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

[BIGdavalad]

Redevelop first, second and third choice.

Move if we really have to.

Stay in today's Anfield before we ever share with them.

[danwms]

Redevelop anfield every time.

[gazzalfc]

Heart says re-develop

Head says we need to move on.

We lose £1 million+ per game compared to the mancs and arsenal. So imagine how much we would lose if we had to reduce the capacity of Anfield while re-development gets done.

Would you risk losing your season ticket because there aren't enough seats?

The ticket allocation system is screwed up as it is. would you trust the club to handle allocating 10,000-20,000 seats instead of 44,000?

Its time to move on

[Vulmea]

Heart says re-develop

Head says we need to move on.

We lose £1 million+ per game compared to the mancs and arsenal. So imagine how much we would lose if we had to reduce the capacity of Anfield while re-development gets done.

Would you risk losing your season ticket because there aren't enough seats?

The ticket allocation system is screwed up as it is. would you trust the club to handle allocating 10,000-20,000 seats instead of 44,000?

Its time to move on

you dont reduce capacity under 40k and the season ticket holders would be protected

next non-issue

the issues are whether 60k would be enough without the possibility of further extension
whether we'd be happy with a category 2 pitch
whether the corporate facilities could be suitably upgraded
whether the anfield area would still be regenerated
whether Everton would then use the Stanley Park site

grounshare take away the emotion and ask whether a big english club can share a stadium with a massive global club and if so how that relationship works.

new stadium - can liverpool afford it and be successful on the pitch?

[Passmaster Molby]

If it was viable to redevelop Anfield to a 60-65k stadium then I would be all for that. However, all the evidence points to that being a struggle, therefore I voted for a new stadium, ideally 60k initially as I still think we would struggle to get many more than that.

[gazzalfc]

you dont reduce capacity under 40k and the season ticket holders would be protected

So you are saying that development of the stadium that adds 20,000 seats can be done by only in effect removing 4,000 seats over the course of a season. Sorry but your living in a dream world if you think thats possible.

Now if your comparing our possible redevelopment to that of old Trafford then they did theres by filling the corners of the ground in effect creating a bowl. Would the Anfield faithful want a bowl stadium to be made out Anfield? If you are going down that route then why not have the Stanley park stadium?

So if we are going to keep the 4 sided rectangle stadium then you have to build up. Now its never going to get done in the close season. So your going to have to remove the roof sections of the stadium while you try to build up. That is going to involve major work. A loss of way more than 4,000 seats.

Now if your still going on about expanding anfield the the club are going to have to do some major sweet talking to the people who still have houses around the stadium. Most haven't given them up in the last 10-20 years. What makes you think they are going to move on now?

Then theres planning permission. You think traffic around the current Anfield is bad on a matchday? Think how bad it'll be when you add another 20,000 fans. Where do you allocate the extra space for cars, buses, trains, people? So you have to go back to the council with another feasibility study to account for this.

I'm just trying to be realistic here. We have planning permission on the table for a brand new stadium. We have major European and government grants just waiting to be spent on the new stadium and redeveloping the land that the old Anfield currently stands that will hugely benefit the area.

We have to let go if we want to stay a world class club. You can have the best stadium in the world but if you dont have the right fans to fill it it'll still be a library. We've made our home in plenty of stadiums over the years (millennium stadium, the ataturk). Why cant we do that to a new home?

[El Ninos Black Eye]

Found this through Google, don't no if there genuine or if someone has done themselves.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.anfield-online.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/anfield2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php%3Fp%3D65018861&usg=__F1B-FaNpK92Pr4EJb-IcWovBkLs=&h=345&w=580&sz=35&hl=en&start=17&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=NMr4yG22bEfM8M:&tbnh=80&tbnw=134&prev=/images%3Fq%3Danfield%2Bredevelopment%2Bplans%2Bpictures%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26tbs%3Disch:1

Surely it would be cheaper to redevlop Anfield. I'm no builder but  we can knock down the Main Stand and rebuild it like the Kemlyn is now. Most of the houses behind the Main Stand are now empty so there should be no issue there.
Possibly even put another tier on the Annie Road, if the council want to keep access to the road, then build over it like United have with on of there stands. This would easily give us anothe 15-20thou seat and a load more boxes in the main stand.

