Topic: 70,000 capacity

[Richie69]

Barca now upgrading their ground to 118000, Mancs will have 80000 by next year, probably 90000 in 5 years time. its no time to be conservative, especially for this amount of money

I hope when the new designs are seen, there definaltely is a proper kop stand

[anon-y-mouse]

Barca now upgrading their ground to 118000, Mancs will have 80000 by next year, probably 90000 in 5 years time. its no time to be conservative, especially for this amount of money

I hope when the new designs are seen, there definaltely is a proper kop stand

How do you figure the Mancs are gonna have 80,000 by next year, even more far fetched 90,000 in five years when they have no more ways to expand? Also I'm a bit baffled as to how Barcelona are upgrading the Nou Camp.

[SMD]

Also I'm a bit baffled as to how Barcelona are upgrading the Nou Camp.

You're allowed to sit on the touchlines, now. You have to bring your own helmet, though.

[Mottman]

I think it's all to do with the local infastructure i.e Local Transport and roads etc, when the stadium was first announced it was suggested the capacity would be 70 000 but it became clear that the only way it would get the go ahead at that size would have been to have built it on the outskirts of Kirkby so the plans were revised to 60 000 so it could be built in Anfield.

There was at one point a train of thought that suggested that a train station be built on Stanley Park, this would be ideal for both clubs, don't think it's going to happen. Great shame, it would make coming and going the match alot easier.

[GibletII]

How do you figure the Mancs are gonna have 80,000 by next year, even more far fetched 90,000 in five years when they have no more ways to expand? Also I'm a bit baffled as to how Barcelona are upgrading the Nou Camp.

The mancs can build over the railway at the back of the main stand, the engineering feasability says it can be done but it'll be expensive, will that be a problem when they can knock tickets out to corporates etc.?

There was at one point a train of thought that suggested that a train station be built on Stanley Park, this would be ideal for both clubs, don't think it's going to happen. Great shame, it would make coming and going the match alot easier.

The inner loop line is being considered by Merseytravel regardless of the stadium, this would give Anfield a stop near the Clarence pub connecting Bootle in one direction and EdgeLane and/or Lime Street and/or Central in the future.

There's ongoing studies to see if an underground stretch could be used with a station 'close to Stanley Park' and at Walton Hall Lane. This is less likely than the inner loop which has a strong case to provide a lateral link to the Merseyrail and bus 'spokes' of the transport infrastructure of the city.

[Col]

The mancs can build over the railway at the back of the main stand, the engineering feasability says it can be done but it'll be expensive, will that be a problem when they can knock tickets out to corporates etc.?

No, they can't. If they could've done, they would've done, as it would've been much more beneficial to extend one of the side stands than to put money into building up the quadrants.

They've been denied permission to extend the East Stand (?) before - have you seen how close the railway line is?

[mikeb58]

No, they can't. If they could've done, they would've done, as it would've been much more beneficial to extend one of the side stands than to put money into building up the quadrants.

They've been denied permission to extend the East Stand (?) before - have you seen how close the railway line is?

Yes, think O/T is as big as it's going to get now, plus the bigger that ground's become the worse it's got.

It now looks disjointed with thousands of seats with shite views. Also, purely from a design point of view, O/T from the air is an ugly blot on the landscape.

[GibletII]

No, they can't. If they could've done, they would've done, as it would've been much more beneficial to extend one of the side stands than to put money into building up the quadrants.

They've been denied permission to extend the East Stand (?) before - have you seen how close the railway line is?

It can be done, planning can be overcome and if they think they can get a return off it they will do it. Man United don't fuck about with these things, while we've pissed around spending £millions destroying the long term viability of Anfield they've developed 2 masterplans and no doubt they'll be developing a 3rd one right now. The quadrants were disregarded a few years back based on ROI and planning issues, so was teh East Stand, those issues will not stop a dynamic business from developing and moving on in the long wrong IF the business case exists.

If the ground move is to 'compete' with Man United financially then we need to take a long hard look at Stanley Park because it's not an option. If money derived from the stadium in terms of seats/corporates etc. is so important to football then why are we selling our heritage, our fortress, our citidal down the river for something with 50% less earning power than the people we're supposed to be apeing?

