http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/14077470.stm

Liverpool owner John W Henry has conceded that plans to redevelop Anfield could be a non-starter.

"Anfield would certainly be our first choice. But realities may dictate otherwise. So many obstacles..."

Spokesman:
"The club's position on the stadium issue remains unaltered and no decision has been made," he said.

"We are continuing to examine both the options - the refurbishment of Anfield and the new stadium in Stanley Park.

Would you rather see Anfield's capacity increased and structure developed (more executive boxes etc.) or a new stadium in Stanley Park (300m from Anfield)?

What do you believe will happen and when?

Voted not sure.

There are pro's and con's to each imo.

First off, it looks like a new stadium is much more of a possible than a refurbishment. It would be extremely sad when/if we leave Anfield but at the same time the prospect of a new stadium is also exciting.

I'm not in the mood to write a long post now, but a major issue in my opinion is the issue of selling the stadium name.

Personally I'd hate the idea of Anfield being called anything other than Anfield. If we built a new stadium I wouldn't be against selling the name if a suitable deal could be arranged.

In a way there could be some type of symbolism in a new stadium, reflecting a new Liverpool, ready to dominate European Football once again.

Once thing is sure though, if a new stadium is built, Anfield will never be forgotten and will always be a part of our glorious history.

John W Henry stated on his twitter page last night that a new stadium is more likely than not due to the many obstacles in the way of the redevelopment of Anfield :

“Anfield would certainly be our first choice. But realities may dictate otherwise. So many obstacles…”

The obstacles that he is talking are probably twofold. The first being that the cost of redeveloping Anfield maybe prohibitive. With it also being likely that they could only extend to 55,000, as well as the intermediate losses accrued by redeveloping stands and reducing capacity, it could all make the redevelopment not viable.

The other major obstacle is Liverpool City Council. After losing the best part of £100m in the government’s budget cuts, the Council are struggling to make ends meet and are having to rely on outside private investment to ensure regeneration in parts of the city. The new stadium would be ideal for such regeneration as the plans for Anfield to be turned into Anfield Plaza could create between 500 and 800 new jobs as well as greater amenities in the area.

To facilitate the creation of a new stadium (which could also regenerate parts surrounding Stanley Park ), the Council have bent over backwards to ensure planning permission for Liverpool’s new stadium. With planning consents expiring on June 19th, the council extended them to September without any real reasoning other than stating “sufficient work” had been done in the progress of building a new stadium. As well as regeneration, the council would also earn £300,000 a year leasing out the site.

With the Council doing everything they can to encourage a move away from Anfield to Stanley Park, it means they may well obstruct any plans FSG have of redeveloping Anfield. With the planning consents only being extended to September too, the pressure is on for John W Henry and FSG to make their mind up.

The delay over any decision currently is most likely down to Liverpool trying to search for a suitable naming rights partner to part fund the new build at Stanley Park. The Reds shirt sponsor Standard Chartered have expressed an interest. Chief Executive Gavin Laws had this to say on Bloomberg today:

“There’s a whole lot of things got to happen before that becomes a sensible conversation and the club know that we’re interested in being involved in that conversation.”

Even after they find a naming partner, the issue of Hicks and Gillett’s stadium design maybe another difficulty. Some fans do not want to see H+G’s design become a reality but any total redesign would need a totally new planning application, which would delay construction even further, and only small corrections to the current design could be put in place without needing another application.

It is a very complicated issue, one which I don’t claim to have all the information on but as you may appreciate, FSG have a really difficult task on their hands currently and let’s wait and see what they do.

this article explains a lot of things & as much as i want Anfield to stand . .the points explained do raise viable questions . .i found this a very interesting read though . .

http://live4liverpool.com/2011/07/view-from-the-kop/so-what-are-the-obstacles-that-john-w-henry-is-talking-about

Personally I believe that while Anfield is great and has a feeling to it like nothing else, it may be past it in today's top-of-the-line football stadium competition. A fantastic atmosphere helps you win some games, but some 20-50m of added revenue per season could help to do that even better.

If NESV / FSG were billionaires, I think they would already be stating their solid intention to build a new stadium; such costs won't even affect Financial Fair Play. Now the biggest hinderance of them all seems to simply be cash, which is very understandable.

I put the ground-share option with Everton up there, too. While it's not exactly an enticing idea, everytime I think of it I can't help thinking of AC Milan and Inter Milan and reluctantly go "it could work out all right".
But Everton don't seem to be in a position to cough up stadium funds, so it probably won't be worth a second thought anyway.

anfield is magical and im not sure of any new stadium would be as magical as anfield i just imagine the cups that have been won at anfield the games the legends that have played there ( all round the fields of anfield roads ) it would be hard to replicate that to any new stadium...

