HKS isn't that dumb. Who started this false rumor? Did they have a hidden agenda? HKS have designed stadiums and other buildings throughout the world, and not in one case have there been any faults with their designs, or any complaints. They have a wonderful record of repeat business...

Fans can see all the pitch from every seat in the stands, and the roof supports don't block any views of the pitch. Here is a render image proving otherwise...

http://c6.img.v4.skyrock.net/c67/futur-stade/pics/2253610361_4.jpg

That is a render. I've seen the detailed plans mate, put through a simulation which highlighted all the flaws. As for HKS designs, if you go to the thread for the new Dallas Cowboys stadium, there are some pictures of seats directly behind supporting columns, offering NO views at all. In terms of overall capacity we might only be talking about a mere handful, but when you consider it is a purpose built stadium, you surely have to admit that is a design flaw.

Furthermore, those who complain about the wide concourses have never been to an American stadium. Those concourses are filled with kiosks as well, many from the corporate sponsors who are actually funding the stadium. Maybe the British could learn something from America, that marketing is the key for funding new stadiums. Plus having more revenues streams...

I agree that British clubs have many things they can learn from the US in terms of how to make stadiums generate revenue, but you have to take into context the sport people have come to watch.

I'm not complaining about wider concourses. Given how cramped the concourses are at Anfield, having wider concourses would be a blessing. They should provide sufficient access and amenities for spectators, but they shouldn't become a key means of watching the game. I might not be speaking for everybody, but I would find it pointless to pay money to go to a stadium only to watch the game on a big screen in a bar or restaurant.

Has it ever crossed your mind that the British fans might get up while the match is in play to buy a beer or a sandwich if they can see the match without missing any of the action. Duh.... Why do you think Americans stadiums are built this way? Could it be because the clubs earn more revenues?

Has it ever crossed your mind that Liverpool fans don't want to be like Arsenal fans? I am not slagging off American fan culture at all, because it has evolved around the sports that people come to see. American sports have lots of breaks in play, and this multitude of breaks provides ample opportunity for fans to seek refreshments, and for the clubs to cash in of course. However, given that football has only one interval, fans following your suggestion en masse would completely kill the atmosphere. Not only that, but it is highly likely that the type of fan responsible for helping to generate that atmosphere would be priced out of the game.

Oh the irony of it... :ohno:

Do yourself a favour, "buddy".

When you're talking about another country and its superior sporting culture, try and find a little out about it, before u make yourself look monumentally stupid eh?

I suspect you're some marketer for those comedians at HKS. The ones that charged Liverpool fans HOW MANY MILLIONS for a few cheap CGIs?

Hmm and I wonder what was in such over-invoicing for your mate Tommy Hicks...? Doesnt exactly take Sherlock Holmes to work out what was going on, does it?
__________________
If you're such an expert on "soccer" as u call it, why dont u develop the game back in America? Because u sure as hell dont know what to u are doing over here!
_____________________
And if sharings that wonderful, why dont u do a bit of sharing yourselves?
Like sharing your house with a few Afghans? Maybe Obama could share the White House with hmm.. Osama? Have your "Christian Coalition" Churches share buildings with radical Muslims. Maybe u could share a wife/ gf or boyfriend.
I'm sure there'll be some dollars saved. After all, thats what its all about isnt it!

Failing that, u could sit down and shut up. And accept you dont know why football's popular, u dont know what its about.And you sure as hell dont know how to do anything with it, other than failed attempts at leeching the lifeblood from it.

YNWA

The British are happy Goodison Park earns around 19 pounds a seat per game. That isn't anywhere near enough in the US or the UK... Well, not to pay off a new stadium... Its not even enough to fund the club either...

I will admit the unique HKS design may be a bit different than what the British are used to, but don't think for a second American fans don't like to see all of the field or pitch. HKS wants more business from Europe, they aren't going to screw up their first European stadium design.

Don't get me wrong, I was as wowed as anybody when the HKS plans were first presented, partly because it looked like Hicks & Gillett were really intent on getting the new stadium up and running, and partly because I wasn't a fan of the original Parry Bowl design (it just looked like a larger Reebok Stadium). The HKS design was, and still is, unique.

I didn't intend to claim American fans don't like to see all of the pitch. Surely anyone would hate that! I'm trying to say it probably matters less because of the ample opportunity to get up and seek refreshments etc. That has been taken care of by providing screens everywhere so fans don't miss the action.

There is a reason why both Gillett and Hicks killed the previous stadium. They saw that design as old, not providing enough revenues a new stadium should generate.

That decision is probably the only thing I agreed with Hicks and Gillett about. The manner in which they went about it was not right though, and gave one of the first clues as to how Hicks had Gillett by the balls, and how joint ownership did not mean equal partners (source: Brian Reade's book An Epic Swindle). Hicks, deciding the Parry Bowl wasn't big enough or fancy enough, enlisted HKS to produce a design in double-quick time, and they came up with something that was horrendously expensive to build, and didn't suit the purpose. A second amended design showed again that they didn't "get" it. Gillett didn't have a choice but to go along with it, even though he preferred the more prudent Parry Bowl, which already had planning consent and was good to go.

The British are happy Goodison Park earns around 19 pounds a seat per game. That isn't anywhere near enough in the US or the UK... Well, not to pay off a new stadium... Its not even enough to fund the club either...

Goodison Park's issues do not interest the vast majority of "The British", as you put it, so to imply "The British" are happy is inaccurate. I know Everton fans are not happy with their lot, as despite getting decent crowds, they don't generate anywhere near enough revenue to allow their club to compete. Before you decide to bring up the idea again, I will point out that the best solution for Everton (groundshare) is absolutely NOT the best solution for Liverpool.

Don't get me wrong, I was as wowed as anybody when the HKS plans were first presented, partly because it looked like Hicks & Gillett were really intent on getting the new stadium up and running, and partly because I wasn't a fan of the original Parry Bowl design (it just looked like a larger Reebok Stadium). The HKS design was, and still is, unique.

I didn't intend to claim American fans don't like to see all of the pitch. Surely anyone would hate that! I'm trying to say it probably matters less because of the ample opportunity to get up and seek refreshments etc. That has been taken care of by providing screens everywhere so fans don't miss the action.



That decision is probably the only thing I agreed with Hicks and Gillett about. The manner in which they went about it was not right though, and gave one of the first clues as to how Hicks had Gillett by the balls, and how joint ownership did not mean equal partners (source: Brian Reade's book An Epic Swindle). Hicks, deciding the Parry Bowl wasn't big enough or fancy enough, enlisted HKS to produce a design in double-quick time, and they came up with something that was horrendously expensive to build, and didn't suit the purpose. A second amended design showed again that they didn't "get" it. Gillett didn't have a choice but to go along with it, even though he preferred the more prudent Parry Bowl, which already had planning consent and was good to go.

Didn't HKS design a stadium with more than a hundred executive suites, and over 6k club seats, not to mention a 18k+ seat KOP, a KOP with more seats than the previous design? Four distinctive different stands, instead of four similar stands, to provide much more atmosphere and character? Doesn't the HKS design sit closer to the streets on the car park instead of in the middle of the park keeping more of the park as is? Isn't the HKS design more transparent using building materials for the facade besides concrete? Doesn't the HKS design consider the lay of the ground considerably better than the previous design as the ground in Stanley Park isn't flat, there is a 13 meter drop from one end to the other? Don't the curved glass entrances and the curved glass of the KOP facade provoke links to the Gladstone Conservatory which also sits on Stanley Park? Isn't there going to be a wonderful view of the Mersey from the upper KOP concourse?

Oh, there is a difference of designing a fresh stadium from the ground up instead of dusting off old plans...

I'll try and answer your questions point by point, but first off, let me say I've already made it clear I didn't like the Parry Bowl.

Didn't HKS design a stadium with more than a hundred executive suites, and over 6k club seats, not to mention a 18k+ seat KOP, a KOP with more seats than the previous design?

One reason why they could design a Kop with more seats is that they designed a stadium with a far larger capacity than the Parry Bowl, making the Kop the centrepiece. The original HKS design was for around 61,000 and had a small away end, which could be expanded to allow a total stadium capacity of around 70,000, assuming the transport infrastructure problems could be resolved.

Also, they didn't look into just how Liverpool as a city compares to the already-in-place corporate market in both London and nearby Manchester. No doubt the corporate market is very important if the club is to generate significant revenue, but is it big enough to fill over a 100 executive boxes and more than 6000 club seats on a regular basis? The part in bold is key. These elements were factored in without sufficient market research because the plans were drawn up so hastily.

Four distinctive different stands, instead of four similar stands, to provide much more atmosphere and character?

How well the people in the stadium generate atmosphere, and how well the stadium retains atmosphere, is more important than simply going for 4 distinctly different stands. I agree that 4 different stands allow for more character compared to a generic Emirates Stadium style bowl.

Doesn't the HKS design sit closer to the streets on the car park instead of in the middle of the park keeping more of the park as is?

That the original stadium plans had already been approved suggests this wasn't an issue.

Isn't the HKS design more transparent using building materials for the facade besides concrete?

Why is it important for the stadium to be transparent from the outside? It's not a shop window! Yes it looks nicer than the Parry Bowl, but consider first and foremost what the stadium is for.

Doesn't the HKS design consider the lay of the ground considerably better than the previous design as the ground in Stanley Park isn't flat, there is a 13 meter drop from one end to the other?

The HKS design required more earth to be dug out for the stadium footprint, partly by being larger, and partly because the pitch would be below ground level, as opposed to the original design which was set at ground level.

Don't the curved glass entrances and the curved glass of the KOP facade provoke links to the Gladstone Conservatory which also sits on Stanley Park?

Why exactly is that important? It wasn't a factor when the original stadium plans were approved.

Isn't there going to be a wonderful view of the Mersey from the upper KOP concourse?

I would hope the action on the pitch is so good that everybody would be more interested in that, but I accept it's a nice feature to have.

Oh, there is a difference of designing a fresh stadium from the ground up instead of dusting off old plans...

Again, I didn't want them to proceed with the old plans, but I'm just pointing out that the HKS design, while it looks great, misses the point entirely. It's nice to sit in a stadium with all the modern-day creature comforts, but the greatness of a stadium is made by the supporters.

There have been scores of large new stadiums which have been built in the US during the past two decades. How many have been built in the UK? A few which can be counted with your fingers of one hand?
And still, the UK isn't short of stadiums. Building brand new stadiums isn't the only way. Incremental expansions also lead to big stadiums. In most cases this is even the better approach. It is more economic and preserves a bit of history as football clubs in Europe and colleges in the US can testify.

Don't get me wrong, I was as wowed as anybody when the HKS plans were first presented, partly because it looked like Hicks & Gillett were really intent on getting the new stadium up and running, and partly because I wasn't a fan of the original Parry Bowl design (it just looked like a larger Reebok Stadium). The HKS design was, and still is, unique.

I didn't intend to claim American fans don't like to see all of the pitch. Surely anyone would hate that! I'm trying to say it probably matters less because of the ample opportunity to get up and seek refreshments etc. That has been taken care of by providing screens everywhere so fans don't miss the action.



That decision is probably the only thing I agreed with Hicks and Gillett about. The manner in which they went about it was not right though, and gave one of the first clues as to how Hicks had Gillett by the balls, and how joint ownership did not mean equal partners (source: Brian Reade's book An Epic Swindle). Hicks, deciding the Parry Bowl wasn't big enough or fancy enough, enlisted HKS to produce a design in double-quick time, and they came up with something that was horrendously expensive to build, and didn't suit the purpose. A second amended design showed again that they didn't "get" it. Gillett didn't have a choice but to go along with it, even though he preferred the more prudent Parry Bowl, which already had planning consent and was good to go.

HKS is a Dallas firm with worldwide business. Hicks has hired HKS several times before. His previous and current office building at the Crescent and Victory Park respectively. The Dr. Pepper corporate campus and home based bottling and syrup plant. The Stars arena, several ice rinks among other buildings and plants. Anyone who has done so much business before and satisfied with HKS would most likely refer to them for a 300 million stadium too.

One thing for certain, if FSG build the HKS design, it will be a unique and distinctive design, not a copy of any other stadium... In my eyes HKS got it right, its you that has got it wrong... During 2008 construction materials escalated before the credit crunch, today construction materials are down some 15 percent because of the long recession. If pundits are going to claim mistakes due to a computer program, please provide that link so all of us can see it. Otherwise its hearsay...

Has it ever crossed your mind that the British fans might get up while the match is in play to buy a beer or a sandwich if they can see the match without missing any of the action. Duh.... Why do you think Americans stadiums are built this way? Could it be because the clubs earn more revenues? .

Durr. Have you ever watched an NFL game? It takes 3-4 hours for a top level game of 60mins.

HKS is a Dallas firm with worldwide business. ...If pundits are going to claim mistakes due to a computer program, please provide that link so all of us can see it. Otherwise its hearsay...

There are a significant number of poor views. The hospitality facilities are geared towards mass use over several hours not the 90mins plus half time. The economics are screwed. They build high and expensive with empty corners when it should be low and cost-effective; the roof is enormous and enormously expensive and the consequent necessary excavation to keep it within the consent is hugely costly. The planned expansion makes for a ridiculous away end (and yet more cost) and doesn't take into account the enormous infrastructure costs of a 70k stadium. The pitch is too far away even for EUFA standards (only required for a World Cup). The roof and the open corners are too light and 'leak' atmosphere. The rake of the stands is too low for an intimidating atmosphere. It spends too much money in the wrong places - the largest stand is the kop yet the most profitable are the sides. The side stands are bigger at the kop ends which are the least profitable. It completely dominates the park and destroys its atmosphere. It doesn't even look as good as the second AFL scheme when they were allowed a bit more on the budget. I don't know what it looks like but it's not a football ground.

Take a look at the presentation given by the architects where they talk about how weird 'soccer' stadiums are. It's on youtube somewhere. HKS don't get football. And yes I know they had a (failed) bid for soccer stadia in LA. They came third. Third rate...

This stadium was never for building. It was for H&G to make a big splash on paper for selling the club. They admitted as much as the basis for their legal action on the 'undervaluation' of the club.

HKS is a Dallas firm with worldwide business. Hicks has hired HKS several times before. His previous and current office building at the Crescent and Victory Park respectively. The Dr. Pepper corporate campus and home based bottling and syrup plant. The Stars arena, several ice rinks among other buildings and plants. Anyone who has done so much business before and satisfied with HKS would most likely refer to them for a 300 million stadium too.

You really do make yourself sound like you work for either Hicks or HKS.

Hicks openly admitted that he knew bugger all about soccer (henceforth to be called "football" as we in the UK refer to it) when Gillett first asked if he wanted in on the Liverpool deal, which they both signed in February 2007. He could tell that the buying price was ridiculously low and that previous majority shareholder David Moores was desperate to sell. He could see that a new stadium would generate massive revenues to help pay off the massive loan he and Gillett had taken out to buy the club. By April 2007, Hicks had tossed the original Parry Bowl plans aside, told both Gillett and another Liverpool official in no uncertain terms that he was going to get some new designs, then he enlisted HKS to come up with some new designs. The new designs were presented in July 2007 to much fanfare, without really going into any detail.

Are you telling me that a Dallas-based architect firm, with long-standing links to Tom Hicks, and NO previous experience of designing football stadiums, could create a design for a fully functioning and fit-for-purpose stadium for one of the biggest names in the game, in just THREE months? What they created was a stadium that looked fantastic, but - pitch dimensions aside - was really suited to American football. That is not their fault, yet they were happy to accept massive commissions for something they had no expertise for.

Would an American sports owner enlist the likes of Herzog & De Meuron to design a new American football stadium or MLB ballpark? I doubt it very much. Despite their obvious expertise in the field of stadium architecture, there are American firms like HKS more suited to that particular task.

One thing for certain, if FSG build the HKS design, it will be a unique and distinctive design, not a copy of any other stadium... In my eyes HKS got it right, its you that has got it wrong...

Of course the design is unique and eye-catching. It has a wow factor that would certainly draw visitors in, that much is not in dispute. But I am NOT wrong about how it is ill-suited for football. I'm not going over old ground because it is already in this thread in black and white.

During 2008 construction materials escalated before the credit crunch, today construction materials are down some 15 percent because of the long recession.

Yes, the credit crunch is a factor in why the cost of the project was so expensive at the time. The price of steel sky-rocketed because of huge demand from China, among other factors. Despite the fall in the price of construction materials since then, the HKS design is still not cost-effective, and those plans have not been passed anyway.

If pundits are going to claim mistakes due to a computer program, please provide that link so all of us can see it. Otherwise its hearsay...

I'm afraid I cannot do that because the person who worked on the computer models left his firm a while back, so he no longer has access to their design archives and databases for obvious reasons. That is not me trying to get out of this, but just the way it is I'm afraid. And "pundit"? You flatter me!

Has it ever crossed your mind that the British fans might get up while the match is in play to buy a beer or a sandwich if they can see the match without missing any of the action. Duh.... Why do you think Americans stadiums are built this way? Could it be because the clubs earn more revenues?

Has it ever crossed your mind that were not allowed to drink beer in view of the pitch. We would have to go under the stand for beers. Duh ! :cheers:

why does liverpool want such a small stadium expand the stadium to 85,000 what ist heir problem that extra 15,000 fans can only help their club and why not design the stadium like the one being built in wroclaw however at 85,000 capacity

why does liverpool want such a small stadium expand the stadium to 85,000 what ist heir problem that extra 15,000 fans can only help their club and why not design the stadium like the one being built in wroclaw however at 85,000 capacity

To build a new stadium with around 60,000 seats is expected to cost in the region of £300m at a conservative estimate. To build anything above 70,000 seats would add probably £150-200m to the cost, because new infrastructure links would have to be incorporated. As none of the money would come from public funds, the club would have to foot the entire bill. Even with a substantial naming rights deal, there is still an awful lot of money for the club to find.

Secondly, with all the best will in the world, it would be extremely difficult to fill 85,000 seats on a regular basis. For that to happen, the stadium would have to be easy to get to for the fans, with the above mentioned improvements in infrastructure. The team would have to be doing extremely well to attract the day-tripper fans. Even Real Madrid and Barcelona don't sell out matches unless it's a big game.

To build a new stadium with around 60,000 seats is expected to cost in the region of £300m at a conservative estimate. To build anything above 70,000 seats would add probably £150-200m to the cost, because new infrastructure links would have to be incorporated. As none of the money would come from public funds, the club would have to foot the entire bill. Even with a substantial naming rights deal, there is still an awful lot of money for the club to find.

Secondly, with all the best will in the world, it would be extremely difficult to fill 85,000 seats on a regular basis. For that to happen, the stadium would have to be easy to get to for the fans, with the above mentioned improvements in infrastructure. The team would have to be doing extremely well to attract the day-tripper fans. Even Real Madrid and Barcelona don't sell out matches unless it's a big game.

Agreed, anything much larger than 60k will require traffic/transit issues to be addressed and solved with Merseyside Rail and others. FSG may fund a rail station and/or upgrade a couple of rail stations, but they won't upgrade the streets outside those fronting the stadium. Building a bus depot/intermodal facility at Anfield Plaza may be a solution to get capacity up to 70k with a few more park and rides throughout the Merseyside area with any rail improvements.

To get capacity up 80k FSG would be better off building a larger stadium somewhere else than the Anfield/Stanley Park area. I believe the Clarence Dock north of the central business district would be a good location. But that would involved a few more years of winning a planning consent, not to mention buying the property.

Therefore its likely FSG will build a new stadium at 60k with hopes to expand to 70k at a later date when traffic/transit issues are solved. They have planning consent to do so now. While Anfield could be redeveloped with executive boxes and vip club seats along with stadium naming rights, they won't generate the revenues of a newly built stadium with these amenities in preferred locations. Plus they don't have a planning consent to do so now, and may never get one to redevelop Anfield.

Outside traffic/transit issues, there would not be an increase of a centimeter to the footprint of the HKS Stanley Park stadium design. Its future proofed with room and space already included. I believe FSG want to build larger than 60k as Henry noted adding 15k seats doesn't make sense. But adding 25k seats is another story...

Has it ever crossed your mind that the British fans might get up while the match is in play to buy a beer or a sandwich if they can see the match without missing any of the action. Duh.... Why do you think Americans stadiums are built this way? Could it be because the clubs earn more revenues?

Has it ever crossed your mind that were not allowed to drink beer in view of the pitch. We would have to go under the stand for beers. Duh ! :cheers:

If not beer, there are other beverages which will be sold... Don't the British get thirsty watching a match? Hungry? Beer is a red herring... Duh!

I repeat, the reasons for the wide concourses in American stadiums have as much to do with marketing kiosks as for concessions. And marketing is the reason for building a new stadium or redeveloping Anfield as much as having more seating capacity...

Agreed, anything much larger than 60k will require traffic/transit issues to be addressed and solved with Merseyside Rail and others. FSG may fund a rail station and/or upgrade a couple of rail stations, but they won't upgrade the streets outside those fronting the stadium. Building a bus depot/intermodal facility at Anfield Plaza may be a solution to get capacity up to 70k with a few more park and rides throughout the Merseyside area with any rail improvements.

To get capacity up 80k FSG would be better off building a larger stadium somewhere else than the Anfield/Stanley Park area. I believe the Clarence Dock north of the central business district would be a good location. But that would involved a few more years of winning a planning consent, not to mention buying the property.

Therefore its likely FSG will build a new stadium at 60k with hopes to expand to 70k at a later date when traffic/transit issues are solved. They have planning consent to do so now. While Anfield could be redeveloped with executive boxes and vip club seats along with stadium naming rights, they won't generate the revenues of a newly built stadium with these amenities in preferred locations. Plus they don't have a planning consent to do so now, and may never get one to redevelop Anfield.

Outside traffic/transit issues, there would not be an increase of a centimeter to the footprint of the HKS Stanley Park stadium design. Its future proofed with room and space already included. I believe FSG want to build larger than 60k as Henry noted adding 15k seats doesn't make sense. But adding 25k seats is another story...

LFC do NOT have planning permission to extend beyond 60k in any way shape or form. They do have a dumb-ass design that can be expanded to 70k at enormous up-front cost. 70k is not consented. The consent specifically limits the capacity to 60k and that design doesn’t work for football (see above)

Merseyrail (sic) have no funds or powers to casually chip in for a private business and each station costs about £10m. No one is going to be adding one for the pot. The lines are designed for freight. They don’t connect with main lines at either end. They have no equipment for passenger traffic. There is no act of parliament to allow it to happen. There is no money

The club will not be better off in Clarence Dock. Clarence Dock is owned by Peel Holdings thank you very much, who have put in a planning application for lots of office and residential towers to increase the value of the land - way beyond the pocket of any football club. It’s a £5.5bn investment.

