When are we likely to get definitive stadium news?

[xerxes]

My understanding is as follows:

 

“Stanley Park” has a detailed consent for the G&H design,60k capacity.

 

“Anfield Plaza” (on the site of the existing Anfield stadium complex) has an outline consent for mixed use redevelopment including some houses, commercial, retail but retains the pitch as public open space.

 

Both consents were due to expire this summer. The Stanley Park permission was given an extension by the council. The length of that extension, and the grounds on which it was offered, are unclear, as is whether an extension was similarly offered to Anfield Plaza.

 

Stanley Park is being offered to the Club on a long lease. I do not believe that the Club has taken up that lease yet ( it was rumoured to cost £300k a year and had numerous obligations regarding upkeep of the landscape).

 

The consented design for Stanley Park is four years old now and was commissioned by people who no longer own the Club, in a different financial environment, and with their own business priorities in mind. What FSG think of the aesthetics and practicalities of the consented design is unknown. Whether it meets their business/commercial priorities is unknown. Over the past four years stadium design has moved on, the cost of building it will have changed (some cheaper some more expensive) the financial climate has changed and our playing status has deteriorated. All of these things suggest that building the consented stadium is less likely, and (if a new stadium is built) that a new design to meet new requirements is more likely.

 

The money already spent on this project IS a factor. Some £50m has already been “provided for”, how much of that money has been spent, and on what, is unknown.

 

There is no evidence in the form of physical enabling works on Stanley Park, securing a detailed consent on Anfield Plaza, or publicly announced commissions to associated professionals that a new stadium is the chosen option of FSG. But the same absence of evidence is true of a redevelopment project. Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,it appears that the decision itself is not a priority for FSG.

[Scott_M]

So, if you 'start work', by digging a hole, you can just build what you want for the rest of time? Doesn't sound very 'council-y' to me.

 

You never been to Egypt?

[Randy Marsh]

I've said this before but I think it needs saying again.

 

Liverpool Football Club puts this city on the fucking map. Liverpool Football Club is the reason hotels, hostels, bars, restaurants, pubs and taxis are full every other week in the city. Liverpool Football Club brings thousands of visitors to the city from around the country and around the world, bringing flights in to JLA and trainloads of people in to Lime St.

 

The council need fucking reminding of this, big time. They can fuck off with the blueshite groundshare agenda which has been running for ten years, hoping that we'll prop up that shower of shite for the next 50 years. It's scandalous that we are being held over a barrel by a council who benefit in every way possible from the presence of Liverpool Football Club in the city.

 

If we want to build a new stadium they should pull all of the stops out to let us do that. If we want to bring 70, 80, 90k people to the city every home game then they should be jumping through hoops to provide the infrastructure to allow us to do that, they should be building the roads and reopening the rail links. A successful Liverpool FC benefits this city exponentially.

 

I fully appreciate this has dragged on long enough but surely they can see that these current owners are serious about this. Look at their track record, they are in a different league to Moores/Parry and Hicks/Gillett. They want this to happen.

 

If the council continue to fuck us over and put barriers in the way then lets look elsewhere, outside of the city boundaries. Let's call their bluff, show them we're serious. They'll soon fucking shit themselves. The phrase 'biting the hand that feeds you' comes to mind!

[stringvest]

I've said this before but I think it needs saying again.

 

Liverpool Football Club puts this city on the fucking map.

 

You may be leaving yourself open to challenge there Randy.

[PaulMcC]

I hope a new stadium doesn't mean less investment on the pitch.

 

Anfield doesn't sell out every week these days and unless we make the team better, we won't sell out 60,000 either.

[Code]

I hope a new stadium doesn't mean less investment on the pitch.

 

Anfield doesn't sell out every week these days and unless we make the team better, we won't sell out 60,000 either.

 

Sell out and being full is two different things.

[Chinandeler Bong]

Round and round.

Its fucking boring this.

Too many false dawns.

Its bullshit.

[steve7t]

Anfield is a sell out every game, in fact I think it sold out for the Oldham game.

[Randy Marsh]

You may be leaving yourself open to challenge there Randy.

 

The Beatles goes without saying obviously, but Liverpool FC still trumps everything else.

[Guest alantkayll]

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

 

In the shadow of one of the most iconic stadiums in football lies a depressing picture of dereliction. Houses are abandoned, streets which are vibrant with passion on a match day possess an eerie emptiness for the rest of the year. This is Anfield.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Chris Bascombe

 

 

 

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.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

 

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.

 

Then why bother with expiration dates? If all you need to do to extend it indefinitely is put 'a spade into the turf', why bother undermining that?

[shouter]

Is tell Liverpool city council to stick it and go to the land owned by peel holdings by switch island and build a fu k off 70.000 stadium. Rather that than build that twat of a stadium that's not much better than the Reebok. If they build that it will be fsg first major mistake if there tenure.