[ttnbd]

Financially the mancs can not re-develope the main stand. If it was financially and logistically feasible it would have been done before the quadrants as the earning potential would be more than double that of the quadrants.
while they are in over £600m of debt they will not do anymore re-developments

[Joe Rogans Chin]

1(2) Real Madrid £186.2m
2(1) Man Utd £166.4m
3(3) AC Milan £158m
4(5) Juventus £154.9m
5(4) Chelsea £149.1m
6(7) Barcelona £140.4m
7(9) Bayern Munich £128m
8(10) Liverpool £122.4m
9( Inter Milan £119.7m
10(6) Arsenal £115.7m
11(12) Roma £89m
12(11) Newcastle £87.1m
13(14) Spurs £70.6m
14(17) Schalke £65.8m
15(-) Lyon £62.7m
16(13) Celtic £62.6m
17(16) Man City £60.9m
18(-) Everton £60m
19(-) Valencia £57.2m
20(15) Lazio £56.1m

That's the richest clubs in Europe based on turnover for 2004/05.
I'm pretty sure that the gap between us And utd in terms of profit is even smaller.

Hardly any correlation with massive 60K+ stadiums is it?
Add to that that utd have an obligation to it's share holders in terms of a dividend's that we don't, the fact that they have gone from a debt free organisation to one in over 500 million in debt.
Utd might actually need a 90k stadium to stay afloat.

With all the campaigning that the utd fans did, I'd much rather be in our proposed postion.
Having a 60k stdium and be 180 million in debt with a stadium that will pay for itself in 10 - 15 years, without effecting the current 10/15/20 million that our managers seem to get given every season, than UTD's.

Just out of interest, what would you like the club to do instead?

[GibletII]

Financially the mancs can not re-develope the main stand. If it was financially and logistically feasible it would have been done before the quadrants as the earning potential would be more than double that of the quadrants.
while they are in over £600m of debt they will not do anymore re-developments

You sure about that?

Why are they building a season ticket waiting list? Why have they changed their business model for match tickets sales? Why are they expanding their 'partnership' programs?

They're doing market research to see if the costs of over engineering the railway line can be recouped and return a profit.

Their £600 million debt means nothing with the sales they achieve/costs.

Financially it's not about whether they can afford it, it's whether the investment is worth it, the risk is higher but any higher than Liverpool FC borrowing a further £180 million for 15,000 extra seats?

[ttnbd]

But lfc do not have £660m of debt accrueing interest at an average of 10%. Nor do lfc have a debt to equity ratio approaching 100%. Banks will not lend to them while they have that debt hanging over them.

Their £600 million debt means nothing with the sales they achieve/costs.

If they were like tesco where their net debt is only double what they make in profits then I would agree, but the mancs debt is well over 30 times the profits they make.  Based on their 2004 financial results they don't even make enough profit to cover their interest payments.

[Joe Rogans Chin]

But lfc do not have £660m of debt accrueing interest at an average of 10%. Nor do lfc have a debt to equity ratio approaching 100%. Banks will not lend to them while they have that debt hanging over them.

Fuck me, so over a third of their turnover is being used just to pay the interest on the loans?

How are they going to reduce the actual debt?

[GibletII]

But lfc do not have £660m of debt accrueing interest at an average of 10%. Nor do lfc have a debt to equity ratio approaching 100%. Banks will not lend to them while they have that debt hanging over them.

If they were like tesco where their net debt is only double what they make in profits then I would agree, but the mancs debt is well over 30 times the profits they make.  Based on their 2004 financial results they don't even make enough profit to cover their interest payments.

Not quite, £60 million a year operating profit doesn't equate to x30, although I was being economic with the truth as well.

The case remains valid though, why are we going in to debt for the returns it will give us to 'compete' with Manchester United? Given their and Arsenals debt surely that argument is dead in the water.

When (if) Manchester United and/or Arsenal sort themselves out, what economic advantage would a 60,000 seat stadium give us over them?

It's all very well pointing out Man United, Arsenal, Tottenham, Newcastle and Chelseas flawed financial position but won't carrying £180 million debt (on top of the existing various borrowing, credit, 'debt' etc.) on 15,000 seats have a, for a time at least, a negative impact on Liverpool FC? Would the short term advantage be to stay put, invest in the team and increase revenues from TV, competitions, clear debt and build capital for future developments that account for a dynamic and flexible stadium model?

