Topic: Liverpool confirm decision to redevelop Anfield

[vblfc]

It seems clear that we need to get our heads around the fact that a new stadium is not interesting financially to our business side (without the big sponsor).  So, for supporters - if we forget about the financials, which have been analysed to death - The real question is what are the other benefits or drawbacks of a bigger Anfield.  For me the main points are more of us get to see the games and there must be a positive impact on our performances (more points per game?) - that is the main value. No real downsides for me.
For Henry, Rodgers and fans this is the benefit and why we need to get on with the redevelopment.

[Peter McGurk]

It seems clear that we need to get our heads around the fact that a new stadium is not interesting financially to our business side (without the big sponsor).  So, for supporters - if we forget about the financials, which have been analysed to death - The real question is what are the other benefits or drawbacks of a bigger Anfield.  For me the main points are more of us get to see the games and there must be a positive impact on our performances (more points per game?) - that is the main value. No real downsides for me.
For Henry, Rodgers and fans this is the benefit and why we need to get on with the redevelopment.

Yes. The stadium should be one that suits us. Gets the income sure but finds more space and a better day at the match for regular fans. In that, what JWH said was encouraging - he can't see us building a gin palace either.

.

[vblfc]

Yes. The stadium should be one that suits us. Gets the income sure but finds more space and a better day at the match for regular fans. In that, what JWH said was encouraging - he can't see us building a gin palace either.

.

exactly Peter.  I've read most of your stuff (very helpful).  We are not a model of Arsenal or United and dont need to be. The Financials are clear and Henry seems to reinforce what you have been saying. 

So, for the benefit of us we can go to 55K and then 60K or 65 K and start to get the benefits for us. I think thats where we are.

At then end of the day none of this stops a new stadium transformation in 10/15 years if the whole picture evolves. 

[Peter McGurk]

exactly Peter.  I've read most of your stuff (very helpful).  We are not a model of Arsenal or United and dont need to be. The Financials are clear and Henry seems to reinforce what you have been saying. 

So, for the benefit of us we can go to 55K and then 60K or 65 K and start to get the benefits for us. I think thats where we are.

At then end of the day none of this stops a new stadium transformation in 10/15 years if the whole picture evolves.

But a redevelopment is not second prize waiting for the day when a new stadium comes along. It was always first prize - just that we didn't know it yet.

As the man said 'second is nowhere'.

.

[RedPross]

I took it that he was referring to the UK and specifically to Eastlands (The Etihad) and the Olympic Stadium. Both built with public money for the Athletics, Manchester City Council still own Eastlands and now lease it to City at £3 million per season and someone gets the Olympic stadium when its done with. Those two plus the Emirates are the only new Premier League sized stadiums built in the last 10 years. Arsenal get away with charging ridculous sums for seats to pay for theirs (how does £4k for a seat per season sound?) and made £30 million from the properities built on the site of the old ground.

There is now no way we will build a new stadium, unless we find a naming partner who will only get involved with a brand new stadium and is prepared to stump up enough money to make redeveloping Anfield impractical. If we tried to go it alone, any increases in matchday revenue would be taken to pay for the stadium itself, so its a pointless exercise. We should of built when Moores still owned us in the late 90's/early 2000's, after that, it just became too expensive.

You are right and it makes sense but part of me thinks if the stadium cist just £30m a year and generated £30m a year so was funding itself but it mesnt 15,000 more fans could see the team they.love in fantastic new and modern surroundings then it would make sense as a fan............ But now in todays football world it doeant matter about the fan its more their wallets that count!

[vblfc]

But a redevelopment is not second prize waiting for the day when a new stadium comes along. It was always first prize - just that we didn't know it yet.

As the man said 'second is nowhere'.

.

Ok forget that last part- Agree we need to forget about "second" option and move on.  Now we all should keep with this message and get energy into the redevlopment.  We need this for the team - the business value will follow. 

[Peter McGurk]

You are right and it makes sense but part of me thinks if the stadium cist just £30m a year and generated £30m a year so was funding itself but it mesnt 15,000 more fans could see the team they.love in fantastic new and modern surroundings then it would make sense as a fan............ But now in todays football world it doeant matter about the fan its more their wallets that count!

