When are we likely to get definitive stadium news?

[Ronnie Whelan]

I reckon we will expand the centenary in years to come then. The club will make a big case to the council that we are contributing massive amounts to the city with this expansion and point to what an extra 10-15k can do for the city. Hopefully, in the meantime, transport links are extended anyway which means we don't have to foot the bill we otherwise might.

[No2]

People are getting carried away with final capacity required, when things are good we could fill the maracana but during roys time only 35k turned up for Bolton. Even the Everton game a few months back only sold out a day or 2 before. As much as we like to think we're great we have as many bandwagoners as anyone, I'd rather a full stadium every week and have 10000 miss out rather than have 10000 empty seats 5 or 6 times a season.

[The Acolyte]

A bitter mate of mine is going about EFC to announce new stadium at Walton Hall Park 55K.

Funded by LCC.

Cobblers?

[Barrington Womble]

A bitter mate of mine is going about EFC to announce new stadium at Walton Hall Park 55K.

Funded by LCC.

Cobblers?

What do they need a 55k stadium for? They can't fill the ground they've got.

[Paulie Dangerously]

Everton City Council

[Guest davelfc]

What do they need a 55k stadium for? They can't fill the ground they've got.

 

they would fill it every week if only the paint on the seats wasn't wet. 

 

Average last season of 36,355 with a 40,157 capacity. We hit 44,748 with a 45,276 capacity.

 

If they have an average of 4000 empty seats each week, then how the hell would having 19k empty seats help. It's not like they've a season ticket waiting list, well unless you count how long it takes to get there from North Wales. 

 

Maybe this all ties in with the proposed bridge from North Wales to West Kirby, let them walk their pigs over and give them a seat.

[Harry Squatter]

There's a season ticket waiting list. For free ones anyway.

[deiseach]

Average last season of 36,355 with a 40,157 capacity. We hit 44,748 with a 45,276 capacity.

 

I can't find a single crowd in excess of 45,000, so the capacity figure you mention is odd. What accounts for the difference? Do they hold back seats for emergencies? Several hundred buy their ticket but don't turn up (Man Utd would include them anyway)? That movable barrier between the away and home fans?

[The Acolyte]

Just talked about the Anfield refurb and expansion on Talksport.

some bloke from the echo

[Guest davelfc]

I can't find a single crowd in excess of 45,000, so the capacity figure you mention is odd. What accounts for the difference? Do they hold back seats for emergencies? Several hundred buy their ticket but don't turn up (Man Utd would include them anyway)? That movable barrier between the away and home fans?

 

Don't know, the capacity is officially listed as that. I'm guessing you're right and it's down to away fans attendance. 

[The Acolyte]

This James Pearce bloke claims we'll be up to 64K BEFORE the Anfield road end is done

[Trumo]

I can't find a single crowd in excess of 45,000, so the capacity figure you mention is odd. What accounts for the difference? Do they hold back seats for emergencies? Several hundred buy their ticket but don't turn up (Man Utd would include them anyway)? That movable barrier between the away and home fans?

 

We lose hundreds of seats in the Anny because of segregation, but unless the club has changed it, I think they still announce attendances in terms of actual numbers through the turnstiles rather than the number of tickets sold. Arsenal and Man Utd both announce by numbers sold, and a number of Manc fans have commented that they've seen thousands of empty seats around the ground even though attendance is announced as close to capacity.

[Russ Atmosphere]

This James Pearce bloke claims we'll be up to 64K BEFORE the Anfield road end is done

Unlikely, 54k?

[Dicko]

I can't find a single crowd in excess of 45,000, so the capacity figure you mention is odd. What accounts for the difference? Do they hold back seats for emergencies? Several hundred buy their ticket but don't turn up (Man Utd would include them anyway)? That movable barrier between the away and home fans?

Season before las we hit 45,007 & 45,009 respectively against West Ham & Chelsea.

Though they were the only times I recall us ever doing it for a long time.

[Dicko]

This James Pearce bloke claims we'll be up to 64K BEFORE the Anfield road end is done

Extremely doubtful as we are under obligation to fund a transport infrastructure for anything over 61,000.

[The Acolyte]

Extremely doubtful as we are under obligation to fund a transport infrastructure for anything over 61,000.

 

Extremely doubtful as we are under obligation to fund a transport infrastructure for anything over 61,000.

True. He probably meant 54,000 got over excited and said 64,000!

[Original202]

I can't find a single crowd in excess of 45,000, so the capacity figure you mention is odd. What accounts for the difference? Do they hold back seats for emergencies? Several hundred buy their ticket but don't turn up (Man Utd would include them anyway)? That movable barrier between the away and home fans?

 

Our all-seated attendance record is 45071 (Man City in 2011/12) but it's usually around 44,800. Must be mostly due to non-attenders - I bet there's games where touts can't shift tickets for example so people don't get in the ground even if a ticket was issued.

 

On another note, there's rumours that the stand will be called the Garuda Airways stand. We announced a partnership with a few weeks back and seems we'll be selling the name of this stand to them. 

[Trumo]

The thing I'm wondering about is where this idea comes from about the club having to invest in wider infrastructure if they want a capacity greater than 60k. Now of course, the area needs to be able to cope with a mass influx of people every other week, but the infrastructure that is supposedly required for that would not only be in use to move this mass influx, it would be in use throughout the week by everybody in the area - residents, businesses and match goers alike. Having to invest in local infrastructure is a key reason as to why nobody has jumped in and gone ahead with a larger capacity stadium.

