Topic: Bascombe Story - let's wait for confirmation before discussing it ok?

[Peter McGurk]

I think you'll find it goes on a lot more than a feeling when you're the one approaching companies/they are approaching you with regards to sponsorship.

And now you're comparing Henry & Co's influence over Standard Chartered (which was done pre-them I think) and Warrior to that of City's Sheik over companies he pretty much has a hand in?!

And guess will have to disagree about MOTD, havent watched it religiously for years but on the odd time I do I always seem to end up waiting until the end to see a game Im interested in involving someone like us, United, etc.

Of course it does mate, but this is not a good place to come to the market from. You have to agree with that.

SC backed us over Suarez sure, but who knows what's in their contract/whether they had the choice. Warrior already had a deal with Boston Red Sox - it's in the family.

... and if you're on at the end you only get about three minutes. Says something.

[CraigDS]

Of course it does mate, but this is not a good place to come to the market from. You have to agree with that.

Warrior already had a deal with Boston Red Sox - it's in the family.

I do agree with that, but I only see evidence that interest in us is not on the downturn (yet). The Istanbul boat has been and gone IMO, we should of capitalised on that earlier but didn't. But somehow our interest remains right up there.

Yeah the contacts were there but his ability to influence them to pay £25m a season? I highly doubt he does. If so then I expect some record breaking deals from all his other sponsors at Red Sox.

[Peter McGurk]

I do agree with that, but I only see evidence that interest in us is not on the downturn (yet). The Istanbul boat has been and gone IMO, we should of capitalised on that earlier but didn't. But somehow our interest remains right up there.

Yeah the contacts were there but his ability to influence them to pay £25m a season? I highly doubt he does. If so then I expect some record breaking deals from all his other sponsors at Red Sox.

But it isn't record-breaking is it? It's just under United's shirt deal, for example. How we can magically do staggeringly deals elsewhere escapes me (and others)

[CraigDS]

But it isn't record-breaking is it? It's just under United's shirt deal, for example. How we can magically do staggeringly deals elsewhere escapes me (and others)

OK, but its still a MASSIVE deal none the less, record breaking or not. It still dispels the theory that we are on the decline commercially.

and escapes you and others or not, they are doing those deals and therefore as above, showing we are very much on the up.

[Peter McGurk]

OK, but its still a MASSIVE deal none the less, record breaking or not. It still dispels the theory that we are on the decline commercially.

and escapes you and others or not, they are doing those deals and therefore as above, showing we are very much on the up.

It's the going rate. Almost by definition, an ordinary deal. It shows we are are doing just as well if actually slightly worse than our competitiors.

[Alan_X]

I'm confused, do you like Anfield or dislike Anfield? Previous posts suggest you think its generic and the same as dozens of stadiums around the UK and also claim in some parts of the stadium , fans are alienated and obstructed. What maks Anfield special?

I love Anfield but that love is like the love you have for a really hot woman who is also high maintenance and a fucking nightmare to live with. It's somewhere I've been going to for over thirty years and there are a lot of memories and nostalgia attached to those feelings.

Some of the things that I love about it in terms of atmosphere are also the things I hate for other reasons. The seat and row spacing mean that the crowd is compact and the crowd (not just the first rows) are closer to the pitch.

It is generic and elements of it are the same as loads of other grounds around the country - the main stand was a Leitch stand and the main thing that differentiated it from Villa Park, Craven Cottage was the shape of the gable and the badge on it. Our Kop isn't the only Kop and it wasn't the first. The only thing that makes Anfield unique is the piecemeal nature in which it was developed. There is a misapprehension that having four different stands somehow contributes to the atmosphere - it doesn't, it's just an accident. The important thing for any new ground is having a Kop - a single-tier, and err... that's it.

Is is so hard for you to comprehend AFL redesigned the stadium to suit their clients desires?

