Topic: Liverpool confirm decision to redevelop Anfield

[CraigDS]

So even the Echo is scaremongering. They have taken the councils comments that hope to hear an answer by end of June as its a June deadline.

[CraigDS]

So has that Guardian story been leaked by the council to try and kibosh staying?

That LFC have only been to one of the residents meetings either suggests they are not committed, or they are keeping a cold detached stance to drive through the expansion plans.

Question though - would a new stadium have a significantly greater effect in terms of changing the area? I live not far from the Emirates, and remember what it was like around there before. There are a few more flats etc, but really all it's done is put a massive big stadium on a plot of land - it's not changed that area of Highbury/Finsbury Park much at all, and when you go past on non Match days, it's pretty deserted.

They haven't done much around Emirates? Haven't they put in a load of new transport links? Surely that will lead to a lot of private investment in the area when markets improve?

[CraigDS]

So you are happy with a private company getting the council to force people to move out of their homes and surrender their property, for commercial gain?

Given that the private company brings a lot of money into the area, given it employs a lot of local people, given any expansion would mean and increase I'm both the previous two points, given an expansion would kick start the regeneration of the area as a whole, given the availability of local housing will be such that all the people being asked/made to move could do so and not be moving out the area or out of pocket - then yes.

[The Lord Admiral]

They haven't done much around Emirates? Haven't they put in a load of new transport links? Surely that will lead to a lot of private investment in the area when markets improve?

Nope. There's still the Arsenal and Holloway tubes, which were always there. There's Drayton Park station which was always there, but doen't run at weekends. They've spent a lot of money on the overland from Highbury to Stratford, but that was all from Olympic money, and they've upgraded every station on that route, not just Highbury & Islington, so I'm 99% sure that wasn't connected at all.

The old ground always sat in a pretty posh area of North London, the new ground is a stones throw, but moving towards a poorer area. There's no discernable difference in that area since the new stadium was built.

[CraigDS]

Nope. There's still the Arsenal and Holloway tubes, which were always there. There's Drayton Park station which was always there, but doen't run at weekends. They've spent a lot of money on the overland from Highbury to Stratford, but that was all from Olympic money, and they've upgraded every station on that route, not just Highbury & Islington, so I'm 99% sure that wasn't connected at all.

The old ground always sat in a pretty posh area of North London, the new ground is a stones throw, but moving towards a poorer area. There's no discernable difference in that area since the new stadium was built.

Never knew all that, to for the info.

Is that area I'm the sort of state around Anfield is though?

[The Lord Admiral]

Never knew all that, to for the info.

Is that area I'm the sort of state around Anfield is though?

No mate, and it never was as bad as Anfield has got. Some parts of finsbury park are quite poor, but nothing like Anfield. Also the site they put the Emirates on, if I'm not mistaken, was a big patch of wasteland anyway. So they've converted the old Highbury which was in a decent residential area into more decent residences and then banged the new stadium on the wasteland.

That Anfield has got to the state it is in isn't down to the club in my view, it's down to council politics. The problems with new stadiums have made things worse, but given the business the club brings into that area, I don't think it's for LFC to solve the regeneration issues. That's a local and central govenrnemnt issue.

[CraigDS]

That Anfield has got to the state it is in isn't down to the club in my view, it's down to council politics. The problems with new stadiums have made things worse, but given the business the club brings into that area, I don't think it's for LFC to solve the regeneration issues. That's a local and central govenrnemnt issue.

I think we've had a hand in the state it is in, but not massively. We have allowed a lot of houses we own to be just boarded up and left to go in disrepair, but then again so has the council and Arena - which let them go first I don't know. The club has also done up plenty of the houses it owns else where around Anfield (if you go down Skerries Rd I think it is, it actually looks pretty decent - think the club own a fair few of those).

Elsewhere around Anfield, further afield where we have no interest in the land or lighting issues, the council and Arena have left it to go to ruin all on their own doing.

