Fenway set to build original 60,000 seater (Jan 2011 story)

The new Cowboys Stadium cost 1.5 billion US. Don't know what the cost of that second design is but I bet it's considerably more than 300m?

Well in 2008 it was quoted as £290m so even now, it shouldn't come close to $1.5bn (£975,000 )

http://aflarch.demonweb.co.uk/projects.php?action=showProject&catID=43&projectID=227

Like most reds i disliked the original design and even more so when you hear the gooners whinge about the lack of atmosphere and acoustics at ther place. The revised design leave Anfield it least it was for a stadium that had the capability of being iconic in it's own right. Even with the improvements the original design doesn't get anywhere near the HKS design.

i like them but if worse came to worst and we did have to leave Anfield then i'd at least like to have the Kop as a single tier stand, if they could, try and replicate what Anfield is like just bigger!

i like them but if worse came to worst and we did have to leave Anfield then i'd at least like to have the Kop as a single tier stand, if they could, try and replicate what Anfield is like just bigger!

Said a while back, why not just build a replica but on a bigger scale (and without the MS pillar's obviously) with extra more boxes in the design.

I do prefer the revised version to be honest and does that allow you to build upto 70,000 seats?

I do prefer the revised version to be honest and does that allow you to build upto 70,000 seats?

From the plans that appears to be the case Shabs.

From the plans that appears to be the case Shabs.

Thanks stuey, i re read the post earlier by racer and that build accomodates up 72,000 seats,which i would go with.

I do like the original designs so I'm more than happy they've done this. Of course we will have to wait to see what modifications to this original design they have in store for us but we'll be just fine I feel.

Stay where we are fook the extra revenue lets bring through kids from the academy and create super teams without spending big money. If we save the 300 million needed for this we could spend some on the excisting ground some on players and some on whatever other areas need improving

For 15 thousand extra seats that will most likely be used by half arsed "fans" just drop it

Thanks stuey, i re read the post earlier by racer and that build accomodates up 72,000 seats,which i would go with.

It will generate massive gate receipts and sales of LFC merchandise.I agree with the 72,000 if we are moving out of Anfield.

Stay where we are fook the extra revenue lets bring through kids from the academy and create super teams without spending big money. If we save the 300 million needed for this we could spend some on the excisting ground some on players and some on whatever other areas need improving

For 15 thousand extra seats that will most likely be used by half arsed "fans" just drop it

Not enough gate receipts/matchday revenue (corporate seats/hospitality) and Anfield too expensive/
complicated to refurbish.
That's conservative thinking, I'm afraid. Club needs something for the future and investment in real estate
isn't something to abstain from...

It will generate massive gate receipts and sales of LFC merchandise.I agree with the 72,000 if we are moving out of Anfield.

Wish we would talk about it without aiming high and keep to the facts: No planning permission for 60k+ due to traffic/public transport complication at Anfield site.
Generally, 70,000 would be reasonable though, and realistic... if there is extended public transport link/improved traffic infrastructure = Merseyrail, parking, better accessability

I know it may cost more but why 60,000?

Why not go higher straightaway?

I'll be pissed if there is no Kop.

I'l be very pissed off if the design is anything like this.A F***ing bowl were Liverpool FC and they want our stadium for hundreds of years to come to be a F***ing bowl.

We only get one chance at moving stadiums and if we F**k this up we're left with a soulles bowl identical to countless of other stadiums out there.

I'll be pissed if there is no Kop.

There has to be a 'KOP'

I know it may cost more but why 60,000?

Why not go higher straightaway?

Post directly before yours answered this question!

Wish we would talk about it without aiming high and keep to the facts: No planning permission for 60k+ due to traffic/public transport complication at Anfield site.

Wouldn't be surprised if the City Council blocked us on this (the above 60,000 capacity) all the way.

That way, if we really wanted a higher capacity, we'd be pretty much obliged to pay for a large part of revamping the train and bus system ourselves.

That is F***ing brutal looking.

That is F***ing brutal looking.

I'm not down with the language you kids use, is 'brutal' a good thing?

Brutal in the way that Susan Boyle is brutal Rep.

Brutal in the way that Susan Boyle is brutal Rep.

 

Perfect.

I hate that design and if we are to move I'd hate to end up with another identikit bowl design.

The second design that racer posted would be more acceptable but still similar to a few stadiums around.

Brutal in the way that Susan Boyle is brutal Rep.

Huh, it doesn't look remotely fat, ugly or Scottish.

I also doubt it can sing.

 

They just be playing with our minds shipmates, Ar. 

Liverpool FC refuse to rule out Anfield redevelopment

LIVERPOOL’S decision to revert to their original plans for a new stadium does not mean the club have dismissed the prospect of remaining at a redeveloped Anfield, Post Sport understands.

Owners Fenway Sports Group (FSG) have ditched designs by Dallas-based architects HKS, commissioned by former co-owner Tom Hicks, in favour of the earlier proposals of Manchester company AFL – known among fans as ‘The Parry Bowl’ – which were granted planning permission in 2004.

However, it is believed the decision does not mean FSG have totally abandoned hopes of staying at Anfield.

But the futuristic HKS stadium plans, with an estimated cost of £400m – £100m more than those proposed by AFL – have now been consigned to the waste bin.

As nearly nine years have passed since AFL drew up their plans there is some scope for modification, but building a new 60,000-seater stadium in Stanley Park is dependent on the club securing naming rights.

Liverpool have been carrying out a year-long worldwide search to assess the viability of finding sponsorship that will bring in about £150m.

Managing director Ian Ayre has admitted previously that building a new stadium with a capacity only 15,000 more than Anfield makes no financial sense without huge external investment.

And although FSG have decided on how the new stadium should look, they have not committed to it being the definitive solution.

Very soon after FSG took over in October 2010 they began looking at how Anfield could be redeveloped. It is not an easy option as the ground is in a residential area, which would require the purchase of numerous properties as well as complicated planning consent.

However, the idea has not been ruled out entirely and sources say both options are still being looked at and the situation is ongoing.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/sport-news/liverpool-fc/2012/01/18/liverpool-fc-refuse-to-rule-out-anfield-redevelopment-55578-30144946/