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

[TMOI]

I think that most of us would settle for a 60,000 Anfield.

Sadly, the practicalities of such a proposal have never been established.

So you agree, that we would be happier with a 60,000 redevelopment.

[LiamG]

For the time being yes, But what happens when we want to expand even further? These are things the owner needs to look at, If they really really wanted to, United could go to at least 85,000!

[BIGdavalad]

Outside of a few games, would we ever realistically fill any stadium bigger than 65000 - 70000 regularly enough to make it worthwhile going bigger?

[Spongebob Redpants]

Outside of a few games, would we ever realistically fill any stadium bigger than 65000 - 70000 regularly enough to make it worthwhile going bigger?

I think that depends . A few years ago , our ST waiting list was supposedly 55,000 ( think it's been closed for a while as well ) - how many of those would take the ST if offered though is difficult to judge .

Also think pricing would be a major factor . The game today is just too expensive. The bundesliga attendances reflect the ticket prices charged over there , but I just can't see at the moment prices in the Premier League ever dropping to the German levels.

[TMOI]

For the time being yes, But what happens when we want to expand even further? These are things the owner needs to look at, If they really really wanted to, United could go to at least 85,000!

United have put further expansion on indefinite hold because they say "we don't think we will fill it". A redeveloped Anfield could go beyond 60,000 but the point is it may not be worth even going to 60,000 (if we can't fill that). A redevelopment can test the water at each stage without being committed to the potential dead-weight of a 60,000 seat new stadium on day one.

On prices, there is scope for a bigger range of ticket price in a redevelopment because the overall cost is less and the investment in the existing stands is quite small. Indeed there is no reason why anyone would pay a huge amount more for their existing kop seat (unless the unsatisfied demand rises). Adding boxes and hosiptality and easing the capacity to 60,000 (in stages, no rush) will bring in the extra money for the team and lower the unsatisfied demand. It's a delicate balance that needs careful finesse but a new stadium simply slams a huge weight on the club finances at a time of relative hardship.

[Billy1561]

Wouldn't it be good if after the increased capacity (whichever stadium it is) we could get 5000 local kids in at a fiver a go. Most of our arl arses started going the game as kids but now i'm not sure there are many kids going due to cost.

[Spongebob Redpants]

Wouldn't it be good if after the increased capacity (whichever stadium it is) we could get 5000 local kids in at a fiver a go. Most of our arl arses started going the game as kids but now i'm not sure there are many kids going due to cost.

We've already lost a generation of young local support mate. I'd hate to see the crowd at Anfield in 20 years time if it's not addressed.

[Breitner]

Outside of a few games, would we ever realistically fill any stadium bigger than 65000 - 70000 regularly enough to make it worthwhile going bigger?

I don't think we would, no, especially without champions league football. 60 K is more than enough. The real money is in the corporate nonsense anyway.

[paul j]

We built around the old Kemlyn without losing much capacity. We re-built half the Kop in a pre-season and had some of it opened at the begining of the next season, think it was mianly just the back and the roof which was missing at first.

the old kemlyn was built with expansion in mind,so there was no problem about losing seats. another point that has been made is to add a 3rd tier to the cent stand,this is a no go too as i think the main supports for the roof are enclosed in the main structure.

[paul j]

Wouldn't be happy about moving from our home at all, never was.

Imagine digging up the eternal flame or the Shankly Gates? fuck that.

for any really major work involving the annie rd and main stand chances they would have to be taken down and stored anyway.

[uber96]

Re-develop, definately.  I'm not strictly against a new ground, but the thought of it being called anything other than Anfield or Stanley Park knocks me sick.  Couldn't handle our home ground being called something like "The Standard Chartered Arena".

[incredibleL4ever]

Redevelopment is a lovely nostalgic idea, but the limitations imposed by the surrounding roads and houses are a big problem.  Anyway I dont really see much difference between a new stadium at Anfield and a new stadium a few hundred yards away.  Either way it will look and feel totally different.

[incredibleL4ever]

Re-develop, definately.  I'm not strictly against a new ground, but the thought of it being called anything other than Anfield or Stanley Park knocks me sick.  Couldn't handle our home ground being called something like "The Standard Chartered Arena".

Either way the naming rights will be sold.

[The Manhattan Project]

At this point, I don't care what they call it, as long as we end up with something that can hold 60,000 people.

[JohnBarnesBigToe]

No groundshare.


