Topic: anfield road stand

[Peter McGurk]

Just rebuilding the Main Stand isn't good enough (as impressive as it is,it just shows the rest of the ground up as outdated and small in comparison).

A key requirement of the FSG ownership upon acquiring the club for a great price was sorting out the stadium, presumably building a new one. They looked into it and decided to stay at Anfield. Simply rebuilding one stand is not good enough. Look at the projects at Spurs and Chelsea or Man City and West Ham (who have been lucky to be gifted stadiums). Even Everton look like they may get a plush new stadium soon whereas we've got St James' Park.

Yes, they looked into it. Probably took them 10 minutes - as it makes no sense whatsoever. £300m or £150m for the same capacity and income? Durr. Anfield as was, small? Outdated? And earning from £40m a year thank you very much.

So why would (Arsenal) Spurs and Chelsea do it? To either reap the benefit of residential land left behind or exploit a richer London market, or both. Man City? A free gift from Commonwealth Games (and money to burn on a nation's human rights record). West Ham? ditto the Olympics (and more residential property). Even though none of these clubs has paid or will pay the true full whack, we have none of the same advantages (8 flats in L4 versus Arsenal's 2,000 in Highbury & Islington isn't going to swing it).

We've all seen how the incredible (and invincible) Arsenal have faltered and stumbled since starting to pay for the Emirates. Let's see how the rest deal with the drain of 'new stadium syndrome'.

And why have Everton not done it? They have none of these things and worse, they absolutely and critically can't provide or even guarantee the money. Frankly they'd be fools to leave Goodison.

[Peter McGurk]

We haven't, we've got Anfield. We'll get the ARE done and then we'll be set for a couple of decades and we'll revisit the issue, probably under new owners' to see what can be done with the Kop and/or the Centenary

FSG need to be applauded for what they've done. We'd had that 45k for years and years and never looked like moving or expanding but now we have a bigger capacity and we have kept all that history that we all wanted

We may or may not re-vist the issue in a while but FSG deserve our thanks and if as is likely, they turn LFC into a winning club and a cashflow-generating member of the group, I really see no reason why they would want to sell it.

[tgwj77]

Yes, they looked into it. Probably took them 10 minutes - as it makes no sense whatsoever. £300m or £150m for the same capacity and income? Durr. Anfield as was, small? Outdated? And earning from £40m a year thank you very much.

So why would (Arsenal) Spurs and Chelsea do it? To either reap the benefit of residential land left behind or exploit a richer London market, or both. Man City? A free gift from Commonwealth Games (and money to burn on a nation's human rights record). West Ham? ditto the Olympics (and more residential property). Even though none of these clubs has paid or will pay the true full whack, we have none of the same advantages (8 flats in L4 versus Arsenal's 2,000 in Highbury & Islington isn't going to swing it).

We've all seen how the incredible (and invincible) Arsenal have faltered and stumbled since starting to pay for the Emirates. Let's see how the rest deal with the drain of 'new stadium syndrome'.

And why have Everton not done it? They have none of these things and worse, they absolutely and critically can't provide or even guarantee the money. Frankly they'd be fools to leave Goodison.

I won't claim credit for this point which I think has been made multiple times previously. There are virtually no examples in the whole of Europe of a new build stadium with capacity of over 50,000 which was built without significant external funding/freebie (e.g. from a local authority and/or in conjunction with a tournament).

The only purely self-financed example I can think of is Arsenal (grateful for others). As discussed Arsenal (a) has unique benefits from being in London (not just the flat sales but corporate clients paying at rates that a city like Liverpool can but dream of), and (b) even with those benefits seriously struggled financially until very recently. Chelsea and Tottenham are doing it, but they share at least in part the benefits that Arsenal derive from (a) and it remains to be seen how/whether they deal with (b).

It's an entirely different situation deal for us, and worth also noting that Everton's plans are currently vapourware.

The much better example for us to follow is (grudgingly) Old Trafford, i.e. piecemeal, low risk expansion, where you chunk the outlay into separate projects, having a pretty good idea at each decision point of what you will be able fill, at what price, and therefore how much and how fast you can recoup.

