Topic: Staying put at Anfield

[Peter McGurk]

its not just pitch size the stands at anfield are too close to the pitch under fifa/uefa new rules.

The pitch size and the margins can be fixed to meet UEFA rules.  The FIFA rules are just daft and we didn't get the World Cup bid anyway.

[Yakyb]

its not just pitch size the stands at anfield are too close to the pitch under fifa/uefa new rules.

I have heard that said before, my set is 3 rows in on the half way line in the centenary, I wonder what the clubs policy on moving season ticket holders would be

[Red Genius]

its not just pitch size the stands at anfield are too close to the pitch under fifa/uefa new rules.

That sums Fifa up in a nutshell really, any fan will tell you they want to be close to the pitch, its not like we have problems as a result of being too close to the pitch.

[ultimatewarrior]

That sums Fifa up in a nutshell really, any fan will tell you they want to be close to the pitch, its not like we have problems as a result of being too close to the pitch.

Neil Lennon might  disagree with you there.

[rhylred]

just thinking about redeveloping anfield,surely the last thing kenny needs for the next 3 years is constant building work,parts of the ground closed for half a season or more,crowds of about 30,000,while work is going on,also when the main stand/paddock are being brought up to scratch,where are the dressing rooms etc going to be repositioned?wouldn't think that would be helpful at all to having a crack at the champions league/premier league..

[DAVID IN DUBAI]

just thinking about redeveloping anfield,surely the last thing kenny needs for the next 3 years is constant building work,parts of the ground closed for half a season or more,crowds of about 30,000,while work is going on,also when the main stand/paddock are being brought up to scratch,where are the dressing rooms etc going to be repositioned?wouldn't think that would be helpful at all to having a crack at the champions league/premier league..

Let Kenny and the management get the team sorted first then push on with the redevelopment of Anfield over the next few years

[CraigDS]

to be honest it's a bit of a vicious circle as we nee the funds from a developed stadium to compete at thetop level.

[xerxes1]

just thinking about redeveloping anfield,surely the last thing kenny needs for the next 3 years is constant building work,parts of the ground closed for half a season or more,crowds of about 30,000,while work is going on,also when the main stand/paddock are being brought up to scratch,where are the dressing rooms etc going to be repositioned?wouldn't think that would be helpful at all to having a crack at the champions league/premier league..

Redevelopment need not involve that level of disruption for that period of time.

You are right to point out that the greater the level of redevelopment the greater the potential for disruption.However playing at Goodison for a period of time could solve that.

A new stadium provides zero disruption.

[18 yard line]

I was in the back row of 126 in the Lower Annie Rd on Sunday.   I've probably sat in every Block in Anfield over the years and many times in the Lr Annie, but never in the back 3 or 4 rows.  I was shocked at how poor the view was.  Couldn't see the crossbar at the Kop end for the leading edge of the roof without really stooping forward in my seat, (as I'm over 6').  Couldn't see the corner at The Main Stand/Annie Rd due to the bulwark between 125 and 126.   Couldn't see the goal line at our end at all when play was at that end due to a couple of tall-ish guys in front  - the back 2 rows are both on the same level.

I couldn't help thinking, how many times over the years have fans sat in that seat, especially first timers at Anfield, and felt short changed?  It really is an indictment on Moores/Parry and the Design team that the back row was allowed at all.   I doubt FSG and the authorities today would allow anything similar in either a refurb or a new stadium.   

Love Anfield to bits, but this reinforced my preference for a new build.  Is there a worse view than back of the LAR?

[annieroader]

I was in the back row of 126 in the Lower Annie Rd on Sunday.   I've probably sat in every Block in Anfield over the years and many times in the Lr Annie, but never in the back 3 or 4 rows.  I was shocked at how poor the view was.  Couldn't see the crossbar at the Kop end for the leading edge of the roof without really stooping forward in my seat, (as I'm over 6').  Couldn't see the corner at The Main Stand/Annie Rd due to the bulwark between 125 and 126.   Couldn't see the goal line at our end at all when play was at that end due to a couple of tall-ish guys in front  - the back 2 rows are both on the same level.

I couldn't help thinking, how many times over the years have fans sat in that seat, especially first timers at Anfield, and felt short changed?  It really is an indictment on Moores/Parry and the Design team that the back row was allowed at all.   I doubt FSG and the authorities today would allow anything similar in either a refurb or a new stadium.   

