LFC shows frustration at the obstacles facing the potential re-development of Anfield (10 Jul 2011)

LFC shows frustration at the obstacles facing the potential re-development of Anfield

official LFC site link

Liverpool FC today made clear its frustration at the obstacles facing the potential re-development of Anfield.

The Club has been comprehensively exploring all options open to it in terms of new stadium development or expansion, which has included a study into the refurbishment of both its Main and Anfield Road Stands to increase capacity beyond 60,000 seats.

Managing Director Ian Ayre said: "In the nine months since the new ownership, an enormous amount of work has been undertaken in conjunction with leading architects, consultants, other industry experts and with Liverpool City Council to explore the building of a new stadium as well as exploring a refurbishment solution that could deliver the necessary growth in capacity, whilst maintaining the heritage and atmosphere that make Anfield uniquely Liverpool FC. However, with land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory issues creating barriers to our ambition, it looks increasingly unlikely there is any way we can move forward on a refurbishment of Anfield unless there are significant changes in those areas."

Commenting further on the options open to the Club, Ayre explained: "In terms of a Stanley Park stadium versus redevelopment, there is absolutely no question that a refurbishment of Anfield would come at a significantly lower cost than a new build. A new stadium of course also has its merits, being modern, more functional, and easier to construct. However, a new 60,000 capacity ground also comes at a significantly higher price, while at the same time only delivering roughly the same amount of revenue as a refurbishment of Anfield - with both options offering an uplift of approximately 16,000 seats each."

Added Ayre: "It's disappointing that based on where we are at the moment, we seem to be unable to press on with the more viable economic option of a refurbishment, but we remain committed to finding the best possible long-term solution. We already have a very healthy dialogue in place with several leading brands regarding naming rights for a new stadium, but like every major deal we have ever done, that just takes time to explore in full. We also have ongoing discussions with various parties around the financing of either facility. Our challenge now is to try to find a way to bring all of those elements together in a solution that is in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club and its fans.

"We are mindful that supporters have been promised a solution in the past and have been disappointed, and also that local residents would like to know what direction we are headed in. However, just like any other business, we can only proceed as and when we are clear on all elements and we will not be forced to make a decision that is not in the best long-term interests of our club and we will not make any promises to our fans that we cannot keep. We will continue to work diligently on this project and keep our fans informed of any progress."

Council leader Joe Anderson said: "We recognise that Liverpool FC need to make the right decision on the stadium options, and it is crucial that it is not only the right one for the club but also for local residents.

"We fully appreciate that the new owners have made real progress over the past nine months since they took over, and we will continue to support what they are trying to deliver. However, it is unfortunately the reality that the debate and discussions over a new stadium have gone on for many years, causing a great deal of frustration and uncertainty within the local community.

"Although we are fully supportive of the club, we can't ignore the fact that the clock is and has been ticking, and people need certainty about the development.

"We will do what we can to continue to help the club, and I can reassure people that we will be pressing for a decision as soon as is practically possible that will benefit Liverpool FC and deliver the much needed regeneration that the area so badly needs."

So basically, what I can gather what that means we have to move out of Anfield and build a bigger stadium. Bittersweet.

Could be that's why it's taking so long mate, by the sound of things the owners would genuinely prefer the option of remaining at Anfield but have been forced after all due consideration to go with the move decision - which will involve further delay while the econmic woes prevail.
As stated the financial return with the re-development and the new build would be the same upon completion although one advantage would be the lower cost of re-developing Anfield, in the long term however the new build is a much better prospect and the owners will no doubt be bearing this in mind, exactly the mindset that is required for the prosperity and success of LFC.  

I think this is an attempt to go public and make those creating the obstacles back down.

If it is the council or central government (or whoever) then it looks to me like the club is attempting to get the necessary concessions out of them now they have completed their studies, if not then they'll move on with a new build.

I wonder just what the "obstacles" are.

I have a feeling it may be the council generally being arsey.

Any insiders know any more?

I wonder just what the "obstacles" are.

I have a feeling it may be the council generally being arsey.

Any insiders know any more?

Not an insider at all but to me this is politicing for me.

