Topic: Bollocks to the new stadium

[Holmes]

I don't like the design of the proposed new stadium.

To me, a move will see us lose some of our character, our identity. The new design looks like any other new stadium, a la Arsenal.

[Alf Garnett!]

I don't think I've ever read a less considered, unknowledgable and badly researched post in my life.

Well done.

Suffice to say, without taking the time to disprove it, that everything you've said is wrong. Apart from possibly Arsenals fans being shite.

without being pedantic....

ok the club states that they've explored every avenue of expanding the current site....

an example of how directors/business's get it wrong on a similar sort of way....

a few years back Standard Life wrote to shareholders almost begging them to vote no and stay mutual and it was in the best interests not to float on the stock market-only a couple of years later,the same directors wrote to the same shareholders recommending them to vote yes on floating.

yes,its got fuckall to do with LFC,but i'm just trying to get my point across that i don't take any companies statement regarding anything as set in stone,and their recommendations/suggestions are correct or should be adhered to.

where there is a will there is a way.

yes,there are parts to my original post that is unworkable,but who is ever right 100% all the time??

At least we've got someone who is right up to date with everything LFC and knows everything to keep us all in line, eh nidgemo?

i'm not in favour of the ground move at all,there is too much history here & i think the magic of Anfield could evaporate if/when it goes through-i just dont see the 12th man being as good or as intimidating as it is now.

[amallorcanred]

Just a thought and do not take it the wrong way but if it is impossible to expand, no one in their right mind wants to move but if we stay as we are we will end up like the blue shite.
Terrible as it is and it is but we have to move.
Gettting back to the start of this thread Highbury had a bit of history about it - not quite like Anfield but it had a load of history.
In an Ideal world we could extend or expand or whatever but from all I have read and been told we cannot.

[Alf Garnett!]

my mrs in disguise?

[stueya]

i'm not in favour of the ground move at all,there is too much history here & i think the magic of Anfield could evaporate if/when it goes through-i just dont see the 12th man being as good or as intimidating as it is now.

I'm not being funny mate it can't be any worse than this season, the 12th man hasn't shown up so far,  the atmosphere at every home game this season has been poor.

[Oooh to be a Gooner]

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.

That's a bit harsh! Our new stadium can potentially be much better than Highbury in terms of Atmosphere, it's just that the fans are the ones letting Arsenal down. I think the way the stadium is made is good for acoustics and keeps the noise in. We've always been quiet during the last ten years or so but our away fans are quite good actually. It's the same with Manure.

There are many old school gooners who just don't like the Emirates. It's just not Arsenal they say. It's big and red and that's about it. I mean it's called 'Emirates' ffs! Talk about capitalism and commercialism taking over in football. It lacks character even though at the same time it looks beautiful.

Personally, i believe character is built over time and even in 30 years it will have a bit of tradition. There's a first time for everything and when we moved to Highbury in 1913 that stadium was new and 'was not Arsenal'. Yet after almost one hundred years we've had so many memories. I believe the same will happen with Emirates after the same amount of time. I think these problems will be the same for Liverpool fans but there is this urge to move forward as a club. Arsenal needed to compete financially with Chelsea, Manure and other big European clubs and we couldn't do it without moving stadium. Have Arsenal lost their soul? Yes and no. Yes because we've moved from the stadium we've been living in all these years but no because we're still in Islington, North London and we are not actually owned by a foreigner like Manure and Chelsea. It's a shame our club badge was changed to from the one in my avatar to the one we have now.

[Peeker]

People dont like change, but unfortunately we have to move to keep up financially with the top teams.
Commercialism and capitalism are taking over, and we cannot afford to be ignorant like we were in the early 90s when football was beginning to change. Liverpool clung onto its 'bootroom' tradition, and was left in the slipstream of Man Utd, who basically prostituted themselves to get in as much money as possible.

More money=better players=better team=more trophies is the idea..but we shit on that theory up with Istanbul!!!

The emirates sponsorship has allowed Arsenal to move into this new stadium, and its something that we need to get use to....because its probably going to happen to us.

