The New Anfield

[liamo3]

I'm dreading the day we move but the new design helps a little
brilliant Kop Rome77 esq

[bmac]

Where did you get that.... source?

KOP looks massive

[Malzheimer]

Looks spectacular, is it from an official source?

[liamo3]

Its inital draft but the stadium will be based around this design
Its not quite the finished article but only minor touches to be sorted
the Kop will be like that in the picture

[Malzheimer]

Kop looks spectacular alright, very steep, hopefully the roof above it comes out over nearly as far as the pitch to keep as much noise in as possible

[Tonio]

Where is the roof over the end opposite the new kop? Very unlikely that any new stadium would be built without full cover from the elements for all seats.

[liverbird!!]

Great looking stadium, but they will have to cover the whole stadium with roof.
Kop End looks spectacular!!

[bryanod]

am i the only one that things it looks disgusting?

[liamo3]

Again its an initial draft an inner shell a roof will be complete there won't be gaps at the corners etc... that picture is not the finished article

[Fowler's God]

Looks a very good design if the finished drafts are like that. Is the design been made public today or tomorrow as they were supposed to submiting the plans to the Liverpool council orginally on the 28th of june which of course is today any news on that?

[YNWA]

am i the only one that things it looks disgusting?

Haha, i was waiting for someone to say that, yeah i don't think it looks the best but if this just some kinda of basis to build on then i don't mind because as was pointed out by Gillet and Hicks the kop would be the centrepoint and it certainly is in that picture, but i'm sure they'll get it looking alot better than that!

[WexRed]

am i the only one that things it looks disgusting?

Putrid I would've said. Where's these spectacular comments coming from ? I'm gonna try to forget I saw that picture its like the Emperor's new clothes. OK corners will be filled and the outer shell added but currently looks ugly with what looks like a disparate temporary Kop stand thrown up near a U stand (a mini Croker !). I can't get a feel for the overall shape at all without seeing the roof and of course seeing both goal ends from the air just puts me off.

[Malzheimer]

I think once the corners are filled in this is a nice design inside the stadium. The kop is clearly the centrefold and looks the part. I didn't pay any attention to the outside of the stadium as its clear from the above picture this design hasn't been implemented yet as there is no detail.

But then again I'm no architect!

[liamo3]

Here it is with full cladding not best photo best I could get its from OTK

[WexRed]

Mate sent me those. Thought the draft's outline looked like an ice cream cone and that's been confirmed now {:-) with a jigsaw piece either side.

Sone fecker prob took a quick snap on his camera phone when getting a viewing.

Obviously Kop to the left in first pic but on right in second. Seems to be a weird semi-transparant roof over Anny Road with 6 diagonal columns which explains the previous apparant lack of cover.

[Fowler's God]

WexRed mate where did you get those images??

Did any of ya's see Valencia's Nou Mestalla check google one of best designed stadia i have ever seen

[WexRed]

I notice that both the original draft and the blurry photos all have the red and white row of seats down by the pitch of side stands, none on Anny Road and all of the Kop. Its deffo consistent although not sure why Anny Road doesn't have that stripe as well to complete the circle ?

[Fowler's God]

This image came up during a search i did on New Anfield

[Gerry]

[QUOTE=DontBuyTheSun...(liamo3);548]I'm dreading the day we move but the new design helps a little
brilliant Kop Rome77 esq

Could not agree more mate it will be a very hard time to leave such a magical place, there will be many a tear shed !

before anyone starts going on about why we must move, that is just my feeling on things !

[WexRed]

Worth a read (http://www.thisisanfield.com/news/2007/06/new-stadium-will-be-a-unique-design/)

Must go and do some work now !

[Jockser]

does that thing fly?? Looks fecking class!!!!

[paul_]

Well it's certainly different

[liamo3]

FAO Wexred can you edit you post were there are Pics of the new stadium to remove the pics mate, I know one website owner who has been contacted and asked to remove any pictures and links relating to it or legal action could be taken against the site.

Thanks
Liam

[Dub13]

Sorry I meant to do this yesterday but I never got around to doing it,I will get onto this now.

[Westlake]

Looks damn good!

Though I've never been to Anfield, I guess I'll have to pop over for the first ever next season. I've been looking forward to it since I was about seven! Is there a proposed year for the new stadium to open?

[paddypower111]

when are they announcing the new anfield??

[liamo3]

when are they announcing the new anfield??

Tomorrow

[jonnylpfc]

http://www.empireofthekop.com/anfield/?attachment_id=29361

Seen this on empire of the Kop

[smiley1987]

I think a new Anfield is great but it will require alot of work and could harm the clubs revenue while the work goes on . We need to complete all the work during the summer break and with this we will need to have crews working day and night to complete the stadium

[travis]

Ha Ha Ha what were we thinking at the beginning of this thread

[dk.lfc]

Ha Ha Ha what were we thinking at the beginning of this thread

We were beleiving the promises of 2 horrible ****s.

[Carroll9]

Only 31 posts.This thread like the stadium never got off the ground.

[Kop On]

I think a new Anfield is great but it will require alot of work and could harm the clubs revenue while the work goes on . We need to complete all the work during the summer break and with this we will need to have crews working day and night to complete the stadium

Not a hope it would be done in a summer. Even if it took a year, we'd make up the loss of revenue within the first 12 months of the new stadium opened.

[Fran74]

Ha Ha Ha what were we thinking at the beginning of this thread


I've been thinking the exact same thing. Those arseholes have so much to answer for.

[The Pernicious One]

I seen that mock up by eotk previously. Only real issue I have with it is the main stand. As always has been said the rerouting of the Anfield Road is a major obstacle.
It is quite clear that an upgrade of this is paramount. Never mind the facilities etc, there are many areas which contain restricted views. This is certainly a no no in any modern stadium.

[Kop On]

I seen that mock up by eotk previously. Only real issue I have with it is the main stand. As always has been said the rerouting of the Anfield Road is a major obstacle.
It is quite clear that an upgrade of this is paramount. Never mind the facilities etc, there are many areas which contain restricted views. This is certainly a no no in any modern stadium.

Lets hope they don't hire the same architects that built the Aviva so.

Hard to believe in this day and age any stadium would have restricted viewing, they managed it in the Aviva though!

[Benbecul97]

Lets hope they don't hire the same architects that built the Aviva so.

Hard to believe in this day and age any stadium would have restricted viewing, they managed it in the Aviva though!

Really? Havn't been in it yet. What area in the Aviva is to be avoided then?

[this]

Problem isn't going to be moving a few car parks lads, Liverpool Council specifically gave us planning permission in '03 because it would help redevelopment Stanley Park (and to stop us moving out of the city), and all the ancillary area's, nevermind the beauracratic nightmare involved in buying up any of the remaining houses that would need demolishing.

I personally believe that FSG will redevelop Anfield, just my opinion.

[Kop On]

Really? Havn't been in it yet. What area in the Aviva is to be avoided then?

Haven’t been in it myself but the lads got tickets recently for Soccer and Rugby matches and both had a big “restricted view� printed across the tickets, couldn’t believe my eyes!

Tickets were reduced for that section which is fair enough but in this day and age it just shouldn’t happen. I think it’s something to do with the joyces (enter gypsy joke here) in the roof cutting across your view from the back or safety barriers in front row upper tier blocking view from some of the seats at the back!

[smiley1987]

Not a hope it would be done in a summer. Even if it took a year, we'd make up the loss of revenue within the first 12 months of the new stadium opened.

I just read back my post what i mean't to say was we need to complete a stand each summer for it to work . So it minimizes disruption for the fans and that we have a stadium thats fully ready to go each season .

[Carroll9]

I just read back my post what i mean't to say was we need to complete a stand each summer for it to work . So it minimizes disruption for the fans and that we have a stadium thats fully ready to go each season .

Or play in Goodison while the work is being carried out.:eek::eek::eek:

[smiley1987]

Or play in Goodison while the work is being carried out.:eek::eek::eek:

I'd rather see us play in stanley park with no stands and a container as a changing room rather then see us play in that crap hole on a weekly basis .

[Fantana]

I seen that mock up by eotk previously. Only real issue I have with it is the main stand. As always has been said the rerouting of the Anfield Road is a major obstacle.
It is quite clear that an upgrade of this is paramount. Never mind the facilities etc, there are many areas which contain restricted views. This is certainly a no no in any modern stadium.

Agreed, Main Stand is an embarrassment in this day and age, restricted views, bench seats with iron bars in between in some cases and God help you if your over 6ft and need a bit of leg room.
Tear it down straight after the Spurs game and have maybe 5000 seats in it ready for the start of following season

[Carlsburger]

As a way to compare, the attached pdf show Anfield with the new Aviva stadium (outline in red) superimposed. The kawlity isn't great because of the limit of file size that can be posted.

[vincenzo]

I just read back my post what i mean't to say was we need to complete a stand each summer for it to work . So it minimizes disruption for the fans and that we have a stadium thats fully ready to go each season .

That still wouldn't work. You would be looking at at least 12-16 months per stand.

[SuperCool]

Are they not looking into the corner sections first, and then moving onto the main stands?
As in adding another 5,000 - 10,000 seats so that it would lessen any loss of revenue when they have to close the other stands for work?

[vincenzo]

Are they not looking into the corner sections first, and then moving onto the main stands?
As in adding another 5,000 - 10,000 seats so that it would lessen any loss of revenue when they have to close the other stands for work?
I don't know what their plans are yet but you would have to build new main stands before you could go near the corners, like what the mancs did with OT. The corner between the kop and the centenary could be filled in without a massive amount of disruption I reckon.

[MR KING KENNY]

The main stand is were the problem is, id say if the took that down build a 2 tear and fill in the corners we could get another 15,000 seats, anyway the main stand is a very poor stand, hate sitting on that wooden bench

[reddy]

I'd rather see us play in stanley park with no stands and a container as a changing room rather then see us play in that crap hole on a weekly basis .



Take it thats a no then :D

[redabbey]

Some images of what a New Anfield would look like

as well as what a redevelopment might also look like on this website.

http://www.sports-stadia.co.uk/

I don't know if this work has been done on behalf of FSG though.

[Niall]

They all look impressive.

[Venom1983]

Looks class

[wertyu]

Like this alot

[KOPSTAR]

Some images of what a New Anfield would look like

as well as what a redevelopment might also look like on this website.

http://www.sports-stadia.co.uk/

I don't know if this work has been done on behalf of FSG though.the 69.000 one is class, well we can all Dream. :D:D:D:D:D

[KOPSTAR]

Some images of what a New Anfield would look like

as well as what a redevelopment might also look like on this website.

http://www.sports-stadia.co.uk/

I don't know if this work has been done on behalf of FSG though.the 69.000 one is class, well we can all Dream. :D:D:D:D:D and maybe :D in the new one

[RedArmagh]

the design for the new anfield looks unbelievable! it will be tough leaving behind our current home though if thats what happens.

[Venom1983]

Why can we suddenly redevelop anfield when for years we were told this was not an option

[Juan]

The new stadium looks class. Was reading the small print,and the last sentence was a bit funny.:)

[F@ces]

The new stadium looks class. Was reading the small print,and the last sentence was a bit funny.:)

"Not included in the GMP are chairs, tables and anything else that would fall out if you turned the building upside down."

[Kop On]

the design for the new anfield looks unbelievable! it will be tough leaving behind our current home though if thats what happens.

We wouldn't be leaving behind Anfield though if it's redeveloped? :confused:

Why can we suddenly redevelop anfield when for years we were told this was not an option

We still don't know if it's possible, I don't think these pictures are much more than a mock up on a PC.

Even if the stadium could be extended, there are a lot of external factors that might prevent us from doing so. Previously the council had granted us permission for the new stadium in Stanley park with one of the conditions being that we funded or part funded some sort of public transport (rail?) to and from the stadium.

I'm fairly certain that permission will only be granted for Anfield provided FSG agree to fund the re-development of the local area also.

[redabbey]

We wouldn't be leaving behind Anfield though if it's redeveloped? :confused:



We still don't know if it's possible, I don't think these pictures are much more than a mock up on a PC.

Even if the stadium could be extended, there are a lot of external factors that might prevent us from doing so. Previously the council had granted us permission for the new stadium in Stanley park with one of the conditions being that we funded or part funded some sort of public transport (rail?) to and from the stadium.

I'm fairly certain that permission will only be granted for Anfield provided FSG agree to fund the re-development of the local area also.

