I know, it will be hard any which way, but we will never please everyone. How many people have had ashes scattered on the Anfield turf? What about the memorial for the 96? The Shankly gateway? But we always adapt in the end. I hated the kop being ripped out, that ripped the soul out of the club, and it has never recovered, so lets go somewhere where we can have 30,000 on the kop again. As John W says "Obstacles". Obstacles like Walton Breck Road, how do you move that? You have to knock down all the chippys and rows of houses. OK Liverpool have already bought up lots of them, but they'd need to buy up a lot more, costing god knows how much. Then we'd have to move Anfield road back too, and they are some big old houses, and would cost a pretty penny to the club. But then what? Close each stand for a whole year as they are rebuilt? End up with 4 different stands again? And still, the area totally clogs up when the match is over. There is no infrastructure anywhere near, other than the 26/7 bus. And building on Stanley park will not improve that in any way shape or form. There is no rail or air anywhere local. So if we can't do Anfield, why does it then matter where the new one is? Why not put it in the best location possible, rather than somewhere that is equally inaccessible but still not the original Anfield? Yes 90% of people will grumble, we don't do change us humans, but what the hell, lets just rip the friggin plaster off and let it sting for a bit, but then end up with the best stadium in the country.
What would a new stadium be called anyway. Can't use Anfield again, or "New Anfield" , so if we could move it to my suggested location, we wouldn't use Speke or Garston, but Mersey would be good, then if we had a naming deal it could be "The {something} Mersey Stadium", or if we could get Ford to be the naming partner, we don't need to change the name at all, we can still call it the Ford Car park ;-)
Noblelox i couldn't agree more. I've never been a big fan of a move away from Anfield but I've always been of the opinion that IF this had to be the case then building on Stanley Park has never been the best option and provided we stay within the city then other options are most definately available and frankly preferable in terms of accomodating 65000+ people moving in and out of the area (despite the bitters inability to notice them haha).
As much as i dont want to leave Anfield I feel we have to in order to progress and compete at the very top. The regeneration around the ground would be great for the area and a new stadium with 60,000+ capacity would give us a huge boost in income.Just hope they can build a stadium that can replicate the Anfield roar..tough ask though
I must admit that emotionally I wanted to stay in Anfield. However, like Wembely it's a pig to get too and park. Now my knowledge of the North end of the city is fairly limited but is there still room in or around Aintree? That would make sense. As for Speke?Garston I wonder if it really answers the communication problems. Visiting support and Reds who live away would still have to take the M62 and then go via Queens Drive and Allerton Road - that would be a nightmare! Though I suppse that you could direct match traffic to take the M57 and then come across the bridge. If they built a rail staion then we could also have commuter trains right into the centre of town. I'm starting to warm to this idea - slightly
If Liverpool build their new ground on stanley Park,the stadium would be called...Anfield.It may have a commercial name but it would to most people be called Anfield.Man Citys ground commercially is going to be called the Etihad(Which translates as United) Stadium but is more known as the City of Manchester Stadium. Grounds can have two names.Arsenals ground is called both Ashburton Grove and the Emirates. West Hams current ground is called Upton Park and the Boleyn Ground.(The Boleyn Ground being the correct name)
Agreed,On matchdays the Lancs is chocka with traffic coming down from the M6 exit at Haydock and Queens Drive is the same with traffic exiting the M62 at Broadgreen. Whichever way you cut it there'll always be a traffic snarl up whether its the southside or the northside,If we do move i hope its to Stanley Park,that way the area and community will get a financial boost but moving to Speke/Garston or wherever will leave the Anfield area like a ghost town,Which is sad because the area grew up with LFC being a pivotal part of it.
If we re-develop or build a new stadium in Anfield we have to accept that the surroundings are not a good advertisement for either the club or the city. As with the majority of stadia in the UK they were built in working class areas from which they drew the majority of their support. However the working class housing that srrounded Anfield has not been sympathetically replaced. With no disrepect to the people who live there it is now a dump. If we do build a new stadium, we need to site it so that it meets the needs of the people today. Less of us now go by bus and formerly tram or even bicycle. Therefore we need good road and rail access plus the opportunity for the club to form a relationship with the local community. I don't think that is truly possible in Anfield.
H&G's representatives met with government transport reps,merseytravel reps and local council reps with a view to opening the old line thats now part of the cycle path between Speke and Bootle and conecting it to the main Liverpool to London line and building a new station somewhere around the bottom of Pinehurst Ave,Also a new shopping mall on the site of our presnt ground was mooted along with sports facilities etc for the Anfield community. OK they were shysters and we are glad to see the back of them,but those ideas were spot on if we had built the new stadium on the proposed site on Stanley Park.
On football manager the new stadium was called "Rush Park." I liked that... We need to move- but to the "build an 80K stadium with Everton" comment I just want to point out that Liverpool will not allow us to build a stadium with that capacity due to infrastructure and the logistics of policing/transporting that many people. If you want 80K you have to leave the city. Which, for someone who now lives 3000 miles away- it isn't a big deal for me! A move to Stanley park just makes sense really though. I'm opposed to the ground share idea- not so much for pride or anti-Evertonism... but purely because a stadium is a great source of capitol and something to help get loans, etc. We want to own our stadium out-right. Now if Everton wanted to pay us rent- so be it. I'd rather the club didn't go that route though. As for naming rights. I'm all for it as long as it is done tastefully. Warrior Sports is going to be the new shirt manufacturer. Warrior Stadium would be tastefull. Durex Arena would not.
If it ended up stadium sharing I hope they hose down the seating after an Everton game and put the divots back in.
But would it be better to decontaminate them as they entered or hose the stadium down after they left?
Tbh I think if you want to compete with us and Arsenal in terms of gate receipts you will have to move. IIRC, Utd and Arsenal have around 9-10,000 executive seats (either in boxes or in VIP areas of the stadium) which cost around £4-5k apiece on average for the season. In contrast Liverpool have 344. So Arsenal and Utd make around £40m a season from executives, whilst Liverpool make barely £2m. That's the main reason both Utd (£100m) and Arsenal (£94m) make so much more revenue than Liverpool (£44m) from matchday revenues. The problem this creates for Liverpool is that it's hard to fit a load of new executive boxes and areas into the stadium without a long and expensive rebuilding. When Utd expanded each of its stands it took around a year to do each one due to fitting the executive spaces in and getting them close enough to the action to keep the rich kids happy. You may not like it, and if the Emirates is anything to go by creating a stadium that's designed to appeal to executive box holders is gonna have a fairly poor atmosphere, but if you want to compete financially that's going to be the number one factor to address. As it currently stands, if you expanded Anfield to 60k without adding in a lot more executive boxes you'll probably still end up making £40m a year less than Utd and Arsenal, and may not even end up making more than the Chavs.
