http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0c/Liverpool_FC.svg/150px-Liverpool_FC.svg.png
Liverpool FC

18x Champion:
1901, 1906, 1922, 1923, 1947,
1964, 1966, 1973, 1976, 1977,
1979, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1984,
1986, 1988, 1990

7x Cup Winner:
1965, 1974, 1986, 1989, 1992,
2001, 2006

7x League Cup (record):
1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1995,
2001, 2003

15x Supercup:
1964, 1965, 1966, 1974, 1976,
1977, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1986,
1988, 1989, 1990, 2001, 2006

5x UEFA Champions League:
1977, 1978, 1981, 1984, 2005

3x UEFA Europa League (record):
1973, 1976, 2001

3x UEFA Super Cup:
1977, 2001, 2005


new one
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/match_pix/stadium/web/01.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/match_pix/stadium/web/02.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/match_pix/stadium/web/07.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/match_pix/stadium/web/05.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/match_pix/stadium/web/10.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N158580080125-1030.htm



old project


i've heard 60,000 and 61,000. can anyone confirm either way?

anyway, there's been (at last) a positive development with this project. thanks to Paul D of the uk scouse forum for posting the news:

New Anfield is back on track after £10m grant (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=16702118%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=new%2danfield%2dis%2dback%2don%2dtrack%2dafter%2d%2dpound%2d10m%2dgrant-name_page.html)

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/2big.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/1big.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/4big.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/8big.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/3big.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/6big.jpg

also note that the images on the official lfc website (http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/#) show the single-mast design as the real proposal, as opposed to the double-mast design which is also doing the rounds. example:

single-mast:
http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/jun2005/3/6/0000DB12-C95F-12B7-84210C02AC1BF824.jpg

double-mast:
http://www.starsdufoot.com/images/newan.jpg

^^ Umm not too keen on the design, shouldn't they atleast have the corners filled, (looks too much like oldtrafford)

I'm not sure if this is ever going to happen. It's been going on too long. I can see them rebuilding the main stand at Anfield for a 55000 capacity.

The shadows on the pitch could get really annoying if you're watching the game during the day! Otherwise, looks pretty decent, I prefer Arsenal's new stadium to be honest with you, but this one aint bad.

:cheers:

I actually quite like this design. It has more character than most newly built stadia. And I don't mind the fact that the corners aren't completely filled in. It reminds me more of old style British grounds. The stands at either end give the illusion of rising steeply in one tier (like the Kop) even if, in fact, there is a level of corporate seating between two tiers.

I even prefer this design to the Emirates stadium. Aesthetically, it can't compare to the Emirates but I can't help thinking that the new Anfield will, from a purely footballing perspective, be the better stadium with a better atmosphere (and not just because it will be filled with Liverpool fans as opposed to the notoriously quiet Arsenal fans!).

Its a pity they will be leaving Anfield but I suppose they regard it as neccessary if they want to continue to compete in the long term with other big clubs like Arsenal and Man Utd.I quite like the look of it. It looks a bit like the Sporting Lisbon stadium.

it looks like Sporting Lisboa stadia

it looks like Sporting Lisboa stadia

A LOT! :shocked: The roof curves and those 4 masts...

in the other hand on the inteirior looks me very alike Old trafford. curious

well, if you ask me, the new anfield is still a knockdown price from the Emirates, so if Arsenal can do it, Liverpool can with their huge fanbase and potential

Typical Scousers.

They not only have to win the tonights game and the champions league, they get a grant as well! That's them for being half-pikey cheapskates

The stadium it reminds me most of is the Reebok...

http://www.123football.com/stadiums/england/reebok-stadium/reebok-stadium4.jpg

I love the reebok stadium.

It's circular shape is great.

I love the reebok stadium.

me too. i've only been once before but i loved it. it just goes to show how a near-30,000 seater stadium doesn't have to be a bland bowl - it can have a bit of flair, a bit of imagination.

when i was learning how to drive me and my driving instructor (a pie-eating wigan athletic fan, back in the days when they used to play at the old springfield park) used to talk football, and a couple of times he'd direct me into bolton so i could catch a glimpse of the floodlights dominating the skyline - pure class.

but i suppose the real reason i really appreciate just how good the reebok is, is because my dad used to take me and my brother to the old burnden park loads of times as kids. absolute shithole! just before they moved it had an asda at one end - no stand - just an asda!

http://www.stadion-postkarten.de/ap/cards/ap_35.jpg

I'd agree with Jim aswell, having the corners cut off does give it a bit more of a tradisional character without leaving many seats boxed in. One obvious advantage it will have over Emirates aswell is that the lower teir is more steeply inclined.

Personally one little alternation I'd make(assuming its not already part of the design) would be to shift all the directors seating to one end then have a single tier at the new kop end.

I'm not sure if this is ever going to happen. It's been going on too long. I can see them rebuilding the main stand at Anfield for a 55000 capacity.
As a Liverpool fan i would much prefer that option Anfield is too special to demolish.

As a Liverpool fan i would much prefer that option Anfield is too special to demolish.

A new main stand and it would be a very good stadium with 4 modern stands and the kop still in place (which I believe is important to Liverpool fans).

It would also be one of the few remaining large grounds in the UK with the classic 4 separate stands. All these new modern curvy stadiums all look a bit the same to me!

A new main stand and it would be a very good stadium with 4 modern stands and the kop still in place (which I believe is important to Liverpool fans).
The arrowed stand is too small that could be redeveloped
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid201/p48517c36e66364521e295c67fd5b3578/f02bb9dd.jpg

The arrowed stand is too small that could be redeveloped
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid201/p48517c36e66364521e295c67fd5b3578/f02bb9dd.jpg

There's no room, that's why they put a very small 2nd tier on this stand when it was redeveloped-

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/anfield/420.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/anfield/630.jpg

I would demolish the scruffy flats and re route the road through there.

You can only do that if the residents sell them and the council allow you to move the road. All it takes is one stubborn granny and you end up with this -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schottland/fir_park/140.jpg

wow i never realised how boxed in Anfield was by buildings. they might find it hard to rebuild that stand as there is a road and residential housing just behind it.

You would think Liverpool would have enough money to persuade them to leave.

You would think Liverpool would have enough money to persuade them to leave.

Motherwell offered the resident 10 times the value of her house and she still didn't leave (It's Motherwell's ground in the photo).

Some people will not leave no matter how much you give them (especially if they are over 70 - old people form cities like Liverpool tend to be settled and don't want to leave the house they have lived in for decades)

Liverpool could easily build a large 20000 main stand (Man United's North Stand is 26000). This would take Anfield up to about 54000 (or 60000 if they copied the stand at Old Trafford). A 20000 stand would look a bit imbalanced, but not nearly as bad as 26000 stand.

Motherwell offered the resident 10 times the value of her house and she still didn't leave (It's Motherwell's ground in the photo).

Some people will not leave no matter how much you give them (especially if they are over 70 - old people form cities like Liverpool tend to be settled and don't want to leave the house they have lived in for decades)

Liverpool could easily build a large 20000 main stand (Man United's North Stand is 26000). This would take Anfield up to about 54000 (or 60000 if they copied the stand at Old Trafford). A 20000 stand would look a bit imbalanced, but not nearly as bad as 26000 stand.
Liverpool own all of the boarded up houses behind the main stand i think.

Liverpool own all of the boarded up houses behind the main stand i think.


I think there should be just enough room behind the main stand even if they didn't own them. A partially overhanging steep 2nd tier and a rebuilt lower tier would be fine in terms of space.

I think there should be just enough room behind the main stand even if they didn't own them. A partially overhanging steep 2nd tier and a rebuilt lower tier would be fine in terms of space.
Thats the area we could look at then im certain we own all the terraced houses everyone is boarded up.

Thats the area we could look at then im certain we own all the terraced houses everyone is boarded up.

If they don't own them, then it could be something like this (please excuse my laughable effort) -

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/1204/anfield20dj.jpg

If they do own them then it should be very easy to do.

If they don't own them, then it could be something like this (please excuse my laughable effort) -

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/1204/anfield20dj.jpg

If they do own them then it should be very easy to do.
It looks a great idea i wonder what capacity that would give us?

This is a better photo as it shows the new Anfield Road Stand. I reckon you would get 54000-59000 with a large new main stand.

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/9098/anfieldaerialview8wy.jpg

This is a better photo as it shows the new Anfield Road Stand. I reckon you would get 55000-60000 with a large new main stand.

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/9098/anfieldaerialview8wy.jpg
It would look very similar to how old trafford is now but i think they are too scared of the gate loses to do that though.

It would look very similar to how old trafford is now but i think they are too scared of the gate loses to do that though.

True. You would lose 12000 seats for most of a season.

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.

True. You would lose 12000 seats for most of a season.
You wouldnt. What you would do is, as soon as the season ends(even before the season ends you would start prep work) knock it down and start a rebuild that is designed so you can open the first tier as soon as its finished. You could have most of the new tier in place for the first few games of the season if it was designed in the right way. After that you start on the rest of stand and by the end of the season you would have a new stand.

You wouldnt. What you would do is, as soon as the season ends(even before the season ends you would start prep work) knock it down and start a rebuild that is designed so you can open the first tier as soon as its finished. You could have most of the new tier in place for the first few games of the season if it was designed in the right way. After that you start on the rest of stand and by the end of the season you would have a new stand.

I know Man United done that, but i'm not sure if it can be done in every scenario.

Like what is happening at twickenham now.
Yep same type of thing.

nice stadium

does anyone the height if it

This is a better photo as it shows the new Anfield Road Stand. I reckon you would get 54000-59000 with a large new main stand.

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/9098/anfieldaerialview8wy.jpg

Isn't the main stand on the north side of the ground? I don't think the residents in all those houses behind it would be that impressed with losing their sun!

Hi guys, nice thread u got going here. Big Liverpool fan myself!
Do u think they gonna build this stadium? Word has it, if the Kraft's do fund liverpool money for the new stadium they are gonna change the design of the stadium to their liking.

Heres an idea of a new stand they can build! lol!
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/7000/f02bb9dd14ek.jpg

Any news on the new liverpool jersey for next season?
I heard Addidas are the new sponsers

Hi guys, nice thread u got going here. Big Liverpool fan myself!
Do u think they gonna build this stadium? Word has it, if the Kraft's do fund liverpool money for the new stadium they are gonna change the design of the stadium to their liking.

Heres an idea of a new stand they can build! lol!
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/7000/f02bb9dd14ek.jpg

Any news on the new liverpool jersey for next season?
I heard Addidas are the new sponsers
That would be the best side for a new stand its just the flats and the road behind it.

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.

Sorry but isn't Man United the biggest club in the world for having the largest turnover in the world thanks to having the biggest support in the world.

Sorry but isn't Man United the biggest club in the world for having the largest turnover in the world thanks to having the biggest support in the world.
apparently not.

I kinda have to agree, when I visited Anfield a couple of years back, it didn't really feel very impressive or historic...I'm not sure why, cus it does have quite a rich history, but I just didn't feel or see it while I was there, unlike when i went to Old Trafford.

:cheers:

I kinda have to agree, when I visited Anfield a couple of years back, it didn't really feel very impressive or historic...I'm not sure why, cus it does have quite a rich history, but I just didn't feel or see it while I was there, unlike when i went to Old Trafford.

:cheers:
Maybe we should rename it Ye Olde Anfield and serve roasted chestnuts at half time that might help you get in the mood.

I kinda have to agree, when I visited Anfield a couple of years back, it didn't really feel very impressive or historic...I'm not sure why, cus it does have quite a rich history, but I just didn't feel or see it while I was there, unlike when i went to Old Trafford.

:cheers:

Indeed, if you get to the stage where a stadium is basically just some modern stands that happen to be in the same place as the originals then I'd question how much you are really losing by shifting the ground a few hundred yards away.

someone should start a poll among liverpool fans as to who would like to see the reds go to stanley park and who would prefer them to stay put at anfield. i think staying put would win hands down!

Maybe we should rename it Ye Olde Anfield and serve roasted chestnuts at half time that might help you get in the mood.
Mmmmm roasted chestnuts, now there's a hearty repast! I say Go for it!!
I'll be first in line for a ticket to Anfield when they introduce this scheme :D

Maybe have a vendor who offers everyone raosted pig meat off the bone as well !

:cheers:

Introduce knee lenght shorts and turbans into the kit and force the players to grow handlebar moustaches.

^^ And get them to say "toodle pip old boy, wot wot, jolly good show eh chaps, bravo and back to the manor for tea and crumpets" :D

:cheers:

The new stadium will be built or Liverpool will remain at Anfield as it stands now. The cost of increasing capacity in terms of lost revenue and building at Anfield is more expensive than building on the park, it would also negate any chance for Liverpool to develop the planned museum, bars, flats, hotel etc in the area. Realistically though Anfield is costing Liverpool a fortune in lost revenues and has been for years.

The grant, by the way, is actually costing Liverpool FC money, it's for community facilities - public football pitches, changing rooms, environmental improvements, community centre, sports centre and educational facilities - it's added £23 million on to the project for which they'll get £9 million back in grants.

Liverpool is in a bit of a pickle here. They can either shell out quite a lot of cash to try and build a new stadium somehwere else, or they can carry on at Anfield and maybe get an extension, which will obvioulsy cost a fair bit, decrease income from loss of ticket sales, probably cause some contraversy over land and they will end up with a stadium that is still lossing money when compard to other clubs.

I don't know which one is betetr really...I suppose building a new stadium...but as I said, it will cost a heck of a lot of money, and will still take quite a while to build, costing them more money through low ticket sales at Anfield...best of two evils...

