Stadium movement within weeks

[jas]

according to parry on 5live just now

[Cooldude]

He's said something like that for years

[FakeNewsBear]

heard from a very good source

 

"if we move it will take ten years worth of season ticket money to pay for it"

[Mike]

heard from a very good source

 

"if we move it will take ten years worth of season ticket money to pay for it"

 

is that all?

seriously, whats wrong with that?

 

jas what exactly did he say?

[FakeNewsBear]

heard from a very good source

 

"if we move it will take ten years worth of season ticket money to pay for it"

 

is that all?

seriously, whats wrong with that?

 

jas what exactly did he say?

 

a local councillor said this

 

is this how leeds ended up where they are??

[Guest RedIsMyColour]

Stadium movement within weeks

 

I am no expert but Anfield must have some very poor foundations.

[Gomez]

heard from a very good source

 

"if we move it will take ten years worth of season ticket money to pay for it"

a local councillor said this

 

is this how leeds ended up where they are??

 

No Leeds ended up where they are by spending money they hoped to earn though CL qualification over the next few years, on the players that O'Leary thought they needed to get them there.

 

Season tickets sales are pretty reliable, money through TV and CL revenue isn't

[Mike]

heard from a very good source

 

"if we move it will take ten years worth of season ticket money to pay for it"

a local councillor said this

 

is this how leeds ended up where they are??

 

no.

they borrowed to pay OPEX.

a stadium build is very definitely CAPEX.

 

 

I am no expert but Anfield must have some very poor foundations.

 

[jas]

is that all?

seriously, whats wrong with that?

 

jas what exactly did he say?

 

 

 

to be honest, i was only half listening but it was along the lines of:

 

the the interviewer asked if anything was happening witht the stadium, he replyed 'yes things are moving along and we should expect something soon'

interviewer: 'soon... weeks or months'

parry: 'weeks'

 

it'll be on the 5live listen again thing later so i'll check it

[floyd]

heard from a very good source

 

"if we move it will take ten years worth of season ticket money to pay for it"

Is that 10 years, of the new season tickets, generated by increased capacity?

Edited July 15, 2006 by floyd

[Guest Prongsy]

Did he say stadium movement or bowel movement?

[DonRafa]

It was written - 'Lo and behold, the pink flower garbed one said, take up thy turf and walk!'

[Tim]

heard from a very good source

 

"if we move it will take ten years worth of season ticket money to pay for it"

 

 

If true, and relating to current season ticket numbers, then we are talking about £160m.

[Rimbeux]

heard from a very good source

 

"if we move it will take ten years worth of season ticket money to pay for it"

 

That sounds like an estimate of costs, rather than a payment plan

[Keita]

heard from a very good source

 

"if we move it will take ten years worth of season ticket money to pay for it"

 

 

so does this mean we are staying where we are or going ahead with it?

[fyds]

Going ahead with it - and Tim's £160m is a better indicator at this stage than the Post's £190m from the other day.

[Guest Jack Bauer]

I serial doubt we'd use the season ticket money.

[fyds]

As such, no - I agree - it would be mortgagable or sponsored in part or whole.

Edited July 16, 2006 by fyds

[Guest scottyboy001]

well i hope that we have a coclusion in the coming weeks because the stadium issue seems to have dragged on for years. my preference was always to stay at anfield and perhaps rebuild the main stand to accomodate the extra fans but i understand that the club would loose alot of revenue if that had to happen.

 

the one thing that i'm curious about is whether we are funding the stadium on our own or whether we have, at last, secured suitable investment from an outside source for the project.

[fyds]

well i hope that we have a coclusion in the coming weeks because the stadium issue seems to have dragged on for years. my preference was always to stay at anfield and perhaps rebuild the main stand to accomodate the extra fans but i understand that the club would loose alot of revenue if that had to happen.

 

the one thing that i'm curious about is whether we are funding the stadium on our own or whether we have, at last, secured suitable investment from an outside source for the project.

We can't stay at anfield and increase the capacity sufficiently, in a nutshell. We wouldn't have the footprint to build outward as building regs won't allow us just to build upward. There is also the problem of improved infrastructure to support the increase in terms of parking, transport links etc - all of which are contained within the brief of the new stadium, as are facilities and money generating spinoffs that a rehash of the current site would not be able to include, conferencing, wet-weather facilities etc, and of course making our pitch big enough to finally meet UEFA and FIFA regs. Not only would we lose buckets of cash in redeveloping the current site as the work progressed causing obvious knock-on problems, but the studies done show it would not be financially viable to do this, as a whole new ground with new facilities, infrastructure and everything else would cost much the same as a refurb of existing, lower quality facilities.

 

Basically, if we wish to remain competitive, we can't stay - simple as. For Arsenal to get to the stage of completion that they are just about to reach now, has taken them in all three years longer than we have been at it (since may 2002 in our case) and without the shytestorm the NWDA, Liverpool City Councillors (some, not all), Everton and the local media have inflicted on us and, depending on who you talk to, the way they have done it is risky or very risky.

 

Reading through the original plans, the paper or online material available, AGM reports, studies etc it's clear we intended to push this through with or without external investment, as in my previous post, it can be seen the club was always going down the mortgage route with the possibility of advanced sponsorship and naming rights to be harvested as possible, if the right companys could be brought aboard. Investment was and is a desirable rather than an absolute imperative, and would be used to take the club forward as a whole and the stadium was not dependent upon it, though if the right type could be found no doubt how the payment was made could be revisited.

