Topic: anfield road stand

[Macred]

Pretty hard to achieve and protect the 'local residents' amenity' at the same time. Conditions aren't so easily circumvented. Put simply, council have written in the power to stop it.


As for lights on the roof (shudder..!): I meant under the underside of the roof of the ARE, but more rigging points where they hang all the stage lights from and/or power etc. so teh facilities required for a c concert are built in as it were (im not saying you have spot lights and strobes hanging from the underside of a new ARE roof permanently

...All external light fittings shall be orientated so that any measurements taken at any nearby habitable room windows do not exceed 6 lux [not much at all]. The proposed scheme should take into account inclusive design principles ensuring the needs of visually impaired are met... This is talking about external lights which I presume to mean lights external to the ground and not those internal to the ground but outside (like the flood lights). I was talking about concerts inside the ground not external to it./b]

REASON:  It is in the interests of the safety and convenience of stadium users, the amenities of nearby residents and to avoid light pollution in accordance with save UDP Policies H4 and C7 Arent all these policies now being replaced by local development plans i.e. open to change if it benefits the area as a whole/.


As for concerts from the stadium (in the park perhaps):The concerts are in the stadium but camping, food, whatever is outside and then guests go into the stadium to listen to the music

There shall be no amplified music within the external concourse area,never mentioned this at all so irrelevant including any music directed thereto from within the premisesagain this is referring to things directed outside of the boundaries of the stadium not as a consequence of what is directed inwards , beyond levels  agreed with the local planning authority (in conjunction with the Environmental Health Service)and in any event it is subject to agreement.


REASON: To protect residential amenity and avoid causing noise nuisance to neighbouring premises.


And even from the bars and restaurants:

Noise control measures must be employed within the development such that sound generated within the commercial entertainment areas contained with the expanded stadium does not give rise to noise levels exceeding NR25 at the boundary of any nearby residential accommodation (expressed in terms of the maximum sound pressure level in each octave band) outside the hours of 0700 - 2300.so 11 cut off which suggest similar to what they have imposed at the Eithad? Nr 25 refers to noise levels being the same as concert halls and recording studios which suggests a level of noise associated with music.

REASON:  To protect the amenity of such residential occupiers


 As i said, no means no... No doesnt mean no it just means that certain conditions have to be met and at the moment the conditions you refer to are nothing to do with things internal to the stadium; things change th UDP was effectively scrapped for local development plans which Anfield as an area is being subject toand the ARE is all General Admission anyway. But you are the one saying that there is a doubt as to whether or not it is economically feasible for it to be all GA so I am suggesting a possible (and I am not saying it is, or is desired, way of doing that i.e. make it earn money quicker so the ROI is short term not long term. Ditto it would assist with revenue of GA seats in other areas of the stadium.

Man City are doing it - although I cant find much by way of planning documents or licence permissions to see what restrictions are imposed on them (also not sure how far that stadium is away from houses - a little further from what I can remember when I last went. They too have run into problems but from this article those problems can be overcome with correct management http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-city-yellow-card-over-11640459

Hosting big boxing matches, evangelists.. whatever... the idea surely is to get over the issue, and as you keep referring to, of the venue being dead for 95% of the year as it is not used for anything other than football (and rugby). That must benefit the area and businesses and jobs and the people as a whole. A younger generation that they might perhaps want to attract to the area would probably love that on their door step.

Anyway, it was just an idea but your suggestion that it is an impossibility is wrong or that there has been a definitive no is wrong. The documents just say that the original application does not address it.

[CraigDS]

Etihad isn't surrounded by a massive residential area like Anfield is though.

[Macred]

Etihad isn't surrounded by a massive residential area like Anfield is though.

