Topic: New images of stadium design and redevelopment rumours

[SpartanTree. No deccies or lights.]

I work in construction and in particular the field of finance,costs etc and if you wanted a recommendation on whether to refurb or new build then I would say new build everyday of the week. The amount of risk involved with refurbishing any building and in particular a structure like Anfield is substantial and cost and programme lengths will inevitably escalate once in the laters stages of development. Someone above mentioned fitting the building in  around the close season well he is living in cloud cuckoo and the fact you are having to phase the programme again will add in significant preliminary costs.  I appreciate there is a lot of sentiment with staying at anfield but once you've messed around putting in difficult extensions, refurbishments etc  you are virtually going to have a new stadium anyway. The important things about anfield can be moved into a new stadium with careful planning, a kop end, shankly gates and any designer worth his salt would go to the nth degree to ensure all those things are thought about and included.

Im afraid you have to forget about sentiment for a moment and think about what is best for your club, after all this club is here for one purpose alone, to win things so the only choice is to go for the option that best sets us on that path.

YNWA

Agree.  In my opinion its the LFC supporters that make the atmosphere great at Anfield - not the bricks & mortar.

[Paul]

I think thats a little negative, fair enough the UK is very centralised with regards to big business but I think you're underestimating the region as a whole, plenty of Liverpool/ North West businesses may have clients visiting from all over the UK. I'm certain improved commercial facilities at Anfield or a new stadium would be a big draw, plus there are plans in the works for a major new exhibition centre next to the echo arena, further enhancing the corporate market.

Negative yes, but that is the way I see the country at the moment. The money is in London. I don't like it and hope something can be done to change it.

United charge £49 for a seat in the middle of the side stand (the "best seat in the house") for a cat A game. Arsenal charge £94 for a similarly located seat.

United charge £199+VAT for a corporate seat, free bar & 3 course meal (Red Cafe). Arsenal charge £450+VAT for a similar package (Club Arsenal). Both prices apply to the same fixture (Aston Villa).

(sorry for the links)

http://www.matchdayvip.manutd.com/en/MatchdayVIPPackages/RedCafePre.aspx
http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/documents/aug_10/gun__1280837260_E14935_Arsenal_Hosp_Brochure_2.pdf

So Arsenal are charging roughly double what United are charging, even though United are the more successful team. And there is no north/south divide?

Maybe this should stop us using Arsenal as a benchmark for money, as unless we are relocating to London we aren't going to be charging the same prices.

[SP]

So Arsenal are charging roughly double what United are charging, even though United are the more successful team. And there is no north/south divide?

Maybe this should stop us using Arsenal as a benchmark for money, as unless we are relocating to London we aren't going to be charging the same prices.

It is not even a North / South divide. It is the City of London compared with everywhere else. The city has a concentration of those kind of businesses that do that high level of corporate entertaining. There simply aren't the equivalent businesses in any numbers outside of central London. Now, we could tap some of that market with obscenely expensive packages. It is a bit of a parallel universe - the more it costs, the more it impresses the client.
The key is that we profit from that value added, unlike much of the Thomas Cook fleecing...

[Strummer77]

Dan Roan on Twitter:
 
Ian Ayre says LFC actively seeking stadium naming rights partner

[Graeme]

Dan Roan on Twitter:
 
Ian Ayre says LFC actively seeking stadium naming rights partner

Not really a suprise given the amount of money generated towards a new stadium or expansion of Anfield

[BigTiredGrowlSnarl]

Dan Roan on Twitter:
 
Ian Ayre says LFC actively seeking stadium naming rights partner

Naming Rights thread exist, these comments should be moved!

[Strummer77]

Naming Rights thread exist, these comments should be moved!

Ah sorry mod . This was just the most active topic on the New Stadium rumours so thought it was relevant.

[Paul]

Now, we could tap some of that market with obscenely expensive packages. It is a bit of a parallel universe - the more it costs, the more it impresses the client.

I'm not sure we could - if we could, surely United already would be?

[Trousers]

Naming Rights thread exist, these comments should be moved!

