Topic: Liverpool confirm decision to redevelop Anfield

[Peter McGurk]

The whole tent thing still confuses me. Seems so random. And shabby. I'm probably thinking of the wrong tents

You are. Modern marquees are unbelievably smart, they were covered (see what i did there) in this thread earlier.

And not the least bit random. Whichever way the club goes it's not going to expand until either a new stadium is built or planning consent for a redevelopment is granted. In the meantime the marquee adds revenue. The club already uses hospitality outposts in the Isla Gladstone Conservatory in the park and The Sandon pub. And not being a pub, a marquee might be more suitable for families.

[paulrazor]

The whole tent thing still confuses me. Seems so random. And shabby. I'm probably thinking of the wrong tents

people think marquee and then assume tent

then think tent and assume some rock festival, its not gonna be like some concert where you go in listen to the music and maybe neck a  can or two

it would be nothing like that.

[Billy1561]

And not the least bit random. Whichever way the club goes it's not going to expand until either a new stadium is built or planning consent for a redevelopment is granted. In the meantime the marquee adds revenue. The club already uses hospitality outposts in the Isla Gladstone Conservatory in the park and The Sandon pub. And not being a pub, a marquee might be more suitable for families.

Peter, why would they withdraw the application then?

[CraigDS]

Peter, why would they withdraw the application then?

They probably costed it over the course of 2yrs, and over 12 months it just doesn't work out.

[Billy1561]

They probably costed it over the course of 2yrs, and over 12 months it just doesn't work out.

Thanks Craig that makes sense. It's dragging on for what seems like forever this redevelopment.

[PhilV]

Just so some people in here are clear:

Corporate Marquee:





Tent:

[stevienash]

Thanks for clearing that up was getting a bit confused lol

[Peter McGurk]

Peter, why would they withdraw the application then?

Clearly (it's reported) because council were minded to refuse consent. Possibly more interesting question for those clinging on to Stanley Park - why wasn't it three or four years (the time taken to build a new stadium)?

[Billy1561]

Clearly (it's reported) because council were minded to refuse consent. Possibly more interesting question for those clinging on to Stanley Park - why wasn't it three or four years (the time taken to build a new stadium)?

To turn it on its head then, why would the council only be willing to offer a 12 month consent? I don't follow the news on this too closely to be honest so i may well have missed a trick.

[Peter McGurk]

To turn it on its head then, why would the council only be willing to offer a 12 month consent? I don't follow the news on this too closely to be honest so i may well have missed a trick.

From the application: Proposal: To erect hospitality marquee (for up to 500 people) for a temporary period of two years on existing land at 61-71 Anfield Road.

From the news report: In their report council officers said: "The development is of a temporary nature only and is not considered acceptable on a permanent basis in accordance with Policy HD18 of the Liverpool Unitary Development Plan."

From the Unitary Development Plan: HD18 - When assessing proposals for new development, the City Council will require applications to comply with the following criteria, where appropriate, to ensure a high quality of design...

If reported correctly, sounds like a stuff-up (ie., just because it's temporary doesn't mean it can look like a bag of bolts)/clarification and/or enhancements required/re-submit/move on.

[Billy1561]

Sounds like the club were looking at a billy smarts circus marqee then ie: on the cheap. Been a few white elephants already..
Cheers Peter.

[Peter McGurk]

Sounds like the club were looking at a billy smarts circus marqee then ie: on the cheap. Been a few white elephants already..
Cheers Peter.

Not at all. A flash-git expensive gin palace might not do either. Council wouldn't be happy with Billy Smart's or the Dorchester if either didn't fit in with "the scale and character of the area" etc.

Any one of this lot could trip it up...

HD18
When assessing proposals for new development,
the City Council will require applications to comply
with the following criteria, where appropriate, to
ensure a high quality of design:

i. the scale, density and massing of the
proposed development relate well to its locality;

ii. the development includes characteristics of
local distinctiveness in terms of design, layout and
materials;

iii. the building lines and layout of the
development relate to those of the locality;

iv. external boundary and surface treatment is
included as part of the development and is of a
design and materials which relate well to its
surroundings;

T'aint just pretty pictures.

But more than likely, more information is needed to assess the application properly. Applicants always want to provide the minimum. Councils generally want the maximum.

Incidentally, if it has been withdrawn as reported, it's still live on Planning Explorer.

.

[CJgerrardkop]

Redevelope?

[Alan_X]

Redevelope?

Err... what?...

[lancashirelad]

Just catching up, is this true or has its time passed? hope its true

[free_at_last]

Most people are assuming now that there will be a redevelopment but, accepting the general consensus that a redev will cost 50% of the cost of a new stadium, how do people
think this will be funded? With reports that we baulked at a few million extra for a striker how will we fund this without affecting the team? Even  if we split it into 4 phases
we would still have to find 35 to 45 million for each phase.

[gorgepir]

Most people are assuming now that there will be a redevelopment but, accepting the general consensus that a redev will cost 50% of the cost of a new stadium, how do people
think this will be funded? With reports that we baulked at a few million extra for a striker how will we fund this without affecting the team? Even  if we split it into 4 phases
we would still have to find 35 to 45 million for each phase.

Maybe this is why we baulked at the few million extra? To make sure we have funds for the stadium?

[Peter McGurk]

Most people are assuming now that there will be a redevelopment but, accepting the general consensus that a redev will cost 50% of the cost of a new stadium, how do people
think this will be funded? With reports that we baulked at a few million extra for a striker how will we fund this without affecting the team? Even  if we split it into 4 phases
we would still have to find 35 to 45 million for each phase.

We will live within our means. Grow the easier (and more productive) commercial revenue. Look after the team first. See the benefit in tv revenue. Always moving forward. Always a virtuous circle.

With more success and more available money (after we've created that success), we'll start to see more and more changes at Anfield and major ones. For now, we'll do what we can with the money that's there to get the most out of what we've got (better hospitality, fan zones, fan parks, ticket deals, wider spread of prices, more beer, expanded boot room, tv screens...)

So no £35m or £45m hits to start with.

We won't build a bigger stadium to create success (because it won't) but we will build on success to create a bigger stadium (because we can).

Maybe this is why we baulked at the few million extra? To make sure we have funds for the stadium?

No.

[CraigDS]

It will no doubt be funded through debt, but at a sustainable rate - so not some big £300m+ project, in stages where revenues increase from one stage before moving onto next, etc.

[Redman0151]

Maybe this is why we baulked at the few million extra? To make sure we have funds for the stadium?

In the scheme of a stadium an extra £2m or so is pocket change.

[Peter McGurk]

In the scheme of a stadium an extra £2m or so is pocket change.

£2m is £2m.

[LiverpoolKopKings]

£2m is £2m.

How many extra seats can be purchased with £2M? Or maybe for the making of the plans ....

[Garstonite]

How many extra seats can be purchased with £2M? Or maybe for the making of the plans ....

Given it cost Hicks and Gillett's men £30m to design stadium plans, £2m would probably get you a crayon drawing from a 4 year-old.

[LiverpoolKopKings]

Given it cost Hicks and Gillett's men £30m to design stadium plans, £2m would probably get you a crayon drawing from a 4 year-old.

however if we exercise that caution more frequently, 2M here and 2M there, in 15 transactions it would be 30M.

[free_at_last]

We will live within our means. Grow the easier (and more productive) commercial revenue. Look after the team first. See the benefit in tv revenue. Always moving forward. Always a virtuous circle.

With more success and more available money (after we've created that success), we'll start to see more and more changes at Anfield and major ones. For now, we'll do what we can with the money that's there to get the most out of what we've got (better hospitality, fan zones, fan parks, ticket deals, wider spread of prices, more beer, expanded boot room, tv screens...)

So no £35m or £45m hits to start with.

We won't build a bigger stadium to create success (because it won't) but we will build on success to create a bigger stadium (because we can).


No.

  I'm a great advocate of growing our revenue to invest in the team or a redev but I don't see any signs of FSG doing anything about it. We've got the drop on Spurs, Newcastle(even Arsenal) and the other wannabes in that we have a world wide support second only to the mancs in the English league. What are they doing with it while we still have it?
 I'm a Liverpool F.C member but I get only the odd email eg. about a League Cup winners jersey. What about a mail telling members to sign up a mate as a very simple example? When will we see jerseys and caps in sports shops around the world where the mancs now appear to have a monopoly?  Unless they are doing something behind the scenes that I can't see it is bordering on the criminal not to tap that worldwide market if we're crying poor all the time. I've heard Werner spout a few lines about utilising Liverpool FC TV but I have never seen any evidence of  increased merchandising activity(which you would think would be FSG's forte) after 2 years.

