Topic: Announcement on Anfield redevelopment due Monday

[Warks Moustache]

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.

I am not an apologist. I am simply stating that most stadiums around the world are funded by civic projects. Henry was right about that, and the Council maybe should have known that before they agreed to leasing the club Stanley Park.

[gamble]

Will be interesting to see where the compulsary purchase orders are placed on and what prices are offered on that land.

[Warks Moustache]

Will be interesting to see where the compulsary purchase orders are placed on and what prices are offered on that land.

I hope its higher than market value. The idea of eminent domain is an ugly yet necessary evil. Its something that doesn't sit well with me, but it is rationally for the greater good.

[Eeyore]

I am not an apologist. I am simply stating that most stadiums around the world are funded by civic projects. Henry was right about that, and the Council maybe should have known that before they agreed to leasing the club Stanley Park.

The council agreed to the Club building on Stanley Park as part of a regeneration project it wasn't the council who failed to put a spade in the ground after 60 days. It was the Club the failed to hold it's part of the bargain.

[Warks Moustache]

The council agreed to the Club building on Stanley Park as part of a regeneration project it wasn't the council who failed to put a spade in the ground after 60 days. It was the Club the failed to hold it's part of the bargain.

Agreed. But the Club could never have upheld its part of the bargain, and were I an advisor to Liverpool City Council, I would have told them so. As I said I have some sympathy with the Council on this issue because the lack of economic progress in Anfield is troubling. But I do think it was a mistake to base the regeneration of the area around the building of a brand new expensive stadium.

It was public knowledge that the club was having to pay exorbitant interest payments for the leveraged buyout. I can't imagine anyone at the time believing that the addition of another £200 million loan to build a new stadium would also be feasible. If we had to pay for both the interest payments of the leveraged buyout AND the payments for a new stadium, I am convinced we would have fallen into administration and perhaps even relegated.

Anyway I am glad an agreement between the Club and City has been reached. And I hope that the Club will finally move forward and make Anfield and the surrounding areas a much more prosperous and happy place to be.

[Eeyore]

Agreed. But the Club could never have upheld its part of the bargain, and were I an advisor to Liverpool City Council, I would have told them so. As I said I have some sympathy with the Council on this issue because the lack of economic progress in Anfield is troubling. But I do think it was a mistake to base the regeneration of the area around the building of a brand new expensive stadium.

It was public knowledge that the club was having to pay exorbitant interest payments for the leveraged buyout. I can't imagine anyone at the time believing that the addition of another £200 million loan to build a new stadium would also be feasible. If we had to pay for both the interest payments of the leveraged buyout AND the payments for a new stadium, I am convinced we would have fallen into administration and perhaps even relegated.

Anyway I am glad an agreement between the Club and City has been reached. And I hope that the Club will finally move forward and make Anfield and the surrounding areas a much more prosperous and happy place to be.

If you look into the history of H&G then they did deliver Stadiums, as for the business model it was absolutely flawless until the global economy crashed.  H&G were basically a huge scale buy to let, they bought the asset and then the asset basically paid back the loan. The whole premise was based on the loans not being called in and the asset being an appreciating asset.

To be honest it is not that far removed from FSG's business model they don't look for a dividend but look to profit from an appreciating asset. That is fine but only as long as the asset keeps appreciating. The Dot Com bubble was based on the future profits that companies were seemingly bound to make. The value of Premier League clubs is based on the hypothetical killing that Premier League Clubs are going to make sometime in the future from TV.

What happens if that killing doesn't happen and TV moves onto something else ?

[Draex]

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.

[Warks Moustache]

If you look into the history of H&G then they did deliver Stadiums, as for the business model it was absolutely flawless until the global economy crashed.  H&G were basically a huge scale buy to let, they bought the asset and then the asset basically paid back the loan. The whole premise was based on the loans not being called in and the asset being an appreciating asset.

To be honest it is not that far removed from FSG's business model they don't look for a dividend but look to profit from an appreciating asset. That is fine but only as long as the asset keeps appreciating. The Dot Com bubble was based on the future profits that companies were seemingly bound to make. The value of Premier League clubs is based on the hypothetical killing that Premier League Clubs are going to make sometime in the future from TV.