No, I guess not, had a look on Google Earth before, you can 'drive' right around the whole Etihad ground and see all the areas they have cleared for the sports complex (they also now have a large shop separated from the stadium. It's quite good.... There are some houses over the road from the main road entrance but nothing as close as Skerries Road. I presume that the new stand with its acoustic roof designed to keep noise in might help and presume the ARE would be designed with similar considerations - that would potentially still leave 2 stands that presumably have 'normal' roofs - and suppose there is some debate from some as to how effective the 'acoustic' roof actually is. I  think the NR25 means that at the house the sound would need to be no more than 75db. (would that be any louder than the Kop on a European night or even the commence Anfield exercise announcement 

As I say, it was just an idea for increasing revenue in the off season, and for discussion/thoughts. Any other ideas... host some American Football games like Spurs

[Nessy76]

We're hosting the final of the Rugby League Four Nations.

[whiteboots]

What on earth are you on about? A large part of our workload is refurb and that's because it's not cost effective to knock down and start again every time.

New 60K stadium in Stanley Park = say £350 million (current prices)

Refurbished 58.5K Anfield = £150 million

Ticket prices in the new hospitality facilities will be higher (that's kind of the point) but the cost of building the majority of the seating was written off years ago.

Maybe maths has changed since I was at school but £150 million is less than £350 million.

It is true that generalisations are generally wrong.

However the reason why new build can often be cheaper is because there are no restrictions on footprint, with existing structures, or on materials used - or nasty surprises when the site is opened for refurbishment.

Of course there are instances when refurbishment is cheaper - our own redevelopment of the ARE and Centenary/Kemlyn retaining the lower profiling is evidence of that. Yet it comes with compromise, as anyone who has experienced "Kemlyn Knee" in the lower tier, or witnessed the hospitality areas will testify.

You are right to point out that £150m is less than £350m. You may also have pointed out that £150m is for half a new stadium, which when the other half needs to be upgraded will cost considerably more, and in the meant time we will have lost ( again) the benefits that a wholly new stadium would have delivered to us both financially, and environmentally.

[Nessy76]

It is true that generalisations are generally wrong.

However the reason why new build can often be cheaper is because there are no restrictions on footprint, with existing structures, or on materials used - or nasty surprises when the site is opened for refurbishment.

Of course there are instances when refurbishment is cheaper - our own redevelopment of the ARE and Centenary/Kemlyn retaining the lower profiling is evidence of that. Yet it comes with compromise, as anyone who has experienced "Kemlyn Knee" in the lower tier, or witnessed the hospitality areas will testify.

You are right to point out that £150m is less than £350m. You may also have pointed out that £150m is for half a new stadium, which when the other half needs to be upgraded will cost considerably more, and in the meant time we will have lost ( again) the benefits that a wholly new stadium would have delivered to us both financially, and environmentally.

Would you like to outline the more than £200m worth of benefits you speak of?

[Peter McGurk]

Man City are doing it - although I cant find much by way of planning documents or licence permissions to see what restrictions are imposed on them (also not sure how far that stadium is away from houses - a little further from what I can remember when I last went. They too have run into problems but from this article those problems can be overcome with correct management http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-city-yellow-card-over-11640459

Hosting big boxing matches, evangelists.. whatever... the idea surely is to get over the issue, and as you keep referring to, of the venue being dead for 95% of the year as it is not used for anything other than football (and rugby). That must benefit the area and businesses and jobs and the people as a whole. A younger generation that they might perhaps want to attract to the area would probably love that on their door step.

Anyway, it was just an idea but your suggestion that it is an impossibility is wrong or that there has been a definitive no is wrong. The documents just say that the original application does not address it.

Whatever. I'm just providing the information as asked. Talk to council if you've got a problem with it.

As I said, they have given themselves the power to say no to anything other than the uses stated via the conditions supported by planning policy. In thirty years' experience and probably over a hundred applications, as good a no as there is.

BTW the Etihad is in a commercial zone.

[Macred]

Whatever. I'm just providing the information as asked. Talk to council if you've got a problem with it.

As I said, they have given themselves the power to say no to anything other than the uses stated via the conditions supported by planning policy. In thirty years' experience and probably over a hundred applications, as good a no as there is.

BTW the Etihad is in a commercial zone.

And I appreciated you posting it. It is all interesting. As I said, I was just throwing something out there for the masses to dissect, destroy etc, just want the best for the club like everyone else. It was impossible to expand Anfield 10 years ago according to Rick Parry, but things change and money changes lots of things. No disrespect to you intended, i know from reading your posts that you have lots of experience and knowledge and I enjoy reading your insight into things.

