Author Topic: Bollocks to the new stadium (Read 27138 times)

Ned Kelly · « **Reply #120 on:** November 22, 2006, 01:41:50 pm »

Quote from: ttnbd on November 22, 2006, 12:56:57 pm

That is for them to answer. My opinion is that getting external investment in reduces the financial risk on the club. As i have shown above the club can save £5m per season if they can get in just £60m of investment. That is the equivalent of 25% of our normal net annual transfer budget. So instead of only having a potential £7m extra per season while debts are repaid there is an extra £12m or the debts repaid much quicker.

Strange that all the 'rumours' seem to be of buyouts while really all we need is a relativly modest injection of cash. Morgan anybody?

Rushian · « **Reply #121 on:** November 22, 2006, 03:28:21 pm »

Reducing the amount needed to borrow to pay for a new stadium allows more to be spent on the team and that's what any investment is really about.

GibletII · « **Reply #122 on:** November 22, 2006, 04:48:47 pm »

I can see that from Liverpool FCs point of view, but how many investors are interested in throwing millions of £'s at footballers?

They'll want a return.

Rushian · « **Reply #123 on:** November 22, 2006, 04:58:21 pm »

Quote from: GibletII on November 22, 2006, 04:48:47 pm

I can see that from Liverpool FCs point of view, but how many investors are interested in throwing millions of £'s at footballers?

They'll want a return.

A return can be an intrinsic increase in the value of the club, which is where I'd see the Dubai group coming in. They're investing in long-term projects with their current oil wealth.

Liver Bird · « **Reply #124 on:** November 23, 2006, 10:26:04 am »

oh dear.

Also some arsenal fan claiming that 'originally the the exterior had red brick, but English Heritage or whoever deals with Stanley Park told Liverpool to tone it down and so hence it is now grey, which is somewhat plain' anyone know is this is true or not ,not only will the new stadium resemble boltons it will be dull and plain as well. Quite like the red brick part.

Ste G · « **Reply #125 on:** November 23, 2006, 10:30:08 am »

Quote from: Liver Bird on November 23, 2006, 10:26:04 am

Also some arsenal fan claiming that 'originally the the exterior had red brick, but English Heritage or whoever deals with Stanley Park told Liverpool to tone it down and so hence it is now grey, which is somewhat plain' anyone know is this is true or not ,not only will the new stadium resemble boltons it will be dull and plain as well. Quite like the red brick part.

Yes, it is true.

Think the red brick looks a bit tacky and pastiche myself. If the grey cladding is done properly it should look quite smart and modern.

That last image you posted is ancient, from 2002 I think. Ignore it.

nidgemo · « **Reply #126 on:** November 23, 2006, 12:42:37 pm »

Quote from: Ste G on November 23, 2006, 10:30:08 am

Yes, it is true.

Think the red brick looks a bit tacky and pastiche myself. If the grey cladding is done properly it should look quite smart and modern.

Just like all those nice 70's tower blocks. They all looked nice and modern when they were built.

Acrhitects (and city planners) need to learn that architecture, that will stand for 100 years +, is not the place to be making fashion statements with what's in vogue NOW.

Red brick would never look brilliant, cutting edge...

But it would not look shit in 20 years time either, which is how grey cladding will look.

Ste G · « **Reply #127 on:** November 23, 2006, 12:48:48 pm »

That's true. The benefit of cladding though is that it can at least be replaced if (when) it starts to look a little dated.

FlashingBlade · « **Reply #128 on:** November 23, 2006, 12:51:55 pm »

Glass facades will look as dated and "time locked" in 20 years time as sixties and seventies poor quality design/materials do now.....needless to say the "new " Anfield will have a
de-rigure Glass facade...but!! I'm reminded of Simon Inglas' classic book of grounds from the early eighties which said ( and I paraphrase) Anfield has no real architectural merit when empty..but fill it full of 50,000 Liverpool fans....and I think think you have it the key building material for the new ground will be the quality of the fans

GibletII · « **Reply #129 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:35:02 pm »

Quote from: nidgemo on November 23, 2006, 12:42:37 pm

Just like all those nice 70's tower blocks. They all looked nice and modern when they were built.

Acrhitects (and city planners) need to learn that architecture, that will stand for 100 years +, is not the place to be making fashion statements with what's in vogue NOW.

