Topic: *Poll* Redevelop Anfield or a new stadium ?

[xerxes1]

See that bit at the end, the last sentence, it doesn't follow. Logically I mean.

The last 20 years has seen us slip to a point where our matchday revenues are around £58m less, per season, than Arsenal and Man U and Anfield has become the 64th largest stadium in Europe. That is fact. If you do not agree that has ill-served us then I disagree with you.

Firstly, over the last 20 years the plan hasn't been to stay at Anfield. The plans, be that Parry & his (& Moores) bowl or G&H & their star-ship Enterprise, both involved planning to move away from Anfield.Secondly, the thing that 'ill served us', rather than the decision to stay or go, has been poor planning & poor delivery by men who were too poor (£) or lacked the balls to follow through with their plans.

The problem has not been that we have not moved away. It is that we have neither redeveloped sufficiently (if possible) nor built a new stadium. Your point that we have been poorly led I agree with.

And while I'm here I know, already, that when & if JWH & FSG announce the much vaunted re-development of Anfield that you will take it as an indication that they aren't interested in LFC for the long haul; lord knows you've played that broken record in this section of the forum vs. Peter McGurk each & every fucking day (near enough).

You would be wrong.

Again, that doesn't follow logically, if the plan is to re-develop Anfield, the only basis for that decision will be that it's in LFC's (note LFC's not FSG's) best interests to plan additional matchday revenue in this way; FSG's business model is transparent & involves increasing the value of the 'franchise' (LFC) by investing in it's success so, skepticism while is fine (lord knows we've all learned that lesson the hard way) any conclusion that involves a frankly random conclusion that because they're going to spend a fews years redeveloping the stadium rather than a few years building an entirely new one must involve some kind of nut-job conspiracy & I'm not having it.

If FSG announce a plan to redevelop Anfield which is commercial and meets our facility, capacity and revenue ambitions I will be delighted.

I think that it is wise to reserve judgement on how and why they have made a decision until the point at which it has been made.

The only “nut-job”  view is to pre-judge what redevelopment/ New Anfield have to offer in advance of the material facts. That is a mistake I have never made, and consistently caution others against doing.

[Mal]

The last 20 years has seen us slip to a point where our matchday revenues are around £58m less, per season, than Arsenal and Man U and Anfield has become the 64th largest stadium in Europe. That is fact. If you do not agree that has ill-served us then I disagree with you.

I didn't say that we hadn't fallen behind in matchday revenue - in fact I made no comment on that; I said that arguing that we'd planned on staying at Anfield was wrong. Actually, the reverse is true, for the last 20 years we've planned on moving away from Anfield. Please, at least try to discredit my argument by basing your reply on what I've actually said rather than a strawman construct of your own making.

The problem has not been that we have not moved away. It is that we have neither redeveloped sufficiently (if possible) nor built a new stadium. Your point that we have been poorly led I agree with.

Good, it's incontrovertible.

You would be wrong.

If you're happy to reserve judgement why have you & Mr McGurk been at each other all over this section of the forum? Your discussions with him have been all about what the club should do in your opinion (& for the sake of balance, his too) - it hardly smacks or reserving judgment.

If FSG announce a plan to redevelop Anfield which is commercial and meets our facility, capacity and revenue ambitions I will be delighted.

I think that it is wise to reserve judgement on how and why they have made a decision until the point at which it has been made.

The only “nut-job”  view is to pre-judge what redevelopment/ New Anfield have to offer in advance of the material facts. That is a mistake I have never made, and consistently caution others against doing.

Xerxes, who decides what meets "our facility, capacity & revenue ambitions" - you? Not only that but who decides what is realistic for those options?

It's true we are behind Man U, Arsenal etc... but Liverpool is not London, Anfield isn't even selling out every game at the moment, whereas OT sells out every game. The point I'm making is that our facility, capacity & revenue ambitions might not be able to match the Emirates or OT. The additional commercial revenue generators (extra seats, corporate boxes etc...) we put into either the new ground or a redeveloped Anfield might not be able to meet your ambitions simply because in relation to LFC, it's location etc... the market isn't there. Is that then FSG's fault that your ambition is not realised in terms of "facility, capacity & revenue"?

