Topic: *Poll* Redevelop Anfield or a new stadium ?

[CraigDS]

Yes and Yes.

Which would make each stand roughly 25% bigger for the same capacity (new seats are wider too) and hence proportionately more expensive (and potentially the ticket prices proportionately more expensive).

And the minimum is 700mm but the recommended (for future-proofing) is 800mm.

.

Future proofing as in if people get bigger, rather than regs change as guessing wouldn't have to replace all the seating (or the Kop would be fucked!)?

[Peter McGurk]

Future proofing as in if people get bigger, rather than regs change as guessing wouldn't have to replace all the seating (or the Kop would be fucked!)?

Yes, it's about projecting an increase in the size of people and anticipating a change in the regulations to 800mm to follow the trend (for new seating only). We'll probably end up with armchairs and a pair of slippers each.

As an existing stand, the Kop would be ok. That's regulations for you. They can cover liability and defy common sense at the same time.

.

[CraigDS]

Yes, it's about projecting an increase in the size of people and anticipating a change in the regulations to 800mm to follow the trend (for new seating only). We'll probably end up with armchairs and a pair of slippers each.

As an existing stand, the Kop would be ok. That's regulations for you. They can cover liability and defy common sense at the same time.

.

Out of interest what are the sizes of the Kop currently? Presuming these are the smallest in the ground at the moment from my experience.

[Peter McGurk]

Out of interest what are the sizes of the Kop currently? Presuming these are the smallest in the ground at the moment from my experience.

I keep meaning to take a tape measure in, but it would be about 600mm I imagine.

.

[The Lord Admiral]

Bolton has four distinct stands and is nothing like the Emirates:



What people pick up on is the eliptical plan and swept edge of the upper tier. That's to do with optimum viewing distances.

It still feels like being in a cow shed. It horribly characterless. The Emirates is pretty stunning from the outside and the facilities are great as well. IT just lacks a bit of soul. Has more than Wembley though, I think it's a better stadium. I've not been to 'The Stadium of Light' so can't really comment. The Ethiad is souless as well.

I bet most football fans of my age would prefer St James or, and I've spat as I type this, Old Trafford. They've kept that old feeling of a football ground whilst modernising.

I really hope we go down that route. With the right backing from the Council, there's pretty much no limit to what you could do with Anfield, but still keep it like an old school football stadium. 
 

[Alan_X]

I keep meaning to take a tape measure in, but it would be about 600mm I imagine.

.

Haha - I've thought about doing that myself. Would be interesting to see what comments you'd get in the 'atmosphere' thread - 'never mind taking videos to upload on Youtube, there was some quilt measuring the Kop!'

[Peter McGurk]

Haha - I've thought about doing that myself. Would be interesting to see what comments you'd get in the 'atmosphere' thread - 'never mind taking videos to upload on Youtube, there was some quilt measuring the Kop!'

I clearly had that in the back of my mind every time I 'forgot' 

So I took the view it's enough to know the capacity, the angle(s), the plan area, the opinions on views (notably in the 300s), the 'occupation certificate'...

[ultimatewarrior]

The steepness of the rake has no lessening effect on distance. Rather it is the depth of each row that creates the distance (and the distance from the first row to the pitch). Modern stadium regulations are pushing this depth further all the time to account for a 'bigger' population - so 'narrower rows' are not allowed.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the rake affecting the distance.

You seem to be applying that narrower rows than Wembley are not allowed, when in fact they are allowed. If the minimum is 700mm so build to that reg if it provides better views and is not cramped. San Siro is about 750mm . I'm 190cm and that was plenty spacious.

Maybe i shouldnt have called them premium seats. I meant more expensive seats that certain folk can afford but not extortionate.

[Peter McGurk]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the rake affecting the distance.

You seem to be applying that narrower rows than Wembley are not allowed, when in fact they are allowed. If the minimum is 700mm so build to that reg if it provides better views and is not cramped. San Siro is about 750mm . I'm 190cm and that was plenty spacious.

Maybe i shouldnt have called them premium seats. I meant more expensive seats that certain folk can afford but not extortionate.

Just to be clear what we're talking about. See that the distance doesn't change with increase of rake but the quality of the view does:


distance by Peter McGurk, on Flickr

As I said, some of the Wembley rows are deeper than the minimum (they are 800mm, some more). So in some cases, narrower rows than that are allowed (but still no less than 700mm).