Red brick would never look brilliant, cutting edge...

But it would not look shit in 20 years time either, which is how grey cladding will look.

What's your opinion on the aesthetics of the Liver, Cunard and Port Authority buildings at the Pier Head or the remanents of the Coloseum in rome for instance?

justthe5 · « **Reply #130 on:** November 23, 2006, 04:50:30 pm »

Just think about it there are loads of ashes spread on anfield an if we get rid of it all them memorys will be gone......also we wont have the same atmosphere and the kop wont be the same on the other hand if we do get a new stadium it will be alot louder but then again it wont be the same!!!

BrianL · « **Reply #131 on:** November 25, 2006, 08:40:29 am »

Quote from: justthe5 on November 23, 2006, 04:50:30 pm

Just think about it there are loads of ashes spread on anfield an if we get rid of it all them memorys will be gone......also we wont have the same atmosphere and the kop wont be the same on the other hand if we do get a new stadium it will be alot louder but then again it wont be the same!!!

Wow, why hasn't anyone else thought of that?

Liver Bird · « **Reply #132 on:** December 1, 2006, 01:50:34 pm »

sticking to the title of this thread

The reason for the move away from anfield was becos the new stadium would be cheaper than renovation but that was when the costs were under a 100 million if I'm not mistaken ?,now it costs double and rising ,surely doing up the present anfield would be a cheaper alternative.... or is the allure of the corporate side just too much ?

Samwise · « **Reply #133 on:** December 1, 2006, 02:13:03 pm »

Quote from: Liver Bird on December 1, 2006, 01:50:34 pm

sticking to the title of this thread

The reason for the move away from anfield was becos the new stadium would be cheaper than renovation but that was when the costs were under a 100 million if I'm not mistaken ?,now it costs double and rising ,surely doing up the present anfield would be a cheaper alternative.... or is the allure of the corporate side just too much ?

While the costs have increased over the years, even if there was no financial difference between redevoloping and building a new stadium, if the borad decided to stay at Anfield, then the whole process of planning application would set the club back many years.

And I am not even sure if the current site can be redeveloped to hold 60000. I know they did a feasibility study for a 55000 seater and I thinks that is the max they could have got it up to.

As you mention, the corporate facilities at the new stadium is where the real money will be made. If we were to stay at Anfield, apart from the Kop, all the other stands would have to be redeveloped. Even though the Centenary has executive boxes, they are outdated.

Obvioulsy the costs have increased dramatically, but I dont think the club would still go ahead with it if it was cheaper to stay and redevlop Anfield.

Liver Bird · « **Reply #134 on:** December 1, 2006, 04:21:31 pm »

yeah fair enough ,taken everything into account ,new plans ,new planning application ,more money,more time ,councillors in a bad mood ,it just wouldn't work now anyway ,case of that option being closed I suppose.

so its new stadium or bust by the looks of it.

ttnbd · « **Reply #135 on:** December 1, 2006, 04:49:30 pm »

Where do people get the idea that the cost of re-development has not risen while the cost of the new stadium has?

Rhino · « **Reply #136 on:** December 1, 2006, 06:55:02 pm »

If contractors have been appointed etc, how comes we have not seen any detailed plans of the updated design and any info on how its to be funded

nidgemo · « **Reply #137 on:** December 1, 2006, 07:55:24 pm »

Quote from: GibletII on November 23, 2006, 04:35:02 pm

What's your opinion on the aesthetics of the Liver, Cunard and Port Authority buildings at the Pier Head or the remanents of the Coloseum in rome for instance?

That beautiful buildings remain beautiful, and, while they'll never look modern again, will still look fantastic in any era. Be it the liver Buildings, The Coloseum, The Temple of Athena on the Acropolis in athens, the pantheon in rome, whatever state of repair they're in - class is permanent.

But there is a BIG difference between beauty, and trend.

Too many modern stadiums are trend based, and the "monstorous carbuncles" of the 60's should warn us of the danger of trendy design in structures that are even intended to last for 50 years.

(yes, I done an a level in history and appreciation of art and architecture. Got a B)

GibletII · « **Reply #138 on:** December 2, 2006, 08:12:20 am »

I agree Nidge but the point is concrete and steel framed, concrete rendered isn't in itself 'ugly', people seem to forget that some of the worlds great buildings are concrete.