:cheers:

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

So....the stadium.....anyone? I can't wait to buy a season ticket. It's impossible at the moment. I should've been born ten years earlier maybe.

So....the stadium.....anyone? I can't wait to buy a season ticket. It's impossible at the moment. I should've been born ten years earlier maybe.

I hope it gets built. Liverpool need the extra capacity and, more importantly for me, the away end at Anfield (since the redevelopment of the Anfield Road end) is a bit crap, especially at the back. How can a stand that is less than ten years old have so many restricted view seats?!

I don't like this new stadium , a more daring design would have been better.
Where is the location of this new stadium ?

I don't like this new stadium , a more daring design would have been better.
Where is the location of this new stadium ?

That's the response of most Liverpool fans but the harsh reality is that it's what can be afforded and even that is questionable.

The location is adjacent to the the present stadium.

This shows the proximatey well.

http://www.bmtfm.com/images/large_images/anfield_wind_tunnel_model.jpg

This shows the proposed use of the existing site as a public plaza giving an approach to the stadium.

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/jul2004/3/6/0003085E-C086-1104-9DEB80BFB6FA0000.jpg

Are you sure Jerv, I thought it hit his standing leg (left) and not the blocking one.

Motson is a senile old fool though, time for him to hang up his sheepy.

So are the Krafts gonna fund the money for this stadium?

Not sure Durbs, even if they put capital up it'll have to be repaid so it's a case of getting a finacial package in place that allows the new stadium to an asset and not a lead weight around the clubs neck.

Most of Liverpools talks regarding loans etc. seem have taken place in New York and Dubai.

not being funny, but this ground appears to be all talk. I've checked the Liverpoolfc.tv and the pictures haven't changed for months, even icliverpool echo seems to keep to-ing and fro-ing on groundshare debates and funding here and there (Incidently, how did LFC qualify for a government grant, after winning £30m in the CL and finishing above the Arse in Deloitte's, whereas other clubs haven't??).

Are they actually going to build this stadium or not? 2007 doesn't seem a distinct reality

not being funny, but this ground appears to be all talk. I've checked the Liverpoolfc.tv and the pictures haven't changed for months, even icliverpool echo seems to keep to-ing and fro-ing on groundshare debates and funding here and there (Incidently, how did LFC qualify for a government grant, after winning £30m in the CL and finishing above the Arse in Deloitte's, whereas other clubs haven't??).

Are they actually going to build this stadium or not? 2007 doesn't seem a distinct reality

You have a short memory.

Arsenal spent many years talking about building a new stadium before they finally raised the required capital.

That is precisely the situation in which Liverpool find themselves now.

Its alive! Well, I suppose Liverpool are still waiting for funds, I say spend the money on quality players, then win major tornaments, then build the new stadium, lets have a bet with Roman I'mabitch (Abromovic) if we beat Chelsea in the semi's of the raFA Cup he must build us a stadium, if we loose he can take Cisse for free!

Spanish businessman Juan Villalonga is hoping to buy a stake in Liverpool.

The Reds have been seeking new investment for some time as they look to continue plans to move away from Anfield.

All previous attempts to find potential investors have failed to bear fruition with David Moores still the majority shareholder at Anfield.

Reports claim Spanish tycoon Villalonga has held talks with Liverpool officials to discuss investment ideas.

Villalonga, who is former president of Spanish telecoms giant Telefonica, is thought to be leading a consortium ready to buy a stake in the European Cup holders.

The Spaniard is keen to transform Liverpool and is already planning in the long term.

"I want Liverpool to change from a domestically focused club into a global force," Villalonga told the Daily Express.

It remains to be seen if Liverpool will be willing to agree a deal with Villalonga as a number of other parties are thought to have expressed an interest in buying a stake in the club.

Hmmm Will Parry take the offer?

You have a short memory.

Arsenal spent many years talking about building a new stadium before they finally raised the required capital.

That is precisely the situation in which Liverpool find themselves now.

Noted, but in actuality, we are only 2 years behind the original delivery estimate of 2004. I think liverpool orginally planned 2005 then eventually 2007. They still need to acquire Stanley Park raise the capital, scrounge off the NWDA and build. The building and landscaping alone will take at least 2 years.

Presently it is costed at £130m, this will surely rise with inflation and rising steel prices, particularly with Lakshmi monopolising the steel market.

This still doesn't explain NWDA- public money- how did Liverpool manage to get hold of taxpayers money for a business venture??? Unless it is a loan they are made to pay back with interest...

this won't happen, it was a stupid idea to build in the park.

comeon scousers!
I'd have thought with all the frenzied activity over possible take-overs, this thread would be well up for it.
Perhaps this is your chance to get this ground into fruition

If someone like Kraft were to take over then what are the chances any possible stadium could be expanded beyond 60,000? I can see the need to build prudently if resouces are limated but I honestly think Liverpool could fill 70,000 or more.

^^ Well at the moment it looks like liverpool really want investors, whether they want the money to buy player or to build a stadium..I really dont know :?

This still doesn't explain NWDA- public money- how did Liverpool manage to get hold of taxpayers money for a business venture??? Unless it is a loan they are made to pay back with interest...

The murky world of the NWDA.

Liverpool FC were forced in to a corner, in order to gain planning permission they had to incorporate public facilities in to the stadium development, football pitches, educational facilities, sports centre etc. The grant doesn't even come close to the true cost of around £30 million these and other imposed features have added to the cost.

Catch 22, Liverpool need to draw bigger revenues from it's stadium, capital costs however make the short term pain as painful and the benefits from long term gain. Getting the right financial package in place is crucial.

it'll be intresting to see how Arsenal cope over the next 5/10 with the massive burden they will carry.

The murky world of the NWDA.

Liverpool FC were forced in to a corner, in order to gain planning permission they had to incorporate public facilities in to the stadium development, football pitches, educational facilities, sports centre etc. The grant doesn't even come close to the true cost of around £30 million these and other imposed features have added to the cost.

Catch 22, Liverpool need to draw bigger revenues from it's stadium, capital costs however make the short term pain as painful and the benefits from long term gain. Getting the right financial package in place is crucial.

it'll be intresting to see how Arsenal cope over the next 5/10 with the massive burden they will carry.

Diddums! That's besides the point and frankly its not on

Liverpool are a private business and therefore shouldn't be allowed to have tax-payers money. You never caught us scrounging out of the cookie jar. Look at our costs (Arsenal) original estimates of £100m soon rose to £352m. This included GIVING MONEY by making a new waste disposal centre for the council and affordable housing for key workers.

This is double the investment of your ground. I just feel that a club with a large marketing potential, just having won squilions in the CL, shouldn't deny smaller businesses in need or more hospital beds

I really like the design, but will it ever get done?

Liverpool are shopping for deals, & I think thats brilliant! Everyone can see the massive strides the club has made in the game, noe we not gonna jump on the first gys back who comes along saying, "Oi i'll build you a stadium!" They seeing what options all the different investors are offering. This could result in a possible take over, so the management are very careful of who they giving it to, we do not want a MAN UTD situation here, where by the club is owned of borrowed money. We want real hard core investors that will not only provide us with a new stadium but also provide funds for purchasing players & so on.

One thing I will say regarding the financing of Anfield, I hope, I know, the Liverpool board won't take the financial risk Arsenal are taking - Expensive loans soon to become more expensive, under valued sponsorship deals to facilitate capital payments at the expense of future cash flows, exposure to a moody property market.

The frustrating thing for a Liverpool fan is that Liverpool FC are one of the biggest sporting clubs, never mind football clubs, on the planet and what we're seeing at the moment is a consequence of successive senior management at the club to under capitalise on the (I know it sounds awful) the brand and poorly managed, short sighted historical development of Anfield.

If, in 1990 off the back of 3 seasons or so of sell out crowds in a stadium too small even then, the board of Liverpool Football Club had looked at a long term masterplan for the stadium, I think Liverpool would be maybe one stand away, if not complete in having a 60,000 capacity already. Instead they built expensive stand alone structures with short lifespans that are, by modern standards, cramped and offer poor sightlines.

In addition to the historical short sightedness regarding stadium development, the club are currently persuing an option that doesn't even cater for present ticket demand but is instead based upon loan schedules.

Liverpool don't just need cash and player investment they need to recruit a new board, open up the closed shop.

I think if nine figure sums are to be spent and Liverpool are to relocate from one of the most famous grounds in the footballing world, the net gain in seats should be slightly more substantial than 16,000. I'd be surprised if Liverpool couldn't manage 70,000, its success in the eighties has left it with a legacy of being the second best supported club in England.

I think if nine figure sums are to be spent and Liverpool are to relocate from one of the most famous grounds in the footballing world, the net gain in seats should be slightly more substantial than 16,000. I'd be surprised if Liverpool couldn't manage 70,000, its success in the eighties has left it with a legacy of being the second best supported club in England.

Indeed, you'd hope the european cup win would give rise to a bit more ambition. Personally I don't think 70,000 would be a massive risk either, Arsenal are upping their capacity by 22,000 and all signs point to it being sold out next season. In terms of income the non London clubs are never going to get the same amount per seat either so to compete their going to need larger capacities.

The argument over 60k Vs 70k is economic, 10,000 extra seats would raise the costs by 50% owing to greater engineering and steel costs. I don't know how true that is.

The obvious solution is for a flexible seating/terracing plan, 60,000 seats for Europe, 70/75,000 mix of standing and seating for domestic.

That would of course depend on terracing being made legal again, not something I'v heard any serious arguement for yet. A 50% rise in costs seems a little unlikely for 10,000 extra seats to me aswell since 60-70,000 is always talked about as the optimium for stadiums these days.

Is that optimum viewing or ROI?

A return to terracing at the top level would be easy if there was a will from the clubs. Liverpool should be leading the way on this.

Optimum cost per seat, i'v never seen any indepth look at it but I'v heard it mentioned a few times plus of course a great deal of new stadiums constructed in the last few years fall into that braket(rather than say 80,000+).

any news on this one? timescheduale, new planns, combination with Everton, stuff like that?

they should built it :(

If someone like Kraft were to take over then what are the chances any possible stadium could be expanded beyond 60,000? I can see the need to build prudently if resouces are limated but I honestly think Liverpool could fill 70,000 or more.

that's 30,000 more day-tripping LFC fans from Birmingham then :sleepy:

Its a pure football competition, not who's gotta bigger stadium than the other, but it will help if Liverpool had a bigger stadium on derby days.
UTD have something that liverpool dont, lotsa lotsa money , but now they also have lotsa lotsa debt.


That is a shame, it might have speedend up the project a little bit. Maybe I should repeat it a little bit more, untill it is too much and they'll just have to do it :runaway: Liverpool no shame anymore, and me happy with another new stadium on this nut we call earth. win win

not bad at all

But Arsenal and Liverpool are big clubs
They win nearly every year a title

IMO 60.000 will be too small for them

Here in Melbourne, Australia, Liverpool has a very strong following. I myself am a Liverpool fan. Man U also has a following, but I reckon not as strong as Liverpool. Here, Man U supporters are known as glory supporters, though they themselves dont like to admit it. When Man U win the league, they all come out of the closet, when they dont win anything for a while, you could count the number of their supporters on one hand. They fucken shit me, because most of them I know grew up in the Cantona/Beckham era where MU were just winning everything and so they were pretty cocky to deal with. But when my club finally won something worth winning, the CL, I couldnt find any United supporters to berate...they had all gone back into their hole. Where in the hell had they all gone, I asked myself. I dont know if that is the case over there, I'm sure it is not, but here, that certainly happens. Anyway, suffice to say, Liverpool v Man is the biggest EPL rivallary in Australia and certainly the two clubs with the most supporters.

I have also noticed a few chelsea supporters come out of the closet too. Before 2 years ago, I didnt think there were any Chelsea supporters in Australia.

Anyhow, I am not fussed that Gerrard didnt really shine for England (he did kick one goal though) because I am Aussie, just as long as he does for the mighty reds next season.

Progress is so slow I wouldnt be surprised if Everton had a new stadium under construction before Liverpool.

^^I wouldnt be surprised if If they build another Wembley before they start on this one!

I hope it hasnt fallen through, the design is brilliant!

no funds, u got any spare change to donate to them?

fair dinkum that stadium looks bloody insane, be a shame if it fell through, luv the reds they deserve a new home.

FRANCE FOR WORLD CUP!

I'd agree with his point that 60,000 is a bit unadventous for Liverpool, Arsenal uped their capacity by 22,000 to get that were as they would only be adding 15-16,000.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc/gronudmove/tm_objectid=17376800%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=two%2dweeks%2dto%2dsave%2dnew%2dlfc%2dstadium-name_page.html

Two weeks to save new LFC stadium
Jul 13 2006
By Sam Lister Daily Post Staff

LIVERPOOL FC plans to build a new stadium face collapse if they do not come up with funding within two weeks.

Club executives must prove they have the financial backing and a timetable for construction in place by a crucial meeting on July 27 or £9m of European funding will be withdrawn.

It would almost certainly spell the end of the Stanley Park plans in the near future.

Contingency plans have been drawn up to make sure the cash earmarked for the scheme will be used on other regeneration projects if the club cannot find the finance.

Cllr Flo Clucas, executive member for Economic Development, said: "Contingency plans for the money to be used elsewhere within the timescale have been drawn up.

"If this package does not come together it will not be the fault of the public bodies, it will be Liverpool FC that will have failed.

"By July 27 we will know if that package is there." Last month, the Daily Post revealed that the club had not raised all the money needed to build its proposed new home at Stanley Park, according to the chief executive of the Northwest Development Agency.

Steven Broomhead said that the club's ability to finance its new stadium remained unclear.

In addition, it must raise the rest of the money needed to finance the construction of the stadium from the private sector.