[Macred]

and yet two previous owners thought it was possible and made grand designs and had no doubt a multitude of experts telling us how it was the only way to go.... and that Anfield was impossible to expand...  and then, we learned to count... and it came to pass that new was bad and old was in! Experts ehh....

p.s. I completely agree that remaining at Anfield is the best option, the new stand is epic! Waiting to ensure it can be filled, sensible (is it sold out yet do we know?); the ARE has had a not insignificant sum no doubt done in terms of feasibility studies, transport, environment, etc... just needs to find out if it can pay its way and draw it in detail...  and should you look at that as a standalone thing or as part of the the stadium income as a whole or the new part only as a whole...i.e. £150m for both stands returns about £30m a year... marginal gains can add up to a big pile of cash over time.. all paid for in 5 years.

[Peter McGurk]

I won't claim credit for this point which I think has been made multiple times previously. There are virtually no examples in the whole of Europe of a new build stadium with capacity of over 50,000 which was built without significant external funding/freebie (e.g. from a local authority and/or in conjunction with a tournament).

The only purely self-financed example I can think of is Arsenal (grateful for others). As discussed Arsenal (a) has unique benefits from being in London (not just the flat sales but corporate clients paying at rates that a city like Liverpool can but dream of), and (b) even with those benefits seriously struggled financially until very recently. Chelsea and Tottenham are doing it, but they share at least in part the benefits that Arsenal derive from (a) and it remains to be seen how/whether they deal with (b).

It's an entirely different situation deal for us, and worth also noting that Everton's plans are currently vapourware.

The much better example for us to follow is (grudgingly) Old Trafford, i.e. piecemeal, low risk expansion, where you chunk the outlay into separate projects, having a pretty good idea at each decision point of what you will be able fill, at what price, and therefore how much and how fast you can recoup.

Which is about where I came in in 2004. Not a lot has changed with the very sensible logic of that.

[Peter McGurk]

and yet two previous owners thought it was possible and made grand designs and had no doubt a multitude of experts telling us how it was the only way to go.... and that Anfield was impossible to expand...  and then, we learned to count... and it came to pass that new was bad and old was in! Experts ehh....

p.s. I completely agree that remaining at Anfield is the best option, the new stand is epic! Waiting to ensure it can be filled, sensible (is it sold out yet do we know?); the ARE has had a not insignificant sum no doubt done in terms of feasibility studies, transport, environment, etc... just needs to find out if it can pay its way and draw it in detail...  and should you look at that as a standalone thing or as part of the the stadium income as a whole or the new part only as a whole...i.e. £150m for both stands returns about £30m a year... marginal gains can add up to a big pile of cash over time.. all paid for in 5 years.

Consultants generally get paid to answer the question the client asks. Usually the answer better be yes - if you want to be paid.

It's only those who don't get paid who can afford to ask the right question 

[Nessy76]

Consultants said yes, Anfield could be redeveloped in 2002. Certainly councillors revved up the residents so that certain councillors could say no.

Certain owners wanted a new stadium because in their limited experience, they thought it was the only thing to do. Sure, a new stadium could be built - if you had the money. They commissioned a report to say yes, it was the best thing.

Certain other owners wanted a new stadium they had no intention of building, whether it was good for the club or not. Even though it made no sense, the obvious answer was yes.

NESV came with an open mind but with a predilection to redevelop based on their Fenway experience. They were shown how to do it and how yes, it made just as much sense here as it did in Boston.

Consultants generally get paid to answer the question the client asks. Usually the answer better be yes - if you want to be paid.

It's only those who don't get paid who can afford to ask the right question 

While there may well be a lot of truth in that, the current and projected work is only happening thanks to a lot of the surrounding housing being knocked down.

[Cork Red]

Yes, they looked into it. Probably took them 10 minutes - as it makes no sense whatsoever. £300m or £150m for the same capacity and income? Durr. Anfield as was, small? Outdated? And earning from £40m a year thank you very much.

