• Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Liverpool Council and NESV

Status
Not open for further replies.
davek

davek

Player Valuation: £150m
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-11618005

I like what I'm reading and hearing from Joe Anderson on the stadium issue on Stanley Park. He wont be pissed about in the way Bradley's regime was by football club owners. I reckon this NESV lot are going to have to [Poor language removed] or get off the pot very soon.

Listening to Anderson on the radio today he makes it clear that a refurb of Anfield (stadium) wont be the way forward for LFC, as the council simply wont allow them the physical space to turn it into a 60,000+ stadium. It cant and wont go back on that assurance to residents. I seriously believe that a shared stadium in the park could be in the offing here if the ownership structure is acceptable to both clubs. They (NESV) are not in the business of splashing out on speculative projects. They've already indicated today that there'll be little cash for new players in the short term. This lot are going concentrate on squeezing matchday attendance and they'll pour all resources into that area and wait (and hope) for onfield success.

I think it's about to get very interesting.
 
davek said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-11618005

I like what I'm reading and hearing from Joe Anderson on the stadium issue on Stanley Park. He wont be pissed about in the way Bradley's regime was by football club owners. I reckon this NESV lot are going to have to [Poor language removed] or get off the pot very soon.

Listening to Anderson on the radio today he makes it clear that a refurb of Anfield (stadium) wont be the way forward for LFC, as the council simply wont allow them the physical space to turn it into a 60,000+ stadium. It cant and wont go back on that assurance to residents. I seriously believe that a shared stadium in the park could be in the offing here if the ownership structure is acceptable to both clubs. They (NESV) are not in the business of splashing out on speculative projects. They've already indicated today that there'll be little cash for new players in the short term. This lot are going concentrate on squeezing matchday attendance and they'll pour all resources into that area and wait (and hope) for onfield success.

I think it's about to get very interesting.
Click to expand...

Is that your opinion or Joe Anderson's?
 
teppic said:
Is that your opinion or Joe Anderson's?
Click to expand...

Mine. But Anderson has said both yesterday and today that talks have included this option.

Tbh, it's all down to what plans NESV have for a stadium in the park because they wont get their apparently preferred option of an Anfield upgrade. That's going to weigh in at a thumping £400M plus the cost of regenerating the district. I'll bet that's almost certainly no-go for this lot and they'll be looking to other parties to weigh in. Naming rights wont do the trick, IMO. Alternately, they could scrap their existing plans and build a shed on the park like the Reebok and cut capacity. Not an option I wouldn't have thought.
 
A shared stadium would probably be the council's wet dream, but I cant really see Kenwrong going for it unless they come up with a deal that sees us getting all the matchday takings for our games, a half share (or third share, assuming that the council comes in as a third partner) in the ground itself and a sizeable share (50% or 33% as above) of the non-football (concerts, naming rights etc) earnings, which NESV are hardly likely to offer unless the council comes in as well (either with cash, or with cash and in exchange for Goodison and Anfield), or they really dont want to spend that much money on their own ground or upgrading the tin mine.

There is quite a lot of financial sense in having a shared ground though, especially if the capacity is north of 70,000 and the deal is right (as described above)..... but then this is old news, and not really about financial sense.
 

tsubaki said:
A shared stadium would probably be the council's wet dream, but I cant really see Kenwrong going for it unless they come up with a deal that sees us getting all the matchday takings for our games, a half share (or third share, assuming that the council comes in as a third partner) in the ground itself and a sizeable share (50% or 33% as above) of the non-football (concerts, naming rights etc) earnings, which NESV are hardly likely to offer unless the council comes in as well (either with cash, or with cash and in exchange for Goodison and Anfield), or they really dont want to spend that much money on their own ground or upgrading the tin mine.

There is quite a lot of financial sense in having a shared ground though, especially if the capacity is north of 70,000 and the deal is right (as described above)..... but then this is old news, and not really about financial sense.
Click to expand...

I agree, the tribalism question would be a block on proceedings. But this lot (NESV) have some scope to maneouvre where forcing through unpopular decisions are concerned. If it was presented as a fait accompli they - with their helpers in the local media - would shove it down the throats of their support. As for our side: our board has to listen to any such offer because it has no stadium strategy of its own and I doubt too many supporters would protest long and hard over a shared stadium.

For the time being, and reading between the lines, I can see a strategy of NESVs where they try and pressure LCC to tear up their objections to increasing Anfield's capacity to 60,000+, but that they wont succeed and then will have to bite the bullet on the stadium in the park. I'd love to see them take that on under their own steam with no municipal element or Everton involvement and pacify the Kopites with close to zero team rebuilding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top