[Fromola]

Anfield now is basically St James' Park. We sell ourselves really short. We need to get on with ARE.

[whiteboots]

Would you like to outline the more than £200m worth of benefits you speak of?

A brand new 60k stadium, if authorised when FSG moved in, would probably have been ready for the 13/14 season. The extra revenue would probably have been worth around £35m a season. That would have generated over £100m before the new Main Stand comes on stream.

The new main stand is estimated to generate around £23m a season. Every successive year  that is some £12m less than a new stadium would have generated, plus naming rights plus enhanced hospitality corporate revenues.

Then there is the physical cost of not doing it. If you estimate that rebuilding the Kop and Centenary now would be at least £150m, that will have to be paid, plus inflation at some point in the future. If it about doubles in a decade that is another £150m.

All figures are indicative, but the formulas stands. Our failure to act costs in terms of lost gate, commercial and hospitality money, and inflated subsequent build costs.

Of course the build has to be paid for, but when you look at whole of life costs versus whole of life revenue it is difficult not to make a handsome return.

Notwithstanding the financial argument, there is also one of standing. We are justifiably proud of the size of our support, and our history as one of Europe’s leading clubs. Our stadium should reflect that, and not be the ongoing compromise which we have been asked to swallow.

[Alan_X]

It is true that generalisations are generally wrong.

However the reason why new build can often be cheaper is because there are no restrictions on footprint, with existing structures, or on materials used - or nasty surprises when the site is opened for refurbishment.

Of course there are instances when refurbishment is cheaper - our own redevelopment of the ARE and Centenary/Kemlyn retaining the lower profiling is evidence of that. Yet it comes with compromise, as anyone who has experienced "Kemlyn Knee" in the lower tier, or witnessed the hospitality areas will testify.

You are right to point out that £150m is less than £350m. You may also have pointed out that £150m is for half a new stadium, which when the other half needs to be upgraded will cost considerably more, and in the meant time we will have lost ( again) the benefits that a wholly new stadium would have delivered to us both financially, and environmentally.

Kemlyn knee is a pain (literally) but it's a result of something that we would have lost with a brand new stadium - loads of fans close to the pitch. Football is two halves of 45 minutes, it's not an opera and it's not a three-hour NFL bore-fest (sorry NFL fans) where you need a lazy-boy and regular refreshment breaks to stave off the boredom.

And you're right - it is half a stadium. That's the point. There's no need to knock down and rebuild the Kop or the Centenary any time in the next ten to twenty years.

[Alan_X]

Notwithstanding the financial argument, there is also one of standing. We are justifiably proud of the size of our support, and our history as one of Europe’s leading clubs. Our stadium should reflect that, and not be the ongoing compromise which we have been asked to swallow.

Clubs and players around the world admire Anfield as one of the most iconic and legendary grounds in football.

[Nessy76]

A brand new 60k stadium, if authorised when FSG moved in, would probably have been ready for the 13/14 season. The extra revenue would probably have been worth around £35m a season. That would have generated over £100m before the new Main Stand comes on stream.

And who would be paying for this? FSG had just sunk hundreds of millions into buying the club. They are wealthy men, but they can't just make cash appear from thin air. There is a business cost to them even if they loan their own money to the club at no interest.

Not to mention that when they asked the fans, they were told very clearly that staying at Anfield was by far the favoured option.

The new main stand is estimated to generate around £23m a season. Every successive year  that is some £12m less than a new stadium would have generated, plus naming rights plus enhanced hospitality corporate revenues.

And if you could borrow £350m for less than £12m a year in interest, that might be worth doing. Although the fans wanted to stay at Anfield, which was now possible after the regeneration plan for the area was redone.

Then there is the physical cost of not doing it. If you estimate that rebuilding the Kop and Centenary now would be at least £150m, that will have to be paid, plus inflation at some point in the future. If it about doubles in a decade that is another £150m.