[El Ninos Black Eye]

So you are saying that development of the stadium that adds 20,000 seats can be done by only in effect removing 4,000 seats over the course of a season. Sorry but your living in a dream world if you think thats possible.

Now if your comparing our possible redevelopment to that of old Trafford then they did theres by filling the corners of the ground in effect creating a bowl. Would the Anfield faithful want a bowl stadium to be made out Anfield? If you are going down that route then why not have the Stanley park stadium?

So if we are going to keep the 4 sided rectangle stadium then you have to build up. Now its never going to get done in the close season. So your going to have to remove the roof sections of the stadium while you try to build up. That is going to involve major work. A loss of way more than 4,000 seats.

Now if your still going on about expanding anfield the the club are going to have to do some major sweet talking to the people who still have houses around the stadium. Most haven't given them up in the last 10-20 years. What makes you think they are going to move on now?

Then theres planning permission. You think traffic around the current Anfield is bad on a matchday? Think how bad it'll be when you add another 20,000 fans. Where do you allocate the extra space for cars, buses, trains, people?

I'm just trying to be realistic here. We have planning permission on the table for a brand new stadium. We have major European and government grants just waiting to be spent on the new stadium and redeveloping the land that the old Anfield currently stands that will hugely benefit the area.

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.

[gazzalfc]

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.

Not disputing that. But this is a much bigger redevelopment project than back then. There are too many obstacles in the way of going down this road even if you were to offset the price and the pleasure it would give to the fans to stay at Anfield

[firing squad]

Not disputing that. But this is a much bigger redevelopment project than back then. There are too many obstacles in the way of going down this road even if you were to offset the price and the pleasure it would give to the fans to stay at Anfield

according to Well Red:
 

land behind the Main Stand and Anfield Road enclosure would be used to increase the club's capacity to a minimum of 60 000 with no distruption of the current model....

    According to McGurk,the building process would be carried out in stages with the current structure unaffected during the playing season.

McGurk is an architect wo was asked about his opinion.

[LiamG]

Sorry but i just cant see them re-developing anfield without affecting attendances during the season, The Main stand needs demolishing and re-building

[gazzalfc]

McGurk is an architect wo was asked about his opinion.

ok even if you could minimise (or eliminate as put above) the loss of seats there are still too many issues left

No planning permission - need to go back to the council and the government. So that'll be another feasibility study, blueprint works, design and engineering work etc. More time, more money.

The loss of the Walton Breck area redevelopment project. Loss of money, loss of jobs, loss of long term future improvement.

Increased demand on transport networks - like I said before. getting to the match is a nightmare enough as it is. Imagine adding 20,000 more people to an already struggling road and rail network

No possibility of future development - once we hit that 60,000 that'll be it. We wont be able to go further than that.

[Alan_X]

Found this through Google, don't no if there genuine or if someone has done themselves.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.anfield-online.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/anfield2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php%3Fp%3D65018861&usg=__F1B-FaNpK92Pr4EJb-IcWovBkLs=&h=345&w=580&sz=35&hl=en&start=17&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=NMr4yG22bEfM8M:&tbnh=80&tbnw=134&prev=/images%3Fq%3Danfield%2Bredevelopment%2Bplans%2Bpictures%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26tbs%3Disch:1

Surely it would be cheaper to redevlop Anfield. I'm no builder but  we can knock down the Main Stand and rebuild it like the Kemlyn is now. Most of the houses behind the Main Stand are now empty so there should be no issue there.
Possibly even put another tier on the Annie Road, if the council want to keep access to the road, then build over it like United have with on of there stands. This would easily give us anothe 15-20thou seat and a load more boxes in the main stand.

I was hoping to get something up this weekend but have been working (still working now!). That's the 55,000 AFL proposal the club looked at and decided it wasn't viable.

