Topic: Announcement on Anfield redevelopment due Monday

[JohnHobbes]

Think he may be talking about further down the line. Best thing to do would be read the thread and his contribution to it then put it up against yours before deciding who should kindly shut the fuck up.

Sorry, forgot to say welcome to the thread. Wondered how long it would take before you turned up to back up Al and shout down any of his opponents. Normally it's a lot quicker. Maybe you should let Al fight his own battles?

[oojason]

If we are selling naming rights (which seems likely) I'd at least like it to be tasteful,
"Microsoft@Anfield" or "Anfield in association with Apple", I wouldn't want a full rebranding like the Emirates, Etihad etc.

I thought FSG said they weren't doing naming rights if they went down the path of a redeveloping the ground? Did that change - or more likely, did I get it wrong?

[Groundskeeper Willie]

Al's point wasn't whether they had or not as yet, but that is their intention in the short, medium and long-term. That is what they do, what they are about. I'm not sure what compels you to feel differently, but either way I think your abusive tone here is uncalled for.

Have they done that with the Red Sox? Or their racing team? Or any other team/set up? Asking because I don´t know.

[rossipersempre]

Could you show me any losses they have made one thing is for sure the Club is atleast 68m in debt before we even think about funding a possible redevelopment of Anfield. Amazing how no one mentions the £68m debt isn't it or the massive overdraft facilities.

1. Paying off Hodgson and his backroom team (not before time granted).
2. Paying off Kenny, Clarke, Brukner and Segura.
3. Recruiting Rodgers, Pascoe and the rest of his Swansea backroom posse.
4. Compensating Swansea for the services of 3.
5. Recruiting Comolli
6. Funding Comolli (we all know which players)
7. Sacking Comolli
8. Paying off Comolli on the steps of an Employment Tribunal
9. Sacking Ian Cotton
10. Hiring Chang.

Anyone have a calculator to hand? *shudders at thought*

*edit* I almost forgot, Ian Ayre's monthly fuel bill for his Harley

To be fair Al, compared to the crooks who came within a combover's width of actually bankrupting us, £68m in the red is positively healthy, and their efforts in bringing in cash have not been in vain. Hence most people's willingness to overlook it. As I do to be honest. My point above is that they could have been a little more circumspect in how they've spent money, instead of wasting it.

[JohnHobbes]

Have they done that with the Red Sox? Or their racing team? Or any other team/set up? Asking because I don´t know.

With the Red Sox they've redeveloped the stadium, been there long term and shown no signs of leaving. Also they've won a few titles under their leadership though recently the team sucks.

Definitely damning past precedent indeed.

[rossipersempre]

With the Red Sox they've redeveloped the stadium, been there long term and shown no signs of leaving. Also they've won a few titles under their leadership though recently the team sucks.

Really? Suggest you look at recent posts (with Boston Globe articles) in the FSG Report thread.

[vivabobbygraham]

People might not have such an issue with Al's opinions if he constantly didn't include 'facts' to slam FSG that have no truth behind them once investigated. FSG have made mistakes but from his posts, Al seems to be Captain Ahab in this and them his white whale.

Look, Al's opinions are his own. They are reasoned and well argued. There are many similarly rational arguments the other way. It becomes tedious though when 'the usual suspects' come on spouting about 'the usual suspects'. It appeared Alan x had found a hole in Al's argument then lo and behold 'the usual suspects'... (I've asked for a moratorium on this phrase in another thread) pile in, 'now, now, now' they chime, 'we want your answer now'.

Anyway, Al has responded and can look after himself. Jut thought it a bit out of order then you have another poster blundering in telling Al to shut the fuck up. Of all people, whether you agree with him or not he always tries to answer with respect and reason to anyone who disagrees.

[Fromola]

The CPO's could take several years (2014 looks highly optimistic), plus any other planning issues, then it'd take a couple of years to build with the loss of revenue that'd entail. So you could be looking at close to a decade until we've got the extra matchday revenues from this and that's while it's being paid off.