Further, I'm glad you think it's wise to reserve judgements but please refer to my point above, to illustrate what I'm getting at I'm gonna put words in your mouth (this is just to illustrate my line of thinking, please don't take it as a personal slight, it's not, I want to make it clear that I'm just using it to illustrate a point of view I hold) - for clarity the words I'm putting in your mouth is that "big is best i.e. having a stadium with a massive capacity & loads of boxes is great" - I'd hope you agree that this doesn't necessarily follow logically, isn't just bad from a match day atmosphere point of view (loads of empty seats), it's also bad business, it's capital that could've been invested elsewhere that it just sat unused. A waste. Poor ROI. I can't imagine you would disagree with that?


In the end, I guess the argument revolves around how far we can catch up with the matchday revenues of our competitors. There are 2 options - either a new stadium or redevelop Anfield. The limiting factor in increasing matchday revenues is the same in both cases & ultimately comes down to how big is the 'pond' we can fish in & how much can we (LFC) reasonably be expected to extract from that pond? I think it's likely to be true that our 'pond' is smaller than either Man U's or Arsenal's. The decision to be made has to strike the right balance between investment (& therefore ROI) and demand.

You may think this is all a little defeatist & apply the 'Field of Dreams' argument but I prefer to be rational. The bottom line is that we can improve & we will. Whether these improvements, meet with your expectations of what you think is achieveable is another matter...

[silver 5 star]

In the end, I guess the argument revolves around how far we can catch up with the matchday revenues of our competitors. There are 2 options - either a new stadium or redevelop Anfield. The limiting factor in increasing matchday revenues is the same in both cases & ultimately comes down to how big is the 'pond' we can fish in & how much can we (LFC) reasonably be expected to extract from that pond? I think it's likely to be true that our 'pond' is smaller than either Man U's or Arsenal's. The decision to be made has to strike the right balance between investment (& therefore ROI) and demand.

You may think this is all a little defeatist & apply the 'Field of Dreams' argument but I prefer to be rational. The bottom line is that we can improve & we will. Whether these improvements, meet with your expectations of what you think is achieveable is another matter...




I think it is defeatist to think we cannot either fill a 60,000 seater new stadium or sell out the corporate facilities.

The current corporate facilities have waiting lists for them and we know there is a season ticket waiting list.

There is also the option to actually grow the match-going supporter base by offering reasonably priced tickets.

This idea - that we a located in a regional smallish city and therefore don't have the overall demographics to compete is cobblers.

Question: Are we a bigger club than Leeds United?

Answer: Yes

Observation: Leeds as a city is much larger than Liverpool and is a one-club city.

We - alongside Man United- have both pan-UK support and global support. I know of at least one UK based national company who would love to purchase a box at Anfield - at present they are making do with a season by season use of dining facilities in the Main Stand.

We can fill a 60,000 seater easily, we can sell the corporate facilities and by building a new higher capacity stadium we will be assuring our future financially and ensuring there are enough seats for the future generations of fans.

[caronia]

To Paraphrase 'Field Of Dreams' ......Re-build the stadium to (70,000) and they will come.

[xerxes1]

I didn't say that we hadn't fallen behind in matchday revenue - in fact I made no comment on that; I said that arguing that we'd planned on staying at Anfield was wrong. Actually, the reverse is true, for the last 20 years we've planned on moving away from Anfield. Please, at least try to discredit my argument by basing your reply on what I've actually said rather than a strawman construct of your own making.
Good, it's incontrovertible.
If you're happy to reserve judgement why have you & Mr McGurk been at each other all over this section of the forum? Your discussions with him have been all about what the club should do in your opinion (& for the sake of balance, his too) - it hardly smacks or reserving judgment.

Xerxes, who decides what meets "our facility, capacity & revenue ambitions" - you? Not only that but who decides what is realistic for those options?

