• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Stadium 'news' from Mr 'Going Forwards' Ian 'Hot' Ayre

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tal

Tal

Very Active
Member
From the BBC

"Liverpool managing director Ian Ayre says the club are moving closer to a decision on whether to redevelop Anfield or move to a new stadium. The Reds are continuing to explore both options and are hopeful of reaching a conclusion ahead of schedule.

"There is progress and we are still in dialogue on both fronts," said Ayre.

"I think it's fair to say, if we continue making progress in that area, it might move faster than we originally anticipated."

The financial implication of a move away from Anfield - to a new stadium in Stanley Park - is a key factor for owners Fenway Sports Group. A new ground is likely to cost in excess of £300m to build and would only increase capacity by around 15,000.

"It's pretty hard to make that stack up," said Ayre.

Remaining at Anfield has its own problems, however, as expansion would infringe on the "right to light" that homeowners in the surrounding area are entitled to. FSG has been criticised for not coming up with a definitive plan in the 19 months since taking control of the club but Ayre stressed headway is being made.

"We have got more dialogue going with the Anfield residents than we ever have, as with other stakeholders in and around Anfield.

"I think it's also fair to say that we are already fairly well down the line with a couple of major brands who have shown significant interest in naming rights for a new stadium."

"Part of the problem is that people assume that because we don't make a major announcement, because we can't show any spade in the ground, that nothing's gone on and no progress has been made. The most important thing for us, especially under this owner, has been about certainty on the stadium. In the case of staying at Anfield, that certainty is with residents in and around that area that we would need to convince. When we have that certainty, we will make the announcement and move on it."

So it's a new stadium or a redevelopment, depending on how things pan out going forward. Thanks Ian.
 
All of Ian Ayre's announcements basically say, 'People may think nothing's happening but it is'. He'd be better off shutting up until there's something to actually reveal.
 
Kind of a question for the local scousers who will know better what the housing market is like in Liverpool. Im sorry if its a daft one but it is a genuine one as I havent a clue as to the answer...

Just how many terraced houses are we talking about when they say light blocked? Ive heard many a scouser on here mention that the locale in and around Anfield is pretty run down... surely there must be other almost identical unoccupied houses in neighbouring streets? Would it not be possible financially to offer those homeowners who would be affected by an enlargement of Anfield another identical house (newly renovated of course) a stones throw away in the same area and a financial pay off to move a street or two... Or is that just dozy idealism on my part? A typical anfield terraced house there what does it cost nowadays? How many households would you have to convince? Im sure it would not be a simple process but by the same token im also sure that the club is a vitally important income source to the area...a charm offensive with the council and with the current owners and tennants...surely a mutually beneficial arrangement is possible. I realise that an Englishmens home is his castle, and I really dont make light of having somebody come along and buy your house when you may not want to move but if done well the community could benefit as opposed to suffer.... you neednt destroy any sense of community even if you did it well.... Pay people some of money for their assistance in the inconvenience, replace their old light deprived house with a new brighter one just a street away, improve a few amenitys etc....

Are nearly all the houses abutt to the ground occupied? Is there a lot of empty housing stock right near we could buy and assign for those who would be paid to move?

Just how much does 50 terraced houses cost up there? 10M? 20M?30M even?

Financially as we are it makes a load of sense If we could increase the capacity of Anfield to 60,000. Money keeps flowing in on matchdays,you dont have to build over the Park and perhaps to sweeten the deal you improve some local amenitys and unoccupied delapidated streets all in one go.... surely that would be cheaper than 300M for a new build and we could keep our beloved ground.
 
I can't answer most of your questions but you could do what I did a little while ago and use Google Maps and Street View to look around the nearby streets. You'll get a good idea of the situation if you do that. There is also a 'stadium specific' thread on RAWK that has contributions from people who are (from what I can tell) 'close to' some of the issues or at least have a lot of knowledge about certain aspects of the planning application, etc. - notably someone called Peter McGurk. Of course, he could just be some 'net warrior' who knows f-all, but it certainly makes interesting reading.
 
