Fenway plans for a new/redeveloped Anfield stadium?

Broughton changes his tune very 30 seconds. He was saying a new ground was essential and all ready to build just a few weeks ago. I wonder why... Oh thats right he's a lying c**t like the others..

Ummmmmmm..... It seemed to me like he was pretty much saying stadium development will go ahead. Did you not read the statement?

The stadium is down on the list 1st the owners 2nd new signings 3rd stadium and i wouldnt mind redevelopment at all.

If the guys from over the pond manage to leverage it away from Hicks a stadium will come about but because of what Hicks has done hear it will not be the priority it once was. My fear is the Hicks factor, you must remember he still owns the club , at least until the 15th of this month and he has already put in a legal objection, if he comes up with the money he owes then rightfully he will still own LFC. Now if Gillett was to throw his vote behind excepting Broughtons only then would Hicks have no chance of stopping it, I somehow cannot see this happening because how things stand Hicks gets hardly no money and we can all see the rights of that. If only Benitez was still hear I could see us as champions within 2yrs.

To be honest, I would prefer to redevelope Anfield.

I know there have been issues in the past and it hasnt been possible but if somehow we could increase the capacity by even 10,000 to around 55,000, going on current ticket prices that would generate around 7.5m per season extra from just the league games.

Dear oh dear.

Another misinformed topic starting spurious rumours.

At present, the LFC chairman said they haven't decided whether to build a new stadium, or improve the current stadium to a 60,000+ capacity ground.

No mention of groundshare.

I am from the USA. I have been a few times to Fennway park. The re-development of Fennway was hugely successful as the ground (or stadium) has nicely preserved the club's history & tradition. For Liverpool, in my opinion, as long as other developments take place around Anfield to re-juvenate the area, I think it will be good for all involved.

re-developing could be a very good possibillity. 1 great example that springs to mind is Croke Park ( home of Irish GAA ). it was always a big stadium, but around 10 years ago they set about re-devloping it. its now at over 80,000 capacity.

Why I think its revelevant is because, like Anfield, 1 side was seeped in history, Hill 16 being the stand in Croke Park. it was the fans-fans terrace.They actually re-developed the whole stadium and left Hill 16 they way it was but developed around it to accomodate it becaus eit was such a corner-stone in the stadium. this isen't the best image but the Hill 16 ties in fantastically with the modern stadium http://www.hoganstand.com/Common/NewGallery/crokepark2.jpg

re-developing could be a very good possibillity. 1 great example that springs to mind is Croke Park ( home of Irish GAA ). it was always a big stadium, but around 10 years ago they set about re-devloping it. its now at over 80,000 capacity.

Why I think its revelevant is because, like Anfield, 1 side was seeped in history, Hill 16 being the stand in Croke Park. it was the fans-fans terrace.They actually re-developed the whole stadium and left Hill 16 they way it was but developed around it to accomodate it becaus eit was such a corner-stone in the stadium. this isen't the best image but the Hill 16 ties in fantastically with the modern stadium http://www.hoganstand.com/Common/NewGallery/crokepark2.jpg

That's quite a good comparison that! Croker is a world class stadium but at the same time its maintained its history and roots. If there was any way we could achieve something like this with Anfield it would be brilliant!!

That's quite a good comparison that! Croker is a world class stadium but at the same time its maintained its history and roots. If there was any way we could achieve something like this with Anfield it would be brilliant!!

The Main Stand is the obvious one as it hasnt seen any re-development but the upper tier of the Annie Road is terrible.

To be honest, I would love a new shiney stadium, but would it have the atmosphere of Anfield? Now i liked the designs with a giant KOP, but this would give the planners / owners the chance to mess about with everything... Especially who gets a seat in the Kop...

If they made Anfield look like it was brand new, with a great renovation and a 70,000 capacity then for me its the best option ever!

Renovations and additions to Anfield or a new stadium, it sounds good either way, the atmosphere will come as the fans arrive.

I would atleast let the deal go through before starting a heated topic like this, based on some random off-the-record comment by someone. There has been nothing concrete from anybody on it, and won't be for some time.

I've been watching Sky News all morning, a financial expert said they will defo consider this, Phil Thompson was asked about it as well.

So that settles it then. Thanks to Sky Sports News for shining its light of truth!

When will people learn that its televised pantomine!?

Renovations and additions to Anfield or a new stadium, it sounds good either way, the atmosphere will come as the fans arrive.

there already is an amazing atmosphere in well, a smallish stadium, just imagine what it would be like in a big stadium

there already is an amazing atmosphere in well, a smallish stadium, just imagine what it would be like in a big stadium

I know that what I mean is that if we did get a new stadium some people on here have been wondering whether it would be the same, I'm saying that the fans create the atmosphere, the kop could migrate.

