Author Topic: Announcement on Anfield redevelopment due Monday (Read 83054 times)

steveeastend · « **Reply #240 on:** October 13, 2012, 09:17:29 pm »

Quote from: Fromola on October 13, 2012, 08:09:12 pm

It's a start.

Exactly. And it´s a good one if true.

Coady · « **Reply #241 on:** October 13, 2012, 09:25:54 pm »

Quote from: peachybum on October 13, 2012, 09:15:43 pm

Liverpool Echo ‏@LivEchoLFC
Liverpool Football Club has decided to stay at Anfield - story to follow #lfc #anfield

That means nothing, how many times have the council announced something only for the club to say they are examining both options still.

peachybum · « **Reply #242 on:** October 13, 2012, 09:32:11 pm »

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2012/10/13/liverpool-football-club-set-to-stay-at-anfield-and-redevelop-current-stadium-100252-32027252/

Something Awful · « **Reply #243 on:** October 13, 2012, 09:38:50 pm »

Quote from: Torpedo Tommy on October 13, 2012, 08:34:01 pm

Numerous things:

Location. This is a big one. It raises issues for planning and working hours. Getting materials into the area and putting them up. Getting surplus out of the area

Ground Conditions. If you are building in a field that hasn't been built on you are less likely to hit something in the ground

Labour and Plant increases. Supply and demand. 5 years ago Tata (or Corus as it was) were giving you 9 weeks lead in for steel. Costs increased through demand. Now though - the demand is less mind.

Health and Safety. Consistently changing - changes the way you build things in a safe manner

Environment & Sustainability. New buildings are categorised to monitor what emissions they give out. The cost of achieving BREEAM ratings is quite significant

Quality. Not sure of the St Mary's quality - never been there. But as an example, if a stadium is built as a metal box with cladding, composite cladding costs around £60/m2 with rails. Insulated block and single skin cladding will cost similar. If it is built from cavity wall (brick - ins cavity - block) you are talking more like £100-£110 depending on brick quality. Consider the amount of brickwork at Anfield and it is easy to see why costs can differ. Again, planning will be a driver to this.

Inflation. Cost of living increases each year. Inflation in building used to be circa 2.5% a year. So 25% increase is potentially due to this.

Infrastructure. Might also be a big cost. When we increase the size of something we naturally increase the demand for things that drives it. i.e. Electricity and Power. If this is available within the existing grid - fine. If not, then we need to provide it which means new mains branches and substations.

Procurement. Who owns the risk of the cost? Contractor or LFC?

The other thing is, what is included within the St Mary's stadium and what is included in our estimate of £400m? Hotels, conference facilities, transport infrastructure etc etc. We could easily be comparing apples with oranges

Tremendous answer, thanks so much.

Renato · « **Reply #244 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:04:19 pm »

Quote from: T-Bone on October 13, 2012, 09:58:08 pm

What's up with all the FSG hate? People loved them when they arrived but somewhere along the way a lot of people started to put a negative spin on pretty much everything they've said and done. Why? Please educate me.

Impatience

stevied · « **Reply #245 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:09:59 pm »

Liverpool move closer to Anfield redevelopment

By Ben Smith
BBC Sport
Liverpool will move a step closer to starting the redevelopment of Anfield when the city council announces new plans for the area on Monday.
Reds owner John Henry wants the club to remain at Anfield, rather than build a new ground on Stanley Park.
The council will announce it has given the go-ahead for a series of compulsory purchase order consultations on houses that would need to be demolished.
If the process remains on schedule, redevelopment would begin in 2014.

Residents raised concerns earlier in the year about the plans to expand Anfield and it remains unclear how far its current capacity of 45,276 would increase and how many houses would be affected by any compulsory purchase orders.
Neither the club nor the local authority have made any official comment on the matter and the exact cost of the redevelopment is unknown.
Liverpool have looked into adding an extra tier to the stadium, including more corporate facilities for the Anfield Road and main stands, and while the club have also explored options for building a new stadium, the opportunity to stay at Anfield appeals to Henry.
Fenway Sports Group, who also own American baseball team Boston Red Sox, faced a similar situation with the Red Sox ground, Fenway Park.
After conducting a feasibility study lasting about a year, FSG opted to redevelop the 100-year-old ground.
Henry has previously sought to dispel the "myth" that the size of the stadium is critical to Liverpool's financial prospects, stating: "A belief has grown that Liverpool FC must have a new stadium to compete with [Manchester] United, Arsenal and others."
"While a new stadium or an expansion of Anfield is beneficial over the long term for the club, the financial impact of adding seats and amenities should be put into perspective.
"That's why I say that it is a myth that stadium issues are going to magically transform LFC's fortunes.
"Building new or refurbishing Anfield is going to lead to an increase from £40m of match-day revenue to perhaps £60-70m if you don't factor in debt service.
"Our future is based not on a stadium issue, but on building a strong football club that can compete with anyone in Europe. This will be principally driven financially by our commercial strengths globally."