The council want a new stadium, many reasons for it. I'd assume largely it'd mean Liverpool FC covering most of the costs of redeveloping the Anfield area etc.

The council want a new stadium, hence promoting the groundshare etc. Councils/politicians etc always wanted the easiest option with least cost for them so they are probably trying to be as inflexible as possible to force us into a new stadium.

By going public the club can put the council on the back foot.

Not an insider at all but to me this is politicing for me.

The council want a new stadium, many reasons for it. I'd assume largely it'd mean Liverpool FC covering most of the costs of redeveloping the Anfield area etc.

The council want a new stadium, hence promoting the groundshare etc. Councils/politicians etc always wanted the easiest option with least cost for them so they are probably trying to be as inflexible as possible to force us into a new stadium.

By going public the club can put the council on the back foot.

Spot on.

FSG is VERY PR savvy. This is a chess match and it's the Council's move.

Keep in mind that FSG did a wonderful job redeveloping Fenway Park.  So I have no doubt they are trying to keep iconic Anfield alive if at all possible, but the Council is pressuring them to do what you detail above.

The club is now telling the public "We know most of you want to stay at an improved Anfield, we do too, but the Council is being difficult about it."  

I'd bet the next twist is the club announcing it is offering to help with SOME area redevelopment, but only if the Council approves the club's preferred Anfield plan.

No doubt the new arena is the preferred council option and the benefits are many, as to whether they are exerting any "pressure" or have the means to is debatable.
It is in the interest of LCC to keep the owners on board and it is doubtful they seek to bring any animosity to the table, the fact remains it is a huge undertaking for all parties and every deliberation must be taken to make the right decision.

I'd bet the next twist is the club announcing it is offering to help with SOME area redevelopment, but only if the Council approves the club's preferred Anfield plan.

And to start they may have to replace the Vernon Sangster sports centre that was pulled down by Stanley Park when the original work on the stadium was supposed to start.

And to start they may have to replace the Vernon Sangster sports centre that was pulled down by Stanley Park when the original work on the stadium was supposed to start.

Always thought that was premature, but weren't Herpes & Ghonorrhea about then?

I think this is an attempt to go public and make those creating the obstacles back down.

If it is the council or central government (or whoever) then it looks to me like the club is attempting to get the necessary concessions out of them now they have completed their studies, if not then they'll move on with a new build.

The biggest stumbling block is definatly the city council as it would cost them more (in numerous ways) if LFC refurbed anfield. Its very complex to go into and can't be said in a few words (when i get time ill put a more detailed response up what the likely obtacles include) but i can say that a massive revise to the immediate surrounding area and streets of Anfield would be  needed. it would all need to be regenerated and new larger access routes and transport systems etc  would need to be created to accommidate the increased capacity. Basically its all to do with money and this is why they favour a ground share between us and Everton.

An extra 16,000 seats.  Thats all we need and its causing so much agro.

I would be gutted if Anfield gets knocked down.

LFC chief exec. Ian Ayre has admitted that it is increasingly unrealistic that LFC will be able to redevelop Anfield.

The club had hoped to increase the capacity at the ground to 60,000 from 45,000.

But Ayre said in a statement: "Land/property acquisition, environment and statutory issues are creating barriers to our ambition. It looks increasingly unlikely there is any way we can move forward on a refurbishment of Anfield."

I am not a Liverpool local, so forgive me if I am naive on this question: If we are forced to move, is there another piece of land available within 10 miles or so where we could build and be subject to less arm-twisting by Liverpool politicians (i.e. get better terms and more flexibility), and still have that ground be considered "Liverpool"? Or would that be looked upon as some sort of betrayal to the Liverpool community?

This is done all the time in the US. The New York Giants and Jets play in East Rutherford, New Jersey, 6 miles from New York City. The Dallas Cowboys play 20 miles away in Arlington Texas. And so on. Of course I realize we have far more open real estate to play with here than you do in England, so it's simpler to do here...

The fans would never accept that, mate. The only reason anyone is even slightly open to the idea of a new ground is because it could be built right next to the current one.
The Bitters were planning a 50,000 seater stadium (with expansion possible) in Kirkby and the fans went mad about it, regardless of the financial benefits.
I know it does happen in the states but I think that's just another difference between the two countries and the very 'tribal' nature of being a football fan over here.

