Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

When are we likely to get definitive stadium news?


Nathanzx
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cochyn, the idea of building a third ARE tier independently seems a good one.

 

It is very difficult to speculate without knowing the detail of what is planned.I suspect that two stands could be built, and at least put into partial use, quicker than 2 years.

 

I agree that Goodison would be unacceptable to most of our support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern stadia  - Emirates / Etihad etc are simply too new to have much character, given their generally bland designs.

 

That's not to say SOME stadia can't have a wow factor (like the Allianz) - but usually it's simply down to cost... so they build a generic concrete bowl and tart it up as best they can. Of course I'm grossly oversimplifying the role of the architects, but still... it's a concrete bowl with a field and some seats... let's not kid ourselves.

 

The atmosphere at City isn't half what it used to be... and it would be easy to say that's because of the stadium. In part I think it could be, but the larger part is that football's becoming more middle class, and there's wives / GF's / Daughters all turning up too... and it's simply not as hard core as it used to be. It's sanitised.

 

A new stadium encourages people to come to the match as a family (which creates that sanitised atmosphere). The toilets are fairly clean, the food fairly decent, the facilities fairly good.... it's just not football now, it's 'experience' and 'entertainment'.

 

But would I go back to Maine Road? not a chance. Old knackered ground, expanded and tarted up umpteen times... but VERY like Anfield. Slap bang in the middle of a deprived area, impractical for proper expansion (larger car parks, facilities around the ground etc).

 

I'd like our stadium to have a bit more glamour. I'd like it to be expanded, but I'd never want it to go back to being Maine Road.

 

I wouldn't say Anfield has more history than Maine Road, but clearly it's had a far more glamorous one, and that can only strengthen the case for staying put. But the desire to hold on to those memories might also hold you back.

 

The only way I can relate it is this:

 

There have been countless wonderful players at Liverpool, and with each passing... a new one came. The club continued.

The same with managers... the baton was handed over... it was no 'less' a Liverpool when Bob Paisley took over, and in the end, it actually became an even more successful one.

 

It will be no less a Liverpool F.C. without Anfield. Is Liverpool F.C. a matter of bricks and mortar? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern stadia  - Emirates / Etihad etc are simply too new to have much character, given their generally bland designs etc

A good post in full.

 

I am fortunate to have witnessed triumph and glory at Anfield, but the all –seater Anfield of today bears little resemblance physically, or in terms of atmosphere, with the 70’s and 80’s.

 

It is unsurprising that most don’t want to move, but sometimes a move is what a club needs.

 

Arsenal’s move to the Emirates isn’t about their on field performance since the move versus their glory years, it is about their financial security and ability to compete for the next half century. Man City too could not have competed into the 21st century from Maine Rd.

 

Clearly not every club needs to move to succeed. Sometimes it is just about being able to compete, would Southampton be in the PL at the Dell, or Sunderland at Roker Park?

 

If Anfield can be redeveloped, without compromise, to offer a capacity and facilities that will place us back in the football elite for the next half century, fine. But that is what has to be delivered.

 

Almost 13 years ago, the Millenium stadium, with a sliding roof and a 72k capacity, was built for £120m. We are now being told that a half new/half old stadium, with a likely capacity of no more than 60k, and a probable cost of around £150m ( watch that rise) is the right solution. By the time a redeveloped Anfield is finished ( 2020?) the Kop will be 25 years old, the centenary upper almost 30 years old and the lower structure is decades older than that. I would love to think that the older structures will be refurbished at the same time as the new stands built, but see owners delighted to take windfall TV uplifts, increased ticket revenues with no investment in the stadium, and doubt it.

 

LFC deserves a stadium fit for the 21st century, our illustrious past and one which can provide a stage for future triumphs- it is in FSG’s hands.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good post in full.

 

I am fortunate to have witnessed triumph and glory at Anfield, but the all –seater Anfield of today bears little resemblance physically, or in terms of atmosphere, with the 70’s and 80’s.

 

It is unsurprising that most don’t want to move, but sometimes a move is what a club needs.

 

Arsenal’s move to the Emirates isn’t about their on field performance since the move versus their glory years, it is about their financial security and ability to compete for the next half century. Man City too could not have competed into the 21st century from Maine Rd.

 

Clearly not every club needs to move to succeed. Sometimes it is just about being able to compete, would Southampton be in the PL at the Dell, or Sunderland at Roker Park?

 

If Anfield can be redeveloped, without compromise, to offer a capacity and facilities that will place us back in the football elite for the next half century, fine. But that is what has to be delivered.

 

Almost 13 years ago, the Millenium stadium, with a sliding roof and a 72k capacity, was built for £120m. We are now being told that a half new/half old stadium, with a likely capacity of no more than 60k, and a probable cost of around £150m ( watch that rise) is the right solution. By the time a redeveloped Anfield is finished ( 2020?) the Kop will be 25 years old, the centenary upper almost 30 years old and the lower structure is decades older than that. I would love to think that the older structures will be refurbished at the same time as the new stands built, but see owners delighted to take windfall TV uplifts, increased ticket revenues with no investment in the stadium, and doubt it.

 

LFC deserves a stadium fit for the 21st century, our illustrious past and one which can provide a stage for future triumphs- it is in FSG’s hands.

Best post I've read on the subject for many a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest San Don

Not while there's a hole in my arse will we share woodison.