What happens if that killing doesn't happen and TV moves onto something else ?

I dunno mate, but the TV deal next season is £3.1 billion for the next 3 years. Thats a 71% increase on the previous TV deal. So clearly the Sky paymasters are believing people will still subscribe around the world to watch football.

[Eeyore]

I dunno mate, but the TV deal next season is £3.1 billion for the next 3 years. Thats a 71% increase on the previous TV deal. So clearly the Sky paymasters are believing people will still subscribe around the world to watch football.

Is it a belief that people will subscribe or would not having Football be absolutely fatal to SKY's business model. SKY was going down the pan until Football saved it's arse. Do Sky pay a market value or just basically pay whatever it takes. What happens when the slump kicks in and it's a choice between gas, electric, food or SKY.

Look at how many pubs no longer subscribe to SKY.

[FLRed67]

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.

Was Arsenal's new stadium paid for by the owners, or by property sales and higher ticket prices? Was Old Trafford's expansion paid for by owners? Was Man City's new stadium paid for by their owners?

But Henry has to fork over 400 million from his own pocket for a new stadium or you will throw a tantrum? Are you aware Europe is in a historic economic recession, with neighboring countries literally going bankrupt, and with fewer and fewer people in Britain able to even afford to go to matches?

Trying growing up and joining the real world.

[B0151?]

Is it a belief that people will subscribe or would not having Football be absolutely fatal to SKY's business model. SKY was going down the pan until Football saved it's arse. Do Sky pay a market value or just basically pay whatever it takes. What happens when the slump kicks in and it's a choice between gas, electric, food or SKY.

Look at how many pubs no longer subscribe to SKY.

look at how few pubs there are nowadays

[Stussy]

If you look into the history of H&G then they did deliver Stadiums, as for the business model it was absolutely flawless until the global economy crashed. 

I think this is the second time you've gone into praise mode for H & G as a stick to bash FSG with.

You lose me there. There's being healthily sceptical and downright myopically hostile and I don't know why Al, but you crossed that line and its blinding you.

[rossipersempre]

I think all this talk about Stanley Park vs regenerated Anfield neglects the very possible FSG mindset that increased matchday revenue is no longer the holy financial grail it's been painted as, the almost pre-requisite of the sale if you read Broughton and (*spits*) Purslows comments two years ago. At best it's a stopgap measure, a distraction even. Hence the chronic procrastination and overly simplistic parallels drawn with Fenway Park.

I think when they first came to buying the club, that was their genuine intention. They met with Kroenke and aspired to the Arsenal financial model in more ways than one. They were impressed at how the Emirates was built and subsidised by the development of Highbury. Then they realised that the N5 property market is vastly different to that in L4. And their sights changed. And Stanley Park was unofficially mothballed.

We all know the real money is in being to negotiate your own broadcast rights, both tv and internet. And that's really what Henry and Werner are busy biding their time and planning for, and having their pet Harley-riding chimp test the water for every so often. Hence the Asian and US tours and tv series shite, growing the OOC "fanbase" to be able milk them when the time comes. Who gives a shit about getting an extra 10,000 locals in a stadium (never mind paying £200-300m to facilitate that) when there's literally millions of potential subscribers out there. I guarantee that if they hold on for that long (itself very debatable), they'll flog the club within 6-12 months of media 'independence'. I'm betting that'll happen before we even see a completely redeveloped and refurbished Anfield.

[west_london_red]

If you look into the history of H&G then they did deliver Stadiums, as for the business model it was absolutely flawless until the global economy crashed.  H&G were basically a huge scale buy to let, they bought the asset and then the asset basically paid back the loan. The whole premise was based on the loans not being called in and the asset being an appreciating asset.

To be honest it is not that far removed from FSG's business model they don't look for a dividend but look to profit from an appreciating asset. That is fine but only as long as the asset keeps appreciating. The Dot Com bubble was based on the future profits that companies were seemingly bound to make. The value of Premier League clubs is based on the hypothetical killing that Premier League Clubs are going to make sometime in the future from TV.