I agree with the general opinion on here that this is ratcheting up the pressure on the council whose preferred option is a new ground and the redevelopment around the Anfield area.

The council would also like a groundshare as they are the ones that keep bringing this up.  The redevelopment of Anfield would kill that possibility stone dead.

I don't think the council will move unless LFC threaten to take their ball and play elsewhere and this is unlikely to happen.  If they go for a new stadium then I think they will bin the innovative (this means we don't know how to build it and any cost estimate will escallate) H&G design and go for something already proven (Emirates?) and which can be realistically costed and brought in on budget.

I think we are getting near the end game on this saga and not before time.

City council denies all blame for delays to Liverpool stadium plans

• Council leader Joe Anderson warns that obstacles remain
• Club 'liable to repay £8.2m' if Stanley Park plans change

The leader of Liverpool city council, Joe Anderson, has spoken of his frustration at the continued delay over Liverpool's stadium decision but insisted the authority cannot be blamed for obstacles preventing a redevelopment of Anfield.

Liverpool and the council issued a joint yet conflicting statement on the stadium on Sunday when the club's managing director, Ian Ayre, cited "land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory issues creating barriers to our ambition" of remaining at a refurbished Anfield. The council leader, while recognising the progress made by Fenway Sports Group in the nine months since acquiring the club, added that a decision was required urgently on a problem that has plagued Liverpool for decades.

Ayre's analysis, coming days after the principal owner, John W Henry, tweeted that "so many obstacles" stood in the way of upgrading Anfield to a 60,000-seater stadium, gave further momentum to the option of a new build on Stanley Park. Anderson, however, is aggrieved at the implication the council is obstructing plans for a redeveloped Anfield and has followed Sunday's statement with a warning that Liverpool cannot ride roughshod over national planning restrictions.

He also revealed it could take three years for Liverpool to overcome the problems facing Anfield and that the club would be liable to repay £8.2m of European funding already spent on renovating Stanley Park should it renege on that option.

Anderson told the Liverpool Echo: "You can't build something right next to someone's house that blocks daylight – whether Liverpool FC like it or not. That is something that exists. It existed 10 years ago when they were talking about it then, and it exists today.

"They are not our rules, they are national legal requirements. We will do everything we can to assist Liverpool FC and help them. The original problems, before they decided to move to Stanley Park, are the same now because people have the right to light, and there are all kinds of issues like that. We have said that they have to make the decision. If they want to negotiate with people around the stadium and come to a deal with them that allows them to build higher to increase capacity [that is fine]. From our point of view, when Ian Ayre talks about the statutory requirements, local people have the right to light."

Liverpool could apply for a compulsory purchase order on properties around Anfield but that avenue, Anderson cautioned, will further delay the process and is fraught with legal issues. "They are not starting with a blank sheet of paper, they have to deal with the situation they inherited," he said.

"There is a cost in redeveloping Anfield, they may have to wait three years before they can start. Even if it gets planning permission, that does not mean that people can't appeal. People have rights. They have to be able to object and there has to be a strong regeneration argument. You can't just move people out of their houses because you want a [redeveloped] stadium. There have to be wider benefits to the area, that includes jobs and the environment."

Steve Rotheram MP, whose consistency includes Anfield, wants a meeting with Liverpool's owners within the next fortnight to address mounting concerns among local residents. The Labour MP said: "The uncertainty for the residents is really starting to cause tensions. This is a massive opportunity to regenerate the whole of the north of Liverpool not just Anfield.

"Residents have put up with a lot of issues over the past few years. My preference is that the local residents there get something they have been looking for – the opportunity for something to happen in that area. The broken promises of the previous owners [Tom Hicks and George Gillett] have come back to haunt the current owners."

A European Objective One grant totalling £8.2m has been spent on Stanley Park in preparation for Liverpool's new stadium, and Anderson warned the council will not be responsible for repaying those costs should it fall through.

