Topic: Announcement on Anfield redevelopment due Monday

[CraigDS]

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.

Probable.

What is certain is it is in no way, shape or form secured on the club as it would need to be listed on the accounts.

[Fromola]

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.

I just want it sorted out one way or the other. Making a decision that could take years and years to just get the full planning permission is a decision that could be construed as a delaying tactic. The planning permission for Stanley Park was already in place.

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

How much would a rebuild cost and how would they fund it? I don't know.

[CraigDS]

I just want it sorted out one way or the other. Making a decision that could take years and years to just get the full planning permission is a decision that could be construed as a delaying tactic. The planning permission for Stanley Park was already in place.

How much would a rebuild cost and how would they fund it? I don't know.

The financial aspects of a new build have been dissected with a fine tooth comb by the likes of Peter and Alan in the stadium sub-forum. A new build just doesn't measure up unless we find record breaking naming rights - which appears next to impossible.

[Fromola]

The financial aspects of a new build have been dissected with a fine tooth comb by the likes of Peter and Alan in the stadium sub-forum. A new build just doesn't measure up unless we find record breaking naming rights - which appears next to impossible.

We'd still get stadium naming rights from a new build, FSG have said we won't from a rebuild so that has to be factored in.

Also we lose income from a rebuild while its getting built, and we lose income every year while we're stuck with a 45k capacity stadium. That'll be another 5-10+ years now.  Do the owners even plan to stick around that long?

[Eeyore]

Probable.

What is certain is it is in no way, shape or form secured on the club as it would need to be listed on the accounts.

LFC is an asset of FSG though if FSG overstretch themselves then it will indirectly affect the Club. Another thing is do FSG at some point expect LFC to pay off the acquisition debt. FSG see the Club and the Stadium as separate entities. If we redevelop will the Stadium be owned by LFC or will we be tenants paying rent.

[Groundskeeper Willie]

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

Me too. Asked a couple of time but no response yet.

[Eeyore]

Me too. Asked a couple of time but no response yet.

We don't know because FSG is a private company. It is a complex situation NESN the TV Network that FSG own 80% of seems to be the money maker. Without knowing whether the Red Sox gets true market value from it's TV rights it is hard to know. Then you have things like the Stadium and the concessions without knowing who takes what cut it's impossible to know who takes what.

[CraigDS]

LFC is an asset of FSG though if FSG overstretch themselves then it will indirectly affect the Club. Another thing is do FSG at some point expect LFC to pay off the acquisition debt. FSG see the Club and the Stadium as separate entities. If we redevelop will the Stadium be owned by LFC or will we be tenants paying rent.

Not really, we aren't funded via FSG as the club only spends what it brings in. So if FSG over stretch themselves then unless they decide to take out profits (could do that anyway) it shouldn't really be too much of an issue.

Certainly worth knowing if Anfield will be kept in LFC as a whole. How is Fenway owned?

[JohnHobbes]

We'd still get stadium naming rights from a new build, FSG have said we won't from a rebuild so that has to be factored in.

Also we lose income from a rebuild while its getting built, and we lose income every year while we're stuck with a 45k capacity stadium. That'll be another 5-10+ years now.  Do the owners even plan to stick around that long?

This has been discussed ad infiniteum in the stadium thread. I suggest you re-read that for why a new stadium doesn't make fiscal sense and why a staggered rebuild does.

[Alan_X]

Stating that H&G built stadiums isn't praising them it is stating facts, Hicks in particular often built Stadiums that suited him far more than the Club. Once the Stadium was built Hicks would end up magically owning real estate he didn't own before, Ballpark llc is a perfect example

Hicks hasn't built a stadium.

[Fromola]

This has been discussed ad infiniteum in the stadium thread. I suggest you re-read that for why a new stadium doesn't make fiscal sense and why a staggered rebuild does.

I can understand it, but not sure how long we can afford to wait. These CPO's could take ages for a start.