Ah yes, the old "parts of the ground are a quarter of a century old" bit. There's no need to rebuild either stand for the foreseeable future. And this is equally true of a new build, surely? Taken to its logical conclusion that means you should never build anything at all.

All figures are indicative, but the formulas stands. Our failure to act costs in terms of lost gate, commercial and hospitality money, and inflated subsequent build costs.

And a new stadium would cost in cash, interest and opportunity cost to whoever you imagine footing the bill.

Of course the build has to be paid for, but when you look at whole of life costs versus whole of life revenue it is difficult not to make a handsome return.

We have a stadium that makes an excellent return already. If they expand the Anfield Road it would be the same size as a new stadium would be.

Notwithstanding the financial argument, there is also one of standing. We are justifiably proud of the size of our support, and our history as one of Europe’s leading clubs. Our stadium should reflect that, and not be the ongoing compromise which we have been asked to swallow.

You don't love Anfield, you're in a tiny minority. For most of us it is a very special place and it would be very difficult to replace.

[Eeyore]

So Glad we stayed at Anfield hopefully we can have four redeveloped stands and a newly relaid pitch soon.



 

[Nessy76]

So Glad we stayed at Anfield hopefully we can have four redeveloped stands and a newly relaid pitch soon.



 

Nice one Al.

[Alan_X]

So Glad we stayed at Anfield hopefully we can have four redeveloped stands and a newly relaid pitch soon.



 

Haha... very good Al.

The thing is - Trigger loves his broom.

[Peter McGurk]

Anfield now is basically St James' Park. We sell ourselves really short. We need to get on with ARE.

Are you reading what's been said or not?

Rushing into something on a maybe or wishful thinking would be selling us really short. There's been so much nonsense talked around undeliverable bullshit in the past dozen or so years, we should be very happy indeed that there's step by step and measured progress.

None of the other stuff has achieved anything. Brush or broom.

[andy07]

You shouldn't confuse pessimism with realism or for that matter, optimism with fantasy. An expanded ARE is by no means a no-brainer.

JWH has made FSG intention quite clear that there will be no cross funding of the stadium from other income. The expansion is to produce income for the club and for team development. The ideal capacity with the best return on the money spent is to add corporate seats only. The more General Admission seats added after that, the weaker the return. The cost as a proportion of income goes up just as the income goes down.

There comes a point at which the benefit to the club (and hence the team) become so marginal, it's not worth taking the risk. You can at least sell a player that doesn't work out but you're pretty much stuck with a stand if you can't fill it at the right price.

Being both optimistic and realistic, the club has established where the best case capacity is likely to be and has made a planning application on that basis. It has also phased the development to confirm that the demand can actually sustain the additional expense and do what the stadium is meant for, which is to earn the money to help build a better team.

Oh dear, oh dear!   Have we not sold out 54000 tickets for all our home PL games in the first half of the season?    Could we sell another 5000?   Would it be worth the risk?  5000 at near £50 a ticket plus at least another £5 on refreshments plus additional match day revenue in the Club Shop?  Have we not just sold out Wembley for a friendly?  Looks like an expanded ARE would well and truly be filled at the right prices.   

[Barneylfc∗]

Oh dear, oh dear!   Have we not sold out 54000 tickets for all our home PL games in the first half of the season?    Could we sell another 5000?   Would it be worth the risk?  5000 at near £50 a ticket plus at least another £5 on refreshments plus additional match day revenue in the Club Shop?  Have we not just sold out Wembley for a friendly?  Looks like an expanded ARE would well and truly be filled at the right prices.

Point 1 - No. No we haven't
Point 2 - You do realise who the opponents are, yes?

[Peter McGurk]

Point 1 - No. No we haven't
Point 2 - You do realise who the opponents are, yes?

Indeed. And what continues to disappoint is the refusal to look at cost. Papa will pay, John Henry will pay. Paying £50m or £60m doesn't count because it's 'free' FFP money etc etc etc bubble, squeak, naming rights, burgers, chips, sell more coke...

In anything other than football, no-one would take that cost on in return for that income. Marginal.

