Author Topic: 70,000 capacity  (Read 90865 times)

Offline redchiz

  • No income tax, no VAT
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,959
  • The Reds are coming up the hill, boys...
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #200 on: February 12, 2007, 02:27:27 pm »
I have just realized that the same firm that made the design for the new Anfield was also the designer for the ManU and Chelsea stadium upgrades ...

http://www.afl-uk.com/

Don't see Man U on there, mate.
"Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few." Percy Bysshe Shelley

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #201 on: February 12, 2007, 03:04:21 pm »
Don't see Man U on there, mate.

City of manchester he meant :)
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,558
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #202 on: February 12, 2007, 04:18:29 pm »
City of manchester he meant :)

I think they did do some of the Theatre of Rimmers upgrades... North stand up to 55,000 and then East and West stands up to 67,000 not sure if they did the latest.

As AFL are a firm with a fair amount of experience in expanding stadiums, you have to wonder whether there is provision for expansion in the design.

The idea that there is no way to expand the new stadium may just be for the benefit of the planners. After all it's better to get a 60,000 ground built where it is and then expand than blow any chance of a stadium in Anfield by bragging how we are going to expand to 70,000 or 75,000 from the outset. It wouldn't be the first time Liverpool FC have kept their council while having something in hand.

Personally I think it wouldn't be too hard to expand in the future. The roof is actually one reason why that's the case. If you look at the sections MikeD posted then the roof sits on the edge of the stands and most of the weight is supported by the masts. You could add another tier like they did at the San Siro with the structure outboard of the back of the stands and simply raise the roof. The architects just need to make sure that the foundations can take any future weight and that the steel columns that support the back of the stands are sized accordingly - piece of cake!

It would be easier to expand a stadium with a roof like Anfield's in my opinion than it was to expand OT where they have had to construct those massive ugly cantilevered roof trusses to support the roof.

Of course it would be contentious with the planners but the basic principle with anything like that is build the thing first then change it. Incidentally - looking at the sections for the first time I'd guess that one of the principle requirements of the planners was to minimise the "massing" of the stadium. The main solid parts only go up to about 5 stories, which is a requirement of the outline approval fro the Anfield Plaza development. The stands then rise above it on lightweight structure with a minimal roof structure.

It's actually very site specific and looks to be an intelligent solution to getting a massive stadium (I don't think people really appreciate how big it is) in the middle of Stanley Park.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2007, 04:44:54 pm by Alan_F »
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #203 on: February 12, 2007, 11:11:54 pm »
Personally I think it wouldn't be too hard to expand in the future. The roof is actually one reason why that's the case. If you look at the sections MikeD posted then the roof sits on the edge of the stands and most of the weight is supported by the masts. You could add another tier like they did at the San Siro with the structure outboard of the back of the stands and simply raise the roof. The architects just need to make sure that the foundations can take any future weight and that the steel columns that support the back of the stands are sized accordingly - piece of cake!

We could knock the fucker up in our back garden, mate. Get yer saw Al.
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline arfy05

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,190
  • Conspiracy Theorist
    • The arfy blog
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #204 on: February 13, 2007, 02:27:00 am »
just for clarification do we not own stanley park.

Offline ttnbd

  • RAWK Chief Financial Officer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,975
  • ANFIELD4EVER
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #205 on: February 13, 2007, 07:08:31 am »
just for clarification do we not own stanley park.

No.  It is owned by the city.  It is a public park the club will have a leasehold over the ground the stadium sits on while they will likely keep the freehold of the land anfield currently sits on.
So all say thanks to the Shanks

He never walked alone

Lets sing our song for all the world

From this his Liverpool home

Offline MikeD

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #206 on: February 13, 2007, 10:53:22 am »
Personally I think it wouldn't be too hard to expand in the future. The roof is actually one reason why that's the case. If you look at the sections MikeD posted then the roof sits on the edge of the stands and most of the weight is supported by the masts. You could add another tier like they did at the San Siro with the structure outboard of the back of the stands and simply raise the roof. The architects just need to make sure that the foundations can take any future weight and that the steel columns that support the back of the stands are sized accordingly - piece of cake!

I'm bored!! Here's what I think was being described, 4 concrete columns in the spaces between the stands, that support a 3rd tier (white ring) plus a San Siro style roof.




Offline Tuesday

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 871
  • Alright Aldo?
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #207 on: February 13, 2007, 12:56:50 pm »
Aren't we limited to 61,000 though because of the council?  Read somewhere that we have height limits on the stadium for a start and the design wouldn't support any proper increases. 
I think any less than 70,000 is a waste, personally.  Look at the length of the season ticket waiting list.
Sound as a pound!