Love Anfield to bits, but this reinforced my preference for a new build.  Is there a worse view than back of the LAR?

But did you see the surveyers stuff on the floor of the annieroad ??

[xerxes1]

I was in the back row of 126 in the Lower Annie Rd on Sunday.   I've probably sat in every Block in Anfield over the years and many times in the Lr Annie, but never in the back 3 or 4 rows.  I was shocked at how poor the view was.  Couldn't see the crossbar at the Kop end for the leading edge of the roof without really stooping forward in my seat, (as I'm over 6').  Couldn't see the corner at The Main Stand/Annie Rd due to the bulwark between 125 and 126.   Couldn't see the goal line at our end at all when play was at that end due to a couple of tall-ish guys in front  - the back 2 rows are both on the same level.

I couldn't help thinking, how many times over the years have fans sat in that seat, especially first timers at Anfield, and felt short changed?  It really is an indictment on Moores/Parry and the Design team that the back row was allowed at all.   I doubt FSG and the authorities today would allow anything similar in either a refurb or a new stadium.   

Love Anfield to bits, but this reinforced my preference for a new build.  Is there a worse view than back of the LAR?

I agree with you. I am only 5ft 9in and the lower centenary seats have cramped leg room even for me.

Altough I should add that the view from the Upper Annie is superb.

[stevienash]

I agree with you. I am only 5ft 9in and the lower centenary seats have cramped leg room even for me.

Altough I should add that the view from the Upper Annie is superb.

Agreed i've sat in the upper anfield road try and avoid the lower at all costs!

[AKABillyGee]

I agree with you. I am only 5ft 9in and the lower centenary seats have cramped leg room even for me.

Altough I should add that the view from the Upper Annie is superb.

At just short of 6ft 3in I've been a season ticket holder in the Lower Centenary (Kemlyn Road) for close on thirty years - I have to ask permission to cough!

Unless we are going to encourage a fan base of 5 ft 5 in 7 stone supporters then I am for new build and room to move.

[Red Genius]

Neil Lennon might  disagree with you there.

[BFM]

Unless we are going to encourage a fan base of 5 ft 5 in 7 stone supporters then I am for new build and room to move.

That would make for an interesting marketing campaign... starring Jay of course.

[Peter McGurk]

At just short of 6ft 3in I've been a season ticket holder in the Lower Centenary (Kemlyn Road) for close on thirty years - I have to ask permission to cough!

Unless we are going to encourage a fan base of 5 ft 5 in 7 stone supporters then I am for new build and room to move.

Not really a good reason to move when the existing seats can be upgraded (without structural gymnastics) and, it's about the distance between your backside and your knees - not your height.  So it doesn't matter how tall or short you are, you're not going to fit in a new 700mm seat if you've got a fat arse anyway!

[xerxes1]

Statistically the taller you are, the greater the distance from your sternum to your knees.

I have sat in every part of the ground and the lower centenary, from my experience, offers the most cramped leg-space.

I agree akabillygee that to accept the inadequate facilities in the Lower Centenary ongoing would be to accept the inferior facilities that we as fans have put up with for far too long. I have accepted hospitality in the Lower Centenary hospitality rooms where the facilities are on a par with a cafe- but at £150 a head. The reason is that it was never designed to anticpate the PL gravy train. What were once planned as bars now double as (poorly converted) hospitality suites. The box and upper facilities are superb. It further demonstartes the dangers of a furtther botched job.

[CraigDS]

And surely upgrading seat/leg room sizes in the lower will reduce capacity?!

[xerxes1]

And surely upgrading seat/leg room sizes in the lower will reduce capacity?!

The bigger the seat space/leg room in a fixed structure the smaller the capacity, correct.

[CraigDS]

So in order to bring certain sections (where we won't be changing the structure) up to standard we'd have to lower the capacity - so already moving backwards before we can add capacity via a new Main and Anny Rd end (both of which are more densely packed than any replacement stand could be).

[Peter McGurk]

Statistically the taller you are, the greater the distance from your sternum to your knees.

I have sat in every part of the ground and the lower centenary, from my experience, offers the most cramped leg-space.