[mooks]

We can't stay at anfield and increase the capacity sufficiently, in a nutshell. We wouldn't have the footprint to build outward as building regs won't allow us just to build upward. There is also the problem of improved infrastructure to support the increase in terms of parking, transport links etc - all of which are contained within the brief of the new stadium, as are facilities and money generating spinoffs that a rehash of the current site would not be able to include, conferencing, wet-weather facilities etc, and of course making our pitch big enough to finally meet UEFA and FIFA regs. Not only would we lose buckets of cash in redeveloping the current site as the work progressed causing obvious knock-on problems, but the studies done show it would not be financially viable to do this, as a whole new ground with new facilities, infrastructure and everything else would cost much the same as a refurb of existing, lower quality facilities.

 

Basically, if we wish to remain competitive, we can't stay - simple as. For Arsenal to get to the stage of completion that they are just about to reach now, has taken them in all three years longer than we have been at it (since may 2002 in our case) and without the shytestorm the NWDA, Liverpool City Councillors (some, not all), Everton and the local media have inflicted on us and, depending on who you talk to, the way they have done it is risky or very risky.

 

Reading through the original plans, the paper or online material available, AGM reports, studies etc it's clear we intended to push this through with or without external investment, as in my previous post, it can be seen the club was always going down the mortgage route with the possibility of advanced sponsorship and naming rights to be harvested as possible, if the right companys could be brought aboard. Investment was and is a desirable rather than an absolute imperative, and would be used to take the club forward as a whole and the stadium was not dependent upon it, though if the right type could be found no doubt how the payment was made could be revisited.

So ... are we going to remain competitive in the transfer market or not? Without external investment, that is.

[Guest albert]

So ... are we going to remain competitive in the transfer market or not? Without external investment, that is.

 

I'd say that's where Rafa comes into the equation.

 

A more frugal top manager surely does not exist. As such Rafa is a key element in the equation. He has already proven capable of massive achievement within a [sort of] financial strait jacket.

 

Many see this as Rafa being sold short. Personally I think it's Rafa totally aware of the situation but absolutely committed to being a vital part of the long term solution. In other word, the challenge of creating a top team within a limited budget is something he is better equipped to fulfill than anyone and he damn well intends to bring it to fruition.

 

I speak as a former A4E founder who met with Parry and ultimately was forced to accept the informed view that reconstructing our beloved Anfield was not really a viable option for a club with the loftiest ambitions. [FYDS's post is a brilliant precis of the reasons for this]

 

Of course, our emotional ties and caution veered us towards the route of reduced ambition/remain at Anfield. But it is Rick Parry - not us - who were the movers and shakers. We could disagree all we wanted but the mind of Rick Parry and the Board was set.

[David Hodgson]

We can't stay at anfield and increase the capacity sufficiently, in a nutshell. We wouldn't have the footprint to build outward as building regs won't allow us just to build upward. There is also the problem of improved infrastructure to support the increase in terms of parking, transport links etc - all of which are contained within the brief of the new stadium, as are facilities and money generating spinoffs that a rehash of the current site would not be able to include, conferencing, wet-weather facilities etc, and of course making our pitch big enough to finally meet UEFA and FIFA regs. Not only would we lose buckets of cash in redeveloping the current site as the work progressed causing obvious knock-on problems, but the studies done show it would not be financially viable to do this, as a whole new ground with new facilities, infrastructure and everything else would cost much the same as a refurb of existing, lower quality facilities.

 

Basically, if we wish to remain competitive, we can't stay - simple as. For Arsenal to get to the stage of completion that they are just about to reach now, has taken them in all three years longer than we have been at it (since may 2002 in our case) and without the shytestorm the NWDA, Liverpool City Councillors (some, not all), Everton and the local media have inflicted on us and, depending on who you talk to, the way they have done it is risky or very risky.

 

Reading through the original plans, the paper or online material available, AGM reports, studies etc it's clear we intended to push this through with or without external investment, as in my previous post, it can be seen the club was always going down the mortgage route with the possibility of advanced sponsorship and naming rights to be harvested as possible, if the right companys could be brought aboard. Investment was and is a desirable rather than an absolute imperative, and would be used to take the club forward as a whole and the stadium was not dependent upon it, though if the right type could be found no doubt how the payment was made could be revisited.

 

I can't see the stadium being funded without new investment. The approx costs are, what, £180m at the moment? Best mortgage LFc will get on this would be in the order of 70%, leaving us needing to put down about £54m ourselves. Theoretically we're getting a grant for £18m of this, but I suspect the residual £36m is still too rich for our present resources.

 

However, I'm firmly convinced , on the basis of high quality information received, that we will hear news of a significant investment deal before the summer is out. So, problem over.

[magneto]

However, I'm firmly convinced , on the basis of high quality information received, that we will hear news of a significant investment deal before the summer is out. So, problem over.

 

[Rich Gobey]

I can't see the stadium being funded without new investment. The approx costs are, what, £180m at the moment? Best mortgage LFc will get on this would be in the order of 70%, leaving us needing to put down about £54m ourselves. Theoretically we're getting a grant for £18m of this, but I suspect the residual £36m is still too rich for our present resources.

 

However, I'm firmly convinced , on the basis of high quality information received, that we will hear news of a significant investment deal before the summer is out. So, problem over.

 

Wouldn't that £36m not be offset, or borrowed against the increase in matchday revenue over a long term? If we're talking about 10 years, as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread then, even if interest bumped the figure up to £50m, it wouldn't be too grisly a prospect to face.