Liverpool FC Forum

[red till i die!!]

Got this of the rattle , the lad concerned is dead reliable , but as ever make your own mind up .



Dont shoot the messenger

ive just received this text from my source who told me about gerrards new injury, team selection etc.


Quote:
New stadium on the park but new design. 74k but dependent on council otherwise its 68k. Looking like Standard Charthered sponsoring it and Allianz Architects are doing it. Sep 2014 move in supposedly.

thats great news igor and lets hope it turns out to be true.68 or 74k is a decent size stadium and im sure there will only be minor changes to the last set of plans to cut costs.
brilliant news!!

[Kukilon]

Grrr I want a massive stadium that is an envy for all other teams and get Everton to rent it for their games. =)

[Reg]

PREMIER LEAGUE CAPACITIESContinue reading the main story
75,797 Manchester United
60,361 Arsenal
52,339 Newcastle
49,000 Sunderland
47,715 Manchester City
45,522 Liverpool
43,786 Aston Villa
42,449 Chelsea
40,157 Everton
36,230 Tottenham Hotspur
* source premierleague.com

++ For interests sake: they want a 60/65,000 seat stadium despite being in the capital - and our fan base is bigger.

Chelsea set to announce Stamford Bridge stadium sponsor

Monday, 7 November 2011

Chelsea are set to announce a naming rights sponsor for their Stamford Bridge stadium in the new year.

This follows the club's failed attempt to buy back the land on which the ground is built, which could have facilitated a move to a new venue.

Chief executive Ron Gourlay said: "We have outgrown our stadium.

"We hope to make an announcement on naming rights in the next six to eight months. It would make a big step as we have to drive up the revenues."

Gourlay first revealed plans to sell the naming rights to the ground in 2009, stipulating that Stamford Bridge should remain in the new title and that a lease would be for between seven and 10 years.

Stamford Bridge currently holds 42,449 fans which drops to 38,000 on Champions League nights because of Uefa restrictions.

The quest to buy back the land in the Fulham Road on which Stamford Bridge is situated was rejected by shareholders in the Chelsea Pitch Owners company, who voted only 61.5% in favour of the proposal when 75% was required.

Gourlay said no decision had yet been made as to whether a new vote will be called at next month's Annual General Meeting but insisted: "We need a 60-65,000 stadium. We have the eighth biggest stadium in England and the 61st biggest in Europe.

"But when you look at the activity of stadiums planned for next few years, we will fall out of the top 75 which can only be restrictive to the football club. We have corporate hospitality that is second to none and 30,000 season ticket holders.

"In the meantime we continue on our conversations to see if there is any way at all to extend Stamford Bridge."

[Reg]

So its decided. We're going to build at 12 year old design. Please lord, why do you hate me so much ??
++

Liverpool opt for original Stanley Park stadium plan to replace Anfield after rejecting futuristic design

Liverpool have decided to proceed with their original, nine-year-old stadium plans once they have secured the finance to start construction.

By Chris Bascombe  16 Jan 2012

That means the alternative, futuristic stadium designs proposed by former owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jnr have been ditched for good.

It also ensures there will be no fresh planning application required by the current American owners to restart construction once a lucrative naming rights package is in place.

Fenway Sports Group has been working with Manchester-based architects AFL, the firm which first submitted designs when Liverpool announced their intention to move to Stanley Park as far back as 2000.

It is these proposals, which were put forward for planning permission in 2003 and given the green light a year later, which will become the blueprint for a new 60,000-seat stadium costing around £300 million.

The club must still find the finance to kick-start the scheme, and there is no immediate prospect of work beginning, but AFL’s return to preferred status is another significant twist in the seemingly never-ending saga of Liverpool’s ground move.

The AFL plans were first introduced by former chief executive Rick Parry but were abandoned by Hicks and Gillett shortly after their ill-fated takeover in 2006.

Hicks scrapped the original designs in favour of those he commissioned from a Dallas-based architecture firm, HKS.

The £400 million costs of the second scheme effectively triggered the beginning of the end of the old regime, as Hicks and Gillett could not raise the funds to build it.

It also led to the first major split of the old boardroom, as the plans were seen as too expensive and impractical.

Now Hicks’ grand scheme has been permanently shelved with FSG deciding it will modernise and upgrade the first set of designs.

Since buying the club, John W Henry has worked through a variety of options to establish how to solve Liverpool’s enduring stadium problem.