Good grief.

[SP]

I'm not sure we could - if we could, surely United already would be?

United are not the most creative at raising money. They are just relentless and believe everything is for sale.

[Strummer77]

Dan Roan:
To be clear LFC's MD Ian Ayre stresses club are not looking for naming rights for Anfield - only a possibility for new stadium

Does this mean that redevelopment is nowhere near as cut and dry as people are claiming?

[JohnOK]

Dan Roan:
To be clear LFC's MD Ian Ayre stresses club are not looking for naming rights for Anfield - only a possibility for new stadium

Does this mean that redevelopment is nowhere near as cut and dry as people are claiming?

You'd have to think so. Why would he even have brought it up unless there was a strong chance we move to a new stadium.

[Mackeroo]

Dan Roan:
To be clear LFC's MD Ian Ayre stresses club are not looking for naming rights for Anfield - only a possibility for new stadium

Does this mean that redevelopment is nowhere near as cut and dry as people are claiming?

I guess they'd have to cover their bases for all eventualities, but it would seem to suggest that a re-development of Anfield isn't definitely already decided as the rumours have suggested.

[Strummer77]

I guess they'd have to cover their bases for all eventualities, but it would seem to suggest that a re-development of Anfield isn't definitely already decided as the rumours have suggested.

To be honest I just trust them. They'll do what is best if what they've done so far is anything to go by.

Isn't it nice to be able to say that?

[Mackeroo]

To be honest I just trust them. They'll do what is best if what they've done so far is anything to go by.

Isn't it nice to be able to say that?

Indeed it is. Makes a welcome change to where we were even 6 months ago.

[ttnbd]

All it'll probably mean is that they are searching to see what they COULD get from a naming rights deal, plug it into their financial forecasts and see which option is most economically viable.

[LiverBirdKop]

All it'll probably mean is that they are searching to see what they COULD get from a naming rights deal, plug it into their financial forecasts and see which option is most economically viable.

Exactly. Just an exploratory thing in keeping all options open.

Just aside, but since FSG are based in the US.... Just read that Los Angeles is desperate for a new stadium for an NFL team. The naming rights deal is supposed to be for $700 million for 30 years with Farmers Insurance Exchange. If FSG could get a good "chunk" of that in a naming rights deal for a global brand such as LFC, it could be the decisive factor here. $700 million is crazy money though.

[AB LFC]

Would personally prefer a new stadium, especially if it looks something like the Lucal Oil Stadium.

[Alan_X]

Would personally prefer a new stadium, especially if it looks something like the Lucal Oil Stadium.

Why would you want an NFL stadium that looks like a factory?

Lucas Oil Stadium:



AEG Factory:

[LiverBirdKop]

lol.... Not so bad on the inside that factory stadium.

[verbal kint]

lol.... Not so bad on the inside that factory stadium.

I really like that place. Imagine that as a single tier, think of the noise we could make in there

[Breitner]

The inside is alright but the rest is just typical brash American tackiness. Horrible. At least we know tradition is important to these fellas, so hopefully they look at something a bit more boring. We're there to watch the match not have a day out.

[Promised to never post on RAWK again]

I really like that place. Imagine that as a single tier, think of the noise we could make in there

Still not single tiered, but pretty close ...

[LiverBirdKop]

We're there to watch the match not have a day out.

Some families or OOTs may want to have a game day out. The more money for the club the better. The outside does look like Dr. Evil's new headquarters though.

[db1animal]

Lets look at it this way;
Anfield = Torres
Naming rights = Chelsea
New stadium = Suarez & Carroll
To me it makes perfect sense if the naming rights can virtually cover the cost of a new stadium, then this great club and us as fans deserve the best, look at the Academy or Melwood, modern state of the art developments giving our current and future stars the best possible environment to work and succeed. It would again signal to me that we have smart intelligent owners, no doubt there will be some that say that this 'proves' they have no money! Well we had owners who were all talk saying they would do this or buy that and nothing ever materialised, now we appear to have owners who say very little but when they do its not debatable if they mean it or not because its already a done deal. 
Any new stadium will of course have to be iconic but we the fans as much as the players staff and owners will carry the history that came before it, it to is concourses and stands and fill it to its rafters. And lets be honest regardless of whats its official name is it will always be Anfield to us.

