LIVERPOOL - Anfield Stadium (54,074 -> 60,000) - Page 647 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas > Proposed


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 10th, 2019, 09:30 AM   #12921
Gardocki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 87
Likes (Received): 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zanderdad View Post
Just like to pick you up on a couple of points.

1) 'Bulldoze' is deliberately emotive language and you know it. It's not the kind of language that aids a sober assessment of the costs and benefits of any development. Some of those homes behind the King Kenny stand are fine and handsome buildings that contribute positively to the sense of place. I'd understand a case being made to keep them on those grounds. But ultimately, if the club ever wants to expand on that side it will have to make an attractive offer to the owners. If they accept, then fair enough. If they don't, well, this should not be a case for CPOs. These are not derelict properties. So basically, no one should be getting 'thrown out' of their homes. They get an offer they like, they accept and leave and the club knocks down the houses. No one loses if this happens. What we don't want is the council muscling in. It's not its job.

2) You say most clubs move on when they realise they need something bigger. It's hard to find many examples where this has been successful. I have yet to find an Arsenal fan that likes their new ground. West Ham hate theirs and where given it in special circumstances. Man City like theirs but where also given it. Tottenham's development has been successful because they redeveloped on the site of their existing ground - tapping into all the positive feelings attached to that community. Liverpool FC understand what they've got in Anfield. It is a destination in its own right. Famous the world over. It's a huge asset and they would be crazy to leave the area. An Anfield location is pounds in their pocket. It build the mythos of the club. Relocating would only take away from that. So the question is how to bring the ground up to modern day standards in its current location. And how can the benefits of that redevelopment be made to benefit the wider Anfield community, so they feel they also gain from it? There will always be people who can only ever see the obstacles. Who can only react negatively. Who do not have a 'can do' spirit. But, I believe the club can persuade the majority of the community if it acts in the right way and puts enough resources into it. Buy houses for a good price. Build solutions to the parking issues. Clean the streets. Generate the area as a job creating destination. If that means moving a road, so be it.

The Council can aid in this process, but the club has to present the case. They are starting to do this (e.g. the recent economic impact report) but there's a long way to go.

Patience, which is in short supply on here, will be key. The other issue is that Liverpool's Labour Council historically lacks vision and know-how, and with Momentum taking over the party, are going to be increasingly populated by justice warriors who think their main purpose is to stand up for the little people against big business and government. They haven't got a clue, quite frankly. That, allied to the kind of anti-development movements that have been springing up all over Liverpool of late such as at Pall Mall, is where the biggest threats might lie. There will be a lot of political capital to be made in taking up anti-LFC posiitions. See for example that young twerp of a Councillor (Doyle) who want the club to 'give' Melwood to the community in West Derby.

Tactically, it may be best for LFC to concentrate on making a success of the Anfield Road development before even thinking about anything else. People need to see the benefits because clear, visible proof is more powerful than rhetoric.
I agree with what you are saying. 'Bulldoze their homes' might have been a bit dramatic, and I wasn't comparing the Bejing example as like-for-like, just saying that it is not in any way realistic for the LCC to CPO the neighbourhood and re-route a road, especially when they have not been requested to do so by LFC.

The examples of other teams moving are usually driven by either compulsion, or being given a significantly subsidised stadium. While LFC would like a bigger capacity, Anfield is a good quality, modern, 'fit-for-purpose' stadium that is loved by the fans. There is no compulsion or desire to move and no subsidised alternative stadium is on offer.

The cost v benefit of increasing the KDS has been discussed many times in here. The general consensus from those who appear to be in the know is that it's not a realistic option based on the number of additional seats that would be created vs what would need to happen (cost & CPO's). The significant expansion of the Kop is also a non-starter, unless it was to be rebuilt as a two tier stand - neither cheap nor desired.

This is why, in my opinion, anyone thinking that Anfield can be expanded to a stadium of equivalent size to OT is not being realistic. A 70,000+ capacity stadium would have to be built on a new site, and I don't think its worth it for the club to do it, either from a financial or emotional perspective.

Oh, and I may have mentioned, none of it is the council's fault .
__________________

Macred liked this post
Gardocki no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old June 10th, 2019, 11:32 AM   #12922
Macred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,825
Likes (Received): 1469

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardocki View Post
I agree with what you are saying. 'Bulldoze their homes' might have been a bit dramatic, and I wasn't comparing the Bejing example as like-for-like, just saying that it is not in any way realistic for the LCC to CPO the neighbourhood and re-route a road, especially when they have not been requested to do so by LFC.