[ternando_forres]

AFL Architects Link to the orginal design states it is in "in progress"

 

AFL Architects Link to the 2nd new design states it's just a "concept"

 

I think the second looks alot better, and for an estimated 290 million it doesn't seem that expensive either. It's a shame the council are forcing us to choose between the H&G design and the original Parry designed stadium.

[Code]

To be honest, I could not care less what the stadium looks like, just get it build.

 

I go there for 2 hours to watch the game, as long as I have a good view I'm happy.

 

The fans create the atmosphere, not the stadium.

 

One thing I've been thinking though is that we need to go full size on the pitch, that way the shite teams will not have the advantage they do at the small narrow Anfield pitch.

[Guest ShoePiss]

To be honest, I could not care less what the stadium looks like, just get it build.

 

I go there for 2 hours to watch the game, as long as I have a good view I'm happy.

 

The fans create the atmosphere, not the stadium.

 

One thing I've been thinking though is that we need to go full size on the pitch, that way the shite teams will not have the advantage they do at the small narrow Anfield pitch.

 

Me me me

[Captain]

Well that was a let down!

[Jarvinja Ilnow]

I've said this before but I think it needs saying again.

 

Liverpool Football Club puts this city on the fucking map.

 

The council need fucking reminding of this, big time. They can fuck off with the blueshite groundshare agenda which has been running for ten years, hoping that we'll prop up that shower of shite for the next 50 years. It's scandalous that we are being held over a barrel by a council who benefit in every way possible from the presence of Liverpool Football Club in the city.

 

If we want to build a new stadium they should pull all of the stops out to let us do that.

 

If the council continue to fuck us over and put barriers in the way then lets look elsewhere, outside of the city boundaries. Let's call their bluff, show them we're serious. They'll soon fucking shit themselves. The phrase 'biting the hand that feeds you' comes to mind!

 

Agreed, open talks with Sefton and Knowsley and see if that makes them realise what they run the risk of losing. If Everton moved out of the city, no one would notice.

 

In the meantime, I'd like AFL to use this design

 

 

but instead of shiney steel give it a Daedric armour type look

[xerxes]

An associated piece of news from Birmingham today is that Villa are looking to install some safe standing at Villa Park If successful, this will impact on the thoughts of PL new stadium design.

 

Driven by declining attendances, a phenomena not unique to Villa Park. The proposals are limited, sensible, and uncontentious:

 

It would be at least the 2013-14 season, and most probably even later, before fans would be allowed to stand at Villa Park and the club would have to overcome a series of hurdles for their plan to become reality.

 

But chief executive Paul Faulkner and senior stadium staff have provisionally earmarked the corner of Villa Park, beneath the big screen scoreboard, where the Holte End meets the Trinity Road stand, for a standing ‘test area’.

 

If the bold plan gets the go-ahead it could lead to increased capacity and reduced admission prices in the standing section.

 

 

Villa have held discussions with the Football Supporters’ Federation and Faulkner floated the idea to the club’s fans for the first time at a meeting of their Supporters Consultation Group before Saturday’s draw with Everton at Villa Park.

 

The suggestion of giving fans the choice to stand received a unanimous thumbs-up from male and female supporters who were present at the forum.

 

Villa are examining the introduction of ‘rail seats’, which have been used effectively at German club Borussia Dortmund and other stadia across Europe.

 

These are flip-up seats which are UEFA compliant and can accommodate seated supporters during designated all-seater matches or be stowed away to create a standing area at other times.

 

At a time when attendances are being hit by the recession, Villa believe there is demand for standing tickets at Villa Park and intend to undertake further consultation with supporters.

 

 

The plan could be put forward at a Premier League meeting later this season. How it is received will provide an indication of if and at what rate Villa can progress.

 

It is believed other top-flight clubs would support a debate about safe-standing and would potentially be interested in introducing similar areas at their stadiums.

 

Villa bosses hope the intended project would boost the atmosphere at the stadium and tempt back some stay-away supporters.

 

By turning the ‘test area’ into a standing section, there would be increased capacity in that part of the ground, allowing the club to offer reduced-price tickets without losing money.

 

If the test area proved popular, there could be scope to introduce standing areas in other parts of Villa Park.

 

For Villa’s standing scheme to go ahead, it would require a change to the existing law, which was introduced in the early 1990s following Lord Justice Taylor’s report into the Hillsborough disaster.

 

The Scottish Premier League last month gave its clubs permission to have safe-standing areas within their stadiums.

 

 

Read More http://www.birmingha.../#ixzz1jk0kIYco

[Phoenix]

identikit stadium i guess is the only option the owners are willing to pay for.

[109_ultra]

"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."