The club has confirmed that the income from both options are ‘roughly the same’.

JWH and Ayre have said the economics of adding 15k for the cost of 60k doesn’t work. Adding 25k is no better. The more you add, the higher the cost per seat and the higher the prices to pay for it. Other than that, dream on.

If not beer, there are other beverages which will be sold... Don't the British get thirsty watching a match? Hungry? Beer is a red herring... Duh!

I repeat, the reasons for the wide concourses in American stadiums have as much to do with marketing kiosks as for concessions. And marketing is the reason for building a new stadium or redeveloping Anfield as much as having more seating capacity...

For God's sake, go to one game and see how it works. Everyone goes to the pub. Most arrive 10 mins before kick off and if they're lucky squeeze in a pee at half time. Then they shoot to the local via home or back to the pub straight after the final whistle until the traffic dies down and then into town for a few bevvies where they watch Match of the Day. The game is at least a break from the ale otherwise you'd be wrecked by nine. As for hungry, there's mum or the chippie or the chinese or even the aul' arse butties but not that many cosy up to a burger and coke, or even a £3 pie.

American stadia are built for American games and culture. That's not football.

Also, they didn't look into just how Liverpool as a city compares to the already-in-place corporate market in both London and nearby Manchester. No doubt the corporate market is very important if the club is to generate significant revenue, but is it big enough to fill over a 100 executive boxes and more than 6000 club seats on a regular basis? The part in bold is key. These elements were factored in without sufficient market research because the plans were drawn up so hastily.

Why is it important for the stadium to be transparent from the outside? It's not a shop window! Yes it looks nicer than the Parry Bowl, but consider first and foremost what the stadium is for.

Again, I didn't want them to proceed with the old plans, but I'm just pointing out that the HKS design, while it looks great, misses the point entirely. It's nice to sit in a stadium with all the modern-day creature comforts, but the greatness of a stadium is made by the supporters.

The AFL design Hicks and Gillett refused to build had only 60 executive boxes and zero club seats, not much of an upgrade from Anfield's 30.. No wonder they rejected it. From both of their experiences, executive boxes and vip club seats sell faster in the US/Canada than the average normal seats. This isn't rocket science, the new Cowboys stadium sold 20k vip club seats. The first stadium which sold 10k vip club seats was Joe Robbie in Miami at 1800 per year. Today the vip club seats sell for 5200 per year, twenty years later. There is a premium demand for the best seats in the house.

The first Parry bowl design was rejected because of bricks. The planning council didn't want an industrial brick building in the park. How soon one forgets.

I agree fans generate a stadium's atmosphere, but executive boxes and vip club seats generate as much revenue as all of the average normal seats, if not more. Much depends on how many there are and sold. Are you suggesting otherwise? 90,000 per year per executive box and 2,000 per year for a club seat isn't asking for much for their vip perks. Not when the current Anfield vip experience runs 3250 per year, 130 per match for 25 home dates. After all, don't cruise ships and the hotel industry have suites which run considerably more than their smallest cabins and rooms?

I haven't a clue how FSG will sort this out with the numbers, but Fenway Park, Petra Park, Camden Yards, and SunLife have vip club seats. San Diego and Baltimore aren't major corporate cities either. FSG partners used to own clubs with these stadiums. Surely you didn't expect FSG to take out a 300 million 30 year long term loan. Stadiums and indoor arenas are being built throughout the world with executive boxes and club seats. Liverpool won't be any different, even with a redevelopment of Anfield.

I am sure they will sell out every match as they will have at least a ten year contract commitment. Probably more than 5k, but if not that is where EFC vip fans can pitch in...

The AFL design Hicks and Gillett refused to build had only 60 executive boxes and zero club seats, not much of an upgrade from Anfield's 30.. No wonder they rejected it. From both of their experiences, executive boxes and vip club seats sell faster in the US/Canada than the average normal seats. This isn't rocket science, the new Cowboys stadium sold 20k vip club seats. The first stadium which sold 10k vip club seats was Joe Robbie in Miami at 1800 per year. Today the vip club seats sell for 5200 per year, twenty years later. There is a premium demand for the best seats in the house.

The first Parry bowl design was rejected because of bricks. The planning council didn't want an industrial brick building in the park. How soon one forgets.

I agree fans generate a stadium's atmosphere, but executive boxes and vip club seats generate as much revenue as all of the average normal seats, if not more. Much depends on how many there are and sold. Are you suggesting otherwise? 90,000 per year per executive box and 2,000 per year for a club seat isn't asking for much for their vip perks. Not when the current Anfield vip experience runs 3250 per year, 130 per match for 25 home dates. After all, don't cruise ships and the hotel industry have suites which run considerably more than their smallest cabins and rooms?

I haven't a clue how FSG will sort this out with the numbers, but Fenway Park, Petra Park, Camden Yards, and SunLife have vip club seats. San Diego and Baltimore aren't major corporate cities either. FSG partners used to own clubs with these stadiums. Surely you didn't expect FSG to take out a 300 million 30 year long term loan. Stadiums and indoor arenas are being built throughout the world with executive boxes and club seats. Liverpool won't be any different, even with a redevelopment of Anfield.

I am sure they will sell out every match as they will have at least a ten year contract commitment. Probably more than 5k, but if not that is where EFC vip fans can pitch in...

You need a bit of a clue to understand that boxes at LFC struggle to sell for £65k. There are already too many boxes held by players to be healthy. £90k is well too much to ask. £130 per game is just that; per game; one-off treats; maybe half a dozen in a season; linked to corporate packages, travel packages not season tickets. This isn't even Boston.

LFC aren’t interested in what works in the US. Circumstances are entirely different. The game is different. The economy is different. Everything depends on the scarcity of demand not abundance of supply

The Parry Bowl was given consent by council, bricks or no bricks.

There is one new stadium of equal stature in the UK and that stadium was heavily subsidised by residential sales of the vacated property, prices for which increased threefold over a ten year period - and no, that’s not going to happen in Anfield/Breckfield.

Ten year commitment!! Most here don't know whether they've got a job next week...

You clearly don’t know the local circumstances, practices or experience.

If not beer, there are other beverages which will be sold... Don't the British get thirsty watching a match? Hungry? Beer is a red herring... Duh!

I repeat, the reasons for the wide concourses in American stadiums have as much to do with marketing kiosks as for concessions. And marketing is the reason for building a new stadium or redeveloping Anfield as much as having more seating capacity...

DUDE Its only 45 minutes If you can't go without a softdrink or food in that time you're wasting your money in buying a ticket. Duh !

Its a Red Liver Bird not a Red herring :bash: !

The main reason for wide concourses is because you're alot fatter than we are. The concourses in Wembley stadium are big too and have kiosks you put bets on games. Has for marketing you know we sell part of the shirt to a sponsor for money rights ?

You need a bit of a clue to understand that boxes at LFC struggle to sell for £65k. There are already too many boxes held by players to be healthy. £90k is well too much to ask. £130 per game is just that; per game; one-off treats; maybe half a dozen in a season; linked to corporate packages, travel packages not season tickets. This isn't even Boston.

LFC aren’t interested in what works in the US. Circumstances are entirely different. The game is different. The economy is different. Everything depends on the scarcity of demand not abundance of supply

The Parry Bowl was given consent by council, bricks or no bricks.

There is one new stadium of equal stature in the UK and that stadium was heavily subsidised by residential sales of the vacated property, prices for which increased threefold over a ten year period - and no, that’s not going to happen in Anfield/Breckfield.

Ten year commitment!! Most here don't know whether they've got a job next week...

You clearly don’t know the local circumstances, practices or experience. You don’t know how football works in the UK. You should talk less and listen more.

I may not know much about soccer, but I do know very much about how stadiums are financed. Fans are fans everywhere throughout the world, all of them want to sit as close to the field/pitch as possible. They all also want quick efficient concessions and rest rooms too. Are you suggesting otherwise?

Didn't I say in my last previous post I had no clue what FSG will set the numbers? Every stadium is different, there isn't any set solution. I used those numbers to provide a vague clue what executive boxes and vip club seats generate in revenues. I expect the numbers I used are undervalued, not overvalued...

Why don't you research new stadiums which have been built in the UK recently?. All of them use executive boxes and club seating. This isn't new, the whole world is building stadiums using these revenues streams. And, by the way, those 30 executive boxes at Anfield are sold out, not to mention there is a longer waiting list. With a 70k folks on the season tickets waiting list, its hard to believe less than ten percent of them can't afford club seats, not to mention those who already have season tickets...

Are you suggesting the British are so poor compared to the rest of the world, none have a pot to piss in?

HKS Cowboys Stadium 80k seats, designed with soccer in mind...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Cowboys_stadium_inside_view_4.JPG/800px-Cowboys_stadium_inside_view_4.JPG

Take a look at the presentation given by the architects where they talk about how weird 'soccer' stadiums are. It's on youtube somewhere. HKS don't get football. And yes I know they had a (failed) bid for soccer stadia in LA. They came third. Third rate...

2dkc-nAclLg

Actually the HKS design won the LA Times poll among the fans, but it was a close poll. Unfortunately, the committee chose the most conservative design... LA Times readers didn't see the HKS design as third rate, nor would any architect. And some LFC fans think their Stanley Park design resembled a space ship...

The losing HKS LA football stadium...
http://cdn.cosbysweaters.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/SBJ201012133605-1.jpg

http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d0a1cf1ccd1d54d6b2b0000-547/hks.jpg

Of course HKS has won with a design for a new football stadium in Vicenza, Italy. Its basically a reduced version of this Los Santos Laguna Corona Stadium in Mexico. Alike Liverpool, its awaiting financing. Much more conservative and smaller than Stanley Park.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w188/triplet1_photos/EstadioCorona.jpg

As for Bryan Trubey, he didn't say weird, but said there were some cultural differences. Was he all that wrong about passionate fans sitting behind the goals rather than along the sidelines? Don't the fans in the KOP run the show, which he designed with more capacity than the west stand with one tier instead of three tiers? That doesn't happen with US football. The HKS Stanley Park design is a US football stadium? Not really...

HKS Cowboys Stadium 80k seats, designed with soccer in mind...
And why is the view to one corner of the pitch restricted then?

And why is the view to one corner of the pitch restricted then?

But this stadium was built mainly for American football with fields 19 meters less wide. There is no blocked views of an American football field. However, you don't miss much of the pitch though. I am sure if this stadium was designed for mainly soccer there wouldn't be this problem. At least someone could see the play in that one corner on the giant jumbotron video screen.

I hear folks at Anfield sitting in the back seats of the lower tier of the Anfield Road end can't see half of the pitch. Or those sitting behind a post supporting the roof in some of Anfield's stands. Which is better, losing a very small percentage of the pitch or half of the pitch? Please explain why there are views at Anfield which are restricted?

And why is the view to one corner of the pitch restricted then?

He didn't say it was well designed for soccer.:lol:

Please explain why there are views at Anfield which are restricted?

To have a roof without bankrupting the club. A more sophisticated structure would have been more expensive.

But this stadium was built mainly for American football with fields 19 meters less wide. There is no blocked views of an American football field. However, you don't miss much of the pitch though. I am sure if this stadium was designed for mainly soccer there wouldn't be this problem. At least someone could see the play in that one corner on the giant jumbotron video screen.

A new and purpose-built stadium should have no restricted views. There are far worse seats than those at the Cowboys Stadium, judging by the thread we have on this forum. Again it perhaps comes down to differences in fan culture between the US and Europe. In Europe, fans want to see the action on the field rather than a jumbo screen, so with a view like the one above, everybody behind the first couple of rows will have to stand up. Standing on seats then presents another safety issue. I cannot say for certain, but perhaps fans in the US don't mind not being able to see the action on the field all the time as long as they can view it in comfort on the big screen.

I hear folks at Anfield sitting in the back seats of the lower tier of the Anfield Road end can't see half of the pitch. Or those sitting behind a post supporting the roof in some of Anfield's stands. Which is better, losing a very small percentage of the pitch or half of the pitch? Please explain why there are views at Anfield which are restricted?

Sitting at the back of the Anfield Road lower tier doesn't in itself present a restricted view. The problem of poor views occurs when fans in front stand up. The Anfield Road stand was a single-tier stand with a capacity of around 5000, until a 3000-odd capacity upper tier was added in 1997. Given the close proximity of Anfield Road directly behind the stand, it wasn't possible to expand any further than that. As a result the upper tier sits quite far forward, which is why people at the back of the lower tier have such a poor view when everybody stands up. In summer 2000, during a friendly against Parma, some fans in the upper tier felt the stand shaking as they bounced up and down and so forth. To ensure that the stand continued to meet safety criteria and address fans' concerns, a few supporting pillars were added to help prop up the upper tier. Unfortunately, this meant that there were more restricted-view seats in the stand.

Other than the Anfield Road stand, the only other stand with supporting pillars is the Main Stand, which was renovated in the early 1970s when the old Archibald Leitch roof was removed, and the stand extended and fitted with the roof you see today. Not much has changed in the Main Stand since then, and the Upper Section still has painted wooden seats! We are talking about a 40 year old design and construction methods which were prevalent back then, so we cannot talk about it as a flaw in a new design. No question it is still a flaw, and one of many reasons why the club are looking into all avenues of redevelopment or a new stadium.

Why don't you research new stadiums which have been built in the UK recently?. All of them use executive boxes and club seating. This isn't new, the whole world is building stadiums using these revenues streams. And, by the way, those 30 executive boxes at Anfield are sold out, not to mention there is a longer waiting list. With a 70k folks on the season tickets waiting list, its hard to believe less than ten percent of them can't afford club seats, not to mention those who already have season tickets...

Are you suggesting the British are so poor compared to the rest of the world, none have a pot to piss in?

I’m from the Midlands. I have quite a few friends who are Liverpool ’supporters’ and are also on the season ticket waiting list. If one cropped up, none of them would take it. They couldn’t afford too. Most of them like to be on the waiting list because it helps them to justify being a ‘real’ Liverpool fan. In reality, many are plastic armchair fans who have probably never set foot in the city.

The cheapest, most basic seats in the Premier League are an absolute rip off. Add in the cost of overpriced burgers, over priced beers, overpriced programmes, overpriced rail fair, over priced parking etc and it costs a small fortune while trying to attend a game on a budget. A dad taking his two kids to watch a premier league game on a Saturday afternoon, can cost what many people earn in a week.

Times are hard for many families at the moment, and Liverpool is not a wealthy area. The majority of Liverpool fans are not from the area and have to take into account travel costs and the time to get there. Many live abroad!! There is not as much demand for club seats as you’d think.

With respect, having read some of your previous posts, you don’t have anywhere near enough knowledge of football here to be as opinionated as you have been.

Times are hard for many families at the moment, and Liverpool is not a wealthy area. The majority of Liverpool fans are not from the area and have to take into account travel costs and the time to get there. Many live abroad!! There is not as much demand for club seats as you’d think.


That is always going to be the case, what with having a global fanbase running into the millions. Everton fans will tell you they have more supporters within Liverpool, but this closed outlook is the main reason why they cannot make any headway in future-proofing their club, and why some of their fans with loud voices keep raising the spectre of groundshare whenever Liverpool's stadium progress (or not!) makes the news.

Please read this wiki link about club seats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_seating

Just about every stadium and indoor arena that has been built in the past twenty years have used executive boxes and club seats to help pay for them worldwide. No one is going to reach into their pockets and pay for a 300 million stadium, eventually the fans will have to pay a significant share for it. The question is whether some fans will join with the enterprise or prefer to pay the banks dearly in interests. After the two clowns, I am sure LFC fans that can would join in the enterprise...

Arsenal sold 6k club seats for more. Brighton Hove Albion sold nearly 3k club seats. Yes, British fans are paying because its a good investment. In Miami they sold 20k club seats twenty years ago. Today they are worth triple of what they were worth twenty years ago. There is a premium for the best seats in the house: with opera, theater, and sports. Ever been to a large rock concert lately?

If 5k club seats are too many, reduce the numbers to 4k or 3k. As I noted I used numbers which are easy to multiply. These numbers aren't necessarily fixed. Surely Liverpool can double if not triple Brighton's numbers. But if naming rights will only generate 100 million, 200 million still need to raised. If executive boxes and club seats will generate another 100 million, only 100 million will need to be financed. Not much more than the cost of redevelopment.

Its not for every fan, I will agree. But you will find those few who can afford to invest WILL... Private enterprise at work, supply and demand. And keep in mind I didn't bring this up, Henry mentioned club seats... Those seats that were added to Fenway Park's roof were club seats...

I highly recommend folks google and do some research on how new stadiums and arenas are financed... Club seats and executive boxes aren't new, it's a standard practice... Even very little Estevan SK used both to build their new small 3k seat arena.

Lots of architects here, but not too many economists... FSG will borrow enough to build the stadium, and will work hard selling boxes and club seats before final payment. At the end of the process they will finance as little as possible long term... FSG will not borrow long term 300 million and leave the club with a long term millstone of debt.

From this image ALL of an American football field is clearly seen from a corner seat in the upper tier. Nineteen meter less width makes a difference with the sight lines at the Cowboys Stadium.

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/DallasCowboys/newinterior.jpg

Liverpool as a city needs regeneration (desperately, in some areas like Anfield and Breckfield), as it is this that will drive demand for corporate facilities at stadiums like Anfield or New Anfield. Of course, a lot of the corporate customers will come from elsewhere, but a key factor in them coming to Liverpool in the first place is that it is a thriving, developing and forward-looking city. A place to be and be seen. The city of Manchester has done this over the past 20 years, and it is a big reason why Manchester United have been successful in obtaining income from corporate facilities. It's not just down to their success on the pitch during that time.

London has pretty much always had a lucrative corporate market on its doorstep, so for Arsenal it was a no-brainer to tap into that. Much of their financial success at the Emirates Stadium is down to this. Brighton is another area that has seen and continues to see a lot of regeneration, and the South Coast is seen as one of the most desirable places to be, so Brighton & HA have tapped into this, hence the number of premium seat sales you've outlined above.

Of course Liverpool FC need more substantial corporate and premium facilities than they have at present, but to an extent, how successful they are with this will be dictated by how well the city of Liverpool can attract investment and fund regeneration, to bring those people to Liverpool. It would be a nonsense for any Liverpool fan to think a new stadium or a redeveloped Anfield could be paid for without corporate revenues, but they should not be what the stadium is about.

I may not know much about soccer, but I do know very much about how stadiums are financed. Fans are fans everywhere throughout the world,...

No they’re not and yes, I’ve looked at other UK stadia, old, redeveloped and new and you should really look at soccer and how it works in the UK. Even the German, Spanish and Italian models are hugely different. Germany for example, typically has very few boxes, higher capacities and cheaper prices. They also stand. They are much more reliant on commercial revenue. Spain (or rather the two clubs in Spain) has massive stadia, high prices and huge populations per club.

As I said most UK fans arrive 20 to nil minutes before kick-off and disappear within 5 minutes of final whistle. The action is continuous; there’s no time to pop out to a concession. You can just about manage a pee at half time. There’s no tailgating in any car parks - there’s local pubs and chippies. That’s about 88-90% of the crowd in a modern UK football stadium.

The other 10-12% take corporate hospitality packages and private boxes with a meal before the game with beer and wine, wider seats with more legroom. No drink is allowed anywhere in sight of the pitch and even in the boxes, drink is taken away 15mins before kick-off (because they look over the pitch). Prices vary considerably but £2,500 to £4,000 for a premium seat for a season and £65,000 a year for a box with 10 seats are about par. Other clubs have other packages. Exceptionally, Emirates has a Diamond Club which includes travel on the team flight to away European fixtures; starting price £25,000 per seat. They also have City of London hospitality budget holders on the doorstep which has justified it (in the past). Generally speaking you can expect 50% of revenues from 10-12% of capacity - old, refurb or new.

The 6,000 premium seats at the Emirates plus the 1500 or so private box seats fits that percentage model on a capacity of 60,000 pretty accurately as does the 11,500 or so at Old Trafford with a capacity of 76,000. Stamford Bridge is a law unto itself. There's so much supporting development going on there it's hard to work out what's what but they are league leaders on revenue per head, apparently.

I don't think you can know too much about financing sports stadia if you believe that "if naming rights will only generate 100 million, 200 million still need to raised. If executive boxes and club seats will generate another 100 million, only 100 million will need to be financed." Naming rights, boxes and club seats are paid annually. They're not lump sum investments, debenture holdings or shares. Everything will need to be financed, including the return to the owners on any capital investment.

To give you an idea a £100m to £150m naming rights deal would be over 10 to 15 years and include a shirt deal at about £20m pa. Shirt deals normally go indirectly to the player pot and don't touch the stadium. Naming rights for the stadium itself were about £3.4m a year at the Emirates - the most recent club new-build in the UK.

The validity of Man City's £400m/15-year deal is under scrutiny of the UEFA Financial Fair Play committee but that will also include naming rights to a £1bn supporting commercial development. There is no public breakdown but to be justifiable to the committee and based on the market rate for a shirt deal the amount for the stadium may be as much as £5m 'only'. Nice to have but no deal maker.

There's also significant historic antipathy to debentures in football. It's seen as offering preferential treatment to the 'rich' at the expense of the ordinary fan - pricing the working man out of the working man's game, if you like. I can't think of any examples in UK football. Rugby Union is another matter but then that's the game for the 'toffs'. Like it or hate it, local context is important. Fans aren't fans everywhere in the world or even sometimes in the same country.

A good number of people on the ‘70k’ waiting list are either not born yet, not even in short pants, look remarkably similar to other people on the list or have an average age of 125 years!!!. There’s a lot of duplication and phoney applications. The club have tried to clean it up but until people actually pay at whatever price, no one knows. The waiting list for the private boxes at Anfield is even more unclear but if players are taking them...

As for affordability, it’s common practice for anyone who already has a season ticket to share the cost in one way or another. Premium seats at Anfield are currently about £2,500 upwards and the average wage in the region is £18,000 per annum gross - go figure. Without a corporate market to match Manchester let alone London and the South East or significant supporting development (such as 2,000 'luxury' homes in North London - or any form of government or local authority assistance (as in other European countries and elsewhere), the necessary pricing structure is really going to struggle with a new stadium costing only a little less than the Emirates.