As it stands with interest-free money and even if the Anfield Road was sold out at £50 a ticket for the foreseeable future, the club wouldn't see anything from it for a minimum of 10 years. At least by being careful and with a bit of luck, the club is not losing the club's shirts over it.

[whiteboots]

Kemlyn knee is a pain (literally) but it's a result of something that we would have lost with a brand new stadium - loads of fans close to the pitch. Football is two halves of 45 minutes, it's not an opera and it's not a three-hour NFL bore-fest (sorry NFL fans) where you need a lazy-boy and regular refreshment breaks to stave off the boredom.

And you're right - it is half a stadium. That's the point. There's no need to knock down and rebuild the Kop or the Centenary any time in the next ten to twenty years.

I do accept that some/many modern stadia lack atmosphere. I do not accept that it is the way that it has to be.The Millenium Stadium and Westfalenstadion are examples of modern stadia every bit a match for traditional structures.

I also accept that there is no pressing structural need to replace the Kop and Centenary now. Yet their facilities are already below modern standards both in terms of amenity and revenue generation (they are over a quarter of a century old). I bemoan the fact that we passed on the opportunity to have modern facilities and a 60k capacity in one go, but accept that time has moved on.

Football clubs generally have destroyed the traditional "home" areas at grounds (The Kippax, North Banks Arsenal/West Ham etc) while making no effort to replace them or create new Ends.

The ARE redevelopment does offer us an unique opportunity to do something special as the physical geometry of Anfield is rotated. let's hope that FSG come up with something to make us proud.

[whiteboots]

Indeed. And what continues to disappoint is the refusal to look at cost. Papa will pay, John Henry will pay. Paying £50m or £60m doesn't count because it's 'free' FFP money etc etc etc bubble, squeak, naming rights, burgers, chips, sell more coke...

In anything other than football, no-one would take that cost on in return for that income. Marginal.

As it stands with interest-free money and even if the Anfield Road was sold out at £50 a ticket for the foreseeable future, the club wouldn't see anything from it for a minimum of 10 years. At least by being careful and with a bit of luck, the club is not losing the club's shirts over it.

Nowhere have you demonstrated that the returns are marginal.

Football, and LFC, is awash with cash in a low interest, low construction cost era. It is looking at cost which makes the case.

A stand has a build life of between 40 and 60 years. Ten years to pay down, and thirty years of bunce is a good deal.

[Peter McGurk]

Nowhere have you demonstrated that the returns are marginal.

Football, and LFC, is awash with cash in a low interest, low construction cost era. It is looking at cost which makes the case.

A stand has a build life of between 40 and 60 years. Ten years to pay down, and thirty years of bunce is a good deal.

Many times over. I'm sorry you don't understand what marginal is. You never did. It's a pity you're not so good at responding. You're too keen on whitewashing the argument. People aren't as dumb as you think.

If football is awash with cash, you think the club should throw it away on maybes? Actually, football is awash with costs. Mostly player costs. And construction costs are not low. Not generally and not for stadium construction. I'm not the only one here who works in construction.

You know nothing about it I know but let me try another tack for the benefit of everyone else who wants to know... let's talk about risk. What happens if all or even some of your blow hard predictions of jam tomorrow fail? Who do you expect to pay?

[andy07]

Point 1 - No. No we haven't
Point 2 - You do realise who the opponents are, yes?

Point 1 - Yes we have unless the Ticket Office is telling porkies on the ticket sales pages.
Point 2 - This match is being seen by many as an opportunity to get to a game that they would never otherwise get to.  There are many out there who would go to more games if they could.  Selling 90000 tickets at exorbitant prices for a friendly is a good indicator of how many people are willing to fork out the dosh.   

[Welshred]

Point 1 - Yes we have unless the Ticket Office is telling porkies on the ticket sales pages.
Point 2 - This match is being seen by many as an opportunity to get to a game that they would never otherwise get to.  There are many out there who would go to more games if they could.  Selling 90000 tickets at exorbitant prices for a friendly is a good indicator of how many people are willing to fork out the dosh.   

Point 1 - Man City hasn't sold out on general admission yet and there's hospitality tickets still available for all the games so we haven't sold out any of our games this season as yet.