What happens if that killing doesn't happen and TV moves onto something else ?

pretty sure whatever stadium G&H did build in the US, it was funded by local taxpayers.

G&Hs model is nothing like FSGs

None of us know FSGs exit plan, only guide we have is the Redsox who they have held on to for 11 years.

The bubble might burst, it might not, it could just plateau at some stage as happens in most cases, things like dot com bubble are the exception rather then the norm dont forget. And things like expanding Anfield and increasing non-TV revenue is probably a sensible idea just in case the TV bubble does burst. Other thing to bare in mind when comapring to things like dot com is that the bubble went up over a relativly short period of time, where as the football ones been going for 20 years since the Premier League was launched and then the Champions League (or you could argue the fact its been going for 20 years means the bursting of the bubble is due!)

[free_at_last]

I hope its higher than market value. The idea of eminent domain is an ugly yet necessary evil. Its something that doesn't sit well with me, but it is rationally for the greater good.

This is the part I don't understand. Apparently there are only 8 houses in question to be bought. There may be some people holding out but everybody has his price. An offer of
3 or 4 times market value(dependent on all accepting it) would cost peanuts compared to the money we regularly waste on transfers or sacking our managers rather than pushing on with a potentially lengthy and damaging legal procedure like CPO.

[garcia-alonso]

This is the part I don't understand. Apparently there are only 8 houses in question to be bought. There may be some people holding out but everybody has his price. An offer of
3 or 4 times market value(dependent on all accepting it) would cost peanuts compared to the money we regularly waste on transfers or sacking our managers rather than pushing on with a potentially lengthy and damaging legal procedure like CPO.

Actually, not everyone does have his (or her) price.
Not everyone supports LFC, not everyone likes football and some people want to stay in the house they've lived in most or all of their lives.

[free_at_last]

Actually, not everyone does have his (or her) price.
Not everyone supports LFC, not everyone likes football and some people want to stay in the house they've lived in most or all of their lives.

I understand that. What I'm saying is that, at the moment, it looks like we will go down the CPO route with maybe 1 or 2 people refusing to sell. The outcome of that, between the council and the house owners, will be decided over a lengthy period with the accompanying bitterness. The council's offer will be made by economic rationalist accountants and
may not be enough to compensate house owners enough to move to a suburb of their choice.
Liverpool FC would benefit greatly by freeing up the redevolpment log-jam and getting on with the job so they could at least make a decent over-the-odds offer that allows the house owners to not be disadvantaged. If the house owners then dont want to accept then there is the current situation remaining - a legal battle over CPO's.

[MiserableP15]

It's just so eminently predictable, FSG's decision being a none decision, does anyone in their right mind think.

1. That this will ever get through planning and a public enquiry.
2. That FSG would ever fund it if it did.

They couldn't even pony up for a Striker in the summer but all of a sudden they will find tens of millions for a redevelopment, it is laughable.

Pretty sure Rodgers confirmed that they 'ponyed' up for Sturridge but then he pulled the plug at the last minute.

Like all things with LFC I 'll wait for the official news. Promising to hear clarification on the direction could be forthcoming though.

[dimwit]

great news, as the team will stay at anfield for the foreseeable future. as it should. keep the traditions, not to build the next "megabuckssponsor"-arena or wtf.

[Trada]

Personally I have no problem with them selling the naming rights but hopefully if they do it will be something along the lines of say The Anfield Microsoft stadium.

LIVERPOOL have abandoned all ambitions of building a new stadium and will instead revamp Anfield into a 65,000-capacity arena.

Plans are now in place to redevelop the existing main stand and build an extra tier at the Anfield Road end, which will increase the current financially-restrictive 45,500 capacity by another 20,000.

The scheme will cost around £150million, although it means writing off the £50m which has already been invested in preparatory work for a new stadium originally planned for the neighbouring Stanley Park.