I unerstand that completely. AFL designed the 2003 scheme based on the consultation with their client (the club) and feed back from the users (the fans). It was designed with an appropriate capacity, four stands, a single tier Kop, and an efficient and affordable structure. The revised scheme was designed for one client - Thomas Hicks - and no-one else. It was a plea to his ego and they tried to incorporate the 'american' inspired bollocks that HKS had brought to the table: transparency; over-designed eye-catching elements; and a nod to the Cowboys stadium. I don't think Tom Hicks was the right person to decide what Liverpool FC and the fans should have as their ground for the next hundred years.

Did you expect them to ignore the client an create something just like Anfield on a bigger scale?

The AFL revised scheme wasn't Anfield on a bigger scale and neither was the HKS scheme. 'Just like Anfield' means what exactly? To me it's a football ground that has a Kop and seats for as many reds as possible. Losing all the shite things about Anfield is fine by me. I might actually be able to have a piss at half time without leaving early and get a drink and a pie. I'll be able to know that wherever I sit, the view will be decent. Of course we could make the Annie Road on a bigger scale - with more setas where you can't see the other end of the pitch.

Have to go back to work - more later.

[CraigDS]

It's the going rate. Almost by definition, an ordinary deal. It shows we are are doing just as well if actually slightly worse than our competitiors.

Going rate? Which other clubs have these deals in place then?

Granted due to the fact we haven't been doing well on the pitch will mean these deals could possibly been EVEN larger, but at the same time these deals are comparable with United's, and higher than all the others.

And even so, once again the points you made were not about beating the others in terms of commercial deals. You said we were on the decline, and these deals prove otherwsie.

[Peter McGurk]

Going rate? Which other clubs have these deals in place then?

Granted due to the fact we haven't been doing well on the pitch will mean these deals could possibly been EVEN larger, but at the same time these deals are comparable with United's, and higher than all the others.

And even so, once again the points you made were not about beating the others in terms of commercial deals. You said we were on the decline, and these deals prove otherwsie.

I think you answered your own question.

Possibly, smossibly. They are what they are. They do not show that we could achieve the truly staggering sponsorship needed to keep a new stadium within the pocket of the fan. There is an undeniable 'feeling' of waning interest. A lack of buzz. Where's the noise? 

Or even a growing disapproval. All I hear is, how wrong we are to support Suarez. We get linked with racial murder and people like Cantona drop-kicking fans for chrissake. What's going on there? Managed Decline? I even saw something the other day about regeneration in Liverpool. A positive story? Not on your life - it started with Heysel FFS. Public sympathy's a fickle and dangerous thing.

A sponsorship deal of that magnitude could put the club in the sponsor's hands. Anybody remember the Milk Marketing Board? Wonderful sponsor - dropped us like a stone.

Put all that in the mix with an economic situation the wrong side of maybe and no, we won't see no new stadium.

[shelovesyou]

Going rate? Which other clubs have these deals in place then?

Granted due to the fact we haven't been doing well on the pitch will mean these deals could possibly been EVEN larger, but at the same time these deals are comparable with United's, and higher than all the others.

And even so, once again the points you made were not about beating the others in terms of commercial deals. You said we were on the decline, and these deals prove otherwsie.

The deal with Warrior , to me, although good now, has to be considered a sweetner to get them into the market.
If we progress as a club later on then great, if we stand still - not good and i doubt we'll see similar figures again.

[eirwen]

Can this be expanded in the future? I read somewhere that it cannot.

[gorgepir]

I think you answered your own question.

Possibly, smossibly. They are what they are. They do not show that we could achieve the truly staggering sponsorship needed to keep a new stadium within the pocket of the fan. There is an undeniable 'feeling' of waning interest. A lack of buzz. Where's the noise? 

Or even a growing disapproval. All I hear is, how wrong we are to support Suarez. We get linked with racial murder and people like Cantona drop-kicking fans for chrissake. What's going on there? Managed Decline? I even saw something the other day about regeneration in Liverpool. A positive story? Not on your life - it started with Heysel FFS. Public sympathy's a fickle and dangerous thing.