FSG would have to be here for the long haul to be totally committed to that. Only they know whether that's the case, but in the meantime the CPO's and any other planning hold ups buy them enough time on the stadium, as let's not forget it was a condition of sale.

[Torpedo Tommy]

Don't understand why folk are getting all hormonal about this.  It is a discussion forum - people will have differing opinions.  FSG have to stand and fall by their own actions.  And let us be honest, they have hardly been fluid in their ownership and mistakes (big mistakes) have happened.  It is understandable people are going to look at them and compare them with the last lot.

For me, it is a good move.  You would hope that this triggers a clear process going forward.  I think the majority of people will be happy if it does bear fruit.  However, I'm not sure about the folk referred to in this post - quoted from somewhere by Jonny5

for those wondering about CPO`s and what money might be offered this was posted earlier this month.

Here is an interesting email a local resident has posted up from the council. It is in regards to a home owner of the odd side of Lothair rd (the side that's the biggest issue and due to be knocked down)....

The property that Simon Baldwin owns on the odd side of Lothair Road backs onto LFC. The future of this row of properties has been uncertain for many years and previously when plans have been drawn up for the regeneration of the Rockfield area these properties have always been designated for “further consultation”.

 There are 20 properties in the block and 3 of them are in the ownership of LCC, 4 of them owned by Your Housing and 8 by LFC.
 All of these properties are currently vacant and discussions are ongoing with both LFC and Your Housing over the future of their properties.
 The other 5 properties are occupied and in private ownership
 As you are aware, earlier this year LCC in consultation with the Rockfield Stakeholders Group outlined three options for the regeneration of the Rockfield area.
 All of these plans included the demolition of the odd side of Lothair Road for landscaping / other uses. The plans were displayed at an exhibition in June and residents were asked to select their preference. Following analysis of the results and a further meeting of the Rockfield Stakeholders Group a plan was agreed that includes:

 Demolition of the odd side of Lothair Road, 86 – 96 Rockfield Road and 15 -27 Rockfield Road

 The retention of the even side of Lothair Road, the odd side of Alroy Road, 55 -65 Rockfield Road and 146 – 156 Anfield Road for commercial purposes

 Remaining properties retained and if not already improved to benefit from external front improvements

 A letter has been delivered to all the residents in the Rockfield area informing them of the agreed regeneration plan and explaining how it will affect their property.

 With regard to the 5 privately owned properties on the odd side of Lothair Road the owners will be offered:
  ∙        Full market value – following an inspection of their property by 20/20 Liverpool acting on behalf of LCC an offer will be made to them.
 If they then wish they can appoint an independent valuer to act on their behalf and negotiate the price, with any reasonable valuation fees being paid by LCC
 ∙        In addition to the agreed value Home Owners will receive a Home Loss payment of 10% of the acquisition value and other private owners a loss payment of 7.5%
 ∙        Equity relocation loans will also be provided for home owners if required
 ∙        Tenants of private landlords will also be re-housed in a property suitable for their housing needs in an area of their choice
 Mr Baldwin has been contacted by 20/20 Liverpool but has refused them access to his property saying it is not for sale.
 Currently the Council is pursuing voluntary acquisitions and will make every endeavour to achieve this aim.
 If however all attempts to negotiate with private owners fail then consideration will be given by the Council to pursuing a Compulsory Purchase Order
 Regards
 Ann

So basically it is:  "that is how much your house is worth on the market, here's your 10% mark up for being fucked off - but if you need a loan.  We'll give you one" - nice of them.

Imagine if that happened to you?  I'd take Simon Baldwin's stance to.  The council have to be fair in this matter and treat it with strict confidentiality.  Attempting to uproot someone from their own home like that and then making the news public?

Pay the people fair amounts for ballsing their lives up.

[Groundskeeper Willie]

With the Red Sox they've redeveloped the stadium, been there long term and shown no signs of leaving. Also they've won a few titles under their leadership though recently the team sucks.

