Liverpool FC Forum

[Reg]

I'm a little dissapointed and I think the stadium should be 70k minimum but as long as the owners don't lie to me I'm fine with it. It's sort of their money.

But its OUR club

And at teh end of the day its OUR money ! 

Bet youve got plenty Reginald

Stacks of it mate, got it in cardboard boxes all over the place, keep falling over the bl**dy things. I got it from Woof! because he didn't want it any more.

[ethanr]

I'm a little dissapointed and I think the stadium should be 70k minimum but as long as the owners don't lie to me I'm fine with it. It's sort of their money.

But its OUR club

And at teh end of the day its OUR money ! 

Bet youve got plenty Reginald

Stacks of it mate, got it in cardboard boxes all over the place, keep falling over the bl**dy things. I got it from Woof! because he didn't want it any more.

Ya and Woof got it from me because I'm tired of getting caught with all this counterfeit cash.

[metalhead]

I can see a trend going here

[Redman in wales]

it's only the mail...

  Liverpool to end stadium saga with £150m plan to rebuild Anfield into 60,000 home

Liverpool's American owners will end the club's 10-year stadium saga by committing to develop Anfield as a refurbished 60,000-capacity venue, including 7,000 'corporate' seats.


The club publicly maintain that no final decision has yet been made between refurbishment and a new stadium but detailed plans are in place for a phased expansion of the Main Stand and then the Anfield Road stand.


The work is expected to cost about £150 million, a huge saving on the estimated £400m that a new stadium in Stanley Park would cost, although an estimated £50m has been spent by the club on designs and planning for a new stadium.

Naming rights might have helped to subsidise a new venue but no suitable deal has been found.

Liverpool City Council have been working closely with the club on stadium options for years and for a long time were in favour of a new stadium, to be shared with Everton.


The council now believe that official confirmation on the refurbishment is imminent from John W Henry's Fenway Sports Group.

A council spokesman said: 'It does seem to be the case that the club have decided to stay at Anfield and that Liverpool officials are preparing to confirm the decision'.

The importance of resolving the stadium situation is highlighted by today's sell-out game against Manchester United at Anfield, which will generate about £1.5m in revenues for Liverpool.

The corresponding match at Old Trafford will generate more than £3m not just because United have more seats but better corporate facilities for which the club can charge more.

Anfield's 45,000-seat capacity and structure limits the extent to which Liverpool can mount a realistic challenge to rivals including United (who have 76,000 seats) and Arsenal (60,000) – on and off the pitch.


Henry himself has long been supportive of the idea that Liverpool's long-time home should remain their home.

He feels the club can develop without moving in the way that his baseball club, the Boston Red Sox, have done at their home, Fenway Park.


Henry dropped another heavy hint in June that a refurbished Anfield was his preference when tweeting a link to a blog by a Liverpool architect, Peter McGurk, that suggested Liverpool should stay put.

McGurk has no connection to the club or redevelopment.

Council regeneration plans for the area around Liverpool have provided a solution to the long-running problem of freeing up land for Anfield's expansion.


The council intend to acquire property for demolition and refurbishment - and crucially now have the option of applying for compulsory purchase orders if required.

The council will be hoping to avoid any drastic action by offering residents the full market values of their homes plus compensation and relocation costs

[woof woof !]

If true, staying at a refurbished 60,000 seater Anfield would get my vote       

[dundreamin]

60000 anfield nice. But way things are going on the pitch we will be hard pressed to fill it

[The Hustler]

80,000 seater on stanley park.

wot difference does it make, it will never get built!  lol

[Boxscarf]

A 60,000 seater stadium with 7,000 for corporates is a total waste of time.

[ycsatbjywtbiastkamb]

i hope that article is right

[dundreamin]

If the corporate seats are 7000 that's a extra 9000 for the REAL FANS who can afford to go. f*ck this I am falling out of love with the beautiful game

[Boxscarf]

If the corporate seats are 7000 that's a extra 9000 for the REAL FANS who can afford to go. f*ck this I am falling out of love with the beautiful game

The corporate boxes didn't fill out yesterday for one of our biggest games of the season and they cost £220 & £245 per head, can you imagine how much they'll go up by to cover the cost of the extension to Anfield? You're right, owners are forcing working class people out of football.

[ycsatbjywtbiastkamb]

If the corporate seats are 7000 that's a extra 9000 for the REAL FANS who can afford to go. f*ck this I am falling out of love with the beautiful game

The corporate boxes didn't fill out yesterday for one of our biggest games of the season and they cost £220 & £245 per head, can you imagine how much they'll go up by to cover the cost of the extension to Anfield? You're right, owners are forcing working class people out of football.

redeveloping anfield is the best solution to the stadium issue, it not only makes sense financially but also in a historical/cultural context too.

[tommycockles]

If the corporate seats are 7000 that's a extra 9000 for the REAL FANS who can afford to go. f*ck this I am falling out of love with the beautiful game

The corporate boxes didn't fill out yesterday for one of our biggest games of the season and they cost £220 & £245 per head, can you imagine how much they'll go up by to cover the cost of the extension to Anfield? You're right, owners are forcing working class people out of football.

as sad as it is, unless we generate more revenue we're going to fall further and further behind the other top teams. We need to increase capacity, and we need more corporate revenue as they will pay more than your average fan can afford. It's a sad fact but if you want to see Liverpool winning games and staying in Europe then we need to be able to afford better players.

[Boxscarf]

as sad as it is, unless we generate more revenue we're going to fall further and further behind the other top teams. We need to increase capacity, and we need more corporate revenue as they will pay more than your average fan can afford. It's a sad fact but if you want to see Liverpool winning games and staying in Europe then we need to be able to afford better players.

This is it, tommycockles - sooner or later football will go the same way Rugby Union has gone where only the middle classes and upper classes can afford to watch their teams play week in and week out.

[LFC1990]

as sad as it is, unless we generate more revenue we're going to fall further and further behind the other top teams. We need to increase capacity, and we need more corporate revenue as they will pay more than your average fan can afford. It's a sad fact but if you want to see Liverpool winning games and staying in Europe then we need to be able to afford better players.

This is it, tommycockles - sooner or later football will go the same way Rugby Union has gone where only the middle classes and upper classes can afford to watch their teams play week in and week out.

Rugby union isnt an expensive sport to watch.

I just googled tickets for rugby union and a game at twickenham between Harlequins V saracens is £34.50p That is £4.50p Cheaper then i paid for my stoke ticket