The examples of other teams moving are usually driven by either compulsion, or being given a significantly subsidised stadium. While LFC would like a bigger capacity, Anfield is a good quality, modern, 'fit-for-purpose' stadium that is loved by the fans. There is no compulsion or desire to move and no subsidised alternative stadium is on offer.

The cost v benefit of increasing the KDS has been discussed many times in here. The general consensus from those who appear to be in the know is that it's not a realistic option based on the number of additional seats that would be created vs what would need to happen (cost & CPO's). The significant expansion of the Kop is also a non-starter, unless it was to be rebuilt as a two tier stand - neither cheap nor desired.

This is why, in my opinion, anyone thinking that Anfield can be expanded to a stadium of equivalent size to OT is not being realistic. A 70,000+ capacity stadium would have to be built on a new site, and I don't think its worth it for the club to do it, either from a financial or emotional perspective.

Oh, and I may have mentioned, none of it is the council's fault .
Sorry, you are wrong.
__________________

Demolition Dan liked this post
Macred no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2019, 12:37 PM   #12923
Gardocki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 87
Likes (Received): 62

What am I wrong about?

The fact that Liverpool won't be buying out all of the homeowners on Skerries Road and rebuilding the KDS?

The fact that WBR won't be moved, meaning significant expansion of the Kop is impossible?

or, the fact that the council are not to blame for the fact that LFC are constrained by the realities of being located on the Anfield Road site?
Gardocki no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2019, 01:56 PM   #12924
Demolition Dan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 998
Likes (Received): 347

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macred View Post
Sorry, you are wrong.
Gardocki seems to think Spurs, Arsenal and the like plonked their new grounds in some sort of vacuums in the middle of N London. Ofcourse CPOs and wheeler dealering was needed to secure those sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooly View Post
Dan - has planning law changed since when Parry was trying to extend Anfield in the 90's? Is that how FSG managed to get the Main done?

Do you think that will impact if they can get the Kop or even the Kemlyn extended?

Cheers
Yes the law has changed very substantially.
Even in the 1990s there was the Anfield Plus plan which wanted 1700 homes demolished. The council supported it.

BTW the club did very outline analysis for a new Cent and I understand a new Kop. Ignore those people at Redandwhiteshill who denied it, they are just agenda-ists.

LFC and their nominees already own a fair number of houses around Anfield inc Skerries Rd etc. Land and infrastructures are always a substantial part of a stadium build cost. The new main cost 75m and the figure for everything was 125m as I recall. So expect similar land/infrastrucs budgets for a new Cent and new Kop. For whenever they consider those in more depth.

Personally I think LFC COULD choose to become the biggest club in the World. They could easily reach top 4 very soon. Having 6 Euro Cups and being in an English language country/English league are helpful factors.
But it would really need to do the Annie and Kop. All the biggest clubs have the biggest stadia. Its about identity as much as revenue. Sponsors etc want to be associated with footballing cathedrals not also ran apologetic stands and stadia. I think our fall in the 90s onwards can be attributed in huge part to the lack of quality stadia. And only 1 of 4 stands has been done so far.

Last edited by GunnerJacket; June 10th, 2019 at 03:59 PM.
Demolition Dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2019, 02:04 PM   #12925
Demolition Dan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 998
Likes (Received): 347

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardocki View Post
What planning law states that the council can force people to sell their homes based on the wishes of football fans on the internet wanting their club to have a bigger ground? There have been no proposals (that we know of) to the council from LFC to expand the KDS or Kop. What do you expect the council to do?

As for Spurs, they went about buying up various sites and buildings over many years to help facilitate the eventual CPO of the remaining properties. There was a vision in place, as was the case with the main stand at Anfield. Not sure there has been anything done by the club along those lines for KDS or The Kop.

All of this points to LFC being in a position where options to expand beyond c.62,000 are limited. It is not the fault of the council, nor is it the fault of 'opportunist blackmailers, money grabbers and Evertonian crybabies'.

As I said to Rob, it is 'possible', but its a very long road, and the likely scenario is that a bigger stadium will require an alternative site.
Early stage work is naturally softly softly. 120m + 65+65m could bring Anfield to nearly 80k. Retaining all that history. AN all new ground would be considered sacrilegious and destroy the soul of the Anfield area. A new ground would also be very pricey.A new ground makes no sense. There isn't even the need to threaten a move these days, due to planning laws improving massively.