I agree akabillygee that to accept the inadequate facilities in the Lower Centenary ongoing would be to accept the inferior facilities that we as fans have put up with for far too long. I have accepted hospitality in the Lower Centenary hospitality rooms where the facilities are on a par with a cafe- but at £150 a head. The reason is that it was never designed to anticpate the PL gravy train. What were once planned as bars now double as (poorly converted) hospitality suites. The box and upper facilities are superb. It further demonstartes the dangers of a furtther botched job.

But statistically a 700mm seat will cater for most heights and ‘builds’. It has been progressively increased as the population has got larger (ie., not necessarily taller).  BTW the sternum is in your chest.  The distance from there to your knees has little relevance to legroom.

There is nothing (other than price) to stop an upgrade of the hospitality - not even planning permission.

So in order to bring certain sections (where we won't be changing the structure) up to standard we'd have to lower the capacity - so already moving backwards before we can add capacity via a new Main and Anny Rd end (both of which are more densely packed than any replacement stand could be).

You add new seats (a lot more new seats) before you upgrade old ones.

The bigger the seat space/leg room in a fixed structure the smaller the capacity, correct.

ditto answer above - (just looking for problems where they don't exist...

[xerxes1]

But statistically a 700mm seat will cater for most heights and ‘builds’. It has been progressively increased as the population has got larger (ie., not necessarily taller).  BTW the sternum is in your chest.  The distance from there to your knees has little relevance to legroom.

I am happy to accept your views on 700mm seats at face value. "Sternum" - please disregard hasty hopeless misdescription of the human anatomy! I meant the bottom of the spine. It was you who said "it's about the distance between your backside and your knees"

There is nothing (other than price) to stop an upgrade of the hospitality - not even planning permission.

Not true.There is no physical room to expand within the existing lower tier structure because of the profile of the lower tier. It would be another compromise.We have had enough of second best.

You add new seats (a lot more new seats) before you upgrade old ones.

If the seats are bigger, and the legroom greater you either reduce capacity, or increase the size of the structure, the latter would require planning permission as the the overall height of the stand would need to be increased.

[Peter McGurk]

I am happy to accept your views on 700mm seats at face value. "Sternum" - please disregard hasty hopeless misdescription of the human anatomy! I meant the bottom of the spine. It was you who said "it's about the distance between your backside and your knees"
Not true.There is no physical room to expand within the existing lower tier structure because of the profile of the lower tier. It would be another compromise.We have had enough of second best.

If the seats are bigger, and the legroom greater you either reduce capacity, or increase the size of the structure, the latter would require planning permission as the the overall height of the stand would need to be increased.

Well thank you but there’s really no need, as it’s not my view but those of the committee responsible for creating the design recommendations and standards as adopted by the FA, and indirectly by UEFA and FIFA.  I think they go to a great deal of research, time and trouble to get this right.

I said backside yes, not sternum or coccyx or anywhere else trying to be clever.

I did not suggest adding new seats in the lower tier.  So, no need for compromise there.

Yes you will need planning permission to add capacity.  Did you not know that?

[AKABillyGee]

Not really a good reason to move when the existing seats can be upgraded (without structural gymnastics) and, it's about the distance between your backside and your knees - not your height.  So it doesn't matter how tall or short you are, you're not going to fit in a new 700mm seat if you've got a fat arse anyway!

What a load of uninformed rubbish.

Increasing the seat pitch in the Lower Centenary would mean removing every single seat, replacing the existing concrete 'step' structure and the cost would be astronomically prohibitive and would reduce capacity to uneconomical levels.

The Centenary Stand is now coming up to 20 years old and even the upper stand only has 660mm pitched seats (source  Football Grounds of Britain - Simon Inglis). The Lower stand was built in 1963 and the 1995 refurbishment added very little to customer space and comfort - the seat pitch is amongst the smallest in the Football League (same source).

Basically, even the Centenary Stand is at best 20 years old and at worst a slightly refurbished 50 year old structure.

And less of the fat arse! - my problem is the 34" inside leg.

[Peter McGurk]

What a load of uninformed rubbish.

Increasing the seat pitch in the Lower Centenary would mean removing every single seat, replacing the existing concrete 'step' structure and the cost would be astronomically prohibitive and would reduce capacity to uneconomical levels.