 


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

vote
Oct. 6 2010 - 11:28 am |
Could Restoring Anfield Be Larry Lucchino’s Next Project?
Posted by Lee Igel
There is all sorts of attention being paid to the boardroom drama and legal wrangling now that three board members of Liverpool FC voted to sell the club to New England Sports Ventures for ₤300 million ($477 million) and, thereby, oust owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett. But one of the most interesting, if overlooked, aspects about the ownership that would be put in place if the deal is approved by the Premier League is that it includes Larry Lucchino.

Lucchino, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Boston Red Sox, is highly-regarded for having been the architect of the franchise’s resurgence over the past decade. He gained plenty of clout in sports circles for having developed the likes of general manager Theo Epstein and other twenty- and thirty-something-year-old talent in the front office. As an innovation, it stands side-by-side with Lucchino having initiated the trend of building baseball-only facilities with an old-fashioned charm and smaller seating capacities, as was accomplished when he conceived Camden Yards during his term as president of the Baltimore Orioles in the early 1990s. Since then, about one-half of Major League Baseball’s 30 teams built new stadiums with the old-style look and feel. (The columnist George F. Will wrote that Camden Yards was one of the three greatest developments in baseball since World War II; Jackie Robinson and free agency being the other two).

There is little, if any, doubt that Lucchino would bring his innovative ideas about stadium design to Liverpool. Yet what could be intriguing is whether the Liverpool board continues to insist that any purchaser of the club must agree to proceed with construction of a new ground at Stanley Park to replace Anfield. This is because while Lucchino led the conception of Camden Yards, he followed it up effectively having led the rebuilding of Fenway Park.


Image by computerjoe via Flickr
The Red Sox home field was originally built in 1912 and went largely unchanged through the remainder of the twentieth century. But when the ownership group that would later become New England Sports Ventures took over operations, they put money toward updating several internal and external features. The most apparent of these has been the seats on top of the famed Green Monster left field wall, a food-and-beverage-oriented roof deck in right field, and refurbished luxury suites. Less apparent, however, is the example that the franchise no longer goes to the expense of having beer delivered daily and carted by dolly around the stadium. This is thanks to construction of a warehouse-type building beyond the stadium walls that serves to pump the beverage through pipes that run directly to the concession stands. In this and other similar ways, the Red Sox have increased the footprint of the ballpark and, for all intent and purpose, built a new one without anybody realizing they were actually doing so.

Could it be that the storied grounds at Anfield receive the same treatment?

It took 3 years to completely redevelop Lansdown Road in Dublin and it's now the Aviva stadium. Huge difference however there are a few rows of horrendous seats where you can't see anything.

But where would we be playing if Anfield was to be redeveloped? As much as I'd like to see Anfield redeveloped I'd rather have a 70,000 odd stadium at Stanley Park.

It was concluded that development of the existing site was not a viable proposition I believe at an early stage in the process.

There we go then. I fully expect if we are building at Stanley Park that new plans will be drawn up again.

If this is because they didn't get rid of Fenway then it's ridiculous. Henry wanted to get a new stadium and had one ready and just before it would have been approved by the league the members of Red Sox nation came together and made a group called Save Fenway, which talked about watching baseball where our grandfathers watched.

Henry will make the right call on the stadium, because he listens to the fans. 

If it was genuinely workable then I'd be happy to stay at Anfield. The problem would arise if redevelopment was their only plan and they were doing it on the cheap. But given their history of both building and re-developing stadiums and also the fact that they took on board Red Sox fans opinions gives us hope they won't do a H&G.

Just to clear something up for you and anyone else who thinks they will pull a stunt and try to redevelop as you say on the cheap there is no such option it actually costs more to renovate /re develope than to build new it is also easier to build new, as you dont find hidden extras and faults .

I'd much rather have a redeveloped Anfield than move to a new stadium, even one as close as Stanley Park, if possible.

Anfield is a special place and one of the most famous football stadiums in the world and if there is any possibility of staying with an increased capacity I'd be all for it.

Does anyone know why the council are opposed to a redevelopment?

Didn't want to move from Anfield any way.  It's just a little on the short side unfortunately for seating, everything else about Anfield is just fantastic.

If we were to go to 50k+ that would be amazing.  Reckon they could do it over the summer?  Don't fancy renting out Evertons pitch to play start of the season while the works are getting done!

Still.  If only it was as easy?