It is believed owners Tom Werner and John W Henry are still open to offers for naming rights to help subsidise the outlay on a new-look Anfield.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/352027

[L666KOP]

Personally I have no problem with them selling the naming rights but hopefully if they do it will be something along the lines of say The Anfield Microsoft stadium.

LIVERPOOL have abandoned all ambitions of building a new stadium and will instead revamp Anfield into a 65,000-capacity arena.

Plans are now in place to redevelop the existing main stand and build an extra tier at the Anfield Road end, which will increase the current financially-restrictive 45,500 capacity by another 20,000.

The scheme will cost around £150million, although it means writing off the £50m which has already been invested in preparatory work for a new stadium originally planned for the neighbouring Stanley Park.

It is believed owners Tom Werner and John W Henry are still open to offers for naming rights to help subsidise the outlay on a new-look Anfield.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/352027

It'll be full a dozen times a season, unless prices are subsidised.

I'm willing to be the naming rights partner, if I chuck in 5 bags can we call it Anfield ?

[spider-neil]

When this work is completed it will be interesting to see if the club finally clears its season ticket waiting list back log and how many people on that waiting list are geniune.

[SweetSilverSevens]

Actually, not everyone does have his (or her) price.
Not everyone supports LFC, not everyone likes football and some people want to stay in the house they've lived in most or all of their lives.

But are these the people who moan about regeneration too?
That's what I don't get.

[royhendo]

Just a quick point - it'd be good if people could let others have their say. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and when it's clear, you don't necessarily have to repeat it 40 times in succession.

[MiserableP15]

Do you have a link for that "confirmation"? Must have missed it as all I recall is all parties shifting uncomfortably under questioning about the fuck up, with Rodgers subliminally pointing the finger at Ayre, Ayre subliminally pointing the finger at FSG, and FSG subliminally pointing the finger at Rodgers. A perfect circle of incompetence.

Hello mate, I think it was in the press conference afterwards, either the one with the normal journalists or the one with the forums soon after. He admitted there had been an almighty fuck up, but I'm sure I remember him saying that a deal for Sturridge had been agreed. Why I cannot remember.

[Jonny5]

for those wondering about CPO`s and what money might be offered this was posted earlier this month.




Here is an interesting email a local resident has posted up from the council. It is in regards to a home owner of the odd side of Lothair rd (the side that's the biggest issue and due to be knocked down)....

The property that Simon Baldwin owns on the odd side of Lothair Road backs onto LFC. The future of this row of properties has been uncertain for many years and previously when plans have been drawn up for the regeneration of the Rockfield area these properties have always been designated for “further consultation”.

 There are 20 properties in the block and 3 of them are in the ownership of LCC, 4 of them owned by Your Housing and 8 by LFC.
 All of these properties are currently vacant and discussions are ongoing with both LFC and Your Housing over the future of their properties.
 The other 5 properties are occupied and in private ownership
 As you are aware, earlier this year LCC in consultation with the Rockfield Stakeholders Group outlined three options for the regeneration of the Rockfield area.
 All of these plans included the demolition of the odd side of Lothair Road for landscaping / other uses. The plans were displayed at an exhibition in June and residents were asked to select their preference. Following analysis of the results and a further meeting of the Rockfield Stakeholders Group a plan was agreed that includes:

 Demolition of the odd side of Lothair Road, 86 – 96 Rockfield Road and 15 -27 Rockfield Road

 The retention of the even side of Lothair Road, the odd side of Alroy Road, 55 -65 Rockfield Road and 146 – 156 Anfield Road for commercial purposes

 Remaining properties retained and if not already improved to benefit from external front improvements

 A letter has been delivered to all the residents in the Rockfield area informing them of the agreed regeneration plan and explaining how it will affect their property.