We've got owners who go on about FFP when we can't get near half what United and Arsenal earn on a matchday. We're pushing for something that'll benefit them rather than us - until we sort the ground out.

[Flaccido Dongingo]

If Anfield is being redeveloped, does this mean we may have to play home games at the Pit for a while?

[JohnHobbes]

I can understand it, but not sure how long we can afford to wait. These CPO's could take ages for a start.

We've got owners who go on about FFP when we can't get near half what United and Arsenal earn on a matchday. We're pushing for something that'll benefit them rather than us - until we sort the ground out.

CPOs are a last resort, some owners might be paying hardball to get the most value and a CPO would be unnecessary. If not then that delay is just something to accept.

A new stadium would cost too much, cripple the team finances in the short/mid term and not bring in a return for a long long time. FFP regardless of the stadium is better for us then no FFP.

[JohnHobbes]

If Anfield is being redeveloped, does this mean we may have to play home games at the Pit for a while?

No, redevelopment can be done behind the scenes so no loss of revenue during the process. It would be a stand by stand process from what I understand.

[Eeyore]

Hicks hasn't built a stadium.

Maybe someone should tell the Dallas Stars http://stars.nhl.com/club/pageprint.htm?id=39217

Mr. Hicks played an instrumental role in the development and planning of American Airlines Center, as well as the hosting of the 2007 NHL All-Star Game. Hicks serves as Vice Chairman for the NHL Board of Governors, and also serves on the NHL Executive Committee and on the Audit and Finance Committee.

Mr. Hicks’ sports ownership assets include the Dallas Stars Hockey Club, of the National Hockey League, a 50% interest in the American Airlines Center

[Fromola]

CPOs are a last resort, some owners might be paying hardball to get the most value and a CPO would be unnecessary. If not then that delay is just something to accept.

A new stadium would cost too much, cripple the team finances in the short/mid term and not bring in a return for a long long time. FFP regardless of the stadium is better for us then no FFP.

Our revenues may only be the 6th highest in the league in this year's accounts. And that's before Man City and Spurs start to increase their income a hell of a lot from upgrading their own facilities. Spurs will have their stadium sorted before we will.

If FFP is to mean anything to us then we need the extra £30m a year from matchday income. Yet it could be the best part of a decade until we see that extra money coming in..

[MOZ]

I can understand it, but not sure how long we can afford to wait. These CPO's could take ages for a start.

We've got owners who go on about FFP when we can't get near half what United and Arsenal earn on a matchday. We're pushing for something that'll benefit them rather than us - until we sort the ground out.

CPOs wont be necessary if they are willing to pay the right amount, most people will be be getting offered the equivalent of a few days of Joe Coles wages for their houses. It would not take much in real terms for them to avoid the legal route.

[TheGOAT]

Maybe someone should tell the Dallas Stars http://stars.nhl.com/club/pageprint.htm?id=39217

Mr. Hicks played an instrumental role in the development and planning of American Airlines Center, as well as the hosting of the 2007 NHL All-Star Game. Hicks serves as Vice Chairman for the NHL Board of Governors, and also serves on the NHL Executive Committee and on the Audit and Finance Committee.

Mr. Hicks’ sports ownership assets include the Dallas Stars Hockey Club, of the National Hockey League, a 50% interest in the American Airlines Center

You said Hicks and Gillett delivered stadiums, not Hicks had a bit of an involvement in one. Your argument seems to be changing all the time here.

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

We don't know because FSG is a private company. It is a complex situation NESN the TV Network that FSG own 80% of seems to be the money maker. Without knowing whether the Red Sox gets true market value from it's TV rights it is hard to know. Then you have things like the Stadium and the concessions without knowing who takes what cut it's impossible to know who takes what.

I think the answer is no, if they were after 11 years at the Red Sox alone I'm sure it would have come out

[CraigDS]

I can understand it, but not sure how long we can afford to wait. These CPO's could take ages for a start.

We've got owners who go on about FFP when we can't get near half what United and Arsenal earn on a matchday. We're pushing for something that'll benefit them rather than us - until we sort the ground out.

