Anfield Expansion - Anfield Road End (Main Stand Completed)

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
740
He doesnt know what he's talking about and that's not right saying the outline planning application has expired. The outline planning application runs to Sept \ Oct 2019 not 2018.

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-still-plan-redevelop-14807953

The fact he says an extension to the Kop 'might be easier' shows he has absolutely no knowledge of building works never mind the ability to increase the Kop which is, vitually impossible.
 
Last edited:

Mascot88

Yours for £1m. Need to make room for Dean Saunders
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
22,793
He doesnt know what he's talking about and that's not right saying the outline planning application has expired. The outline planning application runs to Sept \ Oct 2019 not 2018.

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-still-plan-redevelop-14807953

The fact he says an extension to the Kop 'might be easier' shows he has absolutely no knowledge of building works never mind the ability to increase the Kop which is, vitually impossible.
Haven’t the council put a cap at 60k, beyond which the club would be required to fund transport improvements
 

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
740
Haven’t the council put a cap at 60k, beyond which the club would be required to fund transport improvements
That's been in place since the 'new' Main Stand full and ARE outline planning applications were submitted. Essentially, the city council have said to the club if you want to go above 60k capacity, you need to also come up with plans and pay for the infrastructure to support that ie park and rides, possible railway line re opening to passenger services etc.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,180
That's been in place since the 'new' Main Stand full and ARE outline planning applications were submitted. Essentially, the city council have said to the club if you want to go above 60k capacity, you need to also come up with plans and pay for the infrastructure to support that ie park and rides, possible railway line re opening to passenger services etc.
Can you link to anything that says that? Anything in the timeline you describe.
 

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
740
Can you link to anything that says that? Anything in the timeline you describe.
No, sorry I cannot (but I'll see if I can find anything) because it was when the original planing application was made for the new Main Stand back around 2014, I think. It was well publicised at the time and many people expected the stadium capacity to something like 65,000 with some suggesting 70,000 was needed. LFC outlined why they couldnt go above 60k without serious amounts of money.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,180
No, sorry I cannot (but I'll see if I can find anything) because it was when the original planing application was made for the new Main Stand back around 2014, I think. It was well publicised at the time and many people expected the stadium capacity to something like 65,000 with some suggesting 70,000 was needed. LFC outlined why they couldnt go above 60k without serious amounts of money.
Yeah, I've read references to that too but never from LFC, the City Council or anywhere in the planning documents. I've so far failed to find out where this suggestion originates from.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,406
Yeah, I've read references to that too but never from LFC, the City Council or anywhere in the planning documents. I've so far failed to find out where this suggestion originates from.
It seems like this story re-surfaces every few months.

As planning permission has never been sought for a stadium capacity in excess of 60,000, there never has been any formal statement (from the council/planning dept.) regarding any requirement to invest in transport infrastructure or the exact capacity (beyond 60,000), that would trigger the supposed need for this investment.

I believe the story / rumour goes back to c.a. 2007/2008, when H&G fantasized about the possibility of increasing the capacity of the Stanley Park stadium beyond the approved 60,000, to 70,000. The council "let it be known*" that they would only support the application if Liverpool committed to invest in local transport infrastructure e.g. one of Merseytravel's pet schemes, upgrading the Bootle branch line to permit passenger transport.

* "a nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse"
 

Irishanfield

Internet Terrorist
Joined
May 5, 2017
Messages
4,737
It seems like this story re-surfaces every few months.

As planning permission has never been sought for a stadium capacity in excess of 60,000, there never has been any formal statement (from the council/planning dept.) regarding any requirement to invest in transport infrastructure or the exact capacity (beyond 60,000), that would trigger the supposed need for this investment.

I believe the story / rumour goes back to c.a. 2007/2008, when H&G fantasized about the possibility of increasing the capacity of the Stanley Park stadium beyond the approved 60,000, to 70,000. The council "let it be known*" that they would only support the application if Liverpool committed to invest in local transport infrastructure e.g. one of Merseytravel's pet schemes, upgrading the Bootle branch line to permit passenger transport.