The club has been in lengthy negotiations with banks and other potential private sector investors about financing arrangements for its new ground.

It asked Merseyside's Brussels-funded Objective 1 programme for £9m to assist with the infrastructure work.

Although the money cannot be used to fund the stadium it is vital for the works around it, which were promised to regenerate the area.

The July 27 deadline has been set because the funding pot must be allocated by December this year and all projects must be completed by December 08.

A further £9.2m has been applied for from the NWDA, although that cash is unlikely to be withdrawn in the near future.

The cost of the 60,000-seat stadium now stands at £190m and Liverpool has applied to the NWDA to provide £11m of funding for infrastructure work around the ground.

No one from the club was available for comment last night.

samlister@dailypost.co.uk

it was a nice design though...........

Darn it Liverpool get your act together! The club can obviously get the funds together to build this thing. Liverpool are a richer club than Arsenal and they can afford a stadium more expensive than New Anfield. I suppose Liverpool aren't comfortable with the risk involved with contributing so much of its resources to such a large project. I really hope this project goes through, it's a stunning design and even though Anfield is a fantastic stadium, I feel that due to Liverpool's needs they need to move to progress at the same speed as the rest of the top teams in the league and Europe. The club will be stunting their growth remaining at Anfield. Suppose I'm biased though because I want to see another big stadium getting built.

Below is an article on the BBC website:


Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry is insisting Liverpool's new stadium plans will not collapse as Rafael Benitez continues his search for new players.

It is believed that Benitez returned to Spain after Saturday's friendly win at Wrexham in an attempt to tie up deals and, back on Merseyside, Parry was intent on allaying fears over the club's new ground plans in nearby Stanley Park.

Doubts have been expressed over the scheme to replace Anfield with a 60,000-capacity stadium as the cost is claimed to have spiralled to nearly £190million. Liverpool have been in lengthy negotiations to raise the capital from the private sector, and Parry said: "There is a lot of work going on and the situation is coming to a head relatively soon."

He told BBC Radio Five Live: "It is a hugely important project and we are certainly looking at a matter of weeks and it is still something we are determined to bring off, too much work has gone into it for us to fail at this hurdle."

Liverpool must also come up with proof they have raised the money for the new ground by the end of the month, or they could lose grants totalling almost £20million to cover the new stadium's outside infrastructure from the EU and the Northwest Development Agency.


Let's hope they succeed

Didnt that Kroft guy say he'd fund the stadium as long as he has naming rights over it, or something like that & there was even that Spanish dude.

Didnt that Kroft guy say he'd fund the stadium as long as he has naming rights over it, or something like that & there was even that Spanish dude.

I don't believe Mr Kraft has ever said anything about Liverpool in public beyond a totally non-committal expression of goodwill towards the club.

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc/gronudmove/tm_objectid=17459722%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=cash%2dis%2din%2dplace%2dfor%2dnew%2danfield-name_page.html

Cash is in place for new Anfield
Jul 27 2006
By Chris Bascombe, Liverpool Echo

LIVERPOOL FC have assured European moneymen that cash to pay for their new stadium is in place.

Club officials will not attend a key meeting today when the future of £9m of European Objective One funding earmarked for the Stanley Park scheme could be decided.

But the Reds have already told the European Objective One committee that they have the resources to press ahead with the £190m, 60,000-seater stadium.

The European money will not be used to pay for the ground, but for the regeneration of the deprived Anfield and Breckfield communities nearby.

The Objective One committee had set a deadline of today for the club to confirm it has the private money to pay for its share of the project.

In theory, it could now decide to take the money away from Liverpool if it is not happy with what the club is saying.

But it is far more likely that they will instead accept that progress is being made and extend the deadline to give the Reds more time to firm up their proposals.

Liverpool are hopeful the funding will remain in place, although club insiders insist if the decision goes against the club, it will not spell the end of their stadium plans.

Club officials acknowledge the loss of the European grant would be a significant blow, but would not derail the process of leaving the current site.

Chief executive Rick Parry recently spoke of his confidence Liverpool will secure the multi-million pound investment they need to build the complex on Stanley Park.

The club has been in talks with several interested parties, with at least one thought to be at an advanced stage.

The overall project needs more than £18m from Europe and the government to pay for the regeneration of Stanley Park and the surrounding area.

Land occupied by the current ground will be turned into Anfield Plaza, a new public square lined with homes, shops and leisure facilities.

Two weeks ago, senior councillors voiced their fears that this part of the scheme could fail if Liverpool are unable to come up with their share of the stadium cash.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/5222080.stm

Reds get stadium funds deadline

Liverpool FC has been given two months to prove it has the funding to build a new football stadium.

Part of the plan for the £190m stadium in Stanley Park involves regenerating the area around its current Anfield Road ground with European Union cash.

The area could get £9m of Objective One Funding - money earmarked by the EU to revive depressed areas.

Officials who distribute the funds said the club had to provide evidence the stadium funding was in place.

Financial statement

A spokesman for the Objective One programme monitoring committee said it had received written assurances from the club and Liverpool City Council about the funding.

But he added that the committee wanted to see detailed financial statements and accounts before authorising the project.

A two month appraisal is to take place with a sub-committee deciding by 28 September if the club has given adequate proof of its financial package for the new ground.

But the committee is also looking at alternative uses for the money in case the club fails to satisfy its requirements.

Coun Flo Clucas, the city's head of ecnonomic development warned the club "the clock is ticking."

She added: "The club has had 18 months to bring forward its proposals and it is are now competing with other projects which have already been appraised.

"Put simply, it is time for the club to put up or shut up."

The European cash would pay for environmental and infrastructure improvements in the Anfield area and would not go towards the cost of the stadium.

Nobody at the club was available for comment.

If this stadium is finally built, it is going to be nice to see Old Trafford sink from 1st to 4th or 5th place in English stadia in a couple of years.

1-Wembley
2-Emirates Stadium
3-Stanley Park
4-City of Manchester Stadium (Well, it looks better ;) )
5-Old Trafford (If not for the quadrants it would have been 4th)

And if you take into account the whole UK, then Old Trafford would fall even lower.

The more things change...

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=17465178&method=full&siteid=50061&headline=threat-to-lfc-stadium-project-name_page.html

Threat to LFC stadium project
Jul 28 2006
By Sam Lister Daily Post Staff

LIVERPOOL FC'S plans to build a new stadium were dealt a massive blow last night after officials told them they were no longer front-runners for a £9m grant.

The club failed to come up with a "cast-iron" assurance that they had private financial backing, despite being given 18 months to secure a deal.

Committee members in charge of handing out the European cash fear the scheme has now become so risky they stripped the club of preferred bidder status.

It means the grant is no longer ring-fenced for the ambitious Stanley Park plans, and LFC will now have to compete with dozens of other Merseyside regeneration schemes for the money.

Cllr Flo Clucas, chair of the Objective 1 projects selection committee, said: "The feeling at today's monitoring committee is that we are determined that this £9m will not be lost to Merseyside.

"There are a number of schemes which could benefit from it - but we have not ruled out Liverpool FC.

"However, from being the preferred bidder for this funding, the club now have to compete with a number of other schemes, and the clock is ticking.

"The club has had 18 months to bring forward their proposals and they are now competing with other projects which have already been appraised. Put simply, it is time for the club to put up or shut up."

LFC had submitted a written assurance insisting they intended to go ahead with the plans and the funding would be in place.

But the Programme Monitoring Committee, which is made up from representatives from 35 organisations in the region including the Northwest Development Agency, local authorities, private and voluntary sector groups, are so concerned about the future of the scheme that they would only accept a cast- iron guarantee proving the club has got the cash.

The PMC has always had the will to see the scheme become a reality, believing the stadium would dramatically transform the area.

They have patiently given the club time to come up with the hefty sum needed when many doubted the viability of the plans.

But, with deadlines looming from Europe over when the cash is spent, the committee's decision reflects fears that Liverpool may fail in its bid, meaning the region's money was lost forever.

The Objective 1 money has to be allocated by December this year, with the project it goes to being completed by December '08.

Although the £9m can only be used for works around the stadium, as it is public money, it is vital to the scheme.

If the club lost their bid, they have admitted the plans would almost certainly collapse.

It's a shame they're having so much trouble.

Well done to the Arsenal board an to Wenger for running the project of the Emirates stadium so well.

so if they fail to ensure the funding they have to plan a new location or even a new stadium?

Renovate the current stadium, it is holy ground any way and extend it to sixtythousend. The way te stadium looks now it is easely extendeble. I do not know how it is on the outside and the area but maybe they could do something commercial there, but others will have to fill you in an that.
A shame because the stadium design looked great!

I spoke to a Liverpool season ticket holder today who told me with Moores looking to sell as soon as he can find someone who matches his valuation, it's unlikely he'll spend anything on long-term investment as he doesn't want to be around to see it come to fruition. This leaves the club in a short-term no man's land and stuck for the foreseeable future at Anfield, even though planning was apporved two years ago.

http://www.merseyviews.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/wallpapers/fc.jpg

In my opinion, holy ground or not Anfield is a non-starter when it comes to redevelopment. It's hemmed in on all sides by terraced houses and roads. The access behind the Main Stand is pitifully inadequate, bordering on the dangerous. The Anfield Road end now all but overhangs the Anfield Road so the space there has all been used. The Kop has a small amount of space behind it, negated by the angle of the road that touches the corner of the ground. The only space available is behind the Centenary Stand - and that's because when it was extended in 1990/91, they had to buy the whole of the Kemlyn Road (the name of the road on which the old stand stood) in order to demolish it. Even that took years longer than expected because two old sisters refused to sell their house, despite bricks-through-the-window tactics from some sections of the Liverpool support to get them to think again. I can't remember whether they ended up being bought out for more or they just died. It was a real saga.

Liverpool really have no choice in the longer term. They have to move to Stanley Park (about 600 yards to the right of the Anfield Road on this picture, for those not familiar with the area), but it may take a change of ownership for it to happen now. Until then, in exactly the same situation as Arsenal have been for the last ten years.

At least Liverpool don't have the same legal, planning or financial problems that Arsenal had. With everything else seemingly in place, it just appears to be a case of finding the necessary will before someone else gets the chance to develop the site.

The photo of anfield makes very clear why development is not possible there, Thanks,
The only wise thing to do is get things sorted out then for a new stadium, or stay were they are and lose loads of money!

there's no room to expand Anfield, no bloody way, this is the same for St James Pk or Everton etc.

its more than just 2 roads that need moving, it's all the surrounding houses too, Anfield would need about 100 ft of clear space all around to grow to 60 000; better still 70 000.

and even then it would still look ``boxed in``, no they're better off with a new site and a rich chairman too!

I think thats right. they do own most if not all houses behind the main stand. and developing that stand was considered seriously and who knows may come back as a possibility if the new stadium falls through.

I remember their chairman saying it was abandoned because it was apparently expensive and would be disruptive for years, but perhaps also because they feared it might not be future-proof with the cramped surroundings remaining.

They can probably reach 55,000 by developing just one stand and I would consider that quite likely to happen.

I hope it happens and I hope everton manage to build a new stadium. Would be great for the city with a great old-developed and also a great new stadium. Shame about kings dock

The original plans included a feasibility study for redeveloping anfield.

This proposed:

The closing of Anfield Rd, building a stand the same size (c12K) as the Kop at that end.

Then redeveloping the Main Stand (unknown capacity) after that.

The problem with this was loss of Revenue / Facilities during the build.

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=59291.0;attach=19513;image

The way things are going this is looking more probable, unfortunately the Anfield / Breckfield regeneration tied in with a new stadium could fall by the wayside.

The problem with the existing site is that it only facilitates building up rather than out - so some disruption will be inevitable - but surely worth it in the end??! Is sharing a complete no=no in a future stadium?

Do you have a bigger picture of that render?

The original plans included a feasibility study for redeveloping anfield.

This proposed:

The closing of Anfield Rd, building a stand the same size (c12K) as the Kop at that end.

Then redeveloping the Main Stand (unknown capacity) after that.

The problem with this was loss of Revenue / Facilities during the build.

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=59291.0;attach=19513;image

The way things are going this is looking more probable, unfortunately the Anfield / Breckfield regeneration tied in with a new stadium could fall by the wayside.

Can't they do all sides of the stadium like this ?

Can't they do all sides of the stadium like this ?


that rendering is a bit misleading, heres anfield currently and shows why expansion would be tricky

http://www.the-lightbox.com/newpix/anfield_aerial_view.jpg

(note the fact that anfield is surrounded by rows of terraced housing)

The club owns all the property on Anfield Road and most of the properties behind the main stand.

It would probably require CPOs and a Anfield Road's closure to make the scheme viable.

That's the only render I have seen, it is from the Anfield / Breckfield Regeneration Report. Shame it's so small

I'm glad you put the aerial picture up, beacuse anyone who's ever been to Anfield would know that this render is totally unrealistic.

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=59291.0;attach=19513;image

The space behind the Main Stand today (cap. 45k) is totaly unsuited to large crowds. With a larger capacity, not only do the club need more space to build the stand, but even more space to adequately accommodate the fans outside the ground before and after the game. Of all clubs in the world, Livepool must be most sensitive to these kind of safety considerations.

Add in the future-proofing, the loss of revenue duiring the buildout, the cost and time of the CPO's and the unpredictability of the Council's co-operation and I can't believe the Board would seriously favour this option over Stanley Park.

Incidentally, I heard on the radio this morning the first reference to the project for a long time. It was only a quote from the club that the project 'was not dead', which is hardly a ringing endorsement, I know. Even though David Moores is widely thought to be the main opponent to progress with it, I just have a feeling that there is still some way to go before we can write it off.