FSG have never put any money in 'their wallets' from LFC or Boston Red Sox.

In fact, 'their wallets' put money into the club and the fans can enjoy watching 'top' players as a result. Surely you can see a link between money and performance. We need money to win trophies. If you want to blame anyone how much it costs, blame the players - or their agents. Or maniacs who throw billions at football clubs like they just don't care because they just don't have to.

And I'd rather sit in a proper football ground, than a shiny new gin palace and wave a plastic flag.

.

[RedPross]

FSG have never put any money in 'their wallets' from LFC or Boston Red Sox.

In fact, 'their wallets' put money into the club and the fans can enjoy watching 'top' players as a result. Surely you can see a link between money and performance. We need money to win trophies. If you want to blame anyone how much it costs, blame the players - or their agents. Or maniacs who throw billions at football clubs like they just don't care because they just don't have to.

And I'd rather sit in a proper football ground, than a shiny new gin palace and wave a plastic flag.

.

Peter im agreeing with you... Im just saying im 45 i know miney has always been involved in the game but it wasnt so obvious in the past.  Im just saying wouldnt it be nice in an ideal world that we increased the capacity pury to enable more fans to see.... Plain and simple.

[gorgepir]

I just hope that what Henry said means we will go for redevelopment not that nothing will happen.

[TepidT2O]

The thing about a new stadium is that no one really wanted one.   What the vast majority of people wanted was anfield bigger.

So, we hoped for this, but Parry told us is just wasn't possible and there was zero chance or redevelopment.

So, we all decided that if we had to move it had to be worth it, it had to be to a really good new stadium.....

So we set out hearts on the right new design ..... And we got the parry bowl which didn't look very flashy!

But the parry bowl was replaced by the two flash looking HKS designs, which of course never got built.

And so we return to to redevelopment, which if we're all honest, is exactly what we wanted at the start of the game, if we hadn't had our heads turned by the "new and shiny" idea, everyone would be really happy with it.

Funny how things change with time eh?

[satmann]

FSG have never put any money in 'their wallets' from LFC or Boston Red Sox.

In fact, 'their wallets' put money into the club and the fans can enjoy watching 'top' players as a result. Surely you can see a link between money and performance. We need money to win trophies. If you want to blame anyone how much it costs, blame the players - or their agents. Or maniacs who throw billions at football clubs like they just don't care because they just don't have to.

And I'd rather sit in a proper football ground, than a shiny new gin palace and wave a plastic flag.

.

They have only Used their money to buy the club. They have not put anything else in, the money the club as earned as been reinvested. They brought as on the cheap, knowing the club needed equity. Spent 18 months doing nothing, their not going to build a stadium, never was their intention.

[TepidT2O]

They have only Used their money to buy the club. They have not put anything else in, the money the club as earned as been reinvested. They brought as on the cheap, knowing the club needed equity. Spent 18 months doing nothing, their not going to build a stadium, never was their intention.

There was never going to be equity, that's what they said at the start and they were quite transparent about that....


Looking at the accounts it actually looks like they have pumped £30m of equity into the club.  There is a £30m interest free loan to us I believe.

[CraigDS]

They have only Used their money to buy the club. They have not put anything else in, the money the club as earned as been reinvested. They brought as on the cheap, knowing the club needed equity. Spent 18 months doing nothing, their not going to build a stadium, never was their intention.

Come on at least get the facts right if you're gonna try and post shit like this.

For one up to July last year they had invested £30m into the club. This could be more come the next set of accounts as this did not include the spending we did last summer.

The club is making fuck all money so nothing there to invest.

Their intention was never to build anything that would act like a lead weight around the neck of the club, which is the right thing to do.

It's taken 18 months to clean up the mess that two inept ownership/management groups have left us with regards to the new stadium.

And if we were so cheap then where were all the other bidders? We were openly on the market for a long long time and yet when it came down to it only FSG (and I think 1 other, possibly 2) were after buying us. We weren't cheap, we went for what we were worth and probably a bit more than that to be honest.

[TepidT2O]

Come on at least get the facts right if you're gonna try and post shit like this.

For one up to July last year they had invested £30m into the club. This could be more come the next set of accounts as this did not include the spending we did last summer.