The club own parts of the area directly or thro nominees. Their next step is to sell Anfield as a worldwide tourist destination. 3 current stands don't exactly help that. The club want the Echo and the like to act low key with all this. But work is being done. Its not "wishes of football fans on the internet". Its the combined wishes of many influential parties. And its not just down to Fat Joe the Evertonian. Matters can be escalated to the Sec of State and then the courts. Not that it would get to that stage. Concerts are just one stage in the process.
Demolition Dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2019, 02:38 PM   #12926
Gardocki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 87
Likes (Received): 62

There's no agenda Dan. I just don't think the proposals for developing Anfield to 70,000 + are realistic. They may be 'possible', but I don't see it happening for the reasons I've already stated.

I also don't think FSG will have the appetite for what you propose. Additional capacity will really only provide seats for match day. They won't be replicating the number of corporate seats / income / required facilities, which helped justify the development of the main stand.
Gardocki no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2019, 03:40 PM   #12927
Macred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,825
Likes (Received): 1469

This is taken from the planning statement - "As well as relevant policies and strategies from within Liverpool and the city region, it is important to note that the local plan process is now being developed in line with the principles set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Published in March 2012, the NPPF sets out the new planning framework, with a focus on delivering sustainable growth" - in essence they are saying economic interests trump other interests for example, the relaxation of building on green belt (this is all to do with stimulating the economy after the 2008 crash)... and if those other interests are a housing stock that is not particularly desired...

"The framework states that the area suffers from an over-supply of small two-bedroom terraced houses, which, in parallel with other social and environmental issues which have occurred over many decades, has led to falling demand and de-population within the area."

The houses in question (of which there are 60) are also almost 90% not occupier owned but owned by housing associations in which 'companies' LFC may or may not have an interest.

Also consider why the LFC commissioned the KMPG report that was released a few months ago regarding the huge amount of money and jobs LFC create in the Liverpool area - it was not just a random act but a clear part of a softening up exercise prior to the main planning event.

In so far as the Kop expansion, it has been discussed on here that adding 1000-2000 seats could be possible on the existing footprint, albeit you end up with a wonky back end. But behind the Kop, the Albert the council have already stated in planning documents that it would be CPO'd if required. The Church have previously confirmed that they would agree to a move. I believe the Park Pub would having regard to the overriding economic interest of the area and wider Liverpool area would fair no better than the Albert. All other shops immediately behind the Kop are in the process of being demolished. As also discussed on here, the road is being downgraded from 'A' Road status, it is being halved in width, meaning pavement, kerbs, drains, lighting, substructure, surface will all be moved i.e. you are building a new road, where it goes will make little difference to overall cost. Again, as discussed on here, the reroute required is minimal, about a 400m stretch; the club may have a sect 106 agreement to contribute to part of this cost, but overall, the overriding economic interest of a bigger Kop may overcome any budget objections.

Regarding how large can Anfield be, and the naysayers... Rick Parry said this "Liverpool felt it was impossible to further improve the current Anfield, but they will incorporate the Hillsborough memorial and The Shankly and Paisley Gates in the new site. Parry added: " It would be very difficult to increase the size of the current stadium to what we want.

"We are very short on space and the implications of re-building the Main Stand would be considerable. "Of course we would cope and we would get through it, as we did when we re-built the Kop, but we would be looking at three years of disruption as the building work was carried out. "Re-building the Main Stand would be a much bigger job than re-building the Kop because of all the facilities and the dressing rooms within the Main Stand. We would have to considerably reduce the capacity within the stadium for a long period of time."

"Also, when we were building the new Kop we weren't playing European football and there weren't as many midweek games as there are today. "It was a case back then of the builders doing the work during the week and then handing the stadium back to us for weekend games. That just wouldn't be possible today and the logistics of redeveloping Anfield are just massive."" and he was the CEO and advised by experts!! He also said that Anfield could not go bigger than 55k.

You say Anfield can not be increased beyond 60k - 62k - the club official, either Hughes or Parkinson said at a supporter's committee meeting that they were looking at 63k with the ARE and that was the existing structure, if they start from scratch, then that opens up further possibilities that could easily add another 1000 seats on the SKDS side. Squaring off the existing Kop another 1000, putting in seats in the enormous gaps in each corner as they currently exist could add another 500. FSG have form for pinching spaces for seats both at Fenway and Anfield (they added an extra seat to each row in the SKDS).