[iamrobk]

If they're going to model a new stadium off a US stadium (which they won't), they should at least model it off of Michigan Stadium (which has a capacity of over 110,000):

[Kopite Downunder]

If they're going to model a new stadium off a US stadium (which they won't), they should at least model it off of Michigan Stadium (which has a capacity of over 110,000):

I think the majority of lfc fans would prefer a renovated anfield if possible... The history the passion the memories etc. We have to remember that the possibilites that come with a brand  new stadium can be enormous if the owners get this right. If possible id like to see a new stadium built with a capcacity of 75000 that incorporates everything that represents LFC. Forget about modelling it on an American stadium or any other stadium for that matter. We can look at other stadia and get ideas but the new anfield must be unique and special for the next generation to make their own. 75000 may sound like alot but we wont need to increase capacity for a along while after and we can charge much less and still fill the stadium rather milk the fans like most epl clubs do with pricing tickets after a new stadium is built

[Alan_X]

If they're going to model a new stadium off a US stadium (which they won't), they should at least model it off of Michigan Stadium (which has a capacity of over 110,000):

No they shouldn't. I don't get the obsession with American Footall stadiums. At least the Lucas Oil Stadium is designed for a commercial operation, even if the game is wrong. That's an open bowl, with no roof, no boxes or corporate facilities - in fact almost no facilities at all. It's designed to accommodate a huge crowd of college kids with ridiculously long sightlines from the back of the stands and has no Kop end.

But, yeah... apart from that it's exactly what we need.

[TopChed]

For those who were throwing out pictures of American football stadiums, I think those are both completely wrong for LFC. If I were to base a design around an American venue, it'd have to be Qwest Field in Seattle (Home of the NFL Seahawks and MLS Sounders).





That being said, my preferred option is still to make it work at Anfield. I have never been to Anfield, so perhaps that is the main reason why I would rather see it renovated than replaced. I'm also aware that my opinion counts for less, being an OOT fan. However, from afar, it still holds a mystique to me. It's that certain feeling which can't easily be replaced. That is probably why so many people would prefer to see it stay around. I know the Fenway comparison gets thrown around a lot, but as a long time baseball fan, that's one of 2 stadiums I feel like I need to visit in my lifetime (the other being Wrigley Field). That's also how I feel about Anfield. I just love the older stadiums which were simple, but effective. They create an intimate atmosphere, and their imperfections add character.

I went to World Cup last summer, and visited 5 of the stadiums. Of the five, two were brand new (Cape Town Stadium and Moses Mabhida Stadium), and one was completely renovated (Soccer City). The best atmosphere, and my favourite venues to visit however, were at the two oldest stadiums I went to. Ellis Park and Loftus Versfeld were the best to me, by far. I guess the feeling I have is that money can buy amenities for older stadiums, but it can't necessarily buy atmosphere for new ones. There's just something about a proper, historical venue.

[CraigDS]

It's the fans and the performance of the team on the pitch that creates the atmosphere - not the stadium to be honest.

Countless times in recent history that Anfield has been pretty silent.

[SMD]

Lets look at it this way;
Anfield = Torres
Naming rights = Chelsea
New stadium = Suarez & Carroll

If they're going to model a new stadium off a US stadium (which they won't), they should at least model it off of Michigan Stadium (which has a capacity of over 110,000):

For those who were throwing out pictures of American football stadiums, I think those are both completely wrong for LFC. If I were to base a design around an American venue, it'd have to be Qwest Field in Seattle (Home of the NFL Seahawks and MLS Sounders).