Definitely damning past precedent indeed.

That´s what I mean. I have never heard about them taking out a profit from a team of theirs, but then again I´m not an FSG expert so I´d like to be enlightened.

I´m cautious about them due to past mistakes but some people are too quick throwing bad "facts" about them with nothing to back it up whatsoever. Like this them taking out profits from their clubs is "what they are all about". Maybe they are but if that is the case I think you´d have heard about it by now. Seems it´s the other way around.

[Groundskeeper Willie]

Really? Suggest you look at recent posts (with Boston Globe articles) in the FSG Report thread.

Have they taken out profit from the Sox or other clubs/set ups they own/ed?

[JohnHobbes]

Jut thought it a bit out of order then you have another poster blundering in telling Al to shut the fuck up. Of all people, whether you agree with him or not he always tries to answer with respect and reason to anyone who disagrees.

I agree with this bit, shouting anyone down/telling them to shut up for making a point is out of order.

[JohnHobbes]

Really? Suggest you look at recent posts (with Boston Globe articles) in the FSG Report thread.

A day old Boston Globe article has JH looking for a minority partner, not an outright sale though this is still denied by JH. Extract below:

The Fox Business reporter who wrote in September the Red Sox could be exploring a potential sale now says Red Sox owner John Henry is looking for a minority owner for his Fenway Sports Group.

The Red Sox denied the report, as they did in September. Henry himself denied the September report in emails to reporters and in an interview on WEEI.

“There is absolutely no truth to any other sale or claim that John Henry is selling the team or a piece of FSG,” Red Sox spokeswoman Zineb Curran told Charlie Gasparino, the Fox reporter.

Gasparino wrote that despite the denials, “the latest word around baseball circles is that Henry is seeking a minority owner for the Fenway Sports Group, the holding company that owns the Red Sox.”

http://bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/10/12/report-john-henry-seeking-minority-owner-for-fenway-sports-group/xeeVQFZkZtYhMMgUkt0gOP/story.html

[vivabobbygraham]

Sorry, forgot to say welcome to the thread. Wondered how long it would take before you turned up to back up Al and shout down any of his opponents. Normally it's a lot quicker. Maybe you should let Al fight his own battles?

Was wondering the same thing regarding you but of course I am a reformed character since my latest warning and try not to engage in petty playground squabbles. I see you haven't changed a bit. Pity.

EDIT: Also, if you'd read the thread you will see I've been involved with it from the early stages wheras you've been waving the FSG flag in many other threads I presume.

[Juanyboy]

I hate international breaks.  Too much time in between games for all the moaners to start up about something.  If it's not the stadium it's the "being Liverpool" documentary, if it's not the tv show it's anything we can think of to bash FSG.  People on this site love to moan don't they?

You know what mate? I was thinking exactly the same thing.

I mean FFS, we're getting an official announcement about the stadium that we've been waiting for and people, who have an obvious agenda (which I don't think is fair and they should be fucked off for their biased and unreasonable views that goes against reasonable forum discussion) find absurd points to complain about.

It's fucking depressing.

And I'll add - I've got many years of experience in project management and know for a fact that it can take years before any given business - public or private - decides to go ahead with a construction project (which are a fraction of the cost of the 150 million or so being bounded about for the redevelopment),so to wait two years seems reasonable in my mind. I mean - it's a project worth well over 100 million pounds - if they/we fuck up on this then we'll be put back for the next ten-twenty years paying it off. Someone please tell me if I'm wrong here, after all, I've personally never spent over 100 million quid on a stadium before (though there are some who act as if they know it inside out).

I am of course hoping that careful thinking is going on behind the scenes, but what's wrong with that? We've not exactly been kept in the dark, Henry has had his say about the matter and thankfully they've done it before.

I mean really re-developed a stadium before. That is a positive, no matter how you look at it and I don't think many people are complaining about Fenway Park are they?

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. I'm not saying we need to blindly trust them, no, we need to be wary. But there is a massive difference between being wary and being vindictive.