So why would (Arsenal) Spurs and Chelsea do it? To either reap the benefit of residential land left behind or exploit a richer London market, or both. Man City? A free gift from Commonwealth Games (and money to burn on a nation's human rights record). West Ham? ditto the Olympics (and more residential property). Even though none of these clubs has paid or will pay the true full whack, we have none of the same advantages (8 flats in L4 versus Arsenal's 2,000 in Highbury & Islington isn't going to swing it).

We've all seen how the incredible (and invincible) Arsenal have faltered and stumbled since starting to pay for the Emirates. Let's see how the rest deal with the drain of 'new stadium syndrome'.

And why have Everton not done it? They have none of these things and worse, they absolutely and critically can't provide or even guarantee the money. Frankly they'd be fools to leave Goodison.

Supposedly Abramovich is going to pay for their new ground out of his own pocket.  Stamford Bridge is a very tight site so there's unlikely to be any residential development to offset the costs.

Spurs is an interesting one.  They're taking a massive risk, but one they probably needed to take.  White Hart Lane was very limited in terms of corporate facilities and general capacity.  When both White Hart Lane and Stamford Bridge are finished London will have four 60,000 seater football stadiums in addition to Wembley.  Hard to see even London filling four 60,000 seater stadiums on a regular basis?

[Peter McGurk]

While there may well be a lot of truth in that, the current and projected work is only happening thanks to a lot of the surrounding housing being knocked down.

I think you missed the point

Supposedly Abramovich is going to pay for their new ground out of his own pocket.  Stamford Bridge is a very tight site so there's unlikely to be any residential development to offset the costs.

Spurs is an interesting one.  They're taking a massive risk, but one they probably needed to take.  White Hart Lane was very limited in terms of corporate facilities and general capacity.  When both White Hart Lane and Stamford Bridge are finished London will have four 60,000 seater football stadiums in addition to Wembley.  Hard to see even London filling four 60,000 seater stadiums on a regular basis?

I think Abramovitch has no further need to splash cash in quite the same way. They'll have no property to sell. They tried that with the move to Battersea. It'll be even more of London riches they're after. Brexit permitting.

[Macred]

Consultants generally get paid to answer the question the client asks. Usually the answer better be yes - if you want to be paid.

It's only those who don't get paid who can afford to ask the right question 

or the lawyers who say no on behalf of everyone, they get paid anyway...  slightly risk averse whoever they act for (strictly without prejudice!) 

[Macred]

Lawyers are advocates, not consultants. They do indeed get paid anyway.

I was talking about lawyers, I didn't mention consultants, I thought we were just generalising about those who have an involvement in a construction projects' process; don't be such a pedant Peter!

Seriously though, how long do you think it would likely be before they green light (assuming they do) the next phase i.e. if say by the end of this month they know the main stand is sold out, will they start working on financial feasibility of the ARE now, or would they wait till Christmas or even the end of the coming season before they start moving it forward? And, say they started doing financials now, how long for a detailed plan to prepared and would there be any chance of it being ready, approved etc. and work starting in the 2017 summer or is that whichever way you cut it to short a time scale... so more realistically summer 2018 (with a fair wind and money not being an issue either financing or returns)?

[Peter McGurk]

I was talking about lawyers, I didn't mention consultants, I thought we were just generalising about those who have an involvement in a construction projects' process; don't be such a pedant Peter!

Seriously though, how long do you think it would likely be before they green light (assuming they do) the next phase i.e. if say by the end of this month they know the main stand is sold out, will they start working on financial feasibility of the ARE now, or would they wait till Christmas or even the end of the coming season before they start moving it forward? And, say they started doing financials now, how long for a detailed plan to prepared and would there be any chance of it being ready, approved etc. and work starting in the 2017 summer or is that whichever way you cut it to short a time scale... so more realistically summer 2018 (with a fair wind and money not being an issue either financing or returns)?

The point would be that it's pretty rare for a paid consultant to say, look mate, you're doing this all wrong.

As for the ARE, I'm absolutely sure the financials are all in place. There'll be decision 'gateways' to unlock them. We can be reasonably sure the detail scheme is subject only to whatever changes there are in the market.