Groundskeeper Willie · « **Reply #246 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:11:21 pm »

Ok, so the line of reasoning is this:

Before:

"Shite owners, they don´t want to make a decision on a new or redeveloped stadium cause they want out."

Now:

"Shite owners. Although they´ve made a decision to redevelope Anfield it doesn´t mean anything cause they have to do red tape first and are just stalling things."

Along those lines eh?

stevied · « **Reply #247 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:13:01 pm »

The council will announce it has given the go-ahead for a series of compulsory purchase order consultations on houses that would need to be demolished.

Thats why 2014 they would have to complete the purchases and knock the houses down before starting the redevelopment

Fromola · « **Reply #248 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:17:04 pm »

Quote from: Groundskeeper Willie on October 13, 2012, 10:11:21 pm

Ok, so the line of reasoning is this:

Before:

"Shite owners, they don´t want to make a decision on a new or redeveloped stadium cause they want out."

Now:

"Shite owners. Although they´ve made a decision to redevelope Anfield it doesn´t mean anything cause they have to do red tape first and are just stalling things."

Along those lines eh?

Henry's more recent comments on the stadium from the article above:

Quote

Henry has previously sought to dispel the "myth" that the size of the stadium is critical to Liverpool's financial prospects, stating: "A belief has grown that Liverpool FC must have a new stadium to compete with [Manchester] United, Arsenal and others."
"While a new stadium or an expansion of Anfield is beneficial over the long term for the club, the financial impact of adding seats and amenities should be put into perspective.
"That's why I say that it is a myth that stadium issues are going to magically transform LFC's fortunes.
"Building new or refurbishing Anfield is going to lead to an increase from £40m of match-day revenue to perhaps £60-70m if you don't factor in debt service.
"Our future is based not on a stadium issue, but on building a strong football club that can compete with anyone in Europe. This will be principally driven financially by our commercial strengths globa

Hardly a man who's overly committed to sorting the stadium out, and certainly not as a priority. Not without a big helping hand financially which may or may not be there. We just have to wait and see, but i'm not going to get excited at this point.

Warks Moustache · « **Reply #249 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:17:09 pm »

Quote from: Fromola on October 13, 2012, 10:13:04 pm

And who appointed them? Comolli especially. The biggest slight against FSG so far has been with their staff appointments, and non-appointments (CEO). It suggests poor judgement, and we need top judgement to get the stadium sorted once and for all.

I am sorry, but surely the vast majority of supporters wanted to stay at Anfield? We now have the ability to do just that, and it was sound judgement on FSG's part.

Remember Hicks stating that there would be a shovel in Stanley Park within 90 days? That right there is poor judgement on the new stadium.

Groundskeeper Willie · « **Reply #250 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:19:30 pm »

Quote from: Fromola on October 13, 2012, 10:17:04 pm

Henry's more recent comments on the stadium from the article above:

Hardly a man who's overly committed to sorting the stadium out, and certainly not as a priority. Not without a big helping hand financially which may or may not be there. We just have to wait and see, but i'm not going to get excited at this point.

Well, let´s wait and see shall we? Not swayed either way on the owners personally and I think it´s a tad premature for people slamming them and accusing them of all sorts.

I think developing Anfield to say 60k makes a hell of a lot more sense than building a brand new one with the same capacity.

elpistolero7 · « **Reply #251 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:20:22 pm »

Quote from: Torpedo Tommy on October 13, 2012, 08:34:01 pm

Numerous things:

Location. This is a big one. It raises issues for planning and working hours. Getting materials into the area and putting them up. Getting surplus out of the area

Ground Conditions. If you are building in a field that hasn't been built on you are less likely to hit something in the ground

Labour and Plant increases. Supply and demand. 5 years ago Tata (or Corus as it was) were giving you 9 weeks lead in for steel. Costs increased through demand. Now though - the demand is less mind.

