Topic: Announcement on Anfield redevelopment due Monday

[TepidT2O]

Of course they want a free Stadium either a naming partner will pay for it or the fans will pay for it, one thing is crystal clear FSG wont be paying for it. As for a new Stadium being worse take a drive around Anfield and then come back and say that. The area inside the Robson Street, Sleepers hill, Anfield Rd and the ground triangle is an absolute shit hole.

The club will pay for the stadium....

That's the way it should be, that's the way it's always been (ok city got a free one and that made them wealthy, but you get my point).

No buyer of our club would ever pay for a new stadium, ever.  The stadium would never be paid for by owners out of the kindness of their hearts.

Moores didn't do it and he was a red (he was certainly no business man)

They've been totally transparent about the stadium and financing it, none of us have ever thought it would be paid for any other way.  No one else was going to buy the club and do any different.

As for the housing conditions around the stadium, Im just trying to point out that a new stadium would be no better than redevelopment.... It may be no worse either, but neither is going to be a magic key to renovating the area.

[royhendo]

Look at Inter, look at Arsenal, look at Hartlepool... loads of options that look easy on paper.

New builds, new investors with their own agendas, white elephants, millstones round necks. Groundshares.

FSG, to their credit, appear to have gotten key stakeholders onside and have, with them, reached a stage where a solution's possible that makes everyone happy.

[FLRed67]

So after two years announcing that you are going to start consultations on compulsory purchase orders is good news. As for selling up, an asset is more of an asset once it's got outline planning permission.

And before FSG we made exactly what progress on the stadium issue? If you want the owners to sell, just say so. And maybe you can broker the sale to the Quatari billionaires who are just itching to buy Neymar, Cavani, and Falcao for us while you are at it.

[Malaysian Kopite]

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

I suggest you read the redevelopment thread in the new stadium section. Its very informative and will explain why redevelopment is the better option.

[TSC]

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!

Yeah we'd all be lining up to pay for FSG's redevelopment of the ground.  This on top of the extensive costs of actually watching the team.  I don't think Shanks idea of socialism would extend to supporters paying for wealthy American owners of the club to redevelop the ground.

This would only be a valid option if supporters actually owned the club, aka Barca.

[royhendo]

Read this re finance http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=294246.msg10954398#msg10954398

[WillyWonka]

I suggest you read the redevelopment thread in the new stadium section. Its very informative and will explain why redevelopment is the better option.

25 pages? Having a laugh?  Will try skim it. Long term I just can't see how this is a good idea. 10-15 years time will Anfield be up to standard?

[Twelfth Man]

Makes sense, hope the downtime for redevelopment is not too long. This keeps alive the Football Quarter idea and hopefully will still pave the way for regeneration of the area. Is capacity 60,000 with more corporate shenanigans for your Jeremy's and Jemima's?

[Torpedo Tommy]

Read this re finance http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=294246.msg10954398#msg10954398

Think you are wasting your time mate.  If someone has a picture in their head that FSG are a bad bunch of cowboys then that is what they will believe.

I have my doubts over them but wish to see how this materialises before I jump onto the Anti-FSG bandwagon

[Torpedo Tommy]

25 pages? Having a laugh?  Will try skim it. Long term I just can't see how this is a good idea. 10-15 years time will Anfield be up to standard?

I think the point is that building a new stand can be funded by a number of procurement routes.  There are a lot on here taking what happened on the last day of the transfer window and saying that FSG don't have a pot to piss in.  That might well be the case, but it may also be a fact that the funding for the ground is a completely separate issue - I would hope that this is the case.

Maybe FSG are trying to build from the bottom up - which may not give the best results immediately but may do so in the medium-long term.

Why would a redeveloped Anfield not be up to standard?  How old is the Stadium of Light (Sunderland one), Riverside, Reebok, Pride Park etc etc.  If anything, this process will serve long term won't it?

[Pistolero]

even if we had  Man City / Chelsea levels of investment I still wouldn't want us to move to a new stadium....Anfield is LFC and vice verca

[royhendo]

You forget not everyone's read this: http://petermcgurk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/part-1-fsgs-already-legacy.html

[john_mac]

If someone has a picture in their head that FSG are a bad bunch of cowboys then that is what they will believe.

Stereotypes apart, have we seen anything from FSG that gives us an indication that we would want to invest now for the long term benefit if their investment. To me, it looks as though we have taken two years of their ownership to get back to a similar point to where we were at in 2002.

If I'm hinest I can't stand an awful lot about how they do things, and am naturally sceptical but none of this sits easily with me.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

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

Yeah. Fuck 100+ years of history.

[Fromola]

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.

Only the Kop itself would fetch anything worthwhile.

