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..