New stadium update...

[carrsim]

Some of you might remember that I've got a mate who works for the architects in Manchester who did the original 'New Anfield' 'stadium in a box' design. You might also recall that in March he gave me some info that they had been sacked and a new firm (HKS) had been appointed to revise the plans (I was told on a Friday night, posted it on the Saturday and it was all over the news on the Monday).

Anyway, I was out drinking with him again last night and he said that his firm had been approached again to build a new 70,000 seater stadium based on the original design, i.e the one that looks like the City of Manchester / Emirates / Reebok / José Alvalade Stadium in Lisbon and lots of other grounds across the world.

So... it looks as though this could link in with the rumours about the fall-out with Tom Hicks and the club struggling to raise the funds for building the new design which is a lot more expensive than the original plans. Apparently the AFL design would cost around £300m including the 'fit out' (i.e. the interior) whereas the HKS design would cost around £180m more without the 'fit out'.

Remember, I'm just passing on what I heard so don't shoot the messenger but he was 100% accurate with his information in March...



From this...



...back to this...



...spot the difference - the José Alvalade Stadium, home of Sporting Lisbon...

thanks mate. guess we'll have to wait and see if W&S get the funding in place correctly

[lucas10]

This takeover saga is classic story of a Leveraged Buy Out. G&H are taking GBP 500 million loan to pay the previous owner(and debts) GBP 200 million and GBP 300 million for the stadium. They have yet to pay a cent for the investment. No bank will give such a loan without collateral. All debt will be put on Liverpool's balance sheet.

For G&H to increase the cash flow to service the loan, they have 4 options.
1. Reduce spending on Stadium (Confirmed by this thread)
2. Reduce spending on Players (Confirmed with the transfer row with Rafa)
3. Issue new shares for another investor
4. Sell to another buyer (This is unlikely for them to give up this golden opportunity to milk Liverpool. They owned the club without spending a single cent.)

H probably did not lie when he announced that he do not wish to sell. But, H did not clarify if they are issue new shares for new investors or simply issue JUNK BOND which can be converted into shares. The lending Bank could hold a significant shares of Liverpool FC if the loan could not be serviced.

So, who should we blame?
1. Chinese, who drive up the steel price
2. Indian, who control the steel supply
3. American for credit squeeze
4. Rick Parry for recommending the deal (perhaps, he privately owned some shares for cutting the deal.)

If you do not understand me, search for Barbarians at the Gate:The Fall of RJR Nabisco. It is the largest Leveraged Buy Out in the history. It is also a movie.

Once you watch the movie, it will not be difficult to understand why Rick Parry is acting as G&H's mouthpiece.

[Red Chilli]

This takeover saga is classic story of a Leveraged Buy Out. G&H are taking GBP 500 million loan to pay the previous owner(and debts) GBP 200 million and GBP 300 million for the stadium. They have yet to pay a cent for the investment. No bank will give such a loan without collateral. All debt will be put on Liverpool's balance sheet.

For G&H to increase the cash flow to service the loan, they have 4 options.
1. Reduce spending on Stadium (Confirmed by this thread)
2. Reduce spending on Players (Confirmed with the transfer row with Rafa)
3. Issue new shares for another investor
4. Sell to another buyer (This is unlikely for them to give up this golden opportunity to milk Liverpool. They owned the club without spending a single cent.)

H probably did not lie when he announced that he do not wish to sell. But, H did not clarify if they are issue new shares for new investors or simply issue JUNK BOND which can be converted into shares. The lending Bank could hold a significant shares of Liverpool FC if the loan could not be serviced.

So, who should we blame?
1. Chinese, who drive up the steel price
2. Indian, who control the steel supply
3. American for credit squeeze
4. Rick Parry for recommending the deal (perhaps, he privately owned some shares for cutting the deal.)

If you do not understand me, search for Barbarians at the Gate:The Fall of RJR Nabisco. It is the largest Leveraged Buy Out in the history. It is also a movie.

Once you watch the movie, it will not be difficult to understand why Rick Parry is acting as G&H's mouthpiece.

Interesting post, I'll do that

[AFII]

There are two rival designs for the stadium not because Hicks favours one and Gillett the other, but because a pair of architect firms, Dallas-based HKS and AFL of Liverpool, were asked for competing designs in the interests of getting the best price.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle2982717.ece

[Red Chilli]

Interesting post, I'll do that

Can't be arsed to buy the ****in book, thought I could read about it onlne :whatever:

[desertscouser]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle2982717.ece

I like that article

[Diego]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle2982717.ece

but how can there be a competition when they came out all guns blazing and introduced our brand new stadium. makes no sense at all. more of a pr kop out to go back to the original plans do to the lack of money...

[bazza76]

I like that article

IT is a ood article alright, one that finally seems to be hitting right home and in some depth on what the problem really is, or what the issues were.
I'd still like to hear more about the stadium issue though.

[Morph]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle2982717.ece

that is the best article i've read in a national in a very long time, must keep an eye out for more stuff from this fella Jonathan Northcroft

[kop-al-74]

"Benitez can walk on,but he must tread more carefully".

Very nice article.

[marcus50bucks]

Good read. What I don't get is every paper has said Rafa wants to make two bosman signings, yet none of the papers have identified who the players are.

[sonsofthedesert]

but how can there be a competition when they came out all guns blazing and introduced our brand new stadium. makes no sense at all. more of a pr kop out to go back to the original plans do to the lack of money...

Couldn't agree more.

[sonsofthedesert]

Perhaps Yozza or Bazza could confirm this but because the original design was already approved and we have since had a 70,000 stadium application granted I reckon it should just mean a variation to the planning consent.

The present app is for 60,000. They are planning a new app at some point, speculated to be once building begins for high 70s.
A new plan like this would mean a new app and going back to the begining and another several month wait.

[dom9]

RS4, I obviously don't doubt what you're saying, but it is puzzling.

I'm sure I read on here ther other day that financing was put in place last week for the stadium (£500M if memory serves).

We have also just got planning permission for the new design, at the original capacity of 60,000 odd.

To go back to the original design but with 70,000 seats would mean yet another new planning application. The 60,000 limit was due to the transport infrastructure around Anfield more than anything else.

The Times article suggests that the 2 sets of architects are competing for the design, but it must be too late for that now. You normally hold a competition at the outset of a process, not when the bulldozers are about to move in.

It's all very confusing.

[Dhav]

Indeed, it does seem very strange timing for a second design to be considered, especially as the HKS design has been revealed publically as the one we are proceeding with. More incompetence from the Americans? I hope not.