Personal height is not the full story. Weight (and seat width) affects legroom more. The combination of distance, depth and row height dictates the quality of view (the 'c-value') - not row depth on its own.

.

[ultimatewarrior]

Just to be clear what we're talking about. See that the distance doesn't change with increase of rake but the quality of the view does:


distance by Peter McGurk, on Flickr

As I said, some of the Wembley rows are deeper than the minimum (they are 800mm, some more). So in some cases, narrower rows than that are allowed (but still no less than 700mm).

Personal height is not the full story. Weight (and seat width) affects legroom more. The combination of distance, depth and row height dictates the quality of view (the 'c-value') - not row depth on its own.

.

Yes even a simple mesurement will show you that the steeper rake is further from the focal point than the shallower one. The difference is not massive over 20 rows but nevertheless it still effects the distance.
I was sayin we should build the stands at 700mm no less. By doing this you pull the crowed closer to the pitch. I dont know for sure but I'd say there are around 80 rows of seating at Wembley so in theory this could pull the fruthest seats 8m closer to the opposite corner flag.
My general point being that even with todays regs its still possible to build a stadium that can be intimidating and have great views.

[Peter McGurk]

Yes even a simple mesurement will show you that the steeper rake is further from the focal point than the shallower one. The difference is not massive over 20 rows but nevertheless it still effects the distance.
I was sayin we should build the stands at 700mm no less. By doing this you pull the crowed closer to the pitch. I dont know for sure but I'd say there are around 80 rows of seating at Wembley so in theory this could pull the fruthest seats 8m closer to the opposite corner flag.
My general point being that even with todays regs its still possible to build a stadium that can be intimidating and have great views.

The relevant 'distance' is the purely horizontal one shown. The inclined distance has no effect at all on 'shrinking' the stadium to fit within a given envelope. That part is all about row depth (and it's secondary effect on height)

Even working at the minimum 700mm produces low angled tiers to achieve minimum c-values. If you go up without a break at a given steep angle, you will run out of c-value before you reach capacity unless the stadium is quite small. The 'ideal' overall rake is a parabola gradually getting steeper towards the back. That would be very expensive but most modern stadia approximate it as separate, straight rakes that get increasingly steep.

The calculation of c-value accounts for the depth and height of the rows and the rake of the stand. Worse, the introduction of boxes or an executive tier, has the effect of lowering the angle of the lower tier in that calculation and diminishing the views there, as well as lessening the 'steep sided' and intimidatory effect of both the seats closest to the pitch and indeed in the upper tier.

The Emirates is a precise case in point. Wembley 'cheats' by pulling tiers forward to overhang the tiers below. This adds height (and cost) again but does produce a steeper looking bowl (it actually isn't). All you need is money (and start further away from the pitch - more cost, less 'in your face')

.

[Alan_X]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the rake affecting the distance.

Err no - you're just wrong. Or rather you're right a steeper rake means you add height to horizontal distance so a steeper rake means you're further away.

[ultimatewarrior]

Err no - you're just wrong. Or rather you're right a steeper rake means you add height to horizontal distance so a steeper rake means you're further away.

Thats what I said, so err ,i'm not wrong.

[Peter McGurk]

The steepness of the rake has no lessening effect on distance.

Is correct

...but, with steep stands and narrower rows its possible to build a stadium that holds the same as Wembley and still not exceed the max distance.

Is incorrect. The steepness of the stands has no lessening effect on distance (in fact and as you point out it increases the actual distance slightly)

.

[ultimatewarrior]

Is correct

Is incorrect. The steepness of the stands has no lessening effect on distance (in fact and as you point out it increases the actual distance slightly)

.

Right ok that actually reads different to how I meant it. Apologies.

If the rows are narrower  it allows more rows (extra seating) to be built within the max distance. Its then possible to increase the rake to achieve better C values and a more intimidating presence.

[Peter McGurk]

Right ok that actually reads different to how I meant it. Apologies.

If the rows are narrower  it allows more rows (extra seating) to be built within the max distance. Its then possible to increase the rake to achieve better C values and a more intimidating presence.