 

Also, the cost per seat increases exponentially the higher the capacity you look at, so you could say that is another factor as to why more detailed analysis has been required to determine whether the outlay is worth the potential revenue gains, and why a higher capacity has been left off the table as regards the initial redevelopment.

 

I get the impression that the council were trying to shake down the club to raise the funds to enable the investment in infrastructure, and while their stance may have softened on that front given that they're dealing with less brash and more considerate club owners, they are still letting it be known that they want to club to cover the financial aspects of infrastructure investment even though the wider area will benefit more than the club.

 

It's not dissimilar to when certain councillors with a Blue leaning kept promoting the idea of a groundshare with the Red half footing the vast majority of the outlay.

[Mike D]

The Echo has put loads of old photos on their site..

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/pictures-liverpool-stadium-redevelopment-anfield-7024840

 

[bri]

Everton first played at Anfield and we used to play in blue, nothing remains of the original Anfield, new bricks, new stands and new owners. The decision to stay in Anfield by the current owners told me all I knew to know of them. £300 million for 15,000 seats and the romance of Anfield we were sold. No new, serious, long term owners would stay in Anfield. Sadly Anfield lacks the location & infrastructure for serious commercial investment from parties other than LFC. Land values are likely to remain the same over the next 20,30 years with no significant growth. That unfortunately is a sad fact of life for Anfield, much like other inner city areas across the North West. For sound commercial investment it is not a location anyone would ever choose. 

Say for example Liverpool had made the decision to move to the Docks where the Echo arena is or elsewhere on the waterfront. That location has all the infrastructure needed close by to support a world class, state of the art stadium. That investment would of needed to be written down over 30 to 40 years, serious long term investment. That investment though would of bled out across the waterfront with new investors building hotels, bars, clubs, retail, offices etc and thus the land value over time would (and will increase.) This is long term, big vision investment that take 20-30 years to come to fruition. Thus when the owners sell they can recoup a large portion of that land value investment through the increase in land value

That investment though could of built a 65 - 70,000 seata stadia with a new pricing structure, with a £10 seat for the man on the dole, the man who wants to take his lad, the lad that can only afford £10. We could of stood for something unique in the premiership, we could of been inclusive, we could of been the one club that stood arm in arm with the man on the street. This inclusive scheme is alive and well in Germany. A smaller league with only Munich in the same league globally as us as a name and commercial might. We could of still had Dunkin Donughts wizzing round the pitch. All 58,000 does is maintain the status quo on ticket prices. Ian Ayre's comments are basically just those of the owners 

Instead what we have low capital investment in a patchwork approach to stadium design. No correlation or cohesion in how the stadium looks or comment on future investment, just a maybe on the Anny road. This to me is classic minimum investment whilst building the "brand" elsewhere, commercially then flip it in a few years for a tidy profit with no debt down. Ultimately it's the club that suffers with poor, ill thought out planning and building projects. From a commercial / build project it's small time, something we would take the piss out of other clubs for doing. 

The city council are happy as LFC stay in Anfield and remain the only serious investor in that part of the City. Will the City run a train / tram line up to Anfield, no chance. For those wondering if we'll get the anny road or a bigger Kop, expect to see it in another 15 years. I understand Anfield has all the romance in years gone by and it's a noble idea that LFC look to redevelop the area. The decision has been made and thats that. What I am saying is along with that comes all of the above. Or stand up and demand that if the club are going to do all this then that new main stand needs to go round 3 sides with a new bigger Kop. 

Then we can demand a bigger stadium with a new pricing model and LFC can be the unique club in the country.

[Trumo]

Thisisanfield went to the public exhibition today and asked key LFC staff members and the architects a few questions about the proposed development. Some of your own questions might be answered by this.

 

http://www.thisisanfield.com/2014/04/anfield-expansion-key-questions-answered/

[Monkeywool]

So, rather than pay for a redevelopment of where we've been for the past 122 years and bring that stadium up to par with what the rest of the contenders have, you'd rather us up and move to the docklands area, paying probably 3/4 times more than we will for this and have one of those soulless megadomes that are now created where you have to sit about 3 miles away from the pitch?

 

60k is about right just now for us. In a few years time, we can look again at the Kop and Centenary stands, buy the houses around there and repeat to make a 75-80k stadium if needed.

 

We're just doing now what the mancs did years ago. They proved you don't need a spanking new stadium when you could expand your current one to be better. 

[bri]

Yep should of moved. would of shown the real intent of the new owners as being long term, serious investors. And no you don't have to build a soulless dome as this clearly demostrates.

 

 

Its taken us 15 years to get a new planning application in for 1 stand. As i've said FSG are about short term investment into the ground and to flip the club whilst maximizing commercial revenues. 

 

As it stands LFC fans are customers paying the absolute maximum that they can get away with. Ayre knows it, the club will be flipped couple of years after it's built

[No2]

As far as I can remember the infrastructure upgrade only appliedvto to new the stadium tom and george built.

[Mike D]

if it needed to be could the Anfield Road stand go over the road itself and then the road tunnels through it? Is there anywhere else where this is the case?