I find the estimates for a redeveloped Anfield - and come to that a new stadium - quite staggering and totally over the top. I had reason to visit Bilbao in the Basque country a couple of years ago and visited the old San Mames stadium and discussed the building of the new national stadium to replace it.
Athletic Bilbao have built a brand new 53,332 capacity stadium from scratch adjacent to the old at a total reported cost of £186m paid for by the regional government. The old ground was tremendous a real football stadium but AB did not wallow in nostalgia they looked at the numbers and moved forward.
I too have studied the figures for new build v redevelopment and whilst I cannot be bothered to once again go into the minutia I would go new build every day of the week.
Basic info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Mamés_Stadium_(2013)
The stadium is not 53,000. It will be if or when they build the final quarter of it. As it's not complete I wold reserve judgement on the final out-turn cost of the stadium.
Also need to compare like with like - that is essentially the Parrybowl that was so disliked by many. A simple and fairly basic scheme.
Does the 181 million Euros include all associated costs? Taxes, sign team fees, other consultants, land acquisition costs, all fit out costs etc? What is the difference in the spec for that stadium (publicly funded, council owned stadium) compared to the requirements of a high return, corporate friendly a Premier League, UEFA/FIFA top category ground?
I haven't bothered looking at the figures because There are just too many variables for it to be meaningful. But one point I'd challenge is the loss of season ticket revenue for the main stand and Anfield Road for a refurbishment. I walked around the ground on Saturday with a friend from a previous architectural firm and we talked about the possibilities for development. There is no real reason to close or demolish the Main Stand and the Lower Anfield Road at least could be retained.
The Main Stand could be kept and a new tier built over the top with a new cantilevered roof in the same way the Upper Centenary was built over the old Kemlyn Road stand. There is a benefit in keeping the Main Stand as it has a high capacity for its size. It contains 12,200 in a smaller envelope than the Centenary with a capacity 500 less. There would be minimal if any loss of revenue. Personally I'd demolish the Upper Anfield Road tier and build out a new tier over the road. The other area for additional seating would be the corners where new premium seats could be added as for the final phase of the Westfalenstadion.
Major work could be carried out during the closed season and other disruptive work carried out between games. There are 25-35 home games a season depending on cup runs and mid week games are not during work hours.
The benefit is that by phasing - Main Stand one year, Anfield Road the next, there is an income stream from the first phase while the next is under construction. A new build means no income until construction is complete and the stadium is fitted out and commissioned.
Of course that's also all said with no detailed knowledge of the feasibility studies and business studies that have been carried out.
Also the 65,000 seater stadium would kick in additional travel and infrastructure costs.
Also can we try and keep this civil?