Well here's the thing. I don't know but could be there's a complete string of seating at Wembley from front to back that is at the minimum of 700mm ie., it might not be made tighter. Be that as it may, it's well possible to get 60k-65k within the maximum viewing distance in a modern stadium but as I said the lower tiers must be lower than maximum angle for the guys at the back to see. The c-value standards are higher for reasons of safety and this produces a laid back stadium. And a ring of silence/ executive tier makes that worse.

***

If you want the best (ie., steepest, most intimidating) you can do in a modern stadium, you need to nuke glass fronted boxes that have a view over the pitch and the executive tier all together and starting as close to the pitch as UEFA and the rest of the c-value calculation will allow, have two or three tiers that get progressive steeper and most closely approximate a parabola with the lowest tier at the steepest angle you can manage whilst still allowing the top tier to be steeper but still within 34 degrees and make up the lost revenue with premium seats positioned within the optimum viewing circle that are wider (not deeper) than standard seats with direct access to a really plush hospitality suite(s) immediately behind them and under the tier - a bit like the Bobby Moore Club at Wembley without the glass façade or, just redevelop where most of that geometry is already built in!

.

[ultimatewarrior]

.


If you want the best (ie., steepest, most intimidating) you can do in a modern stadium, you need to nuke glass fronted boxes that have a view over the pitch and the executive tier all together and starting as close to the pitch as UEFA and the rest of the c-value calculation will allow, have two or three tiers that get progressive steeper and most closely approximate a parabola with the lowest tier at the steepest angle you can manage whilst still allowing the top tier to be steeper but still within 34 degrees and make up the lost revenue with premium seats positioned within the optimum viewing circle that are wider (not deeper) than standard seats with direct access to a really plush hospitality suite(s) immediately behind them and under the tier - a bit like the Bobby Moore Club at Wembley without the glass façade or, just redevelop where most of that geometry is already built in!

.

This paragraph is exactly what I had in mind  . I have to say personally i prefer stadia with straight stands not curved. Having 4 straight stands and joining the corners seems to be cheaper and the likes of the millenium stadium , Westfalen and Allianz arena all being excellent football grounds.

[Peter McGurk]

This paragraph is exactly what I had in mind  . I have to say personally i prefer stadia with straight stands not curved. Having 4 straight stands and joining the corners seems to be cheaper and the likes of the millenium stadium , Westfalen and Allianz arena all being excellent football grounds.

So FSG need to be convinced to dump the modern UK standard stadium model and go back to building (extending) football grounds.

.

[ultimatewarrior]

So FSG need to be convinced to dump the modern UK standard stadium model and go back to building (extending) football grounds.

.

Who said such a thing? I know I said i had a prsonal preferene for straight stands , I wasnt trying to convince anyone to build anything. Do Millenium and Allianz not fit within that model anyway?

[The Lord Admiral]

From a poster on Est 1892. 'FSG are non too impressed with the plans for extension drawn up by AFL, and are appointing London architects to re-do them'.

He also posted this article up here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17977841

I still think that if they aren't already, these owners desperately need to listen to the fans on the Stadium. Am worried they're going to make things worse with the crowd, not better. 

[Easy]

From a poster on Est 1892. 'FSG are non too impressed with the plans for extension drawn up by AFL, and are appointing London architects to re-do them'.

He also posted this article up here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17977841

I still think that if they aren't already, these owners desperately need to listen to the fans on the Stadium. Am worried they're going to make things worse with the crowd, not better. 

So if they've only just decided this after 18 months with LFC then I'd have to question their speed of thought if nothing else. We won't have a decision for a long while yet if this is how they work.

[Easy]

Ok. I went to est 1892 to read it for myself. This is what else the poster said (he's an architect).

"Without saying too much I know AFL very well.... I have many contacts there

The design work has been ongoing for many many years (10+)..... LFC has always been seen as a bit of a cash cow for them - glad they're finally getting a reality check

I think their expansion plans of an extra tier to the anfield rd end & potentially partially rebuilding the main stand for additional boxes & seating were a bit half hearted as they were pushing for the new stadium - much bigger fees.....