[hansen6]

Good news if we can stay at Anfield.

[Peter McGurk]

Given that the private company brings a lot of money into the area, given it employs a lot of local people, given any expansion would mean and increase I'm both the previous two points, given an expansion would kick start the regeneration of the area as a whole, given the availability of local housing will be such that all the people being asked/made to move could do so and not be moving out the area or out of pocket - then yes.

You're going to need a bit more than a couple of hundred jobs (which would happen at Anfield anyway) and 60,000 people coming and going within the space of a few hours every fortnight to 'kick start' regeneration.

[CraigDS]

You're going to need a bit more than a couple of hundred jobs (which would happen at Anfield anyway) and 60,000 people coming and going within the space of a few hours every fortnight to 'kick start' regeneration.

I wasn't saying just that would kick start it, those were a whole host of reasons I see it would be 'right' to have the councils help to obtain the houses needed.

[The Lord Admiral]

Speculating here, but I guess if we go for an upgrade of the main stand and the Anfield Road, there's still the potential for extension to the Kemlyn and Kop in future. One step at a time though.

[Peter McGurk]

I wasn't saying just that would kick start it, those were a whole host of reasons I see it would be 'right' to have the councils help to obtain the houses needed.

Sorry. Misquoted you. I was talking about a new stadium.

Speculating here, but I guess if we go for an upgrade of the main stand and the Anfield Road, there's still the potential for extension to the Kemlyn and Kop in future. One step at a time though.

Could be.

.

[Joe_Singh]

Couple of questions.

If we redevelop will the first row still be redundant in european games?

Also if we stay where we are, where does that leave us in hosting events such as CL Finals or World Cup Matches if England where ever to win a bid to host

[CraigDS]

Couple of questions.

If we redevelop will the first row still be redundant in european games?

Also if we stay where we are, where does that leave us in hosting events such as CL Finals or World Cup Matches if England where ever to win a bid to host

Think both would depend on how we decide to redevelop. I think, and Peter will correct me if I'm wrong, the issue is pitch size with regards to CL finals and International matches (as well as low capacity currently), and distance from closest fan and pitch with regards to European games.

I'd imagine both of these could be fixed in a redev.

[vorsprungtorbenpieknik]

The housing clearance was implied by LCC when they first announced the Anfield Village scheme. They said they were going to renovate up to 500 homes in the area but that those immedietely around the stadium would be knocked down.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/03/21/around-500-homes-near-liverpool-football-club-to-be-saved-from-demolition-under-anfield-village-plans-100252-30587791/

[Paul Gardner]

So has that Guardian story been leaked by the council to try and kibosh staying?

That LFC have only been to one of the residents meetings either suggests they are not committed, or they are keeping a cold detached stance to drive through the expansion plans.

Question though - would a new stadium have a significantly greater effect in terms of changing the area? I live not far from the Emirates, and remember what it was like around there before. There are a few more flats etc, but really all it's done is put a massive big stadium on a plot of land - it's not changed that area of Highbury/Finsbury Park much at all, and when you go past on non Match days, it's pretty deserted.

There is the potential there to significantly regenerate the area with either option. Check out The Football Quarter Proposals - http://www.thefootballquarter.com.

[MazzaRed]

Wouldn't that be great!? Anfield is our home, rich in history, success and aura! Fantastic news if true.

THIS......is how it has to happen, will make my year if it gets the green light!

[Dublin Red]

.....and distance from closest fan and pitch with regards to European games.

Think it's more to do with the height of the advertising boards at the European games rather than the distance from fan to pitch?

Advertising is higher, so closer seats to pitch can't actually see over it?

Could be wrong of course.

[CraigDS]

Think it's more to do with the height of the advertising boards at the European games rather than the distance from fan to pitch?

Advertising is higher, so closer seats to pitch can't actually see over it?

Could be wrong of course.

Nah, the advertising boards aren't really that high, not enough to mean 4 or 5 rows missing at either end. Its def to do with distance to the pitch/goal.

[Billy1561]

plus it stops flags being draped over the advertising i guess.

[willss]

Seems like this story has little real depth. I won't believe anything until I see sizes, costs and timescales from official sources. Even then I'll add 50% on the costs and timescales.

[TSC]

Seems like this story has little real depth. I won't believe anything until I see sizes, costs and timescales from official sources. Even then I'll add 50% on the costs and timescales.

Something akin to 'a spade in the ground in 60days' type statement would do.

[ultimatewarrior]

Think both would depend on how we decide to redevelop. I think, and Peter will correct me if I'm wrong, the issue is pitch size with regards to CL finals and International matches (as well as low capacity currently), and distance from closest fan and pitch with regards to European games.

I'd imagine both of these could be fixed in a redev.

UEFA have guidlines and in order to hold CL final the pitch must be minimum of 105mx68m with a minimum distance of 6m between the first row of spectators and the pitch on either side and 8m at either end(behind goals). So the surface between stands would be 80mx120m . I dont know what it is at Afield now but i'm sure a number of rows would have to be removed from the Main stand. There seems to be a good distance between the Kop and the goal line so the Anfield rd and the kop may be spared from any removal of seating.

Actually just had a quick look at at Anfield. Looks like some rows would have to be sacrifced at either end too.

[CraigDS]

The ends definitely get blocked off for Euro games, I'm not so sure the sides do though?

I were rebuilding the Main and Anny I'd imagine they would look at ways to increase the size of the playing surface if its doable given you'd then have to look at making Centenary longer or Kop wider I don't know.

[Peter McGurk]

UEFA have guidlines and in order to hold CL final the pitch must be minimum of 105mx68m with a minimum distance of 6m between the first row of spectators and the pitch on either side and 8m at either end(behind goals). So the surface between stands would be 80mx120m . I dont know what it is at Afield now but i'm sure a number of rows would have to be removed from the Main stand. There seems to be a good distance between the Kop and the goal line so the Anfield rd and the kop may be spared from any removal of seating.

Actually just had a quick look at at Anfield. Looks like some rows would have to be sacrifced at either end too.

Pitch is wide enough but 4m short (there is that large space in front of Kop but there may or may not be safety/sightline implications). It's the length that needs sorting particularly.

Last time I looked, UEFA requirements are 4/4.5m from side line/goal lines to hoardings - for TV camera positions. FIFA is more but I don't think we're going to be troubled by hosting a World Cup any time soon. The easiest way is to nuke the front rows either permanently or just for European games. The hardest is to demolish two stands and start further back. You could also look at raising the pitch (by about 1/1.5m). Because of the geometry, you get the extra space needed.

.

[MurfySmurfy]

Peter, sorry if this question has been asked before, but if the pitch is 4m too short for UEFA regs and the opportunity was there to move the pitch say 2m further away from the kop and a potential new anfield road end would this cause any significant sight-line issues? Obviously I want the pitch to be as close to the crowd as possible but surely 2m further either way isn't too bad to allow us to fill the kop? I'm no expert though so this may be entirely impossible and probably hinges on the future of the anfield road itself!

[ultimatewarrior]

Actually at the Alianz Arena the space between the sidelines and stands is 7.5m which shows us that its not the end of the world if the stands are a little further away from the pitch in comparison to Anfield .

[Alan_X]

Think both would depend on how we decide to redevelop. I think, and Peter will correct me if I'm wrong, the issue is pitch size with regards to CL finals and International matches (as well as low capacity currently), and distance from closest fan and pitch with regards to European games.

I'd imagine both of these could be fixed in a redev.

They could be fixed to some extent by raising the pitch but that would affect all sight lines.  The other factors are things like numbers of VIP seats, press facilities etc, which should be part of the redevelopment anyway.

[Alan_X]

Actually at the Alianz Arena the space between the sidelines and stands is 7.5m which shows us that its not the end of the world if the stands are a little further away from the pitch in comparison to Anfield .

Dortmund's ground  also complies with FIFA and UEFA requirements. It feels like their stands are closer to the pitch than they actually are for a number of reasons. Everything between the pitch and the advertising hoarding is green, then there's a big gap between the advertising hoarding and the first row of seats.

There's a lot of nonsense written about the crowd being close to the pitch. In old grounds the crowd was very close but these days there are advertising hoardings between the fans and the pitch. In fact, if you think logically, ninety-nine percent of any crowd would be the same distance from the pitch and the players regardless of where the first row is. 

It's a psychological and design issue rather than a physical issue.

[Peter McGurk]

They could be fixed to some extent by raising the pitch but that would affect all sight lines.  The other factors are things like numbers of VIP seats, press facilities etc, which should be part of the redevelopment anyway.

Raising the pitch improves the sightlines for the whole stand.

(If you think about it, the view obviously gets worse if you lower the pitch... )

Peter, sorry if this question has been asked before, but if the pitch is 4m too short for UEFA regs and the opportunity was there to move the pitch say 2m further away from the kop and a potential new anfield road end would this cause any significant sight-line issues? Obviously I want the pitch to be as close to the crowd as possible but surely 2m further either way isn't too bad to allow us to fill the kop? I'm no expert though so this may be entirely impossible and probably hinges on the future of the anfield road itself!

Sorry. I don't follow this at all. How would moving the pitch further away help fill the kop?

In any event 4/4.5m is a reasonable distance (from a fan and player point of view)

.

[MurfySmurfy]

I meant because we have to have rows unoccupied during European games to comply with UEFA regulations.

[Peter McGurk]

I meant because we have to have rows unoccupied during European games to comply with UEFA regulations.

Right. But (subject to whatever safety procedures are in place) the hoardings could be moved back to create more space between them and the goal line (and make it easier to see over higher advertising hoardings)...

[Alan_X]

Raising the pitch improves the sightlines for the whole stand.

(If you think about it, the view obviously gets worse if you lower the pitch... )

You're right except for the back of the Anny Road Lower where you'd see nothing at the Kop end.

[Twelfth Man]

Do the redevelopment plans include increasing the size of the Kop?
Still can't find too much on the internet, but by how much are FSG planning to increase capacity?
Also would we need naming rights for Anfield to fund this?

[Scud02]

Do the redevelopment plans include increasing the size of the Kop?
Still can't find too much on the internet, but by how much are FSG planning to increase capacity?
Also would we need naming rights for Anfield to fund this?

1.  Would imagine so
2. Around 15,000 to 20,000 (65,000 overall)
3. No, they have said they would not rename Anfield

[Twelfth Man]

1.  Would imagine so
2. Around 15,000 to 20,000 (65,000 overall)
3. No, they have said they would not rename Anfield

Cheers. Just that the little info we have, does not mention any plans to extend the Kop, only the Main Stand and the Annie Road stands.

[Peter McGurk]

You're right except for the back of the Anny Road Lower where you'd see nothing at the Kop end.

Except the existing Upper AR would be gone (for other reasons)... problem solved.

.

[Easy]

I reckon they'll sponsor a redeveloped Anfield, not just the new stadium. It wouldn't surprise me if FSG go for the money wherever they can to reduce expenditure. It makes business sense - regardless of previous comments they've made about not doing it.

[bwest578]

I imagine they might do something that they've done in the US where they renovate but partially rename. Like how Mile High stadium in Denver became (in it's current iteration) "Sports Authority Field at Mile High" after it was rebuilt.

[TepidT2O]

I reckon they'll sponsor a redeveloped Anfield, not just the new stadium. It wouldn't surprise me if FSG go for the money wherever they can to reduce expenditure. It makes business sense - regardless of previous comments they've made about not doing it.

It doesn't make business sense, as no one would want to sponsor a stadium that everyone will still call anfield.

Where do Newcastle play? St James park....fuck knows what it's sponsors name is