I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong but in my view the club is taking a very limited view of it's options and a lot of people have just fallen in to line.

Like it or not, if we move in to a 60,000 seat new build on Stanley Park the biggest hit will be on matchday ticket prices. The club know they can shift the tickets  with a load to spare so the law of supply and demand will kick in. Think Arsenal and Man United.

[ttnbd]

Not quite, £60 million a year operating profit doesn't equate to x30, although I was being economic with the truth as well.

You don't look at operating profit when looking at interest cover, you look at Profit Before Interest And Tax.  Last financial year was around £10.7m so it is more like debt interest exceed profits by £50m.  Meanwhile if you re-read what I posted I said their debts (not repayments) exceed profits by over 30 times.

It remains to be seen how our new stadium is going to be financed.  It can either be through loans or it can be via various areas.  Rushian posted a hypothetical scenario the other day with regards potential stadium financing

Hypothetically ....

If Morgan was to invest say £60m for the unissued shares. And we were to sell the naming rights for £50m. Combined with the new TV deal being £15m a year more for the next three years (£45m) ... that's a hell of a lot of stadium funding paid off.

That would leave the need to find the other £25m.  There is the potential that all the club will end up with is only an extra £40m of debt.

Also there is a very significant difference between arsenal's and our (proposed) debt versus the mancs debt.  Ours and arsenal's would have been incurred for capital expenditure purposes, with the aim being to increase revenues, as opposed to purchasing the club.

[Rushian]

My understanding with the Mancs South Stand isn't that they'd be refused planning permission, but Network Rail have told them that under no circumstances will they be allowed to build over the railway line as it would cause far too much disruption to an important railway line, hence the quadrant filling.

[Redrider]

It's all gone quiet again, after last weeks flurry of talk about investment and grant money deadlines.
Rick Parry had a rather curious statement in the LFC magazine, which seemed to suggest that even though the grant money was being made available, building the Stadium was by no means a done deal.

I like David Moores and all he stands for, but it is surely about time that he relinquished some control in the club, in exchange for some new finance.
People like Morgan or Kraft are only going to invest if they can see some return and have some control.
Until that happens it is unlikely that we can fund the new stadium from current revenues, particularly as the recent results would suggest that the glory years are unlikely to return this season and maybe not even within the current decade.
Not sure that the Rafa policies of trying to build a team by buying cheap 'nearly' players is going to pay off !
Looks to me as though their will be serious competition in the near future between stadium funds and money for one or two 'big signings' to bolster an under-performing squad.

Some interesting dynamics just coming round the bend !!
 

[GibletII]

For me it falls or dies on capital coming in, servicing £180 million debt for the revenues it would create just won't work.

I'm still convinced that the proposed 60,000 capacity and configuration isn't what's required now or in the future, this developemnt is akin to the massive error made in redeveloping the Kemlyn in the early 90's. That compounded the stadium development issue at the time and has been a major factor in us now looking to move to Stanley Park.

The railway at the back of the main stand at OT is an issue for them, the disruption to services would need to be overcome but the point I've tried to make is that IF Manchester United could see how to create a return on any development, whether it be 15,000 more seats, 200 new boxes, 4,000 corporate seats or whatever, they'd do it. For all the crap bandied around about them they've sold out but it's paid dividends. We're trying to manage a PR nightmare of a parochial peoples club agenda with the reality of a global power house in a dynamic commercial environment. The club needs bottle and vision, not a glorified warehouse which is obsolete before the first sod has been cut.

[Joe Rogans Chin]

It's all gone quiet again, after last weeks flurry of talk about investment and grant money deadlines.
Rick Parry had a rather curious statement in the LFC magazine, which seemed to suggest that even though the grant money was being made available, building the Stadium was by no means a done deal.

I like David Moores and all he stands for, but it is surely about time that he relinquished some control in the club, in exchange for some new finance.
People like Morgan or Kraft are only going to invest if they can see some return and have some control.
Until that happens it is unlikely that we can fund the new stadium from current revenues, particularly as the recent results would suggest that the glory years are unlikely to return this season and maybe not even within the current decade.
Not sure that the Rafa policies of trying to build a team by buying cheap 'nearly' players is going to pay off !
Looks to me as though their will be serious competition in the near future between stadium funds and money for one or two 'big signings' to bolster an under-performing squad.

