LIVERPOOL - New Anfield Stadium (73,000)

[Khaleejian]

Originally Posted by MS20

You're a numpty. Manchester-Liverpool metro is the 8th largest in Europe with over 5.5million in population. How do you figure Manchester United/City get 75,000/45,000 to every home game in a city of 400,000 people? Why would Liverpool/Everton be any different in potential?

There is a good reason Liverpool are one of the better supported clubs in England and Europe for that matter. They are one of the handful of clubs in England that could pull 60,000 fortnightly with no issue.

So... I'm a numpty for asking a question, eh? Bugger off.

First things first, why the hell did you even mention the combined population of Liverpool AND Manchester, and what point does a combined population statistic make, in relevance to the question I'm asking? I clearly only mentioned Liverpool, unless you're too illiterate to figure that out.

Secondly, you can't compare Liverpool's potential to Manchester's.
A) Manchester United is drawing most of its supporters from Greater Manchester, NOT the city of Manchester itself. And Greater Manchester's population is one and a half million heads more than Merseyside's.
B) Greater Manchester is the 3rd largest county in England. Merseyside's population is ranked 9th in the country.

Thirdly, yes there IS a good reason for why Liverpool has many supporters: it's called history.

[Toadboy]

Liverpool and Manchester are very similar in terms of population and there's a lot of crossover between the two around the edges.

By British standards Liverpool is a big city.

Also both are national and international football clubs, they're not dependent on their region.

[TybMwQ]

Originally Posted by Toadboy

Liverpool and Manchester are very similar in terms of population and there's a lot of crossover between the two around the edges.

By British standards Liverpool is a big city.

Also both are national and international football clubs, they're not dependent on their region.

There is a high correlation between attendance and distance from the club and hence a significant dependence on the region - for all clubs.

As for crossover, there are a lot more Mancs in St Helens (part of Merseyside) than scousers in Salford.

Originally Posted by MS20

Im not sure what it is that you're replying to regarding my post. I have no issue with what Henry is doing. His logic is sound, and most likely right on the money. What I was replying to above was a) idea that Liverpool couldn't draw 60,000 fans regularly, which is just wrong, and b) the actual catchment area for Liverpool clubs, which is far bigger than a "small city"

I'm sorry to disillusion you but 1.5m (the population of Merseyside) is a small conurbation even in European standards. And in the UK, Leeds is bigger. And Glasgow, Birmingham, London... Greater Manchester is 2.5m. Also small in European terms but with excellent transport communications and 20 years of outstanding success and therefore a strong and generational OOT support.

Compared to say Barcelona (8.5m?) Liverpool and Manchester both punch well above their weight in lots of respects but there's a limit to how many can afford to pay what they need to pay, particularly on Merseyside.

We (used to) get the Irish and we get Norwegians but it's a fact of life. Something we have to deal with. Can't be ignored for the sake of a p*ssing contest with anyone.

[Toadboy]

That's bollocks.

[TybMwQ]

Originally Posted by Toadboy

That's bollocks.

Insightful. Care to elucidate (shed some further light on your comment)? Nah. Don't bother. I'm sorry I asked.

[Toadboy]

I'll respond anyway.

Your input, whilst mainly intelligent, also smacks of applying logic to everything, derived from figures and statistics that allows for a very limited conclusion.

I believe that a much wider and holistic argument needs to be made, other wise we'll end up with a poorly spec'ed expansion of Anfield (or worse still a glorified shed of a new build) with insufficient capacity to develop the local fan base, never mind the national and international one.

[tommassi]

Originally Posted by TybMwQ

Compared to say Barcelona (8.5m?)

¿¿¿??? If you stretch it a lot, and I mean A LOT, it can probably be 4.0m. Not even close to that number you said.

[TybMwQ]

Originally Posted by tommassi

¿¿¿??? If you stretch it a lot, and I mean A LOT, it can probably be 4.0m. Not even close to that number you said.

I think you're right but seemingly 5.5m is closer to the mark for the whole conurbation - depends on where you look and who's counting. But the point still applies. Even 4m a hell of a lot bigger than 1.5m.

[TybMwQ]

Originally Posted by Toadboy

I'll respond anyway.

Your input, whilst mainly intelligent, also smacks of applying logic to everything, derived from figures and statistics that allows for a very limited conclusion.

I believe that a much wider and holistic argument needs to be made, other wise we'll end up with a poorly spec'ed expansion of Anfield (or worse still a glorified shed of a new build) with insufficient capacity to develop the local fan base, never mind the national and international one.

There's a huge difference between dreaming the dream and boxing yourself in with 'facts', figures and statistics. But both extremes don't work.

Intuitively, a new stadium can't hold a candle to a redevelopment. And it doesn't take long to demonstrate that's the case thereafter.

Mainly intelligent.

[robhood]

Originally Posted by TybMwQ

There is a high correlation between attendance and distance from the club and hence a significant dependence on the region - for all clubs.

As for crossover, there are a lot more Mancs in St Helens (part of Merseyside) than scousers in Salford.




I'm sorry to disillusion you but 1.5m (the population of Merseyside) is a small conurbation even in European standards. And in the UK, Leeds is bigger. And Glasgow, Birmingham, London... Greater Manchester is 2.5m. Also small in European terms but with excellent transport communications and 20 years of outstanding success and therefore a strong and generational OOT support.