[xerxes1]

I went to World Cup last summer, and visited 5 of the stadiums. Of the five, two were brand new (Cape Town Stadium and Moses Mabhida Stadium), and one was completely renovated (Soccer City). The best atmosphere, and my favourite venues to visit however, were at the two oldest stadiums I went to. Ellis Park and Loftus Versfeld were the best to me, by far. I guess the feeling I have is that money can buy amenities for older stadiums, but it can't necessarily buy atmosphere for new ones. There's just something about a proper, historical venue.

There is a lot in that post.

A new stadium will almost certainly provide Hospitality/Conference /Commercial generating facilities which would outstrip a redeveloped Anfield helping us financially, but may not improve the match day experience for many ordinary fans.

Old stadia have history, and Anfield has buckets of that. Yet the facilities in the Main Stand, and Annie Rd and Centenary Lower are not good enough now, let alone for the next 50 years.

New stadia are generally soul less - but do not need to be. The lack of vision, and demand, from some of our support to have an outstanding 21st Century Stadium surprises and depresses me.There are achitects out there who would love to purpose build the definitive British stadium and become a modern day Leitch.

It is curious how some of our support on the one hand cherish our past success and the Liverpool Way, yet on the other, have such limited regard for the generations that will come in the future.

[The Manhattan Project]

Why would you want an NFL stadium that looks like a factory?

Lucas Oil Stadium:



AEG Factory:

It's based on historic fieldhouse designs.

[Mal]

It's based on historic fieldhouse designs.

What follows is nothing personal mate, just some observations & opinion...

I'll be honest, I haven't got a fucking clue what a "historic fieldhouse design" is, but I'm pretty sure though that it's got absolutely nothing to do with English Football. And therefore it has no place, imho, in being the model for an English Football stadium.

I don't get the fixation with building a stadium based on American Football stadia. The only part of the game that is similar to footy is the fact that they're both played on rectangular pitches. As a spectacle, when compared to other UK invented games American footy is most similar to rugby (not footy) & I don't see a clamour for a version of Twickenham, afterall why would there be?

A footy stadium has a distinctly different job to and NFL stadium, firstly an NFL game lasts longer, people easily spend 4hrs+ in the stadium, so it needs to be more comfortable. Secondly, there are no away fans - so there has never been a tradition of singing & swearing at the opposition fans. Consequently NFL matches, in that regard, are largely anodyne affairs by comparison with say LFC vs. MUFC. There are dozens of other basic points about catering (due to length of time spent in the stadium) & even the size of the seats that are relevant but to be honest, I haven't got the time & I'm sure I've already given enough of an idea where I'm coming from...

Bottom line is this, any new stadium (or redeveloped Anfield) needs to be a football stadium first & foremost. Sure build in a few comfy seats, build in more corp. boxes, build in a fucking heli-pad if it'll get the high rollers in but please, make sure that the ground is tight as fuck, make sure the away fans have a corner they can feel boxed into, make sure the roof is nice & low to create a cauldron of noise rather than a massive open bowl or cavernous empty hall where the sound gets lost. Most of all, no big open spaces.

I'm not dead-set against moving but to be honest, none of the proposed new stadia be it the Parry Bowl (or the alternatives that floated around at that time), the G&H design or the Ian Ritchie 'sketches' fulfill those fairly basic requirements. If we're going to move & call the new stadium the 'Adidas Anfield Arena' (or whoever does pay up), we've got to make sure that the new stadium is worthy of the name.

[AB LFC]

Lucas Oil Stadium looks tacky from outside but from inside it's beautiful and could be the perfect blueprint design for the new Anfield, what with that massive separate tier. Could see that as the Kop.

Michigan Stadium looks nice but has no distinctive features, which we need for new Anfield, namely The Kop.

Feel sorry for West Ham, Olympic Stadium looks boring as fuck and there's gonna be no noise whatsoever. Hate football stadia with a big fuck-off track round it, no need.

[xerxes1]

Bottom line is this, any new stadium (or redeveloped Anfield) needs to be a football stadium first & foremost. Sure build in a few comfy seats, build in more corp. boxes, build in a fucking heli-pad if it'll get the high rollers in but please, make sure that the ground is tight as fuck, make sure the away fans have a corner they can feel boxed into, make sure the roof is nice & low to create a cauldron of noise rather than a massive open bowl or cavernous empty hall where the sound gets lost. Most of all, no big open spaces.