A sponsorship deal of that magnitude could put the club in the sponsor's hands. Anybody remember the Milk Marketing Board? Wonderful sponsor - dropped us like a stone.

Put all that in the mix with an economic situation the wrong side of maybe and no, we won't see no new stadium.

Don't agree with anything you have said there (the logic of it at least), but completely agree with your conclusion. Strange.

[Peter McGurk]

Don't agree with anything you have said there (the logic of it at least), but completely agree with your conclusion. Strange.

Funny, it's normally the other way round 

The deal with Warrior , to me, although good now, has to be considered a sweetner to get them into the market.
If we progress as a club later on then great, if we stand still - not good and i doubt we'll see similar figures again.

Interesting.

[CraigDS]

The deal with Warrior , to me, although good now, has to be considered a sweetner to get them into the market.
If we progress as a club later on then great, if we stand still - not good and i doubt we'll see similar figures again.

Totally agree, both about it being higher to get into the market and if we stand still.

Still doesn't devalue my point about that oth this and the SC deal are clear evidence against Peters claims.

[Farman]

Once again, thanks for the efforts to those intelligent, expressive and thoughtful posters who have made their case on this board, in this and other threads. It's a rare thing for a stubborn bugger like me to have my instinctive set viewpoint altered through someone else's argument. There's a lot of very valid and persuasive thinking here.

[shelovesyou]

Totally agree, both about it being higher to get into the market and if we stand still.

Still doesn't devalue my point about that oth this and the SC deal are clear evidence against Peters claims.

You made yer point well mate as did Peter.
I dont know who's right though.

[Peter McGurk]

Totally agree, both about it being higher to get into the market and if we stand still.

Still doesn't devalue my point about that oth this and the SC deal are clear evidence against Peters claims.

Nah! Tommy rot. How old is the SC deal? and the Warrior deal's a shoo-in at the anticipated level 

Accept the economic situation, a deal with a local developer on housing renewal, add some boxes, extend the Anfield Road. Go back in as times get better. Fill in the corners, extend the Main Stand, Keep the kop. Safe as... err, houses.

[shelovesyou]

Nah! Tommy rot. How old is the SC deal? and the Warrior deal's a shoo-in at the anticipated level 

Accept the economic situation, a deal with a local developer on housing renewal, add some boxes, extend the Anfield Road. Go back in as times get better. Fill in the corners, extend the Main Stand, Keep the kop. Safe as... err, houses.

Yep the SC deal was done a few yrs ago now, as for Anfield ?
The owners havent ruled out staying bit the council are being twats arent they ?
Bit of a headache that.

[Libertine]

I love Anfield but that love is like the love you have for a really hot woman who is also high maintenance and a fucking nightmare to live with. It's somewhere I've been going to for over thirty years and there are a lot of memories and nostalgia attached to those feelings.

Some of the things that I love about it in terms of atmosphere are also the things I hate for other reasons. The seat and row spacing mean that the crowd is compact and the crowd (not just the first rows) are closer to the pitch.

It is generic and elements of it are the same as loads of other grounds around the country - the main stand was a Leitch stand and the main thing that differentiated it from Villa Park, Craven Cottage was the shape of the gable and the badge on it. Our Kop isn't the only Kop and it wasn't the first. The only thing that makes Anfield unique is the piecemeal nature in which it was developed. There is a misapprehension that having four different stands somehow contributes to the atmosphere - it doesn't, it's just an accident. The important thing for any new ground is having a Kop - a single-tier, and err... that's it.

The AFL revised scheme wasn't Anfield on a bigger scale and neither was the HKS scheme. 'Just like Anfield' means what exactly? To me it's a football ground that has a Kop and seats for as many reds as possible. Losing all the shite things about Anfield is fine by me. I might actually be able to have a piss at half time without leaving early and get a drink and a pie. I'll be able to know that wherever I sit, the view will be decent. Of course we could make the Annie Road on a bigger scale - with more setas where you can't see the other end of the pitch.