You can see that many properties around the ground are deserted. I don't often go to the Main Stand but I did at Christmas and walking to the ground that way, my god, it's damned depressing what a graveyard much of it is. Then again, Ayre has been so incompetant he actually makes Rick Parry seem half-decent.
 
gkmacca said:
All of Ian Ayre's announcements basically say, 'People may think nothing's happening but it is'. He'd be better off shutting up until there's something to actually reveal.
Click to expand...
Think he feels to need to say something because of all the negative press FSG are getting. Theres nothing significant or even new in the announcement.
 
I'm amazed the 'right to light' in a run down area of town is really preventing an institution like Liverpool Football Club enhance itself and thus bring more money to the region.

It's bonkers and It really epitomizes what is wrong with local councils. Rehouse them elsewhere and make Anfield great again.

No amount of trivial bollocks should prevent that from happening.
 
There's a few residents who refuse to move. Despite it being like Bosnia there & them being the only one in the street very often.
 
According to the Guardian we'll announce in the coming weeks that we're staying at Anfield and expanding.
 
David Conn The Guardian, Thu 31 May 2012 22.29 BSTLiverpool, having decided on Brendan Rodgers as their manager, are expected to announce within weeks they intend to stay at Anfield, not build their long-planned new stadium on Stanley Park. Under plans drawn up by Liverpool city council and revealed to local residents, houses would be demolished to enable the club to expand Anfield's main stand.At a meeting on 15 May attended by Ian Ayre, the Liverpool managing director, residents living in neighbouring streets to Anfield were presented with three worked-up options involving knocking down rows of houses. The council's assistant director for regeneration, Mark Kitts, told the Guardian that Liverpool have confirmed, in discussions with the council, that the 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."Kitts said homes would be given "an open market valuation" – which he suggested could be upgraded to reflect an area in better condition – plus a 10% "home loss payment" and removal costs. Liverpool will not have to negotiate directly with residents or buy their houses. Kitts said the council has the option of applying for compulsory purchase powers, to force residents to sell, if necessary. Some home-owning residents are fearful that they will not receive enough to pay for a similar home elsewhere.Liverpool's principal physical obstacle is not enlarging Anfield's footprint – their plan is understood to involve adding an extra tier, plus corporate facilities, to the Anfield Road and main stands. Doing so, however, would block the "right to light" of those neighbouring houses. Kitts said he believed the demolitions would "solve the right to light issues".The plans, presented to a neighbourhood "stakeholders meeting", including the Rockfield Residents Association, all propose knocking down the row of terraces closest to the main stand, on Lothair Road. The second two options, more favoured, involve demolishing two additional rows of houses – both rows on Lothair Road, and the first on the next street, Alroy. The remaining houses are planned to be refurbished: one option suggests replacing the demolished houses with a commercial development, possibly a hotel.Liverpool are still maintaining they are keeping open both their options – to expand Anfield or proceed with the new stadium on Stanley Park. However, the demolition plan, on which Kitts said the council hopes to begin work as soon as this summer, has convinced many local people that this is to facilitate Liverpool staying at Anfield. The council still favours the new stadium but Liverpool's owners, John W Henry's Fenway Sports Group, has made it clear since it bought the club that it would prefer to enlarge Anfield, mainly because it is cheaper.Liverpool declined to comment on the revelation of the housing demolition blueprint, 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'."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."However, Ros Groves, chair of the neighbouring Salisbury Residents Association, said she "hit the roof" when she read that. Her group has also been presented with demolition plans, for a corner opposite the main stand and Kop, which the club could develop commercially. But she said Liverpool have held no meaningful discussions with residents."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." Many houses around Anfield have been blighted for years – a significant number bought by the football club and left empty, a source of great resentment among residents left coping with the area's decline.Some who own their homes, Groves said, fear were worried that that the money they would be paid by the council who will demolish them, will would not be enough to buy a similar home elsewhere."Everybody wants a solution to this area's problems," Groves said. "But people who have paid off their mortgages, and long-term tenants, are very concerned about the impact on them."Liverpool was sold in 2007, to the Americans Tom Hicks and George Gillett, specifically so that finance would be found to build the new stadium on Stanley Park. After they failed to progress the new stadium, Martin Broughton, the chairman conducting the Liverpool sale, said any buyer would "have to accept" building a new stadium. But after FSG bought Liverpool, Henry always made it clear he favoured remaining at Anfield. RelatedFootball Liverpool Liverpool Sections Favourites Search
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/d...nfield-stadium

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 Parkemerged 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.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...ield-expansion

Liverpool poised to ditch new stadium in favour of Anfield expansion

Liverpool, having decided on Brendan Rodgers as their manager, are expected to announce within weeks they intend to stay at Anfield, not build their long-planned new stadium on Stanley Park. Under plans drawn up by Liverpool city council and revealed to local residents, houses would be demolished to enable the club to expand Anfield's main stand.

