I'd like to see a plan to get our own stadium in the region for the women's team (doesn't need to be lavish initially). Wasn't their talk of Melwood?
Everton have got theirs in Walton Hall Park. City have theirs at their Academy. Chelsea have theirs at Kingston.
I guess it all comes down to what the ultimate end game is here. If we want to theorise that, one day, women's football attracts weekly crowds big enough to justify calling Anfield a feasible permanent home, then everything between now and then is a temporary bridge. Somewhere like St Helens should suffice for that, there isn't really any need to drop millions building what already exists. The money would be better spent on putting together a squad that wins trophies and that people want to watch play in person. If we do this, and we get to the point where we are filling St Helens every week, and people become invested enough to want to be in the stadium when they can't actually get in, then when we finally move to Anfield and 2-3 times as many tickets suddenly become available, you've already cultivated the die-hard fan base who will take maximum advantage.
If the ultimate end game here is not to one day have the women's team playing every match at Anfield, then building a home with the right postcode is much more worthwhile.
The club are playing the long game with the women's training ground. They have recognised that, while it would be possible to put the women's team at Kirkby today (with a little rejigging), the women's team of tomorrow will need a facility that can house a developed academy of their own. I would guess the club's preference to commit to a 10-year lease of someone else's stadium as opposed to building our own is the club playing the long game on a stadium also. At the very least it's the club keeping alive the possibility that Anfield is the future home.