By the way if you knocked the Main Stand and built it to match the Kemlyn you'd reduce the capacity by a few hundred. The main Stand is very hold and the seat pitch is much smaller than would be allowed now. Another tier on the Anfield Road stand would give around 4-5000 unless you started from scratch. It needs a new tier on the Kemlyn and demolition and rebuilding of the Main and Anfield Road stands to get anywhere near 60,000.

[Aitken Drum]

foreverred1983 writes: Sure the money would be great for naming rights and all that malarkey but staying at Anfield would be something you could not put a price on. 

The new owners are going to have to do their homework before they decide anything. Certainly consideration of local opinion will be a priority and relations with the city council will need consideration. In Boston, John Henry et al initially were set on new park, but they refurbished the old one due to public opinion and the difficulty in finding an appropriate new site. The transformed Fenway creatively maintained most of the old structure  while increasing capacity by about 10%.  In the case of naming rights, they've never considered it for Fenway Park out of respect for tradition. The local hockey team, the Boston Bruins, built a new arena replacing the venerable and venerated Boston Garden and sold naming rights to Fleet Bank which called it The Fleetcenter.  Bruins' supporters mourned the passing of the "Garden".  However, TD Bank later acquired the naming rights and renamed the arena "TD Garden" which fans found more satisfactory.  Couldn't a similar solution be found for Anfield?  Would it be considered sacrilege for a refurbished Anfield to be named --"Sponsor's name here" Anfield?  The new owners in any case are going to have a steep learning curve to meet LFC expectations, even after the departure of H&G Pillaging Ltd. 

[Niru Red4ever]

I think this is where football is going wrong. People are being sucked into the notion that money is more important than history and tradition.

Sure the money would be great for naming rights and all that malarkey but staying at Anfield would be something you could not put a price on. Sentimentalty is been eroded by people who see sport as a business and supporters as customers. People over the last few years just concentrated on dollar signs rather than what was in front of them. David Moores would be the perfect example of this. Shit the whole of the western world went crazy in a sea of money for a while.

For me staying at Anfield even if it wasnt redeveloped would be the best option. Arsenal have their shiny new stadium and they are making more money than us from every match. But the atmosphere is shit according to a gooner i know who goes to every game and who regulalarly complains about supporters leaving with 10 minutes to go in games and who moan constantly.

If all we talked about was how much money could we generate  then i guarantee that Liverpool would not be the club it is today. Liverpool was built on playing good football for the people. Nowadays its "do we have money to compete with Man City?". My answer is who cares? City will have it good for a while but they have no soul. I would rather we played for the history and tradition of the club than sell ourselves for a quick buck.

Hear hear

It has been discussed to death; but it seems getting space around Anfield is not a problem; though roads may have to be moved (if thats even possible)

[Vulmea]

So you are saying that development of the stadium that adds 20,000 seats can be done by only in effect removing 4,000 seats over the course of a season. Sorry but your living in a dream world if you think thats possible.

Now if your comparing our possible redevelopment to that of old Trafford then they did theres by filling the corners of the ground in effect creating a bowl. Would the Anfield faithful want a bowl stadium to be made out Anfield? If you are going down that route then why not have the Stanley park stadium?

So if we are going to keep the 4 sided rectangle stadium then you have to build up. Now its never going to get done in the close season. So your going to have to remove the roof sections of the stadium while you try to build up. That is going to involve major work. A loss of way more than 4,000 seats.

Now if your still going on about expanding anfield the the club are going to have to do some major sweet talking to the people who still have houses around the stadium. Most haven't given them up in the last 10-20 years. What makes you think they are going to move on now?

Then theres planning permission. You think traffic around the current Anfield is bad on a matchday? Think how bad it'll be when you add another 20,000 fans. Where do you allocate the extra space for cars, buses, trains, people? So you have to go back to the council with another feasibility study to account for this.

I'm just trying to be realistic here. We have planning permission on the table for a brand new stadium. We have major European and government grants just waiting to be spent on the new stadium and redeveloping the land that the old Anfield currently stands that will hugely benefit the area.