I could be wrong here but the is it not the case that the planning permission granted is for a 60,000 seater stadium. The condition of LFC having to fund a public transport raillink would only happen if they seek to build a bigger stadium.

[Kop On]

I could be wrong here but the is it not the case that the planning permission granted is for a 60,000 seater stadium. The condition of LFC having to fund a public transport raillink would only happen if they seek to build a bigger stadium.

Yeah just did a bit of googling there and I think you're right actually.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2008/02/22/three-sites-on-list-for-new-liverpool-fc-train-station-64375-20508912/

The 60,000 seater planning permission we have though is for Stanley Park so I'm guessing we'd be starting from scratch if we ask to re-develop Anfield?

Certainly interesting though.

[smiley1987]

I would love this to be our stadium it looks boss !!!!

http://www.sports-stadia.co.uk//#1145008/Redeveloped-Anfield

[eoinlfc101]

I would love this to be our stadium it looks boss !!!!

http://www.sports-stadia.co.uk//#1145008/Redeveloped-Anfield

To be fair it is awsome

[this]

With all due respect to the lads who created the 'new' Anfield, that design would have worked nicely in the 70's but come on, we can do a hell of a lot better than that.

[mascherIANO]

With all due respect to the lads who created the 'new' Anfield, that design would have worked nicely in the 70's but come on, we can do a hell of a lot better than that.

everyone would prefer to stay at the current stadium and if we can redevelop it then that is perfect for everyone...

the new style stadiums dont seem to be able to hold an atmosphere like the old ones aswell..

[SuperCool]

That "new Anfield" isn't that impressive.
50,000 with no chance of expansion!!!

No thanks.

[MrsPepe]

BrianDurand56

The stadium announcement is being prepared. Annie Road will be done first up with capacity reduced to 37000 for a season with no away fans

[south]

BrianDurand56

The stadium announcement is being prepared. Annie Road will be done first up with capacity reduced to 37000 for a season with no away fans
Can they do that? Would it not be an unfair advantage?

[MrsPepe]

I dont know tbh, has it ever been done before?

[dk.lfc]

Can they do that? Would it not be an unfair advantage?

Did chelsea do this in the 90s when doing up the bridge.

[Paddser]

I dont know tbh, has it ever been done before?

The Mancs did it the season Cantona came back from suspension against us. Think we had 40 odd fans there that day. Bobby Wilcox was one

[aquaman]

i think it would be criminal to leave anfield the stadium is perfect and very modern.compare it to the new camp which needs a bit of work

[this]

everyone would prefer to stay at the current stadium and if we can redevelop it then that is perfect for everyone...

the new style stadiums dont seem to be able to hold an atmosphere like the old ones aswell..

Agree 100%, if the tweet that Lally posed is true then we are on to a winner. And with the added incentive of not having to look at Chelsea scum in Anfield for 12 months.

[elvis]

We need to go bigger than 60,000 people IMO,. 65,000 should be the absolute minimum we want,.

[travis]

prepare for a shock

[redabbey]

While I welcome the impending announcement of a new development of Anfield. The option of doing the Anfield Road end first is the way I imagined that any development might take place.

Even if FSG have being doing a lot of work behind the scenes on this project it is still likely to take at least a full year to bring such a development to planning permission.

So would it mean that we would have a new Anfield Road end for the start of the season 2013/14?

[Maverick]

Definitely all for keeping Anfield.I'd hate to see us leave our home.However I agree with elvis on the capacity issue.65000 would have to be a target if possible

[redabbey]

60,000 with corporate boxes on three sides at the ground could be much more important for revenue though than 65,000 with less corporate. A balance is important but growing the corporate revenue is essential.

BTW I am not saying I like corporate boxes ahead of extra seating for fans. We will all have to wait for the official announcement.

[Benbecul97]

If they can squeeze in 60,000 to a redeveloped Anfield I think its more than enough.

[Paddser]

Im over the moon with the decision to stay at Anfield.

[redabbey]

On Twitter

T14WSH Tage

66 000 capacity I've just been told. Not confirmed. But it's same as been said for a while, no? #LFC

[Paddser]

66,000 Anfield sounds brilliant!

[liverpaul]

Would be brilliant to see our magnificent stadium holding 66,000,

[le songmeister]

The Mancs did it the season Cantona came back from suspension against us. Think we had 40 odd fans there that day. Bobby Wilcox was one

Offically there may have being 40 but ours were all round the ground. 100 quid a ticket mine paid.


Centenary Stand to be continued round the Anfield Rd (being done first as stated previously) and Main Stand was what we were hearing.

[northside red]

60,000 with corporate boxes on three sides at the ground could be much more important for revenue though than 65,000 with less corporate. A balance is important but growing the corporate revenue is essential.

BTW I am not saying I like corporate boxes ahead of extra seating for fans. We will all have to wait for the official announcement.

I'd be in favour of this as well

[Paddser]

Offically there may have being 40 but ours were all round the ground. 100 quid a ticket mine paid.


Centenary Stand to be continued round the Anfield Rd (being done first as stated previously) and Main Stand was what we were hearing.

Were you there Luke!? I remember watching the game in Co Meath Golf Club just outside of Trim. Fowler at his very best. I remember after Bobby died that this game was brought up on the forums about how he was there. Met you in the Big Tree shortly after Bobby passed away, with a dodgy Premium ticket for the Warwickshire game! Before Kenny ;)

[Ron1892]

First ive seen off this as ive been offline all weekend.To say im delighted about staying at Anfield is a understatement.There is no better place to be in the world on a saturday afternoon at 3pm then on the Kop.There is no other Stand in England that can equal that, and the thoughts of moving to other ground, i thought we would lose a large part of the atmosphere which we created at Anfield.

Any word on when this decision will be made??

[glen]

delighted if we stay at anfield imagine a european night with an extra 20 thousand fans in theyll hear us in manchester

[PaddyW]

delighted if we stay at anfield imagine a european night with an extra 20 thousand fans in theyll hear us in manchester

You'll Never Walk Alone will be heard on Mars!

[justydawson]

Is there a confirmed statement announcing this increase?

[CrazyDaize]

Any opinions on selling the naming rights for the stadium v individual stands (including the Kop)??

[Paddser]

Any opinions on selling the naming rights for the stadium v individual stands (including the Kop)??

Yea Im hoping they rename it the KFC Gravy Kop

[CrazyDaize]

Yea Im hoping they rename it the KFC Gravy Kop

Why?

[Paddser]

Why?

Just has a nice ring to it, and I like KFC Gravy.

In all seriousness though, I'm not against stadium naming rights at all if the money is right and it's not something ridiculous sounding

[CrazyDaize]

Just has a nice ring to it, and I like KFC Gravy.

In all seriousness though, I'm not against stadium naming rights at all if the money is right and it's not something ridiculous sounding

I was really asking which would you prefer to keep the name of - Anfield or the Kop?

When Thomand Park was redeveloped a few years ago they were planning on selling the naming rights to the stadium but there was too much opposition to the idea that they sold the naming rights for each stand instead.

[Paddser]

I was really asking which would you prefer to keep the name of - Anfield or the Kop?

When Thomand Park was redeveloped a few years ago they were planning on selling the naming rights to the stadium but there was too much opposition to the idea that they sold the naming rights for each stand instead.

Good question that. I suppose individual stands, but would imagine that would only net us a fraction of what we would get for the Stadium rights??

[justydawson]

Metro Herald has a piece on stadium name rights for Liverpool today...

I think its still undecided on redevelop Anfield or build new.

[maloneavic]

We will find out alot more by the end of the month i think as the club has untill end of june to accept the lease for stanley park.

[justydawson]

oh cool - where u read that?

[maloneavic]

oh cool - where u read that?

Liverpool echo yesterday.

[CHARMAC]

No decision taken on new Liverpool FC stadium yet
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2011/06/16/no-decision-taken-on-new-liverpool-fc-stadium-yet-100252-28887571/
Liverpool Echo
Jun 16 2011

LIVERPOOL have generated some interest in selling naming rights for a proposed new stadium but a senior official insists a final decision on whether to move or redevelop Anfield has yet to be taken.

According to Billy Hogan, managing director of Fenway Sports Management – the global commercial arm of club owners Fenway Sports Group – the primary consideration has to be ensuring the club can compete financially with their main rivals.

“We see Liverpool as a truly global proposition from a marketing standpoint and a naming rights partnership with Liverpool Football Club is really unlike any other thing there is out there,” Hogan told Bloomberg.

“It’s something we’ve seen some interest in and we’ll continue to have those conversations.”

Hogan added that the final decision will ‘rest on which opportunity allows us to keep generating revenue to compete with the rest of our competition in the Premier League’.

It is believed FSG’s preferred option is to increase both the capacity and corporate opportunities at Anfield, as they did when they took over at baseball side Boston Red Sox.

But that could still pose some issues in restricting match-day income and plans for a new build in Stanley Park have not been ruled out.

The club has until the end of this month to take up the option of the 999-year lease they agreed with the Liverpool City Council for the land in Stanley Park

[up the pool]

i really hope we redevelop anfield i just think if we leave anfield a piece of liverpool will go with it and it just wont be the same anfield is not just another football stadium:(

[travis]

So the closing of the anfield road end is not happening this season then ?

[KEITHO M]

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_7011806,00.html

[glen]

Liverpol miss out on 999 year lease on stanly park must be redeveloping now

[Kop On]

Liverpol miss out on 999 year lease on stanly park must be redeveloping now

I wouldn't read too much into that. Apparently there are informal discussions going on to extend the deadline.

In the current climate there is no way the council will turn down a new application anyway. The amount of local jobs it could create aswell as improvements to the surrounding area.

The council don't have any money to redevelop the area so would welcome FSG doing it I'm sure...

[Ron1892]

Kenny Favours Redeveloping Anfield. (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2011/07/04/kennydalglish-favours-redeveloping-anfield-over-a-new-liverpool-fc-stadium-100252-28987790/)

[bobby benitez]

Kenny Favours Redeveloping Anfield. (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2011/07/04/kennydalglish-favours-redeveloping-anfield-over-a-new-liverpool-fc-stadium-100252-28987790/)

I thought you where gonna have a picture;)

[Ron1892]

I thought you where gonna have a picture;)

Ill Post some in the "Nicest Bird you fancy thread" Just for you Now Bobby..

[Rover 609]

http://twitpic.com/5mos5a



http://twitpic.com/5mos5a

[Ron1892]

The times saying FSG want a new stadium. Seen it on twitter but I'm on my phone so can't post it.

[Ron1892]

Just had a look at the pic, and It looks like it has been photo shopped. I hope the story has no legs in it what so ever.

[Captain_Morgan]

http://twitpic.com/5mos5a



http://twitpic.com/5mos5a

FSG have obviously taken their time with this one, we havent heard a peep about it, i think everyone is in favour of expanding but if its not feasible were heading to the park by the looks of things

[maloneavic]

Hope it is bullsxit as i am massively in favour of staying put and redeveloping.

[General]

Story on back page of Mirror tomorrow http://t.co/u46PxjH

[LFC-RONEY]

i would defo rather it to be redeveloped

[redabbey]

Story on back page of Mirror tomorrow http://t.co/u46PxjH

Well maddock has not got too much right lately. Planning permission deal extended for Stanley Park this week means FSG are just keeping their options open for the time being.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/38/340442286.jpg

[redabbey]

James Pearce Echo (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2011/07/08/liverpool-fc-dismiss-reports-club-has-decided-to-quit-anfield-for-new-stanley-park-ground-100252-29017672/)

LIVERPOOL FC have emphatically dismissed reports today that they have decided to quit Anfield and build a new ground in Stanley Park.

LFC owners Fenway Sports Group have been considering their options since their £300million takeover of the Reds last October.

And the club today insisted the dual option study into the possibility of redeveloping Anfield - as well as looking at plans for a new stadium - is ongoing.

Liverpool City Council has granted the club an extra three months to make a decision on whether or not they will take up the option of a 999-year lease for the Stanley Park site.

That gives the Reds until September to make a decision but another extenstion to that could then be granted.

A Liverpool spokesman today insisted: “The club’s position on the stadium issue remains unaltered and no decision has been made.

“We are continuing to examine both the options – the refurbishment of Anfield and the new stadium in Stanley Park.

