Author Topic: Announcement on Anfield redevelopment due Monday (Read 82970 times)

TSC · « **Reply #120 on:** October 13, 2012, 03:54:42 pm »

Quote from: royhendo on October 13, 2012, 03:50:16 pm

There's no way you can see this as negative in my book - be fair, people.

Think it's more about having heard it all before. An announcement about something that may or may not happen in 2 years time hardly sets pulses racing to be fair. Be interesting nonetheless to hear what the club has to say, assuming Cheng can take time out from his busy schedule of threatening bloggers to give a viewpoint.

royhendo · « **Reply #121 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:00:39 pm »

Quote from: TSC on October 13, 2012, 03:54:42 pm

Think it's more about having heard it all before. An announcement about something that may or may not happen in 2 years time hardly sets pulses racing to be fair. Be interesting nonetheless to hear what the club has to say...

The difference is that they seem to have found a solution removing the obstacles to redevelopment. That means common sense can start to flow with all affected parties on board. It's a significant thing that it's going to be announced by the Council, I think.

Fromola · « **Reply #122 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:06:50 pm »

Quote from: royhendo on October 13, 2012, 04:00:39 pm

The difference is that they seem to have found a solution removing the obstacles to redevelopment. That means common sense can start to flow with all affected parties on board. It's a significant thing that it's going to be announced by the Council, I think.

And how are we going to pay for this redevelopment? It's the council trying to press ahead, it's LFC that have to pay to redevelop the ground. What with? FSG and their messenger boy, Ayre,have said several times that they'll only sort the ground if the sums add up.

Torpedo Tommy · « **Reply #123 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:07:23 pm »

The problem stems back well before FSG's time. Clubs moved to new homes when it was cheaper to build (Sunderland / Bolton / MIddlesbrough / Derby - the list goes on). Those that had land available adjacent to their grounds extended (Newcastle / Mancs) etc.

Extending Anfield was always going to carry problems. We hired Parry who lets not forget was responsible for the spawning of the Premier League and we all expected us to catch up to teams who had moved ahead. That was the late 90's and here we are some 14 years later having made zero progress. I'm no fan of FSG and am looking at them with a great deal of skepticism since August but we cannot blame FSG for all our failures.

There are a few veiled caveats in the statement but any company would put them in if there was the potential for things to go wrong. I'm no expert on CVO's or planning conditions (though I have some knowledge on the latter) but there is obviously so much to go wrong.

They have made this caveat-laden commitment so, whilst they will always have some sort of get out, at least there is something to hold them by. I think that by this time next year we will know if FSG are true to their word and intend on being long term custodians of LFC or they are another bunch of 'full of shite' Yanks.

Let us wait and see the full statement and view their more immediate actions

eirwen · « **Reply #124 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:10:23 pm »

So will the club actually make a statement after the council announcement?

eirwen · « **Reply #125 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:11:17 pm »

Quote from: Fromola on October 13, 2012, 04:06:50 pm

And how are we going to pay for this redevelopment? It's the council trying to press ahead, it's LFC that have to pay to redevelop the ground. What with? FSG and their messenger boy, Ayre,have said several times that they'll only sort the ground if the sums add up.

A loan+naming rights money?

juan1001 · « **Reply #126 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:11:33 pm »

Quote from: Fitzy. on October 13, 2012, 01:37:53 pm

That's a false argument. FSG may or may not build us stadium but their attitude to investing in a (short-term fix) striker will have no bearing on their attitude to investing in essential infrastructure that will allow the club to grow. The two are not inter-linked and it's disengenuous to start using such arguments to strengthen your already deep-rooted stance.

It's not a false argument. Look at it this way, if your parents aren't willing to buy milk and eggs so you can eat breakfast, then what makes you think they are going to buy you a new computer? If anything, FSG have consistently shown that they are not willing to invest in the club in any meaning full way.

JCM · « **Reply #127 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:13:21 pm »

Its very important - its the end of any one piping up about a shared stadium ever again - brilliant

L666KOP · « **Reply #128 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:13:25 pm »

Quote from: eirwen on October 13, 2012, 04:11:17 pm

A loan+naming rights money?

Yep, you just fucking know it.

The Chinese Airlines Anfield Arena.

Fromola · « **Reply #129 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:13:55 pm »

Quote from: eirwen on October 13, 2012, 04:11:17 pm

A loan+naming rights money?

Possibly. But didn't the club say they'd only have naming rights on a new ground?

Dr. Beaker · « **Reply #130 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:15:22 pm »

Quote from: L666KOP on October 13, 2012, 04:13:25 pm

Yep, you just fucking know it.

The Chinese Airlines Anfield Arena.

How about the Red Army Stadium though.