In respect of corporate seating, they can and will sell more of the Dug Out type lounge affairs where they realise there is money... basically normal seats in the ground and then a nice bar/food area that you can sell for £3,000 a season....and people are willing to pay... package that with holiday crowd... they can monetise the ARE hence the now rumoured inclusion of a middle tier. As Dan says, the main cost £75m or so to build. Behind the ARE there are no houses, the land is already owned by LFC, the road closure is already approved, there will be no expense of changing room fit outs, medical facilities, corporate boxes, press facilities, costs are estimate at £45m so less than half of the overall development cost of the Main for a potential 8,000 capacity+ increase - even at £40 - for 25 games that's £8m per year extra... if 2,000 are paying £3k and 6k paying £40 that's £12m extra per year.

I should add that nobody has a clue what they are up to (FSG/LFC or the Council) but the assumption that to increase capacity beyond 62k would require a move to a new stadium, I simply do not agree.
__________________

Demolition Dan liked this post

Last edited by Macred; June 10th, 2019 at 04:10 PM.
Macred no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2019, 03:58 PM   #12928
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 9,094
Likes (Received): 4848

Mod note: Folks, keep it civil and refrain from making derogatory comments about other posters, please. Keep it topical and not personal.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2019, 04:13 PM   #12929
Macred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,825
Likes (Received): 1469

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demolition Dan View Post
Personally I think LFC COULD choose to become the biggest club in the World. They could easily reach top 4 very soon. Having 6 Euro Cups and being in an English language country/English league are helpful factors.
But it would really need to do the Annie and Kop. All the biggest clubs have the biggest stadia. Its about identity as much as revenue. Sponsors etc want to be associated with footballing cathedrals not also ran apologetic stands and stadia. I think our fall in the 90s onwards can be attributed in huge part to the lack of quality stadia. And only 1 of 4 stands has been done so far.

How do you mean? Top4 in terms of revenue, stadium capacity, or stadium income?
Macred no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2019, 07:02 AM   #12930
Wooly
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 130
Likes (Received): 84

Quote:
Originally Posted by kgw1409 View Post
This diagram shows more clearly the extensions to the Kop that were discussed a few pages back. The dark red hatching is the extension done a couple of years ago and the light red hatching is the potential area for future extension that by my calculation would take the capacity to 16,040 (approx). It would require either a new roof or modification and extension of the current roof and a small overhang over WBR (if permitted) on the back corner nearest the SKDS.

Could you try and repost the diagram again please? Can't seem to see it.

Mods can you help?

cheers
Wooly no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2019, 12:14 PM   #12931
Macred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,825
Likes (Received): 1469

A curious oddity...

"Liverpool Football Club
Abdel Koussa worked on the 60,000 seater new stadium for LFC to be located in Stanley Park. Abdel was responsible for leading the envelope detail design, main roof detail design and external landscape design. Abdel was also responsible for structural and M&E coordination and was a designated team leader in taking the project through to tender stage. Abdel also produced detailed design studies, as the lead Sport Architect, for the phased expansion of Anfield from its current capacity of 44,500 seats to 63,000 seats. This was achieved through the expansion of the Main Stand and Anfield Road Stand with a corner infill. This study increased hospitality capacity and allowed for the inclusion of 2 large video screens."

If you scroll down to the LFC part...

http://koussaarchitects.com/projects/sport/

It appears Abdel Kousa worked for AFL up to 2013 before starting up on his own. AFL have recently been responsible for the new interior fit out at the LFC academy

Last edited by Macred; June 11th, 2019 at 12:21 PM.
Macred no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2019, 01:41 PM   #12932
Demolition Dan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 998
Likes (Received): 347

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macred View Post
A curious oddity...

"Liverpool Football Club
Abdel Koussa worked on the 60,000 seater new stadium for LFC to be located in Stanley Park. Abdel was responsible for leading the envelope detail design, main roof detail design and external landscape design. Abdel was also responsible for structural and M&E coordination and was a designated team leader in taking the project through to tender stage. Abdel also produced detailed design studies, as the lead Sport Architect, for the phased expansion of Anfield from its current capacity of 44,500 seats to 63,000 seats. This was achieved through the expansion of the Main Stand and Anfield Road Stand with a corner infill. This study increased hospitality capacity and allowed for the inclusion of 2 large video screens."