“A huge amount of work on that is ongoing and an announcement will be made in due course.�

[Ron1892]

LIVERPOOL FC have emphatically dismissed reports today that they have decided to quit Anfield and build a new ground in Stanley Park.

LFC owners Fenway Sports Group have been considering their options since their £300million takeover of the Reds last October.

And the club today insisted the dual option study into the possibility of redeveloping Anfield - as well as looking at plans for a new stadium - is ongoing.

Liverpool City Council has granted the club an extra three months to make a decision on whether or not they will take up the option of a 999-year lease for the Stanley Park site.

That gives the Reds until September to make a decision but another extenstion to that could then be granted.

A Liverpool spokesman today insisted: “The club’s position on the stadium issue remains unaltered and no decision has been made.

“We are continuing to examine both the options – the refurbishment of Anfield and the new stadium in Stanley Park.

“A huge amount of work on that is ongoing and an announcement will be made in due course.�

Echo (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2011/07/08/liverpool-fc-dismiss-reports-club-has-decided-to-quit-anfield-for-new-stanley-park-ground-100252-29017672/)

[maloneavic]

Think its fair to say that the deadline on the lease at stanley park will have a few extensions id say.

Money costs seems to be the big factor here but while they would get alot of it back with the new stadium with the naming rights been sold etc i would hope they would do anfield up step by step so it gives them time to make a small bit back with the revenue comming in.

[dk.lfc]

They seem to be really thinking about this and weighingup both options. I really do not want to move from Anfield and that word 'groundshare' makes me shiver.

But really we need to up the gate by 20,000 at the least so that would bring it up to 65,000 - this could surely be done as when you think about it its only 5,000 extra seats per stand which I'm sure could be managed and could maybe even be increased by more.

Did the club buy most of the derelict houses off the council beside the Main stand?

[Juan]

Groundshare keeps popping up..but its only because everton have friends on the council..... and let the odd leak out.Surely its a non-runner.

[Clerk]

Did ye see this article with the alleged Twitter quote " Anfield would certainly be our first choice. But realities may dictate otherwise. So many obstacles..." John Henry

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/henry-liverpool-may-have-to-leave-anfield-2816613.html

[Kop On]

Did ye see this article with the alleged Twitter quote " Anfield would certainly be our first choice. But realities may dictate otherwise. So many obstacles..." John Henry

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/henry-liverpool-may-have-to-leave-anfield-2816613.html

The quote is definitely John Henry's, he was tweeting away last night and responding to fans questions directly.

I don't understand why it's huge news in the press today. There's nothing new being said that we didn't already know.

If we can re-develop Anfield and produce a stadium that makes financial sense then we will. If we can't do it at Anfield then we'll just have to move to Stanley Park. Same as it's been for the last few years.

[Andrew]

I don't understand why it's huge news in the press today. There's nothing new being said that we didn't already know.

If we can re-develop Anfield and produce a stadium that makes financial sense then we will. If we can't do it at Anfield then we'll just have to move to Stanley Park. Same as it's been for the last few years.

My thoughts exactly. This "story" has changed nothing, nor has it brought any new developments to light.

Move along people, nothing to see... ;)

[mickdel]

Look as hard as it is to say if we have to move for the financial benfit of the club in the long term then it can only be a good thing...

[redabbey]

Liverpool FC today made clear its frustration at the obstacles facing the potential re-development of Anfield.

The Club has been comprehensively exploring all options open to it in terms of new stadium development or expansion, which has included a study into the refurbishment of both its Main and Anfield Road Stands to increase capacity beyond 60,000 seats.

Managing Director Ian Ayre said: "In the nine months since the new ownership, an enormous amount of work has been undertaken in conjunction with leading architects, consultants, other industry experts and with Liverpool City Council to explore the building of a new stadium as well as exploring a refurbishment solution that could deliver the necessary growth in capacity, whilst maintaining the heritage and atmosphere that make Anfield uniquely Liverpool FC. However, with land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory issues creating barriers to our ambition, it looks increasingly unlikely there is any way we can move forward on a refurbishment of Anfield unless there are significant changes in those areas."

Commenting further on the options open to the Club, Ayre explained: "In terms of a Stanley Park stadium versus redevelopment, there is absolutely no question that a refurbishment of Anfield would come at a significantly lower cost than a new build. A new stadium of course also has its merits, being modern, more functional, and easier to construct. However, a new 60,000 capacity ground also comes at a significantly higher price, while at the same time only delivering roughly the same amount of revenue as a refurbishment of Anfield - with both options offering an uplift of approximately 16,000 seats each."

Added Ayre: "It's disappointing that based on where we are at the moment, we seem to be unable to press on with the more viable economic option of a refurbishment, but we remain committed to finding the best possible long-term solution. We already have a very healthy dialogue in place with several leading brands regarding naming rights for a new stadium, but like every major deal we have ever done, that just takes time to explore in full. We also have ongoing discussions with various parties around the financing of either facility. Our challenge now is to try to find a way to bring all of those elements together in a solution that is in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club and its fans.

"We are mindful that supporters have been promised a solution in the past and have been disappointed, and also that local residents would like to know what direction we are headed in. However, just like any other business, we can only proceed as and when we are clear on all elements and we will not be forced to make a decision that is not in the best long-term interests of our club and we will not make any promises to our fans that we cannot keep. We will continue to work diligently on this project and keep our fans informed of any progress."

Council leader Joe Anderson said: "We recognise that Liverpool FC need to make the right decision on the stadium options, and it is crucial that it is not only the right one for the club but also for local residents.

"We fully appreciate that the new owners have made real progress over the past nine months since they took over, and we will continue to support what they are trying to deliver. However, it is unfortunately the reality that the debate and discussions over a new stadium have gone on for many years, causing a great deal of frustration and uncertainty within the local community.

"Although we are fully supportive of the club, we can't ignore the fact that the clock is and has been ticking, and people need certainty about the development.

"We will do what we can to continue to help the club, and I can reassure people that we will be pressing for a decision as soon as is practically possible that will benefit Liverpool FC and deliver the much needed regeneration that the area so badly needs."

Liverpool FC (http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/lfc-statement-on-stadium)

[glen]

what does this mean so surly if the cant re develope they will have to start the new stadium in stanly park

[Captain_Morgan]

in other words the council wont play ball over the redevelopment and they want a new stadium which will cost the club a fortune for only delivering 16k extra seats

[redabbey]

what does this mean so surly if the cant re develope they will have to start the new stadium in stanly park

Glen to be honest I am not sure what the purpose of that statement is as there is no mention of when Liverpool FC and FSG will be making a decision or even a future statement.

Could it be that the purpose of today's statement is an attempt by Ian Ayre to up the pressure on Liverpool councillors/local government to help the club achieve their preferred option which is the redevelopment of Anfield?

The statement does make it clear though that they have the possibility of achieving a 60,000 capacity at Anfield and I think that is the first time we have heard that that is possible.

[Captain_Morgan]

From what i know the new stadium is a 60k seater with the possibility for 75k in future depending on new rail lines etc being put in, now we know a new build comes with a big cost then a further cost to upgrade to 75k.

A redevelopment comes at the minimum cost while also delivering the same capacity as a new build, id imagine they want a redevelopment that will have an option of further increasing the capacity down the line also.

The council favour a new build as a lot more of the area gets regenerated in the original plans for the new stadium, so i can see them throwing a lot of obstacles in the way of a redevelopment

[midg23]

I trust in FSG to find the right solution and i just love the fact that they are keeping us informed about it

[this]

Bung the City Council a nice big fat cheque for the redevelopment of Stanley Park, submit some plans for a community centre and bobs your uncle.

The governing body will realize very quickly with the release of that statement that LFC have pretty much no intention of building a new stadium, so one way or the other, I can see them coming to some sort of an agreement over the redevelopment of Anfield.

[redabbey]

Ger is correct regarding the rail station. Did a bit of googling from 2008

Three sites on list for new Liverpool FC train station (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2008/02/22/three-sites-on-list-for-new-liverpool-fc-train-station-64375-20508912/)

[Anfield Old Boys]

Could it be that the purpose of today's statement is an attempt by Ian Ayre to up the pressure on Liverpool councillors/local government to help the club achieve their preferred option which is the redevelopment of Anfield?

I think that is exactly what its about......

[LUCAN RED]

I think JH and co are calling the "powers that be" in the council's bluff.I cant see any other result than redevelopment of Anfied.......Agree?????

[redabbey]

Ian Ayre speaking from China to BBC Radio Merseyside today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00hpzs6

Listen from 1 hour 35 minutes into the show

This is followed by a representative from Liverpool council.

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

I won't post my own comments lads everyone should listen for themselves to understand the difficulties the football club is facing on this issue.

[Clerk]

Ger is correct regarding the rail station. Did a bit of googling from 2008

Three sites on list for new Liverpool FC train station (http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2008/02/22/three-sites-on-list-for-new-liverpool-fc-train-station-64375-20508912/)

It's scary that article is over 3 and a 1/2 Years old !!

[frank101]

would like to see anfield redeveloped but council playing hardball.

[Clerk]

Ian Ayre speaking from China to BBC Radio Merseyside today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00hpzs6

Listen from 1 hour 35 minutes into the show

This is followed by a representative from Liverpool council.

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

I won't post my own comments lads everyone should listen for themselves to understand the difficulties the football club is facing on this issue.

Jesus, that's a serious listen, sounds like very serious issues in terms of redeveloping. The " right to light ". All you'd need is one awkward customer and you'd be bolloxed.

How did you track that down ??

[redabbey]

How did you track that down ??

Brian Durand twittered bits of the interview today. So did a bit of googling this evening.

[Clerk]

Brian Durand twittered bits of the interview today. So did a bit of googling this evening.

You work as a private investigator ? :D Very interesting listen, compared to the usual bullshit reports. Thanks for posting it.:)

[prendy]

Jesus, that's a serious listen, sounds like very serious issues in terms of redeveloping. The " right to light ". All you'd need is one awkward customer and you'd be bolloxed.

How did you track that down ??

that's the same rule that restricted Lansdowne Road, the residents in the square behind the goal said they would not get enough light if the stand was built fully.

[redabbey]

Updated blog post by Brian Durand on the stadium debate

http://thekop.liverpoolfc.tv/_Anfield-Stadium-Update-Photos/blog/4815551/173471.html

[smiley1987]

that's the same rule that restricted Lansdowne Road, the residents in the square behind the goal said they would not get enough light if the stand was built fully.

To me thats aload of crap , it was to do with their postcode . I mean how in the name of hell did they let croke park be built to hold nearly 90,000 in the middle of a vast amount of houses . I'd say the council would prefer us to move because they could use the land at anfield for some form of park or a shopping centre which would help to rejuvanate the area around it .

[redabbey]

Walton MP Steve Rotheram wants meeting with Liverpool FC over stadium progress

WALTON MP Steve Rotheram has warned that Liverpool FC’s delays in deciding to stay at Anfield or move to a new stadium is causing tensions in the local community.

The Labour MP, who is also a Reds season ticket holder, is in the process of arranging a meeting with the club to discuss the situation.

He said: “We are trying to organise a meeting with owners for an update, the uncertainty for the residents is really starting to cause tensions. I hope that the football club are able to come up with the right decision for the club that helps the area.”

He said he understood that the new owners need time as the decision is crucial to the club and the surrounding area.

He added: “It has to be the right decision for everybody, this is a massive opportunity to regenerate the whole of the north of Liverpool not just Anfield.

“Residents have put up with a lot of issues over the past few years.

“My preference is that the local residents there get something they have been looking for – the opportunity for something to happen in that area.

“The broken promises of the previous owners have come back to haunt the current owners.”

He said he hoped to meet with the club’s hierarchy within the next “two weeks or so” to discuss the stadium question.

Echo (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2011/07/12/walton-mp-steve-rotheram-wants-meeting-with-liverpool-fc-over-stadium-progress-100252-29035191/)

[Ron1892]

LIVERPOOL City council leader Joe Anderson today insisted the local authority is not to blame for Liverpool FC's problems redeveloping Anfield.He warned the club it would likely take three years to clear all the hurdles required to stay in its present ground.In an interview with the ECHO, he spelled out the facts he sees standing in Liverpool FC's way with one of the most significant being national planning restrictions.Cllr Anderson said that the extra height of extended stands blocking daylight to nearby homes is a key consideration.His remarks followed a statement from Liverpool FC chief executive Ian Ayre on Sunday, saying that redevelopment of Anfield was looking increasingly unlikely, due to land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory barriers.Cllr Anderson said: 'You can't build something right next to someone's house that blocks day light - whether Liverpool FC like it or not. That is something that exists.'It existed 10 years ago when they were talking about it then, and it exists today.

