I know there's a couple of threads running about todays stadium (non) announcement but I was just wondering what peoples views are on the options that might/might not be available to the club. Thought I'd throw in a quick thread to gauge opinions Option 1. Stay at Anfield with redevelopment being cheaper than a whole new build but obviously with a much more limited scope for maximum capacity. Option 2. Build a new stadium within the Anfield area. Spiritual home of the club but with piss poor transport links/lack of adequate parking etc. Option 3. Stay within the citys boundaries but look further afield than Anfield. Whatever people say there are still a number of sites that could accomodate a big ground and facilities. Option 4. Look at sites a bit further out at places such as Kirby/Halewood etc (Just as an example I believe the fabulous Allianz Arena is quite a way out of Munich city centre) Option 5. Re-explore the idea of a groundshare with the bitters. Never going to be popular but if it got the job done and saved us masses of cash in the process is it worth considering? Option 6. Do none of the above I'm torn between a few options really. I love Anfield and grew up standing on The Kop so would be gutted if we left but has it lost a touch of its magic since going all seater? Some would say yes some say no. I like the idea of staying in the area but as I've bored people about before I've never agreed with stealing the land in Stanley Park. This is one of the poorest areas in the city and the (massively historic) public park is one of the few gems the locals have. We all know transport links in the area aren't great so how would the area cope with a large increase in match day travellers. On the flip side how would the local shops/pubs cope without that match day revenue. There are still sites around the City that could accomodate a stadium probably without the planning hassle involved with staying in Anfield but would you be happy to see us move away. Not keen myself on looking outside of the city (especially after waving my tescos bag in the blues direction so vigorously ) but if it allowed us to build an almighty 80 000 stadium would people learn to live with it? The groundshare (gulp) is never something I've been keen on for obvious reasons but if it practically halved the cost and allowed us to get something which frankly has been pie in the sky for decades now then is it not worth putting aside our differences knowing it would benefit both clubs massively in the long run? Just a thought.
The "where" is one area where I would distinguish the fans from Liverpool itself and people like me who are from elsewhere. Of course I'd like perfect stop by stop transport links, accommodation to & from my clubs ground but I don't live in the area of Anfield if it was to be made bigger, or the possible areas a new stadium could be built. I do think if we want the self sufficient & sustainable model FSG are talking about AND the ability to mount sustained campaigns for the title we need a 70k stadium. I thought the main issue regarding ground share (other than the obvious) was, and don't mean this as an attack, that Everton couldn't fill a 70k stadium every home game. Is this just an anti blue myth. Do they have the kind of waiting list numbers we have?
Anfield is where the club was born,but Liverpool is where its always lived. We should broaden our options within the city,there a miles of redeveloped dockland with hotels,eateries pubs and clubs within close proximity. Theres sites in Speke,along Edge Lane(if they knock the old Littlewoods tower down),and loads of other places. The Anfield residents haven't been over enthusiastic about a new ground on the park and its been mainly shops,pubs and fast food places that want it built in the area to benefit themselves.
Or incorporated the Littlewoods tower into the design perhaps? Highlighting the ties with Littlewoods and football in the city. Again just a thought There's also a **** load of land between Netherley and the 62 which could be an option?
Great idea about the tower.,its handy for the 62 etc,and Netherley is also handy for the motorway,Dont get me wrong i love the present site but if we stay there the council have demanded the whole area gets modernised as part of the deal which complicates the whole issue. Its like the council saying(which Evertonians claim)'we've backed you down the years now give us something back',but if the plans for hotels,reopening the old railway line on Queens Drive,building a medical centre for the Anfield residents,building shops and sports facilities etc happen it will take twice as long to get everything finished. Thats why its easier to choose an already developed site in the city,if we leave Anfield the area will still receive investment for regeneration and redevelopment from a different source other than LFC and partners.
I find it really hard to make my mind up on this, I don't really mind as long as the eventually choice means that we move forward as a club. I like my fence and I'm staying on it.
Thing is gonz,we're stuck in a built up area and surrounded by street after street of terraced houses,apart from Utd that has always had space to redevelop most other clubs have stayed within their City/town boundary but chosen newbuild in open areas which incorporate hotels,restaurants etc to escape from residential areas.
Is the money going to be available to build a new stadium though? I'm not having a go at the owners as I don't know their plans yet but will they really fork out all that money when there are cheaper options with good revenue streams?
I feel they are lining up the buyers, the sponsors, all of that so they know how much money they will have from companies and then how much they will need to put in ( probably loan in, gulp). No way they are just going to drop a cool 300 right out of their pocket, not sure who would to be honest! Ya, netherly and 62 seems to be a good option....
What it does negrito? So it seems things are coming out on what is going on which is good to hear. Like we both said, I think the naming rights and sponsors, once those are locked they will come and say we are moving ______ which will be the new home of Liverpool, yada yada yda.
Why I could never be a top level business man..... I can't sit and make up absolute **** about nothing. "Here we have a square, but it's no ordinary square I tells ya!! It has 4 incredibly smooth sides that when put together create one of the most important parts of universe" or "Water..... is it wet? Let me count the ways"
I've been of the opinion for many years that we should have been looking after the locals a bit more and they might be a bit more accomodating now. I know a lot of Anfield residents who'd be quite glad to see the ground moved elsewhere (and in fairnessa few who wouldn't). I'd love to see it somewhere along the waterfront even if it was up by Sandhills but realistically I always thought the Littlewoods site/area would be good especially since Plesseys shut. Close to the Tech Park station, near the motorway and I could still walk to the game then
IMO the very very best thing we could so would be to get the main stand demolished and a phased bottom, upper and third tier built there, add a thrid teir to the centenary stand.... Very simple. this is all about location and land and if we could shift a few people in the area to allow this we'd do it for a lot less than 300mil... AND by phasing it allow us to move up to 75k eventually on site. The centenary stand was 12mil and showed the way.. i blame parry and moores as per.
I've always liked the idea of staying and redeveloping Anfield and there is a logic to what you say MITO however it isn't quite as simple as you say. When you talk about "shifting a few people" you have to bear in mind that these are peoples homes. Due to the age of properties around Anfield a lot tend to have been in the families for a few generations and people aren't easily moved just to accomodate the club which lets be honest hasn't done as much as it could for the local area/residents over the years (and in a way why should they be forced out if they are happy there). The other thing being that due to it being a residential area you are always battling against height constraints within the current planning reg's. There are ways it could be done (and could actually have been done twenty years ago) and the idea really appeals to me but by no means would it be easy and although it would definitely be cheaper than a whole new stadium you would seriously struggle to get more than 60/65 000 if that. Add to this that extra seats means a demand for extra transportation to and from the ground and undoubtedly a big cost would be added to the overall bill for extra parking, improving the infrastructure etc. I'd love to see it done but I just don't know how realistic it is