At least there's progress.

Oh, and a quick question - people talk about FSG H&G etc etc making money out of the football club - can anyone tell me if Mr Robinson ever made any money out of LFC? Did he pump it all back into shankly's team?

But maybe that's a conversation for another day in another thread.

[rossipersempre]

A day old Boston Globe article has JH looking for a minority partner, not an outright sale though this is still denied by JH. Extract below:

http://bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/10/12/report-john-henry-seeking-minority-owner-for-fenway-sports-group/xeeVQFZkZtYhMMgUkt0gOP/story.html

That is not the first article on the subject of sale, not by any means. Another recent one got the same denial but the reporter vehemently backed his sources. Whatever, it's clear that FSG is not in it for the pure love of sport. Nor should people expect them to be, but perhaps a wee bit more transparency might be welcomed.

[JohnHobbes]

Was wondering the same thing regarding you but of course I am a reformed character since my latest warning and try not to engage in petty playground squabbles. I see you haven't changed a bit. Pity.

EDIT: Also, if you'd read the thread you will see I've been involved with it from the early stages wheras you've been waving the FSG flag in many other threads I presume.

Nope. Just asking Al to back up his claims when others have already proved them wrong but he's ignored the question to clarify. Apart from that, I've just stated that I think this is good news which strangely enough most others do too.

You presume I've been waving the FSG flag in other threads? You presume? Either search and show any such evidence, which you won't, or don't make such accusations.

[Eeyore]

1. Paying off Hodgson and his backroom team (not before time granted).
2. Paying off Kenny, Clarke, Brukner and Segura.
3. Recruiting Rodgers, Pascoe and the rest of his Swansea backroom posse.
4. Compensating Swansea for the services of 3.
5. Recruiting Comolli
6. Funding Comolli (we all know which players)
7. Sacking Comolli
8. Paying off Comolli on the steps of an Employment Tribunal
9. Sacking Ian Cotton
10. Hiring Chang.

Anyone have a calculator to hand? *shudders at thought*

*edit* I almost forgot, Ian Ayre's monthly fuel bill for his Harley

To be fair Al, compared to the crooks who came within a combover's width of actually bankrupting us, £68m in the red is positively healthy, and their efforts in bringing in cash have not been in vain. Hence most people's willingness to overlook it. As I do to be honest. My point above is that they could have been a little more circumspect in how they've spent money, instead of wasting it.

The problem is the £68m is only what we know, the acquisition debt is almost certainly placed higher up the organisation. Whilst it is not leveraged on the Club it is a pretty fair assumption that FSG have used LFC as collateral for those loans. You look at the whispers coming from Boston and it does make you wonder about FSG currently being overstretched.

[JohnHobbes]

That is not the first article on the subject of sale, not by any means. Another recent one got the same denial but the reporter vehemently backed his sources. Whatever, it's clear that FSG is not in it for the pure love of sport. Nor should people expect them to be, but perhaps a wee bit more transparency might be welcomed.

Very true, owners are there to make a profit but that doesn't mean it has to be at expense of the team, there are other revenue streams available. Regarding a sale then I just went what was the latest on show but if they're making a profit through TV rights/etc then why would they need to sell?

Transparency won't happen, unless you have a legal need to show your accounts then no one does it voluntarily.

[God's Left Peg]

Juanyboy excellent post thank fuck for some positivity.

I too cannot fathom what more people could realistically ask for ag this juncture.

Will personally be delighted if the news turns out to be true.

Fucking delighted.

[rossipersempre]

Transparency won't happen, unless you have a legal need to show your accounts then no one does it voluntarily.

I didn't mean transparency in accounting terms, more in communications.

[paddysour]

Don't understand why folk are getting all hormonal about this. 

I think this post sums it up.

Just a quick point - it'd be good if people could let others have their say. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and when it's clear, you don't necessarily have to repeat it 40 times in succession.

It's very frustrating for people who are reading the entire thread, to see the exact same thing over and over.