'He also said issuing a compulsory purchase order (CPO) is not as easy as many people believe, as there have to be clear regeneration grounds.* View an interactive timeline below of the whole stadium story since LFC first announced their plans to build on Stanley Park in June 2000 (click on each item in the timeline to for reports on how we covered the stories at the time)Cllr Anderson said: 'They are not our rules, they are national legal requirements.'We will do everything we can to assist Liverpool FC and help them.'The original problems, before they decided to move to Stanley Park, are the same now because people have the right to light, and there are all kinds of issues like that.'We have said that they have to make the decision. If they want to negotiate with people around the stadium and come to a deal with them that allows them to build higher to increase capacity [that is fine].'From our point of view, when Ian Ayre talks about the statutory requirements, local people have the right to light.'He said he understands that the situation is not of the current owners' making but that the community in Anfield has waited a long time for the club to move forward.

He added: 'They are not starting with a blank sheet of paper, they have to deal with the situation they inherited.'There is a cost in re-developing Anfield, they may have to wait three years before they can start.'Even if it gets planning permission, that does not mean that people can't appeal.'People have rights. They have to be able to object and there has to be a strong regeneration argument.'You can't just move people out of their houses because you want a [redeveloped] stadium.'There have to be wider benefits to the area, that includes jobs and the environment.'Liverpool FC also face paying £8.2m of European Objective 1 grant funding that has already been spent renovating Stanley Park in preparation for the building of a new stadium.Cllr Anderson said: 'If Liverpool City Council has to pay the money back, Liverpool Football Club will have to pay the money back.'Liverpool signed up to that, albeit under different owners.'We believe we are in a strong position because we made it clear that Liverpool FC would be responsible.'At the end of the day, I am working in a positive way with the club.'He admitted he would consider extending the September deadline for the club making a decision on whether or not to take an option of a 999-year lease on Stanley Park.He said: 'If they can show me the progress that has been made, I don't see us refusing point blank.'We are working behind the scenes to move things on.'The bottom line is that Ian Ayre represents Liverpool FC, but I represent the city and the residents of Anfield.'I want what is best for the residents of Anfield, the city, and the football club.

'Mr Ayre said that he understood frustrations, but that it was vital the club did things properly with the long term in mind.'Just like any other business, we can only proceed as and when we are clear on all elements and we will not be forced to make a decision that is not in the best long-term interests of our club and we will not make any promises to our fans that we cannot keep.'It's disappointing that, based on where we are at the moment, we seem to be unable to press on with the more viable economic option of a refurbishment, but we remain committed to finding the best possible long-term solution.'We already have a very healthy dialogue in place with several leading brands regarding naming rights for a new stadium, but like every major deal we have ever done, that just takes time to explore in full.'Our challenge now is to try to find a way to bring all of those elements together in a solution that is in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club and its fans.'

Echo (http://m.liverpoolecho.co.uk/ms/p/tmg/livecho/sPVj83Wgwqj56ZDr3uX2b8Q/view.m?id=3242261&tid=638956&cat=Liverpool_Local_News)

[maloneavic]

Didnt they do work behind the anfield road stand last few years making abit more space? not to sure if that was connected with any redevelopment and was prob a totally different project but that said the space is defo there.

Think the trouble is comming from the residents behind the mainstand with their light been blocked should they expand the stand.

Alot of the houses there are boarded up tho as far as i know but that said even if they where to be bought out and relocated elsewhere id imagine some wouldnt want to go as home is home like.

Have a bad feeling about this tho to be honest, a few members on the city council are everton season ticket holders and while that wont come into play id say they are under abit of pressure to boost the city and the area around anfield.

New stadium would create alot more jobs building it and employ more staff to run it etc hence it would generate more revenue for the area and liverpool in general.

[travis]

I think redevelopment will happen now everything is out in the open, Money always talks, I used to live near Thomond Park and it took years to get people to sell up their houses so the stadium could be upgraded.
That is to say if the only problem is residential, if it's anything more then we have no chance.

[Ron1892]

LIVERPOOL FC managing director Ian Ayre insists the club will not be rushed into a decision over the future of their stadium.

Ayre revealed earlier this week that it is now looking unlikely that the Reds will be able to redevelop Anfield but he would rather that the club take their time over what move to make next rather than make a bad call from being too hasty.

He said: "It (the stadium decision) can only be the right one. No amount of pressure will force Liverpool Football Club to make a decision quickly for the wrong reasons.

"We've all seen and felt and discovered how the wheels can come off if you make the wrong decisions at a football club, particularly this one.

"So we'll make the right decision at the right time, whatever that is and whenever that is. It has to be in the long-term interests of Liverpool Football Club. That's what everybody here is focused on."

Ayre also stressed that the club would be careful when it came to the sensitive issue of naming rights for a new stadium.

He said: "We have a big team, a big partnership team at the club and we also utilise the services of Fenway Sports Management, our ownership group, who have a sales team in that category as well.

"Many, many people are working on it but it's not just about finding a partner, it's about finding the right partner - somebody who fits with the football club, as our other partners do.

"While our business development has been strong, we've been very selective, and that would also be the case with naming rights. It just takes time. It's a big world, there are a lot of brands - we just have to find the right one."

With Anfield currently generating far less revenue from games than the likes of Old Trafford and the Emirates Stadium, Ayre revealed that merely increasing the club's capacity was not enough to sufficiently improve their matchday revenue.

He said: "It's been about finding the right economic model. I know a lot of our fans and other people have said to me personally - why can't we just build it?

"We get lots of people who are desperate to come and watch Liverpool, but what people don't think of a lot of the time is that we don't get 60,000 new seats when we build a stadium - we only get the difference between Anfield currently and whatever we build.

"The economics of that difference don't really stack up in the medium term for a return for Liverpool. It would be a huge investment with very little financial gain."

Like neighbours Everton, Liverpool have been investigating the possibilities of ground redevelopment/a new stadium for several years now with no concrete solution but despite the large amounts of red tape involved, Ayre believes that progress has now been made with the Reds' new owners.

He said: "Anyone out there who has ever been involved in a major construction project would, I think, pretty much determine seven months to be a very short time.

"That's all it's really been, because if you go buy a new house, you don't look at what the previous owner had in terms of his ideas for it.

"They are their own people and so they should be. They'll do what they think is right for Liverpool Football Club. While a lot of people, particularly residents, feel a little bit aggrieved that it's been a long process, and we understand that, for these people who are now trying to make this happen, it's been a very short time."

Liverpool born Ayre, who grew up in the Kirkdale area of the city and was educated at Litherland High School, also insists any project will help in the regeneration of the district of Anfield around the stadium.

"We get lots of people who are desperate to come and watch Liverpool, but what people don't think of a lot of the time is that we don't get 60,000 new seats when we build a stadium - we only get the difference between Anfield currently and whatever we build.

"The economics of that difference don't really stack up in the medium term for a return for Liverpool. It would be a huge investment with very little financial gain."

Like neighbours Everton, Liverpool have been investigating the possibilities of ground redevelopment/a new stadium for several years now with no concrete solution but despite the large amounts of red tape involved, Ayre believes that progress has now been made with the Reds' new owners.

He said: "Anyone out there who has ever been involved in a major construction project would, I think, pretty much determine seven months to be a very short time.

"That's all it's really been, because if you go buy a new house, you don't look at what the previous owner had in terms of his ideas for it.

"They are their own people and so they should be. They'll do what they think is right for Liverpool Football Club. While a lot of people, particularly residents, feel a little bit aggrieved that it's been a long process, and we understand that, for these people who are now trying to make this happen, it's been a very short time."

Liverpool born Ayre, who grew up in the Kirkdale area of the city and was educated at Litherland High School, also insists any project will help in the regeneration of the district of Anfield around the stadium.

Echo (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2011/07/12/liverpool-fc-managing-director-ian-ayre-on-anfield-stadium-future-no-amount-of-pressure-will-force-lfc-to-make-a-decision-quickly-for-the-wrong-reasons-100252-29041171/3/)

[redabbey]

In the interview this evening on LFC tv Ian Ayre was making the point that LFC/FSG have not being 9 months conducting due diligence on this issue which was what the councillor claimed yesterday.

He said it is more like 5 months because of so many other issues (including the replacement of the manager.)

I think there will be a lot more twists and turns along the way and it could get extremely controversial and political.

[Captain_Morgan]

strap yourselves in.

This should have all been done years ago under moores watch anyway when the premier league boom began to kick in. Still playing catch up we are

[redabbey]

As I said a few weeks ago this stadium issue is going to get more and more political.

Ayre accuses government in Liverpool stadium row

By Chris Brereton

Liverpool managing director Ian Ayre has angrily responded to housing minister Grant Shapps after he criticised the amount of time it is taking the club to decide on its stadium future.

Liverpool recently had a public disagreement with Liverpool City Council about the delay in deciding whether to remain at Anfield or move to a new stadium in nearby Stanley Park.

Although Liverpool City Council and the government fell out last February over the "Big Society" idea as council leader Joe Anderson jettisoned David Cameron's hopes of turning Liverpool into a "pilot" area for the scheme, it would appear the council and Whitehall are unanimous in their disapproval of the club's impasse over its stadia intentions.

"In the interests of the wider community, the club needs to make a swift decision on whether they plan to build a new stadium or stay where they are – either way the residents around Anfield deserve to know," Shapps said.

"The delay is causing unnecessary uncertain for the community. Local residents are living in limbo.

"The council has already asked for extra time for the lease on Stanley Park by six months to allow the club time to explore all options, but the quicker Liverpool FC makes a decision, the more options they have."

Yet Ayre cast any notions of diplomacy aside in his startling riposte, accusing the government of being complicit in the lack of investment in the Anfield region. "It is extremely disappointing Mr Shapps should publicly point the finger at Liverpool FC and claim they alone are delaying the regeneration of the local area, when he is fully aware of the impact of central government cutbacks on the whole city," Ayre wrote.

"If Mr Shapps had taken the time to learn anything about our City, our football club and our community, he would know that we all work together and pull together and we only try to score points on the football pitch, not in the media."

The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/ayre-accuses-government-in-liverpool-stadium-row-2340932.html)

[redabbey]

Liverpool FC hit back in row with government over stadium decision delays

David Bartlett Echo (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2011/08/20/liverpool-fc-hit-back-in-row-with-government-over-stadium-decision-delays-100252-29270118/)

THE Government today demanded Liverpool FC speed up its decision on whether to stay at Anfield or move to a new ground on Stanley Park.

Tory housing minister Grant Shapps has written to LFC managing director Ian Ayre saying the delay is causing unnecessary uncertainty for the local community that had been left in limbo.

Mr Ayre today reacted angrily to Mr Shapps intervention.

“It is extremely disappointing that Mr Shapps should publicly point the finger at Liverpool FC and claim that they alone are delaying the regeneration of the local area, when he is fully aware of the impact of central government cutbacks on the whole city,” said Mr Ayre.

“In particular, the demise of the Housing Market Renewal Initiative seven years into a 15-year programme in Anfield has created huge uncertainty for the local community which dwarfs the effect any delay on a stadium has had.”

Mr Ayre said Liverpool was fully aware of its responsibilities and had invested £14m of its own money in the regeneration of Stanley Park and other infrastructure improvements.

“If Mr Shapps had taken the time to learn anything about our City, our football club and our community, he would know that we all work together and pull together and we only try to score points on the football pitch, not in the media.

“A considerable amount of work continues to identify the right solution to the stadium question.

“However, this is not a decision that can be made swiftly, it will be made at the right speed that gives the correct solution for Liverpool Football Club in the long term interests of its fans.

“Mr Shapps should understand the complexity of that process and the need to properly arrive at the right decision for our fans, our community and the club itself.

“Mr Shapps would be better off upping his own game, rather then telling us how we might improve ours.”

Liverpool council leader Joe Anderson also defended the Reds.

Cllr Anderson said: “We would like LFC to make a speedy decision but at the same time we are mindful that its a complex issue.

“We are working with them in a positive way.”

Officially the council has set the end of September as the deadline for the club to make a decision on whether or not to take an option of a 999-year lease on Stanley Park.

But Cllr Anderson has previously indicated to the ECHO that this will be extended if the club can show it is making progress.