Henry originally wanted to redevelop Anfield, but after a year of toil working through the planning issues, and the cost of buying nearby residential properties, it was accepted this was not feasible.

FSG has also explored whether to commission new stadium plans, but the time and cost restraint also made that a non-starter.

Liverpool have planning permission for two designs.

If the club submitted a third to Liverpool City Council, it could delay the process by another three years and there could be no guarantee they would be passed, especially given a political fervour to maintain a dialogue with Everton on the controversial issue of a groundshare.

It would be an incredibly risky strategy for FSG to start from scratch.

Liverpool still need to raise around £150 million in sponsorship — around half the costs – before they can start building any arena, but having decided which course to take there will be fewer obstacles in their way if a naming rights package can be secured in the near future.

That in itself remains a difficulty given economic conditions.

The single, desirable legacy of the Hicks and Gillett era was the fact they actually began preparatory work on Stanley Park prior to having to bring it to a halt when they failed to secure investment.

That means technically, and legally, construction of a stadium is considered to have already started by the council.

This has enabled the new owners to avoid missing out on any deadlines to complete a project.

Liverpool City Council is also eager for the club to make progress as soon as possible, so have not issued time constraints.

Some Liverpool fans may be worried that plans nearly 10 years old, which were publicly criticised by Hicks as being ‘out of date’ five years ago, are being given a facelift.

However, Liverpool believe Hicks’s criticism was always unwarranted and the AFL plans — inspired in part by the Millennium Stadium in Wales — were also impressive.

Although the club are limited in terms of altering how the arena will look, its size and the space it will fill from the accepted designs, there is still plenty of capacity to upgrade the interiors to modern standards.

Any suggestion the nine-year-old architects’ plan is out of date will be dismissed by the owners, who recognise AFL’s vast portfolio in stadium design.

The firm is responsible for recent upgrades at Old Trafford and the Nou Camp, and built the Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea and Everton training complexes
++

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9019171/Liverpool-opt-for-original-Stanley-Park-stadium-plan-to-replace-Anfield-after-rejecting-fu
turistic-design.html]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport....gn.html[/url]

[metalhead]

H+G's design too expensive?

[Reg]

Fenway are not willing to commit to a proper stadium we'd be proud of for the next 75 years. I'm seriously disappointed. Seems everything associated with LFC these days is a compromise.  We've obviously missed teh boat for fat sponsership deals whilst trying to get rid of Twit and Tw.at.

[Benny The Noon]

What exactly did you want them to do Reg ?

People cant win these days

[tubby]

If they are not going to get a decent stadium built then they should at least concentrate on the team and getting it back into the top 4.

[Benny The Noon]

If they are not going to get a decent stadium built then they should at least concentrate on the team and getting it back into the top 4.

Christ when did Liverpool fans turn into a bunch of negative miserable !! 

They have only just announced the plans and straight people are saying it isn't good enough

Get a grip people

[Thommo's perm]

If KK wouldnt have bought Carroll there would have been another £35 million toward the stadium

[tubby]

If KK wouldnt have bought Carroll there would have been another £35 million toward the stadium

Or a better striker. I think if we had hit top form this season the general mood would be better. Plus better performances on the pitch and a good finish to the season could help to attract bigger name investors/sponsors for the stadium...

[Thommo's perm]

If KK wouldnt have bought Carroll there would have been another £35 million toward the stadium

Or a better striker. I think if we had hit top form this season the general mood would be better. Plus better performances on the pitch and a good finish to the season could help to attract bigger name investors/sponsors for the stadium...

This is all Rafas fault

[tubby]

If KK wouldnt have bought Carroll there would have been another £35 million toward the stadium

Or a better striker. I think if we had hit top form this season the general mood would be better. Plus better performances on the pitch and a good finish to the season could help to attract bigger name investors/sponsors for the stadium...

This is all Rafas fault

I blame Rick Parry. 

[metalhead]

Fenway are not willing to commit to a proper stadium we'd be proud of for the next 75 years. I'm seriously disappointed. Seems everything associated with LFC these days is a compromise.  We've obviously missed teh boat for fat sponsership deals whilst trying to get rid of Twit and Tw.at.

What would you do though? If FSG come up with their own design then securing a permit for that would take 3 years.

[devaney]

This planned proposal is indicative of sensible owners looking at the overall financial picture and acting responsibly. I have very serious suspicions that the former unscrupulous owners simply syphoned an outrageous amount of money out of the club via their American based appointed architects for reasons best known to themselves!

This is a positive move for LFC. Why all the pathetic negativity?