The Centenary Stand is now coming up to 20 years old and even the upper stand only has 660mm pitched seats (source  Football Grounds of Britain - Simon Inglis). The Lower stand was built in 1963 and the 1995 refurbishment added very little to customer space and comfort - the seat pitch is amongst the smallest in the Football League (same source).

Basically, even the Centenary Stand is at best 20 years old and at worst a slightly refurbished 50 year old structure.

And less of the fat arse! - my problem is the 34" inside leg.

The informed opinion on the subject is that the population is not necessarily getting taller but that that it is getting bigger.  The regulations have been adjusted to suit.  If you would like to be similarly informed you need only read the research which is conveniently condensed into the latest Guide to Safety in Sports Grounds (the ‘Green Book’).

The legroom can be increased without structural alteration, exorbitant costs or indeed without making up for loss of capacity elsewhere.  Just because you can’t think of how to do it, does not mean it can’t be done.  Rest assured it’s been done elsewhere.

The relevant dimension is from your arse to your knee - not an inside leg, not your height and not from any other bone to anywhere else.  The recommended dimension has been raised from 600mm to 700mm in the last decade.  If this was entirely down to height this would infer an increase in average height of approximately 250mm or roughly 10 inches in height (the distance from your knee to your backside is about 40% of your height). No, not really. Oh, and 34" is about 865mm.  Exactly how short are your shins?

The day I post uninformed rubbish on this or any other site, I’ll show my fat arse in Lewis’s window (if it still had one).

BTW Simon Inglis is also very good on what makes Anfield so great and lists many aspects of the traditional ‘packed’ football ground.  He does not venture to offer any view on the structural integrity of any part of the ground - no matter how young or old it is.

[xerxes1]

The legroom can be increased without structural alteration,

Anfield in "Tardis" shock

[Peter McGurk]

Anfield in "Tardis" shock

Two ways to build a Tardis; believe you can or don't try.

[xerxes1]

I know; if you don't understand, it's best to belittle.  Never mind dear. Take a pill.

You do it to yourself.

First we had McGurkonomics, now we have "The McGurk Law of Physics". You can extend leg room, maintain capacity, and leave the structure untouched!

I don't need a pill - you are better than ANY artificial stimulant!

I finally understand your argument- we can build a 60,000 stadium with every conceivable facility at Anfield, because the laws of Physics and Economics dont apply to your plans!

[Slightly Less Mediocre Baron Bennekov]

For F*ck's sake! Calm dowm boys... It is actually ok to disagree.

[Peter McGurk]

For F*ck's sake! Calm dowm boys... It is actually ok to disagree.

Couldn't be calmer.

There are at least three ways of extending legroom on the existing structure. The first is essentially a manufactured former that incorporates the new seat and a spacer to the steps which is laid at the extended rake.  There is a very similar system at Westfalen but there it is hinged to fold away the seat assembly for safe standing.  The second is a more monolithic approach utilising a non-compressible, lightweight filler and steel or lytag (lightweight concrete) overshoe.  The system has been used extensively to form steps above subterranean structures with a low load limit.  This has the advantage that there are less penetrations of any new waterproofing layers (as at Fenway).  The third is to go on a diet.

Naturally there is a loss of capacity (in all but going on a diet option), but as I said this can be made up elsewhere in new sections of seating.

[xerxes1]

Couldn't be calmer.

There are at least three ways of extending legroom on the existing structure. The first is essentially a manufactured former that incorporates the new seat and a spacer to the steps which is laid at the extended rake.  There is a very similar system at Westfalen but there it is hinged to fold away the seat assembly for safe standing.  The second is a more monolithic approach utilising a non-compressible, lightweight filler and steel or lytag (lightweight concrete) overshoe.  The system has been used extensively to form steps above subterranean structures with a low load limit.  This has the advantage that there are less penetrations of any new waterproofing layers (as at Fenway).  The third is to go on a diet.

Naturally there is a loss of capacity (in all but going on a diet option), but as I said this can be made up elsewhere in new sections of seating.

Which is all eminently reasonable.

New sections of seating in the Centenary being required ( expanding the physical structure) was exactly the original point.

[Peter McGurk]

Which is all eminently reasonable.

New sections of seating in the Centenary being required ( expanding the physical structure) was exactly the original point.

Err... no, it wasn't (oh yes it was!)

[xerxes1]

(oh yes it was!)

Phew.