There are several previous posts in this thread detailing the plans for the stadium itself and surrounding area, veg.

The capacity will be expanded to 60,000 and the entire surrounding district will be renewed and in places redesigned to provide a boost for the atmosphere, navigation (i.e. transport) and the city of Liverpool as a whole.

RedOranje wrote:There are several previous posts in this thread detailing the plans for the stadium itself and surrounding area, veg.  

The capacity will be expanded to 60,000 and the entire surrounding district will be renewed and in places redesigned to provide a boost for the atmosphere, navigation (i.e. transport) and the city of Liverpool as a whole.

it been a long time since i been to Anfield,

what are they build on Anfield road ?

what it like build onto Walton beck rd A5089 ?

are all the shop going be close on Walton beck rd ?

what about the the albert is that going to close ?

is it about 4 small road around Anfield with all there house got pull down ?

then there house on Anfield road & A5089 ?

that to me seem a lot work, as Fenway Sports Group have said they what to put in 15,000 new seats

http://www.goallegacy.net/t3179p36-refurbish-anfield-or-build-new-stadium#939763

RedOranje wrote:http://www.goallegacy.net/t3179p36-refurbish-anfield-or-build-new-stadium#939763

thank you,

so regeneration plans, that not new with Stanley Park as that was part old plans,

Anfield will still be box in with homes each side & 2 big roads ?

key point look back in 2000 when we did have the money build a new 70,000 stadium & we were ready to start work back then

* Rick Parry said back then- impossible to further improve the current Anfield, It would be very difficult to increase the size of the current stadium to what we want, We are very short on space and the implications

look at now 13 years on Refurbish Anfield we still have lack of space &  difficult to increase the size to no more than 60,000 but Fenway Sports Group are only look at 55,000 stadium,


Wembley Stadium 90,000
Old Trafford 75,000
Emirates Stadium 60,000
Tottenham 56,000
Refurbish Anfield 55,000

so will be the 4th  stadiums by capacity but we drop down to 5th if City of Manchester Stadium get 60,000,

last thing like Rick Parry said Refurbish Anfield we would have cut are capacity down for years till work is done, so lose even more revenue,

I personally think that keeping Anfield is for the best. As people have rightly pointed out, there are many obstacles in refurbishing Anfield.

Building a new stadium shouldn't happen, not now anyway. There is too much history and atmosphere that surrounds the stadium which has an effect on the players which has been proven over the years on European matches.

Obviously sharing a stadium with Everton is out of the question as the majority of fans would agree that they would not like this to happen and that it would cause multiple problems.

Murphy_10 wrote:I personally think that keeping Anfield is for the best. As people have rightly pointed out, there are many obstacles in refurbishing Anfield.

Building a new stadium shouldn't happen, not now anyway. There is too much history and atmosphere that surrounds the stadium which has an effect on the players which has been proven over the years on European matches.

Obviously sharing a stadium with Everton is out of the question as the majority of fans would agree that they would not like this to happen and that it would cause multiple problems.

from end of 80's then move into 90's this club thought it could live of it history & football would stay the way it is, for past 20 old year's poor run as a business seen as drop from been a top tie team, we now catch up a bit but we seen a new United been build in Tottenham as got a business plan

to make them rich like how United did 20 old years ago, i think come down to do fans just what to live in the past or move with the times

I am not saying to live in the past. I am just saying that a lot of the older supporters we have would disagree with the the new stadium. FSG already said they would rather expand/refurbish Anfield than rebuild a new stadium.

Murphy_10 wrote:I am not saying to live in the past. I am just saying that a lot of the older supporters we have would disagree with the the new stadium. FSG already said they would rather expand/refurbish Anfield than rebuild a new stadium.

we have one longest waist list for a season ticket we are turn down 1000's who can not come to Anfield, how long do you think fans will wait to come to  Anfield ????

i did google map, how are going build a 60,000 ? at a push 55,000 as got side A road then Anfield Roald ( what has homes all long it), only  road build are on the side by the car park ( kemlyn RD),lakes St,lothair RD

That's another thing that FSG have to think about. People's homes are involved in this aswell.