English Heritage, the corpy and the general heritage lobby in Liverpool have a lot to answer for the appalling state of modern architecture in the city, down sizing and therefore reducing the ROI for developers has led to a drop in quality of developments because of these people, but in terms of Stanley Park they've got a point, red brick should be avoided. What will Stanley Parks lifespan be? 20/40 years? Maybe it should reflect a 'trend' rather than try and fit in and don't forget rendered buildings can be reclad.

Liverpool, the city and the football club, should be aspiring to be modern and forward looking, we're not living aspic or preserved in a museum (yet).

nidgemo · « **Reply #139 on:** December 2, 2006, 02:50:09 pm »

Quote from: GibletII on December 2, 2006, 08:12:20 am

I agree Nidge but the point is concrete and steel framed, concrete rendered isn't in itself 'ugly', people seem to forget that some of the worlds great buildings are concrete.

Yep, totally agree. In fact, one of the examples I stated, the Pantheon in Rome, is not just a fantastic example of how brilliant the romans were (for over 1800 years, it was the largest free standing dome in the world) but that concrete isn't a new, and not necessarily an ugly, building material.

Quote from: GibletII on December 2, 2006, 08:12:20 am

in terms of Stanley Park they've got a point, red brick should be avoided. What will Stanley Parks lifespan be? 20/40 years? Maybe it should reflect a 'trend' rather than try and fit in and don't forget rendered buildings can be reclad.

Liverpool, the city and the football club, should be aspiring to be modern and forward looking, we're not living aspic or preserved in a museum (yet).

Not sure about this though. The Albert Dock area, for example is without doubt THE most beautiful area of liverpool - it's why it's the most photographed.

But look at the dock building that now contains the holiday inn, the beatles museum, etc. Red brick. And it's architecture that's lasted. Now, had it been 90% glazed or aluminium clad 100 years ago, it wouldn't have lasted the test of time nearly as well as it has.

The danger with attempting to look modern is that it must be extremely well judged. This is true in any brand of design, be it interiors, fashion, or architecture. Imagine how bad all those beech kitchens and stainless steel will look in a few years when dark woods and marble are "in".

Modern is a dangerous game to play -- I'd go with nice, safe, classic every time.

BrianL · « **Reply #140 on:** December 3, 2006, 10:33:59 pm »

Quote from: ttnbd on December 1, 2006, 04:49:30 pm

Where do people get the idea that the cost of re-development has not risen while the cost of the new stadium has?

Excellent point! felt a bit stupid myself when you pointed it out like...

boyham · « **Reply #141 on:** December 4, 2006, 11:11:23 am »

I am all for the move. The mancs stadium generates an extra 30million a season in revenue (that is an extra rooney a season!)

As for arguments about losing the atmosphere, it will be the same fans in the new stadium as it is in Anfield.

boyham · « **Reply #142 on:** December 6, 2006, 12:03:34 pm »

Quote from: justthe5 on November 23, 2006, 04:50:30 pm

Just think about it there are loads of ashes spread on anfield an if we get rid of it all them memorys will be gone......also we wont have the same atmosphere and the kop wont be the same on the other hand if we do get a new stadium it will be alot louder but then again it wont be the same!!!

Delboy: What will happen to Anfield? Will it be knocked down? If so are you planning on selling pieces to fans? I would love to have a piece of the Kop in my living room along with a bit of turf.

"Well, we'll put his name down. We haven't decided how we are going to manage that process but the simple answer is, yes, it will be knocked down because the commitment is we've got to give back public open space in return for moving into the park. One of the key challenges and key opportunities is to be to try and preserve some of the heritage of this particular site. I'm thinking of the Hillsborough memorial, the Shankly gates, the Paisley gates, the statute - perhaps a memorial garden for where people had their ashes scattered. There are going to be some great opportunities for linkage between the old and the new.

that was taken from the ''rick parry answers questions about the new stadium'' topic in this forum mate.

