This comment from the HIP report resonates over Anfield being redeveloped.... Hillsborough Stadium, home of Sheffield Wednesday Football Club (SWFC), was opened in 1899. Like many such city stadia it was located in a built-up residential area no longer suited to modern transport or the access necessary for 54,000 spectators on big match days. Hits the nail on the head for me. Yanks trying to do it on the cheap, and not caring about what happens outside their own 4 walls.
Pretty sure part of the council's requirements for Anfield being redeveloped is an updated infastructure around the Anfield area for better transportation links...
1. the area around anfield is really affected by the crowds 2. if anfield really gets 60k capacity (i'm skeptical) then its what 99.9% of LFC fans would want depsite what happens to residents on matchday. thats my opinion anyway. I see no reason to link the specifics of our tragedy to the area around anfield whatsoever.
Don't intend to link it, just lifting the quote from the report. I'm not saying we are going to be killing fans by redeveloping. Didn't help myself with the overly sensationalist title, I just started reading the report tonight, and that jumped out at me, and struck me as so relevant this week. It does seem wrong that for the club to stay in the community, the community have to go elsewhere. It just doesn't make sense, for the club to have a stadium that is suitable for this century the rest of L4 needs to be ripped up, it's a bit "mountain" "Mohammed"
Undoubtedly the residents are affected (negatively) as the local business folk are affected (mainly positively). I don't think 99.9% of matchday fans don't care about the area but undoubtedly the percentage of non-matchday fans who don't care will be far higher. However you're right that the link is tenuous at best, the fact that Hillsborough was built in a residential area and had poor transport links was a tiny part of what happened. It is relevant though that Anfield needs help if its too sustain even more people on match days and nights...in fact it needs help as it is.
I tend to agree. I've been mulling over a lot of what's been posted here and elsewhere and trying to justify whatever side of the fence I came down on - and there's zero doubt (in my mind) that this option has been chosen because a) it will appease a LOT of the fans, and b) it's also the cheaper option. On that basis, it's a no-brainer. Can you see the other big clubs that are hoping to move, Chelsea, Spurs etc, would look to prefer upgrading their existing facility over a new stadium? OT, no matter what anyone say, will always be awesome. Arsenal have a new stadium So have City We will be left behind once again. In 40 years time - maybe less- parts of Anfield will probably be crumbling again and we'll be talking about another revamp. I think they've missed a trick with this one. Just my 2 pence
The world is a different place now. Transport is different, security is different, football fans are different, health and safety is different.
Interesting article on the subject http://www.insidefutbol.com/2012/10...to-deceive-with-anfield-redevelopment/71134/?
Old Trafford is on the edge of a residential area, Stamford bridge is within a reisdential area as is the neu camp
Old Trafford had loads of space around it though, and the people who actually work for the benefit of the local area in Manchester/Salford actually know what they're doing (see the amazing tram network thats chocker everyday and compare it with Liverpools tram network....which got shelved because our Council are ****e at just about everything ). Stamford Bridge would have the same problems in re-developing as us except worsened by the fact that you could only buy 1 flat on the Kings Road for the price of 8 streets around Anfield. The Nou Camp (Camp Nou...whatever) is in a residential area but try getting up there from Barcelona town centre and it's easy. Buses run every 5 mins and there are various tram stops and a couple of stations near by. Plus they don't need to redevelop much further eh. It can be done and it's easily managable to ship in another 15000 people...if you have organisers who know what they're doing. This however is Liverpool City Council....so they'll **** it up somehow, or just not bother doing anything differently. Part of the problem has always been (and still will be if current plans as they are) that the majority of the fans who are travelling in or out are all coming and going at the same time. There's little reason to hang around the area after a match so every man and his kebab are trying to jump the same 4 buses back into town. Then you don't see another bus for an hour because all the traffics blocking the roads in and out
All that OT is across the railway from maybe 6 street in isolation in the middle of a largely business area. You could build another OT in their carpark! Stamford Bridge is hardly residential compared to Anfield, it's all new apartment blocks that have been put up since the ground was last developed, AND they have a tube station down on the corner, by the big flash shopping centre. Anfield is hemmed in by rows of tight terraces. Not only do they need to knock down roads to make room for stand expansion, they need to knock down 2 more, because they will be obscured from the sun by the stands. Walton Break and Anfield Roads prevent any expansion backwards of either stand, so unless they close or move one or either road. Basically is it massive and community crushing changes that need to be made to get another 15,000 seats, that is still miles from any train station, only services by one bus route and all the narrow roads clog up for 30 minutes after the game. The only shops are greasy fast food slop houses that double their prices on match days. I understand the other side of the argument, countless people's ashes are scattered on the Anfield turf, and it has been our home for over 100 years, but let us be practical. The ashes are long gone, each time the pitch is relayed, and we need to figure out, if we want the club to progress, or remain a shrine to all that has past?
Just remember how kenny was backed to the hilt over the Suarez business - until the press put pressure on FSG's international brand and they **** themselves. These shysters are no different than the previous cowboys. Expect an about turn in a couple of years time when not a jot of work has been done on the developed Anfield, and we'll be begging the ****e if we can piggy-back onto a shared stadium on their project on the Stanley Park plot we walked away from.
Alright Dongo lad. I totally agree with you on that. Our CEO Elstone hosted a small gathering of long time pass holders the other night & intimated exactly what you've just said there, that FSG have merely 'kicked the can down the road' & may have no real intention of delivering, but they had to come up with something to deflect from the canning of the SP project.
correct. I mean running a bus corridor up there on match days is a sure fire 100% revenue generator. 60k people = how many buses? obviously not all going the one way but if you ran and charged a decent price you would make a profit to pay for it. anyway.... any plans should have not only space for stadium growth but also for transport and some actual facilites for both locals and match day attendees...