It doesn't take an economist to appreciate that the differences in regional demographics are highly significant and FSG are fully aware that this isn't even Manchester, let alone Boston. The relative populations are substantially different and the relative market share per club similarly so. Even the transport systems are better in Greater Manchester and vastly superior in Greater London.

Maybe a pot to piss in but it’s normally in the pub, where the ale's a bit cheaper.

No one is going to reach into their pockets and pay for a 300 million stadium, eventually the fans will have to pay a significant share for it.

A common misconception. In fact, the fan ALWAYS pays for EVERYTHING.

Actually the HKS design won the LA Times poll among the fans, but it was a close poll. Unfortunately, the committee chose the most conservative design... LA Times readers didn't see the HKS design as third rate, nor would any architect. And some LFC fans think their Stanley Park design resembled a space ship...

Don't the fans in the KOP run the show,...Not really...

Again it doesn’t taken an expert to see why those designs might have appeared so attractive but still failed. There’s very little about either sport or sport economics here. They look like flash plans from flash plans mcflash. Terrific, I always want my stadia to look like a space ship.

There seems little consideration of the economics of a football ground and even judging from the shadows on those shots, sunlight would be massive headache for the players.

The kop is great but it’s not the be all and end all, unless you want to take pictures of it on your mobile phone instead of watching the game. The seating distribution of the Stanley Park design is a disaster.

As for Bryan Turber - he said odd or weird, whatever.

The top 5 best supported European clubs

1. Real Madrid
2. Barcelona
3. LIVERPOOL
4. Juventus
5. Milan

We need the extra seats being the third best supported club in Europe.

:lol::rofl::hahaha:

The British are happy Goodison Park earns around 19 pounds a seat per game. That isn't anywhere near enough in the US or the UK... Well, not to pay off a new stadium... Its not even enough to fund the club either...

The "British" are not in any way associated with Goodison Park.
BTW thats £19 per seat ( or so you say), already bought and paid for. JUST LIKE YOU ADMIT! No armies of corrupt over-invoicing "consultants" to pay for. No artificial debt devices designed to bleed a football club dry.

Everton can build a new stadium. A council with integrity to support them getting a site wouldnt harm. Not the lobbied lackies of a parasitic groundshare gang ( aka the NWDA crowd).

Get the government to support fan ownership, and Everton could build an infinitely better stadium than any of the alien bizarreness that HKS cook up.

Anyway, this is a new Anfield thread. The new home for one of the largest football clubs in the world. Not a "small club" who'd still struggle if they played at Wembley.

And once again, football isnt about "earnings". Its about football.

PS I suggest you check out how Real Madrid, Barcelona and every German club ( not "team") in existence operate!

You really do make yourself sound like you work for either Hicks or HKS.

!

Exactly right on SeaToby! HKS charged an obscene amount of money for some half baked plans that Hicks had zero intention of ever building.
HKS would overcharge the club, and I'm sure Hicks would get his kickback like he always tries. If he wasnt chums with that genocidal nut George Bush, he'd have been banged up years ago.

The HKS design's size was impressive, but look at the details and it was utterly unsuitable for football.A rushed, botched up mess infact. And these people have been utterly discredited by their association with Hicks.

If they'd have shown British sport some respect, they might have had a better understanding of what is required. Unfortunately too many Americans want to stand on a soapbox and tell us how to run our game.

____________________
Back on the stadium issue, I just wish we were fans owned, or even DIC owned.
I'm really concerned about what substance lies behind NESV's charm.

Get the government to support fan ownership, and Everton could build an infinitely better stadium than any of the alien bizarreness that HKS cook up.

And once again, football isnt about "earnings". Its about football.

Exactly right on SeaToby! HKS charged an obscene amount of money for some half baked plans that Hicks had zero intention of ever building.

The HKS design's size was impressive, but look at the details and it was utterly unsuitable for football.A rushed, botched up mess infact. And these people have been utterly discredited by their association with Hicks.

If they'd have shown British sport some respect, they might have had a better understanding of what is required. Unfortunately too many Americans want to stand on a soapbox and tell us how to run our game.

____________________
Back on the stadium issue, I just wish we were fans owned, or even DIC owned.
I'm really concerned about what substance lies behind NESV's charm.

If Juventus can build a new 41k seat stadium for 105 million Euros, I am sure Everton can build a new similar stadium for the same amount. Doesn't really make sense to go into half of a new 60k seat stadium of 270/300 million quid.

Notice how ManU with their huge capacity stadium has ruled the roost for the past twenty years when almost all of the clubs lost capacity going to all seater stadiums? In fact ManU has increased capacity. Earnings don't count, ha!

Did HKS charge that huge amount, or did Hicks and Gillett skim LFC? Not even HKS charges that obscene amount. HKS is not owned by Hicks, they are one of the top architectural firms worldwide. If HKS messed up so badly, why will FSG very likely build it? Premium seats with all of the vip bells and whistles sell worldwide, even in the UK. Get a life! Notice most of the 5k seats added to Fenway Park were club seats.

What is required is more additional seats, executive boxes, club seats, vip amenities, priority parking, and priority shuttles. The well-to-do pay for valet service. Have you not noticed the sell for an Anfield vip experience on the front LFC web page? 130 quid per match per seat. Over a full season the vip experience package is more than 3k quid. FSG has already reached for the well-to-do. Keep in mind 5k or so vips aren't 55k regular seats.

I repeat, new stadiums and arenas are financed through a combination of selling executive boxes, club seats, and naming rights, not to mention along with a mortgage. The key is to use new revenues streams over a period of years to pay off a new stadium, or a redevelopment without using the revenues streams which fund a club's operations. Otherwise what is the point in building or expanding a stadium?

Notice how 5k club seats at 2k per year generate as much revenues as 10k more regularly priced seats at 40 quid per match with 25 home dates. Do the math... 10kx25=250k, 250kx40=10 million. Well a club sells season tickets too for those who buy club seats, thus in this general example the club seats will generate 15 million per year, 5 million more than the 10k additional regularly priced seats. And we haven't even factored in the concessions, drinks and food which will be sold at least during the intermission. Beer is a red herring, surely the British get thirsty and hungry too. Of course, if it takes 15 minutes to pee, folks won't buy food and drinks. The idea is to get folks to pee quicker so they will have time to buy food and drinks. Soda pop anyone? Tea? Coffee?

If selling club seats won't work in the UK, why did Brighton Hove Albion FC sell nearly 3k club seats with their new stadium? If anything my example is far too low. Let FSG sort the numbers out. I am sure they will before they commit the club to a 300 million new stadium.

If Juventus can build a new 41k seat stadium for 105 million Euros, I am sure Everton can build a new similar stadium for the same amount. Doesn't really make sense to go into half of a new 60k seat stadium of 270/300 million quid.

I am almost certain that if Everton decided to build an exact replica of Juve's new stadium, it would cost a hell of a lot more than €105m. Somehow we in the UK seem to pay through the nose on every construction project, and as a result we keep getting shown projects of similar scale throughout the world that cost much less.

Notice how ManU with their huge capacity stadium has ruled the roost for the past twenty years when almost all of the clubs lost capacity going to all seater stadiums? In fact ManU has increased capacity. Earnings don't count, ha!

ManU had a stadium blueprint going back to the 50s or 60s which allowed for expansion at a later date. Whilst clearly an example of good forward thinking, it certainly helped that Old Trafford sat on an industrial estate rather than a residential area. Of course clubs need to make their stadiums generate revenue, but first and foremost, it is about the sport. Your viewpoints on this thread imply that you are not much of a sports fan, but have a massively keen interest in money-making ventures. That is not a criticism of you as you're entitled to your own opinion, but it's just how it reads.

Did HKS charge that huge amount, or did Hicks and Gillett skim LFC? Not even HKS charges that obscene amount. HKS is not owned by Hicks, they are one of the top architectural firms worldwide. If HKS messed up so badly, why will FSG very likely build it? Premium seats with all of the vip bells and whistles sell worldwide, even in the UK. Get a life! Notice most of the 5k seats added to Fenway Park were club seats.

I have a feeling that HKS didn't see even 50% of the sums being quoted for the Stanley Park project. I think Kop Football (Cayman) Ltd - the umbrella holding for Hicks' and Gillett's Liverpool shareholding - charged the club for extras like consultancy fees etc. I think all this will be shown in the next set of accounts for the year ended July 2011, to be published towards the end of the year or beginning of the next.

What is required is more additional seats, executive boxes, club seats, vip amenities, priority parking, and priority shuttles. The well-to-do pay for valet service. Have you not noticed the sell for an Anfield vip experience on the front LFC web page? 130 quid per match per seat. Over a full season the vip experience package is more than 3k quid. FSG has already reached for the well-to-do. Keep in mind 5k or so vips aren't 55k regular seats.

You want these people because they help generate such massive revenue, but if the stadium is designed to serve them at the expense of the ordinary fan, that kind of thing would not sit well in the UK. And certainly not in Liverpool. There is a balance to be struck here, but going back to a point I made over the past few weeks, the "well-to-do" market, as you put it, needs to be on the club's doorstep. Remember, Liverpool is not a financial hub like London.

I repeat, new stadiums and arenas are financed through a combination of selling executive boxes, club seats, and naming rights, not to mention along with a mortgage. The key is to use new revenues streams over a period of years to pay off a new stadium, or a redevelopment without using the revenues streams which fund a club's operations. Otherwise what is the point in building or expanding a stadium?

Again, I accept and agree that these revenue streams are important to making a new stadium viable, but they are not what the club should be about.

Notice how 5k club seats at 2k per year generate as much revenues as 10k more regularly priced seats at 40 quid per match with 25 home dates. Do the math... 10kx25=250k, 250kx40=10 million. Well a club sells season tickets too for those who buy club seats, thus in this general example the club seats will generate 15 million per year, 5 million more than the 10k additional regularly priced seats. And we haven't even factored in the concessions, drinks and food which will be sold at least during the intermission. Beer is a red herring, surely the British get thirsty and hungry too. Of course, if it takes 15 minutes to pee, folks won't buy food and drinks. The idea is to get folks to pee quicker so they will have time to buy food and drinks. Soda pop anyone? Tea? Coffee?

Of course the club will want fans to spend their money on concessions, because the mark-ups are so great. And it is worth providing comfortable and convenient surrounding for the fans. But to reiterate, the fans are going there to see a match, not because they want to buy a "Kop burger" (or whatever tacky name club's inevitably put on their products). Nobody wants to wade through rivers of piss like in days gone by, but first and foremost, they are there to watch the match.

If selling club seats won't work in the UK, why did Brighton Hove Albion FC sell nearly 3k club seats with their new stadium? If anything my example is far too low. Let FSG sort the numbers out. I am sure they will before they commit the club to a 300 million new stadium.

I mentioned why in an earlier post. Brighton is attracting a lot of investment and therefore corporate clients to the area. The south coast in general is seen as very prosperous so attracts people with money. Plus, Brighton is also a not-unreasonable distance from London. The city of Liverpool needs that spark of regeneration, especially in certain deprived areas, and this will help bring in and develop a thriving corporate market of "well-to-dos" that the club would understandably want to tap into.

If Juventus can build a new 41k seat stadium for 105 million Euros, I am sure Everton can build a new similar stadium for the same amount. Doesn't really make sense to go into half of a new 60k seat stadium of 270/300 million quid.

Notice how ManU with their huge capacity stadium has ruled the roost for the past twenty years when almost all of the clubs lost capacity going to all seater stadiums? In fact ManU has increased capacity. Earnings don't count, ha!

Did HKS charge that huge amount, or did Hicks and Gillett skim LFC? Not even HKS charges that obscene amount. HKS is not owned by Hicks, they are one of the top architectural firms worldwide. If HKS messed up so badly, why will FSG very likely build it? Premium seats with all of the vip bells and whistles sell worldwide, even in the UK. Get a life! Notice most of the 5k seats added to Fenway Park were club seats.

What is required is more additional seats, executive boxes, club seats, vip amenities, priority parking, and priority shuttles. The well-to-do pay for valet service. Have you not noticed the sell for an Anfield vip experience on the front LFC web page? 130 quid per match per seat. Over a full season the vip experience package is more than 3k quid. FSG has already reached for the well-to-do. Keep in mind 5k or so vips aren't 55k regular seats.

I repeat, new stadiums and arenas are financed through a combination of selling executive boxes, club seats, and naming rights, not to mention along with a mortgage. The key is to use new revenues streams over a period of years to pay off a new stadium, or a redevelopment without using the revenues streams which fund a club's operations. Otherwise what is the point in building or expanding a stadium?

Notice how 5k club seats at 2k per year generate as much revenues as 10k more regularly priced seats at 40 quid per match with 25 home dates. Do the math... 10kx25=250k, 250kx40=10 million. Well a club sells season tickets too for those who buy club seats, thus in this general example the club seats will generate 15 million per year, 5 million more than the 10k additional regularly priced seats. And we haven't even factored in the concessions, drinks and food which will be sold at least during the intermission. Beer is a red herring, surely the British get thirsty and hungry too. Of course, if it takes 15 minutes to pee, folks won't buy food and drinks. The idea is to get folks to pee quicker so they will have time to buy food and drinks. Soda pop anyone? Tea? Coffee?

If selling club seats won't work in the UK, why did Brighton Hove Albion FC sell nearly 3k club seats with their new stadium? If anything my example is far too low. Let FSG sort the numbers out. I am sure they will before they commit the club to a 300 million new stadium.

Don't compare construction costs between countries, they're chalk and cheese. Man U have been working to a forty year plan and all power to their elbow but they have a much bigger catchment area and they took advantage of the flexibility of redevelopment, not new build.

I'm absolutely sure HKS didn't get £50m to do their work. Architects are not paid well. I'm sure this figure includes all consultants, substantial legal fees and importantly any time charged by the client to this project to take this and the two other designs all the way to planning, and including negotiations, consultations and discussions with 'stakeholders' of all sectors of the community over a number of years. It will also include the original option studies and public consultations carried by GVA Grimley. That said the £15m believed to be attributable to the HKS scheme is extraordinary. Perhaps the figure is simply wrong.

***

No one is arguing that boxes and club level seats don't help finance stadia. About 10-12% of capacity generates 50% of income - well worth having. The idea will be to get people to come earlier for a meal and pre-match hospitality. This only suits this smaller percentage of fans and 'day-trippers'. The local fan knows where the pub is so post-match is a very much harder sell but I'm sure this will be looked at too.

The matter in dispute is an inappropriate design predicated on an NFL model of revenue generation involving people getting up and buying stuff during the game. This is laughable in a UK football stadium.

Surely some British bladders can't make it to intermission. And while they are back there in the wide concourses to do their business, they might stop at an empty kiosk and buy something. At the very least the kiosks will be busy during intermission, before and after a game. With the NFL clubs book quality acts, usually better than anything any local pub would book especially for those vips who are provided wonderful first class restaurants and lounges.

As for club seats all of the newly built stadiums have them, and many of the older stadiums have been back fitted with club seats. Currently the only NFL stadium without club seats is Candlestick Park, whose replacement is being built as I write this. I don't believe 5k is far out of line...

The NFL list of club seats:
MetLife Stadium 10k club seats
FedEx Field 15k club seats
Cowboys Stadium 15k club seats
Louisiana Superdome 4.5k club seats
Arrowhead Stadium 10k club seats
Sports Authority Field 8.5k club seats
Sun Life Stadium 10k club seats
Bank of America Stadium 11k club seats
Cleveland Browns Stadium 9k club seats
Ralph Wilson Stadium 9k club seats
Lambeau Field 2k club seats
Qualcomm Stadium 8k club seats
Georgia Dome 4.5k club seats
Reliant Stadium 7k club seats
M&T Bank Stadium 8k club seats
Candlestick Park
Lincoln Financial Field 9k club seats
LP Field 12k club seats
Gillette Stadium 6k club seats
EverBank Field 11k club seats
Century Link Field 7k club seats
Edward Jones Dome 6k club seats
Raymond James Stadium 12k club seats
Paul Brown Stadium 7.5k club seats
Heinz Field 1.5k club seats
Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome 8k club seats
University of Phoenix Stadium 7.5k club seats
O.co Coliseum 6k club seats
Lucas Oil Stadium 14k club seats
Soldier Field 8k club seats

Surely some British bladders can't make it to intermission. And while they are back there in the wide concourses to do their business, they might stop at an empty kiosk and buy something. At the very least the kiosks will be busy during intermission, before and after a game. With the NFL clubs book quality acts, usually better than anything any local pub would book especially for those vips who are provided wonderful first class restaurants and lounges.

As for club seats all of the newly built stadiums have them, and many of the older stadiums have been back fitted with club seats. Currently the only NFL stadium without club seats is Candlestick Park, whose replacement is being built as I write this. I don't believe 5k is far out of line...



Please, no one is disputing the importance of club seats. About 7,200 in a 60k stadium would work. But very, very few people go out during the game to pee or do anything else. The action in a football game is continuous.

There's even an old superstition, that a real fan watches every second of every game or else risks conceding a goal or losing the match. I know some who believe this even when watching at home or in the pub. It's a bit like asking "how long left?" - it's never done; winning or losing. The Golden Rule is 'Watch the Bloody Game!"

The VIP lounges etc come into their own before the game; unfortunately, seldom afterwards - never during. This is how it works, this is the game of football, this is how we watch it in the UK and until we destroy the game and start changing the rules to have time-outs for ad breaks and take 4 hours over 90 minutes, that's how it's going to stay.

The 49ers stadium has yet to start work "has we speak". Club seats are for the prawn sandwich folks and alot of the kiosks are shut after the games.

Club/Corporate seats should be used to offer the wealthy fans something more than just a seat at the football so that clubs can keep the standard seat prices down to a reasonable level for the poorer/working class fans.

Please, no one is disputing the importance of club seats. About 7,200 in a 60k stadium would work. But very, very few people go out during the game to pee or do anything else. The action in a football game is continuous.

There's even an old superstition, that a real fan watches every second of every game or else risks conceding a goal or losing the match. I know some who believe this even when watching at home or in the pub. It's a bit like asking "how long left?" - it's never done; winning or losing. The Golden Rule is 'Watch the Bloody Game!"

The VIP lounges etc come into their own before the game; unfortunately, seldom afterwards - never during. This is how it works, this is the game of football, this is how we watch it in the UK and until we destroy the game and start changing the rules to have time-outs for ad breaks and take 4 hours over 90 minutes, that's how it's going to stay.

With more commercialism of the sport, don't be surprised if the half time intermission is lengthened for a few more commercials. Or even a television break halfway through a half of playing time. Soccer isn't above commercialism and marketing. All it would take is SkySports to offer twice as much for such the FA would crater, probably less...

And if such happened, would the British fans take advantage of such tv breaks to shop at the kiosks and use the rest rooms and concessions? Even the folks watching at home may use a tv break to grab a beer from the refrigerator... There is an old saying, never say never...:cheers:

We do know when a club is losing by more than one goal towards the end of a match most of the fans depart early... So much for the golden rule...

I agree there will probably be more than 5k, 7.2k, or maybe as high as 10k club seats with a new stadium. This thought that the club would be overburdened with debt is false... We aren't building a single stand which would be easily financed through a bank, we are building a large new stadium which won't be easily financed through a bank. Thankfully, brand new stadiums have other revenues streams to corral to finance them.

The NFL list of club seats:
MetLife Stadium 10k club seats
FedEx Field 15k club seats
Cowboys Stadium 15k club seats
Louisiana Superdome 4.5k club seats
Arrowhead Stadium 10k club seats
Sports Authority Field 8.5k club seats
Sun Life Stadium 10k club seats
Bank of America Stadium 11k club seats
Cleveland Browns Stadium 9k club seats
Ralph Wilson Stadium 9k club seats
Lambeau Field 2k club seats
Qualcomm Stadium 8k club seats
Georgia Dome 4.5k club seats
Reliant Stadium 7k club seats
M&T Bank Stadium 8k club seats
Candlestick Park
Lincoln Financial Field 9k club seats
LP Field 12k club seats
Gillette Stadium 6k club seats
EverBank Field 11k club seats
Century Link Field 7k club seats
Edward Jones Dome 6k club seats
Raymond James Stadium 12k club seats
Paul Brown Stadium 7.5k club seats
Heinz Field 1.5k club seats
Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome 8k club seats
University of Phoenix Stadium 7.5k club seats
O.co Coliseum 6k club seats
Lucas Oil Stadium 14k club seats
Soldier Field 8k club seats


The Metrodome has about 300 club seats, the proposed stadium would have 7-8,000 but its still hypothetical at this point.

Lambeau has something like 5,000 between its indoor and outdoor club seats, and Heinz Field is around 7,000.

The Metrodome has about 300 club seats, the proposed stadium would have 7-8,000 but its still hypothetical at this point.

Lambeau has something like 5,000 between its indoor and outdoor club seats, and Heinz Field is around 7,000.

Thanks for the update. I did my best to get all of these correct, but I may have used some web sites with false information...

I doubt whether Liverpool could sell 15k club seats, but I don't feel 5k is out of line. Most likely Liverpool could sell more. 2k quid per year for a club seat with a ten year season ticket contract isn't far fetched either. Its being done in more than one place elsewhere. As I noted the vip Anfield experience is selling for 130 quid per match, times 25 home dates, that is 3250 quid per year...

I believe a naming rights deal along with the selling of premium club seats and executive boxes will more or less fund the financing of a new stadium in Liverpool. There won't be a millstone of long term debt as some fear, FSG is too smart to fall into that trap... Oh, there will be debt and a mortgage, but FSG will source revenues streams to pay off that debt. At the moment they are probably burning the midnight oil working how the club will pay off a new stadium...

With more commercialism of the sport, don't be surprised if the half time intermission is lengthened for a few more commercials. Or even a television break halfway through a half of playing time. Soccer isn't above commercialism and marketing. All it would take is SkySports to offer twice as much for such the FA would crater, probably less...

And if such happened, would the British fans take advantage of such tv breaks to shop at the kiosks and use the rest rooms and concessions? Even the folks watching at home may use a tv break to grab a beer from the refrigerator... There is an old saying, never say never...:cheers:

We do know when a club is losing by more than one goal towards the end of a match most of the fans depart early... So much for the golden rule...

I agree there will probably be more than 5k, 7.2k, or maybe as high as 10k club seats with a new stadium. This thought that the club would be overburdened with debt is false... We aren't building a single stand which would be easily financed through a bank, we are building a large new stadium which won't be easily financed through a bank. Thankfully, brand new stadiums have other revenues streams to corral to finance them.