Compared to say Barcelona (8.5m?) Liverpool and Manchester both punch well above their weight in lots of respects but there's a limit to how many can afford to pay what they need to pay, particularly on Merseyside.

We (used to) get the Irish and we get Norwegians but it's a fact of life. Something we have to deal with. Can't be ignored for the sake of a p*ssing contest with anyone.

Sorry but the Barcelona population isn't 8.5m,lol

Barcelona population 1,621,537 within its administrative limits on a land area of 101.4 km2 (39 sq mi). The urban area of Barcelona extends beyond the administrative city limits with a population of between 4,200,000 and 4,500,000 within an area of 803 km2 (310 sq mi)

[TybMwQ]

Originally Posted by robhood

Sorry but the Barcelona population isn't 8.5m,lol

Barcelona population 1,621,537 within its administrative limits on a land area of 101.4 km2 (39 sq mi). The urban area of Barcelona extends beyond the administrative city limits with a population of between 4,200,000 and 4,500,000 within an area of 803 km2 (310 sq mi)

As I said, still a huge difference when you consider that Liverpool has about 440k within its 'administrative limits' and 1.5m in the city region.

[Toadboy]

I'd have about 8/900k in the city limits for Liverpool, 1.5 million urban area and 2 million in the city region. The administrative limits don't really come in to it.

I understand Barcelona to be 4/5 million so from that alone there's no argument. What Liverpool FC and FC Barcelona both have in common is the ability to pull revenues from commercial sources globally.

Additionally what Barcelona have done that Liverpool haven't is create a 7 days a week attraction in and around the stadium.

Anyway, as usual very informed and intelligent stuff from TybMwQ, you've more than touched on this. Evidently commercialising the environment around L4 whilst capitalising on one of footballs biggest brands around the planet will produce more profit, more quickly, with less risk than a major stadium programme funded by debt.

My main concern these days is opening the games to the local youth though, this is where my emotional argument comes in. There's huge pent up demand for tickets in the city alone.

[TybMwQ]

Originally Posted by Toadboy

I'd have about 8/900k in the city limits for Liverpool, 1.5 million urban area and 2 million in the city region. The administrative limits don't really come in to it.

I understand Barcelona to be 4/5 million so from that alone there's no argument. What Liverpool FC and FC Barcelona both have in common is the ability to pull revenues from commercial sources globally.

Additionally what Barcelona have done that Liverpool haven't is create a 7 days a week attraction in and around the stadium.

Anyway, as usual very informed and intelligent stuff from TybMwQ, you've more than touched on this. Evidently commercialising the environment around L4 whilst capitalising on one of footballs biggest brands around the planet will produce more profit, more quickly, with less risk than a major stadium programme funded by debt.

My main concern these days is opening the games to the local youth though, this is where my emotional argument comes in. There's huge pent up demand for tickets in the city alone.

It's pretty easy to 'draw a line' around the inhabited bits and add how many are there (Office of National Statistics).

There's also solid research (Lancaster University) that the most people (in the UK) come from within 10 miles...

'Huge' demand is an emotive statement. The club have taken a more analytical view and reckon that the best balance of capacity, affordability and cost is 60k to 65k.

That doesn't stop anyone designing a stadium that can grow to match demand step-by-step, stopping when you can't fill it any more (see OT). At no stage is the risk more than is necessary/can be handled. At no stage is there crippling debt. At no stage is there a white elephant.

At every stage we have a full and exciting stadium that gives us the wherewithal to do what we are here to do - win trophies.

[RMB2007]

Council give Liverpool more time to dither on this:

http://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/2896/...e=breakingnews

[JD47]

I am starting to wonder that in my lifetime I might see LFC play at either a redeveloped Anfield or at another stadium.

[C F Looprevil]

Anfield will always be Anfield to all the Liverpool hardcore, every time I see the top of the Annie rd end as I get closer to the ground, I feel I'm home! What you reckon Peter, Main Stand, Annie Rd, square up and few more rows to the back of the Kop?

One question I do have, is; if we add ten rows to the back of the Kop and square it up, what capacity are we talkin with just those tweeks?

[JD47]

Originally Posted by C F Looprevil

Anfield will always be Anfield to all the Liverpool hardcore, every time I see the top of the Annie rd end as I get closer to the ground, I feel I'm home! What you reckon Peter, Main Stand, Annie Rd, square up and few more rows to the back of the Kop?

I agree with you. I spend a lot of money every year to go to see LFC and its all worth it everytime I see Anfield. Its a home to any true red. I really dont want to move. I really want to stay. I hope we agree something with all parties and we can push on to redevelope it.

[C F Looprevil]

Me too, i'm sure they can somehow enlarge the Kop by extending backwards and filling in the sides to square it off and expand it to 15k.

If you add a tier to the back of the main and totally re-do the annie rd to match, It would be a brilliant ground and one to be proud of. I'm also aware that you can change the goal post roof supports of the Centenery so that the roof is supported from behind and therefore you are able to add extra seats there too.

65,000 is surely possible and the ground would last another 25-30 yrs without having to have anything further done.

[manilyn17]

LIVERPOOL - New Anfield Stadium (73,000)

[ChesterCopperpot]

Originally Posted by manilyn17

LIVERPOOL - New Anfield Stadium (73,000)

That's an old old old rendering