Health and Safety. Consistently changing - changes the way you build things in a safe manner

Environment & Sustainability. New buildings are categorised to monitor what emissions they give out. The cost of achieving BREEAM ratings is quite significant

Quality. Not sure of the St Mary's quality - never been there. But as an example, if a stadium is built as a metal box with cladding, composite cladding costs around £60/m2 with rails. Insulated block and single skin cladding will cost similar. If it is built from cavity wall (brick - ins cavity - block) you are talking more like £100-£110 depending on brick quality. Consider the amount of brickwork at Anfield and it is easy to see why costs can differ. Again, planning will be a driver to this.

Inflation. Cost of living increases each year. Inflation in building used to be circa 2.5% a year. So 25% increase is potentially due to this.

Infrastructure. Might also be a big cost. When we increase the size of something we naturally increase the demand for things that drives it. i.e. Electricity and Power. If this is available within the existing grid - fine. If not, then we need to provide it which means new mains branches and substations.

Procurement. Who owns the risk of the cost? Contractor or LFC?

The other thing is, what is included within the St Mary's stadium and what is included in our estimate of £400m? Hotels, conference facilities, transport infrastructure etc etc. We could easily be comparing apples with oranges

That is an absolutely stunning post. Well reasoned and really elaborates on the mammoth task of investment into a new stadium or redevelopment. Really goes to show the success of the Arsenal operation too. Spent a fortune on a new stadium, stayed in the top 4 and got CL footie year after year, churning out a profit and paying off that giant debt. When they invent cloning Wenger's DNA is going to be in high demand. That man never gets proper credit for the work he's done. Fucking genius he is.

Fromola · « **Reply #252 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:20:52 pm »

Quote from: Warks Moustache on October 13, 2012, 10:17:09 pm

I am sorry, but surely the vast majority of supporters wanted to stay at Anfield? We now have the ability to do just that, and it was sound judgement on FSG's part.

Remember Hicks stating that there would be a shovel in Stanley Park within 90 days? That right there is poor judgement on the new stadium.

We have to wait and see what happens. If we do rebuild then we don't know what the capacity will be, we don't know how much it'll cost, we don't know how it'll be paid for, we don't know how long it'll take. At this moment in time neither do FSG, so people are jumping the gun.

Red_Rich · « **Reply #253 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:21:06 pm »

Brilliant news.

I don't care that it's 2014 before anything happens.

All that matters to me is that we're staying where we are and not getting some shite, souless, naming rights bowl type stadium.

60-65,000 around our tight pitch with the crowd still close to the playing area like it is now? - superb!

Warks Moustache · « **Reply #254 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:23:24 pm »

Quote from: Fromola on October 13, 2012, 10:20:52 pm

We have to wait and see what happens. If we do rebuild then we don't know what the capacity will be, we don't know how much it'll cost, we don't know how it'll be paid for, we don't know how long it'll take. At this moment in time neither do FSG, so people are jumping the gun.

I'd argue this point. Surely they know how much it will cost which is why they have always seemed in favour of redeveloping Anfield. Also, I would bet that it would be paid for piecemeal by the club itself. It fits the self sustaining practice that seems to be in place.

TepidT2O · « **Reply #255 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:25:20 pm »

When FSG took ap over the club, RBS were offering credit for a new stadium/ redevelopment ...£200m or something they were preapred to lend iirc?

We might find an equity injection by a third party buying a chunk of the club though... Who knows

Barneylfc∗ · « **Reply #256 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:31:27 pm »

Quote from: Warks Moustache on October 13, 2012, 10:20:16 pm

I would love to have a consensus amongst Liverpool fans to figure out if they want a sugar daddy or if they want LFC to be self sufficient.

The majority will say self sufficient. Whether they actually mean it is a different matter. Really there has only been 2 sugar daddies in English football, Abramovich and the Sheik at City. Man Utd, as hard as it may be to admit, got on the ball early in the 90's when the Sky money was there. They may be in dick loads of debt now because of their owners, but they hardly spent like Chelsea or City to get success.