* "a nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse"
Isn't it amazing that the council would want us to pay for the infrastructure which would been OK if they weren't so willing to run out and build Everton a spanking new stadium
 

Rambler

Bootle Boy
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
3,621
Isn't it amazing that the council would want us to pay for the infrastructure which would been OK if they weren't so willing to run out and build Everton a spanking new stadium
Of course the council aren't paying for it..........in fact the council will make money out of the loan deal.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-council-everton-new-stadium-14234777

There is a blinkered perception amongst some that Liverpool City Council is paying for Everton’s proposed new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock.

They’re not.

They’re borrowing money from a Central Government pot, which Everton will pay £6m-£7m interest on every year for 25 years, interest which goes back to the council.

READ MORE
As a result 100 per cent of the cost of the stadium will be paid for by Everton - while the City Council will receive £162m which can be used for vital services - money which wouldn’t otherwise have been generated.

It’s a brilliant scheme, and it was unearthed by Joe Anderson after other funding platforms had been proposed and accepted.

Its simplicity is genius, but still there are some who can’t understand the model.
 

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
740
Of course the council aren't paying for it..........in fact the council will make money out of the loan deal.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-council-everton-new-stadium-14234777

There is a blinkered perception amongst some that Liverpool City Council is paying for Everton’s proposed new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock.

They’re not.

They’re borrowing money from a Central Government pot, which Everton will pay £6m-£7m interest on every year for 25 years, interest which goes back to the council.

READ MORE
As a result 100 per cent of the cost of the stadium will be paid for by Everton - while the City Council will receive £162m which can be used for vital services - money which wouldn’t otherwise have been generated.

It’s a brilliant scheme, and it was unearthed by Joe Anderson after other funding platforms had been proposed and accepted.

Its simplicity is genius, but still there are some who can’t understand the model.
Such a shame its being delayed and the earliest they will be in it is 2023 (ho, ho, ho!). And it is by no means certain the LCC 'will make money from it'!

The fact of the matter is Everton a PL club is using public sector money to backstop it's stadium build and LCC is, currently, acting as gaurantor for £250m. That means LCC ratepayers will pick up the tab when this farce goes tits up.

Unfortunately further info is behind a paywall but you can read it in full if you download the Torygraph app, at least on android https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/10/24/everton-stadium-move-will-not-take-place-2023-24-earliest/
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
14,180
It works so long as Everton continue to be able to pay for it for the next 25-30 years.
 

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
740
It works so long as Everton continue to be able to pay for it for the next 25-30 years.
And while LCC stands as gaurantor. They are supposedly now talking about not using LCC no doubt due to all the bad publicity the 'deal' have evoked. Let's see how far they get talking to private enterprise in raising the now £500m and growing.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,406
Such a shame its being delayed and the earliest they will be in it is 2023 (ho, ho, ho!). And it is by no means certain the LCC 'will make money from it'!

The fact of the matter is Everton a PL club is using public sector money to backstop it's stadium build and LCC is, currently, acting as gaurantor for £250m. That means LCC ratepayers will pick up the tab when this farce goes tits up.

Unfortunately further info is behind a paywall but you can read it in full if you download the Torygraph app, at least on android https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/10/24/everton-stadium-move-will-not-take-place-2023-24-earliest/
Here's Bascombe's article, in full:

Everton will wait at least another 12 months before submitting a planning application for a new £500 million stadium after starting a one-year public consultation process.
A move to Bramley-Moore Dock will not happen until at least the beginning of the 2023-24 season - a year later than former chief executive Robert Elstone originally suggested.
The club is also re-evaluating earlier plans to partially fund the construction with a £250m loan secured by Liverpool City Council. The Merseyside club’s preference is to privately finance the entire project and they are in talks with investors.
Everton say the consultations starting in November – which they have described as ‘The People’s Project’ – are designed to address community concerns regarding the site and impact of a new stadium and the legacy for Goodison Park following relocation. No designs have yet been made public and the timescale for completion has shifted.
Speaking at last January’s AGM, ex-chief executive Elstone said the club was optimistic of an earlier finishing point.
“We hope it will take a year to secure funding and planning, and to conclude designs, and then three years to build on what is a complex site,” he said.
“If all goes to plan, we hope to be kicking-off at Bramley-Moore Dock in August 2022.”