 With regard to the 5 privately owned properties on the odd side of Lothair Road the owners will be offered:
  ∙        Full market value – following an inspection of their property by 20/20 Liverpool acting on behalf of LCC an offer will be made to them.
 If they then wish they can appoint an independent valuer to act on their behalf and negotiate the price, with any reasonable valuation fees being paid by LCC
 ∙        In addition to the agreed value Home Owners will receive a Home Loss payment of 10% of the acquisition value and other private owners a loss payment of 7.5%
 ∙        Equity relocation loans will also be provided for home owners if required
 ∙        Tenants of private landlords will also be re-housed in a property suitable for their housing needs in an area of their choice
 Mr Baldwin has been contacted by 20/20 Liverpool but has refused them access to his property saying it is not for sale.
 Currently the Council is pursuing voluntary acquisitions and will make every endeavour to achieve this aim.
 If however all attempts to negotiate with private owners fail then consideration will be given by the Council to pursuing a Compulsory Purchase Order
 Regards
 Ann

[Torpedo Tommy]

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.

I suppose it is what you call success. For me it is winning titles and trophies - for others it is a top four finish.  You could say that Arsenal's spending power on the field has been offset by their stadium commitments.  Worth considering that Arsenal's ground is within the M25 - construction costs will escalate the more central to London you go.  It was also built on contaminated land close to a railway line.

On our stadium, if we play it right we could get a developer to fund the construction and we pay this back over say 20-25 years.  I don't know the actual true substance/inclusions behind the £150m number so won't reflect on that.  But assuming we increase capacity by 15k, charge circa £45 a ticket and fill 50% of those seats over the duration of a 19 game league season we will increase income through matchday tickets by about £6m.  Of course, finding the right developer might not be that simple.

The £6m a year excludes corporate costs, matchday spending within the ground, cup games etc - though it also does not consider additional costs involved with running the capacity either.

[Benimar Col]

This is the best solution for LFC and the city. A re-developed Anfield maintains our history and allows us to progress without the need for a lookalike bowl of a stadium. I hope the people whose homes need to be demolished are compensated well and then everyone can be a winner. Roll on 60,000+ fans at Anfield just imagine the racket on a European Night! Boss.

Ha ha ha,   are you running about 5 years behind the times ? European nights are a distant memory,  our owners have visions that don't match ours,  we need new owners

[Torpedo Tommy]

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.

Like I said, never been there.  It's a fair point on the number of concourse levels.  Remember going to Wigan away a few years ago and I'm sure even they had an upper concourse.

[Benimar Col]

We all know the real money is in being to negotiate your own broadcast rights, both tv and internet. And that's really what Henry and Werner are busy biding their time and planning for, and having their pet Harley-riding chimp test the water for every so often. Hence the Asian and US tours and tv series shite, growing the OOC "fanbase" to be able milk them when the time comes. Who gives a shit about getting an extra 10,000 locals in a stadium (never mind paying £200-300m to facilitate that) when there's literally millions of potential subscribers out there. I guarantee that if they hold on for that long (itself very debatable), they'll flog the club within 6-12 months of media 'independence'. I'm betting that'll happen before we even see a completely redeveloped and refurbished Anfield.

The sooner the better, I agree totally with your thoughts, we need new owners who have ambition, John Henry is looked upon as a saviour a couple of years ago, the August window has shown his true colours, he is a latter day Hicks + Gillette character

[Alan_X]

If you look into the history of H&G then they did deliver Stadiums...

Err... are you sure:

Tom Hicks:
Corinthians - no stadium
Dallas Stars - Stadium built and owned by the City of Dallas. The Stars were tenants.
Texas Rangers - stadium built before Hicks bought the club

George Gillett:
Montreal canadiens - Molson Centre was built before Gillett bought the club

Hicks & Gillett:
Liverpool Football Club - err....

Al, do remind me exactly which stadiums you're on about. You're banging the drum big style in here - which is fair enough but at least get your facts straight. Otherwise people will rightly question how many of the other 'facts' you're throwing around are real.

[Trada]

I hope if they put an extra tier to one of the stands they more the away fans up there.

[Surprise me.]

I hope this news turns out to be fact soon. Anfield is where we should be. Don't care about glorifying it, naming rights and all the rubbish as long as it's we're staying where we are.

I almost suspected something like this when they put in the big screens or looked to anyway, haven't been to the stadium this season but yeah, I don't think they would have done that if the plan was to move to a new stadium.