Cllr Anderson said: “I think it is a bit rich for Grant Shapps to single out Liverpool for holding up regeneration in Anfield.

“One of the reasons why there is inertia in regeneration is because of the way the government axed funding for the Housing Market Renewal Initiative (HMRI).”

Last year the government pulled the HMRI programme, which was hoped would breathe new life into the Anfield housing market. The council is still attempting to find a solution to complete the project.

Mr Shapps said he had been motivated to speak out after a recent visit to the city in which he saw how residents feel left down.

He said whether the club decides to stay at Anfield or move to a new 60,000 seater stadium in Stanley Park is of crucial significance to the area.

The minister said the club could lead a resurgence in private sector enterprise.

“On my visit last month I saw for myself the impact that the decision yet to be taken by Liverpool Football Club will have on the area, and how much the local people in Anfield need certainty and a definite decision on the future of their neighbourhood.

“In the interests of the wider community, the club needs to make a swift decision on whether they plan to build a new stadium or stay where they are – either way the residents around Anfield deserve to know.

“The delay is causing unnecessary uncertain for the community. Local residents are living in limbo.

“The council has already asked for extra time for the lease on Stanley Park by six months to allow the club time to explore all options, but the quicker Liverpool FC makes a decision, the more options they have.”

In a rather “pun-heavy” end to his statement, Mr Shapps added: “It’s down to them not to score an own goal by delaying a decision on the club’s future home once more and ensure the council never has to walk alone in their attempts to regenerate the local area.”

[redabbey]

The latest Spirit of Shankly podcast is worth listening too on the stadium issue.

http://content.spiritofshankly.com/podcasts/download/7.mp3

[redabbey]

By Chris Bascombe Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8799918/Liverpool-chairman-Tom-Werner-says-Everton-groundshare-idea-is-dead.html)

In an exclusive interview with Telegraph SpoTrt, Werner has spelt out Liverpool’s stringent opposition to any effort by Liverpool City Council to bring the two Merseyside clubs back to the negotiating table.

He has revealed for the first time that if Liverpool are not able to modernise Anfield, they will design new plans for a stadium on Stanley Park rather than pursue either of the two existing schemes left by previous owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

That would require a fresh planning application which could take a minimum of two more years before construction began.

There is a history of aborted attempts to convince the Merseyside giants, who meet in Saturday’s Goodison derby, to join forces. On Friday, former culture secretary Andy Burnham MP, an Everton fan, backed a shared stadium and said there was a “political will� in the city to make it happen.

Everton have even been asked to consider becoming Liverpool’s tenants in a new £300million stadium on Stanley Park, an unpalatable prospect for chairman Bill Kenwright.

Despite the resistance, the financial consequences of the clubs’ failure to overcome their obstacles are sobering. Liverpool earn £60million less than Manchester United in annual matchday revenue. Until they renovate or move, they will fall additional millions behind every season.

For Everton, there is nothing on the horizon. Since the collapse of proposals to move to a 55,000-seat stadium in Kirkby in 2009, Kenwright has been searching for an investor to finance new plans. Liverpool’s attempt to permanently end the groundshare debate will close another door as Everton fight to keep in touch with the Premier League elite.

Werner is adamant no matter how challenging Liverpool’s stadium issues, Fenway Sports Group will vehemently resist groundshare negotiations.

“We knew it would be complicated when we took over the club but we are still optimistic of finding the right solution,� said Werner. “Everyone knows the two options we are examining - staying at Anfield or a new build on the park - and although we have been pressured for a timetable we have not responded to that pressure because we do not want our fans to be disappointed.

“We have been told countless times by our supporters that they have no desire for us to share a stadium and we have listened to that. Our supporters are not for it, therefore it is a dead issue. I have said before you can never say it will never be raised again, but although there are obstacles on Anfield redevelopment and on the issue of naming rights, I believe they are surmountable.

“People can say whatever they want about how long a decision takes but as far as we are concerned the situation is exactly as we knew it would be when we purchased the club. It is our intention to not only enhance the playing environment around Liverpool Football Club, but also the neighbourhood. We appreciate the surrounding area is not Mayfair. We want to be the catalyst for employment and to look after those in the vicinity, assisting the local economy.�

The most recent groundshare talks were engineered by city councillors shortly after FSG’s takeover in 2010. One of the most incendiary suggestions is for Everton to lease a new stadium from Liverpool once it is built.

At an earlier joint meeting of the clubs with former Sports Minister Richard Caborn in 2008, Liverpool rejected a 50-50 ownership split because Everton could not afford their half of the costs. That remains the club’s stance.

Inevitably, Everton refused any deal in which they were not equal partners.

A similar tenancy agreement operates in Munich’s Allianz Arena between Bayern and 1860 Munich. A visit to the stadium by John W Henry in August prompted suggestions he may be interested in recreating such an arrangement on Merseyside.

“John visited the Allianz Arena recently as part of his education in European football generally,� explained Werner. “We are learning more and educating ourselves every day.

“You are aware of the matchday revenue figures for Europe and the Premier League’s biggest clubs and we need to find the solution to bridge this gap. When you analyse those figures you see the importance of us raising revenues globally through a variety of means, including through our TV channel which presents many possibilities given the club’s worldwide popularity. It is vitally important we keep up with up with what our rivals are doing so we are challenging in the future.

“We have played at Anfield for a long time and we have not given up on that continuing but the other option remains. If we are going to spend upwards of £300 million on a new stadium, it is a fair assumption to say we will be assessing other designs other than the Hicks Stadium. Far from downhearted, I am very encouraged about the possibilities.

“What the supporters want most is a winning club and that is something we are in the process of improving.

“We are encouraged by the start of the season although we could have had a few more points, but our aim is to get back into the top four.�

History of false starts

1996 Everton announce they are actively considering sites in preparation to leave Goodison Park for a new stadium.

2000 A planning application is submitted by Everton for a 55,000-Seater stadium at Liverpool’s King’s Dock Waterfront.

2001 Liverpool announce plans to move to a 70,000 seater stadium, worth £110m, on Stanley Park.

2003 Everton’s King’s Dock plan is rejected by the council after the club failed to raise an initial £30m to finance the project.

2004 Liverpool are granted planning permission to build their new arena, but chairman David Moores admits only a new investor can finance the scheme.

2006 Everton enter talks with Knowsley Council to build a 55,000 seater stadium in Kirkby at a cost of £150m; Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr complete Liverpool takeover and vow to begin work on the Stanley Park stadium ‘within 60 days’; Hicks announces a new planning application is to be submitted for a £240m stadium.

2008 Permission is granted for the second Liverpool FC stadium design, but groundwork is halted with the owners blaming the economic downturn; fresh groundshare talks break down due to Everton’s inability to pay £120m towards the cost. A tenancy idea is also rejected.

2009 Amid opposition from supporters, the community and the Labour government, Everton’s Kirkby plan is scrapped.

2010 New Liverpool owner John W.Henry announces a review of the club’s stadium options and favours renovation of the existing Anfield; Liverpool council leader Joe Anderson requests fresh talks on groundshare.

2011 Liverpool Chief Executive Ian Ayre admits the club may have to consider leaving Anfield due to ‘obstacles’ in staying on the current site.

[redabbey]

Surprised to see Chris Bascombe as the author of the above piece. He must have got himself a new job following the demise of the Sunday S*n. Has he replaced Rory Smith?

[travis]

Surprised to see Chris Bascombe as the author of the above piece. He must have got himself a new job following the demise of the Sunday S*n. Has he replaced Rory Smith?

yes Smith has gone to North East section, Glad Bascombe has moved, I don't mind him at all.

[redabbey]

Paul Kelso The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/news/8990640/Liverpool-and-Tottenhams-new-stadium-plans-hinge-on-raising-funds-from-American-investors.html)

Both clubs are looking to kick-start stadium developments this year, but the global economic climate and the reluctance of banks to issue huge loans for major capital projects has led them to focus their fund-raising efforts in the US.

Telegraph Sport understands that both clubs are examining a range of debt-financing options with American investors, including ‘private placements’, a method of raising funds by selling bonds to private investors.

Under a private placement, investors would buy bonds in the club at a fixed rate of interest, which they would receive at set periods throughout the term of the deal. At its conclusion the initial investment would be repaid.

Manchester United refinanced more than £500 million of bank loans in 2009 by issuing corporate bonds in the club on the UK and American markets.

It was considered a success after it attracted significant take up from investors and allowed the Glazers to maintain their debt-financed ownership of the club, albeit at the cost of annual interest repayments of around £40  million.

Tottenham and Liverpool are understood to be less likely to issue corporate bonds that could be publicly traded, preferring to target private investors for the specific purpose of financing new grounds.

Arsenal successfully employed this model to finance the Emirates.

The fund-raising plans at both clubs are running alongside the search for naming-rights sponsors, a market that promises to be crowded in 2012, with Chelsea and the Olympic Park also seeking stadium partners.

Both Spurs and Liverpool would hope to raise at least £150 million over 10 years from a sponsor, with Tottenham targeting closer to £200 million. Spurs are expected to attract interest from Chinese sponsors and have been linked with Qatar Airways.

The clubs could borrow against a naming rights deal to allow them to kick-start construction work, with the balance of the total cost coming from investors.

Tottenham have estimated that their new stadium development at Northumberland Park, adjacent to White Hart Lane, will require around £300 million in funding, which UK banks are highly unlikely to consider in the current climate.

There would be competition among banks to handle a private placement in the US, however, particularly given the involvement of the club’s ultimate backer, the billionaire financier Joe Lewis.

Lewis is a key player in Tottenham’s expansion plans but so far he has maintained his policy of allowing the club to stand on its own resources, rather than dipping into his own fortune to boost spending on players and facilities.

His wealth could be a significant factor in a successful fund-raising however, particularly if he agreed to underwrite or act as a guarantor in the process.

The search for private investment is understood to have been a factor in Tottenham’s decision to delist the club from the London stock exchange, a move agreed by the club’s shareholders last month. The move means the club is now privately owned, with the vast majority of shares held by Joe Lewis’s ENIC.

Liverpool’s planned new stadium in Stanley Park is expected to cost a similar amount to Tottenham’s new ground, with the club’s American owners, Fenway Sports Group, naturally examining fund-raising options at home as well as in the UK.

Officially the club are still considering the option of redeveloping Anfield, but their interest in financing options suggests that a new ground is the more likely option.

[Venom1983]

Both Spurs and Liverpool would hope to raise at least £150 million over 10 years from a sponsor, with Tottenham targeting closer to £200 million. Spurs are expected to attract interest from Chinese sponsors and have been linked with Qatar Airways.

Given Liverpool Football Club is a far bigger club than spurs, surely any naming rights on anfield would be worth a lot more than the lane??

[glen]

With spurs in the champions league they can attract bigger sponsors

[Venom1983]

Spurs have been in the champs league once since it's inception, we've won the thing and have a far bigger fan base. Our shirt sponsorship deals are among the highest in world football never mind the premiership. In my opinion the naming rights to new anfield would be worth at least double any spurs naming rights.

[stamullenredmen]

being im the cl doesnt add to naming rights dont the stadiums just be referred to as say the arsenal stadium instead of the emirates as emirates arent a sponsor of the champions league?the fact weve a big fanbase and are up there with united for tv pulling power would see us pull a big deal

[Rossie]

Think that clown Parry managed to get us shirt sponsorship for about half of what Spurs were getting a few years back. If I'm right, it was on the eve of the Champs Lge Final too, I'd say we could've named our price after the final. We've come a long way as a club since then.

[bobby benitez]

Spurs have been in the champs league once since it's inception, we've won the thing and have a far bigger fan base. Our shirt sponsorship deals are among the highest in world football never mind the premiership. In my opinion the naming rights to new anfield would be worth at least double any spurs naming rights.

Calm down horse, the journalist could be just wrong, they often are;)

[shaneo]

being im the cl doesnt add to naming rights dont the stadiums just be referred to as say the arsenal stadium instead of the emirates as emirates arent a sponsor of the champions league?the fact weve a big fanbase and are up there with united for tv pulling power would see us pull a big deal

yes true but the commentators etc. at the matches on sky sports news refer to it as the emirates. its really just on uefa's site its refered to as arsenal stadium. of course sponsors will pay more for a team with more exposure to a wider market

[Redtilimdead]

they can call it the pinky and perky memorial park for all I care it's always been and always will be anfield

[ROCCO]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02111/stanley_2111131b.jpg

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

Liverpool opt for original Stanley Park stadium plan to replace Anfield after rejecting futuristic design
Liverpool have decided to proceed with their original, nine-year-old stadium plans once they have secured the finance to start construction.