You are ignoring several crucial factors. The first is affordability. The majority of a fans are not happy with prices, even as they are. It's a struggle - a lot of season-ticket sharing and lay-offs. The event is important to TV. No one wants to watch neutral opposition in a half-empty stadium. Occasion sells.

The game is a game of momentum, ebb and flow, pressure and release - not 10 yard chunks. It just isn't american football and it never will be. Never. This is the most popular game in the world. American stadia and the games for which they're designed [sic] gets a global audience once a year. Premiership football gets that every week and several times a week. No one's going to change that successful format just yet thanks.

The control on (the timing of) drinking in stadia drives fans into the pub. Most arrive at the latest possible moment to maximise pub time. Burger and Coke at half time or any time - no thanks. Betting? You wish. Debentures and other 'equity' - not a commercially affordable or ethically viable product. 'Buy a brick'? - jeez. Travel packages? - no effect on stadium design. Hospitality and Private Boxes? Great for a limited market. Supporting development? - dream on in Anfield/ Breckfield. Alternative events, conferences? proscribed by planning (in a new stadium). Government bonds? Sale and lease-back? Third-party development? Local Authority Subsidy? Central Government Grant? EU grant? Borrow against future TV rights? Mortgage the playing staff? Naming Rights? Sponsorships? Advertising? Been there, done all that. Fairy Godmother?

At the end of the day, a loan is a loan is a loan - even when it's an 'investment' (capital growth in football? - don't make me laugh).

How do we pay off a 'new' stadium? We spend the least possible amount by extending the existing stadium (it's worth 45,000 seats and £42m a year, debt-free). The alternative? £300m-£400m for an extra 15,000 seats - hilarious.

You need to understand the game, the ethos of the game and especially the economics of the game and its very particularly market ie., the local context (like every business). What works in the states does not and will not work here. In fact what we do here works really rather better here and most every other country in the world. FSG have had the sense to learn that lesson.

There is nothing to learn that we do not know already. Nothing. Fifth generation stadia? In-seat stats? swipe card betting? - do me a favour.

As for the golden rule - where were you in Istanbul?

You are ignoring several crucial factors. The first is affordability. The majority of a fans are not happy with prices, even as they are. It's a struggle - a lot of season-ticket sharing and lay-offs. The event is important to TV. No one wants to watch neutral opposition in a half-empty stadium. Occasion sells.

The game is a game of momentum, ebb and flow, pressure and release - not 10 yard chunks. It just isn't american football and it never will be. Never. This is the most popular game in the world. American stadia and the games for which they're designed [sic] gets a global audience once a year. Premiership football gets that every week and several times a week. No one's going to change that successful format just yet thanks.

The control on (the timing of) drinking in stadia drives fans into the pub. Most arrive at the latest possible moment to maximise pub time. Burger and Coke at half time or any time - no thanks. Betting? You wish. Debentures and other 'equity' - not a commercially affordable or ethically viable product. 'Buy a brick'? - jeez. Travel packages? - no effect on stadium design. Hospitality and Private Boxes? Great for a limited market. Supporting development? - dream on in Anfield/ Breckfield. Alternative events, conferences? proscribed by planning (in a new stadium). Government bonds? Sale and lease-back? Third-party development? Local Authority Subsidy? Central Government Grant? EU grant? Borrow against future TV rights? Mortgage the playing staff? Naming Rights? Sponsorships? Advertising? Been there, done all that. Fairy Godmother?

At the end of the day, a loan is a loan is a loan - even when it's an 'investment' (capital growth in football? - don't make me laugh).

How do we pay off a 'new' stadium? We spend the least possible amount by extending the existing stadium (it's worth 45,000 seats and £42m a year, debt-free). The alternative? £300m-£400m for an extra 15,000 seats - hilarious.

You need to understand the game, the ethos of the game and especially the economics of the game and its very particularly market ie., the local context (like every business). What works in the states does not and will not work here. In fact what we do here works really rather better here and most every other country in the world. FSG have had the sense to learn that lesson.

There is nothing to learn that we do not know already. Nothing. Fifth generation stadia? In-seat stats? swipe card betting? - do me a favour.

As for the golden rule - where were you in Istanbul?

Many of the partners of FSG have built new stadiums in the past as well as refurbished Fenway Park. The bulk of the 5k seats added to little Fenway Park are vip premium club seats. I wonder why?

Even with a redevelopment of Anfield club seats will be included. Certainly the bulk of any stadium will consist of seats for the average paying fan. It makes no sense financially to price out the average fan, but there will be a number of vip premium club seats as well...

Club seating generates so much revenues in the US, they sell out fast, even the older stadiums have back fitted them. Arsenal has 6k such premium seats and Brighton with their much smaller new stadium has sold out almost 3k. The same well-to-do folks and corporates who join country clubs are the same folks who buy vip premium club seats. Don't imply Liverpool is so poor they can't match Brighton. So its not a US vs UK thing whatsoever...

Until the price of a new stadium is finalized, don't pretend one may run as high as 400 million quid... Henry and Werner have recently said around 300 million quid, not once have they suggested as much as 400 million quid... I list facts, the opponents to a new stadium list falsehoods and myths...

Well, the old stadium isn't good enough for the 10 million or more per year for naming rights. Not to mention any redevelopment won't generate any more revenues than the additional seats of a new stadium either... Otherwise if the figures didn't pan out FSG wouldn't build a new stadium, would they? New stadiums and arenas are being built throughout the world. I wonder why if they aren't financially feasible?

Furthermore. when the new stadium or redevelopment is paid off, these revenue streams of club seats and executive boxes become pure profit... Keep in mind stadium naming rights can be sold again, although for not as much. Some stadiums have had their naming rights sold twice already... Its no different than changing shirt sponsorship...

Many of the partners of FSG have built new stadiums in the past as well as refurbished Fenway Park. The bulk of the 5k seats added to little Fenway Park are vip premium club seats. I wonder why?

Even with a redevelopment of Anfield club seats will be included. Certainly the bulk of any stadium will consist of seats for the average paying fan. It makes no sense financially to price out the average fan, but there will be a number of vip premium club seats as well...

Club seating generates so much revenues in the US, they sell out fast, even the older stadiums have back fitted them. Arsenal has 6k such premium seats and Brighton with their much smaller new stadium has sold out almost 3k. The same well-to-do folks and corporates who join country clubs are the same folks who buy vip premium club seats. Don't imply Liverpool is so poor they can't match Brighton. So its not a US vs UK thing whatsoever...

Until the price of a new stadium is finalized, don't pretend one may run as high as 400 million quid... Henry and Werner have recently said around 300 million quid, not once have they suggested as much as 400 million quid... I list facts, the opponents to a new stadium list falsehoods and myths...

Well, the old stadium isn't good enough for the 10 million or more per year for naming rights. Not to mention any redevelopment won't generate any more revenues than the additional seats of a new stadium either... Otherwise if the figures didn't pan out FSG wouldn't build a new stadium, would they? New stadiums and arenas are being built throughout the world. I wonder why if they aren't financially feasible?

Furthermore. when the new stadium or redevelopment is paid off, these revenue streams of club seats and executive boxes become pure profit... Keep in mind stadium naming rights can be sold again, although for not as much. Some stadiums have had their naming rights sold twice already... Its no different than changing shirt sponsorship...

Club seats, yes. No one disputes it - about 7,200 maybe but risky, maybe less (country clubs...!))))); cost of redevelopment, half whatever figure is real (FSG); current best UK stadium naming rights, £3.4m a year (Emirates 2002), unknown but perhaps £5m a year (Etihad 2011) - no matter how many times you sell them, you only ever get paid annually.

The world is different. What works one place doesn’t have to work in another. The only new club stadium of any stature in the UK opened in 2002 at a cost of £360m and has 60,000 seats and had some pretty lucrative residential property to sell to help pay for it.

It's been nice talking to you and everything but if you can’t grasp the fundamentals of difference between even towns in the same country... and BTW, FSG’s view of a new stadium - it's not financially feasible or rather, as ‘economically viable’ as a redevelopment. Seen any spades in the ground lately?

Club seats, yes. No one disputes it - about 7,200 maybe but risky, maybe less (country clubs...!))))); cost of redevelopment, half whatever figure is real (FSG); current best UK stadium naming rights, £3.4m a year (Emirates 2002), unknown but perhaps £5m a year (Etihad 2011) - no matter how many times you sell them, you only ever get paid annually.

The world is different. What works one place doesn’t have to work in another. The only new club stadium of any stature in the UK opened in 2002 at a cost of £360m and has 60,000 seats and had some pretty lucrative residential property to sell to help pay for it.

It's been nice talking to you and everything but if you can’t grasp the fundamentals of difference between even towns in the same country... and BTW, FSG’s view of a new stadium - it's not financially feasible or rather, as ‘economically viable’ as a redevelopment. Seen any spades in the ground lately?

At the moment FSG have almost given up any hope to redevelop Anfield and are making enquiries for naming rights. As Henry said, there are too many obstacles... The largest obstacle is getting a planning consent anytime soon, Henry went as far as saying it may never bear any fruit...

On the other hand FSG have a planning consent to build a new 60k seat stadium in Stanley Park. Actually two different stadium designs have been approved. Construction could commence as soon as the financing is sorted out... The key to financing is the before mentioned stadium naming rights. Both Werner and Henry have hinted a naming rights deal is very likely...

Frankly, LFC is a very strong brand, I don't see how LFC wouldn't get a strong naming rights partner. And as for club seating, its being done worldwide. Even today LFC is pushing their Anfield vip package on their website's front page. One would have to be blind not to see premium seating is in the cards for a LFC new stadium. The whole point of either redeveloping Anfield or building a new stadium is to increase revenues, not just to add more seats...

I haven't a clue when FSG will have the financing sorted, but a new stadium is very likely to be built long before there is any planning consent to redevelop Anfield... All one has to do is read how much difficulty and how long it took for Tottenham, Bristol, and Brighton to get their planning consents, much less Liverpool... Several years, not months or weeks... Everton's Kirkby plans were denied, called in... Bore no fruit...

With more commercialism of the sport, don't be surprised if the half time intermission is lengthened for a few more commercials. Or even a television break halfway through a half of playing time. Soccer isn't above commercialism and marketing. All it would take is SkySports to offer twice as much for such the FA would crater, probably less...

And if such happened, would the British fans take advantage of such tv breaks to shop at the kiosks and use the rest rooms and concessions? Even the folks watching at home may use a tv break to grab a beer from the refrigerator... :ohno: It will never happen There is an old saying, never say never...:cheers:

We do know when a club is losing by more than one goal towards the end of a match most of the fans depart early... So much for the golden rule... Really Not like the NFL to have fans leave near the end of the 3rd qtr

At the moment FSG have almost given up any hope to redevelop Anfield and are making enquiries for naming rights. As Henry said, there are too many obstacles... The largest obstacle is getting a planning consent anytime soon, Henry went as far as saying it may never bear any fruit...

On the other hand FSG have a planning consent to build a new 60k seat stadium in Stanley Park. Actually two different stadium designs have been approved. Construction could commence as soon as the financing is sorted out... The key to financing is the before mentioned stadium naming rights. Both Werner and Henry have hinted a naming rights deal is very likely...

Frankly, LFC is a very strong brand, I don't see how LFC wouldn't get a strong naming rights partner. And as for club seating, its being done worldwide. Even today LFC is pushing their Anfield vip package on their website's front page. One would have to be blind not to see premium seating is in the cards for a LFC new stadium. The whole point of either redeveloping Anfield or building a new stadium is to increase revenues, not just to add more seats...

I haven't a clue when FSG will have the financing sorted, but a new stadium is very likely to be built long before there is any planning consent to redevelop Anfield... All one has to do is read how much difficulty and how long it took for Tottenham, Bristol, and Brighton to get their planning consents, much less Liverpool... Several years, not months or weeks... Everton's Kirkby plans were denied, called in... Bore no fruit...

Do stop talking about club seating - no one is arguing with you.

EFC was called in because the supporting development needed to make it viable broke every policy in the regional planning book.

A redevelopment is half the cost of new. Naming rights will need to be £15m to £20m a year to make up the difference. Biggest in UK so far? £5m.

A new stadium is second best - just a bit of shiny; a dumb move. LFC settle for second best...? FSG dumb? Throw away £42m a year?? No

Everyone seems to forget there's no debt right now. No mate; there's no hurry.

Do stop talking about club seating - no one is arguing with you.

EFC was called in because the supporting development needed to make it viable broke every policy in the regional planning book.

A redevelopment is half the cost of new. Naming rights will need to be £15m to £20m a year to make up the difference. Biggest in UK so far? £5m.

A new stadium is second best - just a bit of shiny; a dumb move. LFC settle for second best...? FSG dumb? Throw away £42m a year?? No

Everyone seems to forget there's no debt right now. No mate; there's no hurry.

ManCity got close to 15m from the Sheik's brother, and Tottenham expects 10m+... Arsenal's deal was nearly ten years ago. I wonder how much shirt sponsorships have increased since? How much would you guess LFC's Stanley Park will get, surely more than 5m... MetLife bought the naming rights to the New York Giants/Jets new stadium at 18m for 25 years, 450m... While you may save 42m staying in Anfield, you aren't earning anymore either. And Henry noted, redeveloping may never bring any fruit... You forgot that...

Too many are using very conservative figures with naming rights, executive boxes, and premium seating, but are very negative with the figures of what a new stadium will cost... Clubs are getting far more for naming rights in the US than they did ten years ago. For a new stadium to work financially, the more the naming rights received the less the premium seating prices will most likely be... I am sure FSG will sort the figures before building a new stadium...

Another negative I have been reading is how the HKS design is a US football stadium... Sorry, there aren't any KOP ends with 18k seats which is larger than a side line stand... NOT ONE! Too many are chasing red herrings about huge parking lots and tail gate parties... Most US cities don't have the transit capacity as European cities. Furthermore, US weather is much nicer than British weather as its been noted the British go to pubs instead... But then again, there are also different liquor laws too...

US fans wish to sit as close to the action and have a good view as much as any British fan... The whole world does...

US fans wish to sit as close to the action and have a good view as much as any British fan... The whole world does...

Does that not get in the way of your utopian vision of fans going to the stadium for the sole purpose of constantly getting up to buy burgers and drinks? Hell, you even suggested the football authorities might want to introduce more stoppages during a game to allow clubs to take advantage of this.

Another negative I have been reading is how the HKS design is a US football stadium... Sorry, there aren't any KOP ends with 18k seats which is larger than a side line stand... NOT ONE! Too many are chasing red herrings about huge parking lots and tail gate parties... Most US cities don't have the transit capacity as European cities. Furthermore, US weather is much nicer than British weather as its been noted the British go to pubs instead... But then again, there are also different liquor laws too...

That's a bit flimsy. It's not the single-tiered Kop element of the HKS design that is causing many to claim it to be better suited to the NFL. It's the rest of the design elements that are better suited to the NFL. For example, as constantly pointed out to you, football fans only really leave their seat during a game if they are desperate to use the loo, or occasionally they want to buy some refreshments. There are no in-play lulls for them to take advantage of state-of-the-art catering facilities, and a lot of them would not want to. They want to see the game itself, and not have to stare at a video screen because their seat does not allow them to see the entire field of play.

I don't want to keep repeating myself, so I would suggest you do the same too.

I don't want to keep repeating myself, so I would suggest you do the same too.

Well said.


ManCity got close to 15m from the Sheik's brother, and Tottenham expects 10m+... Arsenal's deal was nearly ten years ago. I wonder how much shirt sponsorships have increased since? How much would you guess LFC's Stanley Park will get, surely more than 5m...... While you may save 42m staying in Anfield, you aren't earning anymore either. And Henry noted, redeveloping may never bring any fruit... You forgot that... .

The complete thrust of the statements made by the club is that it’s not worth spending £300m (their words) to £375m (latest known costs) to add 15,000 seats. They completely understand the value of the existing 45,000 seats at Anfield - it’s £42m a year. They also understand the value of a 60,000 seat Anfield - it’s the same as a new stadium (at half the cost)

On the naming rights issue. Stadium naming rights are exclusive of shirt deals and in City’s case, of naming rights for the Etihad campus - a £1bn development which is also separate. As I say, their estimated deal for the stadium is about £5m a year. What Tottenham hope for and what they might get could be two very different things.

LFC already have a ‘going rate’ shirt deal - about £21m a year. They wouldn’t be so dumb as to spend it on a stadium, new or redeveloped.

Liverpool granted stadium extension by City Council as they look to explore options

By Dominic King

Last updated at 10:00 PM on 25th September 2011

Comments (12)
Add to My Stories
Share

Liverpool have been granted another extension by Liverpool City Council as they continue to explore all options on the future of Anfield.

A deadline was set in July for Liverpool to announce by the end of this month whether they intend to take up the 999-year lease that would allow them to build a new ground on nearby Stanley Park, for which they have already been granted planning permission.

Liverpool have maintained, however, they will not be rushed on any decision, as revamping and expanding Anfield is also under consideration.
Extension: Liverpool will decide whether to redevelop Anfield or move to a new site

Extension: Liverpool will decide whether to redevelop Anfield or move to a new site

Council leader Joe Anderson had warned in July that the club’s delaying of an announcement was 'very frustrating'.

However talks have been on-going between the two parties and the council have been reassured that progress is being made.

Renovating Anfield was the original preferred choice of Liverpool’s American owners, Fenway Sports Group, but the cost of doing that is exorbitant.

A new build on Stanley Park would require Liverpool to find a partner to facilitate a lucrative naming rights deal.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2041676/Liverpool-granted-stadium-extension-City-Council-look-explore-options.html

i think a total new ground is more common nowadays that spend insane amount of £ in modernizing anfield

i think a total new ground is more common nowadays that spend insane amount of £ in modernizing anfield

But modernizing Anfield is half the cost!!!

But modernizing Anfield is half the cost!!!

We don't know the actual costs involved yet so that is speculation at best. In any case, modernizing Anfield will need more than just extending the existing stands. The pitch - and the space around the pitch - would need to be bigger (Anfield's pitch is just below regulation size) and to resolve this would mean either

1 - building an entirely new Main Stand and Anfield Road end. As already stated, Anfield in it's current layout makes around £42m a year for the club. While work is being carried out, that would fall sharply, unless any shortfall is made up by ripping off fans in the other stands. Plus, the atmosphere would also be affected by having smaller crowds whilst the work is going on.

2 - raising the height of the pitch level by a metre or two, which would also require removal of the first 5 rows (ish). The Main Stand needs a total overhaul if redeveloping Anfield is the chosen option, not just extending at the back. The access tunnels and the players' tunnel would also have to be revised accordingly to account for this change. Even if this project was started immediately after the last game at Anfield at the end of the season, I don't think the pitch would be ready in time for the new season.

Whichever way you look at it, it is an awful lot of work for a gain of only 15000 seats, and it also means there would be next to no chance of taking Anfield's capacity over 60000 at a later date, given how many problems the club has had in even trying to consider an expansion of Anfield. By taking this route, the club would again find itself in the same situation as it does right now, and if nothing else, there is no scope for a regeneration of the Anfield and Breckfield areas.

a totazl new ground please!

I hope americans won't be animated by frilosity and will understand the challenge of 21 century club of football as prestigious as our beloved LFC!

A whole new world is to built from zero and would generate more motivation than now!

We don't know the actual costs involved yet so that is speculation at best. In any case, modernizing Anfield will need more than just extending the existing stands. The pitch - and the space around the pitch - would need to be bigger (Anfield's pitch is just below regulation size) and to resolve this would mean either

1 - building an entirely new Main Stand and Anfield Road end. As already stated, Anfield in it's current layout makes around £42m a year for the club. While work is being carried out, that would fall sharply, unless any shortfall is made up by ripping off fans in the other stands. Plus, the atmosphere would also be affected by having smaller crowds whilst the work is going on.

2 - raising the height of the pitch level by a metre or two, which would also require removal of the first 5 rows (ish). The Main Stand needs a total overhaul if redeveloping Anfield is the chosen option, not just extending at the back. The access tunnels and the players' tunnel would also have to be revised accordingly to account for this change. Even if this project was started immediately after the last game at Anfield at the end of the season, I don't think the pitch would be ready in time for the new season.

Whichever way you look at it, it is an awful lot of work for a gain of only 15000 seats, and it also means there would be next to no chance of taking Anfield's capacity over 60000 at a later date, given how many problems the club has had in even trying to consider an expansion of Anfield. By taking this route, the club would again find itself in the same situation as it does right now, and if nothing else, there is no scope for a regeneration of the Anfield and Breckfield areas.

Ian Ayre has publicly confirmed the long-held expectation that a redevelopment would be half of the cost of a new stadium. He has also said that a redevelopment is more economically viable.

The Main stand can be completely overhauled underneath in the closed season and be ready for opening the next season when work would progress to extend the whole stand backwards. There would be no loss of income.

Raising the pitch by a metre (only) is awkward but preferable to the cost of rebuilding two whole stands. Obviously the loss of seats at the front is made up by the overall increase.

There’s two ways to look at further expansion. Either decide what’s right and build it or extend each stand to the max and progressively extend each stand. In either event (and for a new stadium too) the cost of the public transport infrastructure over 60k makes it hardly worthwhile.

Which ever way you look at it, it’s an awful lot less work and cost for the extra 15000 seats than building 60000 seats in a new stadium.

From the Mirror and the NESN website:

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-narrow-search-for-naming-rights-partner-on-new-stadium-down-to-three-global-firms-article808813.html

Naming rights could bring 150 million quid, not 100 million or 50 million...

FSG has narrowed naming rights partners to three global firms...

The new stadium cynics underestimate what naming rights will bring, and refuse to factor in what premium seating revenues will bring as well... Its always bottom line 25% increase in revenues when it could be as much as a 100% increase in revenues... even for only 15k more seats...

While a Liverpool new stadium's executive boxes and premium seating may not generate as much revenues as London Arsenal's Emirates Stadium, they will generate signficantly more revenues than the cynics admit... Such seating at the Emirates of 9k seats generates as much match day revenues as all of Highbury. Surely Liverpool will match those figures with a considerably larger stadium naming rights included...

From the Mirror and the NESN website:

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-narrow-search-for-naming-rights-partner-on-new-stadium-down-to-three-global-firms-article808813.html

Naming rights could bring 150 million quid, not 100 million or 50 million...

FSG has narrowed naming rights partners to three global firms...

The new stadium cynics underestimate what naming rights will bring, and refuse to factor in what premium seating revenues will bring as well... Its always bottom line 25% increase in revenues when it could be as much as a 100% increase in revenues... even for only 15k more seats...

