John W Henry has today said on Twitter that redeveloping Anfield could be a non-starter. He today said on Twitter: "Anfield would certainly be our first choice. But realities may dictate otherwise. So many obstacles..." Reports are saying that financial, logistical and geographical issues could make redeveloping Anfield extremely difficult. A club spokesman has insisted that no decision has yet been taken on whether the club will opt to build a new stadium. "The club's position on the stadium issue remains unaltered and no decision has been made. We are continuing to examine both the options - the refurbishment of Anfield and the new stadium in Stanley Park. A huge amount of work on that is ongoing and an announcement will be made in due course." Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14077470.stm
I think the reality will be a new stadium with naming rights. I don't think this is such a bad thing - it will provide jobs for local people, it will be a massive source of income for Liverpool with the naming rights and then the naming rights once that deal finishes (Ian Ayre has promised that any naming rights deal will be for an unprecedented amount. £100m+ I'd imagine), the Anfield site will provide homes for thousands of people (and the new area will get rid of the derelict homes surronding the ground) and it will give the city something to be extremely proud about. Another thing is that JWH know the importance of a good atmosphere at Liverpool games. He knows that Any ground built must capture the magic that being at a Liverpool game brings so i'd imagine it will be designed to ensure crowd noise will also be as loud as possible.
I would love to stay though quiet happy with new ground as long as one thing is made clear NO GROUNDSHARE
It seems it's going towards a new stadium now. They've done their consultations properly and fans have had an input so I don't see much resistance. I think it's generally appreciated that they gave it their best shot to redevelop if they could.
Bozz (Ian Ayre has promised that any naming rights deal will be for an unprecedented amount. £100m+ I'd imagine), ------------------------------------------------------------- With the amount City are supposedly getting £100m is hardly unprecedented.
£100+million. Bozz. Your're being kind.Now if Man City can get £120 million over 10 years and Arsenal can get £150 million over 10 years.Liverpool could easily get a deal worth £200 million over 10 years.Liverpool globally are 100 times bigger than both.
In order to compete with the likes of Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and City, we have to move to a new stadium and sell the naming rights. It's all well redeveloping Anfield and spending £200m to increase to 60,000 but what about when we want to increase the capacity further? We wouldn't be able to.
LFC-009. If they build a new stadium,they could in say 4-5 years re-develop again and turn the stadium into an 80k seater and dwarf the theatre of debt.
Absolutely. The strategy of buying younger players with potential etc should be applied with the stadium debate. Building the new stadium will lead to bigger commercial opportunities which result in increased revenues to be reinvested into the squad. Redeveloping Anfield is a short term solution. It's sad but we must move with the times.
When FSV took over I was excieted by the idea that a really good development job of Anfield was at least feasible. However, I now believe that it will be in our long term interest to build a new stadium. One of my best friends is Portugese and supports Sporting Lisbon. With him I had visited their old stadium many times. However, they had to re-build for the Euro Championship. The new stadium is a really good place to watch football and the atmosphere is better than it was before (even though Sporting's performances have been poor). Memories are precious but they must not be allowed to stand in the way of the club having the capacity it needs and the supporters having the facilities that they deserve.
I totally agree. I base it on simple Economics.Ecomomics is based on a simple concept called ''Supply and Demand''.Liverpools demand is greater than their supply.This in Liverpools case is actually a good thing.Liverpool have a waiting list for season tickets of 65,000.If they build a new stadium and have a capacity of say 65000,they can cut that waiting list,or maybe offer 10 year packages on season tickets. Greater revenue means the better standard of players the club can purchase,plus an increase in sponsorship.The club will be self sufficient and be one of the most financially powerful clubs in England....as well as being in line with the FFP rules.
A certain feeling of deja vu descends upon me....hmmm...won't believe it until I see it and frankly I am still not sure the new stadium is our best option but time will tell. As for the argument about improving the area...I don't buy it that building on the local public park in a highly deprived area is exactly improving the area of Anfield. If they are to improve the area it has to be in conjunction with doing up local properties to retain the character of the area and NOT just knocking down local peoples houses in order to build ****y "luxury apartments" for London property developers to buy up off plan and make a quick buck on. Plus if we are to massively improve the area then the club needs to invest heavily in local transport links as we all know getting a bus back to town from the game isn't the most joyous of experiences. I still have more concerns about any new stadium still than I do about redeveloping Anfield so time will tell what they come up with.
With the amount of money we can potentially rake in from deals with Warrior Sports etc.. and the money we're getting off Standard Charter, I wouldn't put it past the owners to grab us a £200m-£250m contract for the naming rights. Possibly even more depending on the area of the market they're looking at.
don't forget housing developments nowadays also include a vast amount of affordable housing, this will help local people. You'll then see them move from the old houses which the council will then have to do up before renting them to new people (My wife is an expert in the field of council activities with regards to councils in this field)
I think it will happen this time.They have a limited time frame to make a decision as they had to beg to get an extension until September.I reckon a decision will be made by September.They will agree a lucrative deal for the naming rights of the new stadium which will wipe the floor with Arsenals and Citys.Its onwards and upwards.FSG have the means to make Liverpool successful...thats 100% certain.FSM(Fenway Sports Management) will be the ones looking after Liverpools commercial interests.
In fairness housing developments these days involve building "social/affordable housing" that actually means building match box sized noddy boxes that will be getting knocked down in twenty years time because no one wants to live in them and I know that as I work in them on a daily basis. Trust me when I say the standards of new builds are way way behind the way houses such as those in Anfield were built years ago...aaaaaaaaanyway back on track I am not totally against the building of a new stadium but I am against (and have been for many years) the club continuing to ride roughshod over the local area and frankly putting sod all back into Anfield as a place for the local people (a very big reason there are so many boarded up houses in the area in the first place). My point is that we can all talk about capacity, money, extra income for paying over inflated wages, sponsorship/naming deals, standards we as fans deserve etc etc but spare a thought for the good people of the area who are there 7 days a week and not just those who are there for a few hours every fortnight. Whatever the outcome of developing the stadium is whether re-development or new stadium the club has to be more accountable and responsible for its impact on its neighbours. Sorry...rant over...
El Pistolero. That can be rectified with the City Council to ensure when the existing site is sold to a property developer that it provides infrastructure for the city.That it provides both employment and housing.
Yeah you're right it can be rectified but unfortunately Liverpool City Council has a tendency to do exactly the opposite of whats right...hence them "donating" half a public park to multi million pound business for sod all haha brown envelopes speak louder than what's morally right I'm afraid. I'd be delighted if the council do the right thing but call me cynical (and as you can tell I am extremely cynical) I have absolutely no faith in it actually happening.
Climb down off the soapbox for a minute. I can remeber when there were houses on Kemlyn Road; when there was an old mansion with a tree behind the Anfield Road terrace (yes I said terrace). The whole area was a disgrace then and the park was a neglected piece of wasteland in comparison with other parks in the city. It was not council owned. Terraced streets with enogs between - great for parking your bike if you rode to the match (provided that you could remeber which yard you'd left it in!). My school was less than half a mile away and the building was condemed before I even went there (we only got a new building when the church next door burnt down!). By all means put pressure on the council to build decent homes for people (like they did in the late 40s and 50s). But don't pretend that building a new stadium will come at a price to the local community.