[MOZ]

With regard to the 5 privately owned properties on the odd side of Lothair Road the owners will be offered:
  ∙        Full market value – following an inspection of their property by 20/20 Liverpool acting on behalf of LCC an offer will be made to them.
 If they then wish they can appoint an independent valuer to act on their behalf and negotiate the price, with any reasonable valuation fees being paid by LCC
 ∙        In addition to the agreed value Home Owners will receive a Home Loss payment of 10% of the acquisition value and other private owners a loss payment of 7.5%
 ∙        Equity relocation loans will also be provided for home owners if required
 ∙        Tenants of private landlords will also be re-housed in a property suitable for their housing needs in an area of their choice
 Mr Baldwin has been contacted by 20/20 Liverpool but has refused them access to his property saying it is not for sale.
 Currently the Council is pursuing voluntary acquisitions and will make every endeavour to achieve this aim.
 If however all attempts to negotiate with private owners fail then consideration will be given by the Council to pursuing a Compulsory Purchase Order

The trouble is that the 'market value' of these properties has been negatively distorted by the imposed decline in this neighbourhood. Houses that may have been worth £50,000 a few years ago may now only be valued at half of that. In reality, this soon-to-be-developed area is prime real estate and the incoming developers will benefit while local residents, many of whom are elderly or on low income/benefits will be turfed out at minimal cost.

[Juanyboy]

Juanyboy excellent post thank fuck for some positivity.

I too cannot fathom what more people could realistically ask for ag this juncture.

Will personally be delighted if the news turns out to be true.

Fucking delighted.

  yep, totally agree. Processes with the council, existing properties, moving people etc  - that alone takes time. At least this step opens the door for everything to follow.

Here's to FSG announcing their decision in the near future.

[vivabobbygraham]

Nope. Just asking Al to back up his claims when others have already proved them wrong but he's ignored the question to clarify. Apart from that, I've just stated that I think this is good news which strangely enough most others do too.

You presume I've been waving the FSG flag in other threads? You presume? Either search and show any such evidence, which you won't, or don't make such accusations.

Whereas you can accuse me of "turn[ing] up to back up Al and shout down any of his opponents". Very melodramatic and very untrue. I think I said in an earlier post Al can look after himself but when the pack arrive en masse cos they scent blood, it makes you wonder is there a signal they all get, a tune they all dance to, or is it merely coincidence?

[Eeyore]

The trouble is that the 'market value' of these properties has been negatively distorted by the imposed decline in this neighbourhood. Houses that may have been worth £50,000 a few years ago may now only be valued at half of that. In reality, this soon-to-be-developed area is prime real estate and the incoming developers will benefit while local residents, many of whom are elderly or on low income/benefits will be turfed out at minimal cost.

It was exactly the same with the CPO's for the houses along the Edge Lane corridor the amount offered should enable the home owners to purchase a similar property in a similar area plus compensation for being forced to move. Sadly that is not the case as you say the destruction of the area means the property values plummet. Those expecting a 2014 start should look at how long it took for the Edge Lane CPO's and how long it took to remove the sisters who held up the Centenary Stand.

Plans have already been put in place to fight any CPO's and it could be years before anything happens.

[CraigDS]

The trouble is that the 'market value' of these properties has been negatively distorted by the imposed decline in this neighbourhood. Houses that may have been worth £50,000 a few years ago may now only be valued at half of that. In reality, this soon-to-be-developed area is prime real estate and the incoming developers will benefit while local residents, many of whom are elderly or on low income/benefits will be turfed out at minimal cost.

They are valuing the houses at what they would be worth if the area was not run down as it is.

And it is far far far from prime real estate.

[CraigDS]

Al - where is this £68m debt figure coming from you mention?

[JohnHobbes]

Whereas you can accuse me of "turn[ing] up to back up Al and shout down any of his opponents". Very melodramatic and very untrue. I think I said in an earlier post Al can look after himself but when the pack arrive en masse cos they scent blood, it makes you wonder is there a signal they all get, a tune they all dance to, or is it merely coincidence?

