redasever

It isn't

A redeveloped Anfield can accommodate 60,000 with the potential to go to 70,000.

Investment in the stadium is not included in the fair play regluations - there's no limit. There doesn't need to be loss of revenue to redevelop Anfield during construction as it can be done without demolishing the stands. There's a few examples where this has been done (El Molinon for one)

It's difficult to be precise since the market has changed so much but you could expect a 25% to 50% saving on a new stadium. The important thing is the phasing, so the debt or investment might never be critical. The duration is as long as you like to suit demand but the each stand would take a minimum of one year. This could mean extra income after one year while you would have been spending money for four years to build a new stadium before you get a penny extra.

bump - see bigger kop.

It's clearly a negotiation and Joe was quick to set out his starting position. Assistance with the regeneration of the area was a condition of Council allowing the park to be used for a new stadium. So if the club doesn't build in the park, council see a real risk they will lose the housing particularly with their budget going tits up. Council were also up for £300k a year for the lease on the park which is not to be sniffed at. Joe Anderson was also keen to point out that they would have refused renewal of the planning permission for the twins, which is a lever they can still pull (although the delay caused would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces). What would be best for us is for NESV to honour the club's commitments to the conucil and the area, stay and redevelop Anfield at lower cost (more money for the team), return the park to the community and maybe but only maybe, possibly look at alternative sources of funding (Football Quarter).

Even though I don’t think extension of the Centenary stand will be necessary, it could be done and still be within FIFA recommendations for viewing distance but you’re right, there are a number of other problems with it. Yes, there may be many ‘sub-phases’ (1a, 1b...) as you suggested. These give the club the option to open each stand as finances allow without the cost/debt of the whole construction. The construction you describe is pretty much as the sequence shown on the website. Safe access to the ground can be allowed during the construction period to have more matchday income at any one time rather than less. I agree that the cost of a new stadium could have a considerable effect on investment in the team.

Quite a lot has changed I think. The properties behind the main stand are pretty much derelict now and the area behind the Annie Road has beeen cleared - so the difficulties of limited space have eased. Building practices have developed a bit too and it's easier to build during the season. Interesting to note his comment about how much a financial millstone a 70k stadium would have been. I wonder if it would have been that much less for a new 60k stadium.

It would be in two phases but each would take at least a year. The 'back' work all year round and the removal of the old roof in the closed season (click on the El Molinon image for similar sequencing). I doubt whether phase 2 would be needed at all as I believe there would be enough capacity and hospitality in phase 1. As you know, there is a lot of space behind the Anfield Road end and the street behind the main stand is all but derelict. Previous schemes envisaged its demoiltion and replacement with redeveloped housing all the way up to Tancred Road and so does this scheme.