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #208 on: February 13, 2007, 03:29:50 pm »
Aren't we limited to 61,000 though because of the council?  Read somewhere that we have height limits on the stadium for a start and the design wouldn't support any proper increases. 
I think any less than 70,000 is a waste, personally.  Look at the length of the season ticket waiting list.

A toss up between 61k and move out of the city and have another 9k. Not to mention the astronomical costs of the extra capacity.
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline SimonW

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #209 on: February 15, 2007, 09:49:47 pm »
There is no way 60,000 capacity is enough for Liverpool. We should be aiming to compete with united as far as capacity goes. 70,000 minimum although 80,000 would be class.

Maybe I'm getting a little carried away but I'm sure we could fill an 80,000 most games going by season tickets waiting lists.

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #210 on: February 15, 2007, 11:23:52 pm »
There is no way 60,000 capacity is enough for Liverpool. We should be aiming to compete with united as far as capacity goes. 70,000 minimum although 80,000 would be class.

Maybe I'm getting a little carried away but I'm sure we could fill an 80,000 most games going by season tickets waiting lists.

As I and many others have said - it wasn't possible.

80k is crazy talk.
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline redchiz

  • No income tax, no VAT
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,959
  • The Reds are coming up the hill, boys...
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #211 on: February 16, 2007, 12:28:10 am »
There is no way 60,000 capacity is enough for Liverpool. We should be aiming to compete with united as far as capacity goes. 70,000 minimum although 80,000 would be class.

Maybe I'm getting a little carried away but I'm sure we could fill an 80,000 most games going by season tickets waiting lists.

My dad's bigger than your dad.
"Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few." Percy Bysshe Shelley

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #212 on: February 16, 2007, 12:50:23 am »
My dad's bigger than your dad.
It's logic like this that I don't understand. We know full well that you've never seen my dad, yet you are willing to make sizist comments like that.

it's a joke I tell ya.
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline redchiz

  • No income tax, no VAT
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,959
  • The Reds are coming up the hill, boys...
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #213 on: February 16, 2007, 01:21:16 am »
It's logic like this that I don't understand. We know full well that you've never seen my dad, yet you are willing to make sizist comments like that.

it's a joke I tell ya.

You're right. We should have a 110000 seater stadium, except 90000 wouldn't be seats at all, just a big steeply banked terrace behind one goal. And my grandad could beat the shit out of your grandad.
"Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few." Percy Bysshe Shelley

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #214 on: February 16, 2007, 01:28:16 am »
You're right. We should have a 110000 seater stadium, except 90000 wouldn't be seats at all, just a big steeply banked terrace behind one goal.

I'm not really up for tumbling down that fucker and then having to climb all the way back up it.


Quote
And my grandad could beat the shit out of your grandad.

No need, he no longer has his own bowels - they are now really easy to remove. No kicking required
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline redchiz

  • No income tax, no VAT
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,959
  • The Reds are coming up the hill, boys...
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #215 on: February 16, 2007, 01:33:23 am »
No need, he no longer has his own bowels

 :o Jeez, who's has he got?
"Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few." Percy Bysshe Shelley

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #216 on: February 16, 2007, 01:33:48 am »
:o Jeez, who's has he got?

Bander from futurama.
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline redchiz

  • No income tax, no VAT
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,959
  • The Reds are coming up the hill, boys...
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #217 on: February 16, 2007, 01:39:44 am »
"Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few." Percy Bysshe Shelley

Offline StevieG26

  • Would like to be the first of offer his criticisms.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,548
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #218 on: February 16, 2007, 07:59:48 am »
As someone pointed out here... Considering the length of the season ticket waiting list, 61000 is a bit strange. There's certainly a catch there which Parry seems to refuse to talk about.
"Football is not a matter of life and death. I can assure you that it is much more important than that."

Bill Shankly.

Offline Jackson_Red

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #219 on: February 16, 2007, 08:53:28 am »
Personally, I would love to see at the very least a 70,000 seater  stadium (with also plans for further expansion if attendances proved successful - at a later date). Can I just point out - I am from Northern Ireland and like so many other fans I know over here - we travel (at much cost i might add) to many many games in a season (I have been to eight home games already this season) but the BIGGEST problem for most of us is getting the tickets. I know that if there was more capacity.....results in more ticket availability....then more of us would get over and FILL the stadium. Resulting in more revenue for the club. Its a WIN WIN situation.