Once whatever the club has set as criteria has passed, it'll start. No one's going to put a time frame on it.

Particularly not now. There's plenty of schemes waiting to see what happens with Brexit and how affordable or otherwise the development will be for the paying public.

[Nessy76]

I think you missed the point

Well you would know better than me. Would there really have been no problem with light and air to surrounding buildings if the current expansions had been done without the redevelopment of the surrounding area?

[Peter McGurk]

Well you would know better than me. Would there really have been no problem with light and air to surrounding buildings if the current expansions had been done without the redevelopment of the surrounding area?

If you really want to talk about residents... they did go very quiet all of a sudden.

[Alan_X]

and yet two previous owners thought it was possible and made grand designs and had no doubt a multitude of experts telling us how it was the only way to go.... and that Anfield was impossible to expand...  and then, we learned to count... and it came to pass that new was bad and old was in! Experts Eh....

One previous owner spent years developing a scheme that was criticised for being a boring soulless stadium (the Parry Bowl) but wouldn't take the risk to actually go ahead. Moores sold it to owners who were not financially astute and developed a white elephant NFL stadium that would have been a monument to Tom Hicks' massive ego and would have crippled the club for generations.

[Macred]

The point would be that it's pretty rare for a paid consultant to say, look mate, you're doing this all wrong.

As for the ARE, I'm absolutely sure the financials are all in place. There'll be decision 'gateways' to unlock them. We can be reasonably sure the detail scheme is subject only to whatever changes there are in the market.

Once whatever the club has set as criteria has passed, it'll start. No one's going to put a time frame on it.

Particularly not now. There's plenty of schemes waiting to see what happens with Brexit and how affordable or otherwise the development will be for the paying public.

Thanks, guess we will have to wait and see. I hope we make a decision and apply in time for work to start next summer (after we win the league!) if it is possible to do so in the time available (and that it is interests of the club to do so of course).

[Macred]

One previous owner spent years developing a scheme that was criticised for being a boring soulless stadium (the Parry Bowl) but wouldn't take the risk to actually go ahead. Moores sold it to owners who were not financially astute and developed a white elephant NFL stadium that would have been a monument to Tom Hicks' massive ego and would have crippled the club for generations.

I, for one, really did not like the Parry bowl, but some did. I did like the other stadium designs (albeit lots of people did not with its NFL influences maybe- how much of that was the design and how much retro dislike of the people whose idea it was, who knows...); I still do like it, despite its origins and the subsequently evident folly of the whole thing. I think it is easy to say they were not astute but let's face it, they were not, and probably still are not, despite their woes, destitute and probably never will be. Whether their plans would have succeeded had the financial markets held up at that time who knows, their leveraged debt thing was all the rage, everyone got burned. Unlike FSG who I think have a longer term interest, I think H and G would have built the stadium on borrowings from the banks, maybe got £100 mill or more naming rights to help fund it (I cant remember now what the cost was supposed to be) and then have flogged it to DIC or someone of that ilk and pocketed a tidy packet. Who knows.  So glad we are staying at Anfield now. Love the new stand, hope we get the ARE done asap and with something that is on a similar scale and style that dovetails seamlessly with the new main stand and allows for the Centenary to be developed, to match the two new parts of the stadium one day in the future, for a fully harmonised design.

Sorry, gone slightly of the ARE topic.

[whiteboots]

Yes, they looked into it. Probably took them 10 minutes -

This is the only part of your post which is right.

FSG told Broughton they would build a new stadium to secure the purchase. A new stadium did not fit in their investment strategy, they didn't have the expertise, and refurb was what they knew. That was why we did not proceed with a new stadium.

The returns are handsome, over the whole of life.

Your view that a half or quarter new stadium is fine, is fine. Your flawed arguments against the alternatives undermine your credibility though, which is a shame.

Our failure, post Taylor, to redevelop has already cost us dear. The extra monies which Man U and Arsenal have generated while we have slept have been a significant contributory factor to our relative poor performance in the League. Would Leicester have won the Pl without having moved to the King Power, from a Filbert Street which generated  40% less revenue?