At a meeting on 15 May attended by Ian Ayre, the Liverpool managing director, residents living in neighbouring streets to Anfield were presented with three worked-up options involving knocking down rows of houses. The council's assistant director for regeneration, Mark Kitts, told the Guardian that Liverpool have confirmed, in discussions with the council, that the 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."

Kitts said homes would be given "an open market valuation" – which he suggested could be upgraded to reflect an area in better condition – plus a 10% "home loss payment" and removal costs. Liverpool will not have to negotiate directly with residents or buy their houses. Kitts said the council has the option of applying for compulsory purchase powers, to force residents to sell, if necessary. Some home-owning residents are fearful that they will not receive enough to pay for a similar home elsewhere.

Liverpool's principal physical obstacle is not enlarging Anfield's footprint – their plan is understood to involve adding an extra tier, plus corporate facilities, to the Anfield Road and main stands. Doing so, however, would block the "right to light" of those neighbouring houses. Kitts said he believed the demolitions would "solve the right to light issues".

The plans, presented to a neighbourhood "stakeholders meeting", including the Rockfield Residents Association, all propose knocking down the row of terraces closest to the main stand, on Lothair Road. The second two options, more favoured, involve demolishing two additional rows of houses – both rows on Lothair Road, and the first on the next street, Alroy. The remaining houses are planned to be refurbished: one option suggests replacing the demolished houses with a commercial development, possibly a hotel.

Liverpool are still maintaining they are keeping open both their options – to expand Anfield or proceed with the new stadium on Stanley Park. However, the demolition plan, on which Kitts said the council hopes to begin work as soon as this summer, has convinced many local people that this is to facilitate Liverpool staying at Anfield. The council still favours the new stadium but Liverpool's owners, John W Henry's Fenway Sports Group, has made it clear since it bought the club that it would prefer to enlarge Anfield, mainly because it is cheaper.
Liverpool declined to comment on the revelation of the housing demolition blueprint, 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'."

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."
However, Ros Groves, chair of the neighbouring Salisbury Residents Association, said she "hit the roof" when she read that. Her group has also been presented with demolition plans, for a corner opposite the main stand and Kop, which the club could develop commercially. But she said Liverpool have held no meaningful discussions with residents.

"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." Many houses around Anfield have been blighted for years – a significant number bought by the football club and left empty, a source of great resentment among residents left coping with the area's decline.
Some who own their homes, Groves said, fear were worried that that the money they would be paid by the council who will demolish them, will would not be enough to buy a similar home elsewhere.

"Everybody wants a solution to this area's problems," Groves said. "But people who have paid off their mortgages, and long-term tenants, are very concerned about the impact on them."
Liverpool was sold in 2007, to the Americans Tom Hicks and George Gillett, specifically so that finance would be found to build the new stadium on Stanley Park. After they failed to progress the new stadium, Martin Broughton, the chairman conducting the Liverpool sale, said any buyer would "have to accept" building a new stadium. But after FSG bought Liverpool, Henry always made it clear he favoured remaining at Anfield.
 
I guess we won't be needing the big sponsorship deal agreed for the naming rights on the new stadium so.


Or will we?
 
Why is it possible for so many other clubs to build new stadiums yet for us it's turned into mission impossible.

I find it hard to imagine an expanded Anfield as a world class stadium.
 
If we redevelop Anfield they will sell naming rights. They'd be stupid not to.

The residents don't think they could afford a similar house elsewhere?!

It clearly says they'll be given a valuation as a better area plus 10%, that's about 130k or thereabouts.

If they're happy in anfield they could simply move to another 2up 2down in lower Breck for 80k & keep the change.
 
Every cloud........

We dont need to sell Suarez now as it won't cause problems for our sponsors!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom