Topic: Anfield Road Extension - Construction work resumed on 12th September 2023.

[Red Beret]

Yep, whilst the developments are great, getting away after the match is still a nightmare, road network is still same as, i have taken over an hour to get back to the city centre after matches as everyone leaves on mass, weekends matches aren't too bad at least you can stay & have a bevvie inm one of the local boozers for an hour until everything dies down, midweek though another matter, with last trains back home being around 23.30

Yeah, the Women's Derby I got the 27 on Park Road at around 1.50pm and it took almost an hour to do a run that would normally take about 35 minutes.  And of course on a Sunday there are usually reduced services.  There's the soccerbus of course but not everybody is in a position to get that.

The new 777 Class trains hit the Merseyrail network next year, 52 units replacing the current 58, with the option for a furthe 60 - necessary if they plan to expand the network to destinations like Wrexham, Preston and Skelmersdale. Don't be surprised to see any number allocated to match days with an express service up to Stanley Park.

[CraigDS]

I'd take the club statement with a pinch of salt. While I have no doubt that they do eventually want to go above 60k, the statement was a way of placating fans for the lack of progress.

Before I get accused of being anti FSG, I'm the furthest thing possible from it but they have been incredibly clever with managing expectations re the Annie Road. My personal view as to why it's been delayed for so long is because the club are happy having demand far outweight the supply of tickets. Our current revenue per seat is approx 10% less than Arsenal's - our regular ticket prices are more than 10% cheaper and we have fewer high end corporate boxes etc, so how are we making nearly as much per seat as them? The answer is we sell loads of 'cheap' corporate tickets. Demand for tickets is so high that the club know there's enough ordinary fans that will buy these £200 odd packages if they can't get their hands on a £50 ticket. Increasing the capacity will impact the clubs ability to sell these 'cheap' corporate tickets and imo they're waiting until they can either increase ordinary ticket prices and or demand is high enough to not impact these sales.

If that was the thinking then they could have done enough to satisfy the starting of the redevelopment so the planning didn’t lapse (or apply for an extension) and avoided the cost and more public scrutiny of another round of public consultations, stand design and planning application that they now have to go through.

Will probably cost more to do all that than the additional income from the relatively few expensive seats in the Anny Rd by the time you take off the cost of providing the meals, room hire, staff, etc.

[CraigDS]

Isn’t there a threshold, based around the need to invest in the logistics of the surrounding area??

There isn’t really any set capacity that’s required at though other than a requirement (at any increase) for there to be a suitable transport plan.

[BaZ87]

If that was the thinking then they could have done enough to satisfy the starting of the redevelopment so the planning didn’t lapse (or apply for an extension) and avoided the cost and more public scrutiny of another round of public consultations, stand design and planning application that they now have to go through.

Will probably cost more to do all that than the additional income from the relatively few expensive seats in the Anny Rd by the time you take off the cost of providing the meals, room hire, staff, etc.

I state in the post you quote that I'm sure they want to go above 60k, which requires new planning. My comment was simply on the statement released in the summer - it wasn't news. The club had briefed for a long time that they wanted to go above 60k and if I'm not mistaken Moores (and Werner?) had said it in interviews too. All it done was formally announce what we already knew and they done it because the original permission was about to expire and had that happened without any sort of statement it would have led to some discenting voices regarding the slow progress.

As for the 2nd part of my post re the reason for the delay - as above, the club have known for sometime that they'd need to submit new plans and there was nothing stopping them doing so by now. It's my view that they've not in a rush to do it until the point comes (maybe that point has now come) where they believe an extra 6-7k tickets won't have a negative impact on current hospitality sales (or they believe they can justify price rises).

Again, to be clear this isn't an anti FSG post. From the clubs' point of view it makes sense - the Annie Road expansion was always going to be finely balanced from a financial pov and at a time when we're building a side and a new training complex, it doesn't make sense to commit huge amounts of cash on the stadium until it's potential profitability is at its max.

[CraigDS]

The reason they haven’t is because they’ve just laid out £50m on the training complex which is still being built and they didn’t particularly want to be building / funding that and another stand rebuild at the same time - which makes sense.

[BaZ87]

The reason they haven’t is because they’ve just laid out £50m on the training complex which is still being built and they didn’t particularly want to be building / funding that and another stand rebuild at the same time - which makes sense.

That would be a factor but not a deciding factor. If expanding the Annie Road was at it's max potential 2 years ago then it would have been done. The club would have known they were building the training ground when they initially applied for planning permission afterall.

[Son of Spion]

Sight lines are the issue rather than space. Plus without corners I doubt we can get near an 18k stand.

Spurs' end is 17,500 and that end is sort of a wrap-around style like our old Spion Kop. It's pretty clear that without the corners being somehow done too, we are not getting to that figure with the new ARE, are we?

[CraigDS]

That would be a factor but not a deciding factor. If expanding the Annie Road was at it's max potential 2 years ago then it would have been done. The club would have known they were building the training ground when they initially applied for planning permission afterall.

They only ever applied for outline with regards to the Anny, and not sure they did know they were doing Melwood given this process with the stadium started some 8-9 or so years ago after they bought the club.

[BaZ87]

They only ever applied for outline with regards to the Anny, and not sure they did know they were doing Melwood given this process with the stadium started some 8-9 or so years ago after they bought the club.

Well they applied back in 2014(?), I'm sure they knew then that they were intending to build the new training ground and as you touched on earlier, they wouldn't have spent money on those plans and application had they had no intention of moving ahead with it. That would surely indicate that the reason for not moving forwards with the Annie Rd is independent to the training ground.

Anyway as I said originally, I'm sure it played some part in the decision but the ultimate factor is/was the profitability of the stand. Securing funding wouldn't be an issue for the club and if they were confident enough that it was going to bring in a meaningful return over and above any financing costs then there's little reason not to move ahead at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Macred]

It seems weird that the previous plans for a 5.5k increase that would have taken capacity close to 60k were scrapped for not being ambitious enough, but the new plans sound marginally bigger at best. I guess maybe they include some other improvements that will generate money.

Be prepared to be surprised.

[diggerling!]

Moving the Kop?

[CraigDS]

Be prepared to be surprised.

Meaning?

[ScottishKopite]

If they announce the new plans with an extra 500 seats I'm sure plenty will moan too. It just seems weird to big up the new plans if they're just going to be marginally higher, but then I guess that's what marketing people do.

I can recall some fans did moan when a couple years back we added a couple more rows to the kop adding a 100 or so extra seats.

[Scouser-Tommy]

Be prepared to be surprised.

In a good or bad way?

I understand that first consultation will be next Friday, does anyone know if that's when the initial designs will be released to the public?

[CraigDS]

In a good or bad way?

I understand that first consultation will be next Friday, does anyone know if that's when the initial designs will be released to the public?

Article suggests some info may be released ahead of this... "with a web portal with further information to be published online prior to the event."

[laddo]

One of the lads on the other thread who seems to have some sort of knowledge about it all suggested that the corners are a possibility in the future but would not be considered at this stage.

The other thread needs to be unlocked, it's been locked for months.

The corners won't be / can't be filled in unless they removed the stanchions holding up the roof of the Kop etc, which is a MAJOR job and far from cost effective. 

Plans will be interesting. Every time I walk up Anfield Road I can imagine the stand being expanded and creating a tunnel over Anfield Road.

Looks great in my imagination anyway.

There won't be a tunnel. The road will be closed off, this was in the original plans.

[Scouser-Tommy]

The corners won't be / can't be filled in unless they removed the stanchions holding up the roof of the Kop etc, which is a MAJOR job and far from cost effective. 

"but would not be considered at this stage."

[laddo]

"but would not be considered at this stage."

Meaning, it's possible, but not ever gonna happen.

[Scouser-Tommy]

Meaning, it's possible, but not ever gonna happen.

Exactly, so not quite sure what you were getting at in the first post. It's just basically your opinion which means nothing.

[laddo]

Exactly, so not quite sure what you were getting at in the first post. It's just basically your opinion which means nothing.

It's not though, you suggested it was a possibility, it's not. Liverpool's director of operations, Andrew Parkinson, told me this direct. It isn't happening. Hence my first post, which you agree on?!

[Scouser-Tommy]

It's not though, you suggested it was a possibility, it's not. Liverpool's director of operations, Andrew Parkinson, told me this direct. It isn't happening. Hence my first post, which you agree on?!

Hang on, you mentioned the Kop stanchions - the lad above asked about the Anny Road End extension.

[Red Beret]

That would be a factor but not a deciding factor. If expanding the Annie Road was at it's max potential 2 years ago then it would have been done. The club would have known they were building the training ground when they initially applied for planning permission afterall.

How do you know that? 🤔

To my mind it makes perfect sense to prioritise the training facilities. That's where success will come from after all. The provisional planning serves as notice of intent.

[Agent99]

What size is the yellow wall at Dortmund? Couldn't something like that be done?

[CraigDS]

What size is the yellow wall at Dortmund? Couldn't something like that be done?

It's standing, and wouldn't meet codes for a new stand over here.

[BaZ87]

How do you know that? 🤔

To my mind it makes perfect sense to prioritise the training facilities. That's where success will come from after all. The provisional planning serves as notice of intent.

As I said in my next post, the club would have known that they were moving forwards with the training ground at the time they drew up plans and applied for planning. They wouldn't have spent time and money on plans and raised supporter expectations if they had no intention of carrying out the work. That surely shows that the club were open to carrying out both side by side and delays are not directly linked to the training ground.

I think it's pretty obvious that the main reason why the Annie Rd hasn't been expanded yet is a ROI issue. If the club were confident that an expanded Annie Rd would bring in a return over and above the cost of financing it then it would make absolute sense to carry out the work asap - any surplus could have gone towards paying off any borrowings for the training ground afterall. That said, maybe had they not been spending £50m on the training ground they'd have been slightly more willing to make a tight call on the Annie Rd.

Nothing I've said is overly controversial. Henry's previously stated that the Annie Rd expansion would be tricky without price rises and the fact that the club have ripped up their original plans and looking to go bigger is no doubt linked to them trying to find ways to get the maximum return from the stand. From a financial pov the Annie Rd isn't an obvious decision like the Main Stand was and until the numbers add up, the work won't happen. Hopefully the numbers are adding up now though.

[CraigDS]

As I said in my next post, the club would have known that they were moving forwards with the training ground at the time they drew up plans and applied for planning. They wouldn't have spent time and money on plans and raised supporter expectations if they had no intention of carrying out the work. That surely shows that the club were open to carrying out both side by side and delays are not directly linked to the training ground.

We didn't submit plans for the training ground until Oct 17.

Assuming they decided around 12 months before to look at the option of moving training grounds that still puts it a good 2 years after planning was granted for the Anny Rd expansion, and that was 4 years in the planning.

Even before the main was started it was always said that the Anny would not start until the Main was built and then assessed. It opened in summer 2016, and fully finished around Jan 17 - so around the time they'd have decided to look at the training complex.

So personally I think the dates work that they wanted to work on one infrastructure project at a time.

[BaZ87]

We didn't submit plans for the training ground until Oct 17.

Assuming they decided around 12 months before to look at the option of moving training grounds that still puts it a good 2 years after planning was granted for the Anny Rd expansion, and that was 4 years in the planning.

Even before the main was started it was always said that the Anny would not start until the Main was built and then assessed. It opened in summer 2016, and fully finished around Jan 17 - so around the time they'd have decided to look at the training complex.

So personally I think the dates work that they wanted to work on one infrastructure project at a time.

I don't believe for one minute that the club decided to build the new training ground 12 months before they submitted planning permission. You don't take a £50m decision in that time frame. It took FSG 4 years to submit plans for the main stand afterall and that was with years of previous work already in place.

edit: In september 2016 Henry is quoted as saying:
"I don't know if there is a next step because ticket prices are an issue in England. That may foreclose further expansion. We'll have to see."

What more proof do you want that the delays to the Annie Rd expansion were linked to it's financial viability?

[CraigDS]

I don't believe for one minute that the club decided to build the new training ground 12 months before they submitted planning permission. You don't take a £50m decision in that time frame. It took FSG 4 years to submit plans for the main stand afterall and that was with years of previous work already in place.

Maybe so (the bit in bold) but it I highly doubt it was 3 or 4 more years prior when they were designing & submitting the plans for the Anny Rd.

The previous work on the stadium was pointless, as it was all about the new HKS stadium on Stanley Park. There was little to no work on expanding Anfield that was at all relevant by the time FSG came in.

edit: In september 2016 Henry is quoted as saying:
"I don't know if there is a next step because ticket prices are an issue in England. That may foreclose further expansion. We'll have to see."

What more proof do you want that the delays to the Annie Rd expansion were linked to it's financial viability?

You've just posted a quote from the date the new Main opened and that confirms what they said 2 years earlier than no Anny Rd decision would be made until the Main was done and open and could be assessed. I even just said that.

The training ground was then made the priority and they said they didn't want to commit to 2 further (£50m+) infrastructure projects at the same time.

I'm not sure why that isn't enough and you want to make an additional argument that they did plan to do them side by side but held off for other financial reasons.

[BaZ87]

Maybe so (the bit in bold) but it I highly doubt it was 3 or 4 more years prior when they were designing & submitting the plans for the Anny Rd.

The previous work on the stadium was pointless, as it was all about the new HKS stadium on Stanley Park. There was little to no work on expanding Anfield that was at all relevant by the time FSG came in.

Most would have been pointless and or out of date but there would have been feasibility studies done re an Anfield expansion and a lot of that info would have been transferable. They weren't starting from scratch and it still took 4 years to reach a decision. I'm sure, internally, the club would have been discussing the training ground long before 2016.

edit: Quotes from Ayre in July 2013 confirming the club were carrying out a feasibily study regarding the training ground. So that would have been right in the middle of the exact same studies the club were doing re Anfield

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-looking-bringing-first-5116930

You've just posted a quote from the date the new Main opened and that confirms what they said 2 years earlier than no Anny Rd decision would be made until the Main was done and open and could be assessed. I even just said that.

The training ground was then made the priority and they said they didn't want to commit to 2 further (£50m+) infrastructure projects at the same time.

I'm not sure why that isn't enough and you want to make an additional argument that they did plan to do them side by side but held off for other financial reasons.

Craig my initial point, which you seemed to dispute, was that the delays around the Annie Rd were linked to it's financial viability and more specifically linked to ticket prices and or demand for hospitality packages. It was even myself that brought up the training ground as an aggrivating factor in the decision the club have taken. You then responded with a sweeping statement that it's the £50m investment in the training ground that's delayed the Annie Rd. The point of the Henry quote is to prove that at the time the club were actively pressing ahead with the training ground move, that the Annie Rd expansion (in Henry's eyes at least) still wasn't financially viable. The Annie Rd expansion would not have happened regardless of the training ground - Henry's quotes make that clear.

As I said, the training ground would have been a factor but not the deciding factor. I have no doubt that if the numbers made sense then the club would have had no issues carrying out both projects side by side. It wouldn't be ideal but money talks and if the Annie Rd was going to lead to significant returns then it would make absolute sense to do it as soon as humanly possible.

[Son of Spion]

Be prepared to be surprised.

Not so fast.

Spill the beans, mister. 

[TepidT2O]

Not so fast.

Spill the beans, mister. 

He’s just on a wind up. He knows nowt.

[Son of Spion]

He’s just on a wind up. He knows nowt.

*Feels all deflated* 

[Ratboy3G]

A nice new Anfield Road stand housing away fans if they could do something like Newcastle and stick them out the road in the gods would be ideal.

Thankfully they won't be doing that, it would be a shitty thing to do and no longer allowed anyway.

[andy07]

Sight lines are the issue rather than space. Plus without corners I doubt we can get near an 18k stand.

Never get the issue with sight lines.  Ok row 100 of a massive upper tier in line with the edge of the pitch is pretty shit compared with row 1 behind the goal but at the end of the day in is in. 

[CraigDS]

Never get the issue with sight lines.  Ok row 100 of a massive upper tier in line with the edge of the pitch is pretty shit compared with row 1 behind the goal but at the end of the day in is in.

In is in I agree. However a pitch is 100m+, add in the length of the stand plus a bit more for the angles and you’re fucking miles away from seeing anything at the far end.

[Son of Spion]

Never get the issue with sight lines.  Ok row 100 of a massive upper tier in line with the edge of the pitch is pretty shit compared with row 1 behind the goal but at the end of the day in is in.

In some ways we are spoiled these days. I don't remember the hordes of urchins perched up the the Spion Kop rafters being too bothered with sight lines. Nor those perched on floodlight pylons at away games or stood behind fences. OK, back then no one was paying north of £50 for a ticket, but still. If you can see all of the pitch, it's all good.

I doubt too many Spurs fans are complaining about being sat on the 82nd row of their 17,500 seater home end either. So long as fans can see all of the pitch, I'm pretty sure the seats will sell at the top of the new ARE too. I assume the seats would be priced according to their location.

[mikeb58]

Our record attendance has stalled on 61.905 for decades, I think our owners would settle for a max of 62k to finally break that record under their ownership. 

Plus that figure would make sense with the new planning application to take us over the original plans of a 59k capacity, as I can't see how the Anne Rd could go above this figure anyway.

So that's my guess, a record breaking 62k capacity Anfield and a legacy the owners can be rightly proud of!

[emitime]

Our record attendance has stalled on 61.905 for decades, I think our owners would settle for a max of 62k to finally break that record under their ownership. 

Plus that figure would make sense with the new planning application to take us over the original plans of a 59k capacity, as I can't see how the Anne Rd could go above this figure anyway.

So that's my guess, a record breaking 62k capacity Anfield and a legacy the owners can be rightly proud of!

I think our highest since the main stand opened is around 53350, which is 600 or so off our max capacity, so we'd probably need 63k to beat the all time record.

[Maldini]

I understand why people think we can't get to 17/18k for the Annie Rd end but I think it's a false assumption. The width of the ARE is greater in proportion to the Main stand that the width of the pitch is to the length (if that makes sense). It overlaps the main stand on one side and the Dalglish stand on the other so the footprint is actually pretty large, factor in that it probably won't have any corporate boxes and the possibility of filling in the corners a bit better than they are now and you can see how it may end up comparable to the Main Stand in terms of capacity.

[CraigDS]

I understand why people think we can't get to 17/18k for the Annie Rd end but I think it's a false assumption. The width of the ARE is greater in proportion to the Main stand that the width of the pitch is to the length (if that makes sense). It overlaps the main stand on one side and the Dalglish stand on the other so the footprint is actually pretty large, factor in that it probably won't have any corporate boxes and the possibility of filling in the corners a bit better than they are now and you can see how it may end up comparable to the Main Stand in terms of capacity.

The pitch is 101m long, and only 68m wide. Plus the Main goes beyond the pitch length just like the Anny Rd does/would (as you can see in the pic below).

There is no way it gets anywhere near a comparable capacity to the Main.