[liamo3]

I just posted another thread but it begs the question of how the fuck we will
sell out a European night like tomorrow night and other cup games especially midweek ones just look at the amount of spares for tomorrows game ad another 10k plus to that with the new stadium and a lot of empty seats I reckon will look embarrassing too

[ttnbd]

I just posted another thread but it begs the question of how the fuck we will
sell out a European night like tomorrow night and other cup games especially midweek ones just look at the amount of spares for tomorrows game ad another 10k plus to that with the new stadium and a lot of empty seats I reckon will look embarrassing too

Reading sold out, european games sell out more often than not.  With loyalty being a huge factor now people will buy tickets, whether they go or not is one thing but from the clubs point of view it won't matter as they will have got the money.  There is also likely to be a more relaxed policy to pricing of midweek games.

[Rhino]

Reading sold out, european games sell out more often than not.  With loyalty being a huge factor now people will buy tickets, whether they go or not is one thing but from the clubs point of view it won't matter as they will have got the money.  There is also likely to be a more relaxed policy to pricing of midweek games.

Not sure we have any flexibility on price for CL matches

[GibletII]

People dont like change, but unfortunately we have to move to keep up financially with the top teams.
Commercialism and capitalism are taking over, and we cannot afford to be ignorant like we were in the early 90s when football was beginning to change. Liverpool clung onto its 'bootroom' tradition, and was left in the slipstream of Man Utd, who basically prostituted themselves to get in as much money as possible.

More money=better players=better team=more trophies is the idea..but we shit on that theory up with Istanbul!!!

The emirates sponsorship has allowed Arsenal to move into this new stadium, and its something that we need to get use to....because its probably going to happen to us.

Sold and bought the big fib.

Tell me how a 60,000 seat stadium will help us to 'compete' with 75,000 seat (and potentially rising) Man United, Roman Abramovich, corporate whore Arsenal etc.

It won't.

[Danny Boys Dad]

Sold and bought the big fib.

Tell me how a 60,000 seat stadium will help us to 'compete' with 75,000 seat (and potentially rising) Man United, Roman Abramovich, corporate whore Arsenal etc.

It won't.

I don't think it would ever enable us to gain parity with the likes of Man Utd or a club with a mega-bucks chairman like Abramovich, but the new stadium would surely allow us to increase the number of high-priced corporate packages, maybe not to Arsenal levels but more than we've got at the moment. That wouldn't be at the expense of the ordinary supporter because there would still be enough seats at "ordinary" prices to satisfy more of the demand for most matches.

What I don't understand is how this will make that much of a difference given the huge cost of building the thing.

[Ned Kelly]

Sold and bought the big fib.

Tell me how a 60,000 seat stadium will help us to 'compete' with 75,000 seat (and potentially rising) Man United, Roman Abramovich, corporate whore Arsenal etc.

It won't.

It may just stop us being outbid by Newcastle again though.

[Rushian]

Sold and bought the big fib.

Tell me how a 60,000 seat stadium will help us to 'compete' with 75,000 seat (and potentially rising) Man United, Roman Abramovich, corporate whore Arsenal etc.

It won't.

Well it may allow us to attract and keep hold of managers of the quality of Rafa - if we stick with 45000 we won't be able to in future.

And also the extra 15000 and improved corporate facilities will held us compete on more of a level footing than we are now.

[GibletII]

Don't get me wrong rushian, I can see reasons as to why we actually need to take action.

The very idea it will make us 'competitive' financially with Inter, Man United, Chelsea, Madrid etc. is well wide of the mark.

Rafa came here with the knowledge he'd have a limited (albeit a very meaty) budget for player acquisition and retention.

Ged, Roy and every Liverpudlians favourite manager before him did OK as well in the funding stakes.

The 'competing' argument for the new stadium is not compelling given the competition and the business model we're persuing.

[nidgemo]

Sold and bought the big fib.

Tell me how a 60,000 seat stadium will help us to 'compete' with 75,000 seat (and potentially rising) Man United, Roman Abramovich, corporate whore Arsenal etc.

It won't.

Interesting.

