Topic: Bollocks to the new stadium

[¡Basta Ya!]

Just as another point - doing all this again would cost mega money, the more I think about it, the more it seems like bollocks.

[MikeD]

existing



increased "pitch" of tier 1 and lowered playing pitch

[nidgemo]

digging down would just reduce the pitch size surely - unless it was a tier build directly beneath or a vertical stand of course - not likely though.

More angle to the stands = more rows (and better visibility) but they still end at the same point, but lower down.

As illustrated in this somewhat extreme example - 25% more rows given the longer length of stand from top to bottom, ad pitch vell below ground level, but stands actually no nearer to the pitch.

You'd need crampons and a rope to get up to the back rows, mind

existing



new

[MikeD]

The other existing cross section

[anfieldanfield]

Just as another point - doing all this again would cost mega money, the more I think about it, the more it seems like bollocks.

In the short term, yes, Tom and George would be paying some massive bills.

But in the long term it would be worthwhile...

[¡Basta Ya!]

Thanks for the explanation Mike and Nidgemo - not sure why I didn't see that myself.

The steep stands would be puuurrrrfeck

where did you get the cross view of the stadium?

[nidgemo]

Thanks for the explanation Mike and Nidgemo - not sure why I didn't see that myself.

The steep stands would be puuurrrrfeck

where did you get the cross view of the stadium?

I got it off Mike

[MikeD]

I got it off Mike

I got it from Ste G!! 

(his old website lfcnewstadium.co.uk)

[paul j]

it's probably a non starter digging down further down because the new ground has a 600-900 space carpark underneath.

[Alan_X]

Thanks for the explanation Mike and Nidgemo - not sure why I didn't see that myself.

The steep stands would be puuurrrrfeck

where did you get the cross view of the stadium?

Sorry to disappoint you lads but the rake has fuck all to do with anything. The distance between rows of seats is about 780 - 800mm regardless of the rake - so increasing the rake doesn't add any more seats - just makes it more knackeriing to get to them. Creating a stadium with more pronounced tiers (bigger overlap) would allow more rows of seats within the footprint but would increase the height considerably which may be a problem for planning.

I've said before that the best option is to modify the existing proposals to allow for future expansion - an extra tier or whatever and get the fucker built now.

[Alan_X]

From the Metric Handbook on Stadium design:

24.2 shows the suitable rake,

24.3 shows the difference between a stadium of the same size with continuous rake (as current stadium) and overlapping tiers which will have a smaller footprint but is taller and with a higher cost.

24.4 shows that spacing between rows is set by the seat, legroom and the minimum clear gangway. What I said before is not quite correct - 780-800 is for fixed seats and tip up seats are closer to 600mm - doesnlt affect the basic point that the rake doesn't affect the number of rows on a given footprint.

[nidgemo]

I DO see your point alan, and my trigonometry isn't what it was...

But if you have a triangle, and extend either the horizontal or vertical side, then doesn't the angled side increase in length as well?

Therefore, by digging in, and therefore increasing the length of the diagonal, doesn't that leave more room for seats, even at the same spacing?

Point B - assuming, due to the 700-800 mm between seats, that digging down doesn't add any seats, lets assume the ground is exactly the same as in plans...

Guessing there are 60 rows all round (which there aren't, but for convenience sake) of 1000 seats per row, at a spacing of 800mm

Then a rough guess at the effect of decreasin the spacing between the seats to the minimum legal requirement of 700 mm would give 8 extra rows within the same space, or (in this scenario) an extra 8000 seats in exactly the same stadium....

Is this a possibility? Does anyone know if the planning is for the seat spacing to be 800mm?

What is the current spacing in the kop (because it IS a little tight, but I'm 6'5, and it's manageable enough for 2 hours at a match)

[Liver Bird]

extra info from groucho on soccer24-7

'Apparently..... spoke to my Brother tonight....

They are having like a 2 week deliberating period... while they decide what they are going to do.

Now then... AFL did actually go to them with a 70,000 design, and this was turned down.
However.. they might decide to go back to that design if they realise that the extra costs of a new design will be massive.

Now then....

Here's the bit that might make you lot a bit miffed.... if they want to change the design... the time it will take before they can start construction.... 5 years!!


So???... I might not have been talking utter b0ll0x as Geeman put it then??'




'I'm just telling you whats happened.

I'm not talking bollox... I'm just passing on information that I thought Liverpool fans might find interesting.

