Fenway plans for a new/redeveloped Anfield stadium?

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?

It seems that the club itself is not too enthusiastic about developing Anfield, the comparitive cost of a new stadium with it's increased capacity and facilities does make the limitations involved with developing Anfield an unfeasable proposition.

The problem in reinvesting in Anfield is we need a temporary home. Where would that be? The only notable option would be Goodison, wouldn't it? Unless we go to Tranmere but that would not hold a sufficient amount of people.

But i'm in favour of it. I would love to stay at Anfield. It's our home. So many legends made their name at Anfield and it's where we have shared the ups and downs.

I won't object to moving of course, but preference stays with redeveloping Anfield and if that isn't feasible then i certainly won't be holding any grudges in moving to the new home ground.

The problem in reinvesting in Anfield is we need a temporary home. Where would that be? The only notable option would be Goodison, wouldn't it? Unless we go to Tranmere but that would not hold a sufficient amount of people.

But i'm in favour of it. I would love to stay at Anfield. It's our home. So many legends made their name at Anfield and it's where we have shared the ups and downs.

I won't object to moving of course, but preference stays with redeveloping Anfield and if that isn't feasible then i certainly won't be holding any grudges in moving to the new home ground.

They might do one stand at a time and temporarily reduce the capacity.

They might do one stand at a time and temporarily reduce the capacity.

Thats what i was thinking. Do a lot of work in the off-season as well i guess?

Either way i don't care. Obviously prefer a redeveloped Anfield due to my love of tradition, but either way i just wanna see us playing in a ground that can hold at least 60,000 peeps. Thats what we need.

They might do one stand at a time and temporarily reduce the capacity.

Could be. I don't know how they do these things. I'd love it.

They might do one stand at a time and temporarily reduce the capacity.

Know where you're coming from buddy but the financial benefit which ultimately is what it's all about, is restricted with the development of Anfield. Short term it may make economic sense but for the future success of the club it needs to expand, Anfield is forever linked with LFC and that will not change but it is essential that we compete with our rivals in terms of business potential.

Could be. I don't know how they do these things. I'd love it.

Kinda like the MCG when they re-did that for the '06 Comm Games (which i attended, coincidentally) they were doing sh*t to that for a couple years during cricket and footy seasons. My Port Power Premiership DVD from '04 you can see a whole stand knocked down with cranes and sh*t sitting there. Kinda annoying as it looks much better full on TV, but oh well

Think they have done it with the GABBA and SCG too.

Now whether they can do it with football, im not sure. But it's been done in other quarters, thats for sure.

Difference is that the MCG is a circular structure. Would be much harder building a square stadium without damaging the rest of it, wouldn't it?

 While I have so many fond memories of Anfield for over 60 years I feel that as long as we get a ground that is worthy of L.F.C. it will not make a lot of difference  if it is old Anfield or new Anfield.The main thing is that the new owners make their intentions straight from the start,the last thing we need is what we went through with H+G who never had any intention of giving us a new ground.My main wish is that todays younger REDS give the ground the same tradition and history as was afforded the old Anfield by us older REDS.

Difference is that the MCG is a circular structure. Would be much harder building a square stadium without damaging the rest of it, wouldn't it?

Don't know mate, would be a completely different process for sure but I dunno the logistics of it.

Any architects on board?

New Anfield: The case for redevelopment – This Is Anfield (Liverpool FC)
www.thisisanfield.com


I think a 70.000 seater Anfield looks the part.

Chairman Martin Broughton has confirmed that the potential new owners of the club, NESV, have committed to develop a 60,000 seater stadium for Liverpool FC.

“Where they haven’t finalised their view is whether that should be the new stadium or whether there are still opportunities to build at Anfield itself,” explained Broughton.

“They have done both. The people involved have built the new stadium at Baltimore Orioles, for example, and at Fenway Park they looked at the two options and decided that actually redevelopment with all of the tradition was better than a new stadium.

“They are committed to looking at both very professionally and seeing which is the best option.”

Some reports suggest NESV favour remaining at and redeveloping Anfield.

The situation with Liverpool parallels the situation John Henry and NESV inherited when they purchased the Boston Red Sox in 2002. The Red Sox already had plans in place for a new stadium, just as Liverpool do now, but in 2005 NESV announced that the team would remain at their iconic Fenway Park and the stadium would be modernised.