Some news today....

Liverpool Daily Post (http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0500liverpoolfc/0100news/tm_objectid=17675098%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=city%2dto%2dsign%2dlfc%2dstadium%2dlease%2d-name_page.html)

City to sign LFC stadium lease

Sep 4 2006

CITY politicians are set to lease a slice of historic Stanley Park, paving the way for work to start on a new stadium for Liverpool FC early in 2007.

It means the club could host the first game at its new home at the start of the 2009 season, a report to Liverpool City Council's executive board reveals.

The board will meet on Friday to make the landmark decision that will trigger the biggest-ever regeneration programme in north Liverpool, worth more than £240m.

The next few weeks will be critical as LFC officials put together a financial package that will fund the club's £180m contribution to the project.

That will trigger funding from the public sector worth millions of pounds before a deadline set for the end of this month.

Sources at the city council close to the deal are confident the funding package will be in place before the deadline. Despite more than 400 objections from individual residents and organisations, the executive board is being recommended to agree to release land in Stanley Park for the new football stadium.

Liverpool FC will be granted a 999-year lease, with the area managed by a new joint venture company set up on a 50-50 basis with the city council.

The club will pay the city council £300,000 a year ground rent.

This week's expected support for the strategy will finally test the threat of opponents who say they will legally challenge what they claim is a sell-off of open spaces and parkland.

A programme outlined in a report to the council's executive board envisages a start on the new stadium early next year.

Full planning permission for the stadium has already been granted, leaving the park deal the last major hurdle to face.

Club officials are expected to satisfy European Objective 1 funding monitors within weeks that money is in place to pay for the new ground.

That will trigger the release of £15m to pay for public works around the new stadium. A total of £40m - including European funds - in public sector cash is expected.

Councillors have been issued with a 640-page report outlining the arrangements for what is described as the New Anfield.

Three leading executive board members, Cllrs Mike Storey, Berni Turner and Keith Turner, have worked alongside acting regeneration chief Ben Dolan, on the strategy.

Cllr Storey will be making a presentation to the executive board at the town hall on Friday morning, seeking approval from his cabinet colleagues.

A yes vote from the cabinet will pave the way for:

* Granting of a 999-year lease for the site of the proposed new stadium;

* Design and restoration work for Stanley Park and the Gladstone Conservatory;

* Demolition of the 1960s Vernon Sangster sports centre in Stanley Park.

City council leader Cllr Warren Bradley said last night: "Liverpool Football Club is one of the best known and most successful clubs in the world.

"Yet it stands in one of the poorest areas, not only in the city, but in the country.

"What we are looking to do is not just provide a new home for the football club fitting for their status as one of the world's best, but use their success to spark a dramatic revival of the Anfield and Breckfield areas.

"For the past five years, we have worked with the Anfield Breckfield Partnership Forum on the strategy to regenerate the area and every consultation with the local community has shown overwhelming support for this scheme.

"There have been some objections to the loss of open space and clearly we will consider these very carefully before making any decisions.

"However, this is a golden opportunity for North Liverpool to be transformed."

Liverpool FC's chief executive Rick Parry said: "We are committed to the regeneration of the Anfield Breckfield area and intend that our investment in a new stadium benefits this neighbourhood and Liverpool."

Cllr Storey said last night: "The new stadium will provide a 21st-century business and tourist destination and a catalyst for the regeneration of the wider areas.

"The entire project will be delivered between 2006 and 2010."

The aim is to carry out the New Anfield Project in three phases. The first stage will see the building of the new stadium as well as a Community Partnership Centre.

The remainder of Grade II listed Stanley Park, one of the country's recognised Victorian parks, will be restored to its former glory.

That work will include the refurbishment of the Stanley Conservatory.

Phase 2 will see the refurbishment of the adjoining Anfield Cemetery. Phase 3 will see the creation of Anfield Plaza on the site of the old ground. It will include spaces for businesses, retail and leisure.

The development will be led by the new joint venture company which will have two directors each from the city council and the club.

The company will be responsible for the regeneration of the area covering the stadium, as well as the new Anfield Plaza, but will have no influence over the remainder of Stanley Park.

Officials at the council say the regeneration scheme and new stadium will create more than 1,000 new jobs, 766 full -time and 260 jobs in construction work.

The number of tourists flocking to Anfield will rise from the current 480,000 a year to 1.74m.

The city council will take charge of public sector funds, dependent on Liverpool FC confirming private sector investment.

The new Community Partnership Centre will have facilities for education, sport and community activities.

Timetable for action

* SEPTEMBER 8 - Council Executive Board to vote on releasing Stanley Park for new stadium

* End of September - Final decision on public sector funding

* Spring 2007 - Work starts on new stadium

* May 2007 - Vernon Sangster centre demolished

* Spring 2009 - Work on new stadium finished and handed over to club

* August 2009 - First match at new stadium

* December 2009 - Existing Anfield stadium demolished

* May 2010 - Building of New Anfield Plaza on site of old ground

The sparkling new Anfield will hold 60,000 spectators

THE new stadium will increase Anfield's capacity by 15,000 to 60,000.

There will be an underground car park, club shop and museum as well as the Community Partnership centre.

Extensive CCTV systems will be installed, making the areas around the stadium, the new Plaza and Stanley Park safer.

Liverpool FC will pay an annual ground rent of £300,000, increasing in line with inflation.

The football club will be allowed to use part of Stanley Park to store excavated soil from the new stadium for 18 months.

Liverpool FC has ruled out developing the existing stadium or moving to a new site in Speke.

Properties in Anfield Road will have to be cleared to make way for the stadium. They are already owned by either the club or the city council.

Three council tenants in Anfield Court are to be given priority for relocation.

GREAT NEWS!

Are there any plans for some sort of "LFC museum" or "memorial" on the original Anfield site, after its demolition ("Anfield Plaza")? Something? What about the "This is Anfield" sign? Will it be moved to the new stadium?

Another council house.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/1big.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/4big.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/8big.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/3big.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/6big.jpg

Liverpool should have made it at least 70,000, they are a big enough club to regulalry fill that kind of a capacity. And the design looks mediocore at best.

nah, Old Trafford is in Trafford MBC. Anyone who thinks Trafford is a seperate place to Manchester has a screw loose.

BTW I'm a Liverpool fan, lived in Liverpool till I was 7.

Liverpool should have made it at least 70,000, they are a big enough club to regulalry fill that kind of a capacity. And the design looks mediocore at best.
You've pretty much summed up my feelings about the whole thing. Moving to a new home just to increase a 45'000 capacity by 10'000 is abhorrent. Like you say, we could easily fit 70'000 in at home games.

Liverpool should have made it at least 70,000, they are a big enough club to regulalry fill that kind of a capacity. And the design looks mediocore at best.

i agree with this, looks like the local council and transport wont allow higher capacities. its ridiculous

Im sure they can do a quick re-design, something with a KOP in it, i.e single tired high stand, Im sure I can come up with a design, but it still has to look proffesional & modern.

& andysimo123, u just sour because this stadium looks better than that shit hole your'll call the "Theatre of dreams"

Back on topic..... A single tier KOP c15K

From Radio City's site (local radio)

Work on Liverpool’s new stadium could get underway in the New Year.

Its reported city politicians will give the go ahead to lease out part of Stanley Park – that means builders can start after Christmas.

The ground should then be ready for the start of the 2009 season.

But the club will have to confirm in the next few weeks that they’ve got enough cash to fund their part of the project.

Current stadium manager Ged Poynton says they’ve worked hard on the designs to make sure fans approve – and they include keeping the Kop.

“One of the main points the board of directors have decided on, and I think it’s great on Liverpool’s behalf, is their going to retain a ‘Kop Three’ if we can call it that," he told Radio City.

“It won’t be a two tier stand; it will be a one lift stand for about 14,000 to 15,000 seats.

“It’ll look similar to the old Kop so we’re going to retain a Kop type of end to the new stadium which I think most fans will be happy with,” he added.

It’s thought the club will have to put together a financial package worth £180 million.

Planning permission for the stadium has already been granted.

Don't just look at the capacity as being 15,000 extra seats (Probably closer to 17,000 in the end actually). Arsenal are getting massive returns on their new stadium which is 60,000 because of the corporate facilities. We don't have good enough faciliies to milk this market at Anfield and if/when we move we'll really be able to exploit this and cash in.

61000/62000 is a decent figure and it ensures it'd be sold out every week, at 70,000 that's questionable at the moment. In several years we may be able to sell out 70,000 seats but the cost of building a 70,000 seater stadium as opposed to a 60,000 one are huge and not worth it right now.

The stadium doesn't look like it could be easily expanded anytime soon. But if demand was there and we had the money, I'm sure an engineer would love the challenge.

Its true what Steve C says, & normally they only count the number of seats in the corperate suites, people can be inside the suite at the time & still enjoy the game.
Plus I think its time that a world class club got a world class stadium, not to say that the old Anfield was horrible, its just time for a change ........& a bigger torphy room ;)

So is this 2009 opening date just the earliest time it could open?

*noting that Arsenal had started work in 2002 and had to hold back working until 2004.

Yes, afl designed LFC's and the Reebok.

You best get used to these designs though, especially when clubs have a tight budget. Stadiums are built to be cost effective, not to be architectural wonders.

This is from another message board about stadiums which explains why most new stadiums look the same:


The reason the Emirates is similar to The Stadium of Light or other big stadiums is simply it provides the maximum number of seats with the best view for the most economic cost.

Ever since the emergence of the 'Stadium For The 90's' project back in the early 90's which produced the McAlpine Stadium and then the Reebok, the idea of curved seating decks where more seats are situated in the centre and less in the corners - giving a circular 'viewing distance' plan, means the parameters have been set out.

Planning a stadium has become a scientific art with viewing distances and 'c' values - thus all glitches have been ironed out, and a 'perfect' bowl will be that shown at The Emirates.

Wembley will follow the same parameters but allow more seats in the upper corners to 'up' the capacity - in fact it is now a given that 90,000 is the maximum capacity for a football stadium, whereby all seats have 'acceptable' views of the pitch. Any larger and the uppermost seats will be too far from the pitch to have an acceptable view.

Likewise smaller stadiums will follow the exact same footprint but cutting bits out (upper tiers/ corners etc).

Therefore the only possible design variants are the depths of each tier, the steepness and the roof construction. The Emirates proves this by being SIMILAR to The Stadium Of Light in terms of seating decks, although rakes have been amended and a completely different 'drooping' roof design has been used on the Emirates.

So to conclude, if you don't like 'bowl' stadia you will be disappointed as most stadia that require a decent capacity, will be opting for this layout as it is the most efficient. It may be that less seats are used at the ends and more on the sides, but it will always be a variant of the form now set out.

From AFL's website, render from the air.

http://img342.imageshack.us/img342/6346/anfield2km5.jpg

You can clearly see the entrance to the underground car park.

well one thing going for it is the roof which is clear(glass) nearer the centre which would make it feel much more airy, bigger and will allow much more light into the stadium

well one thing going for it is the roof which is clear(glass) nearer the centre which would make it feel much more airy, bigger and will allow much more light into the stadium

my only concern is the shadow on the pitch

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/6big.jpg[/

yeah agree, but with a solid roof it will just be dark shadows. at least like this more light can get through, be it with some lines on the pitch

Hello there!!
Please check out my render for this stadium:
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/799/render8kg3.jpg http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/6075/render7zl2.jpg
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/971/render4ym5.jpg http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/3810/render2vh2.jpg
http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/2636/render1bf6.jpg

How do you like it?
I created this model for the game Simcity4. If you play this game, now you can build this stadium in the game. The download link is http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/index.cfm?page=1&keyword=dmscopio&type=all . I just saw a thread about this stadium here so I decided to post some of my render of New Anfield here. My model is not 100% same as the offical one (well is there a offical one anyway) as you can see. I did some changs in the roof, and the plazza area around the stadium. The reason i did that is just to fit the game better this way.

wow,dmscopio,thats fantastic.You really created that yourself?

Liverpool should build that one! ^

Glad to see Liverpool going for the 4 seperate stands look, rather than the more fashionable bowl design of modern stadiums. IMO they just look better and are more traditional for football.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/5327426.stm

Its been approved! :cheers:

Woot!

I'm worried about the funding aspect. Aren't we still in debt. I know we won the CL in 2005 and qualified this year, but we have splashed out on the players. Although I guess it is a risk we must take if we want to continue to complete financially and in the presitge stakes.

Building work early next year? Can't wait.

Woot!

I'm worried about the funding aspect. Aren't we still in debt. I know we won the CL in 2005 and qualified this year, but we have splashed out on the players. Although I guess it is a risk we must take if we want to continue to complete financially and in the presitge stakes.

Building work early next year? Can't wait.

Yeah would be great to see.
However I think it will take a longer time until everything is sorted out.

Woot!

I'm worried about the funding aspect. Aren't we still in debt. I know we won the CL in 2005 and qualified this year, but we have splashed out on the players. Although I guess it is a risk we must take if we want to continue to complete financially and in the presitge stakes.

Building work early next year? Can't wait.

We are still in debt but all clubs are, it's not a big thing. The debt we have is manageable so we're ok.

It'd be funded by loans and possibly some sort of naming rights deal - The Aldi Anfield :) I must say though, I'm pretty pessimistic about us sorting out the cash.

someone mentioned this earlier..

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/4big.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v367/porkchop2687/Portugal/Summer2004284.jpg

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/jun2005/3/6/0000DB12-C95F-12B7-84210C02AC1BF824.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2004/estadio_alvalade/images/luft_01.jpg

I doubt it will open August 2009. (love to be proven wrong though ;))

I'll bet you a tenner its finished before Wembley

naah i doubt it

someone mentioned this earlier..

