Council grants LFC another extension

[gkmacca]

Liverpool have been granted another extension by Liverpool City Council as they continue to explore all options on the future of Anfield.

A deadline was set in July for Liverpool to announce by the end of this month whether they intend to take up the 999-year lease that would allow them to build a new ground on nearby Stanley Park, for which they have already been granted planning permission.

Liverpool have maintained, however, they will not be rushed on any decision, as revamping and expanding Anfield is also under consideration.

Council leader Joe Anderson had warned in July that the club’s delaying of an announcement was 'very frustrating'.

However talks have been on-going between the two parties and the council have been reassured that progress is being made.

Renovating Anfield was the original preferred choice of Liverpool’s American owners, Fenway Sports Group, but the cost of doing that is exorbitant.

A new build on Stanley Park would require Liverpool to find a partner to facilitate a lucrative naming rights deal.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2041676/Liverpool-granted-stadium-extension-City-Council-look-explore-options.html

 

[Oncy]

This is long.
We need a resolution.

 

[Buddha]

My wife said the exact same last night.

 

[Sunny]

It's not the cost of renovating Anfield that's exorbitant it's more the fact the consultative process to do it is very drawn out.

 

[Judge Jules]

The two are connected though. The longer any delay, the higher the costs will rise.

 

[Wilko7]

The cost of building materials is less now than it was 2-3 years ago, Jules. I can't see the cost rising much in the near future so hopefully the additional deliberating won't hurt us financially.

 

[Judge Jules]

Fair enoughski.

 

[Sunny]

I think your point is stil somewhat valid JJ. The longer we go without a new stadium the longer we go without the increased revenue which can increase our capacity to compete. The true cost cannot be measured just in investment but in revenue gained.

 

[Vlads Quiff]

One of the biggest factors in the redevelopment was the loss of revenue and disruption caused during the work, plus it would be more protractedthan a new build.
Three different owners have now all come to the same conclusion. Let's get it built.
I still have a feeling we will get the Hicks stadium a cross between v1 and v2 , FSG are not dim and will know that was a whopper and pretty well universally accepted plus taking that design would save a fortune.

 

[themn]

I would be Sir Fapster Fappington if we built that sexy Hicks stadium.

 

[FoxForceFive]

We cant build that exact design.

Whilst it looked nice, it had almost 15% restricted view seats, & almost a quarter of the stadium didnt meet our building regulations.

There's a HUGE thread over on Rawk detailing it, an architect took the plans & ran CAD using them to show the seating & angles in depth. They basically took an existing American football stadium design they had & adapted it, hence the problems.

The more standard bowl looking design with one glass side is the only realistic one I imagine, unless, & this could be a possibility I suppose, they agree with the council the look of the design subject to changes to address the issues with it, & have angles etc re-designed, whether that's a possibility in planning terms I'm unsure.

 

[Vlads Quiff]

I will take a look at the thread you speak of Foxster, but I thoughtbthat was part of the attraction it was along the lines of traditional British stadia with four sides , the corners then got filled in to increase capacity. Perhaps v2 ended up that way but from the computer generations I remember of the seating it looked fine.
I think it is just part of a legacy to discredit Hicks, and his design even more.
I don't want a boring bowl like every other fucker.

Regards

 

[themn]

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=47007.msg1405254#msg1405254 date=1317053443]
We cant build that exact design.

Whilst it looked nice, it had almost 15% restricted view seats, & almost a quarter of the stadium didnt meet our building regulations.

There's a HUGE thread over on Rawk detailing it, an architect took the plans & ran CAD using them to show the seating & angles in depth. They basically took an existing American football stadium design they had & adapted it, hence the problems.

The more standard bowl looking design with one glass side is the only realistic one I imagine, unless, & this could be a possibility I suppose, they agree with the council the look of the design subject to changes to address the issues with it, & have angles etc re-designed, whether that's a possibility in planning terms I'm unsure.
[/quote]

Boooo !

*flaccid*

 

[Woland]

I still hate the idea of a new stadium. You still get all kinds of people you wouldn't expect saying Anfield's the best place in the world to play football, the latest was Viera, pretty recently. It's a massive risk.

 

[King Binny]

In an exclusive interview with Telegraph Sport, Werner has spelt out Liverpool’s stringent opposition to any effort by Liverpool City Council to bring the two Merseyside clubs back to the negotiating table.

He has revealed for the first time that if Liverpool are not able to modernise Anfield, they will design new plans for a stadium on Stanley Park rather than pursue either of the two existing schemes left by previous owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

That would require a fresh planning application which could take a minimum of two more years before construction began.