NESV’s decision was largely influenced by supporter opinion, with several fan groups opposing a move from their historic home. Fenway Park is now the oldest stadium in Major League Baseball.

The difference with Liverpool is that supporters realise the need for a new stadium in order to compete with the likes of Man United and Arsenal financially.

However, various suggestions have been made as to how Liverpool could increase their capacity while remaining at Anfield. The Club looked into these plans exhaustively during the 1990′s and in more recent years have successfully purchased the houses surrounding the current stadium, notably on Anfield Road (now demolished) and behind the Main Stand.

So, what if it were possible to remain at Anfield and raise the capacity to around 60,000 seats?

The current Anfield capacity is 45,000, with The Kop housing 12,390, the Centenary Stand 11,411 and the Anfield Road End holds 9,116 (all redeveloped in the nineties). The Main Stand and Paddock holds 12,277 combined. This is the oldest stand and the obvious place to begin any redevelopment.

Some excellent designs as the SkyScraperCity website proposed adding a third tier to the Centenary Stand, adding approximately 4,200 seats, and redeveloping the Main Stand to add 9,000 seats and bring the overall capacity to around 58,000.



Alternatively, some people have suggested rebuilding the Anfield Road Stand, which has been criticised since it’s opening in 1998, with pillars and an obstructed view from the lower tier. With the purchase of the houses behind the stand, could it be possible to build a larger stand at that end with the stand spanning over Anfield Road itself. This is something that Atletico Madrid’s Vicente Calderon Stadium features so is possible. This could bring the overall potential new capacity to around 62,000.

The main argument with redeveloping Anfield has been the loss of capacity while work is being carried out, and the subsequent financial loss from gate revenue. However, surely if money is being saved by not building a completely new stadium this becomes a non-issue. Obviously the decreased capacity remains an issue though.

However, if work is carried out in a logical manner, there can be limited disruption to the overall capacity. For instance, a third tier can be added to the Centenary Stand without disrupting the capacity. This would add around 4,000 seats. Next the Anfield Road End can begin work over the summer and could even be complete in time for a new season, thus making the overall capacity to well over 40,000 even without the Main Stand, which can begin work over the summer also and be completed during the season. So the overall capacity would never be below 40,000.

Another stumbling block often discussed with this notion is that the maximum capacity would then be stuck at around 60,000 but I see no reason why that is not adequate. Arsenal‘s Emirates is the same capacity for instance.

Could it work? I’m no expert on stadium construction but I see no reason why it can’t as all the above ideas have been successfully implemented elsewhere.

I personally would always prefer to remain at Anfield. You cannot recreate the history and heritage the stadium has. Anfield is possibly the most iconic fan stadia in the world, if there were a way to keep that then it must be done.

Something for the new owners, and supporters, to ponder, perhaps?

Of course, it would also mean not sharing a ground with the Bitters!

Usually redeveloping stadiums is done over the summer, sometimes in parts over several summers.

I honestly have no preference one way or another. Whichever way it goes, we'll have a bigger capacity stadium and we'll be better off.

There's pro's and con's to both, but as long as it's feasible and beneficial to the club in the long term then I'm happy.

While I am all for re-developing Anfield, is it actually allowed? my mate told me the other day that houses around Anfield are listed buildings so could not be touched. would it be possible to re-develop Anfield without knocking any buildings around Anfield?

The building of the stadium is of monumental importance.  It is a decision we are going to have to live with for a long time, it is vital that we get it right.  I want it to be an iconic building that will stand the test of time, not only for aesthetic reasons, not only because we are Liverpool FC, but because playing in a grand stadium will inspire and encourage the players and the fans in intangible ways.

One thing is for sure though - we need to make sure that there are plenty of corporate boxes.  Chelsea make nearly double our match-day revenue per season, with a smaller stadium, largely because of corporate boxes (obviously, they can charge more for their boxes, being in London). Utd and Arsenal are making nearly three times what we are per year (around £40 million).  I know a lot of fans will pull faces about the idea of these boxes, but they are essential to raise the revenue we need to buy players of true Liverpool calibre.  If we are going to spend all this money on a new stadium, it needs to be profit-making and boxes are the way to go, they provide - a rough estimate looking at it on .tv - ten times the revenue per person per game.  A new stadium also gives the club the opportunity to develop facilities inside the ground to maximise the potential of this as a match-day experience.