[CraigDS]

  I'm a great advocate of growing our revenue to invest in the team or a redev but I don't see any signs of FSG doing anything about it. We've got the drop on Spurs, Newcastle(even Arsenal) and the other wannabes in that we have a world wide support second only to the mancs in the English league. What are they doing with it while we still have it?
 I'm a Liverpool F.C member but I get only the odd email eg. about a League Cup winners jersey. What about a mail telling members to sign up a mate as a very simple example? When will we see jerseys and caps in sports shops around the world where the mancs now appear to have a monopoly?  Unless they are doing something behind the scenes that I can't see it is bordering on the criminal not to tap that worldwide market if we're crying poor all the time. I've heard Werner spout a few lines about utilising Liverpool FC TV but I have never seen any evidence of  increased merchandising activity(which you would think would be FSG's forte) after 2 years.

We've just signed up to a deal with Warrior which allows us control over the merchandise in a way we weren't before under Adidas, so expect to see changes.

As for how are they using the fan base, well the big new commercial deals we are getting are all because of this fan base and past history.

[gorgepir]

In the scheme of a stadium an extra £2m or so is pocket change.

I didn't mean it as 2m saved here goes to the stadium, I meant it as having a specific plan with a completely separate budget for transfers and the stadium, not just one big pile of money. So in other words, we are not allowed to dip in the stadium funds (some of will be equity some will be through loans) just so we can get a player now. So regardless if we have money or not in total, the transfer budget may have been already spent (and hence no 2m extra) -- unless in maybe extra extra ordinary cases where there is a good player at good value (obviously not Dempsey at 6m for a 29 year old in my opinion).

That is at least how I would do it.

[MikeD]

Looks like the marquee is back on

12F/1546 Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

Summary
The Interim Head of Planning considers that in the longer term, a site such as this would
be better developed with a more permanent use but that on a temporary basis its use for
the siting of an events marquee is acceptable. Therefore, subject to the restrictions placed
on its usage in relation to night time usage on non-match days, it is recommended that
temporary planning permission is granted subject to the stated conditions.

[CraigDS]

Is that for 2 years or 1?

[DonkeyWan]

Can someone summarise where we are at with the stadium please, a quick precis as to current developments now and in the future?

[CraigDS]

Can someone summarise where we are at with the stadium please, a quick precis as to current developments now and in the future?

G&H design for a new stadium has been scrapped. If we build new it will be some version of the AFL design we have had in the past. Will only happen if a big sponsor comes along.

Renewed interest in developing Anfield. Previous owners either didn't look at it or dismissed it because had issues with surround houses (mostly behind Main Stand) and an uncooperative council.

The council now seem to be on side with a redev of Anfield, and offered 3 options to local residents. They voted and settled on a plan to demolish most of Lothair Rd (the road directly behind the Main Stand) and then convert the opposite side and some of Allroy Rd (next one along from the stadium) into commercial use (rumoured to be a hotel, and other commercial uses). This all happened about 2-3 weeks ago I think. The demolition and change of use will free up enough space and remove the right to light issues that previously prevented a redevelopment.

And that is where we are up to.

[DonkeyWan]

G&H design for a new stadium has been scrapped. If we build new it will be some version of the AFL design we have had in the past. Will only happen if a big sponsor comes along.

Renewed interest in developing Anfield. Previous owners either didn't look at it or dismissed it because had issues with surround houses (mostly behind Main Stand) and an uncooperative council.

The council now seem to be on side with a redev of Anfield, and offered 3 options to local residents. They voted and settled on a plan to demolish most of Lothair Rd (the road directly behind the Main Stand) and then convert the opposite side and some of Allroy Rd (next one along from the stadium) into commercial use (rumoured to be a hotel, and other commercial uses). This all happened about 2-3 weeks ago I think. The demolition and change of use will free up enough space and remove the right to light issues that previously prevented a redevelopment.

And that is where we are up to.

Ah, that sounds positive. so they will stay in Anfield and re-develop huh? Thanks for that.

[MikeD]

Is that for 2 years or 1?

To erect hospitality marquee (for up to 500 people) for a
temporary period of two years on existing land at 61-71
Anfield Road

[mjjason]

G&H design for a new stadium has been scrapped. If we build new it will be some version of the AFL design we have had in the past. Will only happen if a big sponsor comes along.

Renewed interest in developing Anfield. Previous owners either didn't look at it or dismissed it because had issues with surround houses (mostly behind Main Stand) and an uncooperative council.

The council now seem to be on side with a redev of Anfield, and offered 3 options to local residents. They voted and settled on a plan to demolish most of Lothair Rd (the road directly behind the Main Stand) and then convert the opposite side and some of Allroy Rd (next one along from the stadium) into commercial use (rumoured to be a hotel, and other commercial uses). This all happened about 2-3 weeks ago I think. The demolition and change of use will free up enough space and remove the right to light issues that previously prevented a redevelopment.