If only FSG had given it more than ten minutes. A damning assessment.

[TepidT2O]

This is the only part of your post which is right.

FSG told Broughton they would build a new stadium to secure the purchase. A new stadium did not fit in their investment strategy, they didn't have the expertise, and refurb was what they knew. That was why we did not proceed with a new stadium.

The returns are handsome, over the whole of life.

Your view that a half or quarter new stadium is fine, is fine. Your flawed arguments against the alternatives undermine your credibility though, which is a shame.

Our failure, post Taylor, to redevelop has already cost us dear. The extra monies which Man U and Arsenal have generated while we have slept have been a significant contributory factor to our relative poor performance in the League. Would Leicester have won the Pl without having moved to the King Power, from a Filbert Street which generated  40% less revenue?

If only FSG had given it more than ten minutes. A damning assessment.

They gave it about 18 months.

Looked at the Parry bowl again, the works.

But, don't let me interrupt.

[CraigDS]

FSG told Broughton they would build a new stadium to secure the purchase.

Fairly sure that wasn't the exact quote, and is more they'd look at the stadium situation.

It was certainly NOT to secure the purchase anyway, as it would have been in the terms, which it clearly wasn't or they'd currently be facing legal action.

[Nessy76]

If you really want to talk about residents... they did go very quiet all of a sudden.

I'd have thought it was a fairly straightforward question?

[whiteboots]

Fairly sure that wasn't the exact quote, and is more they'd look at the stadium situation.

It was certainly NOT to secure the purchase anyway, as it would have been in the terms, which it clearly wasn't or they'd currently be facing legal action.

It was a third party quote of Broughton- maybe true, maybe not. It certainly was not in the terms  and conditions. Was it on Broughton's wish list? Yes.

And at the time,we were hardly in a position to be laying down much in the way of conditions. "Do you have the cash? Yes? Thank you"

[whiteboots]

They gave it about 18 months.Looked at the Parry bowl again, the works.

Are you aware of the consented scheme being formally  re-costed?

[Nessy76]

FSG'S responsibility for the way they run the club is not to Broughton, it's to the fans, and the vast majority of the fans wanted to stay at Anfield.

[Peter McGurk]

This is the only part of your post which is right.

FSG told Broughton they would build a new stadium to secure the purchase. A new stadium did not fit in their investment strategy, they didn't have the expertise, and refurb was what they knew. That was why we did not proceed with a new stadium.

The returns are handsome, over the whole of life.

Your view that a half or quarter new stadium is fine, is fine. Your flawed arguments against the alternatives undermine your credibility though, which is a shame.

Our failure, post Taylor, to redevelop has already cost us dear. The extra monies which Man U and Arsenal have generated while we have slept have been a significant contributory factor to our relative poor performance in the League. Would Leicester have won the Pl without having moved to the King Power, from a Filbert Street which generated  40% less revenue?

If only FSG had given it more than ten minutes. A damning assessment.

The direct quote from Broughton (included here somewhere) did NOT include a new stadium. To say otherwise is a straight out lie.

Anyone with any knowledge of the subject would take just 10 minutes to bin a new stadium. Which part of half the cost going out for the same revenue coming in do you not understand???

You're wrong. You're always wrong. That or a half-wit.

[Narwin Dunez]

Hang on, does White Boots want a new stadium, even though with a new ARE we'll be approaching 60k and still be at Anfield?!

[Nessy76]

Hang on, does White Boots want a new stadium, even though with a new ARE we'll be approaching 60k and still be at Anfield?!

Yes. He wants a new stadium of the same size that will bring in more money. In other words, he wants ticket prices to be much higher.

[andy07]

Supposedly Abramovich is going to pay for their new ground out of his own pocket.  Stamford Bridge is a very tight site so there's unlikely to be any residential development to offset the costs.

Spurs is an interesting one.  They're taking a massive risk, but one they probably needed to take.  White Hart Lane was very limited in terms of corporate facilities and general capacity.  When both White Hart Lane and Stamford Bridge are finished London will have four 60,000 seater football stadiums in addition to Wembley.  Hard to see even London filling four 60,000 seater stadiums on a regular basis?