It's true we are behind Man U, Arsenal etc... but Liverpool is not London, Anfield isn't even selling out every game at the moment, whereas OT sells out every game. The point I'm making is that our facility, capacity & revenue ambitions might not be able to match the Emirates or OT. The additional commercial revenue generators (extra seats, corporate boxes etc...) we put into either the new ground or a redeveloped Anfield might not be able to meet your ambitions simply because in relation to LFC, it's location etc... the market isn't there. Is that then FSG's fault that your ambition is not realised in terms of "facility, capacity & revenue"?

Further, I'm glad you think it's wise to reserve judgements but please refer to my point above, to illustrate what I'm getting at I'm gonna put words in your mouth (this is just to illustrate my line of thinking, please don't take it as a personal slight, it's not, I want to make it clear that I'm just using it to illustrate a point of view I hold) - for clarity the words I'm putting in your mouth is that "big is best i.e. having a stadium with a massive capacity & loads of boxes is great" - I'd hope you agree that this doesn't necessarily follow logically, isn't just bad from a match day atmosphere point of view (loads of empty seats), it's also bad business, it's capital that could've been invested elsewhere that it just sat unused. A waste. Poor ROI. I can't imagine you would disagree with that?


In the end, I guess the argument revolves around how far we can catch up with the matchday revenues of our competitors. There are 2 options - either a new stadium or redevelop Anfield. The limiting factor in increasing matchday revenues is the same in both cases & ultimately comes down to how big is the 'pond' we can fish in & how much can we (LFC) reasonably be expected to extract from that pond? I think it's likely to be true that our 'pond' is smaller than either Man U's or Arsenal's. The decision to be made has to strike the right balance between investment (& therefore ROI) and demand.

You may think this is all a little defeatist & apply the 'Field of Dreams' argument but I prefer to be rational. The bottom line is that we can improve & we will. Whether these improvements, meet with your expectations of what you think is achieveable is another matter...

Mal, I think you may be picking a fight where none exists. There is nothing for me to discredit in your argument. We agree that little has happened over the past 20 years or so by default, not by planning.

You misrepresent the Xerxes v McGurk debate. My position is that the Board ( not me!) needs to decide whatever capacity and facilities requirements the Club needs to have to progress, and deliver it, either at a redeveloped Anfield ,or in a New Stadium within what the Club can afford. McGurk has decided in advance that a new stadium can never be economically viable. Arguing that a project yet to be finalised and costed MIGHT  be superior to staying put has never been a difficult point to make. Our argument has simply been that I AM reserving judgement – he has made his.

I have no preconceptions on capacity and facilities. The Board knows the ST/Box, commercial demand, they are also close to the Arsenal regime who successfully grew the Arsenal matchday revenue. I agree that Merseyside and London are very different economically.

I totally agree with you that building fan/corporate capacity which will lie empty is absurd. FSG’s task is simply to maximise what we can achieve, whatever Man U/Arsenal achieve is their own affair. I don’t think that you are being defeatist at all.

 Any business growth involves an element of risk and reward. My guess is that there is significant latent corporate demand to grow that revenue, and that there is enough latent ST demand to safely grow our capacity and average attendance(But FSG should have enough information, see above, to judge) , and that both would be sufficient to make a 60k stadium viable. How those number compare with a redeveloped Anfield I have no idea – however, if they look better at Anfield so be it.

[macca888]

Just thought this was interesting enough to share with you all. A friend of mine owns a buy to let house in Lothair Road. Anyway, two weeks ago, his tenant was approached by a local property developer who wanted to buy the house. My mate has since found out that the developer wanted it as an investment, because he had been given info that we were redeveloping and was trying to make a quick profit. He was willing to pay well over the going rate for it too. Anyway, from what he's discovered, the person trying to buy it was using a property agent who is also working for either the council or the club (he's not sure which to be honest) and he's absolutely fuming that they are taking advantage of their privileged position, knowing that the club are eventually going to buy the properties. There's no way my mate would sell now seeing as he's been tipped off, but he's written to the club and the council to advise them of this abuse of what seems to be confidential information.

[SalisburyRed]

Very interesting, cheers Macca.