Interesting that you think a club like ours with minimal debt and a self financing (and making money for the club) stadium can't compete with man u, who are currently so deeply in debt that the amount they owe is increasing every year due to interest, which they can barely afford to pay off despite their 75,000 stadium...

[nidgemo]

Don't get me wrong rushian, I can see reasons as to why we actually need to take action.

The very idea it will make us 'competitive' financially with Inter, Man United, Chelsea, Madrid etc. is well wide of the mark.

Rafa came here with the knowledge he'd have a limited (albeit a very meaty) budget for player acquisition and retention.

Ged, Roy and every Liverpudlians favourite manager before him did OK as well in the funding stakes.

The 'competing' argument for the new stadium is not compelling given the competition and the business model we're persuing.

Perhaps if you read something about it instead of trying to pick holes in it?

We spend about £20-25 million a season on players

This stadium will enable us to (AFTER making the years repayments) spend somewhere between an extra 10 - 15 million on players, and even that is based on a minimum amount of games (excluding cup ties etc)

Therefore we'll be (in theory) capable of spending 35-40 million per season on new players.

now,
a. tell me the last season either arsenal or man u done that (or indeed anyone but chelsea)
b. a new stadium, no matter what size, was never going to see us compete with abromovic anyway
c. tell me that's not better than what we have now.

[GibletII]

You could use your own argument to question the move.


If the mancs are fucked and Arsenal don't spend shed loads on players, while Chelsea are financially untouchable, why do we need to move to compete?

I read plenty about it which is why I can pick holes in it, most of the time I'm playing devils advocate. You see, I'm open minded to it all.

The argument to move purely for the sake of 'competing' is no where near as strong as is made out. There are stronger cases for moving based on other parameters but the PR machine would find it hard to argue those cases with the masses so they've spun the big lie.

I'd also hold back from arguing the financial case until we know the figures, the real figures and how it will all be funded.

 

[PiranhaBill]

You could use your own argument to question the move.


If the mancs are fucked and Arsenal don't spend shed loads on players, while Chelsea are financially untouchable, why do we need to move to compete?

I read plenty about it which is why I can pick holes in it, most of the time I'm playing devils advocate. You see, I'm open minded to it all.

The argument to move purely for the sake of 'competing' is no where near as strong as is made out. There are stronger cases for moving based on other parameters but the PR machine would find it hard to argue those cases with the masses so they've spun the big lie.

I'd also hold back from arguing the financial case until we know the figures, the real figures and how it will all be funded.

You appear to be focusing too much on the word "compete". Try thinking about the word "improve" instead. Why didn't we buy Alves in the Summer? Because we couldn't put the fee together. If we had £10m more we could have done......ergo we improve......... ergo we...... compete.

[Robert_B]

Even with a new stadium, Man Utd may well be pulling in more money each week, so might arsenal, and obviously Chelsea don't need to - That is NOT a reason to stay put.

The fact is that the extra revenue we make will make things a lot easier for us. Eventhough we will be making less then the other top clubs, it will put us a lot closer financially - which in turn means we won't be climbing up such a steep mountain financially to compete.

I don't know how much it shakes out to at the moment, but I dare say Man Utd pull in maybe double what we do a season through ticket sales, Ashburton grove maybe even more. Do you not see the benifit of raising our revenue so we're not so drastically far behind? And so we have only a workable deficit rather then being light years behind?

[PaulF]

The lad behind me is an Arsenal fan and although he can see the financial reasons behind the new stadium he really isn't impressed.  Beer and food prices have gone up, while quantity and quality have gone down.  Well maybe not in the Egon Ronay world, but he doesn't really see the point in a 'hand made' pasty. It takes too long to get the food, there aren't enough toilets.  All little things that detract from his enjoyment of the game.  They might not seem much, but he says it reeks of the club having sold out to get more 'corporates' in.  His biggest fear though is if Arsenal go a couple of seasons without winning anything, then attendances will fall off badly. He's been an Arsenal season ticket holder for about 20 years, but he's clearly considering supporting a smaller club, as the atmosphere is better and it's more fun, true the football isn't as good, but the football is only a small part of why he enjoys the game.  I'm not suggesting we should ride out the stupid prices we pay for players and hope the game returns to it's former level of funding and stay with Anfield to then, but I really hope the new stadium is built with the average fan in mind, not Jo Coroporation who will show up for a couple of the big games and bring his/her business partners with them and support the away team.