 

And that's the kicker for me. Therein lies the answer to the club's longstanding problems. Do this and the obstacles to doing what we want at Anfield as it now stands or on the proposed new model will be answered in full and final settlement.

[xerxes]

"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."

 

And that's the kicker for me. Therein lies the answer to the club's longstanding problems. Do this and the obstacles to doing what we want at Anfield as it now stands or on the proposed new model will be answered in full and final settlement.

I don’t follow your reasoning.

 

I do not believe that there is a legal case for CPO. Were it to be applied for, I am certain that it would be successfully challenged in the Courts – which is why no-one in authority has seriously suggested it.

[Guest San Don]

Then why bother with expiration dates? If all you need to do to extend it indefinitely is put 'a spade into the turf', why bother undermining that?

 

It is a technicality. However, just putting a spade in the ground doesnt mean the planning permission is extended indefinitely. There are still planning timelimits which should be adhered to. LCC have turned a blind eye to this since they know regeneration wont happen if they call the planning permission in.

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat etc.

[Guest San Don]

To be honest, I could not care less what the stadium looks like, just get it build.

 

I go there for 2 hours to watch the game, as long as I have a good view I'm happy.

 

The fans create the atmosphere, not the stadium.

 

One thing I've been thinking though is that we need to go full size on the pitch, that way the shite teams will not have the advantage they do at the small narrow Anfield pitch.

 

And if the club is almost bankrupted by the build will you not be bothered then? And what if that lead to there being no game? Would you be bothered then?

 

Seriously, a 'build it I couldnt give a fuck' is a silly attitude.

[Guest San Don]

An associated piece of news from Birmingham today is that Villa are looking to install some safe standing at Villa Park If successful, this will impact on the thoughts of PL new stadium design.

 

Driven by declining attendances, a phenomena not unique to Villa Park. The proposals are limited, sensible, and uncontentious:

 

It would be at least the 2013-14 season, and most probably even later, before fans would be allowed to stand at Villa Park and the club would have to overcome a series of hurdles for their plan to become reality.

 

But chief executive Paul Faulkner and senior stadium staff have provisionally earmarked the corner of Villa Park, beneath the big screen scoreboard, where the Holte End meets the Trinity Road stand, for a standing ‘test area’.

 

If the bold plan gets the go-ahead it could lead to increased capacity and reduced admission prices in the standing section.

 

 

Villa have held discussions with the Football Supporters’ Federation and Faulkner floated the idea to the club’s fans for the first time at a meeting of their Supporters Consultation Group before Saturday’s draw with Everton at Villa Park.

 

The suggestion of giving fans the choice to stand received a unanimous thumbs-up from male and female supporters who were present at the forum.

 

Villa are examining the introduction of ‘rail seats’, which have been used effectively at German club Borussia Dortmund and other stadia across Europe.

 

These are flip-up seats which are UEFA compliant and can accommodate seated supporters during designated all-seater matches or be stowed away to create a standing area at other times.

 

At a time when attendances are being hit by the recession, Villa believe there is demand for standing tickets at Villa Park and intend to undertake further consultation with supporters.

 

 

The plan could be put forward at a Premier League meeting later this season. How it is received will provide an indication of if and at what rate Villa can progress.

 

It is believed other top-flight clubs would support a debate about safe-standing and would potentially be interested in introducing similar areas at their stadiums.

 

Villa bosses hope the intended project would boost the atmosphere at the stadium and tempt back some stay-away supporters.

 

By turning the ‘test area’ into a standing section, there would be increased capacity in that part of the ground, allowing the club to offer reduced-price tickets without losing money.

 

If the test area proved popular, there could be scope to introduce standing areas in other parts of Villa Park.

 

For Villa’s standing scheme to go ahead, it would require a change to the existing law, which was introduced in the early 1990s following Lord Justice Taylor’s report into the Hillsborough disaster.

 

The Scottish Premier League last month gave its clubs permission to have safe-standing areas within their stadiums.

 

 

Read More http://www.birmingha.../#ixzz1jk0kIYco

 

Hahaha. Then villa will be in trouble if they try. The legislation post Hillsbrough doesnt allow english premier league clubs to incorporate safe standing.

 

The legislation doesnt apply in scotland hence why they are investigating the idea.

[xerxes]

Hahaha. Then villa will be in trouble if they try. The legislation post Hillsbrough doesnt allow english premier league clubs to incorporate safe standing.

 

The legislation doesnt apply in scotland hence why they are investigating the idea.

 

It would not require a change in legislation,just for the licensing authorities to agree the change, and the PL to resolve to agree to it. The PL agrees to anything that is in its members financial interests.

 

The FSF has quite a useful site in this regard:

 

http://www.fsf.org.uk/media/uploaded/Legalities-of-standing.pdf