By Chris Bascombe11:00PM GMT 16 Jan 2012

That means the alternative, futuristic stadium designs proposed by former owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jnr have been ditched for good.
It also ensures there will be no fresh planning application required by the current American owners to restart construction once a lucrative naming rights package is in place.

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

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

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

The AFL plans were first introduced by former chief executive Rick Parry but were abandoned by Hicks and Gillett shortly after their ill-fated takeover in 2006. Hicks scrapped the original designs in favour of those he commissioned from a Dallas-based architecture firm, HKS. The £400 million costs of the second scheme effectively triggered the beginning of the end of the old regime, as Hicks and Gillett could not raise the funds to build it. It also led to the first major split of the old boardroom, as the plans were seen as too expensive and impractical.

Now Hicks’ grand scheme has been permanently shelved with FSG deciding it will modernise and upgrade the first set of designs.
Since buying the club, John W Henry has worked through a variety of options to establish how to solve Liverpool’s enduring stadium problem.
Henry originally wanted to redevelop Anfield, but after a year of toil working through the planning issues, and the cost of buying nearby residential properties, it was accepted this was not feasible.

FSG has also explored whether to commission new stadium plans, but the time and cost restraint also made that a non-starter.
Liverpool have planning permission for two designs.

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

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

The single, desirable legacy of the Hicks and Gillett era was the fact they actually began preparatory work on Stanley Park prior to having to bring it to a halt when they failed to secure investment. That means technically, and legally, construction of a stadium is considered to have already started by the council.

This has enabled the new owners to avoid missing out on any deadlines to complete a project. Liverpool City Council is also eager for the club to make progress as soon as possible, so have not issued time constraints. Some Liverpool fans may be worried that plans nearly 10 years old, which were publicly criticised by Hicks as being ‘out of date’ five years ago, are being given a facelift. However, Liverpool believe Hicks’s criticism was always unwarranted and the AFL plans — inspired in part by the Millennium Stadium in Wales — were also impressive. Although the club are limited in terms of altering how the arena will look, its size and the space it will fill from the accepted designs, there is still plenty of capacity to upgrade the interiors to modern standards.

Any suggestion the nine-year-old architects’ plan is out of date will be dismissed by the owners, who recognise AFL’s vast portfolio in stadium design.
The firm is responsible for recent upgrades at Old Trafford and the Nou Camp, and built the Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea and Everton training complexes.

[ROCCO]

AFL revised proposals January 2008
Not approved ...



http://aflarch.demonweb.co.uk/files/projects/large/c1b.jpg

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

http://aflarch.demonweb.co.uk/files/projects/large/c5a.jpg

http://aflarch.demonweb.co.uk/files/projects/large/c10a.jpg

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

http://aflarch.demonweb.co.uk/files/projects/large/AnfieldElev1.jpg

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

http://aflarch.demonweb.co.uk/files/projects/large/liv2.jpg

[ROCCO]

Parry Bowl




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

[midg23]

So which one is supposed to be built?

[elvis]

So which one is supposed to be built?

The "Parry Bowl"

[NiallD]

Disappointing redeveloping Anfield is not possible.

[elvis]

Disappointing redeveloping Anfield is not possible.

Indeed, when you think of it, it seems like a massive waste of money for circa 16000 seats. They are effectively paying 300-400 million.

That's 25k a seat

And at 40quid a seat. We will have to play and sell out all the seats for 400 games just to break even.

[wertyu]

More money wasted it looks like

[Kop On]

More money wasted it looks like

How so?

[elvis]

How so?

I imagine he means:

1. the cost per seat extra is huge!
2. We paid 2 different firms a total of over 100million pounds for 2 stadium designs, and then went back to the original ones from 9 years ago.


But what happens to Anfield afterwards? I reckon we sell it to the bitters :D

[stiffler]

Indeed, when you think of it, it seems like a massive waste of money for circa 16000 seats. They are effectively paying 300-400 million.

That's 25k a seat

And at 40quid a seat. We will have to play and sell out all the seats for 400 games just to break even.

There is also the increased match day revenue that 16k fans bring with them.

[prendy]

I imagine he means:

1. the cost per seat extra is huge!
2. We paid 2 different firms a total of over 100million pounds for 2 stadium designs, and then went back to the original ones from 9 years ago.


But what happens to Anfield afterwards? I reckon we sell it to the bitters :D

I think your missing the whole point of the expansion. It was never just about more normal seats. Its about corporate revenue, this will increase significantly with more boxes and a premium level type area. this is where clubs make the real match day revenue (above what we already make) and its an area where we have been left in the dark ages over the last 15 years relative to our rivals.

[elvis]

There is also the increased match day revenue that 16k fans bring with them.

My point is, it's 400million to get 16k extra fans, yet if we bought out the houses and redeveloped Anfield we could get those extra 16k seats for 150mil at most.

[bobby benitez]

Indeed, when you think of it, it seems like a massive waste of money for circa 16000 seats. They are effectively paying 300-400 million.

That's 25k a seat

And at 40quid a seat. We will have to play and sell out all the seats for 400 games just to break even.

Never mind the small matter of £150m in naming rights and 16,000 people spending money on merchandise, food, programmes etc.

[Venom1983]

I would say naming rights are key to this going ahead,

[Fowler's God]

As Chris Bascombe is reporting it, I will be taking this with a pinch of salt until the club announce anything.

[pacman]

Will be sad to see Anfield go, but think redevelopment was not an option, especially with the location of Stanley Park, I'm sure Fenway boys realise how lucky they are, just because it suited in Boston, never meant it had to suit us.
Development of Anfield would have been extreme with more than likely costs escalating the whole time due to the requirement of purchasing land etc, also best to start on green field and ensure that the stadium is built to last from the foundations with possible room for expansion in the future.
Obvious that sponsorship is important, but even at the exaggerated 400 games mentioned above, think this is still the best option. Lets get things moving, its the time to build.

[frank101]

Will be sad to see Anfield go, but think redevelopment was not an option, especially with the location of Stanley Park, I'm sure Fenway boys realise how lucky they are, just because it suited in Boston, never meant it had to suit us.
Development of Anfield would have been extreme with more than likely costs escalating the whole time due to the requirement of purchasing land etc, also best to start on green field and ensure that the stadium is built to last from the foundations with possible room for expansion in the future.
Obvious that sponsorship is important, but even at the exaggerated 400 games mentioned above, think this is still the best option. Lets get things moving, its the time to build.



I agree with you on this, for 1 of the big boys in the league we're prob the smallest when it comes to stadium sizes. Fenway get this sorted for us and we can easily fill it up week in week out, we have the supporters to do so.

[elvis]

I think your missing the whole point of the expansion. It was never just about more normal seats. Its about corporate revenue, this will increase significantly with more boxes and a premium level type area. this is where clubs make the real match day revenue (above what we already make) and its an area where we have been left in the dark ages over the last 15 years relative to our rivals.

I understand the commercial & corporate aspect to it, but why would this not have been an option in a redeveloped Anfield!

Never mind the small matter of £150m in naming rights and 16,000 people spending money on merchandise, food, programmes etc.

I understand that, but that would all be available in the Redeveloped Anfield, and we would get more for naming rights on the historic Anfield. So in essence we would get a Free redeveloped stadium, and have so much more extra revenue.

I would say naming rights are key to this going ahead,

I agree also, and FSG have said the same thing.

Will be sad to see Anfield go, but think redevelopment was not an option, especially with the location of Stanley Park, I'm sure Fenway boys realise how lucky they are, just because it suited in Boston, never meant it had to suit us.
Development of Anfield would have been extreme with more than likely costs escalating the whole time due to the requirement of purchasing land etc, also best to start on green field and ensure that the stadium is built to last from the foundations with possible room for expansion in the future.
Obvious that sponsorship is important, but even at the exaggerated 400 games mentioned above, think this is still the best option. Lets get things moving, its the time to build.

There was nothing exaggerated, it was rough guestimation on a breakdown of costs per seat, and what we would need back to cover it. GOing off just gate receipts my figures are correct.

FSG said the same thing about it being expensive for 16,000 extra seats, and it is. There argument was why pay 200million for something you already have.

Also there is no way redeveloping Anfield would have cost as much, as a FULL new stadium, so that seems to be only exaggerated claim so far.






Anyway I was just trying to point out, that it would cost considerably more for a new stadium than to redevelop, whilst also taking us longer to start making a profit from it.
I don't see the argument that the commercial aspect, and naming rights and selling extra merch and programmes are only availble to Stanley park.This could all be done in a redeveloped Anfield.

Average fan spends about 80quid a match, so you could half the figure, and it would work out at 200games to break even (not counting the corporate sales)

[Skintown Red]

Surely we fetch in a right few million for selling Anfield, no?

[budgemook]

Need a bigger stadium, with more corporate boxes being key, to remain / become competitive with the likes of City and United. With FFP rules coming in having a stadium like this should allow us to compete with anyone. Without the stadium I think we'll always be amongst best of the rest i.e competing for 4th rather than winning leagues.

Great news IMO.

[Dzer2]

Elvis,

Not picking on your idea redeveloping Anfield will result firstly in a loss of income as the stands will not be used when they are being redeveloped. I Have had previous ith redeveloping old houses the amount of stuff that people over look when pricing the work is incredible. Even down to the size of the water main into the building and drainage away from the area after the work is complete. It can say on a drawing that you have a400mm drainage pipe when you get to it it might only be 250mm in reality as it was agreed to change at the time of installation to save money. Basically the whole place will have to be rewired new panels and stuff. Years ago you could level a stand in a few days and scoop it in to lorries and dump it not now you have to recycle as much as possible the cost of demolition could be a deterrent

[redabbey]

That is a confusing article by Bascombe. I think he probably knows something though and has ran with a story without any official confirmation.

Sadly I think he is probably right that it is the only alternative that the football club have. You have only to listen to some of the podcasts from Spirit of Shankly and the radio interviews on BBC Merseyside from last Autumn to know the massive problems there would be redeveloping Anfield.

My hunch though is that when the new stadium announcement is made it will be larger than the 60,000 capacity mentioned in that news article and there has been lots of work going on behind the scenes between the Liverpool board and the architects AFL.

I mean you just don't go back to a design after 9 years or even 6 years and say 'We'll have that stadium plan now guys' and leave it at that.

There could also a sweetener by Merseyside council with regard to co-operation in the proposed Utting Avenue rail link which is badly needed even without any increase in ground capacity.

[pacman]

Also there would be serious costs in up grading the current infrastructure to the existing stadium, I know that there will still be costs, but with green field site this cost and design shall be somewhat easier.
Interms of the existing stadium, to renovate to a suitable standard, the works would be huge, if it were a house, you could probably be better off in starting new.
Again, I will be really sad to see the end of Anfield, but need to look at the bigger picture and the next 100years, no times for a quick fix.
But I have to say would love the new stadium to icorporate a new Kop, and liked the design to make it the focal part of the stadium.

[redabbey]

But I have to say would love the new stadium to icorporate a new Kop, and liked the design to make it the focal part of the stadium.

The AFL revised plans in January 2008 had a single tier KOP with an 18,500 capacity.

[D-Red]

Disappointing redeveloping Anfield is not possible.

Very.

[pacman]

Redabbey:
Yea i'd be for the new development if all is approved

[mushypea]

The AFL revised plans in January 2008 had a single tier KOP with an 18,500 capacity.

The revised plans from 08, has this not been approved or just a case of waiting for it to be approved? Very happy for the go ahead of the new stadium if it was to be this design as the Parry Bowl is cat.

[mascherIANO]

They have to be very careful with the design I think.

Some of these modern day stadiums seem to generate absolutely nothing in terms of atmosphere. Out of all the recently built stadia across Europe they should look at the Allianz arena as a guider. Not in terms of actual design but in terms of how they built it so atmosphere and noise could be generated.

And also is the new stadium just a part of the regeneration Anfield plan?