Torpedo Tommy · « **Reply #131 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:16:13 pm »

Quote from: Fromola on October 13, 2012, 04:06:50 pm

And how are we going to pay for this redevelopment? It's the council trying to press ahead, it's LFC that have to pay to redevelop the ground. What with? FSG and their messenger boy, Ayre,have said several times that they'll only sort the ground if the sums add up.

There are so many different ways to fund construction projects. A developer would be one way where we 'buy' the construction work back over 'x' years at an inflated cost. Loan - though I'm not sure that would be the favourable option with most. Naming rights etc etc

Whichever way, we'll pay more now than we would have a decade and half ago and importantly, we cannot generate all that (probably) lost revenue. However, we are where we are and its important that we move forward. There appears few people in the market to buy and run us properly so what are our options?

JCM · « **Reply #132 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:16:20 pm »

Reading back through some of the posts. I think we have to move in tandem with the Council. Its a big step for them to deploy compulsory purchase orders, but it at least indicates they are serious in their ambition for the area and for us.

Marty 85 · « **Reply #133 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:18:04 pm »

Who gives a toss what it's called. I know i'll still call it Anfield.

jaffod · « **Reply #134 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:18:52 pm »

I'd stick to 55k if it ever happens, any more and it'd be rarely full.

eirwen · « **Reply #135 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:21:41 pm »

Quote from: Fromola on October 13, 2012, 04:13:55 pm

Possibly. But didn't the club say they'd only have naming rights on a new ground?

They did, but there might be other ways for naming rights, like stands etc. Without knowing what's actually on the table, we can't rule anything out.

L666KOP · « **Reply #136 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:22:16 pm »

Quote from: Dr. Beaker on October 13, 2012, 04:15:22 pm

How about the Red Army Stadium though.

To be honest, I'd rather leave things as they are than redevelop and lose the identity of Anfield. That would be the ultimate slap in the face.
If you can't afford to do it without selling out for the corporate pound, don't fucking do it.
Move, and call it what you want, I don't care, but Anfield is Anfield, and no amount of money should be able to alter that.
I'd find it easier to cope with a bowl under a sponsorship banner and lose Anfield completely.
I'm prolly being a bit of a drama queen, but it's just how I feel.

Captain Marko Ramius · « **Reply #137 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:22:24 pm »

I think it's hilarious people are asking how we'll pay for this.

It's called a loan, it is the reason debt exists.

L666KOP · « **Reply #138 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:24:23 pm »

Quote from: jaffod on October 13, 2012, 04:18:52 pm

I'd stick to 55k if it ever happens, any more and it'd be rarely full.

Wasn't there a limit on the new stadium? I thought I read that it was the infrastructure that would limit the capacity?

Passmaster Molby · « **Reply #139 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:27:00 pm »

Didn't FSG talk of sponsorship of the stands at Anfield if they ever decided to expand it? They said they would never call Anfield by any other name, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something like the "Warrior" stand or the "Carlsberg" stand at Anfield.

LondonRedMan · « **Reply #140 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:31:31 pm »

Quote from: eirwen on October 13, 2012, 04:11:17 pm

A loan+naming rights money?

Well we have more than 2 million fans. Out of these fans we will have rich people. I mean mega rich people. FSG, whatever you say about them, are innovative, bold and persuasive. Perhaps they could do some networking and lobbying to get our wealthy fans to contribute to the costs.

And to make it a more global fan exercise they could present the idea to normal fans as well. So all fans can contribute to the cost. Obviously the really wealthy ones will give the majority by id imagine we would have at least 100,000 normal fans giving 10 quid. Then we would have those more dedicated and with a bit more to spare who will give more. I'd put in 100 quid , others would too

This is the type of socialism shanks spoke about. Everybody pooling their resources together.

FSG would be heralded as genii. All they would have to do is market it and spread the word that LFC needs you. Or something more catchy. The media and general football public would be looking at us enviously as its putting something back into football and bringing tradition back.

Of course IF (big if) FSG do announce this, you know where you read it first!

Earl of Dingleberry · « **Reply #141 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:33:18 pm »

Quote from: L666KOP on October 13, 2012, 04:22:16 pm

To be honest, I'd rather leave things as they are than redevelop and lose the identity of Anfield. That would be the ultimate slap in the face.
I'd find it easier to cope with a bowl under a sponsorship banner and lose Anfield completely.

Anfield can be extended without turning into a giant bedpan, if the gringos want it that way. Architects design what the client wants.

LondonRedMan · « **Reply #142 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:34:41 pm »

Quote from: jaffod on October 13, 2012, 04:18:52 pm

I'd stick to 55k if it ever happens, any more and it'd be rarely full.

We can easily fill that. I think 65k is what we could fill week in week out of course good marketing and reasonable prices will be required.

L666KOP · « **Reply #143 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:36:27 pm »

Quote from: Earl of Dingleberry on October 13, 2012, 04:33:18 pm

Anfield can be extended without turning into a giant bedpan, if the gringos want it that way. Architects design what the client wants.