Problem is the main stand is built of shitty concrete so you can't just add to it; you'd have to go through it to new piles underneath & by the time you've done that, built the new facilities, seats & roof you'd have been better off knocking it down & starting from scratch

Their new stadium designs are terrible too; the Parrybowl is 12 years old & the one they submitted to compete with the HKS was another cookie cutter design with 'The Kop' super graphic on one end

Say what you want about the Hicks design but at least it was bold & ambitious - the fact that it was too expensive is another matter - the way the industry works is to aim high then value engineer the hell out of the design to an affordable level then screw the contractor down to building it at that price

Either way I'll be pleased to see the club moving away from AFL"

[The Lord Admiral]

Totally agree with you. What in god's name have they been doing for 18 months?

They are well off if they think you can dither in football on anything. Am pleased that they are looking at the redevelopment option, but must say I'm concerned at the pace they work.

[Tepid water]

I'd take that with a pinch (or more likely a mountainous sized lump) of salt

[Shanks1965]

What was the owners last official statement on either developing Anfield or building a new stadium?

[Zeb]

Last official comment directly by owners was August last year from Werner wasn't it? Or you could point to accounts (signed by auditors in mid-November) where they say they're still exploring options. Otherwise it's snippets from Henry in February via an interview with David Conn link, or what Ayre has said last week.

[Shanks1965]

Last official comment directly by owners was August last year from Werner wasn't it? Or you could point to accounts (signed by auditors in mid-November) where they say they're still exploring options. Otherwise it's snippets from Henry in February via an interview with David Conn link, or what Ayre has said last week.

Considering it was something of a priority of theirs when they took over their silence on the matter is somewhat deafening.

[CraigDS]

Extra tier on Anny Rd End... Yeah right. Not really that feasible especially given how crap views are anyway from bottom tier.

Amd also doesn't seem to make any sense for anyone to even consider just 'updating' the main given the roof needs the supports removing for starts let alone adding boxes etc will drastically reduce the capacity anyway.

[The Lord Admiral]

I'd take that with a pinch (or more likely a mountainous sized lump) of salt

I can't be sure, but that site had the AFL stuff and the Hicks stuff well ahead of anywhere else. It might not have been the same poster though so not sure.

What worries me is it sounds like what I've seen so far, in that they are dithering, they've not got the right people, and they are taking far too long. Same pattern with Hodgson and Commoli.

[CraigDS]

Given AFL have been involved in LOTS of UK stadiums (new and expansions) and that includes Anfield, it's hardly a surprise they went with them initially.

[gorgepir]

On one I hand I understand that they are new to this and they are just now beginning to settle down and realize what to do.

On the other hand, we are falling further and further behind other clubs and no longer have the financial clout to compete.

As the days go by, the second feeling gets stronger and stronger.

[aerorossi29]

On one I hand I understand that they are new to this and they are just now beginning to settle down and realize what to do.

On the other hand, we are falling further and further behind other clubs and no longer have the financial clout to compete.

As the days go by, the second feeling gets stronger and stronger.

No offence mate but what a shocking post that is. You have no reason to come to that conclusion to be honest and im amazed that people like you want what could amount to one of the biggest decisions in our history to be made in what is a relatively short time in their tenure.

Whilst i would love nothing more than some announcement to be made regards a new stadium or upgrade of Anfield, i am comfortable that the reason it hasn't been done is because all avenues are being looked at properly and thoroughly and a mistake in doing their homework on this could be disasterous for us a club moving forward.

[The Lord Admiral]

No offence mate but what a shocking post that is. You have no reason to come to that conclusion to be honest and im amazed that people like you want what could amount to one of the biggest decisions in our history to be made in what is a relatively short time in their tenure.

Whilst i would love nothing more than some announcement to be made regards a new stadium or upgrade of Anfield, i am comfortable that the reason it hasn't been done is because all avenues are being looked at properly and thoroughly and a mistake in doing their homework on this could be disasterous for us a club moving forward.

What makes you think they are doing what's best for the club and not what's cheapest for them but with the maximum profit?

I'm not convinced yet, and the secrecy from the fans is unnerving. There should be  a few fans involved with this process. If we end up with a soulless bowl aimed at corporates, we're done in my view, it'll kill a lot of what is special about us. It's absolutely critical they get this right I agree. But they'll have to know the city and listen to the local fans to get that right in my view.