While a Liverpool new stadium's executive boxes and premium seating may not generate as much revenues as London Arsenal's Emirates Stadium, they will generate signficantly more revenues than the cynics admit... Such seating at the Emirates of 9k seats generates as much match day revenues as all of Highbury. Surely Liverpool will match those figures with a considerably larger stadium naming rights included...

Thing is, the article is wrong. Arsenal's deal was £100m and included the shirts deal. Naming rights were just over £3m a year or about £55m for 15 years.

It's an old story. Just a rehash... nothing to see here.

Thing is, the article is wrong. Arsenal's deal was £100m and included the shirts deal. Naming rights were just over £3m a year or about £55m for 15 years.

It's an old story. Just a rehash... nothing to see here.

Yep, just a rehash. That articles also implies that Man City's naming rights deal for the Etihad Stadium represents market value. The truth is, Man City's owners have shrouded that deal in so much mystery that nobody can agree on what they've actually done as regards value. Also, it talks about a capacity of 70000 without even mentioning the need to invest in additional infrastructure, without which planning approval will never be gained. A poor and misleading article.

Any truth to the rumour that the club are looking to generate financing support by filming a movie?

The Red Sox gained a lot of publicity, Fenway Park a lot of visibility and the moviemakers pocketed $20 mil in profit when they remade Fever Pitch into a baseball movie.

Apparently they're in script development for a new Anfield-oriented flick called Indiana Jones and The Lost Perch.

Just goofing around on Sketchup. Not nearly finished. I still need to do the roof, luxury boxes and the outside of it. Bash away... :tongue2:

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/7678/liverpoolidea1.jpg
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9233/liverpoolidea2.jpg
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2731/liverpoolidea3.jpg
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7677/liverpoolidea4.jpg

^^San Siro clone?

^^San Siro clone?

Not really LOL It looks ok but will have to seen the final design

Congrats! The best Liverpool design by now. Love it!

The Kop stand should be as steep a possible resulting to be higher than the other stands.

http://http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/427AnfieldStadium(new)_pic1.jpg

Very good. Obviously the Kop could be a bit bigger.

70,000+ ?

interesting except those too big pillars

Very nice design, though I agree the corner pillars are a bit too large. I also think the stands ought to be closer to the pitch.

Congrats! The best Liverpool design by now. Love it!
Haha - I thought the very same thing. The KSS design was soooo crappy. This one may seem funny and weird at first, but to me it works so far, congrats!

^^San Siro clone?

I can see where you'd see that, I guess. But they (pillars) will be 'muted' down, somewhat, or less prominent, once I get to the roofing and the outside and get a little more integration happening.

The Kop is about 85 rows, but when I add rows closer to the pitch on the four sides that number will increase by a few.

And yeah, I have no idea as to what the capacity would be. I can't afford the kind of software it takes to do something really detailed, like individual seats.

And thanks to those for the compliments. I'll post some pics later as I get further along.

EDIT: I brought the stands closer to the pitch. I cut the old distance down by half. I wanted to strike the right balance between closeness and the folks behind them having a clean look at everything without bad sightlines. It added about 5 more rows at the midpoint of all four sides (Making the Kop about 90 rows).

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/3742/liverpoolidea5.jpg

That's a cracking effort there! I'll be interested to see how you finish it off, far more standout than any official ones I have seen, and any stadium Liverpool leave Anfield for should be spectacular and very unique.

Better.

But as I told you, make the Kop more steep, then it is more prominent and will merge with the upper tier.

The other thing, are 4 entrances really needed nowadays?

As I said before, it looks very good. However, I noticed you put the Kop on the wrong side of the Main Stand (the one with the player's tunnel). It should really be to the right of the player's tunnel, not the left. Also, you don't need large tunnels in all 4 corners. I would remove the 2 on the left side of the above picture and fill those corners with seats. Perhaps turning both corners into disabled areas suitable for wheelchair users might be an option.

nice design, kinda weird 'cause I just started working on a new anfield on sketchup last night! :)

As I said before, it looks very good. However, I noticed you put the Kop on the wrong side of the Main Stand (the one with the player's tunnel). It should really be to the right of the player's tunnel, not the left. Also, you don't need large tunnels in all 4 corners. I would remove the 2 on the left side of the above picture and fill those corners with seats. Perhaps turning both corners into disabled areas suitable for wheelchair users might be an option.

Now, you mean after I move the tunnel to the other side, fill in both corners on that same side? I was thinking of just keeping both tunnels flanking the Kop to keep it somewhat, well, not segregated, but I guess the better term would be distinct from the other three sections of the stadium.

Werkself, I can raise the Kop higher, bit it is already 32 meters (105 feet) high. I can get it a little higher, but I don't want it being too steep of a climb.

[B]Now, you mean after I move the tunnel to the other side, fill in both corners on that same side?

Exactly. The Main Stand would have access tunnels at either end, and the other 2 corners can be removed.

I was thinking of just keeping both tunnels flanking the Kop to keep it somewhat, well, not segregated, but I guess the better term would be distinct from the other three sections of the stadium.

The tunnels are a bit too prominent and make it look too open. Very similar to Wembley in that regard. The Kop doesn't really need to be completely seperate from the other 3 stands, it just needs to be incorporated as a single-tier structure to maintain the oneness. The original standing Kop used to curve round and adjoin the other stands.

As an aside, I'm interested to see how you'll design a roof for this stadium.

Werkself, I can raise the Kop higher, bit it is already 32 meters (105 feet) high. I can get it a little higher, but I don't want it being too steep of a climb.
Why? That would turn the kop to a high fanwall, present over all other stand. Steep is more thrilling especially for a supportarea. :banana:

Been busy at work, but I've managed to fill in the corners and decrease the width of the remaining access tunnels, hopefully making them less prominent. Switched the player's access tunnel to the other side, along with the press/broadcast booth. Getting to work on the Kop now.

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/7646/liverpoolidea6.jpg

Been busy at work, but I've managed to fill in the corners and decrease the width of the remaining access tunnels, hopefully making them less prominent. Switched the player's access tunnel to the other side, along with the press/broadcast booth. Getting to work on the Kop now.

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/7646/liverpoolidea6.jpg

Cracking effort again, but you've left the wrong 2 tunnels in place! It's the opposite corners to the above that should be seated over. My reasoning being that the 2-tier stand opposite the Kop would house the away support in that corner, and having a tunnel in that corner would also provide a convenient segregation barrier between home and away fans. I guess I'm just trying to visualise the current Anfield arrangement in a more modern structure. Ultimately it is your work so you should see fit to interpret it your way.

Cracking effort again, but you've left the wrong 2 tunnels in place! It's the opposite corners to the above that should be seated over. My reasoning being that the 2-tier stand opposite the Kop would house the away support in that corner, and having a tunnel in that corner would also provide a convenient segregation barrier between home and away fans. I guess I'm just trying to visualise the current Anfield arrangement in a more modern structure. Ultimately it is your work so you should see fit to interpret it your way.

lol. Okay, to avoid further confusion, I've numbered the corners. Just name the two that should be tunnels.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/8107/liverpoolidea7.jpg

lol. Okay, to avoid further confusion, I've numbered the corners. Just name the two that should be tunnels.

Haha great! OK, corners 1 and 2 should be tunnels, 3 and 4 can be covered with seating. That way, corner 2 will have a tunnel which helps with segregation of away fans who are seated at that end.

Last post for a while. I'll finish the interior first before posting again, as the roof will begin to limit visibility with the aerials. Switched the tunnels to the proper side and raised the Kop another 6 meters, or 20 feet. That's about as far as I go! :tongue2:

http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/4036/liverpoolidea8.jpg

Last post for a while. I'll finish the interior first before posting again, as the roof will begin to limit visibility with the aerials. Switched the tunnels to the proper side and raised the Kop another 6 meters, or 20 feet. That's about as far as I go! :tongue2:

Good work again mate. Understandably you want to take a break from it for a while as it's clearly a time-consuming exercise. Be interesting to see how a roof works with this.

That design lends itself, naturally, to a very San Siro esque roof. However, that would leave it very open, and i'm not convinced that would be well suited to the Liverpool climate, so very curious to see the end result. So far, far superior to ANY official render i've saw the club come out with.

any news on this one? Liverpool fans must do something on this.

No idea what the latest is, but like others, I wish something would actually happen.

Think the race is between Liverpool and Spurs to stay in the same stadium for the longest of time.

Think the race is between Liverpool and Spurs to stay in the same stadium for the longest of time.

Tell me about it! :ohno:

My money would definitely be on Spurs to move out before Liverpool though. I havent followed the new LFC stadium in detail but last I heard they were no closer to a decision (or even design) than they were 2-3 years ago.
THFC on the other hand seem to have everything virtually in place (bar official announcements) and have begun clearing the site next door. Most of us have a pretty good idea of the design, capacity...even naming rights and with Spurs due to de list from the market in January we all are hopeful of construction begining in 2012. Can LFC say the same? I wish them well in any case...would be great to see 2 great new builds in the PL.

http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/4036/liverpoolidea8.jpg
Fantastic work! Can´t wait to see this with a roof. Great job ;)

Any news from anyone on the new stadium? all gone quiet dont you think??? or have i missed something..

Am I mistaken from what I caught so far if I say it is pointless to think of any stadium bigger than 60,000+ as long as there is no traffic/transit solution, i.e. building a Railway Station.
I've spent reading posts all day and I heard some interesting arguments about the Liverpool area lacking investment and it'd be not feasible to reactivate the freight lines that were once up in debate..

As I am from abroad, can anybody enlighten me what is planned for the vicinity infrastructure? Is the City Council willing to provide funds/investing in the infrastructure (e.g. an underpass of old Anfield Road for a smooth transition of Plaza to Kop Entrance square?, a surrounding street link from Anfield to Priory Rd for easing traffic ?)
Is there a chance of underground parking and/or facility vehicle access directly under the ground?

Would the car park at Stanley Park be included or rebuilt. Have officials tried to find solutions or made suggestions to solve infrastructural problems of the area there, because this is the absolute key factor to me when it comes to stadia in general, also to provide a constant attendance/revenue.

It is obscure and yet fascinating from an outer perspective as here in Germany, well we are too meticulous to begin with, you wouldn't even receive any building license for any sort of expansion on Anfield, given the tight surrender, traffic situation, lack of evacuation/escape possibilities or fire control/prevention - I do understand this certainly makes the atmosphere and magic of the site, but even if Anfield was redeveloped all of those aspects would have to be considered, hence imho it is only reasonable and viable to build from scratch (besides comfort/corporate facility),
despite the new responsible authorities claiming an Anfield redevelopment would be the better option in financial aspects - in the end it'd be only provisional patchwork construction and not a true redevelopment.

Further, Anfield Plaza seems to be the right thing for the district to give it an urban upgrade, loftiness and attraction..

What is the local political opinion about this? Or even the opinion of the community?

On other terms, are you serious by saying that LFC would have to stem all the costs when aiming to build a railway station, e.g. Stanley Park Avenue and connect it to the Merseyrail? How can a striving city such as Liverpool not take the chance to invest into this?

MarqueeMoon.

There has already been alot of funds sidelined from the government for the redevelopment of the area around the stadium, however there are alot of roumers that the Liverpool Council favour a shared stadium. This has been mooted around for years with the blind die hard opposing the idea and the more liberal fans agreeing that the shared stadium would be great for both clubs and the city on a whole.

I favour a move to Speke, Liverpools great history is exactly that, its History its in the past the club has to move on. Speke has everything you need, Rail Road and Air travel is accomodated for such a development not to mention that there is loads of land available for development.

I know people say that Anfield is our heritage, its were we belong but the council have not helped with CPO and the rightfully the residents shouldnt be forced out of their homes. I feel that there are too many factors against staying at Anfield and as a group of fans and the club the sooner we accept that the long term future of our club is away from Anfiled the better.

Also in my opinion I am yet to see any stadium design that makes me think yes, that the home of the countires most succesful club, we need to appoint Herzog de Meuron to come up with the best stadium imaginable, we then need to find the cash to build it..

MarqueeMoon.

There has already been alot of funds sidelined from the government for the redevelopment of the area around the stadium, however there are alot of roumers that the Liverpool Council favour a shared stadium. This has been mooted around for years with the blind die hard opposing the idea and the more liberal fans agreeing that the shared stadium would be great for both clubs and the city on a whole.

I favour a move to Speke, Liverpools great history is exactly that, its History its in the past the club has to move on. Speke has everything you need, Rail Road and Air travel is accomodated for such a development not to mention that there is loads of land available for development.

I know people say that Anfield is our heritage, its were we belong but the council have not helped with CPO and the rightfully the residents shouldnt be forced out of their homes. I feel that there are too many factors against staying at Anfield and as a group of fans and the club the sooner we accept that the long term future of our club is away from Anfiled the better.

Also in my opinion I am yet to see any stadium design that makes me think yes, that the home of the countires most succesful club, we need to appoint Herzog de Meuron to come up with the best stadium imaginable, we then need to find the cash to build it..

Weren't Everton getting a public roasting and potential political opposition for proposing to move to Speke(it had been mooted before the Kirkby proposal)? What would exempt Liverpool from similar criticism?

Would the current PR/image crisis at Liverpool have any affect on Liverpool's search for a stadium sponsor?

First you have a guy, who's already being viewed as a bit of a bad actor for biting a player and numerous on-field cheating incidents, being convicted of and suspended for racially abusing a rival player, then giving fans a very public finger earning another suspension. Next, you have an opposing player being loudly and roundly racially abused by a Liverpool fan at Anfield. Then you have on-going criticism from all quarters on what's being perceived as mis-guided support for a racist by the attitudes and actions of the players and manager.

And now you have a Liverpool player charged with assault for allegedly punching his ex-girlfriend in a bar spat.

Hardly the sort of image you'd want to parade to a potentially huge corporation if you're looking to convince one that's it's a great deal to spend hundreds of millions sponsoring Liverpool and/or its stadium.

Is this the sort of image the good people of Speke want for their community?

Weren't Everton getting a public roasting and potential political opposition for proposing to move to Speke(it had been mooted before the Kirkby proposal)? What would exempt Liverpool from similar criticism?

Regarding the stumbling blocks Everton faced, I cannot really comment because I don't follow Everton's fortunes unless it involves Liverpool too.

Would the current PR/image crisis at Liverpool have any affect on Liverpool's search for a stadium sponsor?

First you have a guy, who's already being viewed as a bit of a bad actor for biting a player and numerous on-field cheating incidents, being convicted of and suspended for racially abusing a rival player, then giving fans a very public finger earning another suspension. Next, you have an opposing player being loudly and roundly racially abused by a Liverpool fan at Anfield. Then you have on-going criticism from all quarters on what's being perceived as mis-guided support for a racist by the attitudes and actions of the players and manager.

And now you have a Liverpool player charged with assault for allegedly punching his ex-girlfriend in a bar spat.

Hardly the sort of image you'd want to parade to a potentially huge corporation if you're looking to convince one that's it's a great deal to spend hundreds of millions sponsoring Liverpool and/or its stadium.

Is this the sort of image the good people of Speke want for their community?

This is a stadium thread so your above points aren't of real relevance. Nor are they accurate, clouded as they are by the dreadful manner in which the whole thing has been reported by the UK media.

There's chapter and verse I could write about the racism issue and the manner in which it has been handled and reported, but this isn't the place for it. Your comment on Downing is also wholly inaccurate and I feel has been informed by baseless rumours on the likes of Twitter.

In the past few years (and the last 6 months in particular) it has become evident that the UK media is not about reporting the news but rather shaping it to suit their wider agenda. And the people are swallowing it whole because they are less and less inclined to look at things properly. They'd rather be fed an opinion to follow blindly like sheep, than have to think for themselves.

I still like the first project

@Karl Duvall,

I heard about the rumours of a stadium share, I would never suggest a shared option, here in my hometown Munich it didn't work out at all, unlike it is widely spread over there. What it's all about is basically that Bayern's local rival 1860 is way smaller (unlike Everton), when the consulting and planning was done they were still playing Bundesliga, then got relegated and didn't manage to get back up since then. 1860 used to have quite a cult homeground just like Anfield, but more rotten as there hasn't been done anything to it for the past 40 years, why I say like Anfield is, because it is also in a residential area and yet tightly connected to their quarter, but even further restricted due to an even smaller footprint and two major roads constraining it. There are hardliners who never wanted to move in with Bayern, the whole fan community is at dispute since that move. Bayern meantime bought their shares back and have become TSV 1860 Munich's landlords, as their financial management has been disastrous the past decade ending up in a take-over by Germany's first external investor just literally a week before they were to run into bankruptcy.

When Bayern wanted to move, the idea was to at least get 85,000, which would be no effort at all to fill on a regular, as with a capacity of hardly 70,000 every match is sold out and tickets are gone months in advance. But having had them in the boat, which was the council's condition to pass the allowance it had to be reduced to 66,000 at first, nor could we give personal touches to our ground like red seats, stand lettering etc. - so whenever people say the Allianz Arena looks a bit dull that is vastly the reason behind that interior look. But from a football stadium quality standpoint everything was done right by Herzog de Meuron, FC Bayern's intention was from the first thought to create a Bernabeu/San Siro type of a football stadium adopted to modern age (not allowed to build that steep anymore) and christ it's not a bowl as so many post in LFC forums, sightlines are brilliant even from top row. So yes, I believe Herzog de Meuron built clearly the best modern stadia as they also combine the aspect of "urban icon"-architecture, when approaching from the North, Allianz is like a gate and once you see it lighting from the distance you know you're home. On site, there are prime seats, but not in an Arsenal way, it's pretty fan friendly, the whole opposite sideline stand's best seats are for purchase to "regular fans".

So the location you mentioned sounds quite interesting and could be pivotal to realise best revenue for LFC, your points are valid, but yet isn't it nearly impossible to push it through when most people already having literally a problem just moving across the road, to the other side of Anfield? (Compare it to TSV 1860, their efforts to redevelop were rejected by the municipal administration due to lacking feasibility and its centre location, they're homeless).
Part of the success of Allianz Arena is its location, as dull as it once again may look from the outside at first glimpse. it's right on a key traffic point, connected to three major highways (Autobahn to Nuremberg/Berlin, Salzburg/Austria/Italy, Stuttgart), has 10,000 parking lots and its own tube station (20 min. from Central Station)- Just like LFC we do have a big amount of day travelers from far and everywhere. Infrastructure is so important (take a look at Old Trafford or Arsenal's ground), the former could even include their own in-stand-train station like Ajax once they expand the South Stand. Somehow it seems many Liverpooldians seem to undervalue that aspect... when dreaming of 70k+ solutions etc.

So can only highly suggest Herzog & de Meuron...even the redevelopment of St. Jakob Park, their first ground at Basel/Switzerland looks perfect and full of creativity (if it must be refurb, let them even do the job). They know how to build a ground, unlike HKS' American football dome, as fancy as it looks, LFC need a proper football ground, closed corners. Their only good thing was the massive Kop, a shrewd eyewash to lure the sceptic supporters.

Very interesting posts MarqueeMoon.

First and foremost a shared stadium with Everton will never work. There are many examples of teams right across Europe with previous histories of sharing municipal stadiums who now want to go they're separate ways in order to maximise match/non match day revenues.Roma/ Lazio and Inter/Ac Milan have expressed interest in they're own new stadium projects.Why Liverpool and Everton would even consider sharing a stadium would be beyond me and thats without even considering the tribal and local rival issues which despite what Karl Duvall says is very prevalent.

I'm not sure what the best solution is for Liverpool Fcs current predicament as i dont know the ins and outs, although I am airing on the side of a redeveloped mainstand and annie rd for nostalgic reasons :) What I do know though is that things need to happen soon either way.

Not happy with this development if true, but I've not seen any confirmation of this anywhere else, and there are no quotes in the article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9019171/Liverpool-opt-for-original-Stanley-Park-stadium-plan-to-replace-Anfield-after-rejecting-futuristic-design.html

Liverpool opt for original Stanley Park stadium plan to replace Anfield after rejecting futuristic design

By Chris Bascombe
11:00PM GMT 16 Jan 2012

Liverpool have decided to proceed with their original, nine-year-old stadium plans once they have secured the finance to start construction.

That means the alternative, futuristic stadium designs proposed by former owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jnr have been ditched for good.

It also ensures there will be no fresh planning application required by the current American owners to restart construction once a lucrative naming rights package is in place.

Fenway Sports Group has been working with Manchester-based architects AFL, the firm which first submitted designs when Liverpool announced their intention to move to Stanley Park as far back as 2000.

It is these proposals, which were put forward for planning permission in 2003 and given the green light a year later, which will become the blueprint for a new 60,000-seat stadium costing around £300 million.

The club must still find the finance to kick-start the scheme, and there is no immediate prospect of work beginning, but AFL’s return to preferred status is another significant twist in the seemingly never-ending saga of Liverpool’s ground move.

The AFL plans were first introduced by former chief executive Rick Parry but were abandoned by Hicks and Gillett shortly after their ill-fated takeover in 2006.

Hicks scrapped the original designs in favour of those he commissioned from a Dallas-based architecture firm, HKS.

The £400 million costs of the second scheme effectively triggered the beginning of the end of the old regime, as Hicks and Gillett could not raise the funds to build it.

It also led to the first major split of the old boardroom, as the plans were seen as too expensive and impractical.

Now Hicks’ grand scheme has been permanently shelved with FSG deciding it will modernise and upgrade the first set of designs.

Since buying the club, John W Henry has worked through a variety of options to establish how to solve Liverpool’s enduring stadium problem.

Henry originally wanted to redevelop Anfield, but after a year of toil working through the planning issues, and the cost of buying nearby residential properties, it was accepted this was not feasible.

FSG has also explored whether to commission new stadium plans, but the time and cost restraint also made that a non-starter.

Liverpool have planning permission for two designs.

If the club submitted a third to Liverpool City Council, it could delay the process by another three years and there could be no guarantee they would be passed, especially given a political fervour to maintain a dialogue with Everton on the controversial issue of a groundshare.

It would be an incredibly risky strategy for FSG to start from scratch.

Liverpool still need to raise around £150 million in sponsorship — around half the costs – before they can start building any arena, but having decided which course to take there will be fewer obstacles in their way if a naming rights package can be secured in the near future.

That in itself remains a difficulty given economic conditions.

The single, desirable legacy of the Hicks and Gillett era was the fact they actually began preparatory work on Stanley Park prior to having to bring it to a halt when they failed to secure investment.