If you scroll down to the LFC part...

http://koussaarchitects.com/projects/sport/

It appears Abdel Kousa worked for AFL up to 2013 before starting up on his own. AFL have recently been responsible for the new interior fit out at the LFC academy
Yep. I didn't mention it specifically, but that was one of the things I was thinking of in my post recently. He seems a well respected architect.

I can't help but wonder if this new Annie is designed with reference to the possibility of an expanded Centenary Stand. This is because the Cent would obscure corner views in a new Annie.

I also assumed that KSS would be chosen for the final new Annie. :- /

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macred View Post
How do you mean? Top4 in terms of revenue, stadium capacity, or stadium income?
Well its a long way from biggest stadium right now. Look how long the Annie is taking, plus concert usage etc. Transport and Cent/Kop will take even longer.

I'm thinking top 4 in terms of TV money, general interest, maybe merchandising. Esp if Man C, PSG and others fall foul of FFP. I understand Real M have issues to resolve regarding it too.

FSG were always adamant that a higher capacity was needed than Arsenal on the grounds Anfield couldn't sustain the high price points of the Emirates. So now Spurs have come along, that adds weight to that argument.
Hopefully they won't get cocky and say "fxxx it, commercial and TV revenue will see us through". What FSG failed to understand is that sponsors associate a top club with a huge and quality stadium. Look at Real, Barca, Bayern. And Manc U til it started needing sprucing up. And watch it with Spurs too. Biggest, most successful clubs have the best stadia over the longer term.
__________________

symmetry liked this post
Demolition Dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2019, 02:57 PM   #12933
symmetry
Registered User
 
symmetry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,173
Likes (Received): 1255

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demolition Dan View Post
Yep. I didn't mention it specifically, but that was one of the things I was thinking of in my post recently. He seems a well respected architect.



I can't help but wonder if this new Annie is designed with reference to the possibility of an expanded Centenary Stand. This is because the Cent would obscure corner views in a new Annie.



I also assumed that KSS would be chosen for the final new Annie. :- /







Well its a long way from biggest stadium right now. Look how long the Annie is taking, plus concert usage etc. Transport and Cent/Kop will take even longer.



I'm thinking top 4 in terms of TV money, general interest, maybe merchandising. Esp if Man C, PSG and others fall foul of FFP. I understand Real M have issues to resolve regarding it too.



FSG were always adamant that a higher capacity was needed than Arsenal on the grounds Anfield couldn't sustain the high price points of the Emirates. So now Spurs have come along, that adds weight to that argument.

Hopefully they won't get cocky and say "fxxx it, commercial and TV revenue will see us through". What FSG failed to understand is that sponsors associate a top club with a huge and quality stadium. Look at Real, Barca, Bayern. And Manc U til it started needing sprucing up. And watch it with Spurs too. Biggest, most successful clubs have the best stadia over the longer term.
For all the good FSG have done in recent years (last 2/3 of years) they are slow learners.

They were slow on the uptake when it came to spending top money on quality players instead relying on "moneyball" tactics for years on cheap young potential.

When it comes to the stadium they'll never build a new one and I doubt they'll expand any of the other stands anytime soon. They love to tinker with rickety old grounds as is evidenced by Fenway Park.

All that being said thank you FSG for bringing old big ears back to Anfield and for the amazing season we've just had. Just think we were 11mm away from immortality. 1.1cm away from an unbeaten, 98 point League winning season.

Premier League, Champions League and unbeaten all season would've made this the greatest team ever in English Football.
__________________

Demolition Dan, mcrtricolor liked this post

Last edited by symmetry; June 11th, 2019 at 03:21 PM.
symmetry no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2019, 04:59 PM   #12934
Demolition Dan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 998
Likes (Received): 347

Quote:
Originally Posted by symmetry View Post
For all the good FSG have done in recent years (last 2/3 of years) they are slow learners.

They were slow on the uptake when it came to spending top money on quality players instead relying on "moneyball" tactics for years on cheap young potential.

When it comes to the stadium they'll never build a new one and I doubt they'll expand any of the other stands anytime soon. They love to tinker with rickety old grounds as is evidenced by Fenway Park.

All that being said thank you FSG for bringing old big ears back to Anfield and for the amazing season we've just had. Just think we were 11mm away from immortality. 1.1cm away from an unbeaten, 98 point League winning season.

Premier League, Champions League and unbeaten all season would've made this the greatest team ever in English Football.
I agree. I've always considered FSG to be buyers of stolen goods.
For much of their tenure I think they have been cheap scumbags.
They were given some miracles with Suarez and then Klopp. Their actions towards fan investment, early player investment, the £77 standard tickets etc were lamentable. They've really dragged their heels on the ground. And even let non footie permission for concerts etc LAPSE!