Everton say that date was always aspirational rather than fixed as they manoeuvre through the complex planning process.
The club’s current chief executive Denise Barrett-Baxendale, who took over from Elstone last summer, says a stadium will assist areas of Liverpool in need of regeneration.
Among those supporting Everton’s proposals on the dockside and Goodison Park is former deputy prime minister and environment secretary Michael Heseltine, widely credited with assisting the rejuvenation of Liverpool’s Albert Dock in the 1980s.
Everton say their plans can have a similarly transformative effect in the north docks.
“This consultation marks a very significant moment as we progress with this project,” said Barrett-Baxendale.
“We would like as many people as possible – and not just football fans – to take part and let us know their views.
“Our ambition is not just to create a new home for a very proud and historic football club but also a new landmark stadium, in an iconic setting, which will deliver huge regeneration benefits for the whole of the Liverpool City Region.
“Everton is committed to delivering an authentic football stadium which responds to Liverpool’s World Heritage Site designation. The plans we are developing will respect the historic features of the site and complement its surroundings.”
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,406
There is still the question of who or what will pay for the infrastructure improvements necessary to enable the vast hordes of blueshite supporters to get to and from Bramely-Moore Dock.

Here's my proposal:

 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
25,869
Of course the council aren't paying for it..........in fact the council will make money out of the loan deal.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-council-everton-new-stadium-14234777

There is a blinkered perception amongst some that Liverpool City Council is paying for Everton’s proposed new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock.

They’re not.

They’re borrowing money from a Central Government pot, which Everton will pay £6m-£7m interest on every year for 25 years, interest which goes back to the council.

READ MORE
As a result 100 per cent of the cost of the stadium will be paid for by Everton - while the City Council will receive £162m which can be used for vital services - money which wouldn’t otherwise have been generated.

It’s a brilliant scheme, and it was unearthed by Joe Anderson after other funding platforms had been proposed and accepted.

Its simplicity is genius, but still there are some who can’t understand the model.
That article is either an example of an innumerate journalist being led down the garden path by Everton's PR and finance people, or just dishonest. The City Council is borrowing £280M, assume they are getting paid say £6.5M per annum. That is an interest rate of ~2.3%, about 20 basis points below current UK inflation. So the real interest rate is actually negative. Even assuming the City Council is borrowing at 0% from the Government fund, it amounts to a club owned by a billionaire getting a stadium entirely paid for with public money, the national Government providing the capital while the city holds the risk.

Now, as far as I can tell, the Public Works Loan Board does not in fact lend at 0%. It operates at three different rates, a base, a Certainty Rate (20 basis points lower), and a Local Infrastructure rate (40 basis points lower), the latter two considered Concessionary. The Certainty Rate requires the receiving entity to meet reporting and long-term cash flow projection criteria for all of their borrowing, the LIR requires that plus high value returns. In any case, borrowing under either of those two reduces eligibility for additional such borrowing for other projects.

So it turns out the PWLB lending rate for a 25 year project right now is 2.6%. So, if Everton is paying £6.5M, the only way the City Council is even netting a positive return is if they get the best possible concessionary rate, although they could construct positive cash flow by making it a 30 year loan and kicking the problem down the road for 25 years. But let's assume that they are getting that best possible concessionary rate of 2.2%.

As such, Liverpool would be loaning £280M to Everton at a net interest rate of 0.1%. We can forget about real interest rate, though it sort of matters, but when a public body does a deal this bad, inflation actually helps quite a bit. But worth thinking about what 0.1% interest is on that principal - the net funds which will actually be available to Liverpool City Council for vital services will be ~£280,000 per year - about 75% of the gate revenue from a single match (based on Everton 16/17 numbers).

For myself, I'd like to move to Liverpool, it must be an incredible place to live where not a single hospital, school, or transit infrastructure needs any work whatsoever, a veritable shining new Jerusalem on the hill that has absolutely no use for concessionary capital for the next generation, and so it can afford to freely and happily help suffering billionaires who wander by.

It would appear that there are indeed some who cannot understand the model.
 