I understand there might be many reasons why you find it implausible... and at the very least... unlikely... but I am telling you what HAS happened.

Maybe that will change... and they decide that its too much hassle and go back to the 60K design (which.. incidentally my Brother says is one hell of a boring design... as he put it.. "like a big Reebok!")

but as it stands now... they're not.'






'But the information isn't bollox... its the truth!
Its not a friends' Uncles' mates' Dad... knows the cleaner of the wife of the Architect....
My brother works at AFL... and was working on the drawings... and now he isn't! 

I haven't seen the plans... no.

As I said.... my Brother said in his opinion it is a boring design.. and looks like a big Reebok'





upto others to decide whether he's just making it up and talking bollocks.

[¡Basta Ya!]

Now then... AFL did actually go to them with a 70,000 design, and this was turned down.
However.. they might decide to go back to that design if they realise that the extra costs of a new design will be massive.

That begs the question - what new design?

[ttnbd]

I DO see your point alan, and my trigonometry isn't what it was...

But if you have a triangle, and extend either the horizontal or vertical side, then doesn't the angled side increase in length as well?

Therefore, by digging in, and therefore increasing the length of the diagonal, doesn't that leave more room for seats, even at the same spacing?

Depends on how much the height and depth of the triangle changes by.  If you decrease the depth of the triangle by the same amount that you increase the height then the length of the angled side wouldn't actually change.  You would need the height of the stand to increase by greater than the change in the depth of the stand.  If you increase the depth of the stand then the stand just becomes shallower, increasing the height just makes it steeper, and if you've been in the upper kemlyn then you know it can't realistically get much steeper than that.

The images of the priory road stand show about a 30 to 35 degree inclanation from the horizontal. The lower tier is much shallower at around 20 degrees (assuming I've done me maths correctly on this, been a good few years since my degree).

The goal ends are around 27 degrees inclination to the horizontal.

[Brian Blessed]

Current plan:

y
  |
  |
  |
  |____
         x

Digging deeper, with a steeper gradient:
y
  |
  |
  |
  |
  |
  |____
         x

(forgive the crude pic)

Digging down would increase the y-axis, increasing height. But, x-axis remains the same. Think of seats as only horizontal, or on the x-axis. It doesn't matter how long the y-axis gets, x-axis remains the same.

So the only way to add seats would be less legroom.

[Ben S]

That begs the question - what new design?

Any new design for a 70,000 stadium they want to pull from their portfolio.

Planning permission is the key (assuming any of this is true) and thats where the 5 year figure (assuming any of this is true) comes from. The council will insist on public transport (rail) into the area being improved etc.

Frankly at the moment, I'm inclined to say this is bollocks, however can see why it could be true.

[¡Basta Ya!]

Any new design for a 70,000 stadium they want to pull from their portfolio.

Planning permission is the key (assuming any of this is true) and thats where the 5 year figure (assuming any of this is true) comes from. The council will insist on public transport (rail) into the area being improved etc.

Frankly at the moment, I'm inclined to say this is bollocks, however can see why it could be true.

The "rumors" suggests that is the option offered by  AFL and if this new design (could be a 90k or something completely different) then if that is too much then they will reconsider the AFL 70k - either way a change..

this is becoming tedious

[Alan_X]

Current plan:

y
  |
  |
  |
  |____
         x

Digging deeper, with a steeper gradient:
y
  |
  |
  |
  |
  |
  |____
         x

(forgive the crude pic)

Digging down would increase the y-axis, increasing height. But, x-axis remains the same. Think of seats as only horizontal, or on the x-axis. It doesn't matter how long the y-axis gets, x-axis remains the same.

So the only way to add seats would be less legroom.

correct - also if the gradient is too steep it becomes uncomfortable.

[wilo in berlin]

Interesting discussion. I like the idea about steeper stands and lower pitch to get to 70k. All the infrastructure stuff would surely then have to be looked at again...

Why not try to incorporate some of these things in the roof?



Smiles = $, no?

[todda]

Triganometry, Geometry Colour, Creed or Roots the only thing that unites us is DR. Martins Boots 



The Young Ones by the way Mr Bolowski around 1984 before anyone asks   

[liverpool-18*****]

It would be great if the new kop could be similar to dortmunds were its safe terraces,saw something on the BBC that 92 % want the terraces back.

[Brian Blessed]

Where do JFT96 stand on terraces?

(Edit: Pun unintended)