Ultimately they have reacted to problems, slowly rather than showing a good masterplan. If they'd spend 60m extra on players early on, with a Rafa/Klopp as manager, we'd have had about 3 European Cups or more during the FSG era. Transfer prices have rocketed. All they've really done is capitalise on a goon like Moores who believed his (LMAO) "advisors Rothschilds who told him to sell to G&H. They've sat back and ridden the wave of massive TV money and the associated internet based boom with English clubs.

Ultimately, the club could be fan owned and the ethos of the club would be untainted. Works fine for all the Germans and Real/Barca. Ofcourse Rawkite shills wouldn't like it but who cares.

Provided FSG aren't greedy, LFC can keep its place at the very top table. But the ground needs major investment. We've been here before and look how we fell. It saddens me to see the money they've made, and how gullible somany fans were in it all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardocki View Post
There's no agenda Dan. I just don't think the proposals for developing Anfield to 70,000 + are realistic. They may be 'possible', but I don't see it happening for the reasons I've already stated.

I also don't think FSG will have the appetite for what you propose. Additional capacity will really only provide seats for match day. They won't be replicating the number of corporate seats / income / required facilities, which helped justify the development of the main stand.
I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I think you're givng far too much substance to some of whats said at Redandwhiteshill. Its a known place for FSG's pr people to sow disinformation/lower expectations etc . Maybe a few touts in there too. No planning process is easy. Thats why 100, 200, 300m projects have professionals do the work. But this is a giant global organisation these days. It might be a little laborious but the eventual results are clear, due to the importance of it and new laws in particular.

FSG are hustlers. All the shxx spouted was a threat against fan boycotts but they know the maths. And those aren't all "standard seats". they are Thomas Cooks, Anfield Village, Gladstone Conservatory corp seats too. They should also know they can't kill the golden goose. Daytrippers don't make LFC what it is. Older fans aren't the future, they need the next generation of passionate locals etc. If Newc can get 53k a week locals even in the Championship, they know LFC can get 80k including outoftowners. Fundamentalist corporate greed ie penny pinching would destroy all the progess Klopp and co made. I think the corps took a little while to sort because you need people in the habit of going to matches. Thats why I think LFC can potentially overtake Manc U as the "neutral corps place of choice" in the future. Either way, there is clearly room for both as 75k+ grounds.

As for an all new ground. That only has one place. To threaten the council to speed up assistance or to leave the Lpool CC area. But in reality the fans won't wear it, the council won't wear it and it makes no sense financially, when so much of the work/investment has already been made.

All the transport research was done with the Stanley P stadium.Its largely relevant today. The approach has always been softly softly before stuff is made public. It doesn't mean stuff isn't being explored. It makes no sense to run articles saying "80k Anfield plans leaked".

No I dont trust Fenway to do anything other than to be greedy. But they've been open to selling the club for a very long today. Any Arabs/Chinese would jump at the chance of finishing the 4 stands. Instead of the lopsided/dubious looking thing we have today.A good ground means better commercial/image revenue too. Watch Spurs, see Bayern and Arsenal and Man C etc. Either FSG will sell up, or realise locking out 10s of thosaunds of Scousers every week will ultimately send them on collision course (ie a G&H style showdown). Thats why they have done work that hasn't been announced publicly.
__________________

symmetry, Tugger1 liked this post

Last edited by Demolition Dan; June 11th, 2019 at 05:12 PM.
Demolition Dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2019, 09:43 PM   #12935
Demolition Dan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 998
Likes (Received): 347

Quote:
Originally Posted by symmetry View Post
For all the good FSG have done in recent years (last 2/3 of years) they are slow learners.

They were slow on the uptake when it came to spending top money on quality players instead relying on "moneyball" tactics for years on cheap young potential.

When it comes to the stadium they'll never build a new one and I doubt they'll expand any of the other stands anytime soon. They love to tinker with rickety old grounds as is evidenced by Fenway Park.

All that being said thank you FSG for bringing old big ears back to Anfield and for the amazing season we've just had. Just think we were 11mm away from immortality. 1.1cm away from an unbeaten, 98 point League winning season.