I meant them renaming it.

arcticus · « **Reply #144 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:37:35 pm »

So who is going to sponsor the entire thing? FSG or Naming rights?

EddieC · « **Reply #145 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:40:44 pm »

Can't say I'm massively enamoured with the idea of waiting til 2014 to get things going, but better an honest estimate than false promises.

Fromola · « **Reply #146 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:45:41 pm »

Quote from: Captain Marko Ramius on October 13, 2012, 04:22:24 pm

I think it's hilarious people are asking how we'll pay for this.

It's called a loan, it is the reason debt exists.

But FSG have said they'll only do something with the stadium if the figures add up. You take a loan out then you're paying interest as well, so it comes out the transfer budget. Unless FSG want to gives us an interest free loan.

Twelfth Man · « **Reply #147 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:47:21 pm »

How will this impact the Football Quarter idea?

eirwen · « **Reply #148 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:47:35 pm »

Quote from: Fromola on October 13, 2012, 04:45:41 pm

But FSG have said they'll only do something with the stadium if the figures add up. You take a loan out then you're paying interest as well, so it comes out the transfer budget. Unless FSG want to gives us an interest free loan.

So we will have a smaller transfer budget. It's the way most clubs do it.

Fromola · « **Reply #149 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:50:15 pm »

Quote from: eirwen on October 13, 2012, 04:47:35 pm

So we will have a smaller transfer budget. It's the way most clubs do it.

We'd be lucky to have any transfer budget for a few years, so that's the quandry FSG will analyse. They'll think it's no good sorting the ground and not being able to fill it due to a struggling team.

royhendo · « **Reply #150 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:52:54 pm »

If you're really interested in the funding aspect then go to the Stadium board, where there are experts who'll school you. Naming rights isn't a goer if they redevelop really, but cost/benefit wise, they've made a sensible choice and stuck to their guns to resolve the difficult issues re obstacles.

There may be plenty to slag them off about, but they deserve credit for this, because there will have been other 'easier' options they could have taken you'd suspect that could have sold the club down a less palatable route.

We have to be fair in our assessment.

EddieC · « **Reply #151 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:53:22 pm »

Quote from: Fromola on October 13, 2012, 04:50:15 pm

We'd be lucky to have any transfer budget for a few years, so that's the quandry FSG will analyse. They'll think it's no good sorting the ground and not being able to fill it due to a struggling team.

We'll always be able to fill a 60k+ seater, even if relegated. FSG will know this & the redevelopment will happen even if it does leave us short of money in other areas.

please, I have my reasons for it but... · « **Reply #152 on:** October 13, 2012, 05:04:41 pm »

Some people on here would moan and find negatives about FSG even if they manage to bring us Leo Fucking Messi. I'm not their biggest fan and have been critical about them for a lot of time but simply put you can't find a bad thing about this news, nothing.

JohnHobbes · « **Reply #153 on:** October 13, 2012, 05:08:36 pm »

Quote from: Y2J on October 13, 2012, 05:04:41 pm

Some people on here would moan and find negatives about FSG even if they manage to bring us Leo Fucking Messi. I'm not their biggest fan and have been critical about them for a lot of time but simply put you can't find a bad thing about this news, nothing.

Yep, you'd have to be seriously anti-FSG to have a moan here regarding this announcement and as such we just see the usual suspects popping up.

For anything else, you may as well just go read the stadium thread as this has all been thoroughly covered there in minute detail and doesn't have the angst.

John C · « **Reply #154 on:** October 13, 2012, 05:11:05 pm »

Quote from: royhendo on October 13, 2012, 04:52:54 pm

There may be plenty to slag them off about, but they deserve credit for this, because there will have been other 'easier' options they could have taken you'd suspect that could have sold the club down a less palatable route.

Quite Roy mate. And there's certainly no need for plans of dog shit through letter boxes .......

Bunter · « **Reply #155 on:** October 13, 2012, 05:11:27 pm »

Allllll rooound the fields of the SuperReds McWhopper Bowl road...

Twelfth Man · « **Reply #156 on:** October 13, 2012, 05:15:08 pm »

Not an accountant so can't comment on viability, which is something FSG have always been consistent about. What are the 'easier options'?

WillyWonka · « **Reply #157 on:** October 13, 2012, 05:17:19 pm »

Not pleased with this at all. Would much rather build a new modern stadium.

And Could He Play · « **Reply #158 on:** October 13, 2012, 05:17:21 pm »

there will be a shovel in the ground by next jelember.

peachybum · « **Reply #159 on:** October 13, 2012, 05:18:50 pm »

Could FSG sell naming rights to the new stands rather than the ground itself? Got no idea how valueable a stands name would be mind.