[zod]

Observation: Leeds as a city is much larger than Liverpool and is a one-club city.

That is manifestly not the case, unless you mean a bigger boundary?  The only way to suggest that is to look at tables of population statistics produced by the government.  I really hope JWH et al. aren't using the likes of ONS statistics as a basis for their research, like you!  There has been some odd remarks about Liverpool's size in these debates!  Liverpool, or for the parochial and pedantic, the city that Liverpool is part of, is a good bit larger than Leeds.  Liverpool is more built up, has a larger city centre, a larger metro, and it is situated in a more densely populated area.  The local authority of Leeds (770,000 odd people in 213sq miles?) is more comparable with Merseyside (1.3million people in 249sq miles) or "Liverpool City Region" (1.5m, Merseyside + Halton), than Liverpool City Council LA.  If you take this a bit further, the whole of West Yorkshire (2.2m? people) is a larger area than Greater Manchester and "Merseyside" combined, which is almost 4m people.

[silver 5 star]

City   Population

London   7.2 Million
Birmingham   992000
Leeds   720000
Glasgow   560000
Sheffield   512000
Bradford   467000
Edinburgh   450000
Liverpool   440000
Manchester   420000
Bristol   380000
Wakefield   316000
Cardiff   310000
Coventry   305000
Nottingham   285000
Leicester   280000
Sunderland   280000
Belfast   280000
Newcastle upon Tyne

[zod]

City   Population

London   7.2 Million
Birmingham   992000
Leeds   720000
Glasgow   560000
Sheffield   512000
Bradford   467000
Edinburgh   450000
Liverpool   440000
Manchester   420000
Bristol   380000
Wakefield   316000
Cardiff   310000
Coventry   305000
Nottingham   285000
Leicester   280000
Sunderland   280000
Belfast   280000
Newcastle upon Tyne

Come on, that's nonsense.  Sunderland bigger than Newcastle?  Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield are all bigger than Liverpool or Manchester?   That's just a table of council populations + London.

[Strummer77]

Just thought this was interesting enough to share with you all.

Definitely interesting enough. Things are getting interesting.
Cheers 

[boknaaier]

Come on, that's nonsense.  Sunderland bigger than Newcastle?  Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield are all bigger than Liverpool or Manchester?   That's just a table of council populations + London.

Newcastle's population won't include Gateshead, North and South Tyneside etc. Newcastle itself is quite small.

[silver 5 star]

Come on, that's nonsense.  Sunderland bigger than Newcastle?  Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield are all bigger than Liverpool or Manchester?   That's just a table of council populations + London.

Nobody said that these figures don't include the wider metropolitan populations, however the example of Leeds was to make the point regarding this idea we can't fill a 60,000 seater stadium. Leeds - including the wider metropolitan population is roughly the same as Liverpool but they are a one-club city and Elland Road is what? 37,000?

That in itself would suggest if we looked at populations surrounding the clubs then Liverpool wouldn't need a new stadium as we already have 45,000.

We know that that is manifestly wrong - Liverpool has a vastly larger support than Leeds - both in the UK and globally so it suggests that those who say we can't fill a new larger stadium just because of our location and geography are wrong.

[Mal]

I think it is defeatist to think we cannot either fill a 60,000 seater new stadium or sell out the corporate facilities.

The current corporate facilities have waiting lists for them and we know there is a season ticket waiting list.

There is also the option to actually grow the match-going supporter base by offering reasonably priced tickets.

This idea - that we a located in a regional smallish city and therefore don't have the overall demographics to compete is cobblers.

Question: Are we a bigger club than Leeds United?

Answer: Yes

Observation: Leeds as a city is much larger than Liverpool and is a one-club city.

We - alongside Man United- have both pan-UK support and global support. I know of at least one UK based national company who would love to purchase a box at Anfield - at present they are making do with a season by season use of dining facilities in the Main Stand.

We can fill a 60,000 seater easily, we can sell the corporate facilities and by building a new higher capacity stadium we will be assuring our future financially and ensuring there are enough seats for the future generations of fans.

1 - I didn't mention any figures.

2 - To suggest that we can somehow leap from not always filling 45000 to always filling a new 70000 just because the stadium capacity is improved doesn't seem too logical to me.

3 - London & Liverpool are very different, for a start Liverpool doesn't have one of the worlds biggest financial districts.

4 - In case you hadn't noticed Leeds did over-extend themselves & look where they ended up.

We can & will do better than the current status quo, we have to. But whether LFC can do this by building a stadium the size of OT or by having a corporate facility like the Emirates is doubtful. We need to find a way that will work for Liverpool.

[silver 5 star]

4 - In case you hadn't noticed Leeds did over-extend themselves & look where they ended up.



Leeds over extended themselves yes but that was more down to their being a smaller club than we are with big ideas. They spent money they didn't have and didn't have the support / infrastructure to support what they were trying to do.

We are a far larger club with global support and a significant UK based fan base.

We have a current capacity of 45,000 and the club has recently written to 25,000 people on the season ticket waiting list.

We can easily fill a 60,000 seater - and possibly more - 70,000 NOW.

The current drop off in ticket sales is more due to the complete crap we have watched for most of the season and tight times financially for all concerned.

Look back to the homecoming the team got after Istanbul - the demand for tickets will rocket once we have a team worthy of the name of Liverpool and a team that consistently challenged for the Premiership and CL.

[Mal]

Leeds over extended themselves yes but that was more down to their being a smaller club than we are with big ideas. They spent money they didn't have and didn't have the support / infrastructure to support what they were trying to do.

We are a far larger club with global support and a significant UK based fan base.

We have a current capacity of 45,000 and the club has recently written to 25,000 people on the season ticket waiting list.

We can easily fill a 60,000 seater - and possibly more - 70,000 NOW.

The current drop off in ticket sales is more due to the complete crap we have watched for most of the season and tight times financially for all concerned.

Look back to the homecoming the team got after Istanbul - the demand for tickets will rocket once we have a team worthy of the name of Liverpool and a team that consistently challenged for the Premiership and CL.

I don't doubt that we are more famous than Leeds are, globally speaking, but they did over-extend & they did fuck up, JWH already made it clear that any new stadium will be funded by a bank loan so getting the sums right is vital if we are avoid spending more than we can afford to pay back. Also, having a big stadium doesn't equate to success; bigger stadia are the outcome of greater success not the input.

I have a few questions...

*  Have you already decided what the minimum number of new seats & what the minimum number of new corporate boxes a new ground, or an extended Anfield, should have? - If so what data did you base this on?
*  Have you seen the outcome of the season ticket review?
*  Do you know the level of over-subscription that routinely exists for games at Anfield?
*  Have you assessed the extent of the need for additional corporate boxes?
*  Have you had meetings with regional economic leaders to assess their requirements & the level of demand?


If the people who have access to all that data & research AND who are there mainly to make as much money as they can by getting as many bums on seats as they can decide that the maximum number of seats that we can reasonably expect to fill week-to-week is 55000 or 60000 what will you think? I'm not pre-judging what the outcome in terms of capacity will be; I'm just wondering, given that you think "we can easily fill a 60,000 seater - and possibly more - 70,000 NOW", what you'd think if the conclusions reached by FSG's research & data doesn't back up your point of view? Will it be that FSG are tossers? That the research & data that's wrong? Or will it be that you were wrong to think we could fill 70,000 NOW?

Look, it seems fairly obvious to me (& you!) that there is some demand that we don't currently meet, this is why the club is looking at the options. So we do need to do something to increase capacity & increase the corporate facilities; if we also look at FSG's actions they seem to indicate that they also want to improve this situation. Accordingly, there is a will to improve the match day revenue by some kind of infrastructure imporvements. The question is to what extent do we increase capacity & which way gives the best financial return on the investment. If the outcome of all the research is that we could fill 70000 now that would be fucking ace, I think the only difference is that you appear to have already decided, possibly without the relevant data to hand, that we should build a massive 70,000 stadium. I'd rather be rational & not over-extend ourselves, end up with a poor ROI and a capital asset that the club cannot exploit effeciently. Oh, and a shit matchday atmosphere, imagine trying to intimidate the opposition with 10-15,000 empty seats...