He added: "If Liverpool city council has to pay the money back, Liverpool Football Club will have to pay the money back. Liverpool signed up to that, albeit under different owners. We believe we are in a strong position because we made it clear that Liverpool FC would be responsible. At the end of the day, I am working in a positive way with the club."

Liverpool have been granted an extra three months to decide whether to take up a 999-year lease option on Stanley Park. And Anderson admitted September's deadline may not be final. He said: "If they can show me the progress that has been made, I don't see us refusing point blank. We are working behind the scenes to move things on.

"The bottom line is that Ian Ayre represents Liverpool FC, but I represent the city and the residents of Anfield. I want what is best for the residents of Anfield, the city, and the football club."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/12/liverpool-anfield-stanley-park-redevelopment

Liverpool FC managing director Ian Ayre on Anfield stadium future: "No amount of pressure will force LFC to make a decision quickly for the wrong reasons"

By Chris Beesley
Jul 12 2011


LIVERPOOL FC managing director Ian Ayre insists the club will not be rushed into a decision over the future of their stadium.

Ayre revealed earlier this week that it is now looking unlikely that the Reds will be able to redevelop Anfield but he would rather that the club take their time over what move to make next rather than make a bad call from being too hasty.

He said: "It (the stadium decision) can only be the right one. No amount of pressure will force Liverpool Football Club to make a decision quickly for the wrong reasons.

"We've all seen and felt and discovered how the wheels can come off if you make the wrong decisions at a football club, particularly this one.

"So we'll make the right decision at the right time, whatever that is and whenever that is. It has to be in the long-term interests of Liverpool Football Club. That's what everybody here is focused on."

Ayre also stressed that the club would be careful when it came to the sensitive issue of naming rights for a new stadium.

He said: "We have a big team, a big partnership team at the club and we also utilise the services of Fenway Sports Management, our ownership group, who have a sales team in that category as well.

"Many, many people are working on it but it's not just about finding a partner, it's about finding the right partner - somebody who fits with the football club, as our other partners do.

"While our business development has been strong, we've been very selective, and that would also be the case with naming rights. It just takes time. It's a big world, there are a lot of brands - we just have to find the right one."

With Anfield currently generating far less revenue from games than the likes of Old Trafford and the Emirates Stadium, Ayre revealed that merely increasing the club's capacity was not enough to sufficiently improve their matchday revenue.

He said:  "It's been about finding the right economic model. I know a lot of our fans and other people have said to me personally - why can't we just build it?


We get lots of people who are desperate to come and watch Liverpool, but what people don't think of a lot of the time is that we don't get 60,000 new seats when we build a stadium - we only get the difference between Anfield currently and whatever we build.

"The economics of that difference don't really stack up in the medium term for a return for Liverpool. It would be a huge investment with very little financial gain."

Like neighbours Everton, Liverpool have been investigating the possibilities of ground redevelopment/a new stadium for several years now with no concrete solution but despite the large amounts of red tape involved, Ayre believes that progress has now been made with the Reds' new owners.

He said: "Anyone out there who has ever been involved in a major construction project would, I think, pretty much determine seven months to be a very short time.

"That's all it's really been, because if you go buy a new house, you don't look at what the previous owner had in terms of his ideas for it.

"They are their own people and so they should be. They'll do what they think is right for Liverpool Football Club. While a lot of people, particularly residents, feel a little bit aggrieved that it's been a long process, and we understand that, for these people who are now trying to make this happen, it's been a very short time."

Liverpool born Ayre, who grew up in the Kirkdale area of the city and was educated at Litherland High School, also insists any project will help in the regeneration of the district of Anfield around the stadium.


He said: "Regeneration is a much wider issue, I think. It's wider than just Anfield and wider than Liverpool Football Club, certainly.

"We've always been committed to playing our part in it but I think some people think our part is a bigger one than it really is.

"Our commitment is to make sure we provide something in the area and make sure that whatever we do is commensurate with the development of that area. Whether that's bringing more jobs because we're bringing more people, whether it's bringing a better facility that attracts more people - this is all in our mind.

"We've made a huge investment with everyone else in regenerating Stanley Park itself - many millions were invested into that. We are committed to the regeneration but it's important that people understand what Liverpool's part is, what small part Liverpool plays in that big opportunity."



Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2011/07/12/liverpool-fc-managing-director-ian-ayre-on-anfield-stadium-future-no-amount-of-pressure-will-force-lfc-to-make-a-decision-quickly-for-the-wrong-reasons-100252-29041171/#ixzz1Ruh3qCPD

How does a stadium actually take to build? Like what are the possibilities of knocking Anfield after the final whistle this season and immediately go to work on building our new stadium on the site of Anfield. 18 months in a groundshare?

Some interesting points made by Joe Anderson. The response to our statement does back up the idea that the club are trying to put pressure on the council.

I get the distinct feeling that the club aren't communicating with the immediate community of Anfield on this. There's not nearly enough dialogue on it, and there should be as you could argue that the Anfield area has suffered as a result of two decades worth of indecision, albeit from different owners. FSG are in a position to put this right as well as make the right decision for the club.

    ^    ^    ^
I want some of what you're smoking mate.    

Banned him, was a spammer.

Why apart from the obvious cost issue are we only looking to build a stadium of just 60,000? Surely if we are forced to build a new stadium we could build a 75,000 seater?!!

Why apart from the obvious cost issue are we only looking to build a stadium of just 60,000? Surely if we are forced to build a new stadium we could build a 75,000 seater?!!

It is doubtful we really NEED 75,000 seats. Would we fill it week in week out, or just for big games?

The problem is this; NESV are INVESTORS and everything they do comes down to money...and building an extra 15,000 seats would DRAMATICALLY increase the cost over a 60,000 seater.

I like NESV and John Henry but nobody should be fooled...they want what is best for THEM first and foremost, if it is best for LFC too, all well and good.

So, they will be extremely careful to go with the most COST EFFECTIVE solution because they will already be thinking of their exit plan. My bet is they will want to sell within 10 years and the more they spend now, the lower their return on their investment.

Harsh realities but it is the real world.

They want what is best for LFC because they are not taking anything out of the club, they just want a profit when they sell.  A club with a massive debt and a 60% filled 80,000 stadium is not going to make them money and it is not good for us.  A 65,000 stadium at a reasonable cost is affordable for the club, it is the best for the team and the owners when they come to sell.

I like NESV and John Henry but nobody should be fooled...they want what is best for THEM first and foremost, if it is best for LFC too, all well and good.

Harsh realities but it is the real world.

Over the long term which thankfully NESV appear to be contemplating the only acceptable deal for both parties is the success of LFC.
There are no quick fix solutions and of course the ultimate target is a good return on the investment which will require commitment and funding. NESV are a good business model because they follow these proven ethics and whether their commitment is to LFC or their bank balance is immaterial, although JH and his wife do seem genuinely enthusiastic at the games they attend and are readilly embroiled in the Anfield emotion roller coaster.

It is doubtful we really NEED 75,000 seats. Would we fill it week in week out, or just for big games?

The problem is this; NESV are INVESTORS and everything they do comes down to money...and building an extra 15,000 seats would DRAMATICALLY increase the cost over a 60,000 seater.

I like NESV and John Henry but nobody should be fooled...they want what is best for THEM first and foremost, if it is best for LFC too, all well and good.

So, they will be extremely careful to go with the most COST EFFECTIVE solution because they will already be thinking of their exit plan. My bet is they will want to sell within 10 years and the more they spend now, the lower their return on their investment.

Harsh realities but it is the real world.

think you left out one notable exception, as Henry has come out and said the best economic option would be a ground share but since the fans do not want that he isn't looking at it

think you left out one notable exception, as Henry has come out and said the best economic option would be a ground share but since the fans do not want that he isn't looking at it

Is correct mate and further proof of the mans' empathy with the supporters.

New Stadium ‘The Only Viable Option’ for Liverpool

Liverpool’s stadium issue has dragged on ever since the previous regime promised a spade in the ground shortly after taking over, but as we now know those words were as empty as the park in which the new ground should, by now, be standing.

New owners FSG have been a lot more proactive in their search for a stadium solution, but they too have encountered issues both with redeveloping Anfield and building from scratch. But, after much research and deliberation, one option appears to stand head and shoulders above the other and it now seems that a conclusion is close.