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/4big.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v367/porkchop2687/Portugal/Summer2004284.jpg

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/jun2005/3/6/0000DB12-C95F-12B7-84210C02AC1BF824.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2004/estadio_alvalade/images/luft_01.jpg


:eek2: There they go again...The English make nice copies of stadiums don't they??? :runaway:

Oh your really right. This will be the second euro 2004 stadium located in england.

England just loves trying to emulate Portugal.

has to be said, if we're going to emulate one country's stadiums the portuguese would be pretty much top of my list.

and it's true. emirates = da luz. new anfield = that one up there that looks like it's been painted by a five year old.

Sh!t.

This all all we're gonna hear now for the next 3/4 years.

has to be said, if we're going to emulate one country's stadiums the portuguese would be pretty much top of my list.

and it's true. emirates = da luz. new anfield = that one up there that looks like it's been painted by a five year old.

I like it. Better than boring grey.

And it's been said before, there isn't much scope for architects and new stadiums. The bowl shape offers the best sightlines and most seats in the most cost effective way. We haven't seen the last of these 'copies'.

i love these portuguese stadiums so im happy with their "copies",maybe Everton should build the "Estadio Dragao II"

a well, beter make a nice copy then a bad design no?

i love these portuguese stadiums so im happy with their "copies",maybe Everton should build the "Estadio Dragao II"
I'll :cheers: to that!!! As long as they don't start copying German stadiums!!!
But to be hounest, it would be a great stadium!

mind you, even though it's a copy, it'll still look better than OT. i would like to see the 4 roof spikes reduced in scale and maybe the roof just takes getting used to! :cheers:

the bowl only works if it's totally uniform, a lesson OT ignored at its peril :bash:

it looks great on the inside and maybe even better than Arsenal's

I like it. Better than boring grey.

And it's been said before, there isn't much scope for architects and new stadiums. The bowl shape offers the best sightlines and most seats in the most cost effective way. We haven't seen the last of these 'copies'.

don't get me wrong steve, colour scheme aside i think it's a great stadium and as a liverpool supporter i'm looking forward to my first visit to its more tastefully dressed english brother.

now i'm going to get drunk: 3-0. bollocks. :bash:

Sh!t.

This all all we're gonna hear now for the next 3/4 years.

i wouldn't take it as an insult, eddy. that stadium designs are being replicated is just a fact, and as steve explained it often makes sense.

having said that da luz and the emirates aren't identical, just like that green one and the new anfield won't be identical. they're similar, but the details are unique to the clubs who occupy them.

hopefully this one will be under construction before wembely's complete, that way we won't be starved of major english stadium construction for any period time. should be, wembley's not expected to be ready until 2050, is it? :D

There are alot of very uninformed ppl on here :bash: , Stanley Park is a copy of Bolton's Reebok Stadium, That portugese stadium has a totally different ineterior. Satnley Park is a bigger version of the REEBOK stadium interior and exterior since its the same architects

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/jun2005/3/6/0000DB12-C95F-12B7-84210C02AC1BF824.jpg
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/5977/boltonreebok1ek3.jpg

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/newstadium/images/6big.jpg
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/4273/boltonreebok2ys6.jpg

^^ uhh thats an old render of stanley park

^^ uhh thats an old render of stanley park

i thought they had to change it to the brick design so that it blends in better with its surroundings?

and that they said the old metal/concrete/glass exterior would stand out too much...

i thought they had to change it to the brick design so that it blends in better with its surroundings?

and that they said the old metal/concrete/glass exterior would stand out too much...

Other way around. English Heritage wanted the bricks to go and the grey cladding instead. I know, madness, but what do you expect from EH?

The render also shows different roof support pillars and on the old render the corners were left open (Inside the ground anyway).

Whats going to happen to the Shankly gates when the new place is built? I wonder if I can buy them :D

Other way around. English Heritage wanted the bricks to go and the grey cladding instead. I know, madness, but what do you expect from EH?

The render also shows different roof support pillars and on the old render the corners were left open (Inside the ground anyway).

I think thats good.
Bricks arent the way to go imo. They would make it look old fashioned/retro

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/5389014.stm

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N153600060928-1247.htm

Liverpool 'nearing takeover deal' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/6205386.stm)

Liverpool are reportedly close to accepting a £450m deal which will allow a Dubai-based consortium to take control of the Anfield club.
The Dubai International Capital group will be allowed to begin the due diligence process this week, according to reports in Monday's newspapers.

American billionaire George Gillett and property tycoon John Miskelly are also thought to be interested in a takeover.

The proposed deal will include £200m to build a new 60,000-capacity stadium.

The due diligence process gives DIC - a subsidiary of the government-owned Dubai Holdings - exclusive rights to study the accounts of Liverpool with a view to finalising a deal.


606 DEBATE: Your views on Liverpool's future
The details of the deal are not known, and it is unclear whether it would be a full-scale takeover by DIC, or whether they would take over from chairman David Moores as majority shareholders.

But the news will concern those worried about the number of Premiership clubs currently in the hands of foreign owners.

Manchester United, Chelsea, Aston Villa, Portsmouth and Aston Villa have all gone through high-profile takeovers by foreign owners in recent years.

DIC is run by chief executive Sameer Al Ansari and owns the Madame Tussauds Group and the Travelodge hotel chain as well as one third of the London Eye.

The company is an investment arm of Dubai Holding, which is owned by Dubai Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum.

The Al Maktoum family are internationally renowned for their running of the Godophin horse racing stables.

Liverpool have been linked with other takeover bids in recent years.

In 2005, American billionaire Robert Kraft - owner of the New England Patriots NFL team - was linked with a bid for the club.

And in 2004 Thaksin Shinawatra, then Prime Minister of Thailand, made a high-profile bid to take control of the club.

good grief, another one?

10 years time the only thing English about the Premiership will be the fans

oh wait, Japanese tourists can already be seen at Old Trafford/Emirates etc etc

good grief, another one?

10 years time the only thing English about the Premiership will be the fans

oh wait, Japanese tourists can already be seen at Old Trafford/Emirates etc etc


True. No matter where you go, there is tourists. At Spurs we get loads of people from Holland, Finland, Norway, South Africa, Aus etc

Other way around. English Heritage wanted the bricks to go and the grey cladding instead. I know, madness, but what do you expect from EH?

The render also shows different roof support pillars and on the old render the corners were left open (Inside the ground anyway).

oh right, thanks mate :)


i wish WE had a City Council as supportive of a new stadium as Liverpool's...

it looks too much like emerates

it looks too much like emerates

:lol: It's not as though it's going to be built beside Emirates.

it looks too much like emerates

Well if Sheikh Mohammed buys the club, it could be called the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES STADIUM ;)

^^ ^^

Not too sure how that would go down with the fans, having the name UNITED plastered on the outside of the new Anfield! :lol:

Nah I got bets on Burj Al Anfield :D

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aeZO2JxZhlrM&refer=uk

Liverpool Picks Laing to Build 200 Million-Pound Soccer Stadium

By Sophie Kernon and Brian McGee

Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Liverpool Football Club, in takeover talks with Dubai-based investors, chose Laing O'Rourke Plc to build a new 200 million-pound ($390 million) stadium, three people familiar with the situation said.

Laing, site manager for the 2012 Olympics and builder of Cardiff's Millennium Stadium, won the order without an official round of bidding, said the people, who asked not to be identified before the contract is made public. Dartford-based Laing is Britain's biggest closely held construction company.

"Liverpool are right to be doing this ahead of getting a new owner so they can start building straight away,'' said Mark Hughes, a construction analyst at Numis Securities in Liverpool. The club's games "sell out every week and there are thousands more people who would go if there was room.''

Dubai International Capital LLC said on Dec. 4 it was examining Liverpool's accounts and may buy England's most- successful soccer side. A takeover would provide funds for a 60,000-seat stadium, raising capacity by one-third and helping the club to compete with rivals Chelsea and Manchester United as it seeks a first top-flight league title since 1990.

Construction of Arsenal FC's Emirates Stadium in London, which was completed on schedule, took 2 1/2 years from the start of work in January 2004. The England Football Association's new 90,000-seat Wembley stadium, the world's most-expensive sports venue, is running more than a year behind schedule after cost overruns at Sydney-based builder Multiplex Ltd.

Delayed Move

Liverpool's plans to move from its existing Anfield ground have been delayed for more than three years as its chairman and largest shareholder, David Moores, seeks new investment.

Liverpool wouldn't comment on its stadium plans today. Amy Horsley in the club's press office said she wasn't authorized to speak and declined to put calls through to Chief Executive Officer Rick Parry. Official spokesman Ian Cotton didn't return calls.

The club had ticket and other match-day sales of 49 million euros in fiscal 2005, according to Deloitte and Touche LLP. Northwest England rival Manchester United achieved 103 million euros, the most in the sport, and has since expanded its Old Trafford home to a capacity of more than 76,000 from 68,000.

Carillion Plc, named preferred bidder on an initial stadium contract with Liverpool in March 2003, was not asked to price the job when the plan was revived, the people said. Sir Robert McAlpine, builder of the Emirates Stadium and a planned 80,000- seat arena for the London Olympics, declined to bid, they said.

Mark Way, an external spokesman for Laing, would neither confirm nor deny that the builder had won the Liverpool contract.

Laing secured the order after completing projects elsewhere in Liverpool, the people said, including a 900 million-pound redevelopment of the city center and two new grandstands at Aintree race course, home to the Grand National steeplechase.

Dubai Links

The U.K. company is also close to completing a new terminal building at Dubai International Airport and was responsible for the sheikdom's Snowdome indoor ski resort.

Since its formation in 2004, state-owned private equity firm Dubai International has spent $5 billion on companies including U.K.-based Travelodge Hotels Ltd. and London waxwork museum owner Tussauds Group as the Dubai government seeks to reduce its reliance on oil.

Elsewhere in the United Arab Emirates, Laing last month won a contract to help build the $18 billion Al Raha Beach project, a new town featuring precincts for housing, shops, offices, entertainment and a marina, all linked by a network of canals.

Millennium-Stadium Loss

Laing O'Rourke was formed through the purchase of John Laing Plc's unprofitable construction unit by O'Rourke Plc for one pound in 2001. The division had lost more than 100 million pounds on projects including the 74,500-seat Millennium Stadium. It also built the 48,500-seat, 77 million-pound City of Manchester Stadium for the XVII Commonwealth Games in 2002.

Wolverhampton-based Carillion was originally selected after rebuilding the old stadium's Anfield Road stand into two tiers to add capacity. Last February the company bought Mowlem Plc, whose projects include the extension of Twickenham rugby union stadium into what is currently Britain's biggest sports arena.

"We have no position on Liverpool's stadium as we have not been approached by the client,'' Carillion spokeswoman Paula Manning said in an interview. "We bid for it some years ago and it got shelved by the client.''

To contact the reporters on this story: Sophie Kernon in London at skernon@bloomberg.net (skernon@bloomberg.net); Brian McGee in London at bmcgee3@bloomberg.net (bmcgee3@bloomberg.net).

Last Updated: December 12, 2006 04:24 EST

^^ ^^

Not too sure how that would go down with the fans, having the name UNITED plastered on the outside of the new Anfield! :lol:

Well I heard that, in rugby league, the Salford City Reds were going to change the first part of their name to "Manchester" for greater exposure :D

http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/premiership/article2108147.ece

Liverpool set for delay over stadium

By Andy Hunter
Published: 28 December 2006

Liverpool's move to a new 60,000-seater stadium could be further delayed if their prospective new owners proceed with plans to develop real estate and leisure opportunities on the club's historic Anfield home.

A newspaper report yesterday claimed that Dubai International Capital, the investment arm of the Dubai government which is close to completing a £450m takeover of Liverpool, will borrow £300m to finance the deal, is offering 30 per cent of their 90 per cent stake to City investors and plans to sell the club at a huge profit in seven years' time once it has maximised returns by developing "real estate/leisure" facilities "on the current Anfield site".

That final option, however, poses fundamental problems over the club's long-awaited move to a new stadium on Stanley Park. Liverpool City Council granted planning permission for the Stanley Park site, and allocated European funding towards the overall regeneration of the Anfield area, on the understanding that the club's existing home would be redeveloped as "Anfield Plaza", a scheme that currently includes some real estate and leisure developments but also a memorial to the victims of Hillsborough and those supporters who have had their ashes scattered inside the stadium.

It also includes gardens that will compensate for the loss of land the council has donated to Liverpool to enable the Stanley Park project to proceed.

"Anfield Plaza" was the result of lengthy consultations, and any attempt to revise the scheme at this late stage * with work scheduled to begin on the new stadium in the spring * will necessitate a fresh planning application on behalf of DIC and, by extension, cause further delays to the project.

But DIC's long-term strategy for Liverpool has not been finalised and sources close to the takeover were yesterday sceptical about the claims. A DIC source said: "DIC is a very serious investor with the ability to take a long-term view. DIC has not yet formally made an offer, never mind completed a deal.

"Certainly, there are no plans to exit an acquisition we have not even bought yet. What DIC is doing is planning to make sure that, if a deal is done, Liverpool has the best possible funding in place.

"This is also important in terms of making sure cash is available for the ongoing strengthening of the playing squad. Should DIC acquire the club, Liverpool will be well run, both on and off the pitch."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/sports/soccer/07liverpool.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/02/06/sports/liverpool.600.jpg
Two U.S. Buyers Purchase English League Club

By JACK BELL
Published: February 7, 2007

Two American businessmen and sports team owners — Thomas O. Hicks and George N. Gillett Jr. — completed yesterday a $340 million acquisition of the Liverpool club of the English Premier League.