Last edited:

Maurice

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
336
Maybe an unnecessary question but are there some drawnings to see how the ARE stand maybe is gonna look like after expanding it??
 

liveforthereds

asp67 twitter
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
5,963
Haven’t the council put a cap at 60k, beyond which the club would be required to fund transport improvements
From what I remember it was only ever mentioned in relation to the new Stadium, as far as I can remember it was not a bar to an expiation of the current Stadium.
 

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
740
Maybe an unnecessary question but are there some drawnings to see how the ARE stand maybe is gonna look like after expanding it??
Not official ones to my knowledge. The Anfield Regeneration document just shows two huge blocks to represent the new Main Stand and an ARE development. Interestingly, the ARE 'block' is shown blocking off Anfield Road and going back well into the current Food Park area.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,406
That article is either an example of an innumerate journalist being led down the garden path by Everton's PR and finance people, or just dishonest. The City Council is borrowing £280M, assume they are getting paid say £6.5M per annum. That is an interest rate of ~2.3%, about 20 basis points below current UK inflation. So the real interest rate is actually negative. Even assuming the City Council is borrowing at 0% from the Government fund, it amounts to a club owned by a billionaire getting a stadium entirely paid for with public money, the national Government providing the capital while the city holds the risk.

Now, as far as I can tell, the Public Works Loan Board does not in fact lend at 0%. It operates at three different rates, a base, a Certainty Rate (20 basis points lower), and a Local Infrastructure rate (40 basis points lower), the latter two considered Concessionary. The Certainty Rate requires the receiving entity to meet reporting and long-term cash flow projection criteria for all of their borrowing, the LIR requires that plus high value returns. In any case, borrowing under either of those two reduces eligibility for additional such borrowing for other projects.

So it turns out the PWLB lending rate for a 25 year project right now is 2.6%. So, if Everton is paying £6.5M, the only way the City Council is even netting a positive return is if they get the best possible concessionary rate, although they could construct positive cash flow by making it a 30 year loan and kicking the problem down the road for 25 years. But let's assume that they are getting that best possible concessionary rate of 2.2%.

As such, Liverpool would be loaning £280M to Everton at a net interest rate of 0.1%. We can forget about real interest rate, though it sort of matters, but when a public body does a deal this bad, inflation actually helps quite a bit. But worth thinking about what 0.1% interest is on that principal - the net funds which will actually be available to Liverpool City Council for vital services will be ~£280,000 per year - about 75% of the gate revenue from a single match (based on Everton 16/17 numbers).

For myself, I'd like to move to Liverpool, it must be an incredible place to live where not a single hospital, school, or transit infrastructure needs any work whatsoever, a veritable shining new Jerusalem on the hill that has absolutely no use for concessionary capital for the next generation, and so it can afford to freely and happily help suffering billionaires who wander by.

It would appear that there are indeed some who cannot understand the model.
According to this article in the Echo, it is looking increasingly unlikely that everton will avail itself of the £280 million on offer via the council.

"The ECHO understands that such a deal is not dead in the water - but that everton are more likely to go with a private investment option - with a number of parties registering their interest."

The simple fact of the matter is that it would be nigh impossible to raise an additional £220 million from private investors, if the council had first charge on everton's assets (as security for the £280 million loan). There would be little or nothing left to offer the private investors, effectively making the £220 million an unsecured loan.

The alternative, that the private investors would have first charge, would leave Liverpool council hopelessly exposed in the event of everton defaulting. Even though "Generous Joe" Anderson might want to proceed, it's unlikely that the Public Works Loan Board would sanction the deal.

Irrespective of where the money comes from, the question, as to how everton could possibly fund a £500 million project, remains unanswered.
 

Mascot88

Yours for £1m. Need to make room for Dean Saunders
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
22,793
Of course the council aren't paying for it..........in fact the council will make money out of the loan deal.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-council-everton-new-stadium-14234777

There is a blinkered perception amongst some that Liverpool City Council is paying for Everton’s proposed new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock.

They’re not.o

They’re borrowing money from a Central Government pot, which Everton will pay £6m-£7m interest on every year for 25 years, interest which goes back to the council.

READ MORE
As a result 100 per cent of the cost of the stadium will be paid for by Everton - while the City Council will receive £162m which can be used for vital services - money which wouldn’t otherwise have been generated.