You keep throwing out random 50-55,000 numbers but every single discussion has mentioned the capacity being increased to 60,000. Just because you have decided that's not the case does not mean every other actual source is wrong, mate. As the previous articles have explained, the buildings and houses nearest the stadium are being purchased by the club and will be demolished to create the space needed for expansion. At the same time, the club is helping to finance the building/refurbishment of other housing in the area to ensure that people are not left without homes and the area's overall atmosphere, value, and housing capacity increases even with the stadium expansion.

And it all costs around £150m that FSG will help finance, rather than several hundred million that would be loaded directly onto the club as loans and debt.

I'm all for keeping historic stadiums. There's something about the history of the ground that just really doesn't transfer over in the same way. Saw it recently with Yankee Stadium in NY, and most of the fans I know agree with me. I would've hated if John Henry had gone through with replacing Fenway Park as he planned about ten years ago, and I think he learned by not doing it that upgrading the facilities while maintaining the connection with the past is the much preferable option. Glad to see he's doing it again.

Also, I'd love to hear how many club stadiums in the world would be bigger than the expected 60,000. I know they exist, but it's not like it's a long list. 60k is a perfectly competitive number.

RedOranje wrote:You keep throwing out random 50-55,000 numbers but every single discussion has mentioned the capacity being increased to 60,000.  Just because you have decided that's not the case does not mean every other actual source is wrong, mate.  As the previous articles have explained, the buildings and houses nearest the stadium are being purchased by the club and will be demolished to create the space needed for expansion.  At the same time, the club is helping to finance the building/refurbishment of other housing in the area to ensure that people are not left without homes and the area's overall atmosphere, value, and housing capacity increases even with the stadium expansion.

And it all costs around £150m that FSG will help finance, rather than several hundred million that would be loaded directly onto the club as loans and debt.

sorry read it wrong, sorry,

get about the houses nearest the stadium are being purchased by the club and will be demolished, are they just knock down lothair rd or are they buy all the road on that side ???????

what about the new houses were are they going to be build

stevieg8 wrote:I'm all for keeping historic stadiums.  There's something about the history of the ground that just really doesn't transfer over in the same way.  Saw it recently with Yankee Stadium in NY, and most of the fans I know agree with me.  I would've hated if John Henry had gone through with replacing Fenway Park as he planned about ten years ago, and I think he learned by not doing it that upgrading the facilities while maintaining the connection with the past is the much preferable option.  Glad to see he's doing it again.

Also, I'd love to hear how many club stadiums in the world would be bigger than the expected 60,000.  I know they exist, but it's not like it's a long list.  60k is a perfectly competitive number.

Europe’s largest football stadiums

http://www.stadiumguide.com/figures-and-statistics/lists/europes-largest-football-stadiums/

I think the key-word is 'competitive'. Stevieg8 didn't say the refurbished stadium with 60K capacity would be one of the biggest stadium. Rather, given the prevailing sporting and financial reality, we would be competitive with the enhanced capacity.

Not only we don't have the money, we can't expect to fill a 80-90k stadium while being stuck a 6-7th places.

iftikhar wrote:I think the key-word is 'competitive'. Stevieg8 didn't say the refurbished stadium with 60K capacity would be one of the biggest stadium. Rather, given the prevailing sporting and financial reality, we would be competitive with the enhanced capacity.

Not only we don't have the money, we can't expect to fill a 80-90k stadium while being stuck a 6-7th places.