The deal is the latest foray by Americans into English soccer, a trend that was started in 2005 by Malcolm Glazer, the owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of the N.F.L., when he bought Manchester United in a highly leveraged deal. Last year another N.F.L. owner, Randy Lerner of the Cleveland Browns, acquired the Aston Villa club.

The English Premier League is the wealthiest soccer league in the world, having recently completed a five-year, $5.3 billion deal to show its games on television in 208 countries outside Britain. Earlier, the league signed a $3.35 billion domestic deal with Sky TV and Setanta, an Irish pay-per-view company. The 20 Premier League clubs will share in the bounty, which certainly attracted Gillett, Hicks and Lerner to investing in English soccer, rather than buying into the nascent United States league, Major League Soccer.

In recent years, some of the top clubs in the world like Manchester United, Chelsea and Real Madrid have become global brands, with the potential to make vast amounts of money through merchandise sales and tours in Asia and the United States. None of the Americans involved in the purchases of the three clubs are devoted soccer fans, which has led many supporters to assert that they are in it only for the investment potential.

Hicks and Gillett each own an N.H.L. franchise; Hicks is also the owner of the Texas Rangers of Major League Baseball, having bought the team from George W. Bush in 1998. Through his private equity firm — Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst (now HM Capital Partners) — Hicks also ran two Brazilian club teams, Corinthians and Cruzeiro, in the 1990s before selling his interests.

“Liverpool is a fantastic club with a remarkable history and a passionate fan base,” Gillett and Hicks said in a statement issued through their company, Kop Football Limited. Kop refers to a former standing-room section of Anfield Stadium in Liverpool normally occupied by the club’s most rabid fans. “We fully acknowledge and appreciate the unique heritage and rich history of Liverpool and intend to respect this heritage in the future.”

Gillett tried to buy the club late last year, but his initial bid was trumped by one from Dubai International Capital. That group dropped its bid several weeks ago, which is when Gillett enlisted Hicks. The two formulated their strategy last month during the N.H.L. All-Star Game in Dallas. Hicks owns the Dallas Stars, and Gillett the Montreal Canadiens.

Gillett first joined forces with Hicks in 2002, when their companies jointly acquired Swift and Company, a meat purveyor, from ConAgra. He bought 80 percent of the Canadiens and 100 percent of their arena for about $180 million in 2001.

Gillett and Hicks promised Liverpool fans that they would build a 60,000-seat stadium in Stanley Park, near Anfield Stadium, which opened in 1884 and holds about 45,000 fans.

“We assure fans we know what you want — we want to win,” Hicks said in his statement. “It was not a question of money; it was a question of, are we the proper custodians, and I believe we are.”

So within 50 -60 days the shovel will be in the ground! Great news, & also great to see the investors so excited about this stadium, I wonder if they will alter the plans at all, not by changing the design drasticaly, but a few consmetic chages that will make the stadium more bold & not stereo typed to the other "modern" stadiums

^^ Great News especially for England 2018 :)

I realy don't know what to think about this. Liverpool is after AFC Ajax my favorit club and I have mixed feelings about this one. seriously, this man did'nt want to buy the club in the first place but after he took notice of the fact that the club is from the 19th century he wanted it suddenly 'so bad'.
I realy think these yankees have to hold themselves to there own sports and don't have to search luck in football. stay in that place of the world with your dollars. I'm realy not sure if Liverpool FC is getting better from this, financialy maybe. but the feeling for the real fans? nope don't think so. it's a pity that the biggest pearl of the Premiership is fallen in to yankee hands.

^^ ^^

At least they have been to Anfield. I'm still not certain Malcolm Glazier has shown his ugly mug at Old Trafford EVER!

I think it's best to give them some time before judging if it's good or not for Liverpool.

USA chants ?

Time will tell

So within 50 -60 days the shovel will be in the ground! Great news, & also great to see the investors so excited about this stadium, I wonder if they will alter the plans at all, not by changing the design drasticaly, but a few consmetic chages that will make the stadium more bold & not stereo typed to the other "modern" stadiums

From what I understood in the press conference, they will be having their own guys looking at the design. They want it to be the best facility of its type in the world.

Not sure how much scope there will be for the new owners to change the design.

They may be able to make minor changes within the stadium footprint and agreed height of the respective stands.

The capacity is fixed to 61K and change to that would require planning approval, I doubt this could be completed within 50-60 days.

50-60 days is when they will start digging..... it will take a long time for all the preparation work. That's pretty much what they said.... they want the shovel in the ground in about 60 days and then they will work out the details and final design etc when they get round to it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2007/02/10/sfnbon210.xml

Americans to make new stadium 'even better'
By David Bond
Last Updated: 12:36am GMT 10/02/2007

Liverpool's new owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, have ordered an urgent review of the club's new £215 million home to see if it is possible to make the proposed 60,000-seat stadium at Stanley Park even better.

Chief executive Rick Parry is due to fly to Dallas next week to meet Hicks and Gillett, along with American architects HKS, who have been asked to look at Liverpool's designs to see what changes can be made.

Among the ideas being considered 'bunker suites' – executive boxes built underground, with elevators to and from the seats in the stand above.

The idea was developed by President George W Bush when he was joint owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, which Hicks now owns, to offer a place for his father, who was President at the time, to watch games securely.

More are planned for the ground at Arlington and at the 100,000-capacity stadium being built nearby for the Dallas Cowboys, which is due to open in 2009.

Hicks revealed: "We met with HKS yesterday and we said, 'Here are the constraints, take a fresh look and see if there are other ideas we can incorporate on the inside that would make it more fan-friendly, produce more revenues and give more customer satisfaction', so they are coming up with ideas.

"What we have to do is strike a balance between new ideas and Yankee ingenuity at the same time as protecting the traditions of Liverpool and Anfield. We're going to do that very quickly.

"We kind of stumbled into the concept of the bunker suites. But it's essentially an underground living room where you can go down and have fine food, fine wine, big-screen TVs, and then go up and watch the pitch live."

Hicks wants to replicate the way he has used sports stadiums to regenerate run-down areas of Dallas. He has done it with the American Airlines Centre, a £210 million arena which is home to the Dallas Stars and Mavericks.

He also has plans to redevelop 1.2 million square feet of land next to the 49,000-capacity Arlington stadium into a leisure, retail and residential complex in a £260 million project, which will open in 2009.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/02/10/sfnbon10.xml

Texan vows to protect spirit of Liverpool
By David Bond in Dallas
Last Updated: 12:23am GMT 10/02/2007

Tom Hicks' secretary Becky is staring anxiously at a giant flat-screen television on the wall of the Dallas billionaire's vast office and fiddling with a remote control.

"We've got in all the soccer channels for him now, but I just can't get this darned thing to work," she says in a very Texan drawl.

Suddenly Hicks, who has been posing for pictures on a balcony outside in the chilly winter air, walks back into the room. "What time are the midweek kick-offs?" he asks.

I tell him they are usually 7.45pm and his face lights up. "Great. I can watch them during the day while I'm doing some work," he says.

Not everyone can spend at least £100 million on one of England's most revered clubs just to give themselves a little post-lunch entertainment. But then not everyone is as wealthy or as powerfully connected as Liverpool's new joint owner, Thomas O Hicks.

To prove the point, on the opposite side of his vast office – more a hotel suite than an office, really – is a framed letter from George W Bush and four pictures of Hicks and his family with the American President in the Oval Office.

Hicks, who made his fortune from raising private equity to finance multi-billion-dollar corporate takeovers, has long been one of Bush's biggest supporters but is troubled by the perception that he is part of his inner circle.

"I consider him a friend," he says in his deep, slow southern accent. "I know his father and I consider him a friend, too. But I'm not a close friend with either one of them.

"He's a big sports fan, big baseball fan. Three or four times when we play up at Baltimore he invites me to pass by and bring four or five players to the Oval Office and meet him, and it's a great treat for the players. Actually, I think it's a great treat for the President."

Bush was one of 32 partners who owned the Texas Rangers baseball team before selling it to Hicks in a deal worth $250 million in 1998. At the time he sold it he was the governor of Texas and there was controversy over the $15 million the future President was supposed to have netted from the deal.

It was not the first time Hicks' relationship with Bush had been used as a political tool to attack him. But with America now bogged down with the war in Iraq, has he ever wavered in his support for Bush?

"We should all let history decide about his reputation because we're going through a very difficult time," he says. "Tony Blair is immensely popular in the US but not in his own country. But history may be very kind to Tony Blair."

With the election race for the White House in 2008 already under way here, Hicks is now throwing his considerable influence behind the former mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani.

"Actually I'm more closely aligned to Rudy than I am to Bush," he says. "I'm chair of his Texas exploratory committee and if he runs his Texas campaign I am on his national executive committee.

"I think he will be a great President. He's the guy who can both figure out how to fight this war on terror and bring this country back together. We are too divided, we have too much red states versus blue states. We should all be one team and I think Rudy can do that."

It is a sign of the increasingly bizarre world of the Premiership – a world where Russian oligarchs rub shoulders in the boardroom with Icelandic biscuit tycoons – that Liverpool have become part of the Hicks portfolio. But he is taking his new venture so seriously that, during talks to buy the club with his fellow American George Gillett nine days ago, he missed a dinner for Giuliani and 200 Republican Party supporters in Houston to have lunch with the former Liverpool chairman, David Moores, and his wife, Marge.

That week was a real adventure for Hicks, who the night before had had his first experience of Premiership football in Liverpool's 2-1 victory over West Ham at Upton Park. It helped to convince him that he wanted to add Liverpool to his sports empire, which already includes the Rangers and Dallas Stars ice hockey team.

"Wow, West Ham's fans are pretty colourful," he says, smiling. "We were the only people wearing suits and ties and that night we heard variations of certain cuss words that I'd never heard before."

The next day, perhaps sensing that Moores and Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry had been convinced by Hicks and Gillett, previously favoured bidders Dubai International Capital pulled out.

That night Hicks and Gillett went to the Emirates Stadium to watch Arsenal play Tottenham in the Carling Cup. Hicks flew home the next day before returning last Sunday to complete the deal on Monday. The whole takeover had taken just two months from the moment Gillett, who had initially been overlooked by Parry and Moores in favour of DIC, approached him about becoming a partner.

So why was he so keen to get involved? "Well, George called me in early December and said, 'Do you have any interest in England's Premier League?' Hicks explains. "And I said, 'George, I don't think so. I already own two teams; I don't think I need a third.'

"He gave me a bunch of financial numbers which sounded attractive, but then that weekend I went online for hours just reading about the football club.

"Of course I had heard of Liverpool – who hadn't? But I was fascinated with the history. No teams in the US are that old and very few are old at all. The legacy of the 115-year history, the 18 championships, the gigantic worldwide fan base, the tragedies.

"The fan side was easy. To feel the passion of a Premiership game and the noise – I've never seen anything like that. In the US we just don't have that. I found that very exciting.

"On the financial side, I've been in the sports business now for 12 years and I understand all the commercial drivers. Looking at Liverpool, what struck me, with the 67 per cent increase in domestic TV rights, was that the Premiership is soon to be on a par with the NFL.

"Increasingly the internet is going to be huge, and as I look a the next 20-25 years I find that very economically attractive. When the new stadium is built, revenues will be comparable to any NFL team but NFL teams are going for two or three times that price.

"We have to be sensitive to the great fan base – that's the asset we have to protect. But if we can keep that overwhelming support and grow the perception of Liverpool around the world, if you look at Real Madrid or Manchester United, they do that and I think Liverpool can do that, too."

Hicks has identified two markets – South America and China – in which he can try to grow the Liverpool legend. But he and Gillett are determined not to jeopardise their relationship with Liverpool's fiercely proud and loyal supporters, and want to strike the right balance between tradition and exploring new opportunities.

"I knew about the tragedies [of Heysel and Hillsborough], but I hadn't associated them with Liverpool. As I read up on it and spoke to people, it became clear to me that those are a big part of what the club are about."

As he plans for Liverpool's move away from their spiritual Anfield home, Hicks also says he is focused on delivering a new stadium which re-creates the special atmosphere at the same time as providing the best stadium in the league.

But he won't be looking to replicate all the old customs of the Kop.

"Oh yeah, I've heard about the tradition of the 'warm leg'," he says, in a reference to the old days when fans could not get out to go to the toilet. "They were packed in too tight back then. The new stadium design will ensure a much more comfortable experience for the fans. But it will be our intention to protect the Kop."

Hicks, who was 61 on Wednesday, grew up in Dallas and, besides spending some time working in New York and as a student in California, has lived his whole life in the city made famous for us by the TV dramas of JR Ewing and Miss Ellie.

But the reality of modern Dallas, America's ninth largest city, is very different. It is now far more cosmopolitan and has become known for banking and telecommunications.

The typical Dallas image of plate-glass skyscrapers shimmering in the intense summer sun also seems a long way away. On the day I meet Hicks, a grey fog hangs over the tower blocks and, while snow rarely falls in these parts, it is very cold.

Apart from the winter chill, however, there still don't seem to be too many similarities with Merseyside. "Both cities love winners," Hicks says. "And they are very proud and loyal people," his son, Tom Jnr, adds.

Although Hicks' new purchase made headlines here earlier in the week, another type of football was making front-page news yesterday. The Dallas Cowboys have just hired Wade Phillips as their new head coach – such a big deal that The Dallas Morning News devoted page one and seven more inside to the story.

So to be talking about the Premiership in the office of one of America's wealthiest men is a rather odd experience. But Hicks soon explains why England is proving so attractive to sports tycoons on this side of the Atlantic.