That means technically, and legally, construction of a stadium is considered to have already started by the council.

This has enabled the new owners to avoid missing out on any deadlines to complete a project.

Liverpool City Council is also eager for the club to make progress as soon as possible, so have not issued time constraints.

Some Liverpool fans may be worried that plans nearly 10 years old, which were publicly criticised by Hicks as being ‘out of date’ five years ago, are being given a facelift.

However, Liverpool believe Hicks’s criticism was always unwarranted and the AFL plans — inspired in part by the Millennium Stadium in Wales — were also impressive.

Although the club are limited in terms of altering how the arena will look, its size and the space it will fill from the accepted designs, there is still plenty of capacity to upgrade the interiors to modern standards.

Any suggestion the nine-year-old architects’ plan is out of date will be dismissed by the owners, who recognise AFL’s vast portfolio in stadium design.

The firm is responsible for recent upgrades at Old Trafford and the Nou Camp, and built the Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea and Everton training complexes.

1rts design?

The one with 4 pillars and giant picks?

1rts design?

The one with 4 pillars and giant picks?

Yep!

http://www.afl-uk.com/ukconsortia/images/projects/FirstGenAnfield/large/firstgen_main_large.jpg

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/liverpoolecho/jan2012/9/1/anfiueld-stadium-plans-image-2-731042704.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02111/new-anfield_2111347i.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02111/NEW-ANFIELD2_2111434i.jpg

To me a great decision!

the best design .I prefer it than the giant football us style i 've seen form the 2nd version.

That design didn't include a Kop, did it?

As far as i know it has.

But the other one was unique :( and bigger :)

But the other one was unique :( and bigger :)

Yeah, and looking at the roof structure of this design, well, you just know that expansion would be a nightmare.

Interesting twist. While I'm not surprised they might opt for a cheaper version to begin I am taken aback that they might forego the design that lent itself to expansion. Done right I think we all know the Reds could fill 70k on a regular basis, even if that last 10k isn't of the highest profit margin.

As for the formal design I'm sure we'll also see further tweaks and evolving details, even if this is the final general form. Surely they'll have some form of Kop end or risk alienating fans and sacrificing their very soul! Overall though it's not poor, merely unoriginal. Especially if the Spurs ever see their dream realized.

60k is the better solution to create a huge demand and then increasing tickets prices.

This design will never be built the fan's hate it.

As for the formal design I'm sure we'll also see further tweaks and evolving details, even if this is the final general form. Surely they'll have some form of Kop end or risk alienating fans and sacrificing their very soul! Overall though it's not poor, merely unoriginal. Especially if the Spurs ever see their dream realized.
Surely they will update it but please could you say how does this stadium resemble what Spurs are doing? :) If any, the Jose Alvalade may be named as a similar stadium design...

No, it would be the one with the mini Wembley arch...the "revised new generation anfield" including a single-tier Kop..aka The Emirates II

The only thing I like is the concourse area/square around it and hopefully sourrounding street from Priory to Anfield.
I think they will not really care whether most fans "hate" this, planning a new scheme and handing it to the Liverpool council could postpone the construction for another two years.

http://aflarch.demonweb.co.uk/projects.php?action=showProject&catID=43&projectID=227

http://aflarch.demonweb.co.uk/files/projects/large/c4c.jpg

^^ The link to the AFL site says that version is for 72,000, whilst the other AFL design was for 60,000, which is the one mentioned in the most recent news article. Statement from the club is needed ASAP.

Surely they will update it but please could you say how does this stadium resemble what Spurs are doing? :) If any, the Jose Alvalade may be named as a similar stadium design...And Emirates, Estadio da luz and other smaller versions. They're all slight variations on the same theme, which is predominantly an oval footprint to accommodate a wavy top tier. Most feature the prime seating in between the major tiers of general seating. Either of the two Stanley Park plans shown here mimics the site plan of those, including the proposed New White hart Lane. While the latter has a mettalic cladding and no towers, the overall form of the interior and shape of the roof would be very similar.

I'm not saying they're identical twins all, but the category of design scheme is clearly the same.

No, it would be the one with the mini Wembley arch...the "revised new generation anfield" including a single-tier Kop..aka The Emirates II This is what I would assume. They'll need to do something soon and within budget, but they also have to "get it right" enough so as to maximize their return on investment, too. If this were an average club they could afford more leeway, but not so Liverpool, and not so regarding a move from Anfield.

Hmmm...

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/1564/c11ak.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/35/c11ak.jpg/)

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/4221/britainsoccertottenhamn.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/59/britainsoccertottenhamn.jpg/)

The interior of the 72k plan looks remarkably similar to the interior of the proposed new WHL actually.

http://www.spurs-web.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/newwhl001.jpg

http://aflarch.demonweb.co.uk/files/projects/large/c11a.jpg

Woah. That was a bit weird.

I prefer how the corners have been done in the Anfield one, with them being angled off. I think it creates a better transition from the single tier to three than is done at New WHL.

I prefer how the corners have been done in the Anfield one, with them being angled off. I think it creates a better transition from the single tier to three than is done at New WHL.

But the transition of the upper tier main stand "wings" to the corners looks slightly odd on their virtual New Anfield scheme...don't you think?

I am loving the design. Think WHL's design and this will not be the same. Will they put any new developments on that park land or just leave it has grass?

Much prefer this design.

http://i1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb477/tommygunn6/liv2.jpg

http://i1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb477/tommygunn6/c10a.jpg

d7R2wZC6OkI

Not so bad looking on the inside!

http://www.newanfield.co.uk/8big.jpg

You can see that it looks alot more different to the emirates,wembley and so on, the stands arnt continuous right around, they look alot more seperate!

i don't like the copy of Arch wembley in the 70k version.

and for the 1st design where will they put the giant screenboard? not the smallthing i see in the corner i hope ?!

60k is too "small" for LFC. a 65k version at least would had been better

Not so bad looking on the inside!

http://www.newanfield.co.uk/8big.jpg

You can see that it looks alot more different to the emirates,wembley and so on, the stands arnt continuous right around, they look alot more seperate!

At least it looks like it gets plenty of light... and air... so the grass pitch will be more like the Emirates than the Millennium Stadium....

Booorn in the U.S.Aaa :D
http://videos.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/lfcstadium250108b.jpg

http://videos.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/lfcstadium250108c.jpg

^^ I still think that interior is a mess. It looks like an afterthought with the exterior being the highest priority. I am all for asymmetry if it looks as good as say Soldierfield or Camden Yard in the US but that just looks completely incoherent and ugly. Gives me a headache just looking at it.

60k is too "small" for LFC. a 65k version at least would had been better

I agree. :uh: An initial capacity of 65,000, but with the ability to extend it to 75,000 would be ideal for a club like Liverpool. I really hope they don't end up in a situation like Arsenal, which is to build a new stadium that's going to be a nightmare to increase the capacity.

Much prefer this design.

http://i1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb477/tommygunn6/liv2.jpg

http://i1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb477/tommygunn6/c10a.jpg

I also like this design. I think it would be better than the HKS design. So what is the stall on a new stadium getting built?

I also like this design. I think it would be better than the HKS design. So what is the stall on a new stadium getting built?

The severe lack of this. ;)

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/4004/pileenglishmoney.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/715/pileenglishmoney.jpg/)

The future? :dunno:

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/8780/18402132.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/832/18402132.jpg/)

That looks to much like Emirates Stadium.

I agree. :uh: An initial capacity of 65,000, but with the ability to extend it to 75,000 would be ideal for a club like Liverpool. I really hope they don't end up in a situation like Arsenal, which is to build a new stadium that's going to be a nightmare to increase the capacity.

I remember reading something about Arsenal's options for future expansion a while back. My memory is a little hazy, but IIRC, Arsenal installed larger-than-normal seats in the upper and lower tiers to reach the current capacity. Whether they'd need further planning consent or whether they already have it in place I'm not sure, but, when the need arises, they could replace these seats with 'normal' ones, thus increasing the capacity in each row, and therefore increase stadium capacity without any need to alter the stadium's footprint or height. As I say, I'm far from certain that I have it 100% correct.

As for Liverpool's new stadium, I'm told that AFL are currently working on a revised design of their original plans. Not the design they tendered back in 2007 against the HKS design, but a slight update on the interior of the so-called 'Parry Bowl'. To me, that sounds like it will look much closer to the designs somebody posted on this thread a couple of months ago. I'll wait and see.

Booorn in the U.S.Aaa :D
http://videos.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/lfcstadium250108b.jpg

http://videos.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpoolecho/lfcstadium250108c.jpg

the design was so ...rubbish that i asked myself if the guys have seen a european football match in their life

the design was so ...rubbish that i asked myself if the guys have seen a european football match in their life

The HKS design is imo infinitely better than any of the other proposals.

The 1st AFL design is a bad cross between the Reebok stadium and the José Alvalade. It has virtually no unique feature and now looks very outdated. It would be heartbreaking if a club of liverpools stature were to go down this route.

The 2nd proposal is nearly just as bad.What is it with AFL?Do they want every football club to have the same premium/corporate layout. Again no imagination. Just rejig an existing design namely the Emirates and the Estadio da luz and lob a single tier with little thought of integration with the rest of the stadium.

Jose Anfield Alvelade Stadium
http://www.newanfield.co.uk/afl-anfield-2012.jpg

http://www.newanfield.co.uk/AFL_priory_rd_entrance.jpg

http://www.newanfield.co.uk/afl_inside_large.jpg

http://www.newanfield.co.uk/afl_outside_fans_close_up.jpg


BTW, the old 55,000 Version (without corners)
http://www.sports-venue.info/sitebuilder/images/Stanley_Park_2-458x299.jpg

http://leningrad62.narod.ru/Stadium/NewStadium_04_400x223.jpg

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=164525.0;attach=104600;image



There was also a 70,000 Version
http://leningrad62.narod.ru/Stadium/newstadium_001.jpg

http://leningrad62.narod.ru/Stadium/newstadium_002.jpg

Out of all three designs my favourite was the US one as I felt it was closer to our current stadium, but I know they have scrapped this..

Out of the 2 remaining AFL designs I reckon the wembley arch version is superior in both looks and also capacity. I wouldn't really understand why LFC would want to spend so much money on just 15,000 extra seats by building the smaller design, when for relatively little more they could get to 72k+..

Does anyone know yet for sure which of the 2 AFL designs have been chosen? Also whether the large one has planning permission, or whether it would be hard to get planning permission?

^^ The 60,000 one:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2003/10/08/this-is-anfield-100252-13492916/

If you believe the rumours, then it's the first AFL design they're updating. Whether any of this is true remains to be seen until the club gives a statement on the situation.

The new stadium designs look great well better than the new shirts LOL

https://twitter.com/#!/search/%22Warrior%20Sports%22/slideshow/photos?url=https%3A%2F%2Fp.twimg.com%2FAjXwCMgCAAA7UdL.jpg

I think of Team China when i see that.

The design of the new stadium is fabulous, but in my opinion does not resemble anything to anfield, hopefully with the new stadium and not get lost mystical tradition that has always been to play at Anfield. Why not renew anfield? This new stadium will be located at a site different and distant .. I'm scared about the future. COME ON REDS!

The design of the new stadium is fabulous, but in my opinion does not resemble anything to anfield, hopefully with the new stadium and not get lost mystical tradition that has always been to play at Anfield. Why not renew anfield? This new stadium will be located at a site different and distant .. I'm scared about the future. COME ON REDS!

No need to fear on that one, as the new stadium site is here:

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/9726/88464735.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/88464735.jpg/)

According to the article below, a single-tier Kop would be included. Basically, the first design AFL did (the 60,000 one), but would now include a Kop:

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/769/anfielde.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/171/anfielde.jpg/)

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/sport/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2012/01/19/new-liverpool-fc-stadium-would-include-single-tier-kop-99623-30151994/

Actually the first design had a single tier KOP.

KOP
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/367/kopelevir6.jpg/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/148/stanfg2.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/386/northelelc8.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/223/southelev2tm5.jpg/

the first design doesnt have a KOP, wont go down with the faithfull

@ sercan. Are you talking about the 55,000 version, or the 60,000 one? All the renders/video clips I've seen for the 60,000 version (the one that was granted permission) show the two end stands to be the same.

None of these designs catch the spirit of the Anfield nor are those proper football venues. Anfield should be boxy (not round) and close to the field with a Kop at least equal to Dortmund or Kaiserslautern. British totally lost the spirit of football. :ohno:

The new stadium designs look great well better than the new shirts LOL

https://twitter.com/#!/search/%22Warrior%20Sports%22/slideshow/photos?url=https%3A%2F%2Fp.twimg.com%2FAjXwCMgCAAA7UdL.jpg

Those aren't the new shirts.

Actually at the 60k version botth goal stands have just one tier
http://www.newanfield.co.uk/afl_inside_large.jpg

KOP
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/5823/kopelevir6.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8490/stanfg2.jpg

1. Why can't the new Anfield stadium open with a 60K all-seater capacity originally, and then be expanded to 73-75K in the future?
2. What if there was a football stadium with both of the goal stands as "Spion Kop" stands?

^^ I still think that interior is a mess. It looks like an afterthought with the exterior being the highest priority. I am all for asymmetry if it looks as good as say Soldierfield or Camden Yard in the US but that just looks completely incoherent and ugly. Gives me a headache just looking at it.

Was more like an american football ground than a "soccer" stadium

None of these designs catch the spirit of the Anfield nor are those proper football venues. Anfield should be boxy (not round) and close to the field with a Kop at least equal to Dortmund or Kaiserslautern. British totally lost the spirit of football. :ohno:

Uefa requirements mean that the stands have to be a certain distance from the pitch, We cant change that!

Im sure the stands could be boxy, but these days why would you want to build a stadium that dosent have good views in every seat?

I know they are updating the plans, but has anyone seen detailed plans of the 60,000 version? If so is there room for further expansion in the future, and does the stadium have plenty of suites and boxes compared to say old trafford (which has loads!) because these are really important sources of matchday revenue. Also, suppose funding was secured, how many years would this take to build?

The new stadium designs look great well better than the new shirts LOL

https://twitter.com/#!/search/%22Warrior%20Sports%22/slideshow/photos?url=https%3A%2F%2Fp.twimg.com%2FAjXwCMgCAAA7UdL.jpg

The new shirt has not even been released yet.

Also regarding the warrior sports kit, I reckon they'll do a good job of the kit, as they're investing so much into the deal, and they'll want to impress on their first venture into football. Its a great deal for the club imo

I know they are updating the plans, but has anyone seen detailed plans of the 60,000 version? If so is there room for further expansion in the future, and does the stadium have plenty of suites and boxes compared to say old trafford (which has loads!) because these are really important sources of matchday revenue. Also, suppose funding was secured, how many years would this take to build?

Knowbody knows what the club are doing they have not made any coment yet.

Actually at the 60k version botth goal stands have just one tier

Ah, I see, it's the disabled viewing platform wall across the middle that's giving it the appearance of being two tiers.

Also regarding the warrior sports kit, I reckon they'll do a good job of the kit, as they're investing so much into the deal, and they'll want to impress on their first venture into football. Its a great deal for the club imo

Fantastic deal for Liverpool 12m from addidas 25m from warrior.

1. Why can't the new Anfield stadium open with a 60K all-seater capacity originally, and then be expanded to 73-75K in the future?
2. What if there was a football stadium with both of the goal stands as "Spion Kop" stands?

One of the biggest reasons clubs like Liverpool and Spurs are looking to new grounds is for the corporate £££ they bring in. Two kop stands would mean losing a load of corporate boxes and the huge income they generate.

None of these designs catch the spirit of the Anfield nor are those proper football venues. Anfield should be boxy (not round) and close to the field with a Kop at least equal to Dortmund or Kaiserslautern. British totally lost the spirit of football. :ohno:

agree with you. It looks like Emirates, Etihad, new wembly or new tottenham stadium. They look all the same.

This is what you get when the beautiful game sells its soul to the corporate world. The current state of FIFA tells you all you need to know about how screwed up the game is now.

agree with you. It looks like Emirates, Etihad, new wembly or new tottenham stadium. They look all the same.

Not really, from the outside it's a bowl yes but on the inside you can clearly see the tiers dont follow right round the stadium and they are seperate stands

This is what you get when the beautiful game sells its soul to the corporate world. The current state of FIFA tells you all you need to know about how screwed up the game is now.
You could bulid stands more close and steep, look at Juventus Arena or a lot of the new ones in Poland.

agree with you. It looks like Emirates, Etihad, new wembly or new tottenham stadium. They look all the same.


It's new England football :)

Actually the stands at 60k Anfield Version and new White Hart Lane are very close to the pitch.

Emirates is "special", becaus of the restricts (max. 60k capacity, height limit etc)

Wembley / Ethiad, because of the proposed / former track.

It will be interesting to see what they come up with. Does anyone know to what extent Liverpool/AFL would be able to change the design without having to re-apply for planning permission?

This is what you get when the beautiful game sells its soul to the corporate world. The current state of FIFA tells you all you need to know about how screwed up the game is now.Actually, it's more about clubs responding to construction codes and modern design efficiencies. True, the conditions for hosting FIFA events are, IMO, excessive and disrespectful to the attending fan, but the idea of these conventional bowls is the sum of design evolution and finding the best way to put the most butts into a space at relatively low costs. The clubs are scrimping enough on the design so they can (in theory) invest more money into the on-field product.

It will be interesting to see what they come up with. Does anyone know to what extent Liverpool/AFL would be able to change the design without having to re-apply for planning permission?

As long as none of the outside is altered i think it will be ok

I hope this project will start soon. Liverpool really need a bigger stadium than current anfield.

As long as none of the outside is altered i think it will be ok
Capacity cannot rtise as well, right? (as this would influence traffic, etc.)

Correct

The project of the new stadium by AFL firm is excellent, but i continue preferring the project by texan firm HKS. Concerning stadia designers, HKS are my favorite: i like many of their projects, such as new Dallas Cowboys Stadium and Lucas Oil Stadium.
I think that the Kop in the HKS version would have been the ideal solution for Liverpool fans.

The Cowboys Stadium is one of the most impressive stadiums in the world and I think the HKS liverpool stadium would have been awesome. However as long as AFL modernise their original design appropriately then I'm sure it will be good for the club. My only concern is future expansion. I'm looking forward to an official statement regarding the issue to we know what to expect

I personally hate the new design/proposal. I agree (with the last two comments) that the original HKS plans were the best. The HKS Stanley Park Stadium had a unique look. The new design by AFL, on the other hand, simply looks like just another generic, modern-day football stadium in England.

yeah sure, the hks were the best if you want an american football stadium with shit views

yeah sure, the hks were the best if you want an american football stadium with shit views
I'm sorry, I just thought the original HKS design looked more 'majestic' and unique, compared to the other new stadiums that are popping up in England right now. I had no idea that it offered bad views, so I do apologize. I was mainly comparing the designs from the exterior perspectives of the stadium. :)

yeah sure, the hks were the best if you want an american football stadium with shit views

How can you tell that there would've been 'shit' views?

You cant conclude that just because there's some obstructed views in both the Lucas Oil stadium and the Cowboy's stadium that there would automatically be poor sight lines in the Anfield HKS design.From what I saw it seemed will thought out in that regard at least.

Read most the stuff on the first pages of this topic
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=273456.0

that will tell you why its a bad design!

AFL "Bowl" Optimum viewing distances!

http://oi54.tinypic.com/2enb6z6.jpg

You can also see from the image that the stands are actually quite seperate!

Compare that to the HKS design (the extravegent one!)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v457/LiamG/HKSOptimumViewLR.jpg
(Credit to Alan off RAWK forums for this)

Anything out the Green patches is a bad view

So there weren't that many seats out of the green area. Just a couple of minor touches and it would've been fine. I agree that HKS design was far from perfect... but at least it had some own personality to it. Generic bowl stadiums are just too boring for my taste.

First post in this forum, by the way. Been lurking around for quite some time, but never posted before.

Yeah but if your building a brand new stadium you shouldn't be having any bad views, it might look different and unique but when you look into it properly, it really isnt!

I suggest anyone who likes the HKS design and thinks it would be a good football stadium to read this topic
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=273456.0

Yeah but if your building a brand new stadium you shouldn't be having any bad views, it might look different and unique but when you look into it properly, it really isnt!

I suggest anyone who likes the HKS design and thinks it would be a good football stadium to read this topic
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=273456.0

That why I said it's "far from perfect". :lol: Still, I'd rather have someone at least thinking out of the box and trying to come up with something new and different, even if it later needs to be tweaked before construction to get it completely right (which I', pretty sure could be done with the HKS proposal), than go with the plain, boring bowl just to avoid risks.

Just to make it clear: it's not that I really like the HKS design. It's that I like it better than the others or, to be more precise, I like the idea of going for something different better.

The thing is small little "tweaks" is probably alot more work than what it seems

I like the AFL "bowl" ok it dosent scream out im different but it works

The thing is small little "tweaks" is probably alot more work than what it seems

As long as all of that work needs to be done only "on paper", it should be doable. :tongue2:

LiamG I think the HKS bowl isn't perfect, I cannot dispute that, but I would expect the club to have made modifications to the orignal plans before it was ever built to stamp out the issues.

Regardless, I'm more disappointed that the club have settled for a 60,000 capacity stadium that has no room for future expansion without major works, similar to how the emirates is. I don't understand why they wouldn't choose the 2nd AFL design that seats over 73,000. The city council would certainly approve the plans considering they approved the HKS one. Although admittedly I'm no expert though so apologies if I've made stupid assumptions

LiamG I think the HKS bowl isn't perfect, I cannot dispute that, but I would expect the club to have made modifications to the orignal plans before it was ever built to stamp out the issues.

Regardless, I'm more disappointed that the club have settled for a 60,000 capacity stadium that has no room for future expansion without major works, similar to how the emirates is. I don't understand why they wouldn't choose the 2nd AFL design that seats over 73,000. The city council would certainly approve the plans considering they approved the HKS one. Although admittedly I'm no expert though so apologies if I've made stupid assumptions

I guess (just guessing, though) that the fact they settled for a lower capacity has lots to do with their experience with Femway Park. Less capacity, higher prices, and it's almost guaranteed that they'll sell every single ticket. It worked for them in Boston, so I guess (again, just guessing) that they'll try to do the same over here in Europe.

I guess (just guessing, though) that the fact they settled for a lower capacity has lots to do with their experience with Femway Park. Less capacity, higher prices, and it's almost guaranteed that they'll sell every single ticket. It worked for them in Boston, so I guess (again, just guessing) that they'll try to do the same over here in Europe.