Alan_X · « **Reply #257 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:33:03 pm »

Quote from: Torpedo Tommy on October 13, 2012, 08:34:01 pm

Numerous things:

Location. This is a big one. It raises issues for planning and working hours. Getting materials into the area and putting them up. Getting surplus out of the area

Ground Conditions. If you are building in a field that hasn't been built on you are less likely to hit something in the ground

Labour and Plant increases. Supply and demand. 5 years ago Tata (or Corus as it was) were giving you 9 weeks lead in for steel. Costs increased through demand. Now though - the demand is less mind.

Health and Safety. Consistently changing - changes the way you build things in a safe manner

Environment & Sustainability. New buildings are categorised to monitor what emissions they give out. The cost of achieving BREEAM ratings is quite significant

Quality. Not sure of the St Mary's quality - never been there. But as an example, if a stadium is built as a metal box with cladding, composite cladding costs around £60/m2 with rails. Insulated block and single skin cladding will cost similar. If it is built from cavity wall (brick - ins cavity - block) you are talking more like £100-£110 depending on brick quality. Consider the amount of brickwork at Anfield and it is easy to see why costs can differ. Again, planning will be a driver to this.

Inflation. Cost of living increases each year. Inflation in building used to be circa 2.5% a year. So 25% increase is potentially due to this.

Infrastructure. Might also be a big cost. When we increase the size of something we naturally increase the demand for things that drives it. i.e. Electricity and Power. If this is available within the existing grid - fine. If not, then we need to provide it which means new mains branches and substations.

Procurement. Who owns the risk of the cost? Contractor or LFC?

The other thing is, what is included within the St Mary's stadium and what is included in our estimate of £400m? Hotels, conference facilities, transport infrastructure etc etc. We could easily be comparing apples with oranges

The main reason is that it's a completely different stadium. It's a 30,000-seater basic stadium with single tier stands and minimal corporate facilities. Stadium costs increase exponentially as capacity increases. Your last point is also relevant - unless you know what is included the costs for each stadium you can't compare them.

Alan_X · « **Reply #258 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:34:47 pm »

Could people read the thread title and not post irrelevant shite about transfers?

Ta.

eAyeAddio · « **Reply #259 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:35:01 pm »

Quote from: elpistolero7 on October 13, 2012, 10:20:22 pm

goes to show the success of the Arsenal operation too. Spent a fortune on a new stadium, stayed in the top 4 and got CL footie year after year.........

Or, in other words, spent a fortune on a new stadium, raised ticket prices to most expensive in the league to pay for it, won nothing for year after year..........

When will people learn?

Warks Moustache · « **Reply #260 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:35:28 pm »

Quote from: Tepid water on October 13, 2012, 10:25:20 pm

When FSG took ap over the club, RBS were offering credit for a new stadium/ redevelopment ...£200m or something they were preapred to lend iirc?

We might find an equity injection by a third party buying a chunk of the club though... Who knows

You are correct, but equity injections are a tricky thing to bank on considering how liquid finance is. Consider the case of Luanda, the capital of Angola, which is now one of the most expensive cities in the world. If you were a banker looking for a strong rate of return, why would you now look into football finance when you get get much higher returns investing in mineral rich developing countries?

Its hard to imagine a bank giving the club a favourable large scale loan to a football club in the current economic climate.

planet-terror · « **Reply #261 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:35:47 pm »

great news if it all comes to fruition ,,staying in our home,,keeping the dreams,hopes,memories and reputation of Anfield alive...

BreakfastPercy · « **Reply #262 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:39:30 pm »

I would genuinely appreciate it if this thread wasn't about transfers and suchlike.

FSG have been positioning this kind of announcement for a while with their drip feed, which suggests to me this isn't just hot air , more a case of treading on eggshells and battling all manner of factors to try and get this thing off the ground. Any progress is good progress in my opinion, let's hope this gathers pace. Does anybody have any knowledge of a similar redevelopment and how that progressed for comparison?

FLRed67 · « **Reply #263 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:39:36 pm »

Quote from: Fromola on October 13, 2012, 10:17:04 pm

Henry's more recent comments on the stadium from the article above:

Hardly a man who's overly committed to sorting the stadium out, and certainly not as a priority. Not without a big helping hand financially which may or may not be there. We just have to wait and see, but i'm not going to get excited at this point.