[LiamG]

I would much rather not jump straight to 70,000

60-65 id say would be a big enough step at the moment

[Alonso]

http://www.sports-stadia.co.uk/ < pics of what redevloped Anfield/New Anfield could look like on there. Found the link on TIA.

[silver 5 star]

If the people who have access to all that data & research AND who are there mainly to make as much money as they can by getting as many bums on seats as they can decide that the maximum number of seats that we can reasonably expect to fill week-to-week is 55000 or 60000 what will you think? I'm not pre-judging what the outcome in terms of capacity will be; I'm just wondering, given that you think "we can easily fill a 60,000 seater - and possibly more - 70,000 NOW", what you'd think if the conclusions reached by FSG's research & data doesn't back up your point of view? Will it be that FSG are tossers? That the research & data that's wrong? Or will it be that you were wrong to think we could fill 70,000 NOW?




You seem to lose your rag whenever someone posts a view opposite to your own.

Given the paragraph you posted above it seems you seem convinced that your viewpoint matches that of FSG and the outcomes of their data/ research.

If Fenway decide we do not need 60 / 70k I'll disagree - until they publish all of their data.

Which they are unlikely to do as it would be commercially sensitive.

Unless you have already seen it and are only posting to further an agenda.

[djschembri]

http://www.sports-stadia.co.uk/ < pics of what redevloped Anfield/New Anfield could look like on there. Found the link on TIA.

Interesting plans.

Based on those plans, and the pros and cons of each of the 3 possibilities, then a new stadium is the best option. The most interesting fact is that the 60000 seater Anfield can potentially cost as much as a new stadium, whilst delivering less revenue.

Will be interesting to see what FSG decide to do

[silver 5 star]

http://www.sports-stadia.co.uk/ < pics of what redevloped Anfield/New Anfield could look like on there. Found the link on TIA.

The link posted above is interesting - and to be honest I'd much rather see the New Anfield concept than embark on expensive lengthy redevelopment for limited return.

[Mal]

You seem to lose your rag whenever someone posts a view opposite to your own.

Given the paragraph you posted above it seems you seem convinced that your viewpoint matches that of FSG and the outcomes of their data/ research.

If Fenway decide we do not need 60 / 70k I'll disagree - until they publish all of their data.

Which they are unlikely to do as it would be commercially sensitive.

Unless you have already seen it and are only posting to further an agenda.

In all my posts in this thread the only agenda I've pushed is to wait & see what the demand is like for extra seats & extra corporate boxes before deciding how much extra capacity we need. It's fairly obvious that we don't need 100,000, it's also fairly obvious we need more than 45,000 but where end up inbetween those numbers rests on the business case. You called me defeatist for that entirely rational approach. How you can claim that I've lost my rag whenever someone posts an opinion opposite to my own I don't really understand? I haven't reached any conclusions about what capacity is best (aside from analysing the business case as above and working out what provides the best ROI) so if you don't me saying so your accusation seems a little irrational.

Incidentally the link above from TIA to http://www.sports-stadia.co.uk/ has 3 options, redeveloped Anfield 50k, redeveloped Anfield 60k or new stadia £69k.

[silver 5 star]

Incidentally the link above from TIA to http://www.sports-stadia.co.uk/ has 3 options, redeveloped Anfield 50k, redeveloped Anfield 60k or new stadia £69k.


I know - the potential New Stadium could be a UEFA elite venue - in my view that is the best option to safeguard the clubs' future.

We could be a CL Final venue - hopefully with us in it

If we can fill a 60k stadium we can fill a 69k stadium with the correct ticket pricing.

[Mal]

Also transpires that the design in that link has nothing to do with the club (According to Alan_F in one of the other threads...)

Nothing to do with the club.

*Edit*

It's something to do with Ian Ritchie. He's a red and an architect. He did an alternative design a while back - this must be a development of it.

I guess time will tell - We definately need to improve match-day revenue & I'm confident we will.