[john_mac]

You forget not everyone's read this: http://petermcgurk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/part-1-fsgs-already-legacy.html

Roy have read all of that and to a certain extent bought into it but, and it is a big but, many, many questions raised there head at the end of last season and particularly in August. My natural scepticism only intensified with every person I spoke to in the US during the Summer.

I haven't a clue what the answer is, the best option, we are left with little option but to trust FSG but I do think it needs to be closely monitored, not by some phoney, paper tiger, 'fans committee' but by every one of us, if I'm wrong to be sceptical and the passing of time proves it so, nobody will be happier.

[WillyWonka]

I think the point is that building a new stand can be funded by a number of procurement routes.  There are a lot on here taking what happened on the last day of the transfer window and saying that FSG don't have a pot to piss in.  That might well be the case, but it may also be a fact that the funding for the ground is a completely separate issue - I would hope that this is the case.

Maybe FSG are trying to build from the bottom up - which may not give the best results immediately but may do so in the medium-long term.

Why would a redeveloped Anfield not be up to standard?  How old is the Stadium of Light (Sunderland one), Riverside, Reebok, Pride Park etc etc.  If anything, this process will serve long term won't it?

Will Stadium of light, riverside, reebok, pride park etc be up-to-date in 15 years? I suppose it all depends on what scope their is to continuously rebuild Anfield.

Yeah. Fuck 100+ years of history.

Give me success on the pitch rather than history.

[Twelfth Man]

Only the Kop itself would fetch anything worthwhile.

The Coca-cola Kop?

[Twelfth Man]

Give me success on the pitch rather than history.

So new stadium equates to success on pitch? Please explain?

[royhendo]

Roy have read all of that and to a certain extent bought into it but, and it is a big but, many, many questions raised there head at the end of last season and particularly in August. My natural scepticism only intensified with every person I spoke to in the US during the Summer.

I haven't a clue what the answer is, the best option, we are left with little option but to trust FSG but I do think it needs to be closely monitored, not by some phoney, paper tiger, 'fans committee' but by every one of us, if I'm wrong to be sceptical and the passing of time proves it so, nobody will be happier.

Quite right John, I totally agree.

[OneTouchFooty]

So new stadium equates to success on pitch? Please explain?

Some people seem to think the extra £5 million from gate receipts a year from our shiny new stadium/expansion will have us competing with the big boys again. It will, but only in a financial sense.

[WillyWonka]

So new stadium equates to success on pitch? Please explain?

More increase will increase our chances of success.

[Bob Loblaw]

It's only an announcement.  And it's from the Council anyway.  Moores overseen development of Anfield periodically during his time.  Centenary stand was constructed in 92 for example.  This is simply an announcement about a similar redevelopment at some point in the future.  Bob the builder isn't turning up on Monday to start work like.

Well obviously, you wouldn't expect that even in the best case scenario. My comment was a bit tongue in cheek anyway, just trying to offset the usual doom mongering and pessimism surrounding anything the club does these days, good or bad.

[JohnHobbes]

More increase will increase our chances of success.

Presume you mean more money? If so, you'd need to remember that a new stadium would be a £450m debt that would need to be serviced before any of that would really translate to a bigger transfer budget. Especially as the increased revenue would not kick in until it's built and would just leave us dangling in the short term.

Redevelopment allows work to be done piecemeal, cost less and bring in money quicker with less negatives. Plush we get to stay at Anfield. Pretty much says it all. New stadium would be a massive mistake.

[astowell1]

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.

[Torpedo Tommy]

Stereotypes apart, have we seen anything from FSG that gives us an indication that we would want to invest now for the long term benefit if their investment. To me, it looks as though we have taken two years of their ownership to get back to a similar point to where we were at in 2002.

If I'm hinest I can't stand an awful lot about how they do things, and am naturally sceptical but none of this sits easily with me.

I have to admit that I have seen nothing.  Apart from writing the debt off and saving the club (I know this is the biggest issue of the lot) I do not think that we have moved forward much (if any) in two years.

But, I also think that this two year tenure has had it's own problems to, which have little to do with the stadium but portray FSG in a worser light.

The point I hate about FSG was how they treated Kenny.  They sacked him and Comolli - two people when either one's failings could have a direct influence on the the light that the other is portrayed.  The decision to cull both showed a brutal approach not normally associated with LFC but it also showed panic.  Other than that?

Naivity?  Maybe.  We have shown such poor professionalism in these last few years and that is a concern because we continue to do so up to current times.  We all know these failings so I won't drift any further off topic but lets say the deadline day was a bit of an embarrassment.

With regards to the stadium, I always believed that the redevelopment of Anfield was the better idea - both from a cost perspective but for emotional and historical values too.  There were always going to be Council issues with either the new build or redevelopment.  Pressure for a groundshare would also be there, so I don't fully understand why people are griping about only being where we are now.  It isn't like we are putting up a garden shed - these processes take time.