[returnoftheking]

The dream was always the redevelopment of Anfield in the same Henry & Co did Fenway for the Red Soxs, I just don’t think it will be feasible.Anfield is a shrine to all Liverpool fans but if they can`t be redeveloped a new stadium is needed if we are going to be in a position to compete with the likes of Manchester City, as football unfortunately is part of the entertainment industry and the club are currently restricted with regards corporate boxes. We should be generating more revenue on match days, and whilst it will be heart-breaking to leave Anfield the club have stagnated in the past from a commercial point of view.

For me there is no better place to be than Anfield, but the next generation of fans have different expectations when it comes to stadiums.

I have seen on different Liverpool fan website where older fans have stated they would prefer to stay in Anfield and never win the league again, that type of thinking is madness. I`m lucky I`m remember the great Liverpool teams of the 80’s and have seen the club win plenty of cups in the last decade but the club’s history won`t attract fans unless it is matched with success now and into the future and I believe the new stadium will help the club be more successful both off the pitch and more importantly on it.

I will shed a tear should the day come that I can no longer watch a match in Anfield but we need to keep moving forward, never forgetting our history but not always looking back. Shanks, Paisley and Kenny in the 80’s never looked back, we were successful because we always moved forward on the pitch wanting more leagues and European Cups, the shame is that the suits in the boardroom in the 80’s and particularly the 90’s ran the club like a corner shop.

I don’t like what Sky have done to football but the clubs played with the devil by taking the money, Liverpool operate within a tough environment now we are 16 points behind the league leaders in January, I want the club to be in a position to win the league in the near future and if the new stadium helps this to happen, I will accept losing our beloved Anfield.

With regards losing the atmosphere currently Anfield is extremely quiet for normal league games, the fans are no longer the 12th man unless it is a big game like the Mancs or a European night. Now I`m going next week for the carling cup semi and the atmosphere will be magic but should we move to a new stadium, there will also be a responsibility on the fans to open their mouths and support the team.

The club should ensure with an increased capacity that some of real fans, particularly the locals have access to tickets. There has to be a balance between the real fan, be that a local, or someone from Dublin or Finland and tourists who will show up and spend a fortune in the club shop etc. If the club just chase the tourists we will end like the Mancs. To strike that balance I hope the club have the good sense to engage the fans should we leave Anfield.

[babbsnads]

I'd imagine the club have exhausted all avenues in terms of redevelopment of anfield so the new stadium must be the most sensible option. I'm nearly certain they said they wouldn't sell the naming rights to anfield so the naming rights will probably offset the difference in cost. Anfield probably couldn't be more poorly situated in terms of redevelopment. I'm glad there's finally been a decision made.

[elvis]

I'm glad there's finally been a decision made.

I think that is the one thing we will all agree on.

[Fowler's God]

The Echo are reporting it now also. Still await the club announcement to see what is happening.

[macco]

They have to be very careful with the design I think.

Some of these modern day stadiums seem to generate absolutely nothing in terms of atmosphere. Out of all the recently built stadia across Europe they should look at the Allianz arena as a guider. Not in terms of actual design but in terms of how they built it so atmosphere and noise could be generated.


If it is influenced by the Millenium Stadium, as mooted above, then I'm fairly confident with regards atmosphere. That place definitely holds it in. Stick a single tiered Kop in it and Bob's yer uncle!

;)

[elvis]

If it is influenced by the Millenium Stadium, as mooted above, then I'm fairly confident with regards atmosphere. That place definitely holds it in. Stick a single tiered Kop in it and Bob's yer uncle!

;)

and a roof ;)

[Carlsburger]

1882

[Venom1983]

I'll miss Anfield like everybody else but football is all about winning. It used to be that anfield gave us the best chance of winning but now modern football is all about matching the revenue streams of our competitors.

We need this new stadium and the increased match day revenues to allow us to remain competitive going forward. A stadium with a capacity of 60,000 plus allied with regular champions league football would allow us to regain our rightful place amongst the world's biggest clubs

[redabbey]

I have just merged the thread that was started this morning with this older one mainly because there are much the same argument pro/against redeveloping Anfield or the opposite about moving to Stanley Park.

Now I do still think that today's newspaper story could very well be correct. It is still short on facts.

Whenever there is an official announcement from the club we can then lock this thread and start a new one.

[redabbey]

Just published on the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9020351/Liverpool-look-to-end-legacy-of-false-promises-over-new-stadium-but-finance-remains-the-stumbling-block.html) website this Blog by Chris Bascombe

Liverpool look to end legacy of false promises over new stadium but finance remains the stumbling block

It is not meant to be like this. Lavish new stadium plans, supposedly the catalyst for regeneration of one of the poorest areas of Britain, have stalled for over ten years.

While Liverpool FC's home plays hosts to its millionaire players and benefactors, its neighbours’ continue to wonder when the ageing promises will be kept.

Fenway Sports Group were left a shambolic inheritance by their predecessors, and if they underestimated the scale of the problem when they bought the club they are still coming to terms with it.

It was as far back as 2000 when Liverpool announced intentions to move to Stanley Park and committed itself to improving the surrounding areas. It is eight years since Liverpool City Council first granted them permission to do so.

The aspiration then was to move by 2007. Five years ago, a second planning application by ex-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr was also given the go-ahead.

Three Liverpool FC boardroom upheavals and three chief executives since expressing their desire to move house, the furniture removal firm is yet to be called. There will be no real progress until a naming rights partner is found, or finance secured via other channels.

Liverpool’s new owners are eager to end the legacy of false promises but are still unable to offer any timescale to residents or supporters as to when work can begin. They’ve avoided making any pledges of their own since day one.

By adopting the original, 2003 architects designs of Manchester-based AFL, they have at least ensured, technically, Liverpool could start constructing a new arena on Stanley Park tomorrow morning if the money was there. There is at least a promise, of sorts, to cling onto.

Liverpool supporters less than impressed with the favouring of the older plans need a reality check. Too many jump to the wrong conclusions based on a photograph. Any lack of enthusiasm would be churlish given the saga the club and residents have endured and dire need for a practical solution.

A new stadium is essential for the club and the surrounding area for a multitude of reasons, and although FSG must stick to the dimensions they’ve been given when they eventually build it, there is still plenty of scope to make it modern, unique and worthy of its association with Liverpool.

The problem for FSG is they’ve always been limited to one of the two designs for which the council granted planning permission. The AFL design with planning permission was dismissed by Hicks. A second AFL design in 2006 was also rejected by the Texan and never submitted to planners. His vision, championed by Dallas architects HKS, had an estimated cost of £400m three years ago and has been rising ever since.

Although the council gave it the green light, among its many flaws are 200 executive boxes covering two tiers of the stadium. Try filling them outside of London.

A spade did go into the turf of Stanley Park, ensuring that technically work began and the planning permission on both schemes has still not run out. That has bought the new owners time.

John W. Henry decided upon taking over Anfield he’d rather redevelop the existing ground. Liverpool fans cheered, but residents and city councillors did not join the applause.

Feasibility studies have focused purely on the architecture suggested redeveloping Anfield would be cheaper, while universally more popular among Liverpool fans. Another tier on the Anfield Road and Main Stand could extend the stadium to 60,000.

To suggest those plans encountered an obstacle would be an understatement. Think of several Olympic steeplechases and a few Grand Nationals and you may begin to brush the surface the hurdles FSG have been faced with.

Firstly, Liverpool City Council do not want Liverpool to stay put. They have maintained a firm position they want the move to Stanley Park and commitments to assist regeneration of Anfield to go ahead.

They still regularly float the idea of a groundshare on the park with Everton, and had Liverpool tried to pursue another new set of plans they’d undoubtedly be under more pressure to negotiate with the Goodison hierarchy.

Whatever the logical arguments are for this, they are repelled by severe emotional resistance and a brutal economic fact. Liverpool can afford to pay for half a new stadium. Everton cannot, unless they’re prepared to accept a tenancy (they have made it clear they never will).

Extending the current ground also has severe geographical disadvantages.

The terraced streets of Lothair Road, Alroy Road, Rockfield Road and on Anfield Road – referred to as the 'Rockfield Triangle' – are directly behind Liverpool's Main Stand. It is here where you will encounter the worst conditions, with ‘tinned up’ properties which have been empty for years.

For Liverpool to rebuild they will need most of these properties demolished, and that goes against a pledge to retain and renovate all the dwellings made by the council in their own redevelopment plans.

Liverpool could try to buy all the properties in vicinity themselves, but this brought more problems.

The cost of entering private negotiations with each home-owner or landlord is incalculable in terms of price and time.

One solution was the compulsory purchase of the properties by Liverpool City Council, but they have no wish to pursue this and it would be subject to a legal challenge if they tried to.

So Liverpool find themselves back where they were in 2004, when ex-Chairman David Moores decided to sell the club. They have the AFL stadium design and the permission to build it.

Now they just need the money.

[Redtilimdead]

if they do go ahead and build the new stadium as sad as it will be to leave anfield I feel it's in the clubs best interests long term , and we won't be moving that far so no reason why it cannot be still called anfield , ps stick a roof on the whole stadium and hear us roar

[MR KING KENNY]

If we move id bet the name of the stadium would change, would be great to keep the name anfield but it's all money money money,

[masterbenji]

I wish there was an easy option to extend Anfield as I'm sure close to 95% or more would want..at the end of the day we need more seats a I'm sure we'll have no problem filling them but till then I personally don't think we'll match revenue the same as the other big clubs..for god sake Newcastle have a large capacity than we do!..we NEED a large stadium and I will always hold out for an extended Anfield until the day I hear from Henry and co that we're moving house

[this]

From a pure design perspective, I would really have hoped for something a bit more forward thinking, huge oppurtunity to do something inspired, but the design just looks like another stadium anywhere else, would of preferred personally if we took a leaf out of the Allianz Arena, Beijing Olympic Stadium, Soccer City etc. etc.

That's besides the obvious fact that I never wanted the team to leave Anfield in the first place.

http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae160/pablo29_2010/firstgen_main_large.jpg

http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae160/pablo29_2010/firstgen_04_large.jpg

http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae160/pablo29_2010/firstgen_03_large.jpg

http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae160/pablo29_2010/firstgen_02_large.jpg

http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae160/pablo29_2010/firstgen_01_large.jpg




http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae160/pablo29_2010/allianz-arena_blue_red.jpg

http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae160/pablo29_2010/be17107726b.png

http://i967.photobucket.com/albums/ae160/pablo29_2010/soccercity.jpg

[Venom1983]

The allianz arena is the most impressive stadium I have ever been in, I'd love to see us go down those lines if we have to move at all

[byrnetred]

Planning permission is in place, it could take a couple of more years to get a new submission granted and no doubt if we did submit a new application the council would try again to push for merged stadium.

Personally I'm going to wait till the revised plans (within the current planning permission) are released.

[midg23]

I think one of the major questions is, will the Kop be single tiered, how many seats and will their be god awful poles there.

[Roll on 19]

If and when the new stadium does eventually get built, I think the naming rights will obviously be of huge importance. If nothing else it's supposedly valued at 150 million, half the expected building costs.
While we all will be saddened to see the name "Anfield" go, money in this situation does indeed talk.
I foresee, one of the stands, maybe the current "main stand" or the "Anfield road" end, being renamed as the "Anfield stand". I cant see them renaming stands from "Centenary" or the "Kop" so naming one of the other two "The Anfield stand" will give continuity to the legions of fans who are justifiably proud of our history.

That'd leave one stand free for naming rights if the club decide to go down that avenue, or maybe they have it in mind to recognise the part of Liverpool history that belongs to Saint Bill, or Saint Bob.

[mascherIANO]

I think one of the major questions is, will the Kop be single tiered, how many seats and will their be god awful poles there.

thats another concern i have. isnt the kop the biggest single tiered stand in europe. they need to bring that to the new stadium.

[mascherIANO]

thats another concern i have. isnt the kop the biggest single tiered stand in europe. they need to bring that to the new stadium.

obviously not physically

[redabbey]

thats another concern i have. isnt the kop the biggest single tiered stand in europe. they need to bring that to the new stadium.

Don't know if it is the largest all seater but the 'the famous yellow wall' of Borussia Dortmund has the biggest capacity but that is standing.

[Mico]

Don't know if it is the largest all seater but the 'the famous yellow wall' of Borussia Dortmund has the biggest capacity but that is standing.


Trying to find an answer to this, cant come up with much

[ROCCO]

Trying to find an answer to this, cant come up with much

Newcastle one looks huge ?
But not single.

