Anfield Expansion - Main Stand and potential Anfield Road End

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
433
Likes
618
Whole area behind the goal standing during the Celtic Rangers game, not just the specified 'safe standing area' which illustrates my point.
 

lfc.8

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
2,133
Likes
928
Could Anfield railway station solve Liverpool FC's planning problems?

MP says station near stadium would help solve congestion problems.

The problems surrounding Liverpool's future plans for Anfield could potentially be solved by a new train station in the area.

That is the view of the area's Member of Parliament Dan Carden, who was commenting after the shock decision of the city council's planning committee this week to block the Reds' hopes of hosting other major sporting events including boxing bouts and American Football matches at its famous ground.

Another decision on whether Anfield could play host to major music concerts was deferred - with the club told in no uncertain terms that it would have to offer far more to local residents for the plans to get the green light.

The planning committee was convinced by passionate accounts from people living close to Anfield on issues such as parking, noise and anti-social behaviour - as well as a stated poor level of consultation from the club - that the plans in their current format should not go ahead.

The club has been told to work with partners to come up with more solutions for local people - and Mr Carden believes a new train station in the area could solve a number of problems.

The idea of an Anfield station is mentioned in Merseytravel's latest Long-Term Rail Strategy , published last year.

And the idea of a station for Liverpol FC was floated in the 2000s when the club was still considering moving to a new Stanley Park stadium.

Mr Carden said: "Liverpool FC's plans for Anfield must involve the local community and recognise their concerns.

"Local residents suffer problems including parking, congestion and air quality, and want the club to take these issues seriously.

"It’s time to look at a new railway station in Anfield, as proposed in Merseytravel's Long Term Rail Strategy."

Mr Carden added: "North Liverpool is poorly served by the insufficient public transport links. Currently, neither of our two Premier League football clubs have suitable rail services.

"If LFC is serious about expanding the capacity and use of the stadium, they should be part of that conversation and helping to bring the new railway station forward as part of their plans."

Any Anfield station would most likely be on the Bootle branch line, which branches off at Wavertree and runs through Walton and Anfield towards Bootle. It's currently used for freight services to and from the Port of Liverpool, but not by passenger services.

Merseyrail's Long Term Rail Strategy lists many potential future rail projects . They include electrification of the Bootle branch to allow passenger services to run to Lime Street.

But the report offers a note of caution over the Anfield plans. It suggests work on the branch line plan is unlikely to start until 2022.

It also ranks potential new stations according to how well their business case performed and on whether they are short or long-term projects.

Anfield is listed as a "long-term scheme" that "performed less well".

In 2008, the Liverpool Daily Post reported that Liverpool FC, Merseytravel and Liverpool council were considering three possible sites for a station to serve the proposed Stanley Park stadium: Utting Avenue, near The Clarence pub, Stanley Park Avenue, near Anfield Cemetery, and Pinehurst Avenue, near its junction with Townsend Lane/Avenue (near Clubmoor Playing Fields).

A Merseytravel spokesperson said: "A railway station serving the Anfield area remains a long term aspiration and is included within our Long Term Rail Strategy.

"However, there are many issues to be resolved, not least understanding how rail freight growth from the expanded Port of Liverpool could impact on capacity on the Bootle Branch Line – the route where a potential Anfield station could be located.

"It would be necessary to develop a business case, secure funding and understand the scale of the project required to deliver a potential station.”

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/business/could-anfield-railway-station-solve-15094740
 

Simon Jones

Cut my veins open and I bleed Liverpool red
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Messages
76
Likes
75
Is that possible for railways to new train station on Goodies stadium in the future when Everton move to new one? Telling that to them! lol
 

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
433
Likes
618
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
18,393
Likes
30,597
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
433
Likes
618
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
9,805
Likes
19,265
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
433
Likes
618
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
9,805
Likes
19,265
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.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,585
Likes
4,796
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
3,603
Likes
6,569
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
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
2,721
Likes
2,765
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/spo...iverpool-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
433
Likes
618
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/spo...iverpool-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/footbal...um-move-will-not-take-place-2023-24-earliest/
 

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
433
Likes
618
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.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,585
Likes
4,796
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/footbal...um-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.”
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
20,028
Likes
22,134
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/spo...iverpool-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
333
Likes
48
Maybe an unnecessary question but are there some drawnings to see how the ARE stand maybe is gonna look like after expanding it??
 



Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
5,920
Likes
701
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
433
Likes
618
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.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,585
Likes
4,796
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
18,393
Likes
30,597
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/spo...iverpool-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.
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
1,585
Likes
4,796
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?