The club is making fuck all money so nothing there to invest.

Their intention was never to build anything that would act like a lead weight around the neck of the club, which is the right thing to do.

It's taken 18 months to clean up the mess that two inept ownership/management groups have left us with regards to the new stadium.

And if we were so cheap then where were all the other bidders? We were openly on the market for a long long time and yet when it came down to it only FSG (and I think 1 other, possibly 2) were after buying us. We weren't cheap, we went for what we were worth and probably a bit more than that to be honest.

In some ways, the mess of moores and parry is worse to clear up than hicks and gillette.....

Nearly 20 years of going nowhere and doing nothing with the club.

[Grobbelrevell]

If we were so cheap then where were all the other bidders? We were openly on the market for a long long time and yet when it came down to it only FSG (and I think 1 other, possibly 2) were after buying us.

Peter Lim, the Singapore based businessman who allegedly offered more up front, which led to the "epic swindle" comments from Hicks. That was it.

[Alan_X]

Fucking yers of following this situation with hopes and dreams about things that were going to happen.

I loved the H&G design as i thought i was iconic and would instantly be recognised globally as the home of Liverpool.

It was fucking horrible, overblown too expensive and would have crippled us financially. It would have been recognised as a monument to Tom Hicks, not Liverpool Football Club.

[CraigDS]

Peter Lim, the Singapore based businessman who allegedly offered more up front, which led to the "epic swindle" comments from Hicks. That was it.

Which, given RBS didn't accept it, we can only presume wasn't a credible offer or was less than FSG.

[satmann]

Come on at least get the facts right if you're gonna try and post shit like this.

For one up to July last year they had invested £30m into the club. This could be more come the next set of accounts as this did not include the spending we did last summer.

The club is making fuck all money so nothing there to invest.

Their intention was never to build anything that would act like a lead weight around the neck of the club, which is the right thing to do.

It's taken 18 months to clean up the mess that two inept ownership/management groups have left us with regards to the new stadium.

And if we were so cheap then where were all the other bidders? We were openly on the market for a long long time and yet when it came down to it only FSG (and I think 1 other, possibly 2) were after buying us. We weren't cheap, we went for what we were worth and probably a bit more than that to be honest.

It's not shit, it's having a debate. That 30 million will be taken out its just short term finance. They have done brilliant with the warrior deal but they knew the club needed equity. Like someone said on another forum they are like hicks and gillette BUT with a better pr team. Hicks and gillette got the standard charter deal, FSG warrior deal. He might just end up being right.

[CraigDS]

It's not shit, it's having a debate. That 30 million will be taken out its just short term finance. They have done brilliant with the warrior deal but they knew the club needed equity. Like someone said on another forum they are like hicks and gillette BUT with a better pr team. Hicks and gillette got the standard charter deal, FSG warrior deal. He might just end up being right.

Posting factually incorrect drivel is not a debate.

You have no evidence they will take the £30m out, I have no evidence they will leave it in. Neither of us can argue either way.

They are nothing likes Hicks and Gillet, they have not put any debt on the club and are spending within the clubs means. That is not what H&G did what so ever. The actual comment that they are is utter lunacy.

If you want owners who will plough money into the club to buy top players, build a ridiculous stadium, etc. then go and support City or Chelsea. If you want a club that gets back to its glory by spending within its means by capitalising on its great history and already well know name and not burdened with ridiculous amounts of debt then sit back and try and enjoy it.

[scouse29]

Henry has done an interview which I read on sky text earlier. Not sure where it is taken from but similar to what Peter said earlier that the club does not need a bigger stadium. Goes on about arsenal, and if a major investor had come in they would of explored the idea. Seems the club may be edging towards a decision.

[scouse29]

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11661/7815702/Henry-questions-stadium-myth

[CraigDS]

It was with Anfield Wrap, is posted in a few threads both in this forum and the main one.

[scouse29]

It was with Anfield Wrap, is posted in a few threads both in this forum and the main one.

Apologies, stumbled across it today.

Dip in and out of here every now and again.

[satmann]

Posting factually incorrect drivel is not a debate.

You have no evidence they will take the £30m out, I have no evidence they will leave it in. Neither of us can argue either way.