We have to let go if we want to stay a world class club. You can have the best stadium in the world but if you dont have the right fans to fill it it'll still be a library. We've made our home in plenty of stadiums over the years (millennium stadium, the ataturk). Why cant we do that to a new home?

gazza you seem to be confusing me with somebody who is pro redevelopment - I'm not
I've just been reading the different blurb on it all and putting it together to try and distinguish what is smake and waht are genuine real problems (Matt on TIA has a decent blog on teh subject of how the redevelopment would be implemented to ensure 40K attendance - raise the cemetry which gives you an extra 4k over the summer, then the main stand which you start at the same time but clearly wont finish in a summer, complete that so you capacity goes up again and then the anfield road end).

If you've ever been in the Kemlyn/Main stand its a hole and not just because its full of 80 year old moaning gits, who can't raise a chant, the pillars, the seats, the set up behind the stands everything is
pants - i've nearly gibbed tickets just because they were in the main stand - so even if we stayed put and didn't raise the capacity that stand should be replaced regardless. To a lesser degree the Anfield Road 'experience' aint great either.

One argument against redevelopment has been the impact on match day revenue - I just dont think it is an issue if the redevelopment is done correctly - the other stuff you raise is spot on though

if we go for 60K it just an extra 15,000 not 20?

there are clearly other issues  on redevelopment - if we redevelop what happens to the promises to those guys?

If we redevelop to 60,000 the infrastructure around the stadium will still need to be improved - there wont be some fancy underground car park either

Ok we may have the land needed to build but do we have the right to build given the impact a 100 foot stand would have on the surrounding area - double whammy if there is no redevelopment.

If this goes back to the planning stage and it would have to if we switch to redvelopment then all of the groundshare debate has to be had again and despite what both sets of fans think I'm not sure how that would be resolved.

[readybreck]

Would love to stay, but the regeneration of the area should still progress.

[TMOI]

Would love to stay, but the regeneration of the area should still progress.

Absolutely essential.

[MikeD]

Anyone know what the current pitch (degrees) is for the main stand, wondering if a double decker can be built with over hanging tiers (similar to the old north bank). Could it be done in the same footprint/height?

A row of boxes could be at paddock level.

[Vintage Nerd]

From a local perspective i would rather the ground redeveloped.

I know the former keeper of stanley park and head of "the friends of stanley park" association, he seems to think that a viable option looked at by liverpool would be to "spin" the ground around, hence why the few streets around anfield were all bought by the club. I dont know how much truth is in this like.

I would prefer a redevelopment as Stanley Park is a massive part of North Liverpool and one of the only few "green" spaces left for the public, so if its viable i`d definately go for that option.

[BIGdavalad]

I know the former keeper of stanley park and head of "the friends of stanley park" association, he seems to think that a viable option looked at by liverpool would be to "spin" the ground around, hence why the few streets around anfield were all bought by the club. I dont know how much truth is in this like.

Surely that would be almost as expensive as a new stadium? You'd need to demolish the Main Stand and the Centenary and extend the Kop and the Annie Road by a fair amount too. Plus all the revenue you'd lose from having your entire stadium as a building site for a couple of years.

[alfonso]

I was hoping to get something up this weekend but have been working (still working now!). That's the 55,000 AFL proposal the club looked at and decided it wasn't viable.

By the way if you knocked the Main Stand and built it to match the Kemlyn you'd reduce the capacity by a few hundred. The main Stand is very hold and the seat pitch is much smaller than would be allowed now. Another tier on the Anfield Road stand would give around 4-5000 unless you started from scratch. It needs a new tier on the Kemlyn and demolition and rebuilding of the Main and Anfield Road stands to get anywhere near 60,000.

I think the anfield road end would have to be bulldozed and rebuilt. The space behind would allow for a huge stand bigger than the kop (with an Athlectico Madrid type road way unless we could move the road).

