadium whatever. Which is fine. We disagree.

Clearly council can refuse but they need good reason (and regeneration ain't it).  As you say, the scope and issues have already been resolved and approved not 100m away and if they did, I would go back to them and ask what valid reason have you got for refusing us? .  And if they had other good reason, I would solve that and go back again - because we want is what we want - we don’t want any half-baked compromise or a positively dangerous alternative in the short term and in the long term.

This is another “TMOI moment”. You know most of your stuff – but then come to a bizarre conclusion. The reasons why the Council might refuse a consent are several, to assume a consent on an unknown scheme is just strange. The Council won’t grant a consent “because you want it” I am afraid.

[xerxes1]

I haven`t  read all of the posts so please bear with me but a big factor in what the club do is how much blackmail the council will
use to regenerate the area. Of course some regeneration by the  club is required around the ground but I`m sure the council will
insert some extras as a proviso for planning consent, the cost to be borne by the club.

The New Anfield consent provides for the existing Anfield site to be redeveloped as "Anfield Plaza" with associated peripheral renewal and regeneration.

A redeveloped Anfield provides for no regeneration or renewal.It simply requires greater physical massing of structure and density of use.

A New Anfield provides a community dividend. A redeveloped Anfield offers the community nothing apart from increased infrastructure burdens.

[pewithree3]

Sorry, I should have said that my comments were made
on the understanding that the present stadium is
upgraded and enlarged, except for the kop.
What would be the cost of demolishing Anfield if a new
stadium was built in the park?
I do not like or trust politicians so always expect the worst
of them.

[xerxes1]

FSG have bought LFC as a financial investment. As fans we support a football club. There will be times when our interests overlay, and times when they do not, a connection, notwithstanding.

The 23/64 argument is open to debate. Some, perhaps even yourself, say that is where we are. Others, myself included, believe the Club has demonstrably underperformed the marketplace in growing our attendance.

We are already losing money and ground against the competition, specifically Man u and Arsenal, around £1.5m a game. Any ground move or redevelopment is subject to commerciality. We simply do not have the figures yet to make that judgement, you can’t use the terms “expensive” and “can’t afford” until that information is available. It may be that we can’t afford not to, let’s wait and see.

The reasons why a planning application may be refused are manifold and a matter of record. With no scheme available to either of us, pick as many as you fancy.

Perhaps you would like to pick up your regeneration/planning/infrastructure comment later and explain what you mean?

[LiverBirdKop]

I hope your gut feeling is wrong as it addresses nothing. For me its all about getting to Anfield week in week out without the hassle of getting tickets via email or phone.

Over a period of time all four sides of the ground will need replacing in my eyes.

I agree. I hope my gut feeling is wrong. But look at how they've gone about adding seats to Fenway in Boston. Little by little.
Of course we're a different situation but FSG don't really have that much money and we need to both $trengthen the squad and deal with the $tadium/Anfield issue at the same time. As I've said before while reading about NESV/FSG, the reason they're so good at marketing and adding revenue streams is because they have no choice! to fill the Red Sox financial necessities.

[xerxes1]

The news that Purslow doubted that FSG had the funds for a new stadium is not encouraging.

[LiverBirdKop]

You mean regarding the Purslow email that came up in court?

I have a feeling there's gonna be a lot of people disappointed with FSG eventually. Wonder if this will "force their hand" a little into making their plans about the new stadium Anfield re-furbishing public, sooner than they wanted.

[TepidT2O]

You mean regarding the Purslow email that came up in court?

I have a feeling there's gonna be a lot of people disappointed with FSG eventually. Wonder if this will "force their hand" a little into making their plans about the new stadium Anfield re-furbishing public, sooner than they wanted.

Doubt it.

I don't really want their money.

I just want no debt and bloody good business sense.  The rest takes care of itself.

Everything we have seen says that they are (and have been) honourable in their ownership of sports franchises (as we now are).  For this club that is a key factor.

Lets hope this is correct, we really won't know for 2/3 years.

[cyador]

The news that Purslow doubted that FSG had the funds for a new stadium is not encouraging.

Thats good to hear. If purslow doubted fsg had the funds, then the opposite is likely true.

[BostonScouse]

did the email say that he doubted they "had the money" for a new stadium or that they were hesitant to commit to building a new stadium? The idea that they don't have the money to do whatever they want in terms of a stadium is laughable, and even a superficial glance at their membership would have confirmed that. it would make sense for them to want to leave their options open though.

[LiamG]

They might look at even more future expansion as the decider also

If Anfield is expanded to 55k/60k What is the maximum we would be able to expand after that. Same with a new stadium, if its built at 60k, Will it be able to go to 70k,80k+ in the future

[west_london_red]

The news that Purslow doubted that FSG had the funds for a new stadium is not encouraging.

They dont need the funds though, they only need to be able to borrow them.

[LiverBirdKop]

did the email say that he doubted they "had the money" for a new stadium or that they were hesitant to commit to building a new stadium? The idea that they don't have the money to do whatever they want in terms of a stadium is laughable, and even a superficial glance at their membership would have confirmed that. it would make sense for them to want to leave their options open though.

You sound familiar. Forgot your other screen name? Please explain why you think it's laughable. Every single one of the NESV investors/partners/members whatever you want to call them is public. It's not that difficult to learn about them.what they do and what they're worth. Plenty of articles of all kinds on all of those names from a simple search.

John W. Henry - Principal Owner
Thomas C. Werner - Chairman
Thomas R. DiBenedetto
Michael Egan
David Ginsberg
Michael Gordon
John A. Kaneb
Seth Klarman
Larry Lucchino
Henry F. McCance
Phillip H. Morse
The New York Times Company
Art Nicholas
Frank Resnek
Martin Trust
Jeffrey Vinik