Offline Steve_M

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,760
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #220 on: February 16, 2007, 10:28:08 am »
Personally, I would love to see at the very least a 70,000 seater  stadium (with also plans for further expansion if attendances proved successful - at a later date). Can I just point out - I am from Northern Ireland and like so many other fans I know over here - we travel (at much cost i might add) to many many games in a season (I have been to eight home games already this season) but the BIGGEST problem for most of us is getting the tickets. I know that if there was more capacity.....results in more ticket availability....then more of us would get over and FILL the stadium. Resulting in more revenue for the club. Its a WIN WIN situation.

I don't believe that that will be true mate.  What will happen for those who travel from Ireland (North and South) is that as more tickets become available, then the number of day-trippers will increase which actually will bite into the costs of those who travel regularly as Easyjet and Ryanair flights will become extortionate with many more wanting to book. The knock on affect is that lads who travel quite often now (I know several who are ST holders and do 20+ games a season) will have to cut back as costs soar. It'll probably mean numbers will level out.  Just loads of more day-trippers who don't care paying silly money for one weekend in Liverpool per season. 

Offline Jackson_Red

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #221 on: February 16, 2007, 10:49:06 am »
I take your point mate - but still disagree. For example - the way we work it is - when the fixture list comes out - we (myself and between 5 - 6 mates) look at all our options for the home games. Takes time and careful planning (if you book early the price is much much cheaper and the fact that you have lots of alternatives) 1. Easyjet - Belfast to Liverpool, 2. Bmibaby - Belfast to Manchester, 3. Ryanair - Derry to Liverpool. 4. Flybe - Belfast City to Liverpool. 5. Norsemerchant (Ferry) Belfast to Birkenhead. (at times we have even gone dublin to manchester / dublin to liverpool / belfast to leeds) (Once - not to be repeated Belfast stranaer - nearly crashed on way home - too tired!)  To justify my point - I want to point out that for me (and many others) a game inc ticket + travel (FROM N.IRELAND TOO!!!!)costs me around approx £100 to £125. Not silly money for a true fan is it? Im prepared to pay that to get there and experience the atmosphere of anfield. I know so many more that would go - if only they could get a ticket! (thats the hard part for them..... not the travel) Nearly all our Games - sold out!

You see what im trying to get across is that if we are prepared to take such measures and travel to get not just one game a season (8 and counting on my part - and plans already made for Man U, Arsenal, Boro). Then I know that more will attend too. Bigger stadium, bigger capacity then more availability for tickets

Offline Jackson_Red

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #222 on: February 16, 2007, 10:56:32 am »
Here's a stat for you...... our average capacity for all home games this season is 43,577. With our highest being 44,330 (against spurs) and our lowest 41,370 (against bolton) Not bad - considering that the bolton game was on New Years day. Shows that demand is there!

So, Can we fill 70,000 seater stadium on a regular basis? I have no doubts.

Offline Jackson_Red

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #223 on: February 16, 2007, 02:55:50 pm »
You only have to look on this site for the demand for tickets - exchange program or anything. We have such a demand - filling a 70,000 seater will be NO PROBLEM

Offline Georgi_Angelovski

  • No new LFC topics
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #224 on: February 16, 2007, 04:10:13 pm »
As someone pointed out here... Considering the length of the season ticket waiting list, 61000 is a bit strange. There's certainly a catch there which Parry seems to refuse to talk about.

I don't think there will be a problem to sell-out 70.000 capacity for every home game ... The problem is with the regulation (traffic and environment) ... I serve on the planning committee in my town and there are traffic conditions (especially parking space, roads, streets, railways etc.) that have to be met for every building permition to be issued ... Just to make things clear ... This is the proposed parking area for the 60.000 capacity New Anfield stadium ...

Offline redchiz

  • No income tax, no VAT
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 4,959
  • The Reds are coming up the hill, boys...
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #225 on: February 16, 2007, 04:13:31 pm »
Just to make things clear ... This is the proposed parking area for the 60.000 capacity New Anfield stadium ...

 ???
"Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few." Percy Bysshe Shelley

Offline Georgi_Angelovski

  • No new LFC topics
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #226 on: February 16, 2007, 04:18:04 pm »
???

From the official planning application ...

Offline ¡Basta Ya!

  • Big Mac Whopper. Proud owner of "mods-are-cunts" account. Strangely no longer with us.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 13,874
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #227 on: February 16, 2007, 04:19:26 pm »
From the official planning application ...