[L12]

Hope a couple of thousand cheap seats are set aside for walk ins, even if they have poor sight lines I bet there will be a great atmosphere.
When the Calgary Flames of the NHL put extra seating in their arena a few years ago, a section way at the back was not attracting season ticket holders.
This section known as the nose bleeds was then made available on a first come basis at reduced prices.
Guess what? the fans in that section turned out to be the most vocal in the whole arena, constantly being told to shush by the season ticket holding suits in the prime seats.

[S24 LFC]

Hope a couple of thousand cheap seats are set aside for walk ins, even if they have poor sight lines I bet there will be a great atmosphere.
When the Calgary Flames of the NHL put extra seating in their arena a few years ago, a section way at the back was not attracting season ticket holders.
This section known as the nose bleeds was then made available on a first come basis at reduced prices.
Guess what? the fans in that section turned out to be the most vocal in the whole arena, constantly being told to shush by the season ticket holding suits in the prime seats.

we already have an area like that. Its called the Kop. We sell severly restricted tickets in the anny rd for 32 quid. We dont need to reduce ticket prices to sell them.

[Matt S]

Personally, i believe character is built over time and even in 30 years it will have a bit of tradition.

I think thats a very good point.

I am actually against the move, but the more I read these threads the smaller 45,000 sounds.

Its time for us all to accept the move as something thats inevitable.

[L12]

we already have an area like that. Its called the Kop. We sell severly restricted tickets in the anny rd for 32 quid. We dont need to reduce ticket prices to sell them.

32 quid is a lot of money if you have kids in tow

[S24 LFC]

32 quid is a lot of money if you have kids in tow

yeah definately, but what im saying is that if we can sell out every league game, even the severly restricted view seats, for 32 quid, then, from a business point of view, the club would never sell the tickets any cheaper, otherwise they are just losing money.

[Oooh to be a Gooner]

I think thats a very good point.

I am actually against the move, but the more I read these threads the smaller 45,000 sounds.

Its time for us all to accept the move as something thats inevitable.

Exactly. . .

 Just don't put too many corporate seats in the stadium full of rich people who follow the team as a fashion (and are more interested in a free pint), don't have the most expensive season tickets in England (and probably Europe) and don't have categorised games so that the biggest games have matchday tickets selling at between £46 and £94. I mean £94 quid to watch West Ham? Piss off.

[mojo7]

Hi all. Having been a silent viewer on this forum for a fair number of years now I've decided to poke my head above the parapet and make my first post which I hope is not too controversial.

I've read numerous rumours and opinions on a matter very close to my heart concerning the latest developments of the new stadium. I've also seen many posts questioning why the existing stadium could not be redeveloped…many of which have usually been ridiculed.

It appears most of you are aware that a feasibility study on the redevelopment of Anfield was carried out several years back. However how many of you are aware that it was only this time last year that the club revisited the idea yet again. I do not know the specifics of the original feasibility study but I am aware that a number of the design constraints had been (or in some cases potentially could have been) removed during the intervening period. Coupled with the fact that the estimated cost of the new development was spiralling out of control (rumours at the time had this at £200mil+ & now I hear that figure is between £250 and £300mil…but hey these are only rumours and I’m no QS...though arguably that probably means I'm quite accurate ) this prompted the club to once again cast their eye over the potential redevelopment of Anfield.

In short this is what I do know is possible regarding the redevelopment of Anfield:

I) It is possible to redevelop with no loss of capacity during construction. It would be carried out in a series of phases over 3-4 seasons. Critical works (e.g. Roof installation) would be carried out in the close season.

II) A simple structural solution is adopted so not much risk associated there. The complexity and cost is in the programming and extent of the temporary works required to ensure continued circulation around the ground is maintained.

III) The fundamental concept involved extending the Anfield Rd and Main stand. The removal of the upper tier of the Anfield road and option of replacing the existing Main stand follow the completion of these extensions to ensure no loss of revenue. This would create an extra 15000 seats taking the capacity up to the 60000 figure.