[frikkibj]

if you are going to redesign all four stands why not just build a new stadium?

[cyador]

If we do end up building a new stadium, the g & h design is really good. I really like it. About the only good thing they did.

[Mal]

If we do end up building a new stadium, the g & h design is really good. I really like it. About the only good thing they did.

I don't think it's a good design. It does look amazing, very spectacular and all that... But it's too open, glass corners, roof too high, basically it's not enough of a cauldron.

[LiamG]

Correct, We could have something so much better

[18 yard line]

If we do end up building a new stadium, the g & h design is really good. I really like it. About the only good thing they did.

From a distance G and H design looks impressive.  On closer inspection it is fundamentally flawed in a number of areas - particularly for its purpose as a PL football stadium, and is likely to be unnecessarily expensive. 

A bit like G and H.  Looks the part on first appearance but in fact not suited to our needs at all.

[Strummer77]

If we were going to build a new one... Why not build one exactly like Anfield from the inside but scaled up?

[gazzalfc]

The question about the cancers design is

Who owns the plans? Were the plans tied to the club or were they owned by the cancers and their architects?

If they are owned by the cancers then we may have problems getting them and using them

[LiamG]

I imagine they belong to the club, but we won't be needing them anyway

[Alan_X]

If we do end up building a new stadium, the g & h design is really good. I really like it. About the only good thing they did.

It's fucking horrible and would be a fucking disaster if it ever got built.

[Roslagen]

Redevelopment ought to be cheaper = more money for the squad for the same end income (60,000 spectators anyway). Anfield is also our spiritual home since 119 years and it's the place where Liverpool should play.

[djschembri]

Redevelopment ought to be cheaper = more money for the squad for the same end income (60,000 spectators anyway). Anfield is also our spiritual home since 119 years and it's the place where Liverpool should play.

Not necessarily. From the Ian Ritchie plans for 60000 redevelopment, he stated that the project may cost as much as a 250M stadium.
Adding the loss in revenue until the project is complete, then it is not necessarily the cheaper option.

[Alan_X]

Not necessarily. From the Ian Ritchie plans for 60000 redevelopment, he stated that the project may cost as much as a 250M stadium.
Adding the loss in revenue until the project is complete, then it is not necessarily the cheaper option.

The 60,000 option is a complete rebuild of everything except the Kop. main Stand and Anfield Road expansion is 50,000. I'd take all those figures with a massive pinch of salt. He appears to be angling for the job of building a new stadium in Stanley Park so I'd take anything that is proposed with a huge pinch of salt.

[silver 5 star]

Even at the end of this rumoured expansion of the Anny Road and the Main Stand I don't see the capacity getting anywhere near 60,000 - more like 52,000 - so it hardly seems worth the disruption and expense.

[Trousers]

To the people advocating a huge increase of over 61,000 I assume in all your figures you are including the vast expense Liverpool will have to fork out for a new transport infrastructure?
No?
Well knock me down with a feather.

[Mal]

Even at the end of this rumoured expansion of the Anny Road and the Main Stand I don't see the capacity getting anywhere near 60,000 - more like 52,000 - so it hardly seems worth the disruption and expense.

Depends how much they charge for the seats.

Stick a load of corporates in there with great facilities to entertain their clients ("you'll get a great view of the Kop in all its glory"), and rather than 7000 extra seats at £35 a time you could have 7000 extra seats at £100 a time... The difference soon stacks up. And that's before you add the drinks they'd buy, the food they'll eat, stick a nice shop in the corner to buy 'little Billy' a Suarez shirt at half time...

[silver 5 star]

Depends how much they charge for the seats.

Stick a load of corporates in there with great facilities to entertain their clients ("you'll get a great view of the Kop in all its glory"), and rather than 7000 extra seats at £35 a time you could have 7000 extra seats at £100 a time... The difference soon stacks up. And that's before you add the drinks they'd buy, the food they'll eat, stick a nice shop in the corner to buy 'little Billy' a Suarez shirt at half time...

Agreed - but surely the point would be to expand to get more general support into the stadium also?