HscouserZ wrote:anfield is magical and im not sure of any new stadium would be as magical as anfield i just imagine the cups that have been won at anfield the games the legends that have played there ( all round the fields of anfield roads ) it would be hard to replicate that to any new stadium...

one of the leagues won at anfield was Arsenals

haha I'm jp, Although I agree, Anfield is just magical.

I would go for the one which makes more financial sense which probably is the new stadium at Stanly Park.If Anfield cant be expanded to 65,000 stadium at the least due to logistics its imperative we go for a new satdium rather than settling for 55,000 stadium.

And what on earth sharing with Everton an option?Regardless of sentimental reasons it doesnt make financial sense either unless we are doing it as charity.

Bitters dont have money to pay for Felleini's hair cut let alone cough up money for new stadium.

Umm will we have that Home magic in the new stadium?

don't think so ..

My mind says we need a new stadium. The amount of work to re-develop Anfield could possibly cost more than just building a new stadium. (That includes new construction, upgrading current features, etc.)

My heart on the other hand wants us to stay at Anfield. I've never been and probably won't find time in the next couple of years to go. It's tough to think of Anfield not being there when I eventually do get the time to make it across the Atlantic.

Refurbish Anfield.....That stadium is magical....There's hasn't been more late drama at any other stadium than at Anfield.....I can't imagine Liverpool without Anfield.....I would be heart broken truly. hopefully we'll stay.

Not denying that Anfield is fantastic and offers one of the best home grounds in the world, but let's not get too carried away with its might; without the fans it is just a construction made of cement, steel, plastic and whatnot materials. The fans would be in the new stadium, too.

@ beautifulgame: I don't know which one would be financially better, staying at Anfield as it is or sharing a new 65'000 seater with Everton if we haven't got the money to build a stadium on our own. But as said, it won't happen, just speculating.

Art Morte wrote:Not denying that Anfield is fantastic and offers one of the best home grounds in the world, but let's not get too carried away with its might; without the fans it is just a construction made of cement, steel, plastic and whatnot materials. The fans would be in the new stadium, too.

@ beautifulgame: I don't know which one would be financially better, staying at Anfield as it is or sharing a new 65'000 seater with Everton if we haven't got the money to build a stadium on our own. But as said, it won't happen, just speculating.

Well said. The fans will move to the new stadium. Pretty sure we could recreate the atmosphere we've been known to generate.

Anfield has a lot of history. If we do move, by no means should Anfield be destroyed. Perhaps make it a training ground or something. Moving is one thing, destroying Anfield is another.

This reminds me, we need a stadium upgrade too.

Art Morte wrote:
@ beautifulgame: I don't know which one would be financially better, staying at Anfield as it is or sharing a new 65'000 seater with Everton if we haven't got the money to build a stadium on our own. But as said, it won't happen, just speculating.

It doesn't make sense because bitters dont have any money.If we decide to share the cost of stadium then we will be waiting for centuries for bitters to cough up money.

New stadium will be better. 80,000 seater hopefully, constructed to amplify the noise, 35000 more pool fans will create a better atmosphere then ever heard in anfield. I bet FSG will do it cause its more viable if they are looking to make back there money. The fans are the atmosphere, yes we all love anfield and understand theres been countless amounts of memories created, but a bigger better kop will sure make it even better.

mr-r34 wrote:New stadium will be better. 80,000 seater hopefully, constructed to amplify the noise, 35000 more pool fans will create a better atmosphere then ever heard in anfield. I bet FSG will do it cause its more viable if they are looking to make back there money. The fans are the atmosphere, yes we all love anfield and understand theres been countless amounts of memories created, but a bigger better kop will sure make it even better.

as i have read 75000 for the new one & refurbished would hold 55000 at max . .

mr-r34 wrote:New stadium will be better. 80,000 seater hopefully, constructed to amplify the noise, 35000 more pool fans will create a better atmosphere then ever heard in anfield. I bet FSG will do it cause its more viable if they are looking to make back there money. The fans are the atmosphere, yes we all love anfield and understand theres been countless amounts of memories created, but a bigger better kop will sure make it even better.

Would we fill an 80,000 seater?

Last season we had an average attendance of 42,688 per a BPL game.
( http://www.football-lineups.com/tourn/FA_Premier_League_2010-2011/Stats/Home_Avg_Atte/ )

That's a couple of thousands short of Anfield's capacity of 45,276.
I'm thinking a 65,000 seater would be enough, I'd rather not build a stadium which LFC struggles to fill.