[Dubred]

Don't know if it is the largest all seater but the 'the famous yellow wall' of Borussia Dortmund has the biggest capacity but that is standing.

Love that stadium really fantastic atmosphere. On my list of stadiums must see stadiums.

[Maldjd23]

Love that stadium really fantastic atmosphere. On my list of stadiums must see stadiums.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-TlAawpRKM

Stadium holds 80000.
The Wall which is basically thier Kop holds 28000 all standing. I think it's reduced for European games with the seats put in...

Still a savage stadium!!!

[up the pool]

i hope to god the designs shown here arent going to be our new home they re fcukin dreadful :mad:

[redabbey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-TlAawpRKM

Stadium holds 80000.
The Wall which is basically thier Kop holds 28000 all standing. I think it's reduced for European games with the seats put in...

Still a savage stadium!!!

Another youtube video of the 'Yellow Wall' from a few years back.

H8gY9vDsOss

[this]

i hope to god the designs shown here arent going to be our new home they re fcukin dreadful :mad:

If the reports are to be believed, and we are reverting to the original design, then that would be the 5 pics that I posted up on the last page - link below to the Architects website. 60000 capacity.

http://aflarch.demonweb.co.uk/projects.php?action=showProject&catID=43&projectID=169

Even the second generation design was a lot nicer than the original one - 72000 capacity.

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

Someone was asking earlier as well if a single tier Kop was proposed, on both the first & second generation designs, the single tier Kop was included.

[Wylie]

If it's a 60,000 all seated stadium surly with it being a new stadium we will have the option to add on to the capacity in future yes if need be?

[donalt]

I think all the talk so far was of a 60,000, but if there going to build a new stadium surely they would be mad not to make sure there is a capacity for expansion. With the new financial restrictions coming in to play the more the merrier really. Ff they could expand outwards towards the 80,000 mark it would do us the world of good! Also, i think the naming rights is an unfortunate truth that we are all just going to have to come to terms with, right now cash is unfortunately king, but hey, the more we make, the more we can spend!

[Juan]

No simple solution to stadium..ian ayre.
http://www.clickliverpool.com/sport/liverpool-fc/1215570-no-simple-solution-to-liverpool-fc-stadium-issue,-says-anfield-chief.html

[redabbey]

No simple solution to stadium..ian ayre.
http://www.clickliverpool.com/sport/liverpool-fc/1215570-no-simple-solution-to-liverpool-fc-stadium-issue,-says-anfield-chief.html

There is a lot more context to this story in the Echo.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2012/03/16/liverpool-fc-and-everton-fc-chiefs-ian-ayre-and-robert-elstone-reveal-thoughts-on-future-of-both-clubs-100252-30548720/

[trucker]

Not good enough this delay, I see Tony Evans who I'm not a fan of is asking questions what's the delay, and i've gotta agree with him it's not on. You've that tit Ayre in SSN 2 weeks ago saying we haven't made a decision, this 18 months after John W Henry said it'd take up to a year for an answer.
I spoke to somebody today who's working on the project for spurs new stadium/redevelopment and he said there way ahead of us.
It's not good enough and questions need answering not leaks to journalists dropping hints about different options.

[byrnetred]

Not good enough this delay, I see Tony Evans who I'm not a fan of is asking questions what's the delay, and i've gotta agree with him it's not on. You've that tit Ayre in SSN 2 weeks ago saying we haven't made a decision, this 18 months after John W Henry said it'd take up to a year for an answer.
I spoke to somebody today who's working on the project for spurs new stadium/redevelopment and he said there way ahead of us.
It's not good enough and questions need answering not leaks to journalists dropping innuendos

the whole project depends on us geting a sponsor and it must be difficult to get a sponsor to commit 10,15,20m a year for 10-20 years considering the suarez shit & the poor form this season

[trucker]

the whole project depends on us geting a sponsor and it must be difficult to get a sponsor to commit 10,15,20m a year for 10-20 years considering the suarez shit & the poor form this season

Na I'm not having that Dave, the Suarez thing has already blown over outside England and the poor form is irrelevant as it's a long term project, this type of thing shoulda been known 18 months ago, and I know for a fact carlsberg made an offer 2 year ago.
Last July Ayre made a statement saying there was obstructions with redevelopment hinting it was the council, well that week the council called the club out on it and asked for a meeting, the club declined.
Theres no leadership from Ayre or FSG and they lost any goodwill after they hung Kenny and Suarez out to dry in febuary, this is taking the biscuit.
The best compliment I can pay them is there not H&G, that's were it ends on the last 18 months showing.

[justydawson]

Ya starting to worry Trucker? Serious question...

[bobby benitez]

The new mantra of the club is back to the old one, "we'll tell you when there is something to tell". I don't know what the hold up is but FSG have done nothing so far to suggest we should be worried. This is not a rash player purchase type decision, what ever decision is made on the stadium affects the next 100 years of our club, in the greater scheme of things another 12 or 18 months is not that significant once the right stadium is built.

[babbsnads]

The new mantra of the club is back to the old one, "we'll tell you when there is something to tell". I don't know what the hold up is but FSG have done nothing so far to suggest we should be worried. This is not a rash player purchase type decision, what ever decision is made on the stadium affects the next 100 years of our club, in the greater scheme of things another 12 or 18 months is not that significant once the right stadium is built.

Yeah I agree with this. They'll build the stadium and they know the quicker they do it,the better for everyone so there's obviously a good reason they're taking their time. It more important it's done right than quickly.

[trucker]

Ya starting to worry Trucker? Serious question...

As I said there not H&G so I'm not worried on that level,but the only hold up now is FSG, they got the club at least £200m below open Market price and were actually further behind on the stadium issue as we were 5 years ago as at least then we had made a decision.
Ayre on SSN was a bloody embarrassment.

[Juan]

Obviously FSG are no H+G..but they are also here to make money...although with a different game plan,and the decision on Anfield will have a major bearing on their plan.

[south]

maybe having problems finding funding for it ?

[trucker]

The new mantra of the club is back to the old one, "we'll tell you when there is something to tell". I don't know what the hold up is but FSG have done nothing so far to suggest we should be worried. This is not a rash player purchase type decision, what ever decision is made on the stadium affects the next 100 years of our club, in the greater scheme of things another 12 or 18 months is not that significant once the right stadium is built.

Full planning permission is in place in Stanley park and the club refused a meeting when Joe Anderson called them out last summer.
I'm not having this theres nothing to say yet, the fact is the club are the problem here, theres people under CPO who's lives are on hold, community hall has been demolished and is awaiting to be rebuilt, all this while FSG decide to say nothing, not good enough, the goodwill of the takeover has well passed and questions need answering.
This fans forum the club set up is a PR stunt that won't ask the right questions and is the only access fans have to the owners.
I put up a post under a kop faithful hat last summer asking questions of the council, the council offered meetings, the club haven't given fans information.

[trucker]

Listen I hope I'm wrong but I just feel this delay isn't on, they knew the stadium needing sorting, if getting funding is the issue then say it, but the silence is all wrong, and alarming, given our recent history we're likely to be on alert

[prendy]

Listen I hope I'm wrong but I just feel this delay isn't on, they knew the stadium needing sorting, if getting funding is the issue then say it, but the silence is all wrong, and alarming, given our recent history we're likely to be on alert

Very nice tin foil hat you have there trucker!!:D

But seriously I agree there should be more info forthcoming but like our transfer dealings, no one knew anything until the deals were signed, so maybe there is movement behind closed doors.
I think if we werent messed about by H&G then no one would bat an eye at this delay. I think we as supporters are still weary of the owners as they are still outrsiders to the club.

[bobby benitez]

Full planning permission is in place in Stanley park and the club refused a meeting when Joe Anderson called them out last summer.
I'm not having this theres nothing to say yet, the fact is the club are the problem here, theres people under CPO who's lives are on hold, community hall has been demolished and is awaiting to be rebuilt, all this while FSG decide to say nothing, not good enough, the goodwill of the takeover has well passed and questions need answering.
This fans forum the club set up is a PR stunt that won't ask the right questions and is the only access fans have to the owners.
I put up a post under a kop faithful hat last summer asking questions of the council, the council offered meetings, the club haven't given fans information.

It is possible they didn't like being "called out" by a politician, sometimes politicians have agenda's and bend the truth. I'm not saying this is the case but I can understand the club leaving politicians out of the loop until the time comes when they need them.

I understand your state of mind given what's gone on before, but nobody ever said it was going to be easy. As prendy just said above and I alluded to in my previous post work could/should be happening behind the scenes that even the trucker doesn't know about;), that's the way it should be. Come August if the silence is still deafening then I'd agree its time to be concerned. The fact we got 2 companies nobody ever heard of (Standard Chartered and Warrior Sports) to part with massive sums of cash would suggest finding a backer won't be that difficult so it wouldn't surprise me to hear of another no-namer appearing as the main backer behind the stadium. My own personal opinion is funding options are in place but nobody will sign on the dotted line until they know what their signing.

[trucker]

Bobby Joe Anderson asked them for a meeting as the club had been releasing statements hinting the council were the problem.

[bobby benitez]

Bobby Joe Anderson asked them for a meeting as the club had been releasing statements hinting the council were the problem.

I know that and as I already said maybe they've no interest in meeting them until they need too.

Why do you think the club would issue such statements unless they thought them to be true? I don't think we've reached the stage were the club needs to leak excuses to keep fans appeased.

[trucker]

I know that and as I already said maybe they've no interest in meeting them until they need too.

Why do you think the club would issue such statements unless they thought them to be true? I don't think we've reached the stage were the club needs to leak excuses to keep fans appeased.

Why make a statement blaming the council then refuse a meeting, I'm sorry I accuse anybody of something and they ask to speak about it then you have to meet them to discuss it, that's in any walk of life unless you couldn't prove your allegations or have nothing to say at all.
Not one resident under the CPO restrictions has been given an answer from the club, and this fan forum was formed so they didn't have to deal with outside groups.
Tony Evans reputation is in tatters after the Kenny Haung stuff so nobody takes him seriously, I'm really interested to see if Tony Barret runs with this as he's the most popular and respected LFC journalist, if he does it might get more people asking questions, but this silence isn't some sort of we'll have good news soon, it seems it's basically we've done f*ck all about it IMO

[bobby benitez]

Why make a statement blaming the council then refuse a meeting, I'm sorry I accuse anybody of something and they ask to speak about it then you have to meet them to discuss it, that's in any walk of life unless you couldn't prove your allegations or have nothing to say at all.
Not one resident under the CPO restrictions has been given an answer from the club, and this fan forum was formed so they didn't have to deal with outside groups.
Tony Evans reputation is in tatters after the Kenny Haung stuff so nobody takes him seriously, I'm really interested to see if Tony Barret runs with this as he's the most popular and respected LFC journalist, if he does it might get more people asking questions, but this silence isn't some sort of we'll have good news soon, it seems it's basically we've done f*ck all about it IMO

You haven't addressed my question, what have the club to gain by issuing statements they know not to be true?

[trucker]

You haven't addressed my question, what have the club to gain by issuing statements they know not to be true?

It buys them time, and takes the blame from them for any delay

[ROCCO]

It buys them time, and takes the blame from them for any delay

Rather they take their time and get this right ?

Do you think theres something wrong ?

[mascherIANO]

Rather they take their time and get this be right ?

Do you think theres something wrong ?

They have to get it right but in fairness they are taking an awful lot of time to make a decision.

Every moment that goes by that we are not in a new stadium we are falling further behind the elite clubs in the world.

The new stadium or a redevloped Anfield with a bigger capacity and lots more corporate facilities is very important.

Old Trafford has a capacity of over 75,000 and something like 200 corporate boxes compared to our 45,000 capacity and I think 30 boxes.

Its important to take their time and make the right decision but somewhere along the line a decision needs to be made and every week that passes by we are falling further behind.

[ROCCO]

They have to get it right but in fairness they are taking an awful lot of time to make a decision.

Every moment that goes by that we are not in a new stadium we are falling further behind the elite clubs in the world.

The new stadium or a redevloped Anfield with a bigger capacity and lots more corporate facilities is very important.

Old Trafford has a capacity of over 75,000 and something like 200 corporate boxes compared to our 45,000 capacity and I think 30 boxes.

Its important to take their time and make the right decision but somewhere along the line a decision needs to be made and every week that passes by we are falling further behind.


Yes it's important ..

But we're net spending enough to be a top 4 side or better , there's more to a successfull team than just the income.