"I haven't talked to [Malcolm] Glazer at all – we're in totally different orbits – but I can totally understand what he saw with Manchester United. The long-term media contracts are much better than the NFL, because football is the most popular sport in the world. American football can't do it. It's tried but it's not going to work.

"He showed us how not to do it. And we didn't approach it the same way. We were hand-picked by David Moores to be his successor and we paid the highest price to do it.

"But from everything I have been told, he [Glazer] is not unpopular any more. Human nature is not to like change. It would be easy to demonise the Glazers, but you know, they paid a lot of money to buy something that was successful – why would they change it? Why would we change Liverpool? We want to make it more successful."

Hicks masterminded his first leveraged buy-out when he was 31 and has been doing them ever since. His former company Hicks, Muse, Tate and Furst, handled $50 billion-worth of takeovers, most notably the deal which sold drinks brands such as 7Up and Dr Pepper to Cadbury Schweppes. He now runs Hicks Holdings but is much less involved in corporate mergers and acquisitions. Instead he devotes an increasing amount of his time to sport.

In the reception area of his offices is a replica of the Stanley Cup, the NHL's championship trophy, which he won with the Stars in 1999. He explains that what started as a short-term investment has now become a passion.

"I bought the Stars thinking it would be a three to five-year investment," he says, his enormous, diamond encrusted Stanley Cup winner's ring flashing in the light.

"I figured I would do up their arena and then sell it, but along the way I fell in love with hockey. Then I bought the baseball team and I fell in love with baseball. Now I have a chance to fall in love with football."

Sounds a good guy i think liverpool have hit a winner

oh shut up

well it does look like emirates.

English football's moving into a rather undesirable direction with all the teams being gobbled up by American owners.

I suppose that depends on your point of view and what comes out of it all really. Bit silly saying that when there are 3 teams owned by Americans and the 2 biggest have inly happened in the last 2 years. If it makes the game better.... whats the problem?

The stadium's been confirmed at 61,000 seats, as the owners want the 2nd biggest stadium in the premiership.

So there could be design changes, by the time they "dig the hole" insert piles, there will be plenty time to make changes to the design of the stadium, not major but effcetive design changes.

well it does look like emirates.

Was at the Emirates the other day.... if the new stadium looks and feels like that, I definately wouldnt mind. It will probably look as different to the Emirates and Anfield does to St James'. I'm sure it will still look as unique as an oval shaped stadium with roughly the same amount of seats can without going over the top (not some Frank Gehry designed stadium anyway)

well it does look like emirates.


it looks nowt like the emirates:nuts:

The stadium's been confirmed at 61,000 seats, as the owners want the 2nd biggest stadium in the premiership.

Happy to be second best?

What happens if Sunderland expand to 64000 (as designed)? Do Liverpool settle for third best?

it looks nowt like the emirates:nuts:

It's oval shaped with loads of seats arranged around a rectangular green area in the middle. Identicle.
:cheers:

It's oval shaped with loads of seats arranged around a rectangular green area in the middle. Identicle.
:cheers:

like spud said looks nowt like the emeraites

Happy to be second best?

What happens if Sunderland expand to 64000 (as designed)? Do Liverpool settle for third best?

Rather be 2nd with comfortable seats with plenty legroom than be 1st with shitty seats & NO LEG ROOM :)

Why don't they build a stadium with more seats? I'm sure they could fill at least a 70'000 seater steady. This is not only a question for Liverpool. There are many stadiums especially in Germany and UK which are often at capacity.
Is a bigger stadium not economical, even if it's sold out?

Why don't they build a stadium with more seats? I'm sure they could fill at least a 70'000 seater steady. This is not only a question for Liverpool. There are many stadiums especially in Germany and UK which are often at capacity.
Is a bigger stadium not economical, even if it's sold out?

To stay in Anfield the council will not allow them over 60k.

The local councils are so annoying, i wonder if other countries have problems like this. Isnt Liverpool's(where stanley park is situated) transport links able to cope with those large amounts of people? Wembley could have so easily have had 100,000(still hoping for in the future) capacity but the council would only allow 90,000, which is ridiculous cos now Wembley transport infrastructure is massively improved and could handle the amount of ppl.

The local councils are so annoying, i wonder if other countries have problems like this. Isnt Liverpool's(where stanley park is situated) transport links able to cope with those large amounts of people? Wembley could have so easily have had 100,000(still hoping for in the future) capacity but the council would only allow 90,000, which is ridiculous cos now Wembley transport infrastructure is massively improved and could handle the amount of ppl.

I'm pretty sure the 90000 figure is more to do with everyone having a good view rather than the council. AFAIK Brent council didn't put any limit on the size of Wembley.

Sunderland have to prove they can get crowds back, fine Keanes doing a good job, but when they were in the Prem, the attendances were pathetic, for such a nice stadium

Personally I don't believe there is any need for us to expand the stadium further (for a fair few years) - however, to answer a few comments above...

"Sunderland have to make it back into the Prem first" - we're the form team in the division at the moment, in the play-off zone and closing on the sides above.

"when they were in the Prem, the attendances were pathetic" - averaged close to 45000 when performing very averagely in the Prem, averaged over 30000 during the worst season in the history of the Premiership. Give us a team that is anywhere near the top of the Premiership, we'd need more that the 48000 seats we've already got.

"Rather be 2nd with comfortable seats with plenty legroom than be 1st with shitty seats & NO LEG ROOM" - I'm six foot tall and never experienced any problems with leg room in over a hundred games at the SoL.

another souless bowl

f*ck these seats on the bench. the bench must be suited with old wood and rusty nails. it is almost better to sit on the bench then to begin in de starting 11. you must be mad as a player to sit on the bench. isnt it?

:lol: :lol:

i can see it now

"oi, you! you're going on!"

"no, please, these seats are so comfy and warm! I don't wanna play!"

i have heard rumours from a good source today that things have paused whilst the new owners look closely at the old owners plans, i wouldn't panic though, anyone with any sense would do the same

Happy to be second best?

What happens if Sunderland expand to 64000 (as designed)? Do Liverpool settle for third best?

They'd have to anyway. Both Old Trafford and Emirates are larger than 'new Anfield' will be. I's okay, though. They're used to settling for minor placings these days ;-)

As you say, SAFC have in theory the capability to extend (although my FTM source tells me 66k). Having been there, post the 42-48k development, I can see how the simple, almost modular design of the place lends itself well to future expansion. A rare bit of foresight for UK stadium design, I must say.

Unfortunately, unlike many Premiership clubs where the demand outstrips the capability of the site and the willingness of the planning office to meet it, Sunderland have the expansion plan lined up but are saddled with a historically inconsistent team and a faithful but limited following (in terms of both numbers and affluence). It's one of life's ironies that their situation is entirely the opposite of say, Chelsea's or Tottenham's as well as Liverpool's.

For the sake of my mate's sanity and the chance to see the 'finished article', I hope Sunderland can have that period of success to get them to 66k (or whatever). At least in Roy Keane they have a better chance of achieving it that they've had in years, arguably decades.

Anyway, back on topic. While I have no love for Liverpool, I feel their frustration at being capped at 60,000 for their new ground. I always feel that planning will be the last bastion of opacity (i.e. lack of transparency) in public office (notice how I didn't say 'is the last bastion') and so they can come up with arbitrary numbers like 60,000 with very little to justify their decision. What about the additional revenue to the city of another 10,000 people a fortnight? Would that not warrant the extra infrastructure required of the city to service them? While I may not like Liverpool FC, I do at least respect their ability to maintain such a strong following. I for one would love to go to an away game at a 70k stadium in Stanley Park. More capacity implies (doesn't = ) better atmosphere (and it helps if there are more away fans) and certainly equals a better chance of getting a ticket.

The problem is that Liverpool City Council, for all its 'City of Culture 2008' triumphalism is still skint, from the days when the militants almost bankrupted it in the 80's. My wife is from West Derby (an affluent suburb) and her mum's Council Tax bills are still eye-watering, even now, 20 years on. This has left a combination of cash shortage and risk aversion in the city. It translates as 'sod the opportunity, it's cheaper and easier to just limit the planning app to something we can reasonably place a limit on'.

Having said that, there is a political point to be made about being seen to assist a business worth £250m get even bigger when too many of its residents lack basic amenities, thanks to the 80's shower.

Perhaps the 'Culture' thing next year will be the turning point to the city's finances. It has coincided with (or is it more than a coincidence?) a massive regeneration (http://www.bbc.co.uk/liverpool/capital_of_culture/regeneration/index.shtml) of the city which includes the £1bn Grosvenor redevelopment in the city centre, the construction of the 8k Liverpool Arena at the King's Dock and according to a report I heard last week, there are now plans for a £5bn redevelopment of the docklands area including high-rise buildings and amongst other things, a Cruise Liner dock. I'm sure there'll be something about it elsewhere on SSC.

So to sum up: Liverpool have a new stadium approved, in planning and not yet built. It's capped at 60k by a council who are concerned about the cost of infrastructure to enable it to be any bigger. Meanwhile, billions are pouring in to redeveopment projects elsewhere implying that this 'cost of infrastructure' argument may not always be as strong.

Someone also said that Gillette and Hicks are reviewing the plans before they proceed with them. My advice would be to do just that - and them change them to ensure that the place can be further extended in future, as the opportunity arises - just like Sunderland did!

It looks like an ugly ripoff of the reebok stadium

:cheers:

The ground tests have begun and the demolition of a nearby sports centre will commence 16/3/7.

The stadium capacity is ~60,000 as per the planning application, although the ground can be extended in the future it will have to get new planning permission to extend in the future.

There will be a "kop" stand and it will be the biggest of the four stands which are each individual as the ground has a bowl shape feel to it as they have enclosed the front of the corners but not all the way up.The stand will have 22,000 seats compared with the 12,000 now.

The concourses are 10 metres wide and for those wanting a bet most will have 4 people on the stands.

The pitch is 8 metres back from the stands which is quite a distance but this is to enable newanfield to host a World Cup Match or Champions League Final in the future.


• April 2007 - Work starts on new stadium

* 16th March 2007 - Vernon Sangster centre demolished

* June 2009 - Work on new stadium finished and handed over to club

* August 2009 - First match at new stadium

* December 2009 - Existing Anfield stadium demolished

* May 2010 - Building of New Anfield Plaza on site of old ground

There will be an underground car park, club shop and museum as well as the Community Partnership centre.

Extensive CCTV systems will be installed, making the areas around the stadium, the new Plaza and Stanley Park safer.

Liverpool FC will pay an annual ground rent of £300,000, increasing in line with inflation.

The football club will be allowed to use part of Stanley Park to store excavated soil from the new stadium for 18 months.

More to follow…:banana:

As you say, SAFC have in theory the capability to extend... I can see how the simple, almost modular design of the place lends itself well to future expansion. A rare bit of foresight for UK stadium design, I must say... Unfortunately, unlike many Premiership clubs where the demand outstrips the capability of the site and the willingness of the planning office to meet it... It's one of life's ironies that their situation is entirely the opposite of say, Chelsea's or Tottenham's as well as Liverpool's.

Anyway, back on topic... Liverpool have a new stadium approved, in planning and not yet built. It's capped at 60k by a council who are concerned about the cost of infrastructure to enable it to be any bigger. Meanwhile, billions are pouring in to redeveopment projects elsewhere implying that this 'cost of infrastructure' argument may not always be as strong.

Someone also said that Gillette and Hicks are reviewing the plans before they proceed with them. My advice would be to do just that - and them change them to ensure that the place can be further extended in future, as the opportunity arises - just like Sunderland did!

Nicely put. There's a lot of critisism for the 'modular' and stylistically 'uninteresting' design of the Stadium of Light, and similar structures like The Riverside, Pride Park, St Mary's, etc., but one thing they all have is an easy ability to expand capacities by up to and beyond 50%. Stadiums like Emirates, Stanley Park, and I suspect The Reebok, etc., is that it'll be very hard to extend their stadiums without things looking REAL ugly and costs going through the roof.

I suppose it boils down to one of those style vs practicality things.

I for one would love to go to an away game at a 70k stadium in Stanley Park. More capacity implies (doesn't = ) better atmosphere (and it helps if there are more away fans) and certainly equals a better chance of getting a ticket.

There would not be more away fans. Premier League rules state that clubs must offer a minimum of 5% of capacity or 3000 seats (whichever is less) to away fans.

Also, the capacity is 61,000. Making it slightly bigger than the Emirates. Mute point I know, but still, bragging rights an' all that.

Rumours today that the stadium might not be going ahead as the Americans want to do more than just reasses the plans. Could be looking at a whole new project. Watch this space.

They don't always sell out Anfield as it is, so it will be interesting to see all the empty seats when this white elephant gets built.

They sell out every prem game and its fucking impossible to get tickets.

Top 4 league attendances at Anfield this season:

44,403 v Manchester United
44,330 v Spurs
44,245 v Chelsea
44,234 v Everton

Bottom 4 league attendances at Anfield this season:

41,370 v Bolton
42,467 v Portsmouth
42,807 v Watford
43,189 v Fulham

Portsmouth, Bolton and Watford all selling out their allocations.

No disrespect, you're probably a really nice guy and everything, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Next.

Top 4 league attendances at Anfield this season:

44,403 v Manchester United
44,330 v Spurs
44,245 v Chelsea
44,234 v Everton

Bottom 4 league attendances at Anfield this season:

41,370 v Bolton
42,467 v Portsmouth
42,807 v Watford
43,189 v Fulham

Portsmouth, Bolton and Watford all selling out their allocations.

No disrespect, you're probably a really nice guy and everything, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Next.

but thats irrelevant.
Its all about season tickets as you should know.