London, 10 million population, plenty with sufficient income to buy a ST.   Will they sell all their tickets? Yes.  Will they fill all the seats on a regular basis, No.  Plenty of fans prepared to buy a ST and not attend many of the matches and not be arsed.   I put forward a similar argument about ST sales at Anfield and I still firmly believe that we would sell 50000 because there are many out there who can afford it and would be happy to fork out and miss any of the games.

[Peter McGurk]

London, 10 million population, plenty with sufficient income to buy a ST.   Will they sell all their tickets? Yes.  Will they fill all the seats on a regular basis, No.  Plenty of fans prepared to buy a ST and not attend many of the matches and not be arsed.   I put forward a similar argument about ST sales at Anfield and I still firmly believe that we would sell 50000 because there are many out there who can afford it and would be happy to fork out and miss any of the games.

10m v 1.5m (at a stretch)? Financial hothouse v 're-emerging' city? Unsold seats now and email circulars drumming up business? If you're so confident, you can stump up the £50 mill!

[whiteboots]

10m v 1.5m (at a stretch)? Financial hothouse v 're-emerging' city? Unsold seats now and email circulars drumming up business? If you're so confident, you can stump up the £50 mill!

The "do nothing" mentality becomes self -fulfilling. Unsurprisingly, it has coincided with a quarter of a century, barren of league titles.

Complaining about unsold seats and our commercial department drumming up business before our new stand is even open demonstrates the negative approach which has cost us hundreds of millions of pounds in the PL era.

It is true, that our inconsistent league form and sporadic Euro appearances of late, will damage our gate prospects. Yet so has our undercapacity as others have scooped up fans who would have come to Anfield. Our underperformance in improving attendance in the PL era is statistical fact.

FSG ( for all their faults) have given us financial stability, and credibility. Klopp has a fine existing pedigree, and the potential to join the pantheon of LFC managerial greats. Investing in a future commensurate to our past makes sense. Giving up, as you advocate, does not.

[whiteboots]

Hang on, does White Boots want a new stadium, even though with a new ARE we'll be approaching 60k and still be at Anfield?!

No.

I wanted a new stadium, but that ship has sailed.

I do want a new ARE, and one that we can be proud of.

[whiteboots]

The direct quote from Broughton (included here somewhere) did NOT include a new stadium. To say otherwise is a straight out lie.

Anyone with any knowledge of the subject would take just 10 minutes to bin a new stadium. Which part of half the cost going out for the same revenue coming in do you not understand???

You're wrong. You're always wrong. That or a half-wit.

The quote?

In my brief time here I have come to admire your comments on structure, and planning. However your grasp of the financial dynamics seems less assured.

Your claim that anyone would bin a new stadium in ten minutes rather makes my point.

Your claim of "half the cost for the same revenue" is intriguing. I assume you think that a 58,500 stadium, half new half old, built for say £150m, will generate the same revenue and balance returns as a new one. You would be wrong.

The new half would generate more money than the existing old half. The extra revenue does not count towards FFP. The cost of replacing the old stands in fifteen years ( at which point the old ones will be 40 years old plus) will have doubled, so you need to factor in the extra £10m a year for that.

I always base my judgements on fact, it helps. I never resort to abuse, as it is a poor replacement for reasoned argument ( although I do accept that in the absence of supporting facts, the weak may need to rely upon it).

The new stadium ship has sailed. But how depressing that some struggle with the idea of even replacing the ARE.

[Nessy76]

The quote?

In my brief time here I have come to admire your comments on structure, and planning. However your grasp of the financial dynamics seems less assured.

Your claim that anyone would bin a new stadium in ten minutes rather makes my point.

Your claim of "half the cost for the same revenue" is intriguing. I assume you think that a 58,500 stadium, half new half old, built for say £150m, will generate the same revenue and balance returns as a new one. You would be wrong.

