I would only be in favour of a ground share if WE owned the ground and Everton rented from us. I suspect Everton would not be keen on such an arrangement, however, it is important to have a large physical asset for getting preferential treatment from the banks. They want something big they can snatch from you if you don't pay your bills. Not having your own stadium would make any dealings with a bank less favourable.
Think I would rather keep it at around 60 and keep the atmosphere at a premium. Juve just moved to a new stadium that was smaller than the Della Alpi as they hated how they could not really get the atmosphere right in the old ground. The new Juve stadium is only about 45 but sells out and the ground is a fortress.
Based on what Dave? A joint venture would reduce the outlay of both clubs and almost certainly attract council participation / EU regeneration funding streams. A reduced outlay per club and the potential for 3rd party collaboration could possibly make a much grander scheme than either club could currently fund independently, economically viable.
If we moved to a new stadium then we would have the naming rights to use to help pay for a substantial part of the build costs. It presently is not an asset that we have to cash in on. On the competitive front , why should we join in an activity with Everton that would help their perilous financial position whilst not greatly improving ours? It truly does not make sense as we already have alternatives available to us.
I'm not personally against a ground share because I love our city and like to consider us above the London/Manchester ******edness, but historically it suggest that the "smaller" team in a ground share suffers and I want Everton strong (just not as strong as Liverpool)
Inter and AC seemed to manage alright for 2 generations mate. I think that's a fallacy tbh. I've heard every reason under the sun why it shouldn't by considered, but not 1 that really stands up to scrutiny. From the colour of the seats, to the signage, to the difference in potential required capacities, to the wear on the grass ffs.......but all are issues that with the right design approach could be overcome in the 21st Century. However, it's never going to happen, so we move on. You lot extending a land locked site with a relatively modest capacity increase and design, whilst we stand on the verge of unveiling plans to move into a new site on council park land.
What happened to Tesco building you a club somewhere between the Dairy isle and the frozen food isle? I thought Tesco were all ready to build you a fancy new stadium just outside city limits.
The development plans were rejected by Govt. because the accompanying retail shopping estate, would have threatened the profitability of Duke of Westminster's Liverpool One.......
Drat! them pesky capitalists again!! Don't tell Livtor or we'll all get another lecture about how business should be conducted
54,000? http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/161747-lfc-reveal-stadium-expansion-vision http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27135682 Liverpool have revealed plans to expand Anfield's capacity from 45,500 to around 54,000. Both the Main Stand and the Anfield Road Stand would be significantly expanded in the club's proposal. In October 2012 the club announced it would redevelop the ground rather than build a new one on nearby Stanley Park. Liverpool managing director Ian Ayre said: "Good progress has been made so far and we are proud to be able to unveil our plans." More to follow
Very basic sums. Another 8,500 seats at £35 a ticket gets you another £5.5m over 19 home games. Soon adds up when you then put in extra cup games, CL games which are more expensive, then money from food & drinks from those extra.
The first link (more reliable since its from the Liverpool website) says 54,000 whereas the second (BBS with their ever decreasing standard) say 59,000
Liverpool: Anfield stadium expansion plan unveiled by club Liverpool have revealed plans to increase Anfield's capacity from 45,500 to almost 59,000. The Main Stand would be expanded to three tiers, while work on the Anfield Road Stand is also proposed. In October 2012, the club said they would redevelop the ground rather than build a new one on nearby Stanley Park. Liverpool managing director Ian Ayre said: "Good progress has been made so far and we are proud to be able to unveil our plans." Part of the proposed redevelopment would see the memorial to the 96 Liverpool fans who died in the Hillsborough disaster of 1989 moved into the rebuilt Main Stand. If the proposals to expand both stands go ahead, the ground's capacity would increase to 58,800. Local residents raised concerns about any expansion in 2012 because it would involve the demolition of some houses near the ground. The club said that discussions with local property owners were "progressing well and all parties are close to agreement, but there are still details to be finalised." Following a consultation process, the club expects to present its finalised plans and submit a planning application to the city council this summer. If successful, they expect construction to begin early next year with work completed by the start of the 2016-17 season. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27135682 please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
I read that article as the expanded main stand taking capacity up to 54,000. The outline plan for the extra 4800 seats in the Anfield Road stand would then take that up 58,800.
I think that with the Main Stand extension that takes it overall to 54,000 and then when you include the Anfield Road Stand it takes it up to 59,000
54k when then main stand is complete. 59 when anfield rd is complete. Main stand is being expanded before any work begins on Anfield rd