That's because Henry is valuing the club based on future TV rights and other future license revenues - not ticket sales. ML baseball stadiums are half empty, but the clubs are valued at 1-2 billion dollars (LA Dodgers just sold for 2.1b) because it's non-stadium related commercial revenue that matters. That is the model Henry has in mind.

The money we will receive each year just from future shirt sponsorship deals will probably be larger than an entire season's ticket sales.

Warks Moustache · « **Reply #264 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:39:40 pm »

Quote from: eAyeAddio on October 13, 2012, 10:35:01 pm

Or, in other words, spent a fortune on a new stadium, raised ticket prices to most expensive in the league to pay for it, won nothing for year after year..........

When will people learn?

But Arsenal have the ability to be competitive. Its hard to know in Arsenal's case who is telling the truth re. transfer funds, but this years Arsenal look very impressive. I do not think its beyond them to mount a credible title challenge.

In any case they are in much better shape than we are, and a large part of it is due to the large financial backing they get from their new stadium.

GODS LEFT BOOT · « **Reply #265 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:45:22 pm »

Quote from: Red_Rich on October 13, 2012, 10:21:06 pm

Brilliant news.

I don't care that it's 2014 before anything happens.

All that matters to me is that we're staying where we are and not getting some shite, souless, naming rights bowl type stadium.

60-65,000 around our tight pitch with the crowd still close to the playing area like it is now? - superb!

Hell yeah!

Eeyore · « **Reply #266 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:45:35 pm »

Walk along Breckfield Rd North across it's junction with Mere Lane and look to your left and you will see an immaculate estate of houses of mixed heritage, look to your right and you will see row upon row of desolation, houses that previously housed generations of the same family, houses are now nothing but rubble.

The Club for the last two decades has bought up houses left, right and centre desperately trying to build a buffer zone of contempt. an area that would enable us to extend if the circumstances were right. Even when given planning permission we have continually not built, we have come up with excuse after excuse. From Moores being unwilling to commit, through H&G's spade in the ground in 60 days to FSG's ambivalence we have continually talked the talk without being willing or able to walk the walk.

Monday isn't anything different it is about keeping options open without actually committing, it is about a maybe Stadium sometime in the future. I for one am getting sick to the back teeth of empty rhetoric. FSG will do it better they are masters of spin and empty rhetoric but as Broughton said judge them on what they do not what they say.

Which leads to the unpalatable truth that they have actually done fuck all of consequence.

Warks Moustache · « **Reply #267 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:51:45 pm »

Quote from: Al 555 on October 13, 2012, 10:45:35 pm

Walk along Breckfield Rd North across it's junction with Mere Lane and look to your left and you will see an immaculate estate of houses of mixed heritage, look to your right and you will see row upon row of desolation, houses that previously housed generations of the same family, houses are now nothing but rubble.

The Club for the last two decades has bought up houses left, right and centre desperately trying to build a buffer zone of contempt. an area that would enable us to extend if the circumstances were right. Even when given planning permission we have continually not built, we have come up with excuse after excuse. From Moores being unwilling to commit, through H&G's spade in the ground in 60 days to FSG's ambivalence we have continually talked the talk without being willing or able to walk the walk.

Monday isn't anything different it is about keeping options open without actually committing, it is about a maybe Stadium sometime in the future. I for one am getting sick to the back teeth of empty rhetoric. FSG will do it better they are masters of spin and empty rhetoric but as Broughton said judge them on what they do not what they say.

Which leads to the unpalatable truth that they have actually done fuck all of consequence.

All this is true, but ever since the damned Stanley Park lease was signed, the Council has been pushing the club towards building a new stadium as part of its Anfield Regeneration/Football Quarter project. I believe this marks the first time that the Council has been willing to reneg on the Stanley Park stadium idea and now finally the club can actually expand Anfield with the City Council's blessing.

It has always been impossible to expand Anfield because the Council was dead set against it. The fact that they are now willing to let Anfield be redeveloped means that the regeneration of Anfield as a disctrict will hopefully commence.

iamrobk · « **Reply #268 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:03:05 pm »

* Liverpool look set for a redevelopment of Anfield that will take the capacity to 60,000.

From the Mirror.

eAyeAddio · « **Reply #269 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:04:19 pm »

Quote from: Warks Moustache on October 13, 2012, 10:39:40 pm

But Arsenal have the ability to be competitive. Its hard to know in Arsenal's case who is telling the truth re. transfer funds, but this years Arsenal look very impressive. I do not think its beyond them to mount a credible title challenge.