HMM valid point, we would need at least 65,000, for a much greater return on the investment, i understand a small but full stadium is better then large empty one though

Liverpool FC today made clear its frustration at the obstacles facing the potential re-development of Anfield.

The Club has been comprehensively exploring all options open to it in terms of new stadium development or expansion, which has included a study into the refurbishment of both its Main and Anfield Road Stands to increase capacity beyond 60,000 seats.

Managing Director Ian Ayre said: "In the nine months since the new ownership, an enormous amount of work has been undertaken in conjunction with leading architects, consultants, other industry experts and with Liverpool City Council to explore the building of a new stadium as well as exploring a refurbishment solution that could deliver the necessary growth in capacity, whilst maintaining the heritage and atmosphere that make Anfield uniquely Liverpool FC. However, with land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory issues creating barriers to our ambition, it looks increasingly unlikely there is any way we can move forward on a refurbishment of Anfield unless there are significant changes in those areas."

Commenting further on the options open to the Club, Ayre explained: "In terms of a Stanley Park stadium versus redevelopment, there is absolutely no question that a refurbishment of Anfield would come at a significantly lower cost than a new build. A new stadium of course also has its merits, being modern, more functional, and easier to construct. However, a new 60,000 capacity ground also comes at a significantly higher price, while at the same time only delivering roughly the same amount of revenue as a refurbishment of Anfield - with both options offering an uplift of approximately 16,000 seats each."

Added Ayre: "It's disappointing that based on where we are at the moment, we seem to be unable to press on with the more viable economic option of a refurbishment, but we remain committed to finding the best possible long-term solution. We already have a very healthy dialogue in place with several leading brands regarding naming rights for a new stadium, but like every major deal we have ever done, that just takes time to explore in full. We also have ongoing discussions with various parties around the financing of either facility. Our challenge now is to try to find a way to bring all of those elements together in a solution that is in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club and its fans.

"We are mindful that supporters have been promised a solution in the past and have been disappointed, and also that local residents would like to know what direction we are headed in. However, just like any other business, we can only proceed as and when we are clear on all elements and we will not be forced to make a decision that is not in the best long-term interests of our club and we will not make any promises to our fans that we cannot keep. We will continue to work diligently on this project and keep our fans informed of any progress."

Council leader Joe Anderson said: "We recognise that Liverpool FC need to make the right decision on the stadium options, and it is crucial that it is not only the right one for the club but also for local residents.

"We fully appreciate that the new owners have made real progress over the past nine months since they took over, and we will continue to support what they are trying to deliver. However, it is unfortunately the reality that the debate and discussions over a new stadium have gone on for many years, causing a great deal of frustration and uncertainty within the local community.

"Although we are fully supportive of the club, we can't ignore the fact that the clock is and has been ticking, and people need certainty about the development.

"We will do what we can to continue to help the club, and I can reassure people that we will be pressing for a decision as soon as is practically possible that will benefit Liverpool FC and deliver the much needed regeneration that the area so badly needs."




http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/lfc-statement-on-stadium

Going to be expanded 15k seats.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/31/liverpool-new-stadium-anfield-expansion?CMP=twt_gu

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Big news expected on Monday.

LIVERPOOL Football Club has decided to stay at Anfield.

Well-placed ECHO sources have said the club is to scrap plans for a move to Stanley Park, and will instead redevelop its current ground.

While no official confirmation has yet been given, an announcement about plans for the council's "Anfield Village" housing regeneration scheme is due to be made on Monday at the Town Hall, and the ECHO understands that part of the briefing will include the club revealing its intentions to stay put.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2012/10/13/liverpool-football-club-set-to-stay-at-anfield-and-redevelop-current-stadium-100252-32027252/


If true it will put a bit dent into the attacks on the owners, as one of the key components was their supposed lack of movement on the stadium issue.

A new stadium would have been more exciting and a better long-term solution, but that would likely have meant massive loans. So this is probably the better overall solution.

15k more means 60k overall. 33% increase, hence means a 33% in revenue from tickets (depending on the ratio of corporate and general fans). Anyone know our revenue from tickets?

mr-r34 wrote:15k more means 60k overall. 33% increase, hence means a 33% in revenue from tickets (depending on the ratio of corporate and general fans). Anyone know our revenue from tickets?

£41m according to the Swiss Ramble.
But it remains to be seen whether those extra 15k seats will be sold out in every home game.

I dont think we would have an issue with not being able to get 15k more fans to the stadium