IV) Corporate boxes & suites would be incorporated within these new developments.

V) The roof to the Kop and Centenary stand would be removed. Works behind the Kop and Centenary stand would bring the external façade in line with the architectural language of the new developments to the Anfield road and Main stand.

VI) A single roof would then be installed encompassing the entire stadium. This roof takes the shape of a simple elegant form ensuring the rights of light to the properties on Skerries Rd and Walton Breck Rd would not be compromised.

VII) The phasing of the redevelopment would also allow the club to build as and when they could afford to so say for example the performance of the team did not meet that forecast by the club the financial risks would be reduced.

The club are aware of this solution and also the costs estimations being circa 120-130 as of autumn 2005. What had been tabled was only an initial feasibility study. They were not shown any scheme design as such detailing the potential appearance of the roof; however initial scheme designs had been done in anticipation of the club requesting that the study be taken further. One example is to imagine a similar form to that of the Allianz stadium roof sloping down towards flagpole corner. This particular design may have added a few more pennies to the original estimate but it has never been costed.

It is understood that a new consulting engineer in the form of SKM Anthony Hunt has now been appointed to replace the previous engineers Arup (ironically these being the designers of Valencia's stadium being praised on this forum). I can only assume this was an attempt by the club to seek a cheaper structural solution to the new stadium based on the current scheme design produced by AFL (…or, thinking wishfully , is another study looking at the redevelopment of Anfield).

I have not read anything on this forum which has presented a valid reason why the redevelopment is not feasible. I can only assume that the removal of some of those constraints that prompted the new study did not actually come to fruition, i.e. the club could not purchase the property they required behind the Main stand and Anfield road. Admittedly the planning applications etc would have to be have been reprocessed but that is by no means an insurmountable hurdle in the grand scheme of things.

If the club is pressing ahead with the new stadium, as appears to be the case, clearly they do not wish to divulge the reason(s) why they can't redevelop Anfield particularly as they are being told by experienced professionals that there is a feasible, cheaper...and arguably more popular solution out there for the taking. Whilst I wait with baited breath for the club to reveal all if anyone cares to offer that single mind-blowingly obvious reason that I and many others have overlooked then fire away.

[S24 LFC]

u avin a larf?

[mojo7]

u avin a larf?

No, not really...I can think of better ways of 'avin a larf' particularly on a friday night. 

I am just merely pointing out that the club have in the relatively recent past entertained the idea of redeveloping Anfield (however short it may have lasted) and may still be a viable option for them. Possibly some factors has come into play since last year that has led them to totally dismiss the idea out of hand, or may be they're still considering it...aside from Mr Parry..who knows? Having said all this, I suspect like many others do that the new stadium will eventually go ahead despite the rather curious move of switching structural consultants at this stage of the game.

[ttnbd]

I can't see there being anyway that a redevelopment of anfield could be done without a loss of capacity during construction.  The whole of the main stand would have to be demolished, as would the anfield road end.  At any one time this would mean a minimum capacity loss of 9,000 seats (£250k lost per game that the capacity is reduced by 9,000 seats) until sections could be released during construction.

As for purchasing properties behind the main and anfield road stands, the club own all houses behing the road end, while most if not all of the houses behind the main stand are vacant (in the process of being demolished to make way for a new housing development, which makes it impossible for Anfield to be redeveloped).

[GibletII]

Let's say the the club add 9,000 seats to teh Anfield Road end before emabrking on the Main stan.

Where would the revenue loss be?

Some people won't/can't admit that the move isn't the only option or that the move is potentially damaging to Liverpool FC both financially and culturally.

Anyway this team needs a rocket up the arse, walking and plodding through away games is getting beyond a joke. I'd suggest the board forgets everything else and concentrates on the team. Fighting for 4th place and aiming for 65/70 points a season isn't what Liverpool FC are all about.

[Ste G]

Let's say the the club add 9,000 seats to teh Anfield Road end before emabrking on the Main stan.

Where would the revenue loss be?