They are nothing likes Hicks and Gillet, they have not put any debt on the club and are spending within the clubs means. That is not what H&G did what so ever. The actual comment that they are is utter lunacy.

If you want owners who will plough money into the club to buy top players, build a ri
diculous stadium, etc. then go and support City or Chelsea. If you want a club that gets back to its glory by spending within its means by capitalising on its great history and already well know name and not burdened with ridiculous amounts of debt then sit back and try and enjoy it.

You got no right to tell anyone to go and support another team. We not gonna agree so leave it at that. Still say they knew the club needed equity put in short term.

[CraigDS]

You got no right to tell anyone to go and support another team. We not gonna agree so leave it at that. Still say they knew the club needed equity put in short term.

I said if that is what you want, as that is exactly what they have. We do not, and personally (and going by most opinions I have seen on here) most people would rather we not buy the league or ourselves back to glory in such a way.

They did know the club needed equity, and they have provided in their first 6 months £30m. They may have provided more since last July, it won't be known until those accounts are out. They may provide more this summer, again its unknown until the summer is out (and even then until the accounts as that will show where the money came from).

[Peter McGurk]

They have only Used their money to buy the club. They have not put anything else in, the money the club as earned as been reinvested. They brought as on the cheap, knowing the club needed equity. Spent 18 months doing nothing, their not going to build a stadium, never was their intention.

That's 'only' £290m. Most of it bang straight to a bank for no return. To stop us going into liquidation. A simple thank you would suffice.

FSG said that the club would live within its means. If you or anyone else cocked a deaf'un to that for whatever reason, then you're going to be sadly disappointed. And no one in his right mind is going to throw away several hundred million more pounds on a reckless and foolish stadium venture. It was always foolish. It was always a myth. We believed it because we wanted to believe it. We wanted a great and magnificent stadium (not that we were going to get it) as a reflection of our great and magnificent club. Bugger reality. Give me a dream every time.

They've spent 18 months unravelling all that (and much else besides) from basic principles up and the rest of the nonsense from the previous 10 years (at least). They are finally asking the question that should have been asked as far back as 1992 - what's best for the club? Throwing the club and the debt back to where it was isn't it.

A 60k to 65k Anfield will be magnificent, not just because it will be a great stadium but it because it will help to lift the club up (as part of a comprehensive financial strategy including commercial and broadcast revenues) instead of weighing it down with debt. It will be the kind of stadium that we can afford and still make as much as it can from those who can afford more and it will do it all the better for being Anfield - not a dumb-ass, make-no-money, financially crippling, soulless and shiny gin palace in the park.

.

[satmann]

That's 'only' £290m. Most of it bang straight to a bank for no return. To stop us going into liquidation. A simple thank you would suffice.

FSG said that the club would live within its means. If you or anyone else cocked a deaf'un to that for whatever reason, then you're going to be sadly disappointed. And no one i
n his right mind is going to throw away several hundred million more pounds on a reckless and foolish stadium venture. It was always foolish. It was always a myth. We believed it because we wanted to believe it. We wanted a great and magnificent stadium (not that we were going to get it) as a reflection of our great and magnificent club. Bugger reality. Give me a dream every time.

They've spent 18 months unravelling all that (and much else besides) from basic principles up and the rest of the nonsense from the previous 10 years (at least). They are finally asking the question that should have been asked as far back as 1992 - what's best for the club? Throwing the club and the debt back to where it was isn't it.

A 60k to 65k Anfield will be magnificent, not just because it will be a great stadium but it because it will help to lift the club up (as part of a comprehensive financial strategy including commercial and broadcast revenues) instead of weighing it down with debt. It will be the kind of stadium that we can afford and still make as much as it can from those who can afford more and it will do it all the better for being Anfield - not a dumb-ass, make-no-money, financially crippling, soulless and shiny gin palace in the park.

.

They brought the club for £200 million not £290. And they took on debt worth 29million. They got us £100 million below market value.

[CraigDS]

They brought the club for £200 million not £290. And they took on debt worth 29million. They got us £100 million below market value.

£100m below market value based on....?

[Peter McGurk]

They brought the club for £200 million not £290. And they took on debt worth 29million. They got us £100 million below market value.