Premier League, Champions League and unbeaten all season would've made this the greatest team ever in English Football.
Hopefully Man C will be done for Financial Fair Play. Along with PSG and Real M! : D
It was a phenomenal season in the league too.
Overall, I think we are probably just about the best team in Europe.
Man City have more depth ofcourse but we have that little bit extra for the Euro games.

I don' t think about that goal line moment vs Man C. Because its a 38 game season. But yes disappointing nonetheless. The Euro Cup more than made up for it IMO. Ofcourse it would be nice to bring the league back to Anfield next season!
Demolition Dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2019, 12:18 AM   #12936
Nitro
The Don
 
Nitro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London/Srinagar
Posts: 287
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gardocki View Post
What am I wrong about?

The fact that Liverpool won't be buying out all of the homeowners on Skerries Road and rebuilding the KDS?

The fact that WBR won't be moved, meaning significant expansion of the Kop is impossible?

or, the fact that the council are not to blame for the fact that LFC are constrained by the realities of being located on the Anfield Road site?
I agree with you that there is no realistic chance of the houses on Skerries Road being bought up by CPO. LFC had their chance to expand in that direction years ago when the entire road was derelict, just like the road behind the old Main Stand. But that time has passed.

But I think there is a chance (if there is a willingness on part of FSG) that another tier could be added on to the KDS without necessarily having to expand the footprint of the existing stand. The expansion of the Bernabeau, past and prospective, is a great case example of this.

But at the moment ARE is really a horrendous stand that needs attention before anything else.
__________________
"No, it is no use trying to emphasize the differences. For that matter no two human beings are alike. Every lover of peace must emphasize similarities" - Maulana Azad
Nitro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2019, 11:59 AM   #12937
Macred
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,825
Likes (Received): 1469

I do not think anyone is saying the SKKD stand will be looked at any time soon but that is not to say the club could not put in place plans now for say what needs to happen in 10 years time or consider when they build the ARE how that might integrate with any future development (which will be limited to The Kop, the SKKD and/or filling in corners). It is obvious to all that the ARE is next and nobody has said otherwise.

Even then CPOs are a last resort but over the next decade the likelihood is that most of the 60 houses (both side of Skerries and 1 side of Wilva Road) will come up for sale if not operated/owned by a housing association. 2 are for sale right now for circa £100k each. So in essence you are talking for all 60 houses £6m to purchase all (so Ryan Kent's right leg) over a 10 year period. There is no immediate chance of being bought up by CPO and that would only happen if say 3 were left in 10 years time and there were plans to expand in that direction in a manner similar to the Main. Regarding an extra tier, the right to light is a big issue notwithstanding anything else, there are more issues with the sun direction on that side. They will buy up houses that they do not already own as and when they come on the market. But more fans need more circulation areas.

https://www.primelocation.com/for-sa...3sQyGYsyOBW.97

https://www.onthemarket.com/details/4584010/

Neither does that mean that you have to manage the decline of the area during the intervening period. You could buy the houses, and rent them out as a private landlord, or rent then to a housing association but in each case with terms making it clear that the lease will end by a given date (i.e when you want to proceed with development).. you may offer this at a reduced rate of rent in light of this. You could operate club b and b,stay in a house, breakfast in the club on match days until the houses are needed. Take down individual houses and have gardens/green space in them. Fact is there are plenty of places to live, and the club/Anfield is the only catalyst to drive the area. If houses of the type in question were desired to be saved, they would have kept all those that have gone for Keepmoat newbuilds. They are building another 230 just down the road on another bulldozed site (but not part of Anfield project)

They have cleared 3 sides of Anfield, there is precedent therefore to clear a 4th side if needed of what is considered low grade housing stock.

Regarding FSG being slow learners, I suspect they acknowledge and accept that turning a giant around is a slow process... but not even 9 years thus far and all looking pretty good. You can only reinvest the money as you earn it. Regarding not being interested in anything beyond money making... while anything will make money given time and current climate (football popularity), the investment in the training ground is a clear indication that they want sustained success otherwise why bother (albeit it will make them money as it will likely be sponsored by AXA for a tidy sum). Don't know if people who visit this thread go on the training ground thread but worth a look at the latest pics it is VERY impressive. Put a link here

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showt...1977363&page=7

Regarding FSG building a new ground... don't want one.... always Anfield (like it or not, Anfield is a huge part of 'the brand' hence why they will not give up naming rights for £5 - £10m a year as the name has more value than that) , if we end up hamstrung so be it, as long as they try to grow. Anything over 65k is good enough IMO and the can pretty much get to that with the ARE.