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=4853.0

top of second post

so kop end lad · « **Reply #143 on:** December 6, 2006, 07:49:41 pm »

If you build it, we will come

lfcwire · « **Reply #144 on:** December 7, 2006, 01:38:18 am »

Quote from: DAVO1 on October 14, 2006, 09:22:49 pm

its new,we need to move on with the times,bigger capacity......etc etc....

bollocks.

just my view,but i don't feel its right-and i dont think we've exhausted all avenues of staying put.

whats wrong with knocking down the main stand & the row of houses behind,relocating the tenants in the streets (fully refurb of course) that are derelict,turn and lower the pitch 90 degrees and increase the capacity that way?

surely it would at least match the 55,000 of the proposed stadium?

i look at arsenals stadium & although it looks nice-its got as much atmosphere as a fucking ghost-town,ok-their fans aint exactly the greatest,but even at their best,its shite.

this way,i'm pretty sure it would cost half of that new stadium & regenerating those dreadful streets at the same time.

also,a few quid spare for transfer funds.

i expect a pasting off a few on this,but hey-its my opinion & i dont think its outrageous neither.

I'm with you on that one!

nidgemo · « **Reply #145 on:** December 7, 2006, 12:00:24 pm »

Quote from: lfcwire on December 7, 2006, 01:38:18 am

I'm with you on that one!

What, you haven't read a single thing about the new stadium either?

Fowllah · « **Reply #146 on:** December 7, 2006, 12:07:17 pm »

Quote from: Liver Bird on November 23, 2006, 10:26:04 am

Belta.

Now that this new investment looks like coming in, would it not be posible to delay the new stadium until we have a solution that most if not all are happy with? We could spend what we need on the pitch while waiting for the new stadium to materialize. 'serious' issues like design, the building of a distinctive Kop and expandability could be addressed

liamb · « **Reply #147 on:** December 7, 2006, 11:22:19 pm »

vasly similar. do we know who designed the Reebok?

Ste G · « **Reply #148 on:** December 11, 2006, 10:07:29 am »

AFL UK.

The same guys who designed the Reebok...

Anyway, for the millionth time new grounds 'look the same' for a good reason. This is taken from an architect on a fooy grounds message board:

Quote

The reason the Emirates is similar to The Stadium of Light or other big stadiums is simply it provides the maximum number of seats with the best view for the most economic cost.

Ever since the emergence of the 'Stadium For The 90's' project back in the early 90's which produced the McAlpine Stadium and then the Reebok, the idea of curved seating decks where more seats are situated in the centre and less in the corners - giving a circular 'viewing distance' plan, means the parameters have been set out.

Planning a stadium has become a scientific art with viewing distances and 'c' values - thus all glitches have been ironed out, and a 'perfect' bowl will be that shown at The Emirates.

Wembley will follow the same parameters but allow more seats in the upper corners to 'up' the capacity - in fact it is now a given that 90,000 is the maximum capacity for a football stadium, whereby all seats have 'acceptable' views of the pitch. Any larger and the uppermost seats will be too far from the pitch to have an acceptable view.

Likewise smaller stadiums will follow the exact same footprint but cutting bits out (upper tiers/ corners etc).

Therefore the only possible design variants are the depths of each tier, the steepness and the roof construction. The Emirates proves this by being SIMILAR to The Stadium Of Light in terms of seating decks, although rakes have been amended and a completely different 'drooping' roof design has been used on the Emirates.

So to conclude, if you don't like 'bowl' stadia you will be disappointed as most stadia that require a decent capacity, will be opting for this layout as it is the most efficient. It may be that less seats are used at the ends and more on the sides, but it will always be a variant of the form now set out.

¡Basta Ya! · « **Reply #149 on:** December 12, 2006, 06:41:53 am »

Quote from: Liver Bird on November 23, 2006, 10:26:04 am

oh dear.

Also some arsenal fan claiming that 'originally the the exterior had red brick, but English Heritage or whoever deals with Stanley Park told Liverpool to tone it down and so hence it is now grey, which is somewhat plain' anyone know is this is true or not ,not only will the new stadium resemble boltons it will be dull and plain as well. Quite like the red brick part.

The thing is, it won't really look anything like that reebok stadium, it will look more like the city of manchester in terms of quality - except city of manchester only has 48k seats, when ours will have 61k

One of the main problems in this whole fucking stadium "hatred" is the completely shite mock drawings, they looks shit compared to the emirates ones for example. I think if they released some decent ones, with fans and lights and a nice pitch and proper scales stands then fans might not think it so shite.

It was never going to be the worlds most individual stadium... shamefully.

Vucinic · « **Reply #150 on:** December 12, 2006, 11:05:51 am »

Quote from: Ste G on December 11, 2006, 10:07:29 am

AFL UK.