FSG paid cash for LFC at a value of £300m and left £37 million of stadium debt in place. Effectively £263m. They have since 'invested' a further £30m. Total £293m. Of course they have since written off the stadium monies but £290m will do for now.

So, you're wrong. They've used what I said. But it doesn't matter. Hang on to your dream. It's all you've got.

(And back in the real world, market value is what someone pays for something)

The bigger point is there. Ignore it if you will. Dream on.

.

[Coady]

You're wrong. They've used what I said. But it doesn't matter. Hang on to your dream. It's all you've got.

(And back in the real world, market value is what someone pays for something)

The bigger point is there. Ignore it if you will. Dream on.

.

Peter. Sorry if you have answered this. But are you confident a redevelop Anfield is the road FSG are heading down?

[satmann]

You're wrong. They've used what I said. But it doesn't matter. Hang on to your dream. It's all you've got.

(And back in the real world, market value is what someone pays for something)

The bigger point is there. Ignore it if you will. Dream on.

.

No am not wrong , you say they payed 290 I will prove to u they payed 200.

[TepidT2O]

No am not wrong , you say they payed 290 I will prove to u they payed 200.

Prove away then...

[CraigDS]

No am not wrong , you say they payed 290 I will prove to u they payed 200.

You've yet to prove they paid £100m under 'market value'.

[Peter McGurk]

No am not wrong , you say they payed 290 I will prove to u they payed 200.

"They have only Used their money to buy the club. They have not put anything else in" - your words

Acquisition debt was £200m. They paid more than that then and have invested more than that since. See above edit - I'll repeat it for you...
"FSG paid cash for LFC at a value of £300m ["including £200m acquisition debt and certain other obligations" - Martin Broughton] and left £37 million of stadium debt in place. Effectively £263m. They have since 'invested' a further £30m. Total £293m. Of course they have since written off the stadium monies but £290m will do for now."

The major point (FSG's general effectiveness and the wisdom of preferring redevelopment) remains. Care to comment?

You've yet to prove they paid £100m under 'market value'.

Bearing in mind it was sold on the open market after more than 18 months with the chairman of one of the country's major corporations looking with the assistance of one of the world's leading merchant bank divisions under the careful eye of the country's leading legal minds plus probably two years of trying to sell it from within the club, I would find that interesting too.

Peter. Sorry if you have answered this. But are you confident a redevelop Anfield is the road FSG are heading down?

I'm confident it's the best road to go down. I know FSG agree. I suspect they will want first prize.

.

[woof]

What JWH said makes sense. The world is fairly dynamic and we've seen how TV rights have changed football. In the near future, watching football on the internet is going to become more prevalent and I'm not talking about illegal P2P streams. In the States, the internet has made it more affordable for someone to watch a game. Building a new stadium is a massive financial undertaking for anyone. I'd rather our club create various revenue streams and increase our global branding. Get with it....

[joescouse]

Ian Ayre now speaks of "great dialogue" with the residents, a comment that bemused and angered the Salisbury residents committee (who have met Ayre just once) in equal measure. Salisbury have said "everybody can see which way this is going now." What they mean is that compulsory purchase orders will be sought and a massive fight will follow, one that could well end up with the European Commission and drag on for years. If you are wondering about timescales, a similar process started in the Edge Lane area of the city in 2001, it went to the High Court in 2006 and the European Court in 2009. The legal dispute was finally resolved in 2010, and the project is still a work in progress. 

More here:

http://joescouse.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/new-anfield-response-to-john-w-henry.html?showComment=1339924677569&m=1

[No666]

I would have thought there's a compelling case in the public interest for action to happen and the fact the Edge Lane residents lost would give an indication that any Salisbury action would only be delaying matters. Plus the costs of fighting an action to the high court should surely deter residents with limited means?

John Henry's statement seems to me to be a clear marker laid down to the council and the residents. He believes Liverpool FC can be competitive without a new stadium. There is no way the council or the residents can pressure him towards that option. It's a refurb or nothing.