Have to go back to work - more later.

agree with this. think it's important to distinguish what's great about Anfield from what is merely nostalgic.

for me the key points for a new stadium would be:

 - obviously an increase in capacity. ~70K would be nice but 60K seems more practical and likely to mean a better and more compact design in any case.

 - improved corporate facilities and therefore income, though done as unobtrusively as possible (incorporating Hick's bunkers is an idea i like), i.e. not like the Emirates.

 - minimum space possible required by regulations between the stands and pitch.

 - internally it should be as "rectangular" as possible, both to have 4 distinct (though not necessarily different) stands and avoid the spaces between stand and pitch that a more oval shape introduces.

 - the presence of a large, single tier Kop.

 - as important as the presence of a Kop is the absence of a Kop-like stand opposite. it may well be that if there are two similar single tier structures behind each goal, one gets "used" as the new Kop and the hard core support reside there. nonetheless it's uniqueness (which is such an integral part of the club) would be greatly enhanced if there was a different and distinct "Anfield Road" stand.

 - there's no necessity imo to have the two "long" stands different, just as long as they have separate names (i favour the Paisley and Shankly Stands though many may disagree). as long as we don't have an emirates situation where you practically need a 360 degree coordinate to determine where you're sitting.


wasn't happy initially when i heard we were going back to the 2003 design, but with some intelligent and sensitive "tweaking", it could be the best solution.

[west_london_red]

Could argue last on MOTD to keep the biggest audience watching the 'little' games waiting for the big one at the end. Isn't that how they normally do it, biggest on first and last and the tripe that no one wants to watch in the middle.

Well a more 'scientific' approach is to look at the number of times our games are shown live on Sky/ESPN, where we usually fair worse then no team other then the Mancs which is sadly to be expected, and usually ahead of the rest which isnt bad considering its been over 20 years since we won the league. What concerns me with Peters approach is that there is almost an air of acceptance that we are a small club now and should just accept our fate which i totally disagree with, and this isnt a cheap dig at Peter but that the management at the club will not be able to get us back to where we should be.

[shelovesyou]

Well a more 'scientific' approach is to look at the number of times our games are shown live on Sky/ESPN, where we usually fair worse then no team other then the Mancs which is sadly to be expected, and usually ahead of the rest which isnt bad considering its been over 20 years since we won the league. What concerns me with Peters approach is that there is almost an air of acceptance that we are a small club now and should just accept our fate which i totally disagree with, and this isnt a cheap dig at Peter but that the management at the club will not be able to get us back to where we should be.

I  think Peter is 'keeping it real' as opposed to suggesting that, to be fair to him.
The MOTD thing is very simple. The shitest games go last.

[west_london_red]

I  think Peter is 'keeping it real' as opposed to suggesting that, to be fair to him.
The MOTD thing is very simple. The shitest games go last.

Lets be honest, our games are pretty dull this season and were not in chance of winning the league hence our games come on towards the end of MOTD, that in itself does not however reflect the stature of our club.

[Alan_X]

- minimum space possible required by regulations between the stands and pitch.

 - internally it should be as "rectangular" as possible, both to have 4 distinct (though not necessarily different) stands and avoid the spaces between stand and pitch that a more oval shape introduces.

All new stadia have the same space between touchline and the first row of seats if they are to comply with UEFA requirements. Some new grounds appear closer but that's to do with the treatment of that space. Make it all grass rather than having a track and set the hoardings to make it feel like the space is tighter than it actually is - that will make it appear as if he stands are closer.

The spaces between the stand and the pitch are not related to the oval shape. Both the AFL design and the HKS design have stands that are further from the touchline near the centre circle than at the goal line. The AFL has a gentle curve and the HKS a couple of 'kinks' by each penalty area. That's done to improve spectator comfort by reducing neck strain.