I'm not dead-set against moving but to be honest, none of the proposed new stadia be it the Parry Bowl (or the alternatives that floated around at that time), the G&H design or the Ian Ritchie 'sketches' fulfill those fairly basic requirements. If we're going to move & call the new stadium the 'Adidas Anfield Arena' (or whoever does pay up), we've got to make sure that the new stadium is worthy of the name.

Henry needs your telephone number!

The "circle of indifference" created at Wembley and the Emirates by the middle tier hospitality seating, the double tiering of ends (Holte/ Gallowgate/ North/South Bank West Ham endless..........) are mistakes which must not be repeated.

[RJH]

Lets look at it this way;
Anfield = Torres
Naming rights = Chelsea
New stadium = Suarez & Carroll

What?
Seriously, I can't even begin to guess what you point is.

[Alan_X]

What follows is nothing personal mate, just some observations & opinion...

I'll be honest, I haven't got a fucking clue what a "historic fieldhouse design" is, but I'm pretty sure though that it's got absolutely nothing to do with English Football. And therefore it has no place, imho, in being the model for an English Football stadium.

I don't get the fixation with building a stadium based on American Football stadia. The only part of the game that is similar to footy is the fact that they're both played on rectangular pitches. As a spectacle, when compared to other UK invented games American footy is most similar to rugby (not footy) & I don't see a clamour for a version of Twickenham, afterall why would there be?

A footy stadium has a distinctly different job to and NFL stadium, firstly an NFL game lasts longer, people easily spend 4hrs+ in the stadium, so it needs to be more comfortable. Secondly, there are no away fans - so there has never been a tradition of singing & swearing at the opposition fans. Consequently NFL matches, in that regard, are largely anodyne affairs by comparison with say LFC vs. MUFC. There are dozens of other basic points about catering (due to length of time spent in the stadium) & even the size of the seats that are relevant but to be honest, I haven't got the time & I'm sure I've already given enough of an idea where I'm coming from...

Bottom line is this, any new stadium (or redeveloped Anfield) needs to be a football stadium first & foremost. Sure build in a few comfy seats, build in more corp. boxes, build in a fucking heli-pad if it'll get the high rollers in but please, make sure that the ground is tight as fuck, make sure the away fans have a corner they can feel boxed into, make sure the roof is nice & low to create a cauldron of noise rather than a massive open bowl or cavernous empty hall where the sound gets lost. Most of all, no big open spaces.

I'm not dead-set against moving but to be honest, none of the proposed new stadia be it the Parry Bowl (or the alternatives that floated around at that time), the G&H design or the Ian Ritchie 'sketches' fulfill those fairly basic requirements. If we're going to move & call the new stadium the 'Adidas Anfield Arena' (or whoever does pay up), we've got to make sure that the new stadium is worthy of the name.

That is bizarre - almost word for word what I was writing.

[db1animal]

What?
Seriously, I can't even begin to guess what you point is.

Ok, I was trying to make the point that like Torres, a great player who has been over the last few months a shadow of that player, Anfield is a great stadium that unfortunately no longer provides what the club requires from it in terms of capacity and facilities.

And if we can replace Torres (who 12 weeks ago was many fans idol and one of the clubs most prized assets) with Suarez and Carroll by getting Chelsea to pretty much pay for it then surely building a new stadium that was primarily funded by a company buying the naming rights, while at first difficult to accept give the history and memories, it may actually be the best thing in the interests of the club, taking forward and making it even stronger and more competitive, not just now but for the next 10/20 years and beyond.

[CraigDS]

Aye, couldnt agree more with what Mal said. The footy side of things should come first, with the rest built around it. It should be the number one on the list of features when designing the stadium or even redev Anfield.

And just on that Lucas Stadium - for some reason I love it. Not necessarily for a football stadium. Not necessarily in/for Liverpool. Just something about it I like.