How long do you think it would take to pay off the new stadiums build costs (and interest on the loans needed) before we saw the benefits of the extra revenue?

[my usenme changed?]

15,000 more day trippers to make the atmosphere even worse. Great!

Didn't even get past the 1st page without having to read this sort of shite. Wise up pal. 

[Fromola]

New stadium costs around to 400M rebuild about 150M

Say a new stadium is ready for 2014 if it was being built now.

Say Rebuilt Anfield is finished in 2017 (if it happens at all).

Two years of lost income while it was being rebuilt, plus the extra 3 years of being stuck without the extra income =  you're talking more than £100m. The rest of the difference between a new build and a rebuild could be done with naming rights.

You can work the figures both ways, but we don't know if the owners are even going to commit to a rebuilt, or if they'll be here long enough to see it through.

[Fat Scouser]

Huge news, we might do something, sometime in the future. Queue the FSG defenders swarming all over AL and anyone else who doesn't toe the party line. Nothing for me in here. I've seen it all before. I hope the little aul fella in Stanley Park has kept his spade, looks like he'll be going back on parade in a couple of years time.

[CraigDS]

Say a new stadium is ready for 2014 if it was being built now.

Say Rebuilt Anfield is finished in 2017 (if it happens at all).

Two years of lost income while it was being rebuilt, plus the extra 3 years of being stuck without the extra income =  you're talking more than £100m. The rest of the difference between a new build and a rebuild could be done with naming rights.

You can work the figures both ways, but we don't know if the owners are even going to commit to a rebuilt, or if they'll be here long enough to see it through.

Are you going to stump up the difference for naming rights? Because money of that sort is flowing freely around, and it won't all be upfront either.

And the redev can be done with little to no loss of revenue, as you saw when the Centenary was done.

Say we need £300m for a stadium, and it gave an extra £30m revenue, it would take min 10 years before we saw any of this extra revenue available for players.

[Fromola]

How long do you think it would take to pay off the new stadiums build costs (and interest on the loans needed) before we saw the benefits of the extra revenue?

I'd admit that it'd depend on getting a reasonable naming rights deal, but while you're not going to get companies offering silly money, i'd be interested to see what Arsenal negotiate when the Emirates deal runs out, and what Tottenham get for their proposed new stadium. Surely we could at least match that.

But for all the talk of FFP it's going to pass us by whilst we're stuck with the 45k stadium and stalled matchday revenue while 4 or 5 other clubs in the league are powering ahead. Stadium costs don't contribute to FFP so if FSG want to keep going on about FFP being the be all and end all then they need to get the stadium situation sorted.

[Draex]

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.

No it's really not, every thread Al comes in with his anti-FSG rants.. Posting his opinion as facts and then ignoring any questions for proof to back up his outlandish claims. He even started having a go in the youth thread, completly derailing threads with his agenda.

Research? I highly doubt it, nothing he ever posts has any proof and when called out about it he changes his statement or simply ignores the question.

[Eeyore]

You said Hicks and Gillett delivered stadiums, not Hicks had a bit of an involvement in one. Your argument seems to be changing all the time here.

FFS he planned it, developed it, got someone else to pay for it and ended up owning 50% of it. It was what he did look at the Rangers

http://www.facebook.com/notes/help-save-liverpool-fc/what-tom-hicks-is-really-like/126742424013380.

It is my firm belief that if it wasn't for the Sub prime scandal in the States Hicks would of saddled the Club with even more debt but would of personally camo out on top. Look at how much money the likes of HKS Hicks's Texas buddies made out of a Stadium that wasn't even built.

The whole Hicks debate was sparked by someone saying the Council should of known that H&G wouldn't of built in the park because of the amount of debt. The problem is as the sub prime scandal showed there would of been people willing to lend them money and H&G wouldn't of though twice about doing it.

[Fromola]

Are you going to stump up the difference for naming rights? Because money of that sort is flowing freely around, and it won't all be upfront either.