There is a history of aborted attempts to convince the Merseyside giants, who meet in Saturday’s Goodison derby, to join forces. On Friday, former culture secretary Andy Burnham MP, an Everton fan, backed a shared stadium and said there was a “political will” in the city to make it happen.

Everton have even been asked to consider becoming Liverpool’s tenants in a new £300million stadium on Stanley Park, an unpalatable prospect for chairman Bill Kenwright.

Despite the resistance, the financial consequences of the clubs’ failure to overcome their obstacles are sobering. Liverpool earn £60million less than Manchester United in annual matchday revenue. Until they renovate or move, they will fall additional millions behind every season.

For Everton, there is nothing on the horizon. Since the collapse of proposals to move to a 55,000-seat stadium in Kirkby in 2009, Kenwright has been searching for an investor to finance new plans. Liverpool’s attempt to permanently end the groundshare debate will close another door as Everton fight to keep in touch with the Premier League elite.

Werner is adamant no matter how challenging Liverpool’s stadium issues, Fenway Sports Group will vehemently resist groundshare negotiations.

“We knew it would be complicated when we took over the club but we are still optimistic of finding the right solution,” said Werner. “Everyone knows the two options we are examining - staying at Anfield or a new build on the park - and although we have been pressured for a timetable we have not responded to that pressure because we do not want our fans to be disappointed.

“We have been told countless times by our supporters that they have no desire for us to share a stadium and we have listened to that. Our supporters are not for it, therefore it is a dead issue. I have said before you can never say it will never be raised again, but although there are obstacles on Anfield redevelopment and on the issue of naming rights, I believe they are surmountable.

“People can say whatever they want about how long a decision takes but as far as we are concerned the situation is exactly as we knew it would be when we purchased the club. It is our intention to not only enhance the playing environment around Liverpool Football Club, but also the neighbourhood. We appreciate the surrounding area is not Mayfair. We want to be the catalyst for employment and to look after those in the vicinity, assisting the local economy.”

The most recent groundshare talks were engineered by city councillors shortly after FSG’s takeover in 2010. One of the most incendiary suggestions is for Everton to lease a new stadium from Liverpool once it is built.

At an earlier joint meeting of the clubs with former Sports Minister Richard Caborn in 2008, Liverpool rejected a 50-50 ownership split because Everton could not afford their half of the costs. That remains the club’s stance.

Inevitably, Everton refused any deal in which they were not equal partners.

A similar tenancy agreement operates in Munich’s Allianz Arena between Bayern and 1860 Munich. A visit to the stadium by John W Henry in August prompted suggestions he may be interested in recreating such an arrangement on Merseyside.

“John visited the Allianz Arena recently as part of his education in European football generally,” explained Werner. “We are learning more and educating ourselves every day.

“You are aware of the matchday revenue figures for Europe and the Premier League’s biggest clubs and we need to find the solution to bridge this gap. When you analyse those figures you see the importance of us raising revenues globally through a variety of means, including through our TV channel which presents many possibilities given the club’s worldwide popularity. It is vitally important we keep up with up with what our rivals are doing so we are challenging in the future.

“We have played at Anfield for a long time and we have not given up on that continuing but the other option remains. If we are going to spend upwards of £300 million on a new stadium, it is a fair assumption to say we will be assessing other designs other than the Hicks Stadium. Far from downhearted, I am very encouraged about the possibilities.

“What the supporters want most is a winning club and that is something we are in the process of improving.

“We are encouraged by the start of the season although we could have had a few more points, but our aim is to get back into the top four.”

 

[King Binny]

Liverpool have narrowed the search for a stadium naming-rights partner down to just three global companies.

And that could see the Anfield club finally make a decision over their ground by the end of the year - with a new state-of-the-art 70,000-seat arena the likely outcome.

The club has been given another extension over planning consents by the local council, who are keen to work in partnership to develop the area.

That has offered breathing space, as owners Fenway Sports examine the financial implications of the two options open to them - redeveloping Anfield, or building a new stadium.

The latter is only viable if Liverpool can find a naming-rights partner who are prepared to pay at least the equal of Arsenal's record-breaking deal at the Emirates, which was worth around £150million.

But with the council's extension now allowing a more sensible negotiating period, confidence is high at Anfield that a deal can be struck with one of the three parties.

Liverpool's current shirt sponsors, Standard Chartered bank, are thought to be one of those companies.

The club believe they can start building work early next year if they find a partner to match their valuation.

The news at least averts the very real threat to Liverpool of having their planning rights rescinded, which would have hit the club massively - and even threatened the future.

Liverpool council though, have worked hard with the club to develop a plan that will also see the local community area developed, which would appease any opposition to the scheme.