[gorgepir]

No offence mate but what a shocking post that is. You have no reason to come to that conclusion to be honest and im amazed that people like you want what could amount to one of the biggest decisions in our history to be made in what is a relatively short time in their tenure.

Whilst i would love nothing more than some announcement to be made regards a new stadium or upgrade of Anfield, i am comfortable that the reason it hasn't been done is because all avenues are being looked at properly and thoroughly and a mistake in doing their homework on this could be disasterous for us a club moving forward.

I really wish I had your optimism. I don't have that much optimism anymore, and 18 months to make a decision between 1. Redeveloping Anfield, 2. New stadium with HKS design, 3. New stadium with AFL design 4. Nothing, is not a short time. It is not a short at all.


I would be really really happy when (if) I am proven wrong.

[wiresnreds]

What makes you think they are doing what's best for the club and not what's cheapest for them but with the maximum profit?

I'm not convinced yet, and the secrecy from the fans is unnerving. There should be  a few fans involved with this process. If we end up with a soulless bowl aimed at corporates, we're done in my view, it'll kill a lot of what is special about us. It's absolutely critical they get this right I agree. But they'll have to know the city and listen to the local fans to get that right in my view.

Isnt that the part we hated about the H&G regime, the fact they would spout their shite for any bit of publicity ? I for one am glad they are not rushing a decision and talking to every media outlet over their pie in the sky dreams.

[The Lord Admiral]

Isnt that the part we hated about the H&G regime, the fact they would spout their shite for any bit of publicity ? I for one am glad they are not rushing a decision and talking to every media outlet over their pie in the sky dreams.

I'm not suggesting that - I think there should be some kind of fans committee that are working on stadium issue, by all means under a confi agreement. Like the once they have already that Sheila Coleman sits on for general club matters.  They may well be doing something like that already and consulting, but I haven't seen anything anywhere.

[aerorossi29]

What makes you think they are doing what's best for the club and not what's cheapest for them but with the maximum profit?

I'm not convinced yet, and the secrecy from the fans is unnerving. There should be  a few fans involved with this process. If we end up with a soulless bowl aimed at corporates, we're done in my view, it'll kill a lot of what is special about us. It's absolutely critical they get this right I agree. But they'll have to know the city and listen to the local fans to get that right in my view.

You may well be right. I, however, believe that they will do what is right for the club going forward. I wouldnt like the souless bowl as much as the next person, but looking at it from a financial and competetive point of view, if that is what we end up with then i can live with that, grudgingly.

Of course they will want to do it for as cheap as possible with maximum profit, they are businessmen, but i am prepared to think that at this moment in time they are just being thorough and will do what is best for the club going forward, both off and on the pitch. It is a huge decision to decide what to do for best and whatever they decide will cause upset amongst some fans.

As a fan, i would love to know every minute detail regarding whats happening about everything to do with the club, but it is clear that FSG will not work this way and imo it is for the best. Sometimes it is better that we find info out when it is time to be released into public domain. Cannot see how having a fans committee would work on the ground issue to be honest, the owners will, rightly do what they think is correct, for the future of the club. Yes, we all have our preferences, but these may not be practical. I think so long as there is no ground share, we, as fans should be ok with whatever else they decide. I am prepared to trust them to make right decision, until i have reason not to trust them. I am actually glad they are not making promises every month on the ground issue, that for me would be a lot more concerning.

[Alan_X]

I'm not suggesting that - I think there should be some kind of fans committee that are working on stadium issue, by all means under a confi agreement.

If they were working under a confidentiality agreement how would you know?

[nottsgriff]

I think we all were pleased when they didn't over-promise, and said they'd take their time on decisions relating to a new stadium. 18 months is starting to take the piss though, if the funding for a new stadium really was a minimum criterion as stated by Martin Broughton when he sold to them. I'm just hoping that the delay was for the mayoral election, or for the council to re-plan the re-development of Anfield if we're staying and redeveloping what we've got. The longer it goes on, the longer the smell gets a bit whiffy. This is going to be a massive summer for the club, and if we've not signed a couple of top class players, and made a decision on the stadium one way or the other, by September 1st then it's only natural to start to question the owners' intentions.

[The Lord Admiral]

If they were working under a confidentiality agreement how would you know?

You could announce they were talking to fans. It'd be the content that was confidential.


Smart arse!