Topic: New stadium when we get new owners?

[TMOI]

So why did the club want to move?

You'd have to ask them but it was reported that they felt a new stadium was necessary to "take the club to the next level"

So the club hasn't got a lease yet? Thought a boundary wall had been made.

Not sure of the status of the lease but I imagine they needed some form of possession or permission to put the fence up and 'make a start'

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

There have been several schemes - at least one on here, and the club itself had a scheme which was dropped in favour of a new stadium.

None of the re-development schemes can get us to 60,000 seats, unless there is a new big stand built over the Anfield Rd ...

[LiamG]

It gets its atmosphere from being completely enclosed and the fans who sit in it.

Exacly

[TMOI]

None of the re-development schemes can get us to 60,000 seats, unless there is a new big stand built over the Anfield Rd ...

Even 55,000 seats now is better than 60,000 never

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

Even 55,000 seats now is better than 60,000 never

I don't know if it is possible, but it would have to look something like this ...

[TMOI]

I don't know if it is possible, but it would have to look something like this ...

It certainly can be done but for the moment, how it's done is probably less important than why it's done.

Why build a brand new stadium of 60,000 seats when you could get more out of adding 15,000 seats to what you've got already? Cheaper, and more money for football. Why pay more than £40 a game to pay to build a new stadium when the money could go to the team instead?

[LiamG]

Re-developing Anfield isnt an option my eyes, We need the new Stadium, The new facilitites etc

[Niru Red4ever]

Re-developing Anfield isnt an option my eyes, We need the new Stadium, The new facilitites etc

What about a new stadium at Anfield; if space permits?

[LiamG]

It wouldnt work, Theres not enough room

[Paddock77]

It wouldnt work, Theres not enough room

I would disagree with this. There is room around Anfield it just depends on the will of others (including Liverpool CC) as to whether they would be prepared to support a redevelopment scheme.

[TMOI]

Re-developing Anfield isnt an option my eyes, We need the new Stadium, The new facilitites etc

Why do we need a new stadium? Particularly when it will cost more to build; cost more to go to the match and there will be less left over for investing in the team

[Alan_X]

I would disagree with this. There is room around Anfield it just depends on the will of others (including Liverpool CC) as to whether they would be prepared to support a redevelopment scheme.

If you built a new 44,000 seated stadium to modern standards on the existing site it would almost certainly be much larger than the existing ground.  The area around Anfield would probably be taken up just to stand still. The benefit of redeveloping is that you could keep large parts of the ground like the Kop and Centenary.

I don't think there would be any objection from the council. Redeveloping Anfield ticks far more planning boxes than the Stanley Park proposals.

[TMOI]

I don't think there would be any objection from the council. Redeveloping Anfield ticks far more planning boxes than the Stanley Park proposals.

The park can be completely returned to its original condition. The Walton Breck Road, the housing and community regeneration could all go ahead. The Anfield Plaza could happen either side of the road behind the kop. Less to borrow, less to pay....

[wah00ey]

The irony is that Herzog de Meuron, the architects for the Allianz were inspired by Anfield.  The directors are Basle fans - and understood that the atmosphere at Anfield doesn't come from all the stands being different or it being "unique". It gets its atmosphere from being completely enclosed and the fans who sit in it.


No fucking glass walls - just four stands round the pitch.

and the proximity of those fans to the pitch....

[TMOI]

and the proximity of those fans to the pitch....

Note there's a minimum of 8m behind the goals to meet European competition standards

[LiamG]

Note there's a minimum of 8m behind the goals to meet European competition standards

Yep, We will get that no matter what stadium design we get, I guess its how the stands stand towards the pitch that could create a good intimidating atmosphere

[tyrolean_red]

If there is any chance to extend Anfield I'd vote for it!! I never was there as I live in Austria, but if it's for sure a new stadium will be built I'll get my last penny together to be part of this ground for once in my live.

Imagine Anfield extend to 60.000 

[LiamG]

Do you mean Norman Foster?... You're right - he hadn't designed a football stadium before which is why he brought in HOK Sport to work on the Wembley project. I think he should have left it to them - what we got was an over-priced joke of a stadium. It looks like shit on the outside - big glass facades (a bit like the side elevations of HKS design for Anfield) make it look like a corporate headquarters, a pointless arch and an overcomplicated roof that still doesn't allow the grass to grow.

Over-budget, delayed and over-specced in the wrong places. I love Norman's work but that was certainly not one of his best.

Sorry to bring this up Alan but have you ever been to the new Wembley? It may be an overpriced joke of a stadium but inside i think the facilities are top notch! Theres not a bad view in the place and plenty of food and drink outlets and also the most toilets in a stadium in the world??