- there's no necessity imo to have the two "long" stands different, just as long as they have separate names (i favour the Paisley and Shankly Stands though many may disagree). as long as we don't have an emirates situation where you practically need a 360 degree coordinate to determine where you're sitting.

One of the good things (there are a few) about the HKS design was the idea of concentrating the premium/corporate accommodation in the west stand and maxing out the east stand with as many seats as possible. The two stands were similar in scale but one had a capacity of 13,000 (including directors box, suites etc) and the other 25,000. There's a lot to be said for that in principle. The worst thing about the Emirates is the 'ring of silence' that is a result of everything being exactly the same all the way around.

[peterb17]

In 2006, a mate of mine said we had 5 years ‘brand value’ after Istanbul

Just a quick one on that quote:

I remember reading it in an article by Rick Parry shortly after instanbul can't remember the publication and haven't got access to it but nobody argued with it at the time

PS Not saying Parry is your mate Peter just saying I have heard the quote before

[Peter McGurk]

In 2006, a mate of mine said we had 5 years ‘brand value’ after Istanbul

Just a quick one on that quote:

I remember reading it in an article by Rick Parry shortly after instanbul can't remember the publication and haven't got access to it but nobody argued with it at the time

PS Not saying Parry is your mate Peter just saying I have heard the quote before

The sly old git! No, it wasn't Parry

[Red Beret]

I'm slightly peeved to see this at the same time United are looking to expand to 90k.

Really? They are struggling to fill OT now. There is no waiting list for season tickets. I cannot see them being able to guarantee a decent return on investment for that...

I doubt they will now - they are maxing out at around 76,000, and that's based on levels of success that they are going to struggle to maintain over the next few years if City keep going.

Could be nothing more than dick swinging, as was suggested with the HKS design.  Or it could be an attempt to boost the value of the asset.  If success wanes or profits slide in the transfer market the value of a 90k stadium would remain solid, maybe to borrow against...

I'm tempted to take almost any kind of new build right now but I never did like the Parry-Bowl.

[Peter McGurk]

Yep the SC deal was done a few yrs ago now, as for Anfield ?
The owners havent ruled out staying bit the council are being twats arent they ?
Bit of a headache that.

Yes, getting real is where it's at and I'm sure our owners are too. I've every confidence that they'll do as well if not better than any others in the circumstances. What I'm saying is, is, the circumstances are pretty shit right now (and for the foreseeable future) and we'd do better to bear that in mind rather than lumping ourselves with a huge liability particularly when there's a safer and more economically viable alternative

A few years ago, the economic times were a lot better for SC - as for Anfield, it certainly does under-perform financially compared with other grounds but maybe, just maybe that has more to do with local conditions than the state of the ground. FSG have already been in print to say that 'only' as many as 60 boxes may be too many (don't ask - I haven't got the link, just a memory. Sometimes analog is best).

I'm sure everyone else will remember them saying this isn't London and we aren't going to get London prices. They're not putting the club down. They're just getting real.

***

As for council. Let's be fair here. Anfield needs land they can't give. If someone came along and unlocked that land, replacing at least a part of the £120m for housing the government have nipped back into their pockets, they'd bite their arms off for a redevelopment.

Could be nothing more than dick swinging, as was suggested with the HKS design.  Or it could be an attempt to boost the value of the asset.  If success wanes or profits slide in the transfer market the value of a 90k stadium would remain solid, maybe to borrow against...

I'm tempted to take almost any kind of new build right now but I never did like the Parry-Bowl.

United parked the 90k a long time ago, don't worry. BTW the value of property depends on how much money it makes, not how big it is or how much it costs.

[Alan_X]

BTW the value of property depends on how much money it makes not how big it is or how much it costs.