In any case they are in much better shape than we are, and a large part of it is due to the large financial backing they get from their new stadium.

You can't compare Arsenal's new stadium with re-developing Anfield.

They increased their capacity from 37k to 60k. (+23k) and increased ticket prices enormously.

We would increase capacity from 45.4k to c58k. (+12.6k) approx. half that of Arsenal.

Arsenal also had the benefit of their old ground being in a prime London building location and was worth a fortune. Not so with Anfield.

My biggest concern is the huge rise in prices of tickets which will coincide with a re-developed Anfield and will cause even more of the hard-core of local supporters to be priced-out of going to see their local club, only to be replaced by ........................... (you tell me....)

horne · « **Reply #270 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:05:01 pm »

new stadium was always my preferred option....a chance to make up lost ground with a bigger...much bigger capacity....when we commit to a refurb...thats it for donkeys years ....and the mancs will go even bigger
short sighted in my opinion....population growth for the city over the next 50/100 years unaccounted for...ahhh well

Fromola · « **Reply #271 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:06:15 pm »

Quote from: Warks Moustache on October 13, 2012, 10:51:45 pm

All this is true, but ever since the damned Stanley Park lease was signed, the Council has been pushing the club towards building a new stadium as part of its Anfield Regeneration/Football Quarter project. I believe this marks the first time that the Council has been willing to reneg on the Stanley Park stadium idea and now finally the club can actually expand Anfield with the City Council's blessing.

It has always been impossible to expand Anfield because the Council was dead set against it. The fact that they are now willing to let Anfield be redeveloped means that the regeneration of Anfield as a disctrict will hopefully commence.

Hopefully it's not just the council calling LFC/FSG's bluff by showing that it's not them that are holding back the club from sorting things. The council are clearly desperate for us to commit over the stadium.

RedPross · « **Reply #272 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:11:24 pm »

Another fucking year before anything happens...... And that could be 2 as it could be the end of 2014!!!!

And how many confirmations we had over the years...... And then nothing happen or the plans change again!!!

So to me it's a case of nothing new here......more on

Warks Moustache · « **Reply #273 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:15:06 pm »

Quote from: eAyeAddio on October 13, 2012, 11:04:19 pm

You can't compare Arsenal's new stadium with re-developing Anfield.

They increased their capacity from 37k to 60k. (+23k) and increased ticket prices enormously.

We would increase capacity from 45.4k to c58k. (+12.6k) approx. half that of Arsenal.

Arsenal also had the benefit of their old ground being in a prime London building location and was worth a fortune. Not so with Anfield.

My biggest concern is the huge rise in prices of tickets which will coincide with a re-developed Anfield and will cause even more of the hard-core of local supporters to be priced-out of going to see their local club, only to be replaced by ........................... (you tell me....)

You are right, but our merchandising revenue far outstrips Arsenal's. The gap we need to make up is not as large as the gap Arsenal had to make up with the Emirates. Ticket pricing is something that really concerns me though, but seeing discounted tickets for League Cup and Europa Cup games is a nice touch which gets youth back into watching the games.

Personally I think the advent of the all-seater stadium pretty much sounded the deathknell for cheap season tickets. I know its very controversial, but if safe terracing was implemented like in Germany, I think Anfield could increase its capacity even more and provide cheap tickets. It would also add to the match day atmosphere.

Warks Moustache · « **Reply #274 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:21:08 pm »

Quote from: horne on October 13, 2012, 11:05:01 pm

new stadium was always my preferred option....a chance to make up lost ground with a bigger...much bigger capacity....when we commit to a refurb...thats it for donkeys years ....and the mancs will go even bigger
short sighted in my opinion....population growth for the city over the next 50/100 years unaccounted for...ahhh well

If we had to build a new stadium, the ticket prices for it would be even higher than they are now. Already young fans have been squeezed out of watching Liverpool regularly and I feel it has contributed to a dour atmosphere for all but the glamour ties.

In terms of the demographics, its only very recently that the population decline has stabilized at all thanks mostly to an influx of immigrants. There is no real way to predict how the population will change in the future considering the 'native' Liverpudlian population was slowly ebbing away before 2004.