A few expensive tickets may not be sold for a low key match, while a huge season ticket waiting list exist.
With a bigger capacity more STs would be sold and then attendances would remain around capacity.

but thats irrelevant.
Its all about season tickets as you should know.

A few expensive tickets may not be sold for a low key match, while a huge season ticket waiting list exist.
With a bigger capacity more STs would be sold and then attendances would remain around capacity.

With regards the statement "They sell out every prem game and its fucking impossible to get tickets", then it is, in fact, very relevant. It's showing it to be wrong.

And an attendance of 41,370 in a stadium capable of holding 45,000 is not 'around capacity'.

If they fail to consistently sell-out a 45,000 stadium as they are doing now, I fail to see how they'll consistently sell out a 61,000. The percentage of ST holders per capacity will not increase.

As I said: a white elephant.

Interestingly, a couple of seasons ago, they had 35,064 for a home league game against Portsmouth, then three or four weeks later they had 44,000+ for the visit of Manchester United to be followed by 37,000 watching them at home to Blackburn.

Sure, they'll sell out 61,000 for games against teams they're obsessed with or whose attacking style of play they like to appreciate but there's going to be certain games where vast swathes of empty red seats will be on show.

Realistically, they should be looking to build a stadium with between 53,000 and 55,000 seats and a lot more executive boxes, restaurants etc.

I'm led to believe from my sources that this is what the new owners are pondering over right now. A stadium that is too big is far worse than one that is not quite big enough.

They sell out every prem game and its fucking impossible to get tickets.

There's another problem. Apparently Liverpool have a crap ticket office and they don't have enough staff. I've heard Liverpool fans complain on the Century 105.4 radio station, that when they ring up for tickets no one can get though. Also there was also something about returned tickets don't get resold back on to fans ringing up.

Bare in mind that Liverpool announce the number of people through the gate on match day. Not amount of tickets sold. As said before every game is a sell out but people don't turn up. Arsenal/ Man U quote tickets sold to a game not those that come thru the turnstiles. Hence the hilarious fact of the announcer saying it was a sell-out at the the emirates when the played Blackburn in the cup when there were swaves of empty seats.

Taking the example you posted - Bolton - it was new years day which means some people just don't turn up despite having a ticket.

I was there the away end was not full.

I repeat what i said.

Every game is a "sellout" and its bloody hard to get tickets.

On the whole unless its restricted view or you want to sit in the away end you don't have much of a prayer turning up on the day - you will not get a ticket.

There's another problem. Apparently Liverpool have a crap ticket office and they don't have enough staff. I've heard Liverpool fans complain on the Century 105.4 radio station, that when they ring up for tickets no one can get though. Also there was also something about returned tickets don't get resold back on to fans ringing up.

That indeed is the other problem. There is a suspicion amongst locals that the ticket office won't answer the phone to Liverpudlians to try and sell them back to OOT's

If an attendance is below capacity believe me it is not for lack of Liverpool supporters trying to get to the game. There are always people wanting the tickets but often because of various reasons (crap ticket office run out of a house for one) they don't get them.

Interestingly, a couple of seasons ago, they had 35,064 for a home league game against Portsmouth, then three or four weeks later they had 44,000+ for the visit of Manchester United to be followed by 37,000 watching them at home to Blackburn.

Sure, they'll sell out 61,000 for games against teams they're obsessed with or whose attacking style of play they like to appreciate but there's going to be certain games where vast swathes of empty red seats will be on show.

Realistically, they should be looking to build a stadium with between 53,000 and 55,000 seats and a lot more executive boxes, restaurants etc.

I'm led to believe from my sources that this is what the new owners are pondering over right now. A stadium that is too big is far worse than one that is not quite big enough.

this is getting ridiculous. As if you could deem at stadium of 61.000 a white elephant and then suggest 55.000.. As if support could be measured like that, especially when the only thing that really matters is pricing.

But even so, again if they have enough demand for season tickets, then that settles it, and as far as I know there is a long waitng list

you say it yourself "sure they will sell out against the big teams" but the only way to see those games is to get an ST.

Yes, they had 35,000 against Portsmouth and another 10,000 itching to get tickets but they just couldn't get them. These unfortunate 10,000 then struck lucky and managed to get them against Manchester United. A few weeks later, would you Adam and Eve it, they got unlucky again against Blackburn!


Chelsea. The South Yorkshire Police. And now their very own ticket office.

Superb stuff.:lol:

But even so, again if they have enough demand for season tickets, then that settles it, and as far as I know there is a long waitng list

AFAIK there's 30,000 on the waiting list.

You just quoted a 6 year old article. Which Alan wrote when the new stadium was first mooted. You might note that its from the anfield4ever campaign which was disbanded years ago.

Anyway to quote from the club page:-


SEASON TICKETS

The club operates a waiting list for those supporters wishing to purchase a season ticket at Anfield and supporters should be aware that this is a very extensive with in excess of 60,000 supporters currently awaiting the opportunity to secure their seat for the full season. Any supporter/s who would like to join the waiting list should apply by completing a ‘Be A Part Of Liverpool FC’ application form, which can be obtained from the Ticket Office, the Club Stores, Museum, Reception, by writing to the Club, or by downloading such from the clubs website at: www.liverpoolfc.tv/tickets/fancard.htm by clicking on download Fan Card application form.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/club/a_charter.shtml

Just a little point about future capacity vs current attendances... Sunderland's attendances increased by over 50% in the first year at the Stadium of Light - this was despite being relegated immediately prior to moving in.

Arsenal have gone from a sub 40k stadium to a 60k stadium, and it doesn't appear to be too white elephantish.

I don't think for a second that Liverpool wouldn't be able to fill a 60, 70 or even 80k stadium (if they keep their pricing right).

all big english clubs can fill 70-90.000 stadiums

all big english clubs can fill 70-90.000 stadiums

copy that, they just don't have the balls to build them!:banana:

:D

i think another problem is the money
its very expensive to built a stadium in England
look at Wembley
1,2 bil euros :D = 10x new Ali Sami Yen in Turkey :D

I cant wait till the stadium is up and running and Banjo sees that we will fill the so called "white elephant" week in and week out. Egg on face for those comments. Has he tried to get tickets at Liverpool for a league game, its close to impossible unless you have connections or you are very lucky with the ticket hotline.

We could easily fill a 70,000 seater regularly, and it would be nice to beat our record attendance of 61,905, which seems unlikely now :ohno:

i would say just wait and see :D
as a Galatasaray fan i am also a Liverpool fan :cheers:

Well, I think all sides have something of a point here, but on balance, I'd have to agree that Liverpool are capable of filling 60,000 each week. As I said right at the beginning of this interlude, I also believe that there is a case to be made for a 70,000 ground - especially if they consider offering more tickets to away fans (as you said, SteveC, the minimum is the lesser of 3k or 5%, but there is no specific upper limit).

I have been surprised at Liverpool's propensity to get the odd below-capacity attendance (and it is the exception rather than the rule) but I know people in Liverpool who have just as hard a time getting tickets as United fans have.

The point about the ticket office being rubbish is an absolutely excellent one. I always felt that about United over the years when the viabiliy of each expansion was being quesioned. As a 'Sales Department', the ticket offices of the likes of United and Liverpool (and I presume Arsenal and Chelsea, but I have no experience of them) are absolutely pathetic. It's because they've never had to 'sell' their products. They just manage the queues (and even then not always well). If there is ever a time when the queues aren't there, they'll have to actually think about making it easier for the punters to buy their product, when now they effectively make it more difficult in order to regulate demand and in effect reward the most committed candidates.

Imagine being able to ring up or order online four hours before kick-off, choose your seats and put the tickets on your card (the chip of which now acts as your electronic ticket) or maybe you get a printout like Easyjet. It's all possible inthe real world, just not necessary (yet) in the rarified world of football. Okay, these fans are likely to become more fickle, but if you try hard enough, you'll find enough of them to fill a bigger stadium than you could manage when you weren't 'trying'. There's also (whisper it quietly) a possibility for general sale tickets - even 'affordable' or reduced kids prices. What about advertising like every other company has to do? This is the reality that the likes of Wigan Athletic and Blackburn Rover face.

So, where does that leave us? 25k current ST holders, somewhere between 15k and 30k prospective ST holders, a provision for at least 5k away fans (variable, according to demand). So that's 45k-60k before the walk-in trade. We're talking about the English Premiership here - the envy of domestic leagues around the world. Do we really think that one of its most successful teams can't fill 70k regularly, let alone 60k each week?

Banjo/Welly, I think you argument is not without foundation but is limited. Time will tell if you're right or not. Will you be prepared to admit it if you're wrong in 3 years time?

how they got planning permission to build on an old Victorian park i will never know, disgraceful

yeah right. Sounds like sour grapes to me. If Everton had been a bit more organised, they could have move to SP and had their own 60k stadium. Instead, they flirted with King's Dock, Kirkby Golf Course, Widnes, staying at Goodison and now back to Kirkby.

You reap what you sow. Don't blame Liverpool for doing what your club didn't have the courage to do at any time over the last 15 years!

^^hahaha,

Banjo seriosly you getting abit boring now. This whole new era in Liverpools history is just beginning, LFC are competiting with the best, & its obvious we need another stadium to progress. Telling me that the new stadium is going to be a white elephant is like saying you dont shit in your crapper, its there, its going to be used, fine it might not be sold week in & week out, but most of the time I'say they would be short a few 100 with sell outs for big games.

Liverpool have the support & they will fill up the stands whether it be the locals or the many international fans that travel to see their team in action.

I dont think they wil have any problems about ticket sales for this stadium, its just a bunch of ass's that are jealous whom are complaining.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/6450893.stm
Reds owners halt work on stadium
By Phil McNulty
Chief football writer

Liverpool's new owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have halted work on their proposed new stadium and ordered a review of the plans.

BBC Sport understands the pair want to examine ways of increasing the 60,000 capacity of the arena in Stanley Park near their Anfield home.

Preparatory work has started on the ground, but major external changes would need a new planning application.

Liverpool's new ground is currently expected to cost around £215m.

Sounds interesting, perhaps they're looking for at least 70,000?

:cheers:

The project will be delayed by 6 months as the new owners have put in proposals to have a 80,000 seated stadium built. They feel that the club should be competing with Man Utd and other large European teams for stadium capacity.

Liverpool's new owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, had ordered an urgent review of the club's new £215 million home to see if it is possible to make the proposed 60,000-seat stadium at Stanley Park even better.

Chief executive Rick Parry flew out to Dallas in February to meet Hicks and Gillett, along with American architects HKS, who had been asked to look at Liverpool's designs to see what changes can be made.

If the stadium goes ahead at 80,000 capacity it will need new planning application.

More to follow...:banana:

haha, 80,000, what utter bullshit

80,000? Well good luck to them!

If they get it built, we seriously need to get another tier on the South Stand at OT. We can't have the scousers packing more in than us!

Nice idea, but the days of scarce tickets will be long gone if it happens...

I've managed to get hold of a leaked copy of the Hicks & Gillett new plans
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/7492/newplansml6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Very good! Although I'm not sure you have enough boxes if they want 80,000 in. Maybe it'll be be like playing in a giant oil drum with vertical walls of glass!

Incidentally, why has there been no soft-target chiding about Liverpool's American connections here? The whole world was quick to call Old Trafford the 'Budweiser Bowl' (etc.) when Glazer came along. Here we may be getting something like that in the making and all the comedians seem to be ignoring it!

GRRR!

I see they have been releasing poll results about terracing being re-introduced to top flight football in England. Firstly would Liverpool fans be keen on this?

I must admit, the thought of places like the Stretford End at Man Utd, the Kop and the Holt End at Villa Park etc. being huge banks of standing supporters sounds appealing to me.

I saw that too.

I'd say it's like being offered the chance to be 16 again. Sounds great at first but the longer you think about it, the more it starts to lose its appeal...

Appealing or not, I think we can safely say that it's just not going to happen, though.

Seriously, if they really want to up the capacity they may have to look for another site. I just don't see how the authorities would allow them to take up more parkland than allowed.

On the other hand, why not try larger? Certainly, a club with a history like theirs would pack it in even at that number.

80,000?

wow, are Liverpool FC expecting all their "out-of-town" fans to get off their arse and actually go to games???!

can't blame the Yank owners for having ambition mind, fair play to them

60.000k is way too small for a club the size of liverpool even 65.000k would be a big improvement.

I doubt 80 000 maybe 70 000 to 75 000, as I said in some other thread, I hope the design is changed abit.

:cheers:

It is understood that Gillett and Hicks have not settled on a new figure for the capacity, but have told club officials to start talks with the city council about boosting the Stanley Park stadium capacity.

G and H are conducting a review of the current proposals to see if there is any way they can be improved, although it is claimed this review is not expected to cause a significant delay to the construction plans. Nontheless, the changes could slightly delay the club's schedule for building work (start at the end of April ‘07).

Options are now being considered apparently which could see the new Stanley Park stadium rival Old Trafford (76,500). Preparatory work on the 61,000-capacity Stanley Park stadium began a few days ago, and have been put on temporary hold while a review is carried out.

Liverpool FC now have to persuade city council planners that the facilities and infrastructure of the new, expanded stadium could handle the extra number of fans.

:banana:

i think LFC could fill an 80,000-seater stadium...and if they keep the 60,000-seater design, the outcome will be the same as Arsenal, who have had near enough full-capacity for every home game in the new stadium so far, which is good and everything, but when this happens, questions arise to ask the question-is the stadium big enough? Arsenals is a desent sized stadium, but they could probably fill a 70-80,000 seater stadium too...LFC is a very big club, it deserves a big stadium that intimidates opposing teams....