Thats a massive car park ;D
* WARNING - The above post may contain sarcasm. Maybe some irony, if you're lucky.

AS ALWAYS, WE ARE FOCUSED ON SUPPORTING OUR MANAGER

Offline Georgi_Angelovski

  • No new LFC topics
  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #228 on: February 16, 2007, 05:19:44 pm »
Alternative sites considered ...

Offline Walt

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
    • the mighty reds
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #229 on: February 16, 2007, 05:47:15 pm »
No probs parking then, bring it on... ;D
I want to be an Albert drinker, I am now...
Now i'm an Anny roader, I want to be a Kopite... Mission accomplished
* * * * *

Offline dom lfc

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #230 on: February 16, 2007, 07:06:11 pm »
i think same as jackson red,im from belfast n.ireland and think that if there were more tickets/season tickets released for new stadium we  could fill say a 65-70,000 stadium or even the fact of more tickets going on sale.ive been over 5 times this season with afew friends and would be over every home match if i could but its hard to get tickets.if we had season tickets or could get tickets easier,when the fixtures are released we could book our flghts then and there would be alot more people doing the same from over here.
SOS Member; 8306..

Offline peer

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #231 on: February 16, 2007, 11:04:13 pm »
I think that to start with a stadium of 61,000 people isn't that bad. But it should be given the possibility to expand the stadium if needed.
If we can get a 2 year sell out every game with 61,000 we can think about expanding to 70-75,000 maybe. First you should get certainty to see about filling the stadium every game.
United didn't also get from 44,000 to 76,000 at once. But it doesn't surprise me if Hicks will come with something to get more seats out of it most important business seats. It's worser to start with 80,000 and you ain't fill it...........

Offline Steve_M

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,760
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #232 on: February 18, 2007, 05:59:35 pm »
I take your point mate - but still disagree. For example - the way we work it is - when the fixture list comes out - we (myself and between 5 - 6 mates) look at all our options for the home games. Takes time and careful planning (if you book early the price is much much cheaper and the fact that you have lots of alternatives)

Well aware mate, that's what all the regulars do.  I'm usually at 25+ games per season doing the same thing, but this season costs have increased significantly as more want to travel to games.  Add in that the cost of flights has increased in general plus they have increased the tax lately and match tickets are heading towards £40 a game.  A few seasons ago, I could have done the day trip for about £60.  Now it's costing something like £100+ and will get worse if more tickets are available via ST or PTS and more will try to book the same flights. 

Quote
To justify my point - I want to point out that for me (and many others) a game inc ticket + travel (FROM N.IRELAND TOO!!!!)costs me around approx £100 to £125. Not silly money for a true fan is it? Im prepared to pay that to get there and experience the atmosphere of anfield.

Will you still pay it if the costs rise to £150-£200 per game?

I made a decision (and a couple of the regulars that I travel with have agreed that  they will also be doing the same in future) to stop passing on tickets to anyone who is not a regular.  Previously I tried to help anyone out with match tickets, but I realised that I was helping to cut the throats of other regulars.  Barca at home is a good example.  Loads booked flights although they have no tickets, so I decided why should I help them as they are costing me and the others who have been to the other games to get tickets?  Selfish maybe, but AFAIC they haven't paid out the hard cash over a season, so from now on I won't be helping them.

if we had season tickets or could get tickets easier,when the fixtures are released we could book our flghts then and there would be alot more people doing the same from over here.

And everyone else with a ST would be doing the exact same and driving the costs up.  Flybe is cutting their route to Liverpool and Easyjet have reduced the number of lfights out and back to Liverpool on Saturdays from 3 each way to 2 over and 1 back now. Then you end up staying over and if you want to do over 20 games a season, believe me, your costs will soar.

Offline stueya

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 842
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #233 on: February 18, 2007, 10:49:50 pm »
The only way we could have had 70k capacity would have been if we had gone and build on the speke or Garston sites, the main overriding reason for the capacity being set at 61k was for no other reason than traffic flow and moving 70 thousand people from the anfield area at once. With poor rail links from the area( especially when you can't call the merseyside railways a Mass Transit System) and awful road links (too many traffic light junctions and too far from the motorway network) it just wouldn't be viable, and to be honest I personally believe that unless major improvements are planned as part of the regeneration program then I fear total traffic chaos on matchdays as it is, given that it is poor now with with a 45k capacity.
We all live in a purple wheelie bin

Offline Jackson_Red

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #234 on: February 19, 2007, 11:59:08 am »
Steve_M.... thanks for the post. Well replied mate with some very good valid points. But, in response, where i do agree with you that costs will increase - (i would probably still pay it!)  i feel it would be maybe for the short term only. Greater demand on flights, creates competition between airlines to fill their scheduled flights, higher demand resulting on possibly more frequent routes

I really do still feel that more availability - greater capacity will help allow more people the priviledge of getting to watch Liverpool play.