John Henry, Liverpool’s principle owner, had previously claimed that it would be ‘difficult’ to relpicate the Anfield atmopshere elsewhere. This was seen to be a subtle hint as to the American’s intentions and rumours of redevelopment became rife as research was carried out to determine its viability.

But despite initial discussions being positive the possibility of Liverpool remaining at their historic home has been dwindling ever since. Issues have just kept cropping up like fairground whack-a-moles and the Reds quite simply don’t have the time to carry on playing a losing game while their rivals continue to pull ahead on commercial activity.

Former Chief Executive Rick Parry was one of the first to make the club’s intentions of a new build public, in an interview with The Mirror last month.

“Initially we wanted to develop Anfield, that was always the hope, but there were too many complications. The idea of building new actually became increasingly attractive the more we studied the options.” he said.

And in an even more recent interview with the Telegraph, John Henry echoed Parry’s thoughts.

“We would love to expand Anfield, but there are enough local and regulatory issues to keep that avenue stalled for years with no assurances that once begun it would bear any fruit.” he said.

“If Anfield cannot be expanded a new stadium is wonderful choice. But the fact is we already have 45,000 seats. If a new stadium is constructed with 60,000 seats you’ve spent an incredible sum of money to add just 15,000 seats.

“If the cost is £300m for an extra 15,000 seats, that doesn’t make any sense at all. Liverpool isn’t London, you can’t charge £1 million for a long-term club seat. And concession revenues per seat aren’t that much different at Emirates from Anfield.

“That’s why the search is on currently for a naming-rights partner. And that could very well happen.”

The search for a naming-rights partner has been under-way for quite some time now, and talks are said to have been very encouraging.

All signs, then, appear to point to a sponsored build in Stanley Park. In reality, this is the only viable option for a team looking to regain touch with its rivals who have so far been able to enjoy significantly more commercial revenue on behalf of their home ground.

Arsenal’s Emirates stadium is one of the leading lights in English football, pulling in pivotal funds from general sale, season tickets and executive boxes. The latter is something that Liverpool really struggle with, and always will while they remain at Anfield. A move to a new ground could be worth £100m+ per season in this department alone, so you can see why they are so desperate to make it happen.

And we now understand that this is exactly what FSG will do; make it happen. Having spoken to key members of the Anfield redevelopment research team, it is evident that the idea is now dead in the water.

The nature of the complications are such that there is no guarantee that they would be resolved in a timely manner, if at all. John Henry & co. are said to have admitted defeat in their initial attempts to preserve and improve the ground that he was so blown away by upon first visiting. And, although they are not closing the door on the idea, they are understood to have abandoned their active efforts to pursue this proposed solution.

It now looks like a matter of time before FSG announce their intentions, but they must first identify their chosen naming rights partner, and that is not something that will not be rushed into completion. The owners are keen to move forward as quickly as they can, but they will not compromise the club’s long-term security by making a decision before they have explored all avenues of possibility.

But regardless of the route they use to get there, all roads now lead to Stanley Park and, although Anfield will undoubtedly be missed, the supporters would do well to remember that it is not the external structure that creates our ‘unrivalled’ atmosphere, but the beating heart within.

http://www.kopsource.com/new-stadium-the-only-viable-option-for-liverpool/

I'd be happy with what ever choice is made,the main thing is that we are moving forward.

think you left out one notable exception, as Henry has come out and said the best economic option would be a ground share but since the fans do not want that he isn't looking at it

I am not entirely sure I understand what you mean exactly by "you left out one notable exception"...that really doesn't make sense based on what I actually posted.

Regardless of that, just because John Henry SAYS something you like to hear doesn't necessarily mean that is what he actually thinks.

I'm sorry if I come across too negative on JH and NESV...I really quite like him...but I am also a cynic to some degree...as I've already said elsewhere on this forum...any club owner that is fundamentally an "investor" is always going to be a worry to me because the money will always ultimately come before the football club.

Does anyone know when the board is set to make a decision on this?  I was under the impression that it was supposed to happen sometime in September, but I could be wrong....

I was as well, that would make sense from the 3 month extension we got, but nothing thus far.