Ifti bhai i agree with most of your points apart from the us not being able to fill 80/90k field! That i believe would always be possible. It's just the unfathomable strength of the KOP! . . .

as any one got the accounts for 2013

accounts for the year to 30 June 2012

1 United- ground capacity 75,731, matchday 99m

2 Arsenal ground capacity 60,361, matchday 95m

3 Chelsea- ground capacity 41,837, matchday 78m

4 Liverpool -ground capacity 45,522, matchday 42m

vegfootball wrote:

stevieg8 wrote:I'm all for keeping historic stadiums.  There's something about the history of the ground that just really doesn't transfer over in the same way.  Saw it recently with Yankee Stadium in NY, and most of the fans I know agree with me.  I would've hated if John Henry had gone through with replacing Fenway Park as he planned about ten years ago, and I think he learned by not doing it that upgrading the facilities while maintaining the connection with the past is the much preferable option.  Glad to see he's doing it again.

Also, I'd love to hear how many club stadiums in the world would be bigger than the expected 60,000.  I know they exist, but it's not like it's a long list.  60k is a perfectly competitive number.

Europe’s largest football stadiums

http://www.stadiumguide.com/figures-and-statistics/lists/europes-largest-football-stadiums/

So 60k would put us right around top 20 in Europe, and once you exclude the stadiums not for clubs (I know at least Wembley qualifies from that list) we'd move even higher.  I repeat, we don't need to be the biggest to be competitive, and with the tv and merchandise revenue we get from around the world, we'll be on a competitive level in terms of revenue with everyone aside from ManU/Barca/Real/Bayern.  I'll take that any day of the week.

We need a poster boy in the Asian market. Must sign an Asian player just for financial purposes. Kind of like United do.

But I'm not really worried about staying competitive financially. I think FSG know exactly what they are doping.

vegfootball wrote:as any one got the accounts for 2013

accounts for the year to 30 June 2012

1 United- ground capacity 75,731, matchday 99m

2 Arsenal ground capacity 60,361, matchday 95m

3 Chelsea- ground capacity 41,837, matchday 78m

4 Liverpool -ground capacity 45,522, matchday 42m

It has got lot to do with ticket-price than capacity. Our revenue per attendance (£900) is lower (£1300, £1500 & £1800 respectively) than all those mentioned.

McAgger wrote:We need a poster boy in the Asian market. Must sign an Asian player just for financial purposes. Kind of like United do.

But I'm not really worried about staying competitive financially. I think FSG know exactly what they are doping.

Thailand

Thailand:

Indonesia

Indonesia:

I think our draw in Asia is relatively strong already. Let's buy players because of their quality, not their home nation.

iftikhar wrote:

vegfootball wrote:as any one got the accounts for 2013

accounts for the year to 30 June 2012

1 United- ground capacity 75,731, matchday 99m

2 Arsenal ground capacity 60,361, matchday 95m

3 Chelsea- ground capacity 41,837, matchday 78m

4 Liverpool -ground capacity 45,522, matchday 42m

It has got lot to do with ticket-price than capacity. Our revenue per attendance (£900) is lower (£1300, £1500 & £1800 respectively) than all those mentioned.

does not go back to the point we need a bigger stadium ?

add only 15,000 new seats will bring in around 55m, i thought the whole plan by Fenway Sports Group was to bring money from stadium & so on,
so that Fenway Sports Group will not need to put a load ££££££ into the club

Are you saying an extra 55mil won't do us anything? It could cover transfers for a window itself.

mr-r34 wrote:Are you saying an extra 55mil won't do us anything? It could cover transfers for a window itself.

no are match day is lower than United/Arsenal who get around 90m+ & Chelsea get 70m + right we get 40m+

we not get as much money from match day unlike United/Arsenal/Chelsea the whole point build a new stadium was get more more money into the club so would help make the club run by it self with out a rich owner's,

like keep say we got the longest wait for season ticket , now say we sold 15,000 new season ticket's, build say 5,000 new box's seats, than add around 10,000 new seat for home fans & away fans then we would get much more match day money

1. Don't spend in new stadium
2. Spend that fund in squad
3. We get CL, regularly
4/A. Money from CL
4/B. Money from higher ticket price
4/C. Money from commercial

Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU, Spurs has greater gate-receipts not because they (Not Chelsea & Spurs at least) have bigger stadium. It's because they charge more.

Three of those clubs are in London, so they can afford to charge more since the standard of living is high there.