Some responses on the BBC site
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/hi/english/sports_talk/newsid_1993000/1993272.stm Friday, 17 May, 2002, 10:48 GMT 11:48 UK
Should Liverpool move from Anfield?
Liverpool have unveiled plans to build a new 55,000 all-seater stadium at Stanley Park.
Are the Reds right to go for greater capacity at the expense of tradition?
Anfield has been the home of Liverpool Football Club since 1892, and fans hold its history and traditions dear.
But the current capacity of 45,000 - over 20,000 less than Old Trafford - is insufficient to meet demand, and club chiefs are keen to expand.
And a move to a state-of-the-art stadium would cement Liverpool's status in the Premiership's elite.
Despite opposition from local residents, the board are determined to have the new stadium, which would still be called Anfield, ready for the 2005 season.
Is a move the way forward for Liverpool?
Should any football club be thinking of expanding in the present unsettled financial climate that the whole of football is experiencing? Why don't the Premiership donate some of their millions to the struggling lower leagues and save the sport, not better themselves.
Sarah Parnell, England
I have been a Liverpool fan most of my life and feel that Anfield is a great stadium. However, anyone who went to Anfield before 1989 and then didn't go until 2002 would probably not recognise the place.
Therefore, why should we continue to build onto the current stadium when it bears no resemblance to the original Anfield. We need to move to expand.
Gareth Jones, Germany
They should be honest and say they are not interested in the extra 10,000 fans who will get into the new ground, but all the extra space they would have for corporate sponsors and exec boxes etc.
Losing all the heritage of Anfield for little benefit for the average real fans is not on. Stay at Anfield.
Keith, UK
I fully agree that Liverpool need to move to a new stadium in order to fulfil their fan base potential. However, I think the new stadium plans are slight short-sighted in adding only 10,000 to their current capacity. With Everton about to unveil plans for a £125m new stadium, it would make a lot of sense to join forces and build a major new stadium on Merseyside. After all, the two giants in Milan achieved it.
David Uden, UK
Building an entire new stadium just to increase capacity by 10,000 is a poor, poor decision, and shows a chronic lack of ambition and confidence. This is the one chance Liverpool have to set their stall out for the next 50 years... why on earth have they not gone for the 70,000 seater option?
Rick Parry says that it would be too much of a financial millstone - nonsense. If there's one team in the country that could fill a large stadium for every game, it's Liverpool. Mr Parry, you have made an extremely bad decision.
Andy, UK
LFC have needed serious alterations to their stadium for a while now with Anfield looking tired with too many restricted view seats. With the massive disruption caused by expanding a ground while a team still playing there being immense, I agree that the best option is to move.
It will be a loss to leave the heritage of Anfield behind, but how much of this heritage is instilled in the stadium itself? Surely what makes a ground is the team and the fans and the atmosphere they create, more than anything else.
I do feel that the disruption caused by moving seems a big price to pay for only a 10,000 seat increase in capacity. The new stadium capacity will be Ok for now, but what if demand increases further in ten years time and the club feel then that they are missing out on potential revenue?
Does modern stadia design allow modular additions in the future or will we have to build a new ground and move then?
With the plan for LFC involving being in the Champions League year-in year-out, surely the club could fill more than 55,000 on such occasions. Although 55,000 is the optimum capacity for the ground now, are the club showing a lack of ambition for the future?
Sam Kipling, England