More than likely, especially as Arsenal have already showed that this plan does indeed work. Just look at their percentage for matchday revenue:

http://img807.imageshack.us/img807/6426/capturegws.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/807/capturegws.jpg/)

73k would require lots of infastructure work and so on, the 60k application has been accepted aswell

Arsenal are doing just fine with 60k arnt they?

They are indeed, but they are in London, where they can charge higher ticket prices and higher hospitality prices. This was mentioned by Henry (I'm pretty sure anyway) during one of his interviews about the new stadium, and he said this was why LFC would benefit more from higher capacity, like MU do

73k would require lots of infastructure work and so on, the 60k application has been accepted aswell

Arsenal are doing just fine with 60k arnt they?

Liverpool have far more fans than arsenal. There are a whole generation of Liverpool fans who can't get in anfield. I think the capacity and design have to be carefully considered.... stack em high and sell em cheap could work for LFC... with plenty of higher value capacity built in too. They made the mistake in the mid 90's of aiming low and they're still paying the price now. The kemlyn rd side should've had at least 5k more seats alone.... similarly the anfield rd...... lots of missed opportunities due to chasing the cheapest option.

Liverpool have far more fans than arsenal. There are a whole generation of Liverpool fans who can't get in anfield. I think the capacity and design have to be carefully considered.... stack em high and sell em cheap could work for LFC... with plenty of higher value capacity built in too. They made the mistake in the mid 90's of aiming low and they're still paying the price now. The kemlyn rd side should've had at least 5k more seats alone.... similarly the anfield rd...... lots of missed opportunities due to chasing the cheapest option.

Very true I've been waiting on the season ticket list for years :(

Hi all, I'm a long time red and have really enjoyed some of the posts in this thread.

I would say that Parrybowl design we are rumoured to be going with is fucking shite.

I'd love to see a slightly newer and adapted Millenium Stadium without the roof.

Notice how much more of an expansion in the little away stand of the HKS design is within the outer ring of good views and how very little of an expansion of the AFL design there is within the outer ring for good views. Considerably many more seats will be within the outer ring of good views with the HKS design at 70k or more than with the 60k seats of the AFL design.

I wonder how well a redevelopment of Anfield would stack up? And for those who advocate 80k or more seats, very few if any of the additional 10k seats will fit inside that good outer ring with any design...

It is obvious a redevelopment of Anfield is not going to happen.. John Henry has suggested such in numerous interviews. However I think they are waiting to find a suitable naming rights partner before announcing that they are making the new stadium, and god knows how long that will take, you can't put a timeline on it.

It is obvious a redevelopment of Anfield is not going to happen.. John Henry has suggested such in numerous interviews. However I think they are waiting to find a suitable naming rights partner before announcing that they are making the new stadium, and god knows how long that will take, you can't put a timeline on it.

Actually that's incorrect. Henry is on record along with Ian Ayre as saying that the cost of adding an extra 15K seats to the existing 45K to make 60K (the most viable & practical capacity) would be way more cheaper and doable than building an entire new stadium just to get that same 15K increase in capacity. Both options are being analysed at present so to say that they are only looking at a new stadium option at the moment is incorrect.

it is known that a regeneration of anfield has been studied and the conclusions leads to built a whole new stadium.

it is known that a regeneration of anfield has been studied and the conclusions leads to built a whole new stadium.

And how is this "known" may I ask? Where are the statements by the club to say this is the case? The latest news is that both options are being evaluated at present. To say otherwise is inaccurate and therefore incorrect.

sorry but henry already express on that subject.

Anfield regeneration is not the most rational project .The surrounds don't allow a lot of possibilities.

Where were you from the last months? have you read previous pages?

For all those who think Anfield Can't be refurbed to a high capacity...

http://www.mcgurkmcgurk.com/_pps/anfield/pages/redeveloped_anfield_one_optiona.html

Yep, bulldozing loads of houses, not worry about issues such as a 'right to light', and all the other problems faced with redeveloping the site and increasing its capacity are much easier to ignore when you're designing it on a computer. ;) What ever they decide, Liverpool need to sort something out sooner rather than later.

For all those who think Anfield Can't be refurbed to a high capacity...

http://www.mcgurkmcgurk.com/_pps/anfield/pages/redeveloped_anfield_one_optiona.html


the cost of this refurbishment would be on par with a new one!

Rather make a whole new ground!

For all those who think Anfield Can't be refurbed to a high capacity...

http://www.mcgurkmcgurk.com/_pps/anfield/pages/redeveloped_anfield_one_optiona.html

The whole point of considering refurbishing Anfield is to maintain the atmosphere and feel of the current stadium. All three of these designs are basically a complete rebuild one section at a time, so are basically just as expensive as building an entire new one when baring in mind other factors such as lost revenue while sections of the stadium are closed due to refurbishment.

No stands are demolished in any of them re-builds, would be alot less than building a new stadium!

I haven't got anything new to add to this thread, but Peter McGurk's renovation scheme as discussed above would involve keeping pretty much all of the existing stands. In effect, he's proposing extending both the Anfield Road and Main Stand, both of which have flaws that can only seriously be addressed with a total rebuild.

Refurbishing the Main Stand??? Surely not, it needs bulldozing....it's been there since the early 70's.....time for it to come down. The Anfield Road is similar, apart from the Upper Tier, added in 1997, which like the Upper Centenary (or Kemlyn) was another fudge.
I was never keen on leaving Anfield, so many memories there. However, none of the original stands are still there - which is a bit different to the FSG's Fenway Park in Boston.

Personally, I would have thought a new ground would be the way to go - then you can design in private boxes, plenty of retail outlets, shops, cafes, conference facilities, etc Sports grounds need to be utilised every day all the year round....
There is a slight problem with the new ground - the finances, and the design. Do we really want another 'generic Bowl'? I don't, but it seems as if that is all we can afford.

Actually that's incorrect. Henry is on record along with Ian Ayre as saying that the cost of adding an extra 15K seats to the existing 45K to make 60K (the most viable & practical capacity) would be way more cheaper and doable than building an entire new stadium just to get that same 15K increase in capacity. Both options are being analysed at present so to say that they are only looking at a new stadium option at the moment is incorrect.

While redeveloping Anfield is the cheaper solution without a doubt, there remains the issue of getting planning permission to do so. Ask Brighton, Bristol, and Everton, this is no easy task. It can take a decade or more leaving one to assume it isn't worth the time. Considering inflation, it may be cheaper to build a new stadium now in the next three years than to finish a redevelopment fifteen years from now. Something that needs to be considered is that a new stadium will be generating revenues long before a redevelopment is finished. FSG have said a new build would have to have a sufficient naming rights sponsor/s to be as viable economically as a redevelopment.

I haven't got anything new to add to this thread, but Peter McGurk's renovation scheme as discussed above would involve keeping pretty much all of the existing stands. In effect, he's proposing extending both the Anfield Road and Main Stand, both of which have flaws that can only seriously be addressed with a total rebuild.

And when you add another tier above the old stands, you won't have the same Anfield atmosphere anymore. You will end up with a messed up stadium with new above the old. And there were folks complaining about the HKS design being messed up internally. Look how awful all of those PMcQ designs are above.

Think of redevelopment in this view: Both Anfield Rd and Main stands have to be totally rebuilt for half the price of a new stadium with a proper redevelopment. If the club can sell the stadium's naming rights for anywhere near half the price of a new stadium, the club can have a new stadium for about the same price. Although of course there will be more interest charges for a new stadium as the naming rights won't be available upfront. Whatever FSG chooses to do, LFC will end up paying interest charges. Keep in mind redeveloping an old stadium won't generate sufficient stadium naming rights, and a proper redevelopment tearing down the old stands and building new ones will have significant drop in revenues during a build a new stadium won't have across the street in the park. Even if the naming rights don't fetch half the price of a new stadium, redeveloping Anfield will take a few more years of loss income during construction, possibly more income than whatever shortage of selling the naming rights. A new stadium should be built in three years, whereas a proper redevelopment will take several years.

While the fans may wish to keep Anfield, without any doubt a new stadium would be best for the long term and short term interests of the club...

And when you add another tier above the old stands, you won't have the same Anfield atmosphere anymore. You will end up with a messed up stadium with new above the old. And there were folks complaining about the HKS design being messed up internally...

Your completely missing the point sea toby. If Anfield is renovated the stands will obviously stay the same distance from the pitch at ground level thereby keeping that element of closeness and intimacy the fans have with the pitch & players. This ensures a good atmosphere will be maintained on the big occasions especially. A completely new build on a new site will lose this intimacy as it will have to comply with english & FIFA stadium regulations thereby leaving massive gaps between row 1 and the sidelines/bylines. Have you ever been to a football match at a traditional football ground? I doubt it so don't be bringing in your American views with regard to HKS designed super domes. They might work for NFL purposes but that doesn't necessarily translate to football. For this see the case of the emirates vs highbury. Lovely new corporate, easy-on-the-eye gleaming super stadium with a truly awful atmosphere. Highbury was small, cramped, tight to the pitch which allowed for a great atmosphere at times. That atmosphere cannot be artificially recreated. End of.

Your completely missing the point sea toby. If Anfield is renovated the stands will obviously stay the same distance from the pitch at ground level thereby keeping that element of closeness and intimacy the fans have with the pitch & players. This ensures a good atmosphere will be maintained on the big occasions especially. A completely new build on a new site will lose this intimacy as it will have to comply with english & FIFA stadium regulations thereby leaving massive gaps between row 1 and the sidelines/bylines. Have you ever been to a football match at a traditional football ground? I doubt it so don't be bringing in your American views with regard to HKS designed super domes. They might work for NFL purposes but that doesn't necessarily translate to football. For this see the case of the emirates vs highbury. Lovely new corporate, easy-on-the-eye gleaming super stadium with a truly awful atmosphere. Highbury was small, cramped, tight to the pitch which allowed for a great atmosphere at times. That atmosphere cannot be artificially recreated. End of.

Actually, I think that if any of the Anfield stands were to be redeveloped, you'd have the same "problem" you are mentioning: that they'd need to comply with new regulations. That is, you'd still need to leave those gaps and all. I find it hard to believe that any council would give green-light to a massive redevelopment of any stadium if it does not comply with security regulations.

I love Anfield, and I'd love the idea of it being renovated and the club staying there... but it just doesn't seem realistic.

Oh, and by the way, you can build the stands closer to the pitch than at Emirates and still comply with everything you need to comply with.

The compliance rules aren't about safety so much as FIFA's and UEFA's rules. If you build a new stadium you'd be silly to build it other than to their recommended specification, especially if you hope to host European Cup finals, World Cup matches or anything like that in the future. The gap between the stands and the touchline is about allowing room for the media, allowing space for sponsors advertisments, giving players room to warm up etc. as much as it is about any safety aspect.

That said, the stands behind the goals at the Emirates go well-beyond the recommended distance. The New WHL or Allianz Arena are, I think, stadiums which are pretty much as close as they can be within the rules.

As far as Anfrield goes, a redevelopment of the old stands wouldn't require moving the seats further away from the pitch I wouldn't have thought. If you're going for a new-build you'd be silly not to build to the recommended specification but for a redevelopment it seems fairly unecessary.

The compliance rules aren't about safety so much as FIFA's and UEFA's rules. If you build a new stadium you'd be silly to build it other than to their recommended specification, especially if you hope to host European Cup finals, World Cup matches or anything like that in the future. The gap between the stands and the touchline is about allowing room for the media, allowing space for sponsors advertisments, giving players room to warm up etc. as much as it is about any safety aspect.

That said, the stands behind the goals at the Emirates go well-beyond the recommended distance. The New WHL or Allianz Arena are, I think, stadiums which are pretty much as close as they can be within the rules.

As far as Anfrield goes, a redevelopment of the old stands wouldn't require moving the seats further away from the pitch I wouldn't have thought. If you're going for a new-build you'd be silly not to build to the recommended specification but for a redevelopment it seems fairly unecessary.

Right: Allianz Arena complies with anything that UEFA and FIFA rule (and hence they're getting this years Champions League final) and:

http://www.juegalaroja.com/media/galeria/199/8/2/4/9/n_seleccion_espanola_fondos-29428.jpg

... well, I think no one would say that there's a huge gap between the stands and the pitch.

The Emirates may not be as close as the rules permit, but by no means is there an athletic track around the pitch either. Along the side lines the Emirates can't be much more than a couple of meters off the present standards. Not everyone sits in the first one or two rows of the stands. Frankly, I prefer sitting a bit higher up and back than the first row for a better perspective view in every sport. The same applies for movie theaters where I detest a front row seat.

How can anyone complain about not being a row or two closer at the Emirates when 97% of the fans are sitting further back? Most likely they are the same fans that insist on standing blocking the view of the fans behind them in the next row forcing them to stand as well. They are probably the same fans who refuse to turn off their cell phones at a movie theater too. Is there a prize for being the most rude and obnoxious persons in the world?

In the US football stadiums have much more space between the sidelines and the first rows of the stands due to the large number of players, coaches, cheerleaders, photographers, and other personnel. By any comparison with US football stadiums the Emirates pitch is considerably closer. Be prepared to pay twice as much for a ticket to get seats on the first row of a new stadium in Liverpool if being that close is so vital to you.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4-9SKcIe3nE/TWCuEgJSNZI/AAAAAAAAAIk/PcG1gbOnR-Q/s320/13-emirates-stadium.jpg

IMO, the problem with Emirates is not the distance from stands to pitch (which is quite big, to be honest) but rather that the lower tier of stands is not steep enough. Don't know if it's like that because of rules or not, but I just don't like it.

The compliance rules aren't about safety so much as FIFA's and UEFA's rules. If you build a new stadium you'd be silly to build it other than to their recommended specification, especially if you hope to host European Cup finals, World Cup matches or anything like that in the future. The gap between the stands and the touchline is about allowing room for the media, allowing space for sponsors advertisments, giving players room to warm up etc. as much as it is about any safety aspect.

That said, the stands behind the goals at the Emirates go well-beyond the recommended distance. The New WHL or Allianz Arena are, I think, stadiums which are pretty much as close as they can be within the rules.

As far as Anfrield goes, a redevelopment of the old stands wouldn't require moving the seats further away from the pitch I wouldn't have thought. If you're going for a new-build you'd be silly not to build to the recommended specification but for a redevelopment it seems fairly unecessary.

Most of what you write is right, but I have to disagree with the last sentence.
wether they build a completely new stadium or modernize and renovate the existing one, or replace some or all of the stands one by one. In the end they'll have to come up with a stadium that's fully compliant with FIFA, UEFA and FA rules and all those safety and other national legal regulations.

For an absolute minimum that may theoretically for example just mean measures like minor changes to the first few rows of one or more stands and if necessary modifying emergency exit routes to actual standards and slightly improving infrastructures for the media and Television broadcasting and for modern safety and security supervision from police plus adding a fully computerized ticketing and access-system to bring all those up to date and to meet modern standards.

Anything other than meeting all of the modern regulations and requirements to the full extend after a modernisation would basically be unthinkable, simply because it would mean that there would be pretty drastic limitations to the use of the stadium, if in such a hypothetical case it would even ever get an operating permission or license at all.

Meeting those modern standards and minimum requirements shouldn't exactly be all that expensive anyways and I'm sure neither the FIFA nor the UEFA nor the FA would settle for any compromizes and allow anything else but a full compliancy to their rules and regulations either way, be it a completely new stadium or just a redevelopment.

IMO, the problem with Emirates is not the distance from stands to pitch (which is quite big, to be honest) but rather that the lower tier of stands is not steep enough. Don't know if it's like that because of rules or not, but I just don't like it.

As I noted there isn't an athletic track around the pitch, so its not really all that far. The vast majority of the fans seat much further back than the first couple of rows anyway. Frankly, the wider that distance the better the drainage off the pitch. Since a much larger stadium is selling out, the fans are not missing matches because they feel the stands are too far away.

As I noted there isn't an athletic track around the pitch, so its not really all that far. The vast majority of the fans seat much further back than the first couple of rows anyway. Frankly, the wider that distance the better the drainage off the pitch. Since a much larger stadium is selling out, the fans are not missing matches because they feel the stands are too far away.

That the stadium is sold out does not necesarily mean that the fans love the stadium itself, but rather that they love the team.

I already said that the pitch isn't all that far... but it's farther away than at most football-only stadiums. And still, I also said that's not the biggest problem (in my opinion, of course, this is only my opinion): the problem for me is that the stands are not steep enough. And that has a few consequences than, again in my opinion, hurt atmosphere at the games.

Does that mean that Emirates is a bad stadium? Not at all. But it could've been better. And I think that anyone that's building a new stadium with about the same capacity in Europe should take note of those "problems" and try to get them right.

Does that mean that Emirates is a bad stadium? Not at all. But it could've been better. And I think that anyone that's building a new stadium with about the same capacity in Europe should take note of those "problems" and try to get them right.As an Arsenal fan I can attest this is the common feeling among fans. The rake of the lower tier isn't too bad because it is further from the pitch, causing you to look more out than down. Would steeper and closer be better? Absolutely, but the Grove is still easily within the top tier of venues going, and the pitch is fantastic. Now if the boys could develop some depth! :cheers:

That the stadium is sold out does not necesarily mean that the fans love the stadium itself, but rather that they love the team.

I already said that the pitch isn't all that far... but it's farther away than at most football-only stadiums. And still, I also said that's not the biggest problem (in my opinion, of course, this is only my opinion): the problem for me is that the stands are not steep enough. And that has a few consequences than, again in my opinion, hurt atmosphere at the games.

Does that mean that Emirates is a bad stadium? Not at all. But it could've been better. And I think that anyone that's building a new stadium with about the same capacity in Europe should take note of those "problems" and try to get them right.

If you have a height limitation to meet planning permission, you can't just draw/build the stadium higher and higher, which is what you get with a steeper grade if you have reached your property limits. Most large stadiums have lower grades with the lower bowl and steeper grades with the upper tier.

Maybe they could have built a steeper grade to suite you with the lower bowl, but if they had they would have had to build a steeper grade for the upper tier. Unfortunately, there are government defined limits to grades. I have been in stadiums with very steep upper tiers, and when I stood up I felt very uncomfortable as if I would tip over. There is much more involved designing stadiums than atmosphere, i.e., comfortable and safe surroundings...

Never walk alone ....

If you have a height limitation to meet planning permission, you can't just draw/build the stadium higher and higher, which is what you get with a steeper grade if you have reached your property limits. Most large stadiums have lower grades with the lower bowl and steeper grades with the upper tier.

Maybe they could have built a steeper grade to suite you with the lower bowl, but if they had they would have had to build a steeper grade for the upper tier. Unfortunately, there are government defined limits to grades. I have been in stadiums with very steep upper tiers, and when I stood up I felt very uncomfortable as if I would tip over. There is much more involved designing stadiums than atmosphere, i.e., comfortable and safe surroundings...

Would you say that Allianz is not safe or comfortable?

so ... are they gonna build this thing or not??

Umm not too keen on the design, shouldn't they atleast have the corners filled, (looks too much like oldtrafford)
__________________http://www.gavinzhu2010.com/ht1.jpghttp://www.gavinzhu2010.com/jh.jpghttp://www.gavinzhu2010.com/bh.jpg

so ... are they gonna build this thing or not??

probably not

the cost of this refurbishment would be on par with a new one!

Rather make a whole new ground!

If you read the whole thing (and there's more here http://petermcgurk.blogspot.co.uk/ ) you can see that the existing Anfield is almost entirely retained and the cost on a like for like basis (60k for 60k etc) is about half of that of a new stadium.


And when you add another tier above the old stands, you won't have the same Anfield atmosphere anymore. You will end up with a messed up stadium with new above the old. And there were folks complaining about the HKS design being messed up internally. Look how awful all of those PMcQ designs are above.

Think of redevelopment in this view: Both Anfield Rd and Main stands have to be totally rebuilt for half the price of a new stadium with a proper redevelopment. If the club can sell the stadium's naming rights for anywhere near half the price of a new stadium, the club can have a new stadium for about the same price. Although of course there will be more interest charges for a new stadium as the naming rights won't be available upfront. Whatever FSG chooses to do, LFC will end up paying interest charges. Keep in mind redeveloping an old stadium won't generate sufficient stadium naming rights, and a proper redevelopment tearing down the old stands and building new ones will have significant drop in revenues during a build a new stadium won't have across the street in the park. Even if the naming rights don't fetch half the price of a new stadium, redeveloping Anfield will take a few more years of loss income during construction, possibly more income than whatever shortage of selling the naming rights. A new stadium should be built in three years, whereas a proper redevelopment will take several years.

While the fans may wish to keep Anfield, without any doubt a new stadium would be best for the long term and short term interests of the club...

Your maths are way out of wack. There is ‘little or no return from a new stadium in the medium term [say 15 years]’ (Ayre) and the difference that naming rights would have to address is about £15m a year. A tad optimistic.

As for the product, the income of a new stadium is ‘roughly the same’ as a redevelopment (again, Ian Ayre)

In the meantime the £40m-£42m a year income from Anfield would be swept away at the point of a bulldozer. £40m-£42m that would better serve the club as re-investment in the team, not paying a bank or contractor.

Anfield would not be closed for redevelopment. If you look at the build-up sequences on the blog/website you’ll see all the work goes on at the back - all year round. This has been done in the States as well so I imagine you know it can be done.

Construction at Anfield can be staged to open a new stand every year after the first two years. In total two stands in three years.

As for new and old, the style is pretty much in keeping with the atmosphere but removes all the problems of poor views and legroom etc It's like an Anfield plus.

As for the looks, some people have described it as awesome, although there has been a definite preference for Option C, which in my view is the most impressive but is too big.

Whether the fans have an emotional attachment to Anfield or not, a new stadium does not stack up for Liverpool. However the history of Anfield has hard value as a sub-brand and is sold as such as part of the global event.


so ... are they gonna build this thing or not??

FSG have been dealt a bum hand on the new stadium by the previous owners and I’m confident they’ll give it as wide a berth as possible.

Most of what you write is right, but I have to disagree with the last sentence.
wether they build a completely new stadium or modernize and renovate the existing one, or replace some or all of the stands one by one. In the end they'll have to come up with a stadium that's fully compliant with FIFA, UEFA and FA rules and all those safety and other national legal regulations.