Warks Moustache · « **Reply #275 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:24:56 pm »

Quote from: Fromola on October 13, 2012, 11:06:15 pm

Hopefully it's not just the council calling LFC/FSG's bluff by showing that it's not them that are holding back the club from sorting things. The council are clearly desperate for us to commit over the stadium.

I should bloody well hope so. What has happened to the surrounding area of Anfield is rightly considered a disgrace as Al alluded to. I, however disagree with him on how much more the club could have done.

If Liverpool City Council wanted a new stadium so badly, the City should have found a way to pay for it and let us become its tenets. Whatever you think of John W. Henry, he was right when he said that the vast majority of new stadiums are given to them by municipalities and that creating a new stadium solely from the clubs finances was always a tall order.

Eeyore · « **Reply #276 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:25:53 pm »

Quote from: Warks Moustache on October 13, 2012, 10:51:45 pm

All this is true, but ever since the damned Stanley Park lease was signed, the Council has been pushing the club towards building a new stadium as part of its Anfield Regeneration/Football Quarter project. I believe this marks the first time that the Council has been willing to reneg on the Stanley Park stadium idea and now finally the club can actually expand Anfield with the City Council's blessing.

It has always been impossible to expand Anfield because the Council was dead set against it. The fact that they are now willing to let Anfield be redeveloped means that the regeneration of Anfield as a disctrict will hopefully commence.

FFS the council has gone along with whatever the Club has asked for they even gave us planning permission to build in the park. I don't think people understand the magnitude of that. We got planning permission to build in a Victorian Park despite massive opposition and then did an about face.

Now we don't want to build in the park but we might want to extend Anfield sometime in the future but only if it suits FSG and they the can money off the back of it.

Kennys from heaven · « **Reply #277 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:27:40 pm »

Quote from: Andy @ Allerton on October 13, 2012, 12:47:05 pm

It's all shite. Who gives a fuck. Why do football fans that go to the game even care?

I expect the fans who go don't, but the ones who've waited 11 years for a season ticket do!!!

Eeyore · « **Reply #278 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:30:17 pm »

Quote from: Warks Moustache on October 13, 2012, 11:24:56 pm

I should bloody well hope so. If Liverpool City Council wanted a new stadium so badly, the City should have found a way to pay for it and let us become its tenets. Whatever you think of John W. Henry, he was right when he said that the vast majority of new stadiums are given to them by municipalities and that creating a new stadium solely from the clubs finances was always a tall order.

Why the fuck should the Council Tax payers of Liverpool prop up Henry's empire. we can't even afford basic services, yet we should use Council Tax payers money to increase JWH's portfolio. I love the club but am beginning to really hate the fucking arrogance of the Club and it's dickhead apologists.

Warks Moustache · « **Reply #279 on:** October 13, 2012, 11:36:58 pm »

Quote from: Al 555 on October 13, 2012, 11:25:53 pm

FFS the council has gone along with whatever the Club has asked for they even gave us planning permission to build in the park. I don't think people understand the magnitude of that. We got planning permission to build in a Victorian Park despite massive opposition and then did an about face.

Now we don't want to build in the park but we might want to extend Anfield sometime in the future but only if it suits FSG and they the can money off the back of it.

I just want to point out the part in bold is conjecture, you nor I have any idea if this is true.

To your other point, building a new stadium was never going to happen. Hick and Gillete were idiots to think they could leverage the buy out of the club AND finance a new stadium on the back of their perceived valuation of LFC. The Council went a long with it because A. They did not know better and B. It fit in with their general plans to regenerate the city of Liverpool. Its the same reason why they gave Everton rights to a new ground that was in a similarly depressed area (although outside the city limits I believe).

The Council clearly had a plan to regenerate that section of Liverpool thanks to the economic power of its football clubs, and I can understand to some extent their frustration that it has never come to pass. Any attempt to return to the plan of redeveloping Anfield was met with public hostility, where the local MP's and Council members publicly urged the club to stick to the same daft plan we had under our previous owners.

Like others have said, at least now there is no opposition to redeveloping Anfield and therefore there are no excuses for the development of Anfield to occur using the suggested time table. Using the follies of past mistakes to tar and feather the current ownership is misguided at best. They had nothing to do with the state of Anfield as it is now. What I hope, is that the redevelopment of Anfield does go ahead and it will hopefully have a positive transformative effect of the houses surrounding the stadium.