Some interesting dynamics just coming round the bend !!
 

Talk about short sighted.

Where to start?

We are 6 points off top of the league with 7 games played.
The glory years? Well, the European Cup And FA cup isn't a bad start with cheap nearly players like Alonso.
We wouldn't have been allocated the European objective one funding without already providing cast Iron guarantees that funding was in place. Even if this is in the form of loans at the moment, the club still has time to figure out a more profitable way of funding the stadium.

Sometimes I really do wonder.

[GibletII]

Talk about short sighted.

Where to start?

We are 6 points off top of the league with 7 games played.
The glory years? Well, the European Cup And FA cup isn't a bad start with cheap nearly players like Alonso.
We wouldn't have been allocated the European objective one funding without already providing cast Iron guarantees that funding was in place. Even if this is in the form of loans at the moment, the club still has time to figure out a more profitable way of funding the stadium.

Sometimes I really do wonder.

Couldn't your argument also be applied to not requiring a move?

[Joe Rogans Chin]

Couldn't your argument also be applied to not requiring a move?

Yes, in relation to our league position & what we have won in the last two season, but to be perfectly honest, your last post has confused me even more.

I can't actually work out what your point is, First off all you have a go at the current proposed stadium plan, the capacity & the debt we are about to take on. In short that it's worthless & that we won't be able to keep up with the Man Utd's of this world.

Now your playing devils advocate, effectively arguing with your own point of view - you have lost me.

I asked you earlier on what you would you like the club to do & now it appears your answer is stay at Anfield and fall behind Man U but not be 180 million in debt?

Maybe invest some of the money in the team to be more successful?

That's fair enough, but I think LFC stand a better chance of being successful & keeping up with the Jones by moving to a new ground.

[GibletII]

Devils advocate.

I'm not convinced.

I can see the need to move.

I can see reasons to stay.

What is a major concern is the proposed move.

[Joe Rogans Chin]

Devils advocate.

I'm not convinced.

I can see the need to move.

I can see reasons to stay.

What is a major concern is the proposed move.

Where probably not that far off in our views, what's confusing the issue is the secrecy of how the stadium is funded, if LFC take on 180 million debt to fund the Stadium I might think along the same lines as you.

I'm hopeful that Investment & sponsorship & naming rights bring that total down considerably - to who know's as situation like this in a few years time;

Would the short term advantage be to stay put, invest in the team and increase revenues from TV, competitions, clear debt and build capital for future developments that account for a dynamic and flexible stadium model & be moving from a 60K seater stadium to a 75k if the need arises.

The crunch is how LFC are going to fund the whole project & we will just have to wait & see.

[ttnbd]

For me it falls or dies on capital coming in, servicing £180 million debt for the revenues it would create just won't work.

I take it you've done your own forecast, for the revenues generated from the increased capacity v servicing of the debt, to come to that conclusion?

If you have it would be interesting to see what figures you have used to generate your forecasts.

[Rushian]

For me it falls or dies on capital coming in, servicing £180 million debt for the revenues it would create just won't work.

But the club is looking at an increase in revenue which easily outstrips the repayment and that's before any investment or naming deal.

The real investment though is in the future of the club - we're stuck in a straight jacket at present with an ageing crowd and are at risk of losing the young core fanbase. We have to move, for me that is beyoind question. The one issue is should we have tied ourselves to the Anfield area or done a runner down the M62 - and if Parry et al had suggested the latter, could the club have got it past the fanbase?

[GibletII]

I take it you've done your own forecast, for the revenues generated from the increased capacity v servicing of the debt, to come to that conclusion?

If you have it would be interesting to see what figures you have used to generate your forecasts.

Are you taking the piss?

You especially, but even I could through figures about, but let's say we average £50 per new seat in terms of cash generated over 25 games a years, borrowing at a very favourable rate, we'd just about have a few bob over. OK there's all sorts of accounting practise that can kick in but that not the point. The be all and end all of stadium development is to give the manager CASH isn't it?