 

[Molbystwin]

That seems quietly hopeful.... its been a long time in coming!

 

[Judge Jules]

Not counting my chickens yet, but I'm hopefully picking up a few stray feathers about the place.

 

[737Max]

[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=47007.msg1409968#msg1409968 date=1318005040]
Not counting my chickens yet, but I'm hopefully picking up a few stray feathers about the place.
[/quote]

Oh fuck, are Venkys sponsoring us?

 

[Judge Jules]

Haha.

 

[King Binny]

If Fenway Sports Group actually does a deal worth more than £150 million for the naming rights to Liverpool F.C.’s stadium, then owner John W. Henry could be about to pull off one of the biggest and riskiest sports deals in years. He must tread carefully — the Anfield stadium is a cathedral to its fans and they will not brook its name being sullied with a brand that trivializes the club.

The previous owners, George Hicks and Tom Gillett, brought an £80 million shirtfront sponsorship to the club — its biggest ever — and their reward was to be drummed out of the club, forced to sell at a loss, after a months-long campaign by fans to get rid of them. That’s how tough managing Liverpool is.

First, it’s worth pointing out that the deal may not even exist. The Mirror cited no sources for its claim that Liverpool is looking at three companies to pay more than Arsenal’s record-breaking deal to name the Emirates Stadium. The paper also said that if the deal goes through Liverpool could use the money to break ground on a proposed new stadium in Stanley Park “early next year,” which seems way too soon from a logistical point of view.

Assuming the rumor is true, however, who might be the contenders for such a massive sponsorship? Standard Chartered, the current shirt sponsor, is one of three names in the ring, the Mirror says. It’s a bank with a large Asian client base, and the future of soccer finance is largely in the East (Manchester United is offering stock in their club on the Singapore exchange, for instance).

The other two names are unknown. But back in May, commercial director Ian Ayre gave this cryptic explanation of how Standard Chartered got the shirt deal:

We didn’t actually choose the one offering the biggest amount of money; another company offered significantly more.

What company might have a sports sponsorship budget larger than StanChart’s, and might also be interested in Liverpool? Here are four possibilities:

Carlsberg: The brewer was Liverpool’s lead sponsor from 1992 to 2010 and retains a relationship with the club. “The Carlsberg Stadium” has an inoffensive ring to it. And Carlsberg is trying to expand in Asia(http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/4/13/business/3675701&sec=business). It has a strong presence in Malaysia, where Liverpool played an exhibition in the summer. Liverpool also recently started a youth club in India and may tour there too. By amazing coincidence, Carlsberg is launching new brands there, too(http://beer.drinks-business-review.com/news/carlsberg-elephant-enters-into-indian-market-210911).

Bank of America: The finance institution already has a relationship with the club, and it’s inevitable that Henry will at some point want to find a way to tap the U.S. market for new fans. “The Bank of America Stadium” will be a tough sell to fans, however.

Prudential: The insurer was reportedly a contender for the shirt deal and it may still be interested, especially as it too has a growing Asian business(http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_42/b4199045752369.htm). “The Rock in Stanley Park” could be the best-sounding name on the table.

Konami: The Japanese video gamemaker also has an existing pact with Liverpool(http://www.gamershell.com/companies/konami/495190.html), and more importantly it is the maker of Pro Evolution Soccer, known as Winning Eleven in the East. “The Konami Stadium” would give the company an excellent weekly platform to promote every new iteration of PES.

It’s all speculation, of course. Besides, we’ve been down this road before: The News of the World “reported” two years ago that Liverpool wanted £240 million for the stadium naming rights, and that deal turned out to be Scotch mist.

 

[rubans]

[quote author=Binny link=topic=47007.msg1410538#msg1410538 date=1318251058]

If Fenway Sports Group actually does a deal worth more than £150 million for the naming rights to Liverpool F.C.’s stadium, then owner John W. Henry could be about to pull off one of the biggest and riskiest sports deals in years. He must tread carefully — the Anfield stadium is a cathedral to its fans and they will not brook its name being sullied with a brand that trivializes the club.

The previous owners, George Hicks and Tom Gillett, brought an £80 million shirtfront sponsorship to the club — its biggest ever — and their reward was to be drummed out of the club, forced to sell at a loss, after a months-long campaign by fans to get rid of them. That’s how tough managing Liverpool is.

First, it’s worth pointing out that the deal may not even exist. The Mirror cited no sources for its claim that Liverpool is looking at three companies to pay more than Arsenal’s record-breaking deal to name the Emirates Stadium. The paper also said that if the deal goes through Liverpool could use the money to break ground on a proposed new stadium in Stanley Park “early next year,” which seems way too soon from a logistical point of view.