You only have to stand outside Anfield on a match day and soak in all the fan base - travel from all over the world. A guy who sat next to me one game was from Norway - travels over 10 to 12 times a season.


Plus it will stop all the touts - I hate the fact that they are ripping off fans who want to get to see their favourite team play but have to pay way over the odds for a ticket outside the ground.

Offline adzogolonzo

  • Kemlynite
  • **
  • Posts: 43
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #235 on: February 19, 2007, 06:14:54 pm »
Do they know when the final plans will be submitted as there are numerous designs out there at the moment

Offline GibletII

  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
  • Fug Off Luton
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #236 on: February 19, 2007, 08:08:29 pm »
Transport is a red herring, it can easily be sorted out.

Offline oojason

  • The Official RAWK Audio Visual God. Founder Member of the Ricky Gervais' 'David Brad Fan Club'.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 24,422
  • The Awkward Squad
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #237 on: February 19, 2007, 11:41:59 pm »
Home is where the heart is...Feb 19 2007

by James Pearce, Liverpool Echo

(http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc/gronudmove/tm_headline=home-is-where-the-heart-is%2D%2D%2D%26method=full%26objectid=18643848%26siteid=50061-name_page.html)


WORK is set to start on Liverpool’s new stadium in Stanley Park in the coming weeks.

The state-of-the-art £200 million project should be finished in time for the Reds to kick-off the 2009/2010 season in their new home.

But will the move from the current 44,500 capacity Anfield to a 60,000 seater stadium really satisfy the demand for tickets? It would seem not.

There are currently a staggering 56,000 supporters on the season ticket waiting list.

The move to the new ground will allow many more fans to claim their own seat, but for the vast majority the long wait will go on.

At present Anfield has 24,000 season ticket holders and it’s unlikely that figure will rise beyond 40,000 at the new ground, with the remaining 20,000 taken up by members of the priority ticket scheme, general sale and away fans.

The new Anfield will be the same size at Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium and second in Premiership capacity only to Old Trafford, which now holds 76,000.

But with so many fans desperate to get a slice of the action, why didn’t the Reds set their sights even higher?

The answer lies in the club’s commitment to stay close to its roots.

Stadium manager Ged Poynton said: “We could have possibly gone elsewhere, where there is more space, and built a 70,000 or 80,000 stadium, but the overwhelming desire was to stay in the Anfield area.

“If we wanted to build a ground in Stanley Park then 60,000 was the biggest it could be.

“It’s not just a case of the size of the land available but also the infrastructure. Things like transport links have to be taken into consideration.”

Liverpool Football Club supporters club chairman Richard Pedder believes the vast majority of fans are happy with the plans.

“It’s very important to supporters that we aren’t moving far,” he said.

“The ground is called Anfield and it’s in the constituency of Anfield.

“The area has always been the home of the club and it’s very important that there is that continuity.

“I think from day one Rick Parry has appreciated that. Staying local is also vital for the regeneration of Anfield.

“Anfield is known across the world. That’s why whatever the new stadium is called it has to have the word ‘Anfield’ in it. The name Anfield can be added to but it cannot be completely changed.

“Some people will say a 60,000 capacity isn’t big enough but you’ve got to remember that filling a massive stadium still depends on the side being successful.”

New American owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks are currently re-assessing plans for the new stadium, although due to the time scale and planning permission, any changes they make are likely to be minor.

Hicks, who partly built his billion dollar fortune in the construction industry, has vowed to ensure the unique Anfield atmosphere isn’t lost by the move.

“I’m assured that the design that’s already been done and is in place will ensure that the individuality and aura of Anfield remains in our new home,” he said.

“That uniqueness is what makes Anfield such a famous stadium and no-one wants to lose that.

“We’re going to try and tweak a few minor things that people may not even be able to see.

“The stadium will retain the same level of noise and excitement that makes it such a special place. A lot of new stadiums haven’t done that but ours will, I’m sure.

“The alterations are things like the design of the suites, and how many suites there are. Can we maximise capacities?