[CraigDS]

Ian Ayre now speaks of "great dialogue" with the residents, a comment that bemused and angered the Salisbury residents committee (who have met Ayre just once) in equal measure. Salisbury have said "everybody can see which way this is going now." What they mean is that compulsory purchase orders will be sought and a massive fight will follow, one that could well end up with the European Commission and drag on for years. If you are wondering about timescales, a similar process started in the Edge Lane area of the city in 2001, it went to the High Court in 2006 and the European Court in 2009. The legal dispute was finally resolved in 2010, and the project is still a work in progress.

More here:

http://joescouse.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/new-anfield-response-to-john-w-henry.html?showComment=1339924677569&m=1

I don't get a few points in your post.

Firstly just comparing average ST prices (which you've done incorrectly as you've not taken into account the number of tickets in each price bracket). It's like if Arsenal offered one ticket for £10 but 50,000 at £2000, by your maths the average would be closer to £1000 but that's way off the truth.

Peter (and think Alan) have posted more than enough figures to show the comparison (or lack there of) between Manchester and Liverpool. Ignoring those facts doesnt help your argument.

Also, Liverpool is not after demolishing 1800 houses in order to expand Anfield. They want/need the odd numbers of Lothair Rd at a min, would be nice to also have the even numbers too. That's less than 100 homes, only 8 of which are currently lived in, and only 4 of those by the actual owners.

You mention the Salisbury Committee, what are does this cover? Salisbury Rd is way out of the way from what Liverpool would need to expand, and the residents of Lothair (what's left) and the net few roads over have been spoken to recently by LCC and even have a meeting tomorrow.

[eryder]

John Henry's statement seems to me to be a clear marker laid down to the council and the residents. He believes Liverpool FC can be competitive without a new stadium. There is no way the council or the residents can pressure him towards that option. It's a refurb or nothing.

Spot on. What he didn't say is that there would be no refurb of Anfield.                   

[satmann]

"They have only Used their money to buy the club. They have not put anything else in" - your words

Acquisition debt was £200m. They paid more than that then and have invested more than that since. See above edit - I'll repeat it for you...
"FSG paid cash for LFC at a value of £300m ["including £200m acquisition debt and certain other obligations" - Martin Broughton] and left £37 million of stadium debt in place. Effectively £263m. They have since 'invested' a further £30m. Total £293m. Of course they have since written off the stadium monies but £290m will do for now."

The major point (FSG's general effectiveness and the wisdom of preferring redevelopment) remains. Care to comment?


Bearing in mind it was sold on the open market after more than 18 months with the chairman of one of the country's major corporations looking with the assistance of one of the world's leading merchant bank divisions under the careful eye of the country's leading legal minds plus probably two years of trying to sell it from within the club, I would find that interesting too.


I'm confident it's the best road to go down. I know FSG agree. I suspect they will want first prize.

.

Understand you have spent alot of time putting good images up etc....but your wrong about FSG pumping £300 million into the club. You seem really pro redevelopment and seem to be trying to convince everyone else etc.. you might be right etc..but you could also be wrong..

The 30 million is a interest free loan... a loan is ....A thing that is borrowed, esp. a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest.

The stadium debt is still loaded on the club...

"Ayre confirmed that the new owners had paid off the £200m debt which Hicks' and Gillett's 2007 purchase had loaded on to the club. FSG had "pumped in £200m", he said, although that was the price charged to FSG for buying the club, as made clear in the bitterly contested negotiations over the takeover at the time. Paying off that "acquisition debt" had reduced the interest payments incurred by Liverpool from £18m to £3m, he said. Ayre did not say whether the new owners have invested any more of their own money than that initial £200m purchase price into the club. That should become clear when the full accounts are published."

"Since the end of the last financial year, FSG has paid off £200 million of acquisition debt from the previous owners, dramatically reducing interest payments as a result and meaning we are able to invest more revenue in the team rather than servicing debt. "

Maybe am wrong and it was...£224 million...

The £30m loan from FSG, to help with the club's cash flow during a year in which £131m was spent on players including £35m to Newcastle United for the striker Andy Carroll, is interest free. The accounts confirm what was announced when Liverpool was sold in October 2010 following a fierce court battle with Hicks and Gillett, that FSG paid £224m for the club. Of that, £200m was used to repay the banks from which Hicks and Gillett had borrowed that sum to fund the purchase of Liverpool in 2007.