The Main stand would also have to be bulldozed for a modern stand with exec boxes. And an extra tier on the kemlyn.

[blah]

ideally, I would love for them to add 20,000 more seats to Anfield but this may be a pipe dream. I just hope that they choose the option that makes the most financial sense without shafting the fans.

[selas]

Can we look at this differently.

Crazy Idea 1 : Lower the Pitch. We demolish Main Stand and Anny Road end and then lower the pitch 10 metres.  Most know we cant go higher (light restriction) but no reason why we cant we go lower.  We can then reposition the new main Stand and new Anny end further back to fit in another 5-10 new rows at the bottom all the way round.

Crazy idea 2 : Do a Ryanair. Redesign the two new stands for young slim chaps only - not fat ba*tards so we can squeeze in as many seats in as poss. Make kemlyn seats bigger for the fat ba*tards and execuitives (make them pay extra £££ like ryaanir does)  and add even add a third tier if poss. if you cant afford a big seat go on a diet.

Crazy ideas for crazy times ...but what do the architects think - do any of these "ideas" have any legs ?

If not what other crazy idea can other people think of to get the exec £££ rolling in on match day and to get the attendance up to 60000+ without shafting the real fans.

[RJH]

Can we look at this differently.

Crazy Idea 1 : Lower the Pitch. We demolish Main Stand and Anny Road end and then lower the pitch 10 metres.  Most know we cant go higher (light restriction) but no reason why we cant we go lower.  We can then reposition the new main Stand and new Anny end further back to fit in another 5-10 new rows at the bottom all the way round.

Crazy idea 2 : Do a Ryanair. Redesign the two new stands for young slim chaps only - not fat ba*tards so we can squeeze in as many seats in as poss. Make kemlyn seats bigger for the fat ba*tards and execuitives (make them pay extra £££ like ryaanir does)  and add even add a third tier if poss. if you cant afford a big seat go on a diet.

Crazy ideas for crazy times ...but what do the architects think - do any of these "ideas" have any legs ?

If not what other crazy idea can other people think of to get the exec £££ rolling in on match day and to get the attendance up to 60000+ without shafting the real fans.

If you lowered the pitch by 10 metres, you'd have to rebuild all the stands, otherwise people near the front of the Kop and Centenary wouldn't be able to see half the pitch.

[Roy of the rovers]

Must be more than 60,000...

[Cleveland_Red]

Redevelop for sure.  NESV did a great job updating the historic Fenway Park and excited to see what is in store for Anfield!

[LiamG]

Redevelop for sure.  NESV did a great job updating the historic Fenway Park and excited to see what is in store for Anfield!

Yeah but they also put ticket prices up

[Xabisfeet]

Redevelop if 60,000+   If a new build then the skies the limit for me.  Why not 100,000?  New train station, substantial park and ride, club buses from town.  Would be full for 20 matches a year and would keep prices down.  For WBA / Wolves etc, offer 20000 child tickets for a fiver.  If we want to be the most successful club in the country we have to generate the most revenue

[conman]

redevelop

[alfonso]

The council talked about regeneration in the area. Well if Anfield is developed then the club could also help with regenerating the area.
What were the original plans for as well as the stadium? A hotel? A shopping centre? New housing? These could still be built.
And wasn't there talk of a new rail link? They could still do this.

[Alan_X]

Redevelop if 60,000+   If a new build then the skies the limit for me.  Why not 100,000?  New train station, substantial park and ride, club buses from town.  Would be full for 20 matches a year and would keep prices down.  For WBA / Wolves etc, offer 20000 child tickets for a fiver.  If we want to be the most successful club in the country we have to generate the most revenue

100,000?... where would they come from? You wouldn't need a new station and a bit of park and ride, you'd need a new link road off the M62 as well.

Apart from that you'd be looking at filling it maybe once or twice a year. Fuck me Wembley's only 90,000.

[xerxes1]

but it seems getting space around Anfield is not a problem; though roads may have to be moved (if thats even possible)

So is it a problem, or isnt it?

[Spongebob Redpants]

So is it a problem, or isnt it?