To quote Rick Parry when asked about borrowing £80 million for the project

"It’s about using extra revenues that the new capacity in the new stadium will give us to fund the actual building of the stadium. We’re not dipping into existing funds. We’re not going into this in a way that could threaten our ability to strengthen the team in any way. The whole purpose of this is to help make us more successful. We’re not building a new stadium just for the sake of having a new stadium it’s to generate additional revenues to make us more successful on the pitch. If we continue to succeed and if we continue to fill it then at the very least it will be self-financing and, of course, when it’s paid for, it will generate a very substantial amount of surplus cash. That’s in no sense rocket science. It’s a very, very simple model. It’s the normal model for stadium funding these days. What we’ve come up is something that is world class and something that we can be proud of. Which is what Liverpool Football Club is all about. We’re not ashamed of quality, we’re proud of it but it’s not Wembley-cost. "

I'd be interested to see what figures you are using.

For what it's worth I doubt very much that the stadium will go ahead using loans alone.

[GibletII]

But the club is [bold]looking[/bold] at an increase in revenue which easily outstrips the repayment and that's before any investment or naming deal.

The real investment though is in the future of the club - we're stuck in a straight jacket at present with an ageing crowd and are at risk of losing the young core fanbase. We have to move, for me that is beyoind question. The one issue is should we have tied ourselves to the Anfield area or done a runner down the M62 - and if Parry et al had suggested the latter, could the club have got it past the fanbase?

I agree.

In my crappy way that's the point I'm trying to make.

Some people need to wake up though, what happens if there is no investment or naming? What happens when the club - to satisfy the funders - sell the extra capacity to season tickets and corporates rather than encourage a turnover of fans, what happens when every game is a sell out and it's the same 50,000 week in week out with 10/15,000 rotating?

Liverpool FC have a requirement for more capacity.

Does anyone really believe that 60,000 seats in a compromise is the answer at the economic and cultural expense that we currently stand to bear?

[ttnbd]

Are you taking the piss?

You especially, but even I could through figures about, but let's say we average £50 per new seat in terms of cash generated over 25 games a years, borrowing at a very favourable rate, we'd just about have a few bob over. OK there's all sorts of accounting practise that can kick in but that not the point. The be all and end all of stadium development is to give the manager CASH isn't it?

Right here is the simple maths of the scenario you describe.

£50 per seat, average, gives an increased income of £750k per game, equating to £18.75m per season.

£180m debt repayment, per season over a 25 year repayment term and at a rate of 7% gives annual repayments of £15.5m.  That leaves £3.25m profit per season before sponsorship deals.

However, going at a more indepth look at the potential increase in revenues, the increase from league matches only is estimated to be in excess of £25m per season (what we currently make from 44,000 average crowds).  For each capacity game in europe it adds on an extra £1.25m in revenues.

The payback period for £180m of loans is about 10 years, without taking into account stadium sponsorship.

[todda]

I spoke to a Manc fan and he's said that their already looking into how to build up their Main stand in line with the others.  He reckons they can build over the rail line thus having a tunnel for a few hundred yards (not exactly uncommon) and then the main stand will become the same size as the opposite one plus they can then build two more quads at the same time.
He may have been talking shite but, they seem to get round their problems some how.

I still think we should look into builing Anfield up i.e. the Main stand and build the Anny Road bigger or similar size to the Kop seeing as there's no houses at the back now anyway? Its a fact Anfield is the best ground in the country (probably the world) for creating a great atmosphere so why move to a bigger Reebok and lose the Atmosphere?

[MikeD]

It's not just about increased capacity, it's also about modernising and improving facilities for existing fans.

I say this as a lower centenary ST holder.

With regards to the Mancs and OT. I reckon any further expansion will be mostly for corporates. In the states it is not unusual to have 3/4/5 rows of executive boxes above each other.

[D🐶G]

Around about 1999 - 2000, I think it was, plans were released to re-develop the current Anfield. Think it involved The Anfield Road End and The Main Stand, but not certain. Quite a big deal was made out of it at the time, but nothing seemed to come of it and the next that I heard was the plans for a completely new stadium. Anyone got a website which shows the original plans to re-develop the current Anfield? Saw one a while ago, but can't remember what the website was now.