Point 2 - A lot of people are going to see Barcelona as well

[Alf]

We really are looking at marginal gains by doing the Anny Road. That's why it wouldn't surprise me to see the club leave it a year or two before deciding to proceed with it. We've added 20% to the capacity we've just had for the last 18 years, that the club are planning to repay in 5-6 years.

Therefore it would be sensible to see if we can meet those forecasts before borrowing any more even if it is from the owners. Naming rights for the main stand may also have a bearing on this.

Even with corporates, Champions League and merchandise I don't see us making more than  £5-£6 million extra per year if we do the Anny Road.

[Barneylfc∗]

Point 1 - Yes we have unless the Ticket Office is telling porkies on the ticket sales pages.
Point 2 - This match is being seen by many as an opportunity to get to a game that they would never otherwise get to.  There are many out there who would go to more games if they could.  Selling 90000 tickets at exorbitant prices for a friendly is a good indicator of how many people are willing to fork out the dosh.

Every game will have at least 1 more sale, and as Welshred points out above, hospitality is still available. So we haven't sold out.
If we were playing Newcastle in a friendly at Wembley and tickets cost £90, do you think it would sell out? It's could be 'seen by many as an opportunity to get to a game that they would never otherwise get to.'

[Macred]

When would the outline planning consent for the ARE run out (when did it go in about 2014?) and can the expiry period be extended without them actually starting doing any work on it? - you know like when you see builders get planning permission, build the foundations and then leave it for a while before doing the rest of the house just to keep the consent (at least that is what I assume they are doing).

[Alan_X]

When would the outline planning consent for the ARE run out (when did it go in about 2014?) and can the expiry period be extended without them actually starting doing any work on it? - you know like when you see builders get planning permission, build the foundations and then leave it for a while before doing the rest of the house just to keep the consent (at least that is what I assume they are doing).

I would expect they've done enough to have been seen to have commenced work. I've done it before in similar circumstances.

[whiteboots]

Many times over. I'm sorry you don't understand what marginal is. You never did. It's a pity you're not so good at responding. You're too keen on whitewashing the argument. People aren't as dumb as you think.

If football is awash with cash, you think the club should throw it away on maybes? Actually, football is awash with costs. Mostly player costs. And construction costs are not low. Not generally and not for stadium construction. I'm not the only one here who works in construction.

You know nothing about it I know but let me try another tack for the benefit of everyone else who wants to know... let's talk about risk. What happens if all or even some of your blow hard predictions of jam tomorrow fail? Who do you expect to pay?

I explained why it is not marginal, you have failed to make the case that it is. QED.

In an era of low inflation, construction costs are low, as football swims in cash. Facts.

Your final paragraph really underpins, your legitimate , but flawed position. You assume that doing nothing is the lowest risk.It isn't.

[Alan_X]

Point 1 - Yes we have unless the Ticket Office is telling porkies on the ticket sales pages.
Point 2 - This match is being seen by many as an opportunity to get to a game that they would never otherwise get to.  There are many out there who would go to more games if they could.  Selling 90000 tickets at exorbitant prices for a friendly is a good indicator of how many people are willing to fork out the dosh.   

From today - Man City home.

[Peter McGurk]

I explained why it is not marginal, you have failed to make the case that it is. QED.

In an era of low inflation, construction costs are low, as football swims in cash. Facts.

Your final paragraph really underpins, your legitimate , but flawed position. You assume that doing nothing is the lowest risk.It isn't.

Ok, one last time. A 10% gross return on £50m is a marginal return. It's not that complicated. Really.

There are no signs of cooling in construction costs even in the early weeks of Brexit. Material and Labour costs have continued to rise post-recession as there is a national shortage of both. Cost of money versus inflation wouldn’t be relevant where the cost of money is nil.

There may be a cooling off as sales (in residential for example) decline but with the pound where it is, who knows. Perhaps the ARE will benefit from the former but it could get caned on the latter, particularly with steel prices. Maybe. You see, it's all about risk and reward. The risk here is high and the reward is low. Marginally low.