I've just read Peter McGurk's blog and many of the comments he's made and whilst I slightly disagree with his take on construction costs, he speaks a great deal of sense on the matter - the blog is very informative and well worth a read.

If FSG intend to rebuild LFC from the ground up then the redevelopment route and making us financially self sufficient is the best way forward.  If they decide to take this on then I for one will behind them......whilst maintaining that little bit of wariness.

[Jonny5]

lets hope its something concrete and not more of the same.

[Torpedo Tommy]

Will Stadium of light, riverside, reebok, pride park etc be up-to-date in 15 years? I suppose it all depends on what scope their is to continuously rebuild Anfield.

Give me success on the pitch rather than history.

All the above are 15 years old or there or thereabouts.  So the question is do these stadia need demolishing and starting again?  They were built to designs that took their purpose into consideration.  They still serve that purpose so apart from the odd refresh (seats, painting, lighting, electrics, surface finishes generally) then little will need to be done.

I don't understand why we need scope to continuously rebuild Anfield?  The primary structure would remain the same and refurbished as above.  Any consideration for extension (if there would be a need) would need to be considered.

Seriously though, anyone who wants to be sat in a new stadium every other week can't have sat in the likes of the Ricoh Arena, Riverside Stadium, Reebok or JJB.  They are soulless and look exactly the same inside save for the seat colouring.  I've been to Highfield Road, Ayresome Park, Burnden Park and even Springfield Park and every one of the old grounds beats its replacement for atmosphere, nostalgia and character.

Anfield is our home and if the announcement is made on Monday and followed up on, then I'll be more than happy

[john_mac]

Wouldn't disagree (on stadium at least), as I've said I think that we are faced with little option but  to put some faith in them over this, but natural scepticism often overtakes me with these things. It did with Parry and did with Hicks n Gillette, thing is many of the things that made a new ground the preferred option in 2002 are no longer the case now. European 1 funding, naming rights, financial viability, planning permission issues over extending Main stand and Anfield Road. The prospect of redevelopment v rebuilding has completely changed landscape and most of the obvious advantages of relocation no longer exists, certainly to as concrete an extent.

We'll see how they progress but to b honest, I don't trust them, certainly not wholeheartedly, we'll see how it progresses. 

[killer-heels]

Great news if we end up staying at Anfield.

Hopefully it's still called Anfield.

[west_london_red]

Wouldn't disagree (on stadium at least), as I've said I think that we are faced with little option but  to put some faith in them over this, but natural scepticism often overtakes me with these things. It did with Parry and did with Hicks n Gillette, thing is many of the things that made a new ground the preferred option in 2002 are no longer the case now. European 1 funding, naming rights, financial viability, planning permission issues over extending Main stand and Anfield Road. The prospect of redevelopment v rebuilding has completely changed landscape and most of the obvious advantages of relocation no longer exists, certainly to as concrete an extent.

We'll see how they progress but to b honest, I don't trust them, certainly not wholeheartedly, we'll see how it progresses. 

In 2002 it was estimated to cost £60 million for the stadium, now its in the £400 million region.

[KiNki]

In 2002 it was estimated to cost £60 million for the stadium, now its in the £400 million region.

I wonder how much the repayments would have been and how far beyond dave and rick it would have been.

[Strummer77]

Some people seem to think the extra £5 million from gate receipts a year from our shiny new stadium/expansion will have us competing with the big boys again. It will, but only in a financial sense.

Don't United get almost a million more a game? Or is that a myth.

If that's the case it would be more than a £5m gain.

[Chavasse1917]

I, for one, am delighted that it seems we are redeveloping and staying at Anfield.
I dont live in the city but for almost forty years have been attending home matches and for me the whole atmosphere in Walton Breck Road on a match day, particularly in the evening, is an integral part of the craic and pleasure in following the club.  I know Stanley Park is a stones throw away, but to trip out of the Park with a few bevvies inside and straight into the ground is something I'd miss.  Its like a seated Kop, something would have gone.

[Neil D]

It's all shite. Who gives a fuck. Why do football fans that go to the game even care?

Eh?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Don't United get almost a million more a game? Or is that a myth.

If that's the case it would be more than a £5m gain.

30 home games a season. 15000 seats. £50 a seat. That's £20m right there without factoring in corporates, catering etc.

[TomDcs]

Fantastic news if true, and assuming nothing changes between now and the intended starting date of works.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Eh?

Time of the month I think mate. Then again it always seems to be that time of the month for andu

[OneTouchFooty]

Don't United get almost a million more a game? Or is that a myth.

If that's the case it would be more than a £5m gain.

Yeah they probably do, roughly doing the sums for us (assuming an extra 10,000 x £45 a ticket x 19 league games + 3 to 6 cup games) it's more like an extra £10-11m. So thats an extra Fabio Borini a season. 

[Andy]

The Coca-cola Kop?

The Co-Op Kop.