To be honest though, until some plans have been drawn up which show what could be done with a redevelopment of Anfield it’s hard to say. As said below, unless we can realistically get Anfield up to at least 60k, (Personally I always thought the 60k plan for the new stadium was too small) then it has to be a new ground.

[JohnBarnesBigToe]

I don't think we would, no, especially without champions league football. 60 K is more than enough. The real money is in the corporate nonsense anyway.

Wouldn't having a larger capacity allow for cheaper seats to be persevered though and still make additional revenue?

[BIGdavalad]

"I dont really see much difference between a new stadium at Anfield and a new stadium a few hundred yards away.  Either way it will look and feel totally different"

The new stadium will never have seen us beating Inter Milan, St Ettienne, Auxerre, Chelsea, Arsenal, Juventus, Inter again, Barcelona (I know we lost on the night but we won the tie), Olympiakos and all those derby wins and league titles lifted. We never mourned our dead in the new stadium and we never worshipped our greats there either.

I think a lot of people are underestimating how much our history at Anfield means and how naked a new stadium would be without it.

[Billy1561]

"I dont really see much difference between a new stadium at Anfield and a new stadium a few hundred yards away.  Either way it will look and feel totally different"

The new stadium will never have seen us beating Inter Milan, St Ettienne, Auxerre, Chelsea, Arsenal, Juventus, Inter again, Barcelona (I know we lost on the night but we won the tie), Olympiakos and all those derby wins and league titles lifted. We never mourned our dead in the new stadium and we never worshipped our greats there either.

I think a lot of people are underestimating how much our history at Anfield means and how naked a new stadium would be without it.

That's a very good point you have made and behind a lot of peoples thinking for wishing to stay.
Surely the owners (feels ok to say that now  ) would do a feasability study on expected numbers before deciding the capacity required. Then if the restrictions on redeveloping cannot meet those numbers then that's the point where we move to a new big ground unless the numbers are not significantly different and we can suffer a couple of thousand capacity loss for the benefit of staying at Anfield.
Also if we do have to move, then whatever figure is generated capacity wise i hope it's possible to make it bigger than required so that under 16's can get in for say a fiver so that there is no excuse for them not to attend.

I realise the last two paras contradict each other but the second only applies if we have to rebuild.

[Paul]

One thing I hate about these new stadiums is the distance from the pitch to the stands.

I understand these are requirements of new builds, but if we were to do up what we have, would we be bound by these requirements? Or could we keep our pitch as close to the stands as we are now? If so, I think that could be one of the biggest arguments for staying - would keep us in a football stadium rather than an "arena"

[Arcadian]

Anfield.

[uber96]

Either way the naming rights will be sold.

Even if we stayed at Anfield?

[Billy1561]

Even if we stayed at Anfield?

Why not? It's not something I would agree with but one thing NESV are good at is maximizing all financial opportunities and I would be surprised if they didn't look at it.

[payback]

new stadium for me. a big fuckoff shiny 70,000 seater that will make everton fans in the rickety shed even more bitter.

[The Manhattan Project]

The Hicks design looks far too complicated.

We may be better off with an Emirates-style bowl.

Not sure about the planning procedures though.

[Spongebob Redpants]

The Hicks design looks far too complicated.

We may be better off with an Emirates-style bowl.

Not sure about the planning procedures though.

Couldn't think of a worse conclusion than another soulless bowl though. Whether you like the Hicks design or not , at least it had some originallity - I personally like the Hicks design.

[illustrator28]

Couldn't think of a worse conclusion than another soulless bowl though. Whether you like the Hicks design or not , at least it had some originallity - I personally like the Hicks design.

would it not be a perminent reminder of them though?
A new stadium with a small difference in the design or the 2nd  AFL design which was also decent!

[F412OUK]

would it not be a perminent reminder of them though?
A new stadium with a small difference in the design or the 2nd  AFL design which was also decent!

H&G have gone for good, the fact is they didnt build the stadium for us and they had HKS design it, I don't understand why people keep mentioning the stadium beign a constant reminder of them, what does that mean Ian Ayres was employed by Hicks as well, does that mean we should get rid of him as well, cos people will be reminded of Hicks everytime they see Ayres

If the stadium is built it would be built by NESV and with their money, anyone can design a stadium but not everyone can build it. Lets havd NESV take the credit if they build it, and Im sure even if they went for that HKS design their would be some changes made to the design to suit NESV.

Bottom line H&G have gone for good and they also took a massive lost on us financially, thats all I remember of them now

[LiamG]

We could have a better design to be onhest, HKS have no history whatsoever in deisgning soccer stadiuns so i imagine them to have got all the acoustics and so on wrong!