Would only be Anfield Road though would it not - Not the busiest thoroughfare though is it ?

Would think that if the redevelopment of Anfield was a viable option , partial road closure wouldn't be the biggest obstacle in the grand scheme of things .

[davenorthwales]

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.

1991-92 didn't cause any problems as the main feature was built over the existing kemlyn road and didn't affect match day attendance at all.

work started immediately after the 1993-94 season ended on the kop grandstand.. as most people know, it was a restricted capacity to start with, the roof was on by october, and give all credit, the kop was more or less finished in december 2004.

it was a different kettle of fish with the anfield road stand.  the same thing if the main stand was redeveloped

[davenorthwales]

if liverpool had a 100,000 capacity, i'm sure it could be possible....on the basis if ticket prices were slashed to around £20 a game 

[davenorthwales]

100,000?... where would they come from? You wouldn't need a new station and a bit of park and ride, you'd need a new link road off the M62 as well.

that's another posing question to any increase in capacity, even if it was the full 70k at a new stadium..

just exactly where are these "new" people coming from? the only people who will know is the club via the season ticket waiting list and that is not much to go on as  only a quarter of that list will become available in season ticket sales, and that would mean just for one season at least - who knows if they will renew it the following season or two?

we all know what the traffic is like after the match whichever direction, whether queens drive or scotland road, breck road or any other road.

maybe a 100k at really affordable prices would bring back the people who have been priced out of the game i.e locals .. then again, most people have been priced out of the game whether local or not so it maybe back to square one..

the only definate way to tell is if the club itself did a complete analysis... since the 90s, a lot of people travel by car compared to the attendances in the 70s. as far a rail link, would an extra 20k be a strain on lime st should a new stadium go for 70k or higher?

70k is a significant amount, as all the debates will be brought back, will it fill? what would it be like for a match with a half filled ground? and so on...

it is obvious a few thousand ticket applications get returned every home game.. if it was the same people getting returns every time, that will be an indication of just how many would like to go to the game but cannot get a ticket..

if 5k get turned down per home match, how many of them are one offs? how many off these turned down applications are once a month visitors? how many are once in every two months or three?

if 100% of returns are every home gamers and 10k get returned every game, it is obvious 10k is added on to the existing capacity plus 10k form the season ticket waiting list, so a 65k stadium is going to be required, as long as it has been taken into account the sustainabilty of future fans dropping out for whatever reason.
assuming 5k get returned rather than 10k, 60k stadium has always been more realistic than the 70k.
60k stadium means ticket prices would be similar to what they are now.. or 70k runs the risk of the same income levels.

realistically, a 56,000 capacity is just about right.. and if anfield can be pushed up to this figure, then go for it... without pricing out any more supporters in the future, and they can start doing this by scrapping this extra £6 hike for this season category A games and put them back to an acceptable level.
it's always going to problematic, too many people have been priced out of the game.. ordinary supporters. the people who made the game as it is.. once they are gone, they are gone. and it is disheartening to see the people stuggle to get to the games. even a local cannot afford to go to home games.

in the 1980's, if someone was on the dole, it was hard then, or on a low income, many could go to a game.
if someone is on the dole now or a low income, it is impossible..  football is supposed to be for everyone - not any more....not anymore

[Jake]

I'd love to redevelop Anfield and would sacrifice a couple of thousand seats to do so, but if it came about that a new stadium could hold 60-65k and a redeveloped Anfield would be 52-55k then I'd probably sadly be happier in the long run with the larger new one.

The main issue for me is getting to Liverpool anyways.

[TMOI]

I'd love to redevelop Anfield and would sacrifice a couple of thousand seats to do so, but if it came about that a new stadium could hold 60-65k and a redeveloped Anfield would be 52-55k then I'd probably sadly be happier in the long run with the larger new one.

The main issue for me is getting to Liverpool anyways.

And if a redeveloped Anfield was 60,000 minimum?

[xerxes1]

And if a redeveloped Anfield was 60,000 minimum?

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

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