Most likely they could build the third tier behind the ARE allowing it to operate fully for a season. Then bridge-over the road to complete a larger second tier in the summer. That way they re-open a redeveloped ARE mid-season to seat those who get turfed out by work to the Main Stand (If that makes sense). It's the logisitics that's adding to the cost, but it would never justify leaving Anfield empty for 2 years to get a good run at it.

I don't get this thinking that the Kop needs to be the biggest stand in the ground: It's fucking massive as it is. I get the symbolism but you don't limit your expansion for the sake of symbolism. You do it to get as many bums on seats as you can.

Spot on about the kop. Anyone who says it must remain the biggest part of the ground needs to give their head a wobble. That kind of thinking for the last 20 odd years has left us where we are, virtual also fans in the race for a title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who says it must remain the biggest part of the ground needs to give their head a wobble. That kind of thinking for the last 20 odd years has left us where we are, virtual also fans in the race for a title.

Agreed.

 

Any redevelopment of Anfield will result in the two new stands being bigger. But what we do need is a new feature which distinguishes us.Otherwise we will just be a jumble of stands with an increased, but still moderate ( by Euro standards), capacity.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

From another forum, not posting everything just the answer the guy doing the plans gives.

 

 

 

« Reply #737 on: November 04, 2013, 09:35:49 PM »
 
Start work on it as soon as I finish Brentfords new ground

Priorities  001_rolleyes.gif
------------------------------------------------------
 
« Reply #740 on: November 04, 2013, 09:48:53 PM »
 
I've gotta do stage c (basically preliminary design for tender) by Xmas
----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply #747 on: November 06, 2013, 10:55:19 PM »
 
Started it today... Annie Rd definitely on the back burner.
--------------------------------------
 
 Reply #751 on: November 07, 2013, 06:47:04 AM

We have been awarded up to stage c... No doubt we will finish the job.

When I say tender I mean the works we do will be priced to give a better idea of construction costs. It flags up any anomalies
---------------------------------------
 
« Reply #755 on: November 07, 2013, 02:04:33 PM »
 
Not overly seen any plans for the Annie. But there is a road closure etc.

I have to consider the Annie in my design so it will happen.

My own opinion is that in 20 years we will end up moving grounds anyway
---------------------------------------------------
 
Reply #775 on: December 20, 2013, 11:32:15 PM »
 
Stage C submitted this morning.

Should start on Stage D in Mid to late Jan providing we win it which we should do.

Application for planning planned for April.
---------------------------------------------
 
« Reply #777 on: December 21, 2013, 08:23:58 AM »
 
Stage c is conceptual - preliminary
Stage d is - Detailed design
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Emirates is terrible for the simple reason that it is soulless and is no longer unique. 

 

I went to Benfica in 2006 and to the Emirates a year later. The new Estadio da Luz and the Emirates are identical, there is not the slightest bit of difference between them. 

 

Yes, people make the atmosphere, but at least Highbury was unique, it was Arsenal. New stadiums -  with a couple of notable exceptions, like Porto - are a particular model, depending on your budget. 

 

Horrible. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Code is Kaizer there then?

Code was always "Kaizer" - even before he came on her to talk football.

 

He was "Kaizer" on YNWA, but got swiftly kicked out of there for being utterly incompetent know-nothing Norgie knob.

 

He then decided to test Dave's and everybody else's patience by registering on here and continue to be utterly incompetent know-nothing Norgie knob, so what's changed?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Code was always "Kaizer" - even before he came on her to talk football.

 

He was "Kaizer" on YNWA, but got swiftly kicked out of there for being utterly incompetent know-nothing Norgie knob.

 

He then decided to test Dave's and everybody else's patience by registering on here and continue to be utterly incompetent know-nothing Norgie knob, so what's changed?

 

Seeing as I was banned from YNWA because I said Alonso was a far better and more important player than Mascherano and laughed at those with the incompetense to disagree I', not sure what you are talking about, I guess you were one of the clueless losers though.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest San Don

This is boring now, I don't mind the owners but this issue is dragging on forever, not their fault it's been going on for years but it doesn't ever seem like anything is moving on it at all. There's a statement or Echo piece released every 6-8 months then nothing seems to happen in between.

 

4 landlords wont deal at the price offered. 2 of them are absent landlords. What do you expect the club to do, take out contracts on all 4?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 landlords wont deal at the price offered. 2 of them are absent landlords. What do you expect the club to do, take out contracts on all 4?

Offer a  fair price?

 

The dismay of local residents to the cynical approach by the club is a matter of record. If we can afford to pay staff millions of pounds a year as standard, we can afford to fairly compensate local landowners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest San Don

Offer a  fair price?

 

The dismay of local residents to the cynical approach by the club is a matter of record. If we can afford to pay staff millions of pounds a year as standard, we can afford to fairly compensate local landowners.

 

No, you're the cynic. The club has already agreed or paid those who have sold a price. You may consider than price is insufficient or below 'market rate' whatever. The fact is, the club has paid them in good faith.

 

Let's suppose that figure is around £100k. Now, we are down to 4 landlords, 2 of whom are absent landlords and as I understand, at least 2 of the properties are derelict. So why wont these landlords take the same that has been offered and paid to others especially seeing as two of the properties, these very same landlords have allowed to become derelict?

 

Why should the club pay another 20%, 40%, 60% etc over and above what the others have been paid out? If the club paid out this extra then its not beyond the realms of possibility those who have already received money would say 'hang on, we agreed in good faith and now you're paying 4 landlords nearly double what we got and two of those properties are wrecks?'

 

So you tell us all why 4 landlords should be given money in excess of what others have already agreed on and received?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...