Perfect case in point is the M&S store in Manchester. After the bomb their property side took the 'Red Beret' view and built the biggest possible building with the maximum floorplate and 'valued' it by multiplying the area by standard return. In reality the store was simply too big and half of it lay fallow until it was split to create Selfridges. As you say, an extra 15,000 seats at Old Trafford without bums on them is just a cost not an asset.

[Garcepticon]

I think a very most important thing that John Henry et al. can do to get an atmosphere in the new statium is work with the fanbase and make sure that groups like RTK get the optimum seats on the kop to make themselves heard. Having such a concentrated vocal support that all could hear would hopefully spread the atmosphere throughout the new kop.

[Twelfth Man]

Can someone please tell me what sort of alterations can be made to the AFL 2003 design without invalidating the planning permission?

[Ginamos]

I love Anfield but that love is like the love you have for a really hot woman who is also high maintenance and a fucking nightmare to live with. It's somewhere I've been going to for over thirty years and there are a lot of memories and nostalgia attached to those feelings...

I've read a fair number of your excellent posts regarding the stadium debate, that one in particular is a cracker.

[Alan_X]

Has this been confirmed anywhere else yet?

[Alan_X]

Can someone please tell me what sort of alterations can be made to the AFL 2003 design without invalidating the planning permission?

The honest answer is 'it depends'. The key words are 'non-material amendments' - we have a project on Central London that the planners initially said required a new application but on reflection they just asked for five drawings showing the changes. Anything internally - not visible from the Park - wouldn't be 'material' and anythings that didn't change massing, heights, agreed principles if cladding materials, capacity and similar should be ok.

Increasing the rake by raising the stands might be a problem, increasing the rake by dropping the pitch wouldn't. Splitting the 'Annie Rd' to make it distinct from the 'Kop' would probably be ok. Basically - if it's not a significant change when viewed from the outside it should be acceptable.

[Alan_X]

The caveat on the above is whether the 2003 approval has been deemed to have 'commenced' - if it hasn't a new application would be required. It benefits both parties to consider the 2003 scheme active so I'd be surprised if the council raised unnecessary objections.

[scouse29]

Why change the habit of recent years, new owners therefore a new stadium design and new planning application. I can't see why if two have been granted why a third would not be? Time is not an issue as we have been waiting years. Tweaks or not, a nine year old design seems odd to me. I see some amazing looking buildings from plan at work and our new stadium should be iconic from the outside with all the traditions we require in a new ground on the inside.

[Peter McGurk]

Can someone please tell me what sort of alterations can be made to the AFL 2003 design without invalidating the planning permission?

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=273456.msg9767475#msg9767475

Planning tweaks aside it still needs Building Regulations approval and the rules have changed in the last nine years. I don't think anyone's going to be making anything steeper.

[Alan_X]

Why change the habit of recent years, new owners therefore a new stadium design and new planning application. I can't see why if two have been granted why a third would not be?

Because the land in Stanley Park is not ours. The council could tell us to fuck off and we'd be looking at a new application outside the city.

[reddazforever]

That big "main" stand definatley reminds me of Old Trafford's main stand


Id be happy with that AFL design, i never used to like it but Alan very greatly pointed out how much better it is a design than the HKS design!

Any builders / architects on here know whether we could potentially replace the corner sections on the 2003 design with extra seating as has been done at OT - to extend beyond 60k capacity.  As lad above said, the stands would look very similar if you did.

[gregor]

Because the land in Stanley Park is not ours. The council could tell us to fuck off and we'd be looking at a new application outside the city.

If we were to submit a third application and it was knocked back, would it also make the other two applications void?

[TepidT2O]

If we were to submit a third application and it was knocked back, would it also make the other two applications void?

No it would jut waste several years

[BaZ87]

If we were to submit a third application and it was knocked back, would it also make the other two applications void?

There's two aspects here, planning permission and the lease on Stanley Park. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe we've signed the agreement on the lease and if so, we can have 10 different sets of plans approved but we still wouldn't be able to build on the land.