It’s a brilliant scheme, and it was unearthed by Joe Anderson after other funding platforms had been proposed and accepted.

Its simplicity is genius, but still there are some who can’t understand the model.
But I understand the council is assuming some risk, by effecting underwriting the loan. If Everton get into financial difficulty and can’t afford their repayments,

Personally I don’t understand why Everton need a 60k seat stadium when they can barely fill Goodison Park.

Edit: Already discussed above.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,406
But I understand the council is assuming some risk, by effecting underwriting the loan. If Everton get into financial difficulty and can’t afford their repayments,

Personally I don’t understand why Everton need a 60k seat stadium when they can barely fill Goodison Park.

Edit: Already discussed above.
Given the way that the build costs tend to grow like Topsy, would £500 million be enough to get you a 60,000 seat stadium?
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
25,869
According to this article in the Echo, it is looking increasingly unlikely that everton will avail itself of the £280 million on offer via the council.

"The ECHO understands that such a deal is not dead in the water - but that everton are more likely to go with a private investment option - with a number of parties registering their interest."

The simple fact of the matter is that it would be nigh impossible to raise an additional £220 million from private investors, if the council had first charge on everton's assets (as security for the £280 million loan). There would be little or nothing left to offer the private investors, effectively making the £220 million an unsecured loan.

The alternative, that the private investors would have first charge, would leave Liverpool council hopelessly exposed in the event of everton defaulting. Even though "Generous Joe" Anderson might want to proceed, it's unlikely that the Public Works Loan Board would sanction the deal.

Irrespective of where the money comes from, the question, as to how everton could possibly fund a £500 million project, remains unanswered.
There are probably ways of structuring the £220M - for example, first charge on gate receipts - that would make access to the concessionary rate for £280M feasible and worthwhile. However, the one constant in the Echo coverage is that 'people just don't understand the deal', yet no one ever puts forward net cash flow for the City. That simple fact, plus the numbers bandied about combined with the PWLB's rates really make me think that Everton have simply realized that the deal isn't going to pass the smell test.

Interesting to note that Liverpool is considered upper mid-range among indebted councils, not the worst but not great either - and this deal at a stroke would add ~60% to existing long-term debt, likely putting it among the most indebted councils in the UK.

As a stadium finance proposition, this reminds me of one of those terrible deals US cities enter into, where a city is left owning a stadium they don't have any other use for and the team they built it for screws them when it is time to renegotiate. A typical characteristic is the city is paying the principal, and the team is paying the interest for the initial term at least. However, in those deals, the city at least owns the property.

The simple fact of the matter is that a 25 year loan of £280M at 2.2% requires combined principal and interest payments of about £14.6M per annum, and all of the numbers tossed about suggest that Everton will be paying about half that - essentially, something like Year 1 interest. No wonder people don't understand the deal.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,406
There are probably ways of structuring the £220M - for example, first charge on gate receipts - that would make access to the concessionary rate for £280M feasible and worthwhile. However, the one constant in the Echo coverage is that 'people just don't understand the deal', yet no one ever puts forward net cash flow for the City. That simple fact, plus the numbers bandied about combined with the PWLB's rates really make me think that Everton have simply realized that the deal isn't going to pass the smell test.

Interesting to note that Liverpool is considered upper mid-range among indebted councils, not the worst but not great either - and this deal at a stroke would add ~60% to existing long-term debt, likely putting it among the most indebted councils in the UK.

As a stadium finance proposition, this reminds me of one of those terrible deals US cities enter into, where a city is left owning a stadium they don't have any other use for and the team they built it for screws them when it is time to renegotiate. A typical characteristic is the city is paying the principal, and the team is paying the interest for the initial term at least. However, in those deals, the city at least owns the property.

The simple fact of the matter is that a 25 year loan of £280M at 2.2% requires combined principal and interest payments of about £14.6M per annum, and all of the numbers tossed about suggest that Everton will be paying about half that - essentially, something like Year 1 interest. No wonder people don't understand the deal.
When generous Joe first proposed that the council should act as financial guarantor for everton's stadium project, the plan was to set up a Special Purpose Veheicle to help everton secure the funding it needed by acting as guarantor. In return the SPV would receive £4.4 million per year and have first call on Everton's income from season ticket sales, gate receipts, TV rights and so-called parachute payments for clubs relegated from the Premier League.