Seriously straying from topic, so will respond to the former to say you've had enough past precedent for it so if I was wrong in this case then I admit that. For the latter, you seriously think people get a signal to attack Al over the simpler explanation they just think he's flat out wrong?

Anyway, only going to talk about the stadium redev or intimately related topic in this thread now.

[helmboy_nige]

Awesome post and too true.  Regarding making money, every owner of LFC will, when they move on look to make a profit.  Moores did and of course FSG will be looking to do it too.  If FSG are here for 10 years and when they sell up they make a massive profit then that means the club is worth more than it was, which means the club is in a better place than it was.  All fine with me.

[MOZ]

They are valuing the houses at what they would be worth if the area was not run down as it is.

And it is far far far from prime real estate.

I know the area well and sold a house in the V streets to the council about 7 years ago myself. When I say prime real estate, I mean in terms of what it will be worth when this development goes ahead; its value will go through the roof and the people that invest in the area will make a fortune.

I was unaware that the remaining residents were getting market value based on the area not being run down. Would be interesting to see how they value them based on that.

[careful on these streets, I've heard stories]

Really? Suggest you look at recent posts (with Boston Globe articles) in the FSG Report thread.

Have they taken out profit from the Sox or other clubs/set ups they own/ed?

I was hoping to see an answer to this but I doubt there will be any

[Fromola]

It was exactly the same with the CPO's for the houses along the Edge Lane corridor the amount offered should enable the home owners to purchase a similar property in a similar area plus compensation for being forced to move. Sadly that is not the case as you say the destruction of the area means the property values plummet. Those expecting a 2014 start should look at how long it took for the Edge Lane CPO's and how long it took to remove the sisters who held up the Centenary Stand.

Plans have already been put in place to fight any CPO's and it could be years before anything happens.

Buys time for the owners then. Convenient? It'll take years this just to get anywhere, whereas Stanley Park could be getting built now.

[careful on these streets, I've heard stories]

Buys time for the owners then. Convenient? It'll take years this just to get anywhere, whereas Stanley Park could be getting built now.

So owners are getting criticized for choosing to re-develop, earlier they were criticized for not making a decision one way or the other. You couldn't make this shit up, people talk as if FSG have created this problem meanwhile its been here for years now.

And how much would a new stadium cost and how do we fund it?

[Eeyore]

Al - where is this £68m debt figure coming from you mention?

The Swiss Ramble.




Plus the Club took out a three year £120m overdraft facility from the RBS, Barclays and Bank of America split two ways £45m for the Stadium and £75m as working capital.

[Juanyboy]

Awesome post and too true.  Regarding making money, every owner of LFC will, when they move on look to make a profit.  Moores did and of course FSG will be looking to do it too.  If FSG are here for 10 years and when they sell up they make a massive profit then that means the club is worth more than it was, which means the club is in a better place than it was.  All fine with me.

Yeah, and it's as if H&G and FSG are the only profiteers who have ever lived! 

laughable.

[Redric1970]

It#s the voices that should intimidate, not the size of the stand. At least it is still a single tier...

I know what your saying, but it would still be good if it could be extended, only a pipe dream I know.

[CraigDS]

The Swiss Ramble.

So £38m of old stadium debt if I'm not mistaken and £30m that the owners loaned the club?

[TSC]

Can you show me proof of FSG making any profit from Liverpool FC in the 2 years they have been here? Thanks. If not kindly shut the fuck up with your constant drivel.

Out of order that response.  He's obviously done a lot of research behind his responses and appears to know more than most on here about the issues he's raised.  Many of which are perfectly valid.

[Eeyore]

So £38m of old stadium debt if I'm not mistaken and £30m that the owners loaned the club?

Yes the interesting thing is that if you look at the graph there is only a green column from 2010 when FSG took over. It is almost certain that there is also acquisition debt higher up the organisation but FSG do not release financial details.