[Redrider]

It is pretty obvious that we must build a larger Stadium, the revenue generation ability demands that it must happen.
The problem is how to fund the deal.
The easy answer is to sell all or some share of the ownership of the club.
David Moores does not wish to go down that route as he loses control and influence, equally he cannot afford to increase his share in the club, he thought he could negotiate with Morgan, but the two only antagonised each other.
Rick Parry has been trying for the last two years to raise investment from sponsorship, without giving away ownership. This policy looks like failing to raise any significant money, but don't bet against the 'Qatar Airways' Stadium !!

Now we enter the 'Catch 22' - As long as we have no inward investment, we have to raise money from our own sources. But we also have an existing debt to service and a team to be built. It is no use having a 60,000 seater Stadium and a mis-firing team, look what happened to Sunderland !!
If the team performs this season and has a run to the final stages of the Champions League, preferably winning the mug, then we will be in with a good shout of making some in-roads into our existing debt. Equally, if the current team looks strong enough to perform at a high level next season with no further major investment, then again we will be able to keep on an even keel.
However, if neither of those come off, then we are in the sticky! and investment will be required to build a new Stadium.

I fear that this will be a defining season for David Moores and the New Stadium will be the final cause of his sad demise !!
I sincerely hope he will survive, but let's see.

[Joe Rogans Chin]

According to this, the railway line could be built over - but the main expense would be to buy upto 50 houses close by.

In 2005 work began on filling in the corners at the North-West and North-East quadrants, creating a 76,000 capacity by the end of the season and restoring the "bowl" effect on two thirds of the ground. Expansion work on the South side is not in the immediate future because of restricted space. The nearby railway track could be built over, but the club would have to buy up to fifty nearby houses at great expense and disruption to local residents. However the long-term plan for the stadium remains to rebuild the South stand in a similar style to the North and with filled corners, make for a whopping 96,000 all seater capacity.
http://www.manutdzone.com/oldtrafford/oldtrafford.htm

[todda]

According to this, the railway line could be built over - but the main expense would be to buy upto 50 houses close by.

In 2005 work began on filling in the corners at the North-West and North-East quadrants, creating a 76,000 capacity by the end of the season and restoring the "bowl" effect on two thirds of the ground. Expansion work on the South side is not in the immediate future because of restricted space. The nearby railway track could be built over, but the club would have to buy up to fifty nearby houses at great expense and disruption to local residents. However the long-term plan for the stadium remains to rebuild the South stand in a similar style to the North and with filled corners, make for a whopping 96,000 all seater capacity.
http://www.manutdzone.com/oldtrafford/oldtrafford.htm

This is exactly what my Manc 'Friend' told me

[Ben S]

Which is still irrelevant as Network Rail won't allow it.

[LiamG]

They will if they are paid enough....

So are we actually getting the KOP at the new ground??

[Curva Nord '77]

But the club is looking at an increase in revenue which easily outstrips the repayment and that's before any investment or naming deal.

The real investment though is in the future of the club - we're stuck in a straight jacket at present with an ageing crowd and are at risk of losing the young core fanbase. We have to move, for me that is beyoind question. The one issue is should we have tied ourselves to the Anfield area or done a runner down the M62 - and if Parry et al had suggested the latter, could the club have got it past the fanbase?

to be honest Rushian I think we should have done a runner down the 62.

Anfield as an area, especially the area around the club is very run down. Parking in a fucking nightmare as is getting to and from the ground. There have been a lot more reports of people going to the game getting mugged and cars damaged etc.

Night games are the worst.

A nice bright new stadium on a decent well planned site would have done me.

I support the new stadium - because we need it - but given a choice I'd have moved it.

Once the standing Kop went, a lot of the real history went. True, nights like the Chelsea semi were marvelous but it's the fans that make the atmosphere.

A new stadium, fit for both our World Famous club and for the new century - with sufficient capacity should have been the order of the day. Regardless of location. Just build it.

The delays at Stanley Park have cost the club millions.

I think 60,000 seats is good enough for now but any stadium design should have had the option to expand and add more seats within the footprint of the stadium as a given.

A relocation to a more suitable site, with better road ( and maybe rail links ) and less local residential housing would have given the club more options in my view.

[Joe Rogans Chin]

So are we actually getting the KOP at the new ground??

