Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Liverpool' started by dcc134, Jan 13, 2011.
And just for kicks
That looks a little familiar, they left off the twin towers. Is that the budget version?
Oh yeh, someone posted this on my photography forum.
Just thinking of you...
Take it with a grain of salt obviously, but Jim Boardman (usually reliable) just retweeted this:
here's the article:
Liverpool's new Anfield stadium is tale of lost years and lost homes
Talk of surrounding demolition points to expansion rather than an entirely new place in Stanley Park for Liverpool
Liverpool's hardening plan not to build their interminably mooted new stadium on Stanley Park but instead to expand Anfield in a fashion eerily similar to a scrapped plan from 1999 might be darkly funny, were it not a tale of lost years, hope and money. Anfield has become a monument not only to Premier League football and a grand club's ambition to keep up with its rivals but also, sadly, to spectacular inequality. Outside the walls of the ground in which footballers play for multimillionaires' salaries, for a club owned principally by John W Henry, a billionaire in Boston, people are living amid dereliction and decline approaching the country's grimmest.
Liverpool city council still says the new stadium on Stanley Park is its preferred option, even while it presents plans for house demolitions behind the main stand, and on the corner opposite the main stand and Kop, which will enable the expansion of Anfield. Liverpool have declined to comment on those demolition plans being revealed or to respond to criticism from residents that they failed to communicate openly. But Henry has made it abundantly clear he wants to scrap the new stadium plan and take the cheaper option of expanding Anfield.
The proposed clearances of three rows of terraced houses on Lothair and Alroy Roads behind the main stand were revealed by Liverpool city council to the Rockfield Residents Association at a meeting attended by Ian Ayre, Liverpool's managing director, on 15 May. The council's assistant director for regeneration, Mark Kitts, told the Guardian that the demolitions would make the number of houses more "sustainable" and allow for refurbishment. Kitts said Liverpool have confirmed, in discussions with the council, that these demolitions would meet the club's requirements.
"We have been working with the club very closely," Kitts said, "and they have said this will accommodate their needs if they stay at Anfield and refurbish the current stadium."
Liverpool's main physical difficulty expanding Anfield is not in enlarging the footprint, because their plan is understood to involve adding an extra tier, plus corporate facilities, to the Anfield Road and main stands. Building high, however, would block neighbouring residents' "right to light". Kitts, discussing the planned demolitions, told the Guardian: "My understanding is that this will solve the right to light issues."
Ros Groves, chair of the local Salisbury Residents Association, says her members who own their own homes are worried they will not be paid enough, if their houses are demolished, to buy a house outright elsewhere. Kitts confirmed homeowners will be paid the market rate plus 10% "loss of home payment" but said the council is "very sympathetic" and he hoped this would be enough.
Groves criticised Liverpool for not openly telling the residents what the club are now planning. Last week Ayre said Liverpool would "need to convince" residents if the club were to stay at Anfield, and said: "We're having some great dialogue with them."
Groves, whose association represents residents in the Baltic Street area planned for clearance nearer the Kop, said she "hit the roof" when she read that. "I cannot see how it can be called 'great dialogue' when Ian Ayre has been to one meeting with one residents group," Groves said. "Everybody can see which way this is going now. We just want Liverpool football club to be open with us."
Ann O'Byrne, the council's cabinet member for housing, said its priority is to "regenerate the area" for residents and she confirmed that Liverpool had said they could "work with" these demolition plans.
Building a brand new stadium was always not just about the football club but about trying to improve physically a sunken area and to generate a working economy. It was the conclusion reached after a painful process sparked by uproar when those original 1999 plans were exposed, involving an expanded Anfield, a commercial area for the club in the same corner proposed to be cleared now and the demolition of 1,800 homes about which no resident had been consulted.
After that a detailed community structure was established to ensure full consultation with the residents. The proposed new 60,000-seat stadiumon Stanley Park emerged from that, approaching 10 years ago. Liverpool came to the conclusion they could build better facilities, including enough corporate dining to make money in Manchester United proportions, if the club moved from Anfield, its hemmed-in home since 1892. The site of the current ground was then going to be developed into "Anfield Plaza", with shops, restaurants and office space, to attract visitors and, it was hoped, generate jobs for local people.
Liverpool, then 51% owned by the Littlewoods Pools family scion, David Moores, and run by the chief executive, Rick Parry, were anxious, however, about borrowing the money to build it. Parry believed that, even if rich men taking over were not actually going to provide the money needed, they would at least stand behind borrowing it, and it is still remarkable to reflect that Liverpool was sold only to finance the new stadium. The result was the Tom Hicks and George Gillett takeover. They paid £174m for the club, Moores receiving £89m for his shares; they described it as a "multi-generational commitment" by their families but had borrowed the money from Royal Bank of Scotland for only 12 months. They promised a spade in the ground within 60 days to build the new stadium but then said global financial conditions meant they could not borrow the money required.
When RBS in effect installed Martin Broughton as the Liverpool chairman in April 2010 to sell the club, he said explicitly that he would seek new owners who would build that new stadium: "We want to do the right thing for Liverpool and a new stadium is doing the right thing," he said. "It will add long-term value to the club and, if we are looking for a new owner, that is something they will have to accept."
However, after Henry and his Fenway Sports Group emerged victorious from the bitter October 2010 court battle to buy Liverpool, Henry said from the beginning he did not want to build it. The economics of spending around £300m effectively to fund 15,000 new seats(although there would also be commercial areas in a new stadium) did not make financial sense, Henry said. Liverpool maintain they still have the new stadium option open but the demolition plans strongly point to Anfield being expanded instead.