The same guys who designed the Reebok...

Anyway, for the millionth time new grounds 'look the same' for a good reason. This is taken from an architect on a fooy grounds message board:

Allianza Arena doesn't have curved stands and it looks fantastic. I wonder if people who have seats in the upper corners are complaining about bad view.

What's the point in having a scientifically designed stadium that guarantees the best possible view for as many people as possible if loads of people think that kind of stadium looks rubbish?

Ste G · « **Reply #151 on:** December 12, 2006, 12:11:48 pm »

Quote from: Vucinic on December 12, 2006, 11:05:51 am

What's the point in having a scientifically designed stadium that guarantees the best possible view for as many people as possible if loads of people think that kind of stadium looks rubbish?

Because it's more affordable?

Vucinic · « **Reply #152 on:** December 12, 2006, 12:23:08 pm »

Quote from: Ste G on December 12, 2006, 12:11:48 pm

Because it's more affordable?

Are you sure that Emirates Stadium for example was much more cost efficient than Allianz Arena because Emirates has corners of upper tiers open?

Ste G · « **Reply #153 on:** December 12, 2006, 12:31:45 pm »

Arsenal obviously felt so...

Not about what I think anyway. Different clubs have different budgets and needs.

Vucinic · « **Reply #154 on:** December 12, 2006, 12:38:22 pm »

Quote from: Ste G on December 12, 2006, 12:31:45 pm

Arsenal obviously felt so...

Not about what I think anyway. Different clubs have different budgets and needs.

There are lots of new stadiums in Germany and none of them has curved stands I think. The same with proposed new stadiums in France and Spain.

Robo707 · « **Reply #155 on:** December 12, 2006, 01:12:02 pm »

I don't really want a new stadium. Been to Anfield couple of times, and it was just amazing atmosphere. I think a new stadium would take the noise and buzz out of it.

I want L.F.C. to stay at Anfield. Just my opinion it though.

Paul · « **Reply #156 on:** December 12, 2006, 03:23:31 pm »

Quote from: Vucinic on December 12, 2006, 12:23:08 pm

Are you sure that Emirates Stadium for example was much more cost efficient than Allianz Arena because Emirates has corners of upper tiers open?

Allianz cost £230m (330m euros).

I'm sure Emirates cost more than that, and the Allianz is clearly the better stadium

ttnbd · « **Reply #157 on:** December 12, 2006, 03:46:05 pm »

Quote from: Paul on December 12, 2006, 03:23:31 pm

Allianz cost £230m (330m euros).

I'm sure Emirates cost more than that, and the Allianz is clearly the better stadium

The emirates cost £220m fixed cost. The other £100m or so related to other areas.

Vucinic · « **Reply #158 on:** December 12, 2006, 03:46:27 pm »

Quote from: Paul on December 12, 2006, 03:23:31 pm

Allianz cost £230m (330m euros).

I'm sure Emirates cost more than that, and the Allianz is clearly the better stadium

The whole project cost £390m.

http://www.arsenal.com/emiratesstadium/article.asp?article=373175

Allianz most definitely looks a lot better.

Sinjin · « **Reply #159 on:** December 12, 2006, 08:14:39 pm »

Liverpool Picks Laing for 200 Million-Pound Stadium

By Sophie Kernon and Brian McGee from bloomberg.com

Dec. 12 -- Liverpool Football Club, in takeover talks with Dubai-based investors, chose Laing O'Rourke Plc to build a new 200 million-pound ($390 million) stadium, three people familiar with the situation said.

Laing, site manager for the 2012 Olympics and builder of Cardiff's Millennium Stadium, won the order without an official round of bidding, said the people, who asked not to be identified before the contract is made public. Dartford-based Laing is Britain's biggest closely held construction company.

Carillion Plc, named preferred bidder on an initial stadium contract with Liverpool in March 2003, was not invited to price the job when the plan was revived, the people said. Sir Robert McAlpine, builder of the Emirates Stadium and a planned 80,000- seat arena for the London Olympics, declined to bid, they said.

Mark Way, an external spokesman for Laing, would neither confirm nor deny that the builder had won the Liverpool contract.

Amy Horsley in the club's press office said she wasn't authorized to speak and declined to put calls through to Chief Executive Officer Rick Parry. Official spokesman Ian Cotton didn't return calls.