And the redev can be done with little to no loss of revenue, as you saw when the Centenary was done.

Say we need £300m for a stadium, and it gave an extra £30m revenue, it would take min 10 years before we saw any of this extra revenue available for players.

But we'd have money for naming rights as well. It might not £30m a year, it might not be £20m a year, but a company would surely pay decent money to have naming rights to the ground. Look at the deals we've got with Warrior and Standard Chartered.

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

Say a new stadium is ready for 2014 if it was being built now.

Say Rebuilt Anfield is finished in 2017 (if it happens at all).

Two years of lost income while it was being rebuilt, plus the extra 3 years of being stuck without the extra income =  you're talking more than £100m. The rest of the difference between a new build and a rebuild could be done with naming rights.

You can work the figures both ways, but we don't know if the owners are even going to commit to a rebuilt, or if they'll be here long enough to see it through.

Why do you think re-development will take 3 years and building a new one takes just one year?

[CraigDS]

But we'd have money for naming rights as well. It might not £30m a year, it might not be £20m a year, but a company would surely pay decent money to have naming rights to the ground. Look at the deals we've got with Warrior and Standard Chartered.

Do you not think if naming rights deals of that amount were available we'd not see every stadium named?

[The 5th Benitle]

Please stick to discussion of stadium redevelopment and not whether FSG are saints or the devil incarnate.

[Fromola]

Why do you think re-development will take 3 years and building a new one takes just one year?

I'd imagine it'll take a few years just to get all the planning permission fully sorted for a rebuild. That's been in place for a new stadium, which could be being built now.

[Fromola]

Do you not think if naming rights deals of that amount were available we'd not see every stadium named?

It's usually worth very little unless it's a brand new stadium, which is kind of the point. How often do top clubs move stadiums?

[Fat Scouser]

You shouldn't have bothered posting then

I won't post what I'd like to say to you. I'll just leave you to enjoy chatting about it, you've got a long time before the next announcement about why they couldn't do anything.

Bye now. Feel free to take a snide dig. I won't be back in until John Henry tells how sorry he is that the economic climate is stopping them from building us the superdome they so desperately want to build.

[Eeyore]

Do you not think if naming rights deals of that amount were available we'd not see every stadium named?

Look at the States and virtually every stadium has naming rights, this country is different because the fans detest it, look at the furore over Ashley calling St James park something else. Sadly if there is a naming partner for the proposed redevelopment then FSG's PR will make it go away. We are being drip fed financial prudence continually, look at the summer there where plenty of people sticking up for FSG when they moved out the Clubs only number 9 and failed to replace him.

[CraigDS]

Look at the States and virtually every stadium has naming rights, this country is different because the fans detest it, look at the furore over Ashley calling St James park something else. Sadly if there is a naming partner for the proposed redevelopment then FSG's PR will make it go away. We are being drip fed financial prudence continually, look at the summer there where plenty of people sticking up for FSG when they moved out the Clubs only number 9 and failed to replace him.

You can't compare naming rights in the states to here, those deals just aren't available.

List the ones that are in the UK and the (low) values they are for - that's where we are working at.

[Eeyore]

You can't compare naming rights in the states to here, those deals just aren't available.

List the ones that are in the UK and the (low) values they are for - that's where we are working at.

I agree but that is mainly because we have shirt sponsors here.

[CraigDS]

I agree but that is mainly because we have shirt sponsors here.

It's got nothing to do with having shirt sponsors.

Naming stadiums over here just doesn't attract the same amount as in the US, and for the foreseeable future will not.

Do we wait around until they do?

[Fromola]

It's got nothing to do with having shirt sponsors.

Naming stadiums over here just doesn't attract the same amount as in the US, and for the foreseeable future will not.

Do we wait around until they do?

If United put the naming rights up for sale for Old Trafford, how much do you think they'd get?

[CraigDS]

If United put the naming rights up for sale for Old Trafford, how much do you think they'd get?

So we should wait until we've been consistently at the top for 20 years?

Can't compare us to United.