Thay'd have to take the upper tier and roof off. Might also have to close some of the lower tier off while construction took place aswell.

Admittedly though the upper tier is only about 3,000 seats so it wouldn't be too bad.

[nidgemo]

Let's say the the club add 9,000 seats to teh Anfield Road end before emabrking on the Main stan.

Where would the revenue loss be?

Well, they'd have to close the anny off for a season or two for a start, plus they'd have spent about half the cost of an entire new stadium adding 9000 seats to one stand (redevelopment is always far more expensive than new stuff)

Also, I'm not sure if you've ever been to anfield, but where exactly at the anfield road end are these extra 9000 seats going?

Some people won't/can't admit that the move is the only option or that not making the move is potentially damaging to Liverpool FC.

[Paul]

Well, they'd have to close the anny off for a season or two for a start, plus they'd have spent about half the cost of an entire new stadium adding 9000 seats to one stand (redevelopment is always far more expensive than new stuff)

Its already been said above that this solution would be drastically cheaper. So I dont see how adding 9,00 seats will cost £100m.

I'm no structural engineer. But why can't the Anny Rd top tier be taken off in the close season (it was put on in a close season on top of the old stand) and the new tier built behind it during the season, with the overhanging bit done in the next close season. You would  end up with an uncovered stand, but it is only the away fans and Portsmouth seem to manage well enough (just give the home fans a free mac in November)

[Ste G]

I'm no structural engineer. But why can't the Anny Rd top tier be taken off in the close season (it was put on in a close season on top of the old stand) and the new tier built behind it during the season, with the overhanging bit done in the next close season. You would  end up with an uncovered stand, but it is only the away fans and Portsmouth seem to manage well enough (just give the home fans a free mac in November)

The whole stand was rebuilt from scratch actually Paul. and when you consider the restricted views in the lower tier it makes you realise what a crap job they did!

Not sure about your suggestion, doesn't seem that practical to me. The centenary stand had it's upper tier added without closing the lower tier so if the current upper tier was taken off the anny road end I'm sure they could add a bigger upper tier relatively simply.

[GibletII]

Well, they'd have to close the anny off for a season or two for a start, plus they'd have spent about half the cost of an entire new stadium adding 9000 seats to one stand (redevelopment is always far more expensive than new stuff)

Also, I'm not sure if you've ever been to anfield, but where exactly at the anfield road end are these extra 9000 seats going?

Some people won't/can't admit that the move is the only option or that not making the move is potentially damaging to Liverpool FC.

Not the brightest tool in the box are you?

How did they extend the Kemlyn?

There's your answer. Get your head out of the sand and start to at least think about the options, because there are options.

If it was all about what was "best for the club" financially we'd have fucked off out of Anfield altogether and built a big fuck off thing somewhere else for less cost.

Stanley Park is a comprimise, not a great one either in my opinion, being cynical I'd say ego's of those in decision making positions have been as much a factor as the economic case.

The deLiverpooling of Liverpool FC continues at pace.

[Paul]

The whole stand was rebuilt from scratch actually Paul. and when you consider the restricted views in the lower tier it makes you realise what a crap job they did!

Not sure about your suggestion, doesn't seem that practical to me. The centenary stand had it's upper tier added without closing the lower tier so if the current upper tier was taken off the anny road end I'm sure they could add a bigger upper tier relatively simply.

Wasn't aware of that. I remember going to the Hillsborough benefit gig at Anfield with a half-finished Anny Rd stand behind the stage. I assumed that was just the old stand and the top tier had been bolted on afterwards.

The crap lower tier view was because they did not have permission to build any further backwards because of Anfield Road being in the way - now they have permission to close the road (and have for some time) I'm sure a better job can be done.

[Cally77 v2.0]

I want a new stadium. We need a new stadium. Christ! We're only moving across the road, hardly the deLiverpooling of Liverpool some negative drama queens would have you believe.

[GibletII]

You like to take the opposite view eh Cally.

Drama queen alert, how will moving over the road look when Chelsea and Man United are still out spending us while Arsenal out perform us with a fraction of our current spending and we're wobbling with a massive debt programme while the mancs still get 16,000 more than us?