[Spongebob Redpants]

We could have a better design to be onhest, HKS have no history whatsoever in deisgning soccer stadiuns so i imagine them to have got all the acoustics and so on wrong!

HKS have got a strong history in stadium design ( albeit not football ) , the latest of which was the Dallas Cowboys stadium . I also remember at the time that a major part of the remit form Hicks to HKS was to maximise the acoustic qualities of the proposed stadium . Like I say , I don't mind the design , but if it was used as the draft blueprint for the new stadium I'm sure it will be altered to some degree.

[LiamG]

American football and Basketball are a whole different thing to football grounds is the point i was trying to make, In America most things are built to be the biggest,shiniest,impressive not actually the best overall

Anfield is good because its all enclosed, no open corners no glass facades and thats what makes it what it is, The HKS design is the complete opposite, the KOP is way too steep and the ground just looks a miss match

[Spongebob Redpants]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that .

One thing that did impress me about the HKS design was The KOP being the focal point of the stadium . I don't know what the angle of the proposed Kop would be , but is it that much steeper than the Kop we have now ?

If a new stadium is the preferred option , and whatever design we do go with , I'd hope they can keep some originallity to the new Kop.

[LiamG]

Kop Now :


New Kop :

[Spongebob Redpants]

Yep - it look's steeper ! 

There shouldn't be any space restrictions behind the stand though , so don't see why it needs to be that steep . I'm sure the severity of the incline could be designed out.

So , if we were to build a new stadium , would you want the The Kop as an individually unique stand  ? A new stadium without an individual Kop wpould be sacrilege as far as I'm concerned .

[LiamG]

Yes still want the KOP but it dosent have to be so seperate i love the way the KOP now just sits inbetween the main stand and the centanry and is almost like a deep dark monster!

It's that steep because of the amount of seats

[TMOI]

Yes still want the KOP but it dosent have to be so seperate i love the way the KOP now just sits inbetween the main stand and the centanry and is almost like a deep dark monster!

It's that steep because of the amount of seats

Any number of seats can be accommodated at a single rake. But the break caused by the boxes (?) would split the kop and increase the angle behind them.

I think ithose gaps in the corners make it look like a junior league baseball ground and points up HKS lack of knowledge of UK football.

[Spongebob Redpants]

Any number of seats can be accommodated at a single rake. But the break caused by the boxes (?) would split the kop and increase the angle behind them.

I think ithose gaps in the corners make it look like a junior league baseball ground and points up HKS lack of knowledge of UK football.

But weren't the breaks in the corner the initial build proposals , which would subsequently be used to increase the capacity as and when ? . That was my take on it at the time . Agree about the boxes though , splits the Kop and no need for them in the KOP anyway.

[TMOI]

But weren't the breaks in the corner the initial build proposals , which would subsequently be used to increase the capacity as and when ? . That was my take on it at the time . Agree about the boxes though , splits the Kop and no need for them in the KOP anyway.

Strangely no, filling in the corners didn't ever to seem to be the proposal. The idea was to leave one end tiny and then build on to it for the expansion - a very dumb idea. And yes, a split kop is a disaster.

[vorsprungtorbenpieknik]

Any number of seats can be accommodated at a single rake. But the break caused by the boxes (?) would split the kop and increase the angle behind them.

I think ithose gaps in the corners make it look like a junior league baseball ground and points up HKS lack of knowledge of UK football.

They aren't boxes. That is a viewing area for wheelchair using fans. A nice idea actually.

[soxfan]

Why not? It's not something I would agree with but one thing NESV are good at is maximizing all financial opportunities and I would be surprised if they didn't look at it.

Anfield and Fenway Park are very similar history-wise and they have refused to give out naming rights to Fenway. But there are sponsorships plastered all over the inside of it.

[F412OUK]

Well like I said the idea is that NESV take the HKS plan and re-modify it by listening to the fans like they keep saying.

Personally the idea of a very steep Kop is not a bad one, the whole point is that it looks very intimadating to the players on the pitch, they feel as the fans are on top of them, Rafa was talikng about this as well something similar is used in Argentina somewhere, I think it could be Boca Juniors. So personally thats not an issue for me.

But of course I would not like any executive boxes or what ever that gap is in the Kop in the HKS design, it makes me cringe. Full one tier stand kop please.

There's too much space on the corners of the Kop stand, which needs to be worked on for me, it doesn't look right and would drain the atmosphere.

So listen to the fans needs NESV!