I love most of all HOK's Designs (Now populous) so it kinda dosent make sense that our Club didnt even approach them about designing our new stadium

[wah00ey]

Note there's a minimum of 8m behind the goals to meet European competition standards

Allianz looks OK - that must be 8m.  Whilst I'd prefer 8cm, as long as we build and angle the stands as close to the pitch as regs. allow.

[wah00ey]

Went to OT on Sunday and sat in the West Stand.  With as unbiased a hat on as is possible, I was quite impressed.  However, it's nowehere near as good as Anfield, other than the extra 30k it seats, because of the shitey South stand that makes the whole place look and feel uneven and wrong, kind of like Anfield did before the 2nd tier was added to the Kemlyn Road.  With regard to my previous post, the Allianz was much more impressive and made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when it was empty, something Anfield does whenever I go and something that didn't happen at OT, even with a full crowd.

I like the fact that the pitch at the Allianz is lower than the ground around it, something I think is planned for the new Anfield.  I also think it important for there to be symetry of the size of the stands - they can be of different designs but if one is dramatically smaller than the others then it just looks incomplete (and probably lets much of the sound leak out!!!!!).

[paul j]

i caught a little bit of news on citytalk today and it said something about the council are going to tell the club that they want to see work start on the new ground in 12 months or they will look to pull the planning permission.it also said joe anderson wants to meet the clubs board for urgent talks.

[silver 5 star]

"Bluenose Joe Anderson in Advocating Groundshare Shocker".




FUCK GROUNDSHARE.

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

FUCK GROUNDSHARE.

I know that our local fan-base would never accept the idea of a ground share, but from financial point of view it makes a lot of sense, especially if the Liverpool City Council is willing to invest into the necessary infrastructure for a 70-80,000 seats stadium ...

[Alan_X]

i caught a little bit of news on citytalk today and it said something about the council are going to tell the club that they want to see work start on the new ground in 12 months or they will look to pull the planning permission.it also said joe anderson wants to meet the clubs board for urgent talks.

 The council have no legal basis to 'pull' anything. The planning consent lasts three years and I guess that's what they are talking about.

[xerxes1]

The council have no legal basis to 'pull' anything. The planning consent lasts three years and I guess that's what they are talking about.

Correct. Even if it lapses a new application would not be a problem.

Of greater interest is the cack handed way the whole thing has been handled.

The details of the existing PP are a public document and may be inspected by anyone visiting the Planning Departments offices. The summary sheet is here, online, but the full document can be inspected in person:

http://northgate.liverpool.gov.uk/PlanningExplorerAA/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning Applications On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=725796&XSLT=/PlanningExplorerAA/SiteFiles/Skins/Liverpool_M3/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning Application Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/PlanningExplorerAA/SiteFiles/Skins/Liverpool_M3/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING

I am not aware of the details of the conditions on the existing PP, or whether they have been complied with, I doubt it, so technically, it is not “oven ready”.

The original 60,000 seater  plan has not been re-costed now for almost three years. Before commencing  work, ANY owner would need a new estimate of construction costs which itself is likely to take some months.

The 70,000 seater was never costed. A redeveloped Anfield was never costed ( my personal view is that the economics of a new 60,000 seater and a redeveloped Anfield are much close than you might think). That was grossly irresponsible in my view. Furthermore neither Everton nor ourselves have ever conducted a feasibility review of the practical and financial implications of Groundshare. Although I am instinctively against Groundshare, the case for and against probably needs to be laid bare. It is the “Elephant in the Room” which will return so long as both clubs remain in situ, the requirements of new stadia become more pressing, and finances deteriorate.

[paul j]

The council have no legal basis to 'pull' anything. The planning consent lasts three years and I guess that's what they are talking about.

but if i remember right the club haven't signed the paperwork to lease the park were the stadium is to be built.

[keano7]

but if i remember right the club haven't signed the paperwork to lease the park were the stadium is to be built.

There's so many ifs and buts at the moment but building work on a new stadium doesn't seem anywhere near likely over the next 3-5 years. There's no feasable way that both clubs could have new grounds as there's simply not enough free land so one club would have to redevelop their own ground in my eyes. If we did build our new ground using that lease on Stanley Park, the car park next to it will have to be redeveloped and that leaves 1,000+ cars with less space to park on matchday for both Liverpool & Everton.

[LiamG]

Surely if they were to groundshare the ground would be on stanley park, knock goodison down and there your car park!

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

Surely if they were to groundshare the ground would be on stanley park, knock goodison down and there your car park!

It is actually pretty easy to envision where the ground-share stadium would be ...