Subsequently Joe's plan has been modified to the effect that the SPV will now borrow the money from the PWLB, and loan it on to everton, charging a premium of £6.5 million per year. Clearly the SPV will require at least the same level of security (if not more), and consequently, as far as I can tell, that doesn't leave much (anything?) else to act as security for the private investment.

It is therefore very unlikely that everton could secure an additional £220 million from private sources at anything other than usurious rates of interest and with a relatively short term e.g. ten years.

As for the applicable interest rate for the PWLB loan, the project would not be eligible for access to the Local Infrastructure Rate (interest reduced by 40 basis points). Liverpool is eligible to apply for loans at the Certainty Rate (interest reduced by 20 basis points), consequently, the cheapest rate currently available would be 2.38% for a capital and interest loan (Equal Instalments of Principal (EIP): equal half-yearly instalments of principal together with interest on the balance outstanding at the time)

This equates to annual repayments to the PWLB starting at £17.9 million, and subsequently reducing over the years to £17.6 million year two, £17.3 million year three, £17.0 million year four, £16.8 million year five, and so on and so forth.

To enable Liverpool council to make an annual "profit" of £6.5 million on the deal, everton will have to pay the SPV the amount due to the PWLB plus £6.5 million each year.

Add in the likely repayments for the privately funded loan (c.a. £28 million p.a.), everton could be looking at annual repayments in excess of £50 million per year. Assuming that they could fill a 60,000 seat stadium (lol), their average ticket price would have to double just to cover costs, and that would still leave them £17 million a year worse off than if they stayed put.

Talk about the economics of the madhouse.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,406
Maybe an unnecessary question but are there some drawnings to see how the ARE stand maybe is gonna look like after expanding it??
These are the only drawings I can find, showing the projected side elevation:

There is also this wind tunnel model:
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
25,869
When generous Joe first proposed that the council should act as financial guarantor for everton's stadium project, the plan was to set up a Special Purpose Veheicle to help everton secure the funding it needed by acting as guarantor. In return the SPV would receive £4.4 million per year and have first call on Everton's income from season ticket sales, gate receipts, TV rights and so-called parachute payments for clubs relegated from the Premier League.

Subsequently Joe's plan has been modified to the effect that the SPV will now borrow the money from the PWLB, and loan it on to everton, charging a premium of £6.5 million per year. Clearly the SPV will require at least the same level of security (if not more), and consequently, as far as I can tell, that doesn't leave much (anything?) else to act as security for the private investment.

It is therefore very unlikely that everton could secure an additional £220 million from private sources at anything other than usurious rates of interest and with a relatively short term e.g. ten years.

As for the applicable interest rate for the PWLB loan, the project would not be eligible for access to the Local Infrastructure Rate (interest reduced by 40 basis points). Liverpool is eligible to apply for loans at the Certainty Rate (interest reduced by 20 basis points), consequently, the cheapest rate currently available would be 2.38% for a capital and interest loan (Equal Instalments of Principal (EIP): equal half-yearly instalments of principal together with interest on the balance outstanding at the time)

This equates to annual repayments to the PWLB starting at £17.9 million, and subsequently reducing over the years to £17.6 million year two, £17.3 million year three, £17.0 million year four, £16.8 million year five, and so on and so forth.

To enable Liverpool council to make an annual "profit" of £6.5 million on the deal, everton will have to pay the SPV the amount due to the PWLB plus £6.5 million each year.

Add in the likely repayments for the privately funded loan (c.a. £28 million p.a.), everton could be looking at annual repayments in excess of £50 million per year. Assuming that they could fill a 60,000 seat stadium (lol), their average ticket price would have to double just to cover costs, and that would still leave them £17 million a year worse off than if they stayed put.