The new half would generate more money than the existing old half. The extra revenue does not count towards FFP. The cost of replacing the old stands in fifteen years ( at which point the old ones will be 40 years old plus) will have doubled, so you need to factor in the extra £10m a year for that.

I always base my judgements on fact, it helps. I never resort to abuse, as it is a poor replacement for reasoned argument ( although I do accept that in the absence of supporting facts, the weak may need to rely upon it).

The new stadium ship has sailed. But how depressing that some struggle with the idea of even replacing the ARE.

So how much more would you want the tickets to be?

And (hopefully for the last time) why would you need to replace the stands in fifteen years?

[CraigDS]

Your claim of "half the cost for the same revenue" is intriguing. I assume you think that a 58,500 stadium, half new half old, built for say £150m, will generate the same revenue and balance returns as a new one. You would be wrong.

Workings please...

The new half would generate more money than the existing old half.

No, the additional corporate would generate more. A new Kop or new Anny Road (i.e. general seating), other than being expanded in size would not generate anymore money.

The extra revenue does not count towards FFP.

Eh? Of course it does. The cost of building doesn't count, but the income does. Not that it matters, we're well within FFP now.

The cost of replacing the old stands in fifteen years ( at which point the old ones will be 40 years old plus) will have doubled, so you need to factor in the extra £10m a year for that.

Are they going to fall down in 15 years? Why have you put just a 40 year lifespan on them?

I always base my judgements on fact, it helps.

Looking at this thread it's debatable if this is, indeed, a fact.

[Alan_X]

Fairly sure that wasn't the exact quote, and is more they'd look at the stadium situation.

It was certainly NOT to secure the purchase anyway, as it would have been in the terms, which it clearly wasn't or they'd currently be facing legal action.

It would be unenforceable anyway. The only people who could sue FSG would be the other parties to the sale - Hicks and Gillett and they clearly no longer have an interest in it. You could include an undertaking to build a stadium but what stadium? when? how big?  what specification and so on. And it's the easiest thing in the world to show that circumstances have changed to set the undertaking.

[Peter McGurk]

It would be unenforceable anyway. The only people who could sue FSG would be the other parties to the sale - Hicks and Gillett and they clearly no longer have an interest in it. You could include an undertaking to build a stadium but what stadium? when? how big?  what specification and so on. And it's the easiest thing in the world to show that circumstances have changed to set the undertaking.

Alan, it simply wasn't said. No promise of a new stadium ever.

[N11RED]

Alan, it simply wasn't said. No promise of a new stadium ever.

quite right.

recall Broughton suggesting in the post take over interview that FSG 'had comitted to'  stadium development but this of course could mean redevelopment of Anfield.
 

[Peter McGurk]

quite right.

recall Broughton suggesting in the post take over interview that FSG 'had comitted to'  stadium development but this of course could mean redevelopment of Anfield.

Liverpool chairman Martin Broughton hailed a "great day" for the club after a deal was concluded with New England Sports Ventures for a £300million sale...

..."There is definitely a commitment to invest in a stadium and we will finish up with a 60,000+ seater stadium. Where they haven't finalised their view is whether that should be the new stadium or whether there are still opportunities to build at Anfield itself."

[Redman0151]

From today - Man City home.

Sold out now, but it's really not fair to use a match on New Years Eve (or boxing day) as an indicator of anything.

I'm sure any of the match going reds who had to take part in the Members sale last week will say, full steam ahead with the Anfield Road redevelopment.  The Main Stand redevelopment hasn't added any new seats for members, we still have the same number from before the work started, and i'm still 20,000+ on the STH waiting list.

[Alan_X]

Sold out now, but it's really not fair to use a match on New Years Eve (or boxing day) as an indicator of anything.

I'm sure any of the match going reds who had to take part in the Members sale last week will say, full steam ahead with the Anfield Road redevelopment.  The Main Stand redevelopment hasn't added any new seats for members, we still have the same number from before the work started, and i'm still 20,000+ on the STH waiting list.

I know. I want the ARE to go ahead and I understand the reasons for Man City being a bit slower than other matches. The claim that City was sold out was wrong though.