And that is where we are up to.

So does this mean that a new stadium has been 100% ruled out and we are fully moving forward with redevelopment?  Also what if any hurdles remain?

[LiverpoolKopKings]

So does this mean that a new stadium has been 100% ruled out and we are fully moving forward with redevelopment?  Also what if any hurdles remain?

my take is that I don't think they ruled anything out, however seeing that a new stadium will cost in access of 300M just to have an extra 15K seats or so, FSG is considering it excessive, and noone can blame them for that. Also they seem to have crasped the issue that there is only one Anfield, and a new one will not be able to offer neither the atmosphere npr the romantics of our current and only home.

Deep down I am hoping that they would come up with some idea that would keep us at Anfield, expand to around 65K and possibly allow is to expand even further in the future, maybe as high up as 75K.

I still believe that with our global standing, and with the right packages, and most importantly with rise in the teams fotune on the field we could fill that amount regularly.

[Peter McGurk]

my take is that I don't think they ruled anything out, however seeing that a new stadium will cost in access of 300M just to have an extra 15K seats or so, FSG is considering it excessive, and noone can blame them for that. Also they seem to have crasped the issue that there is only one Anfield, and a new one will not be able to offer neither the atmosphere npr the romantics of our current and only home.

Deep down I am hoping that they would come up with some idea that would keep us at Anfield, expand to around 65K and possibly allow is to expand even further in the future, maybe as high up as 75K.

I still believe that with our global standing, and with the right packages, and most importantly with rise in the teams fotune on the field we could fill that amount regularly.

You might be right (I doubt it...) but who's to say that one day 75k is not the right thing to do? I don't think it ever will be but all things are possible - there only ever consequences (like the cost).

But for sure, you can't realistically expand a new stadium (unless you've got a World Cup to burn money for). The upfront financial commitment to make it possible is too much. And if you build it at 75k at the outset, you will lose your shirt. No question.

But you can build each stand to its maximum in a redevelopment and keep going in stages till you've got enough - whatever number that happens to be. Lower cost, lower risk, higher return.

.

[fredfrop]

You might be right (I doubt it...) but who's to say that one day 75k is not the right thing to do? I don't think it ever will be but all things are possible - there only ever consequences (like the cost).

But for sure, you can't realistically expand a new stadium (unless you've got a World Cup to burn money for). The upfront financial commitment to make it possible is too much. And if you build it at 75k at the outset, you will lose your shirt. No question.

But you can build each stand to its maximum in a redevelopment and keep going in stages till you've got enough - whatever number that happens to be. Lower cost, lower risk, higher return.

.

Just want to say Peter, thanks for your blog that so clearly explained how Anfield could be redeveloped.

[kasperoff]

Good Blog Peter.

Here (http://petermcgurk.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Anfield) you state:

"Yet the ground is as much a part of the value of the brand as the club itself, whether at the match, on TV or across the shirt. Restoring the youth, vibrancy and atmosphere of old might satisfy an old man’s cry. It might lay the foundations of future generations of support but it might also sharpen a financial edge that others have recognised but cannot reach. Others may try but Anfield is the Real McCoy. "


I know it's staring us in the face, but I'd never really though of Anfield in this way. It's world famous an advertisers dream in itself!

[AKABillyGee]

Was in Bilbao last week, Athletic are building a new stadium 54,000 capacity and scrapping their existing but historic San Mames stadium.  Redevelopment was looked at but they considered that a new stadium offered a more attractive long term financial and brand enhancing package,

Not living in the past - planning for the future.

[CraigDS]

Was in Bilbao last week, Athletic are building a new stadium 54,000 capacity and scrapping their existing but historic San Mames stadium.  Redevelopment was looked at but they considered that a new stadium offered a more attractive long term financial and brand enhancing package,

Not living in the past - planning for the future.

It's impossible to just compare the two like that without all the information behind the decisions. Current state of the ground, surrounding area, construction costs, etc.

A quick search shows that their new stadium is costing 130m Euro (about £128m at todays rates). Ours was looking at nearly 3x that cost. Bit of a difference.

Edit - just to add seen another source saying the cost is approx £185m - still a lot cheaper than what ours would cost, and they are planning a residential construction on the land left by the old stadium so no doubt that'll bring in some cash towards it too - another thing we can't do.

Edit Edit - also looks like the stadium is being built with massive help from Biscay’s Provincial Government, the Basque Government and Bilbao Bizkaia Kutxa, which upon completion all 4 (including the club) will own an equal share of the stadium.