The building of the stadium is of monumental importance.  It is a decision we are going to have to live with for a long time, it is vital that we get it right.  I want it to be an iconic building that will stand the test of time, not only for aesthetic reasons, not only because we are Liverpool FC, but because playing in a grand stadium will inspire and encourage the players and the fans in intangible ways.

One thing is for sure though - we need to make sure that there are plenty of corporate boxes.  Chelsea make nearly double our match-day revenue per season, with a smaller stadium, largely because of corporate boxes (obviously, they can charge more for their boxes, being in London). Utd and Arsenal are making nearly three times what we are per year (around £40 million).  I know a lot of fans will pull faces about the idea of these boxes, but they are essential to raise the revenue we need to buy players of true Liverpool calibre.  If we are going to spend all this money on a new stadium, it needs to be profit-making and boxes are the way to go, they provide - a rough estimate looking at it on .tv - ten times the revenue per person per game.  A new stadium also gives the club the opportunity to develop facilities inside the ground to maximise the potential of this as a match-day experience.

Keep Anfield.

Look at what Utd have done with Old Trafford, look at the fact a lot of overseas fans still want to visit Anfield, you all realise Anfield is the second biggest tourist attraction after the Beatles in this city.

Sorry you can stick your identikit, corporate loving shithole, I'd rather stay at our redeveloped, renovated home. The house that Shankly built!!

 

Look at what Utd have done with Old Trafford,

As corbally said, planning permission may be a problem.

look at the fact a lot of overseas fans still want to visit Anfield, you all realise Anfield is the second biggest tourist attraction after the Beatles in this city.

A new stadium would be an equal, if not larger draw.

Sorry you can stick your identikit,

As I said, it has to be iconic - not identikit.

corporate loving shithole

So you don't want us to compete? You like seeing us mid-table? You don't want the best players at Anfield?

As corbally said, planning permission may be a problem.

A new stadium would be an equal, if not larger draw.

As I said, it has to be iconic - not identikit.

So you don't want us to compete? You like seeing us mid-table? You don't want the best players at Anfield?

Can all still be done with a redeveloped Anfield, which would probably include rebuilding the Main Stand, so you would get your corporate boxes, redo the Anny Road, especially that pathetic upper tier and you'd get corporate boxes there as well.

We've got an iconic stadium now, by the way, wasn't so long ago I remember reading a barca forum were they described as one of the best away stadiums to visit.

NESV rebuilt Fenway Park, rather than move to a new stadium, I'm sure they will be looking to do the same with us.

We should remember Shankly regarded Anfield as HIS home, it should remain OURS.

City council are dismissing it for there own reasons. I believe there is space there to redevlop Anfield.

Keep Anfield.

Look at what Utd have done with Old Trafford, look at the fact a lot of overseas fans still want to visit Anfield, you all realise Anfield is the second biggest tourist attraction after the Beatles in this city.

Sorry you can stick your identikit, corporate loving shithole, I'd rather stay at our redeveloped, renovated home. The house that Shankly built!!

 

Me too Pete, couldn't settle anywhere else 

Personally if this was a cheaper option and could be redeveloped over a couple of seasons i,d go for it. I dont think we,ll get the mega money that man City get each season but we will get investment every year to buy new players if it improves the squad. This is going to be a work in progress to get us back to where we belong, but i,m sure we,ll get there in the end and it makes sound business sence. Lets say we develope Anfield over 3 seasons, it will mean extra revenue each year untill we get to our aim of a 60,000 seater stadium so we can compete with the Arsenals and Man U of the the world. The club needs investment every year without fail so we can generate extra revenue with extra capacity and get us back into the money making top 4 positions. I think in 3 years time we should be competing every year for the title. It will be a slow process and god knows how many rebuilding processes we,ve had but all i want is for us to compete and play good football, with good players in our first 11 and have youngsters coming through the ranks which is something we have,nt achieved for god knows how long. We need to bring good youngsters through to replace the Gerrards and Carraghers.

So if re developing Anfield is a viable option, lets do it. Anything that will bring the success back.