For an absolute minimum that may theoretically for example just mean measures like minor changes to the first few rows of one or more stands and if necessary modifying emergency exit routes to actual standards and slightly improving infrastructures for the media and Television broadcasting and for modern safety and security supervision from police plus adding a fully computerized ticketing and access-system to bring all those up to date and to meet modern standards.

Anything other than meeting all of the modern regulations and requirements to the full extend after a modernisation would basically be unthinkable, simply because it would mean that there would be pretty drastic limitations to the use of the stadium, if in such a hypothetical case it would even ever get an operating permission or license at all.

Meeting those modern standards and minimum requirements shouldn't exactly be all that expensive anyways and I'm sure neither the FIFA nor the UEFA nor the FA would settle for any compromizes and allow anything else but a full compliancy to their rules and regulations either way, be it a completely new stadium or just a redevelopment.

The FA, UEFA and FIFA guidelines are three distinct levels of regulation/guidleines. By far the most onerous for safety in the UK is the ‘Green Book’ a government publication regulated under license by the FA.

The Green Book is more stringent than the UEFA technical guidelines (standing for example is not allowed) but UEFA require a larger space around the pitch for TV camera sightlines only. The FIFA guidelines extend the space between edge of pitch and advertisement hoardings to 10m. Of course this would only apply if the ground were to stage a World Cup match. And since the FA did such a splendid job of upsetting the global game for 2018...

Anfield has an occupation certificate (clearly) and the requirements of the Green Book would still be met in a redevelopment/expansion. There is no question that a redevelopment would not continue to keep up the excellent standards of control, ticketing etc etc set by the current stadium manager, who perhaps not surprisingly has become something of a leading light in safety after Hillsborough. Anfield is quite a sophisticated bit of kit when it comes to safety.

Would you say that Allianz is not safe or comfortable?

I beieve the maximum rake of the Allianz is 34 degrees - the same as in the UK. As it is tiered the lower sections have much lower angles ultimately meaning each seat is further away from the pitch than it would otherwise be to achieve a satisfactory 'C-value' - a measure of the effectiveness of the view.

Like all modern stadia built to that model, the Allianz is less compact, 'lower slung' and therefore less intimidating than it would be for the same number of people in a more 'traditional' arrangement (Westfalen?)

The sad fact is, FSG don't have any intention of building a new ground. They aren't even bothered about improving the current grotty place that we Reds have.

As for that Peter McGurk thing, God that is jawdroppingly ugly.. and bizarre. Anyone who's been to Anfield knows that its incredibly cramped and dated. Even the "modern" parts, queuing for a pee is a joke.

The current Americans are just like the old ones, but with better pr. What most people haven't realised that they made a net PROFIT this year on transfers. Sure there were net transfer fees. But this was all funded by selling established stars and bringing in also-rans. If you look at the wages cut over the length of contracts,this reduction in player wages that meant FSG made a 20million pound profit.

How's this relevant to the stadium? Well, our squad is so bad compared to our rivals, the fans will realise the truth sooner or later and refuse to support FSG. The team will be so bad, we won't even fill 45k.

FGS's advisors are the same people as Hicks and Gilette (Inner Circle Sports- a "boutique" bank). Typically stubborn, they still claim fans can be duped into an Americanisation of ALL European football.
But it won't work. Only an ugly battle will result. And people wonder why FSG are feeling "uncomfortable" with their "investment". Worrying times ahead..

The sad fact is, FSG don't have any intention of building a new ground. They aren't even bothered about improving the current grotty place that we Reds have.

As for that Peter McGurk thing, God that is jawdroppingly ugly.. and bizarre. Anyone who's been to Anfield knows that its incredibly cramped and dated. Even the "modern" parts, queuing for a pee is a joke.



I see you've read all the background material to those proposals for Anfield. Including the upgrades to legroom, improvement of facilities etc etc. No? well, it's all in the links above.

Ugly? Have you been to Anfield? Intimidating is what we're looking for...

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5196/6922779184_08a7e6ea36.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40936407@N07/6922779184/)
anfield_11012845kopgrowl2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40936407@N07/6922779184/) by Peter McGurk (http://www.flickr.com/people/40936407@N07/), on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5348/6916027638_b1a621eaff_o.png
anfield_main110114-1 by Peter McGurk, on Flickr

http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/04/anfield-redevelopment-part-4-greater-anfield/

The matter in dispute is an inappropriate design predicated on an NFL model of revenue generation involving people getting up and buying stuff during the game. This is laughable in a UK football stadium.


They said the same thing in the USA as well. Unfortunately, there are those who wish to beat the half time rush. There are those who have to have a drink now, not thirty minutes in the future. There are those who have to change diapers too. And yes, there are those who can't hold it another minute either.

I guess in the UK fans run rubber hoses down their slacks and piss in the stands anyway...

They said the same thing in the USA as well. Unfortunately, there are those who wish to beat the half time rush. There are those who have to have a drink now, not thirty minutes in the future. There are those who have to change diapers too. And yes, there are those who can't hold it another minute either.

I guess in the UK fans run rubber hoses down their slacks and piss in the stands anyway...

And so we should design a whole stadium around a tiny minority who are dying for a pie or can't hold their water? There's a lot better ways of increasing the 'core experience'.

***

You might enjoy this critique of the US experience (or rather the weakness of it in new stadia)

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/partone/081121

If you can't wait thirty minutes or having a drink before and after the match is not enough for you, you'd better get help.

***

As for bringing babies to the match... The match is for getting together with your mates, having a few beers and sharing an eventful experience away from household duties - not bringing them with you.

And no, we don't wear slacks or piss in our pants.

.

They said the same thing in the USA as well. Unfortunately, there are those who wish to beat the half time rush. There are those who have to have a drink now, not thirty minutes in the future. There are those who have to change diapers too. And yes, there are those who can't hold it another minute either.

I guess in the UK fans run rubber hoses down their slacks and piss in the stands anyway...


No, we just get the john thomas out and piss in the hair of the person in front, you know? Especially if theyre a tourist...

One of the major differences between football and NFL is that the average NFL games lasts over three hours, whereas a football game is just over half that. Also, no breaks in between 'plays' so you could easily miss the most important actions in a game if you go for just a couple of minutes to change a 'daiper'. The solution to that is obvious - just wipe the baby's 'ass' on said person in front.

No, we just get the john thomas out and piss in the hair of the person in front, you know? Especially if theyre a tourist...

One of the major differences between football and NFL is that the average NFL games lasts over three hours, whereas a football game is just over half that. Also, no breaks in between 'plays' so you could easily miss the most important actions in a game if you go for just a couple of minutes to change a 'daiper'. The solution to that is obvious - just wipe the baby's 'ass' on said person in front.

Indeed, an extract from the piece:

"...it isn't really fun to attend an NFL game in the 21st century -- the routine of "kickoff, TV timeout, three plays, punt, TV timeout, five plays, field goal, TV timeout, kickoff, TV timeout, someone gets hurt on first down, prolonged TV timeout, three more plays, touchdown, extra point, TV timeout, kickoff, TV timeout" gets old after about 25 minutes -- and by 2006 Bug's friends were making pro-and-con lists for keeping their tickets."

Plenty of time for a quick piss here and there.

Missed a touchdown going for a toilet break when I was at Wembley stadium and missed a great play going for a beer. But missed goals when watching games on telly.

Any news about the stadium ?

Last years financial accounts have been released, which included a £50mil loss, with most of the loss apparently being due to stadium design related costs. Ian Ayre was interviewed about the clubs accounts and was asked several questions relating to the stadium situation. http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/ayre-why-lfc-is-moving-forward

I have picked out the parts relating to the stadium below:


First of all Ian, the accounts for the year ending July 2011 will be published shortly. Can you talk us through the headline figures and explain what they mean?

...
...
In addition to that I think people will probably focus on the headline which is there has been a £49-£50 million loss in these accounts, but what I can say is a large majority of that is related to writing off a stadium facility where most of the cost was focused around a design for a stadium which many fans will remember as being the bigger, 70,000 seat proposition which never got built. That particular design and stadium is not a viable project for the Club, although there was a lot of cost associated with it at that time. I think it's important for us to move on from that and move it off the accounts, which is what has happened.
...

A big payment has been written off in terms of previous stadium costs - how did that figure grow to be so large?

A big part of that cost was on a particular design that the previous owners were keen to develop and that's a whole mix of design costs, planning costs, legal costs, some other administrative costs, and they escalated quickly. What's important is that fans can take some comfort in the fact that moving forward that certainly isn't the case. We have a different design which was the original design, which we have planning permission for and in terms of the design that's largely done, so there's no additional cost to go to there. In terms of other areas that we're looking at, at Anfield, again we've been very prudent and there has been no view the cost will escalate anywhere near that again.

We've spoken about the costs accrued for past stadium designs - can you update us on the latest position with the stadium project and are we accruing more costs which will see us take another big hit in the future?

Let me deal with the progress first. We have said several times that we are following a parallel course and we have been looking at the opportunity we have to build a new stadium in Stanley Park. Some of the money that was written off recently relates to one of the designs that we do think has some opportunity. We have planning permission for it, the design is largely done, or has certainly had a significant amount spent on that, so that dynamic is really about finding the right economic model to build that stadium if that's our ultimate choice. That alludes to things like finding the right naming rights partner, all of which takes time and all of which we're very active on.

We'll only do that if we can find the right economic model that makes the long term sense for Liverpool Football Club. What we talked about earlier gives a very clear indication that you have to do these things in a responsible way, you have to expend money in a responsible way, you have to make decisions in a responsible way and that's very much what's happening on that front.

On the plans or ideas around the refurbishment of Anfield, similarly, we're taking responsible and timely decisions based on a different set of dynamics; some economical and around cost and expenditure, but some around the more administrative things like planning permission and acquisition of property and really trying to study whether that's a real opportunity. We've said all along it's been challenging in that area, but we continue to look at it and we continue a dialogue with several stakeholders involved in that. We're not done on either side yet, but we're very committed to finding the right solution, but absolutely finding it in a responsible way for the football club.

Fans want to see that, fans, just as us, want to see an increase in capacity and that's what we're all focused on.

In terms of accruing more costs, we won't take another big hit in the future. That's not to say we won't expend any money on either project, but we do that in a very prudent way. There certainly aren't any landmark costs of the sort we've seen in these accounts. We are going about it in a very responsible way and we've got a lot of expertise, a lot of knowledge and a lot of history under our belt now as a result of many years of looking at this project. I think it's fair to say some of the hard cost has already gone in and what we're doing now is trying to find the right solution.


I'm personally really disappointed that the HKS design has been written off and they are looking more at the original design. I believe a clubs stadium is a major part of the clubs image, and so if you want to be a top club (which Liverpool surely want to be again) you really need a unique stadium that is instantly recognisable as yours. Stadiums such as San Siro, Allianz Arena, Nou Camp, and others are instantly recognisable. This original Liverpool stadium design is extremely similar to Emirates and and Tottenham's new stadium design, and I find that worrying. The HKS design was something unique and different and also put fans much closer to the action than a typical bowl stadium. Obviously this isn't the conclusion to the stadium situation though and we seem no closer to deciding whether we are going to go for a new stadium or an Anfield renovation than we were 18 months ago when the owners first came in.

Missed a touchdown going for a toilet break when I was at Wembley stadium and missed a great play going for a beer. But missed goals when watching games on telly.

Any news about the stadium ?

Don't the British have television screens at their concessions stands? Don't the British replay scores during halftime and after the matches on their big video boards?

What are the chances you will miss a score taking a minute or two leak when the match lasts 90 minutes? Probably close to zero.

Don't the British have television screens at their concessions stands? Don't the British replay scores during halftime and after the matches on their big video boards?

What are the chances you will miss a score taking a minute or two leak when the match lasts 90 minutes? Probably close to zero.

man, you are embarrassing those of us who like both sports so just shut up. im sure you don't have a clue about both the culture of "british" sports fans and the experience of how the game of "soccer" is viewed. the chances of you missing a goal are EXTREMELY high because the game happens at a much faster speed than gridiron. thats just a fact, deal with it. go troll somewhere else.

Don't the British have television screens at their concessions stands? Don't the British replay scores during halftime and after the matches on their big video boards?

What are the chances you will miss a score taking a minute or two leak when the match lasts 90 minutes? Probably close to zero.

"I Missed a Touchdown" ! Was talking about the NFL game at wembley stadium. Don't have screens in the loo's by the way.

I live in the states and I can tell you that I'm glad to see such resistance to the "American" style of stadia, or as some of us here have coined the term "Mallparks".

I remember going to games, both baseball and gridiron football, when there wasn't much else to do other than pay attention to what was happening on the field. I thoroughly enjoyed the game experience back then (roughly the 70's and 80's) and I can tell you now that going to any sporting event in America nowadays, for me at least, is an absolute pain in the ass.

There are entirely too many distractions for me to sit and enjoy the game. The last time I went to a baseball game, I lost count on how many times I had to get up to let somebody by because they were either taking their fifth piss of the game, or had to go back to the team store to go ahead and get that bobble-head figure because their dumb ass couldn't decide the six previous times they went.

One year I decided to attempt the tradition of a dad taking his sons to their first ever baseball game and all they wanted to do was play in the playground area that they had set aside for kids. Had the damn area not even been there in the first place it would have been out of sight, out of mind and I think their attention would have been more focused on what was going on on the field. That day was a nightmare and I haven't attempted it since.

More times than not, I just stay at home and watch whatever game it is that I am interested in and spare myself the headache.

Things are the way they are now because ultimately, money is the driving force behind these changes in stadium design in America. Anything they can do with the place to generate revenue beyond getting their money from ticket sales, they will do. Damned be the tradition of the experience.

Keep resisting and fight the good fight.

Fortunately, I do watch matches on television. And I have noticed if a home club is behind by more than one goal, many of the fans attending the game leave before the match is over. Not to go to a concession stand or go to the loo, but to get out of a stadium before the rush.

Furthermore, don't put words into my posts. I never said loos had television screens. I said concession stands do.

Liverpool fans want a Champions League and Premiership winner. Your club cannot compete financially with the Manchester United and Barcelona's of this world with an old stadium that isn't state of the art half the size of the big clubs. And as long as LFC remains at Anfield, they will never be a big club. Stop living in the ancient past, when was the last time LFC won the Premiership?

old trafford not a new stadium, nou camp not a new stadium to say the only way to be sucesful is with a new ground is frankly laughable.

Only 4 teams have won the Premier League. Man Utd, Blackburn, Arsenal & Chelsea.

My favorite team is LFC but the idea that LFC fans think they can compete with the bigger clubs with a 42,000 stadium is insane. Arsenal and Manu have 65,000+ stadiums and sell about 95% of them and Man U wants to expand more seats in the future.


This isn't the 70, or 80's where these EPL teams were just local teams. This team isn't a small market team.It has no reason not to compete with Man U,Chelsea and Arsenal. It's sad that this team doesn't try to be as big as they should be.LiverPool is one of the top ten Clubs around the world and we must have a new stadium and take advantage of the international market.

Fortunately, I do watch matches on television. And I have noticed if a home club is behind by more than one goal, many of the fans attending the game leave before the match is over. Not to go to a concession stand or go to the loo, but to get out of a stadium before the rush.

Furthermore, don't put words into my posts. I never said loos had television screens. I said concession stands do.

Liverpool fans want a Champions League and Premiership winner. Your club cannot compete financially with the Manchester United and Barcelona's of this world with an old stadium that isn't state of the art half the size of the big clubs. And as long as LFC remains at Anfield, they will never be a big club. Stop living in the ancient past, when was the last time LFC won the Premiership?

i guess madrid or united or milan etc are small clubs then!

Only 4 teams have won the Premier League. Man Utd, Blackburn, Arsenal & Chelsea.

I think you can make that 5 now

My favorite team is LFC but the idea that LFC fans think they can compete with the bigger clubs with a 42,000 stadium is insane. Arsenal and Manu have 65,000+ stadiums and sell about 95% of them and Man U wants to expand more seats in the future.


This isn't the 70, or 80's where these EPL teams were just local teams. This team isn't a small market team.It has no reason not to compete with Man U,Chelsea and Arsenal. It's sad that this team doesn't try to be as big as they should be.LiverPool is one of the top ten Clubs around the world and we must have a new stadium and take advantage of the international market.

Bits of information. Half a story. Wholly wrong conclusion.

It's said there's 100m Liverpool fans around the world. Of whom maybe two guys and a cat get to Anfield for the match.

Barcelona, Madrid, London have populations in or around the 10m mark who can get to the match and who can better afford it. Between the clubs with the closest pricing, even Greater Manchester has 2.5m people (with higher income) versus Merseyside at 1.5m. That’s entirely relevant - not global fanbase.

Anfield is 45,081 (not 42k - that’s Chelsea). The club wants to expand it to add capacity to make it 60k to 65k. This they believe they can fill at prices that are affordable. Arsenal's capacity is 60,000. OT is 76,000 with NO immediate plans to expand - they have been 'indefinitely shelved' (‘not feasible’ and ‘we won’t fill it’). It's interesting you think it's ok for United to redevelop but we must have new.

Arsenal's revenue per seat is £1660 in a 60k stadium. Chelsea's is £1780 in a 42k stadium. Capacity clearly not that relevant (unless to suggest that smaller is better). Anfield's revenue per seat is £940. United's £1430, even at similar prices. The difference being the number of premium seats and the number of games. If Anfield had the same ratio of premium seats as OT, the revenue would be £1200. The difference would then be entirely down to number of games.

If Anfield is bought and paid for (which it is) and OT is bought and paid for... Anfield’s total revenue is £66m behind United. From a 60k stadium (that they have permission for) it would be £72m. Still £36m behind United. Even with the same number of games, still £23m behind. A new stadium is going to cost £300m or about £30m a year. Or put the club back to effectively £53m behind - or an improvement of £13m, if we gamble on filling it and being in the later stages of the CL for the next 10 or 15 years. If we’re not...

And what will that look like? In the numbing combination of UK regulations and commercial design drivers, another soulless bowl where the fans are expected to sit down, pay up and shut up. The game is getting ever distant from its support and losing the audience that made it what it is. A new stadium will be another nail in the coffin. When it should be an Anfield (or when bigger - a Westfalen) that we have made as what we are and is the clever money answer.

Seven out of the ten top richest clubs in Europe have redevelopments. With good reason. Low cost. Low risk. Great stadia. Out of the top ten, Bayern, Real Madrid and Barcelona have the highest commercial revenues of £160m, £155m and £140m (double Liverpool’s). That’s where the ‘easy’ growth is, growth that doesn’t risk an arm and a leg or blow hundreds of millions on pipe dreams. Commercial revenue is the place to capitalise on a global fan base - not a stadium.

And if 'United could do the same' well, they could but they haven't. Saying it could be so don't make it so. They have to go out and get the business.

No-one can be against optimising matchday revenue but I would rather the club focuses on spending less on that (for better actual effect) and more on commercial and other global revenues and perhaps re-opening the door to a football ground where the fans participate rather than 'spectate' between piss breaks.

.

Barcelona, Madrid, London have populations in or around the 10m mark who can get to the match and who can better afford it. Between the clubs with the closest pricing, even Greater Manchester has 2.5m people (with higher income) versus Merseyside at 1.5m. That’s entirely relevant - not global fanbase.

Anfield is 45,081 (not 42k - that’s Chelsea). The club wants to expand it to add capacity to make it 60k to 65k. This they believe they can fill at prices that are affordable. Arsenal's capacity is 60,000. OT is 76,000 with NO immediate plans to expand - they have been 'indefinitely shelved' (‘not feasible’ and ‘we won’t fill it’). It's interesting you think it's ok for United to redevelop but we must have new.


what a load of rubbish! where are the statistics to back up such claims? look at some of the smaller markets in the US that manage to fill out stadiums! green bay has a population of 104,000 people yet they sell out a 73,000 seater stadium week in/week out and are expanding as we speak! manchester united have a massive waiting list for season tickets so the idea that this "feasibility study" you speak of mentioned that we'd have empty seats is just a scouse pipe dream.

Arsenal's revenue per seat is £1660 in a 60k stadium. Chelsea's is £1780 in a 42k stadium. Capacity clearly not that relevant (unless to suggest that smaller is better). Anfield's revenue per seat is £940. United's £1430, even at similar prices. The difference being the number of premium seats and the number of games. If Anfield had the same ratio of premium seats as OT, the revenue would be £1200. The difference would then be entirely down to number of games.

it'd come down to the number of games? im assuming you didnt factor in that it'd actually come down to the fact that you have nearly half the capacity no matter how much revenue you make per seat.

If Anfield is bought and paid for (which it is) and OT is bought and paid for... Anfield’s total revenue is £66m behind United. From a 60k stadium (that they have permission for) it would be £72m. Still £36m behind United. Even with the same number of games, still £23m behind. A new stadium is going to cost £300m or about £30m a year. Or put the club back to effectively £53m behind - or an improvement of £13m, if we gamble on filling it and being in the later stages of the CL for the next 10 or 15 years. If we’re not... And what will that look like? In the numbing combination of UK regulations and commercial design drivers, another soulless bowl where the fans are expected to sit down, pay up and shut up. The game is getting ever distant from its support and losing the audience that made it what it is. A new stadium will be another nail in the coffin. When it should be an Anfield (or when bigger - a Westfalen) that we have made as what we are and is the clever money answer.

and how do you propose they expand anfield? its completely enclosed within a residential area? you seem to be concerned about costs but you still haven't addressed the issue of how much an expansion of anfield would cost and whether or not it would be as viable as moving to a new build? and how do the issues of poor sight lines within anfield get addressed without completely destroying all 4 stands and rebuilding them which is no cheap exercise.


Seven out of the ten top richest clubs in Europe have redevelopments. With good reason. Low cost. Low risk. Great stadia. Out of the top ten, Bayern, Real Madrid and Barcelona have the highest commercial revenues of £160m, £155m and £140m (double Liverpool’s). That’s where the ‘easy’ growth is, growth that doesn’t risk an arm and a leg or blow hundreds of millions on pipe dreams. Commercial revenue is the place to capitalise on a global fan base - not a stadium.

you are aware that bayern play at the allianz arena right?

You reap what you sow. For most of the last 20 years, Liverpool has been run like a corner shop. And now the chickens have come home to roost. Stuck in an out of date ground with little cash generation compared to their rivals. If a ground sponsor can be found, I think a new stadium is on. If not, then staying put is the answer; though surely knocking down a few of the stands is needed, the Main stand is about 40 years old....
Sport and football has moved on, not necessarily for the better, but it's no longer just about the match, it's about pre match and spending cash in shops, cafes, museums, etc