It all depends on your point of view, hopefully I will have some new info in the next week or so.

Although Ged Poyntons comments where widely posted on hear, it's interesting to note what he actually said when you read it;

Work on Liverpool’s new stadium could get underway in the New Year.

Its reported city politicians will give the go ahead to lease out part of Stanley Park – that means builders can start after Christmas.

The ground should then be ready for the start of the 2009 season.

But the club will have to confirm in the next few weeks that they’ve got enough cash to fund their part of the project.
 
Current stadium manager Ged Poynton says they’ve worked hard on the designs to make sure fans approve – and they include keeping the Kop.

“One of the main points the board of directors have decided on, and I think it’s great on Liverpool’s behalf, is their going to retain a ‘Kop Three’ if we can call it that," he told Radio City.

“It won’t be a two tier stand; it will be a one lift stand for about 14,000 to 15,000 seats.

“It’ll look similar to the old Kop so we’re going to retain a Kop type of end to the new stadium which I think most fans will be happy with,” he added.

It’s thought the club will have to put together a financial package worth £180 million.

Planning permission for the stadium has already been granted.

http://www.radiocity.co.uk/article.asp?id=267991

Most fans who objected to the original design, would agree that the 'KOP 3' was a single lift stand, but the problem was the concreate concourse running across the stand, effectively splitting the 'single lift' stand in two. Added to this was the fact that the North end was identical to the south end.

I'm trying to be diplomatic,  personally from what i already know from the council I'm very disappointed & I'm waiting to see if the club will answer a few questions that I emailed them.
Only then will I be able to spill the beans, so watch this space 

[ttnbd]

Most fans who objected to the original design, would agree that the 'KOP 3' was a single lift stand, but the problem was the concreate concourse running across the stand, effectively splitting the 'single lift' stand in two. Added to this was the fact that the North end was identical to the south end.

I'm trying to be diplomatic,  personally from what i already know from the council I'm very disappointed & I'm waiting to see if the club will answer a few questions that I emailed them.
Only then will I be able to spill the beans, so watch this space 

I see your point a bit there, however the original plans were for each end to have a capacity of 13,221.  If what Ged Poynton said is accurate then there is atleast an increase in one end of 1,000 seats which would have to be taken from another area of the ground.

[Onward Liverpudlian]

I've never understood the obsession with some about outdoing or matching Utd capacity wise. I remember reading an article somewhere on the net a few years ago along the lines of - we'll never out-support Utd in the north west because Manchester Utd are viewed subconciously by the folk of the north in general and north west in particular as 'their' club - to do with Geography more than anything along with the fact that northern people in general (apart from scousers obviously) have roughly varying degrees of the same accent and that it's much easier for someone from Lancashire, most of Cheshire and even Yorkshire to identify with them rather than those strange emotional scousers. Don't forget we've got the sea to one side of us which loses us some potential large LFC supporting towns and when you compare the populations of about 20 miles or so around Old Trafford with Anfield we're at a major disadvantage. Let's see what sort of attendances Utd get when old school Fergie retires when they no doubt recruit a FIFA badge holding manager (possibly foreign) brainwashed and overcoached into the delights of 4-5-1 and over cautious home displays, combine that with Utd's continuing decline (their current lot are light years away from the class of Cantona, Beckham teams of old IMO) then they'll be lucky to fill a 76,000 OT let alone a potential 90,000+ OT. Having the largest capacity doesn't = Being the best club or winning the most trophies and we should know that more than anyone, in fact one of the great memories of our success back in the 70's/80's was us mopping up the big prizes home and abroad with the mancs only retort back was something like 'We're more famous and bigger than you' which only highlighted their desperation and failure even more and made us laugh even louder at them.

60,000 is just about right for us in my opinion, the history tells you that and the geography tells you that and even if we needed to expand further in 20+ years or so i don't really believe the bull that has been peddled about by some that our new stadium CAN'T be expanded - I'm sure clever architect types and a sympathetic council of the time would find a way of helping us achieve an expansion if we at a future date decided we wanted to. A full 60,000 stadium will always make more noise than 70,000 in a 90,000 stadium anyway and that's a scenario that may face Utd in the future if they overstretch themselves too much.