My last paragraph was trying to wake you up to risk (cashflow, operating costs, occupancy, planning objections,  the £, construction costs etc etc). Normal, sensible people don’t take a risk on that kind of money for such a low return (as an absolute maximum if all goes well or rather better than expected). But this is football.

And I've never said the club should do nothing. I have only ever said they should be careful, which is precisely where they're at.

In the meantime, all you have explained is that you envisage £60 a ticket (steadily rising at double digit percentages) and the club won’t see any money for 10 years while we wait for hugely overstated 'bunce' to come, to date non-existing naming rights of dubious value in any event (good luck with those in the fourth-rated stand) and food and beverage income which is already factored in to the revenue per seat, while as ever you conveniently ignore the inconvenient truths of player costs rather than clubs being' awash with cash' and implying that if clubs were indeed awash with cash, they should throw it away on lost or unreliable causes. Thanks for those ‘facts’.

[mickeydocs]

A brand new 60k stadium, if authorised when FSG moved in, would probably have been ready for the 13/14 season.

Is it not a little late in the day to be putting this argument forward?

[Peter McGurk]

Is it not a little late in the day to be putting this argument forward?

Thank you. I missed that post. It would be worth quoting the whole of it as it is complete tosh.

If we had built a new stadium ready for 2014, the club would be earning less than with a redevelopment, up to eyes in debt and we'd be paying £90 a ticket or else be on the road to liquidation, again.

But it's not late in the day. This lad has been banging on about it for years. Lost the argument but can't give it up. Sad really.

[mickeydocs]

Shiny new thing versus heritage, tradition in an extended and improved stadium with less risk attached. If ARE gets built we will have a 55k stadium to be proud of.

[Peter McGurk]

Shiny new thing versus heritage, tradition in an extended and improved stadium with less risk attached. If ARE gets built we will have a 55k stadium to be proud of.

Not to split hairs but closer to 60k 

[carl123uk]

Can't see FSG not building it with all the restricted view seats caused by the anny road roof

[Fromola]

Are you reading what's been said or not?

Rushing into something on a maybe or wishful thinking would be selling us really short. There's been so much nonsense talked around undeliverable bullshit in the past dozen or so years, we should be very happy indeed that there's step by step and measured progress.

None of the other stuff has achieved anything. Brush or broom.

Just rebuilding the Main Stand isn't good enough (as impressive as it is,it just shows the rest of the ground up as outdated and small in comparison).

A key requirement of the FSG ownership upon acquiring the club for a great price was sorting out the stadium, presumably building a new one. They looked into it and decided to stay at Anfield. Simply rebuilding one stand is not good enough. Look at the projects at Spurs and Chelsea or Man City and West Ham (who have been lucky to be gifted stadiums). Even Everton look like they may get a plush new stadium soon whereas we've got St James' Park.

[ScottScott]

Just rebuilding the Main Stand isn't good enough (as impressive as it is,it just shows the rest of the ground up as outdated and small in comparison).

A key requirement of the FSG ownership upon acquiring the club for a great price was sorting out the stadium, presumably building a new one. They looked into it and decided to stay at Anfield. Simply rebuilding one stand is not good enough. Look at the projects at Spurs and Chelsea or Man City and West Ham (who have been lucky to be gifted stadiums). Even Everton look like they may get a plush new stadium soon whereas we've got St James' Park.

We haven't, we've got Anfield. We'll get the ARE done and then we'll be set for a couple of decades and we'll revisit the issue, probably under new owners' to see what can be done with the Kop and/or the Centenary

FSG need to be applauded for what they've done. We'd had that 45k for years and years and never looked like moving or expanding but now we have a bigger capacity and we have kept all that history that we all wanted

[Alan_X]

We haven't, we've got Anfield. We'll get the ARE done and then we'll be set for a couple of decades and we'll revisit the issue, probably under new owners' to see what can be done with the Kop and/or the Centenary

FSG need to be applauded for what they've done. We'd had that 45k for years and years and never looked like moving or expanding but now we have a bigger capacity and we have kept all that history that we all wanted

And unlike Arsenal when they built the Emirates, it doesn't look like there will be any significant impact on transfers.