“We’ll also be looking at the functionalities of the suites and also at the idea of supporter focused bars which open early on matchdays and stay open late after games.

“We’re taking a fresh look at things to see if there are any other creature comforts we can fit in to make it special for supporters.”

.
Some 'Useful Info' for following the football + TV, Streams, Highlights & Replays etc - www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=345769

A mini-index of RAWK's 'Liverpool Audio / Video Thread' content over the years; & more - www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=345769.msg17787576#msg17787576

Offline shanklyboy

  • OCB Enforcer.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 11,591
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #238 on: February 20, 2007, 12:33:33 am »
Here , as a reminder is part of the interview Rick Parry gave in 2002.
It was confirmed that there would be a single tiered Kop, and more relevent to this discussion about capacity is the confirmation that there is room to increase it if need be. Now we are hearing that it's down to the infrastructure and transport links etc!
I am convinced that we wouldn't have any problem filling a 65,000 seater every week. It seems that the club doubts the feasibility of this. Whoever did the demographics for them should hand the fee back!
The existing plans could be re-jigged to accommodate the additional 5,000 especially if that horrible curve was taken out of the stadium design.

'What we have been doing is coming from the start point of looking at a 70,000-seater stadium. We brought it downwards to what we think is more manageable proportions but we are trying to retain some flexibility and looking not just to next year but 10 or 15 years ahead. In football that is never easy but we think we have an answer here that gives a much better long-term solution."

Welshkopite: Why are the corners of the ground left open, when one of the major benefits at the current Anfield is that the all enclosed stadium provides a better atmosphere - something we're renowned for!

"There is certainly scope for this design to be modified. It's not necessarily the final version. Part of the design is driven by cost considerations. There's no point pretending otherwise. The initial 70,000-seater stadium was going to cost in the region of £120m to £130m and we felt we could achieve that without compromising what we invest in the team, which is the last thing we want. The cost of this stadium is much more likely to be in the range of £60m to 70m. Inevitably that is going to result is some compromise somewhere - you can't build the absolute top of the range stadium for more of a middle of the range price. That said, quality is something that we are definitely going to deliver. Things like, do the corners have to be left exactly as they are? No they don't. There is scope for further work."

RichyCran: Mentioned in the article is the proposal to relocate the Shankly Gates, Paisley Gateway and Hillsborough Memorial.
However, the matter of the relocation of the Kop has not been covered. This stand is the 'Heart of Liverpool Football Club' so my question is:
Will the proposed new ground have a single tier, banked terrace behind one goal called the Kop, with a similar, if not greater capacity? Will all efforts be made to ensure that the acoustic qualities of the old Anfield will be transposed or enhanced in this new proposal?

"A very simple answer to that is yes. One of the interesting features in the design of this - although looking at the roof structure it looks like a bowl - is that it is very much a traditional football stadium with four stands. Certainly the intention is for the Kop to be a single tier with probably a slightly larger capacity than the current one. Of course we are going to make every effort to preserve - and indeed even enhance - the atmosphere."

Steer: Is this the final proposal in terms of design? Is there are chance for changes e.g. if there isn't a Kop stand in the design?

"Of course some changes can still be made. There has been quite a lot of detailed comment made on various aspects of it which the architects will be taking on board. It's a vision of what can be. It's not, in any sense, the absolute final version."
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John F. Kennedy.
www.savelfc.org

Offline ttnbd

  • RAWK Chief Financial Officer
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,975
  • ANFIELD4EVER
Re: 70,000 capacity
« Reply #239 on: February 20, 2007, 07:18:11 am »
Here , as a reminder is part of the interview Rick Parry gave in 2002.
It was confirmed that there would be a single tiered Kop, and more relevent to this discussion about capacity is the confirmation that there is room to increase it if need be. Now we are hearing that it's down to the infrastructure and transport links etc!
I am convinced that we wouldn't have any problem filling a 65,000 seater every week. It seems that the club doubts the feasibility of this. Whoever did the demographics for them should hand the fee back!
The existing plans could be re-jigged to accommodate the additional 5,000 especially if that horrible curve was taken out of the stadium design.


That interview was when the initial plans were announced when the stadium had a 55,000 capacity for comparison purposes.

Also it has been discussed why the stands have a curve design.  Although next time you are at anfield have a look at the Kop.  See what sort of shape that follows at the back (when looking from the inside of the ground)
So all say thanks to the Shanks

He never walked alone

Lets sing our song for all the world

From this his Liverpool home