Council ready to block new Liverpool owners' plan for Anfield redevelopment

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/08/liverpool-owners-anfield-stadium

New England Sports Ventures, the company bidding for control of Liverpool, is on a collision course with the city's council over plans to redevelop Anfield. The Liverpool chairman, Martin Broughton, has confirmed the club's prospective new owners NESV – which has a track-record in redeveloping a sports stadium with the Boston Red Sox – will consider upgrading Anfield if a £300m offer to gain control from Tom Hicks and George Gillett is accepted in the high court next week. It is understood that a commitment to put £100m towards a new stadium had previously been a condition of the sale.

The leader of the council, however, insists a U-turn on the stadium would be unlikely to gain approval. "I would discourage them [NESV] from redeveloping Anfield and would encourage them to stick to the commitment that is already in place because I think that is the best solution for everyone – for the club and the city," councillor Joe Anderson said.

NESV's offer was accepted after it increased the equity involved to £240m, matching a rival bid from Asia, and Anderson believes the new stadium must be the priority for the club as he attempts to safeguard the area's regeneration.

Other sources say the same planning obstacles that prompted the former chairman David Moores and the then chief executive, Rick Parry, to propose relocating across Stanley Park still exist, leaving NESV facing the potentially greater expense of a new build.

NESV had to commit to a stadium project during negotiations with Liverpool and still intends to revisit existing plans for a new 60,000-seat arena on nearby Stanley Park. However, considering upgrading Anfield represents a radical departure from the past decade of club and council policy. As far as the council is concerned, that policy has not changed, and with much of the present stadium landlocked in a residential area NESV would have to overcome major obstacles to increase Anfield's capacity to its desired figure of 60,000-plus. These include the purchase of nearby houses to make way for new stands, which Liverpool have already done to some degree, improving public access and objections to a development that would tower over local properties.

A separate, though fundamental, reason for the council's desire for a new stadium – which has planning permission that is due to expire in April 2011 – is to see the creation of the proposed Anfield Plaza on the site of the existing stadium. The Plaza, containing shops, offices and restaurants, is intended to provide a public link to the new arena, but also an estimated 1,000 jobs in one of the most deprived local authority wards in Britain.

This was a key condition in Liverpool obtaining permission to build on public land in Stanley Park and, despite the change from a Liberal Democrat to a Labour council at the last election, it remains a priority for local politicians and residents.

Cllr Anderson, who welcomed the potential change of ownership as "a huge relief", said: "It has been suggested to me that NESV would be willing to meet at the earliest possible opportunity in the event of the takeover and I would urge them to do that to give me the opportunity to find out exactly what their intentions are, because the stadium is a key part of our plans to regenerate north Liverpool.

"Those plans haven't been held up entirely by the stadium situation and it would be wrong to say that they have. But they have had an impact and we just want to be in a position where we have a clear sign that the stadium issue will be resolved one way or another, something Hicks and Gillett failed to do despite the string of promises they made."

NESV members have paid several visits to Liverpool in recent weeks but, with control of the club not yet sealed, have not reached the negotiating stage with the council. They have, however, held discussions with the Royal Bank of Scotland over funding any stadium plans and, unlike Hicks and Gillett, who made themselves hostage to fortune with a promise to "put a spade in the ground within 60 days" of their takeover in February 2007, are reluctant to commit to one proposal at this juncture.

John W Henry the principal investor in NESV, overcame major difficulties to redevelop the historic home of the Boston Red Sox, Fenway Park, although at the cost to the fans of vastly increased ticket prices. Broughton said: "They are going to look at a new stadium but they have experience at Boston of redeveloping an old stadium and just want to be sure they have exhausted all options before deciding on which one, but the commitment is they will do one or the other."

Liverpool's need for improved revenue streams from a new stadium is pressing and was a principal reason why Moores sold his majority shareholding to Hicks and Gillett in 2007. Club accounts for 2008-09 financial year showed Liverpool made £42m from gate and matchday income. In the same period Arsenal made £100m at the Emirates Stadium and Manchester United generated £109m at Old Trafford.

Liverpool is a host city for England's 2018 World Cup bid but with Anfield's capacity over the 40,000 threshold, and NESV committed to some form of rebuilding, that status is not at risk.