Talk about the economics of the madhouse.
The only question I have there is that I have not actually seen that £6-7M payment described as a 'premium' elsewhere, over and above the payments of principal and interest. If that was actually what was going on, it would be a questionable deal nonetheless, because of the hit to Liverpool's capacity to borrow, but it would not be the massive transfer of wealth from public purse to private owner - as you say, the economics would simply be crap.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,406
The only question I have there is that I have not actually seen that £6-7M payment described as a 'premium' elsewhere, over and above the payments of principal and interest. If that was actually what was going on, it would be a questionable deal nonetheless, because of the hit to Liverpool's capacity to borrow, but it would not be the massive transfer of wealth from public purse to private owner - as you say, the economics would simply be crap.
It's the only way I can make anything approaching sense* out of the proposed deal.

When the deal was originally formulated, it was anticipated/stated that the SPV would earn £4.4 million per year, purely by acting as loan guarantor for everton. Now that the SPV's role has expanded into being the actual lender it must surely be earning more, not less. So the £6.5 million per year must be the premium it charges everton in addition to the moneys everton must pay to the SPV to reimburse the PWLB.

The morality of Liverpool council borrowing at preferential low rates from the Government, to lend at favourable rates to a private entity is questionable.

Questionable, but permissible if the council makes a reasonable return on the deal.

If the council knowingly makes a loss on the deal, it goes several steps beyond immoral.

*I'm using the word "sense" in its loosest possible meaning.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
25,869
It's the only way I can make anything approaching sense* out of the proposed deal.

When the deal was originally formulated, it was anticipated/stated that the SPV would earn £4.4 million per year, purely by acting as loan guarantor for everton. Now that the SPV's role has expanded into being the actual lender it must surely be earning more, not less. So the £6.5 million per year must be the premium it charges everton in addition to the moneys everton must pay to the SPV to reimburse the PWLB.

The morality of Liverpool council borrowing at preferential low rates from the Government, to lend at favourable rates to a private entity is questionable.

Questionable, but permissible if the council makes a reasonable return on the deal.

If the council knowingly makes a loss on the deal, it goes several steps beyond immoral.

*I'm using the word "sense" in its loosest possible meaning.
One of the Echo pieces characterized that as Everton paying £6-7M of interest per year - which at the 2.38% you note is going to be very close to the Year 1 interest rate obligation. It was the line that made me curious as to whether or not it was concessionary or even 0%, because it implied the City could just keep that interest payment.

If your guess is correct, that Everton will be serving principal and interest of ~£15M per annum for 25 years, plus paying a fee of £6-7M to the City, that equates to borrowing at about 6.5%. For an infrastructure project like this, that is rather poor - especially if you have to pay a second tranche of lenders an additional premium for the mezzanine position of £220M.

That's some real financial wizardry right there, an at best mediocre interest rate for part of what you need, while compromising a city's credit rating. Maybe defensible from the city's point of view, as long as it all works out right.

It is sort of striking in all the sources I have read that it is utterly unclear on how the principal is getting paid back.
 

mattyhurst

TIA Regular
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
14,499
Also since the first decision was made the council changed hands, still not sure what role Anderson plays in all this as he isn’t a councillor.

Suppose it’s Brownfield site without any use, the problem is the land Goodson stands on is useless, it’s not like Anfield that backs on to Stanley Park and has over the years wrongly or not used CPOs on housing around the ground. It’s bit like the vetch in Swansea which after several developers came and went ended up becoming a park and allotment. And that had a fair bit of space around. In fact that could have been housing, can’t really see that with Goodisons land.

Effectively it’s got to be more than just the stadium.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
25,869
Also since the first decision was made the council changed hands, still not sure what role Anderson plays in all this as he isn’t a councillor.

Suppose it’s Brownfield site without any use, the problem is the land Goodson stands on is useless, it’s not like Anfield that backs on to Stanley Park and has over the years wrongly or not used CPOs on housing around the ground. It’s bit like the vetch in Swansea which after several developers came and went ended up becoming a park and allotment. And that had a fair bit of space around. In fact that could have been housing, can’t really see that with Goodisons land.

Effectively it’s got to be more than just the stadium.
Not having been there as an adult, I don't quite follow - isn't Goodison about the same distance from Stanley Park as Anfield, separated by not much more than their car park? Is the lesser value/flexibility a function of the fact that the area around the ground is even more built up than Anfield was?