Liverpool FC Forum

[tubby]

Tomorrow's Times back page

http://twitpic.com/5mos5a

[metalhead]

back of the times newspaper

[The Good Yank]

Glad i wasn't the the third one to post that link.

[Greavesie]

Back page from tomorrow's Times

[Reg]

Liverpool may pass and move from Anfield, admits owner John Henry

Liverpool’s principal owner John Henry has admitted the club may have to abolish plans to refurbish Anfield and move to a new stadium if they are to have any hope of generating the commercial revenues required to match Manchester United, Manchester City and Chelsea on and off the pitch.


08 Jul 2011

On the day City announced their unique, £400 million tie-in with the airline Etihad to rebrand the City of Manchester stadium and much of its surrounding area, Henry outlined on Twitter the dilemma facing Liverpool as they race to keep up. “[Remaining at] Anfield would certainly be our first choice” wrote the 61 year-old. “But realities may dictate otherwise. So many obstacles...”

Those obstacles - the city council’s preference for relocation to the long-awaited stadium on Stanley Park, the need to close down huge portions of Anfield if rebuilding work were to take place, the ground’s lack of corporate facilities and the lack of space in which to expand - mean Fenway Sports Group, the club’s parent company, are now leaning away from their original intention to revamp Liverpool’s present home.

Henry and his group successfully managed to refurbish Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox baseball franchise FSG also own.

They must make a decision before September - when planning permission on the site earmarked for Liverpool’s new home on nearby Stanley Park expires - on whether to adopt the same approach or build a new ground.

The club insist no decision has yet been made but it is believed FSG’s ability to attract a naming-rights partner to offset building costs and boost revenues in the face of Uefa’s looming Financial Fair Play legislation will prove crucial. Standard Chartered, the club’s shirt sponsor, are thought to be one of a number of companies provisionally and informally sounded out over such a deal.

Meanwhile, Liverpool’s attempts to raise funds in the rather more immediate future are likely to accelerate after it emerged Raul Meireles is not expected to join the club on their pre-season tour of China and Malaysia, for which they depart on Sunday.

Liverpool are prepared to listen to offers for the Portuguese, a £13.7 million signing less than a year ago, despite an impressive first campaign in England, as he is one of the Anfield side’s few valuable - but expendable - assets. Though Inter Milan’s interest is thought to have cooled, Fiorentina and Juventus are both monitoring his situation, and his omission from the travelling party suggests the club expect imminent movement.

He is likely to be joined in the coming weeks by a number of team-mates. “We are very pleased with the two signings we have made because they were absolute priorities on our list,” the club’s director of football, Damien Comolli said.

“We’re lucky we’ve got two of our priorities. That’s good, and I’m sure there’ll still be a lot of movement, especially going out but also, hopefully, a few more coming in.”

The 18-year-old full-back John Flanagan, though, will be remaining with the Premier League club for the next four years after signing an improved contract on Friday.

Telegraph link

[dundreamin]

No way a groundshare NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER:angry:

[Reg]

Based on what exactly, Mr Angry?

[Greavesie]

Meireles looks certain to be off then. I hope they know what they're doing

[Thommo's perm]

Based on what exactly, Mr Angry?

Are you serious Reginald?

[Waldo]

Anfield would be sorely missed but the reality is that, if we cannot redevelop and get 60k + for every home game, we will fall behind our rivals and never be able to catch up unless some rich Sheikh comes along one day like Man City!!

In that case it is in the long term interests of LFC to move to a 60k + (even 70k+) stadium but NOT in any kind of ground sharing capacity.

I am led to believe that many parties are interested in the naming rights of a new stadium.

[parchpea]

I am pleased that this appears to be reaching a conclusion so we know one way or another. Seems they had perhaps hoped to stay and re develop because this was a fan preference however its looking expensive and impossible to build to a decent capacity. Its looking inevitable we will move now and all that needs to be done is secure funding via naming rights so we can take up the planning order before it runs out in September.

[Greavesie]

Based on what exactly, Mr Angry?

Are you serious Reginald?

I think he's asking why such a comment about a goundshare was made...

I think most Liverpool fans are against it but there was no mention of it previously that's all

[metalhead]

LFC statement on new stadium

Link

[Reg]

If as a result of a groundshare we get the best 75,000 seat stadium in the country then I'm all for it.

I don't give a monkeys about the Bitters, our ground would always be our ground and its fitting we have the best.

[Scottbot]

No mention of a ground share in the officail statement wouldn't be overly worried about it. There's also been some talk about the council only extending planning permission for the new build by a few months but I suepct they will give the club as long as they need. Anfield (as in the area) is in such a bad way and the only way to regenerate the area by the means of the new stadium build I think. It sounds like the club have admitted defeat in redeveloping Anfield so we'll just have to sit tight and wait on news of the new stadium as and when it happens. At least they're putting us in the picture.

I actually really liked the 2nd desing that the Dallas architecs came up with so hopefully they will/wopuld go with that one instead of the previous design which looked a replica of the atmophereless Emirates stadium.