[Alan_X]

It's just so eminently predictable, FSG's decision being a none decision, does anyone in their right mind think.

1. That this will ever get through planning and a public enquiry.
2. That FSG would ever fund it if it did.

They couldn't even pony up for a Striker in the summer but all of a sudden they will find tens of millions for a redevelopment, it is laughable.

That's completely ridiculous mate and you must know it. I'll ignore the question of whether they couldn't afford a striker or whether they chose not to buy one as it's just opinion.

1. Yes of course it's likely to get through planning. The major objections were to do with rights of light, which this announcement will probably deal with.

2. Funding a large capital project has nothing to do with the transfer budget. Apart of course, from the fact that each would be judged on their own merits. Is it really so hard to imagine? I might decide to buy a new house on a mortgage but decide it's not financially prudent to buy a new computer.

Liverpool have costs of over a hundred million every year. Instead of focusing on one transfer decision, you might as well ask how they pay the wages, fund repairs and maintenance, and all the other costs that make up that outlay. The stadium will be paid through finance, like pretty much every other major development in this country, with the payments being met out of revenue. During construction that will mean a nett loss but subsequent years the cost of finance will be met by the increased revenue from tickets and other match-day revenue.

[Alan_X]

The sooner the better, I agree totally with your thoughts, we need new owners who have ambition, John Henry is looked upon as a saviour a couple of years ago, the August window has shown his true colours, he is a latter day Hicks + Gillette character

Oh do give it a rest. Are memories really that short?

This thread is about the announcement on Monday. Can we keep it to that instead of using it to drag out the same old shite? Otherwise we'll lock it until Monday.

Thanks.

[Alan_X]

Actually, not everyone does have his (or her) price.
Not everyone supports LFC, not everyone likes football and some people want to stay in the house they've lived in most or all of their lives.

Under Compulsory Purchase everyone does have their price, it's just that the price is determined by others. The whole point of CPO's is to deal with exactly that situation. It happens all the time for roads, railways and other large developments, where the wants and needs of a few individuals are seen as secondary to the wider public good.

[leivapool]

I'm happy we're potentially planning on redeveloping Anfield.  I genuinely hope that the local residents see some long term benefit to this.  I also hope that the transport infrastructure getting c60K people to and from the ground is massively improved.   If it isn't then I will be hugely disappointed.  Getting to the ground by public transport, train to Lime Street and then bus from by St Georges Hall - works really well.  Getting Back?  Choice of leaving early and grabbing a taxi before the roads are closed, or leaving early and running to get one of the 3/4 buses waiting.  Leave when the match Ends?  Not a hope in hell of getting a bus or taxi back down to town. 

[john_mac]

The £6m a year excludes corporate costs, matchday spending within the ground, cup games etc - though it also does not consider additional costs involved with running the capacity either.

Would be interesting to see what the plans are for locl infrastructure which has always been a thorny issue getting those extra 15,000 to and away from the ground, as well as in and ut of the city. Original plans included using the rail line through Walton and putting a new station by the niw defunct Clarence Pub (watch that re-open if that happens!). Even the 1990 plans for a shared stadium included a new Rail station between Kirkby and Fazakerley.

Either way there will be a large number of vehicles and the current infrastructure for cars, particularly, is not suitabe for the current stadium never mind an increased one.

[west_london_red]

Would be interesting to see what the plans are for locl infrastructure which has always been a thorny issue getting those extra 15,000 to and away from the ground, as well as in and ut of the city. Original plans included using the rail line through Walton and putting a new station by the niw defunct Clarence Pub (watch that re-open if that happens!). Even the 1990 plans for a shared stadium included a new Rail station between Kirkby and Fazakerley.

Either way there will be a large number of vehicles and the current infrastructure for cars, particularly, is not suitabe for the current stadium never mind an increased one.

Wasnt the extra infrastructure only required if we go over 60k?

[FlashingBlade]

Wasnt the extra infrastructure only required if we go over 60k?

As with the 'new' stadium a redveloped Anfield would need to have sufficient infrastructure ( transport to and from ground, parking etc) to address the influx of an extra 15,000 fans.