[Lolo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't part of the cost of building a new stadium to be paid by some kind of European development grant which had a time limit attached to it?
If my fading memory is correct, has this time limit now expired and with it the cash (wasn't a HUGE figure but i'm sure it was £20m or £30M or something similar).

[LiamG]

You are right about the grant, but im not sure when it expires by!

[Lolo]

HKS design......HOK design.....Parry bowl......or whatever else, I'd sooner see the Reds walking out onto the pitch of ANY of them at this moment in time with 60K fans noise behind them to being in this state of limbo.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't object to a stadium similar to the Millemium stadium in Cardiff.

What is it.....70K+ capacity....specifically designed to create a good atmospheare.....seats close to the pitch. Just make the KOP end taller and the 'AWAY' end shallower and the jobs done. I know it's a bit 'bowlish', but it's a definite '4-stand' layout with filled in corners.

[Alan_X]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't part of the cost of building a new stadium to be paid by some kind of European development grant which had a time limit attached to it?
If my fading memory is correct, has this time limit now expired and with it the cash (wasn't a HUGE figure but i'm sure it was £20m or £30M or something similar).

It wasn't for the stadium itself which would be paid fro by the club - it was for associated works in the area.

[Lolo]

It wasn't for the stadium itself which would be paid fro by the club - it was for associated works in the area.

......but all part of the overall budget...or something to do with the planning approval? I'm sure there was a link there somewhere.

[Alf]

I think the issue of redeveloping Anfield or moving to a new stadium needs to be revisited when the ownership situation is resolved. SOS indicated on Saturday that a new stadium wouldn't cost anywhere near £500 million. My preference is to remain at Anfield.

[LiamG]

HKS design......HOK design.....Parry bowl......or whatever else, I'd sooner see the Reds walking out onto the pitch of ANY of them at this moment in time with 60K fans noise behind them to being in this state of limbo.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't object to a stadium similar to the Millemium stadium in Cardiff.

What is it.....70K+ capacity....specifically designed to create a good atmospheare.....seats close to the pitch. Just make the KOP end taller and the 'AWAY' end shallower and the jobs done. I know it's a bit 'bowlish', but it's a definite '4-stand' layout with filled in corners.

HOKsport (Now populous) designed the millenium stadium

[Jack Slater]

Does anyone know for sure (and/or have a link) what the situation is with the land at present.

As I understood it, the plan was for a long lease from the Council.

Is there anything binding in place at present, though?   Eg does LFC have an option, or does it have any other kind of enforceable agreement to ensure that the Council must grant the lease?

Do we know anything about the terms of the lease?  Eg rent, assignability (is that even a word?), restrictions on use, etc?  Is the lease to LFC, or another company?  There is something called Arena Ltd, or whatever, isnt there, which I dont think is trading yet

Cheers

[xerxes1]

Does anyone know for sure (and/or have a link) what the situation is with the land at present.

As I understood it, the plan was for a long lease from the Council.

Is there anything binding in place at present, though?   Eg does LFC have an option, or does it have any other kind of enforceable agreement to ensure that the Council must grant the lease?

Do we know anything about the terms of the lease?  Eg rent, assignability (is that even a word?), restrictions on use, etc?  Is the lease to LFC, or another company?  There is something called Arena Ltd, or whatever, isnt there, which I dont think is trading yet

Cheers

This is the link to the pp:
http://northgate.liverpool.gov.uk/PlanningExplorerAA/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning Applications On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=725796&XSLT=/PlanningExplorerAA/SiteFiles/Skins/Liverpool_M3/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning Application Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=/PlanningExplorerAA/SiteFiles/Skins/Liverpool_M3/Menus/PL.xml&DAURI=PLANNING
I did go to the planning office to inspect the full consent a couple of years ago.

 The lease is contingent on that pp being fulfilled.That deals with your second para.

I don't have the time to go back to answer the detail , but the answers are there

[Jack Slater]

The lease is contingent on that pp being fulfilled.That deals with your second para.

Thanks for the link. 

You mean that LFC has a legally binding agreement with the Council that the Council will grant a lease over the land as soon as LFC confirms it is going to build something in accordance with that planning permission?

And that you've seen documents which specify that?

I'm obviously more than happy to take your word for it.  But have you seen it announced/published anywhere officially?

[xerxes1]

Thanks for the link. 

You mean that LFC has a legally binding agreement with the Council that the Council will grant a lease over the land as soon as LFC confirms it is going to build something in accordance with that planning permission?

And that you've seen documents which specify that?

I'm obviously more than happy to take your word for it.  But have you seen it announced/published anywhere officially?

In the full papers ( which are available for anyone to see, and interpret) the Council undertakes to grant a lease upon implentation of the PP. That is in writing.

I cannot remember the length of the lease, nor any rent details.