In the club's accounts for 2010-11 £49m was written off relating to the new stadium, adding to £10m previously in 2010, making £59m seemingly wasted. The council, under these plans, would take care of the right-to-light issues and negotiate with residents, possibly backed by compulsory purchase orders if any stubbornly refuse to go. That is also a source of unhappiness among some, who believe Liverpool should negotiatie upfront themselves. Liverpool declined to comment, saying: "The private discussions and plans that Liverpool Football Club has or may have with residents or other stakeholders are, in our opinion, exactly that: 'private'."
Kitts said he is expecting the club to make an announcement by the end of June. It would be a great surprise if that heralds a new stadium, to be built on Stanley Park.
The gate in center bottom is where you go with hospitality suite tickets. Cousin of mine gets us tickets when I go back. The cars parked there are players and staff, I walked by a 'few' Bentley Continentals and some other exotics parked there. The players take the coach from Melrose and someone drive the cars up later, when the game is on.
552 bhp Footballers Car according to Top Gear and Rooooney has one.
Some quality writing on the subject
Henry discusses the stadium issue with the Anfield Wrap
Seems we are staying put.
Good. Hopefully both the City Council and the club will be forced to revamp the area around the stadium in the process.
Quite sensible statement.
Henry on the Beeb
So it seems to me thatHenry is leaning more towards refurbishing than building a new stadium. I like the idea since there is only one Anfield. A part of me wants to keep the historical stadium... Maybe with a super-modern restyling/makeover.
My question is for people living in UK and attending games on a regular basis... How much of an impact do you think an additional 15,000 seats would make? Do all games (including ones against small teams) run at capacity, hence making additional seating a new revenue stream or are the seats going to be empty in games not considered to be "big"? 'Cause if the stadium doesn't fill up during most games then what's the point
(Just read somewhere that the stadium does not run at capacity in many EPL games so I just wanted to check to se if it were true).
Might be able to "tier" ticket cost for big v lesser games this ensuring capacity or near it at all games.
Health safety means we never get full capacity.
Without answering your question, since I don't live in the US, my guess is that 15,000 seats won't make as big an impact as the corporate suites.
Very rough maths is 15,000 x 38 (ave ticket price) = £570,000
£570k * 20 (minimum domestic home games) = £11.4m a season in additional revenue.
Of course, seats cost money on an ongoing basis, not just when you put them in. I can't remember the exact figures, but I read somewhere that the running costs of the Emirates equates to in the region of a grand a seat a year. So "more seats = more money" is true, but it's not a game changer by the time you're dealing with the net figures.
The real advantage of redevelopment of the Main Stand (and potentially the Anny Road end) is the opportunity to load something like 30-50 new corporate boxes into the stadium. A season ticket for a box right now costs £80k. Even if a redeveloped ground saw no increases in those costs (unlikely), a guesstimate of 80 boxes (30 existing plus 50 new) would equate to £128m a season based on the minimum of 20 home games every season brings. Again, that's gross of the uplift in running costs, but still ... now you're talking real money.
Which option do you prefer Matt? New construction or redevelopment of existing grounds? I'm interested in hearing the opinion of a local, especially given the impact redevelopment will have on the surrounding neighborhoods (I read someone that there might be a need to relocating people in order to expand it, is that true?).
The problem is, do they have enough in the Mersey to fill those corporate boxes/premium seats?
That's more the issue at hand than anything else. The area isn't as deep financially with individuals or corporations that can offset the price and ticket increases that some are talking about.
It was easy to look at Fenway and say, if we could only increase the corporate boxes, snazz up some areas, and jack the tickets, that they could make it more profitable than a new stadium.
The problem with Anfield, and Liverpool in general, is the area isn't the same economically, and unlike London, it's not a "travel" destination for many.
If the team was better, and they had many European nights, that would do just as much for tickets as anything else.
Meet the new boss. Similar to the old boss.
Hard one to call. Redevelopment presents trickier logistical problems, both in terms of the immediate surrounding area (the club owns all the houses down Lothair Road behind the Main Stand, but the adjacent road's residents have "right to light" issues with the planning application) and in terms of building something viable within the existing footprint.
Relocation to Stanley Park included substantial redevelopment of the wider L4 area, including public spaces, transport, parking, etc. That's why the council continues to favour it (and would have kicked in quite a bit of cash). But the costs are massive and potentially not worth the outcome.
As to whether or not we'll fill it, I've little doubt that an expansion to around 60k on the existing footprint would have no issues. And the executive boxes would all sell - there's a three-year waiting list for season tickets to the 30 we have. The North West houses an enormous array of industries, particularly in construction, petrochemical, automotive, bioscience, the media and finance. And whilst there are obviously lots of choices for Premier League football in the region too, we're only really competing with Manchester United in terms of appeal. Which is more of a problem for the likes of Wigan and Bolton than it ever will be for us.
On balance, I suppose a redevelopment of Anfield is the sounder long-term strategy - plus it has the cachet of being the romantic's choice.
I've never heard of "right to light" issues before.
Does that exist outside of the UK?
And if there is a three-year wait list for the existing suites we have - by all means build more and fulfill that demand.
One thing I find intriguing about many older European stadiums is that it is possible to make major renovations to a stadium because a lot of the stands are separate entities, and not a continuous structure on the three or four sides.
It's usually called nimbism (not in my backyard!) here.
Nimbyism isn't law though.
According to the lords of wiki - it's an English thing.
Looks like we'll be getting a 60,000 seat Anfield and plenty of corporate boxes. The difference this is going to make in revenue will be huge.
I'm also very much in support of sponsorship naming rights for this stadium, because for most of the supporters, "whatever stadium" will always be Anfield anyway. Besides EVERYONE will be doing it sooner or later due to FFP, and since we're Liverpool, the naming deal is going to be massive, just as our kit deal is (second biggest in the prem and I THINK 5th in Europe).