And I will say, if people do not understand Moneyball then they should not comment on it but that has nothing to do with construction or Anfield.

We deffo need a bigger trophy room/museum.... we are the champions... CHAMPIONS OF EUROPE... can't wait to sing that in our pokey outdated Anfield! ��☝

Last edited by Macred; June 12th, 2019 at 12:30 PM.
Macred no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2019, 12:53 PM   #12938
Nitro
The Don
 
Nitro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London/Srinagar
Posts: 287
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macred View Post
I do not think anyone is saying the SKKD stand will be looked at any time soon but that is not to say the club could not put in place plans now for say what needs to happen in 10 years time. It is obvious to all that the ARE is next nobody has said otherwise.

Even then CPOs are a last resort but over the next decade the likelihood is that most of the 60 houses (both side of Skerries and 1 side of Wilva Road) will come up for sale if not operated/owned by a housing association. 2 are for sale right now for circa £100k each. So in essence you are talking for all 60 houses £6m to purchase all (so Ryan Kent's right leg). There is no immediate chance of being bought up by CPO and that would only happen if say 3 were left in 10 years time and there were plans to expand in that direction in a manner similar to the Main. Regarding an extra tier, the right to light is a big issue notwithstanding anything else, there are more issues with the sun direction on that side. They will buy up houses that they do not already own as and when they come on the market.

https://www.primelocation.com/for-sa...3sQyGYsyOBW.97

https://www.onthemarket.com/details/4584010/
I agree with a lot you have said.

But the thing is football owners do not think the same way fans do. It seems like a 60,000 seat figure is like a relatively optimum capacity in the Premier League (which you will achieve through ARE expansion anyway), both now and for the foreseeable. And since many of the new bowl-type stadiums like the New WHL, Etihad, Emirates are hovering around that capacity, and of course these stadiums will be difficult to expand further as a stadium with 4 separate stands. So Liverpool don't need to worry about falling behind other teams with regards to their match day revenues--it's only really OT that Anfield will be significantly smaller than in England.

I don't dispute that the houses around Anfield are relatively cheap. But it's more the hassle and litigation, and that I think will put off FSG or any other prospective owner, even in the next 10 years.

Plus I think the transport infrastructure around Anfield would have to improve significantly if any further expansion were to be seriously explored as an option. And I can't see that happening.

Finally, as far as adding an extra tier on to KDS is concerned, do you think there is literally no room for that owing to right to light issues, or could a moderate expansion still work?
__________________
"No, it is no use trying to emphasize the differences. For that matter no two human beings are alike. Every lover of peace must emphasize similarities" - Maulana Azad

Kubinho1 liked this post
Nitro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2019, 01:08 PM   #12939
Kubinho1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 51
Likes (Received): 38



https://www.onthemarket.com/details/4584010/

The day you posted it: The property is no longer on the market. Who of you thinks its the club acting through a 3rd party?

Last edited by Kubinho1; June 12th, 2019 at 01:14 PM.
Kubinho1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2019, 01:11 PM   #12940
Nitro
The Don
 
Nitro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London/Srinagar
Posts: 287
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macred View Post
We deffo need a bigger trophy room/museum.... we are the champions... CHAMPIONS OF EUROPE... can't wait to sing that in our pokey outdated Anfield! ��☝
Well done on your CL win. I was in Madrid for the final (I'm a Spurs fan).

All you need now is Bruce Grobbelaar to break the curse that has stopped LFC from winning the league:
https://www.thesportsman.com/article...premier-league

And yes I truly agree about the Anfield brand being irreplaceable. Not sure how much of a difference the Anfield factor made to your CL run and PL finish this season--but I will guess a hell of a lot.

Although I don't like to admit it, when I used to go to Highbury as a kid, I used to get goosebumps. It was a charming stadium with real heart (especially the East and West stands). But the new Emirates is soulless just like Arsenal fans. And of course Arsenal haven't come close to winning the league since they left Highbury.

I'm hoping that the New WHL maintains some of the old magic of the Lane, since it is still effectively on the same site. I haven't had a chance to visit the new WHL as I no longer live in London.
__________________
"No, it is no use trying to emphasize the differences. For that matter no two human beings are alike. Every lover of peace must emphasize similarities" - Maulana Azad
Nitro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Tags
liverpool, stadiums

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Soccer World Cup 2010 [PART 2] Krazy The Touchline 505 November 3rd, 2006 10:33 PM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us