Assuming the rumor is true, however, who might be the contenders for such a massive sponsorship? Standard Chartered, the current shirt sponsor, is one of three names in the ring, the Mirror says. It’s a bank with a large Asian client base, and the future of soccer finance is largely in the East (Manchester United is offering stock in their club on the Singapore exchange, for instance).

The other two names are unknown. But back in May, commercial director Ian Ayre gave this cryptic explanation of how Standard Chartered got the shirt deal:

We didn’t actually choose the one offering the biggest amount of money; another company offered significantly more.

What company might have a sports sponsorship budget larger than StanChart’s, and might also be interested in Liverpool? Here are four possibilities:

Carlsberg: The brewer was Liverpool’s lead sponsor from 1992 to 2010 and retains a relationship with the club. “The Carlsberg Stadium” has an inoffensive ring to it. And Carlsberg is trying to expand in Asia(http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/4/13/business/3675701&sec=business). It has a strong presence in Malaysia, where Liverpool played an exhibition in the summer. Liverpool also recently started a youth club in India and may tour there too. By amazing coincidence, Carlsberg is launching new brands there, too(http://beer.drinks-business-review.com/news/carlsberg-elephant-enters-into-indian-market-210911).

Bank of America: The finance institution already has a relationship with the club, and it’s inevitable that Henry will at some point want to find a way to tap the U.S. market for new fans. “The Bank of America Stadium” will be a tough sell to fans, however.

Prudential: The insurer was reportedly a contender for the shirt deal and it may still be interested, especially as it too has a growing Asian business(http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_42/b4199045752369.htm). “The Rock in Stanley Park” could be the best-sounding name on the table.

Konami: The Japanese video gamemaker also has an existing pact with Liverpool(http://www.gamershell.com/companies/konami/495190.html), and more importantly it is the maker of Pro Evolution Soccer, known as Winning Eleven in the East. “The Konami Stadium” would give the company an excellent weekly platform to promote every new iteration of PES.

It’s all speculation, of course. Besides, we’ve been down this road before: The News of the World “reported” two years ago that Liverpool wanted £240 million for the stadium naming rights, and that deal turned out to be Scotch mist.

[/quote]
Anyone it seems can write an article nowdays, Konami do not have the cash to fund 150 million sponsership and doubt it would even make financial sense to them.
What a load of rubbish...

 

[King Binny]

Of cos its just all speculation and isn't really a serious article but the author is former managing editor of Adweek. Btw, Konami has last reported revenue as US$3.22 billion and net income of US$117.5 million for financial yr 2010. How they can't afford £150 million naming rights deal over a couple of decades is beyond me.

 

[rubans]

Net Income of $117 million for last year doesn't really justify a £150 million pounds investment over 15 years in my opinion but then I'm not CEO of Komami. Factor this in with what it might do to they PES franchise in UK as it may alienate other club fans plus didn't really work for Sega didn't, sponsoring Arsenal.
We shall see...

 

[Boozer]

Having Rooney as the face of Fifa for the last 4or 5 years doesn't seem to have EA any harm.

 

[rubans]

[quote author=Boozer link=topic=47007.msg1411192#msg1411192 date=1318399150]
Having Rooney as the face of Fifa for the last 4or 5 years doesn't seem to have EA any harm.
[/quote]
True but one player is a but different to effectively contributing day to day running of a whole club.
Konami would be better off spending the cash on rewritting PES engine from scratch rather than default runner up it has now become 🙂

 

[Vlads Quiff]

Konami was a ridiculous suggestion on several different levels

 

[the count]

Liverpool Football Club have not ruled out remaining at their famous Anfield stadium, despite the search for a stadium naming rights partner being narrowed down.

Managing diretor Ian Ayre has explained that the club have drawn up plans for a refurbished Anfield that would see the capacity increase to 65,000.

Ayre explained that if the new stadium is to be built, a naming rights partner is required; “That is an absolute catalyst to building a new stadium. The economics just don’t stack up without it. It doesn’t work unless you do it with a naming rights partner.”

Meanwhile though, the Club are still exploring the possibility of remaining at Anfield, and explaning the capacity to 65,000;

“We have got a design and plans that show what we can achieve. We could certainly reach the same sort of capacity with a refurbishment as we would a new-build, the 60-65,000 level.

“But that comes with its own set of challenges, which are about understanding the acquisition of the properties in and around Anfield, and that’s a process we are on with at the moment.”

“When will the decision be made? It’ll only be when we reach an answer with both. It’s hard to put a time on it.”