Liverpool FC Forum

[82-1074641017]

will the new ground ever be built.some experts are now saying the delay's are costing the club more tha £750,000 to £1 million a month. the  N.W.D.A. are refusing to release the grant the club need.the spirarring construction cost's are running out of control as the months go by.the anfield and breckfield area's two of the most deprived in liverpool are in a state of total decay,the rows and rows of boarded up houses street after street,and boarded up shops are a disgrace.when on the way to the match and you look at the anfield area,it makes you wonder what the visiting supporters think of the city.god only knows whats going to happen next,the silence form the club as been deafening.the team seams to be suffering from lack of investment because the money looks to have been earmarked for the new stadium.the whole thing is a complete mess,and some serious questions have to be asked and answered.decisions have to be made.not only for the club,but also for the communitys involved.

[2520years]

A stadium update...

"It was revealed this morning that Liverpool FC have resubmitted their plans for the new stadium."

Here is the story...
Anfield Road

At least something is happening.

[RUSHIE#9]

Radio City were reporting this story today but were saying something about the capacity being reduced to 45,000 at first because the infrastructure around the new stadium wouldn't have the capacity to handle 60,000 when the stadium is first opened.

(REPORT FROM RADIO CITY WEBSITE):

Liverpool’s plans for a new stadium are back in the spotlight.

The Reds have resubmitted proposals to the council, giving the biggest hint yet that the troubled project will go ahead.

All along there’s been concerned the 60,000 seater stadium in Stanley Park would cost too much money.

It’s thought the price tag now stands at at least £160 million, shooting up from the £80 million that was predicted five years ago.

But there is still a snag – the new ground would be restricted to just a 45,000 seater capacity at first, that’s until better transport plans are put forward to cope with extra fans.

If this is true I hope that it's gonna be a case of the full 60,000 will be built but they just won't be able to use it at first (i.e. Getting the stadium built to it's full planned capacity to stop the cost from rising any further and the opening the full capacity up once the friggin' politicians get their fingers out of their arses and  get the roads and transport links upto scratch).

[RUSHIE#9]

THE ESTADIO DA FLANGE

   

[hawkmoon269]

If we do get permission, investment, transport infrastructure, bla..bla..bla... and get out 60,000 seats - we'll still be behind the Scum's ground capacity.

However, with this in mind, could we fill a 80K seater stadium week-in, week-out?

[tubby]

The reds have resubmitted plans for the new stadium, re-igniting the debate that big investment may be heading Liverpool's way.

The plans for a new 60,000-seat stadium in Stanley Park have been resubmitted to the city council for fresh approval, the Daily Post can reveal.

It is the most robust sign in months that the club remains determined to proceed with the project despite mounting doubts about its affordability. And last night the North West Development Agency confirmed it will hand over crucial millions to the scheme as long as the club can raise the necessary private finance.

Costs for Stanley Park have risen from an original £80m five years ago to at least £160m now.

New planning guidelines have forced the club to seek renewed permission after it was originally granted way back in July, 2004.

A number of stipulations have been laid out, including one restricting the stadium to the same crowd capacity as Anfield - 45,000, instead of the 60,000 it wants to seat - until it comes up with an acceptable transport plan to cope with extra fans.

The club will be determined to ensure that happens swiftly because a new stadium would be ultimately pointless if it did not give the club the extra gate power it needs to compete with rivals like Manchester United, whose Old Trafford ground will soon seat 76,000.

The future of the Stanley Park scheme has been in doubt over recent months as costs spiralled and the board struggled to secure the finances.

But last night a Liverpool FC spokesman confirmed: "We remain confident and are very much committed to making sure the new stadium goes ahead."

The club has now signed a formal contract with the council agreeing to put in place infrastructure, such as new roads and parking, around the stadium if it goes ahead.

City planners have cast their eyes over the new application and come up with new conditions - such as the 45,000 limit on capacity - to ensure it meets recent changes in planning laws.

LFC has also been forbidden from starting any building work until it comes up with improved plans for recreation facilities that will be lost because of the development, such as the football pitches at Lower Breck recreation ground.

It is continuing to try to tie up private funding for the scheme, which must be in place by the middle of this month, or it will miss out on around £10m of financial support from Merseyside's Objective 1 programme.

The NWDA, however, last night confirmed that formal approval of its funding towards Stanley Park will be given if the club secures the private sector investment.

Steven Broomhead, chief executive of the NWDA, said: "The NWDA is keen to invest in the regeneration aspects of the new Anfield plan.

"However, alongside public sector funding from the NWDA and the European Regional Development Fund, the scheme also requires a significant private sector contribution for the new stadium to go ahead.

"The agency needs to be certain that this money has been secured before the NWDA can formally approve funding and we look forward to hearing more from the football club on their progress in securing this private sector funding.

"We have a responsibility to ensure that public money is spent on projects that produce long-term economic, social and regeneration benefits and, therefore, any money provided would be earmarked for regeneration projects that benefit the local economy and communities of Anfield and Breckfield.

"The amount provided will be based on independent economic analysis of the project." A number of buildings - from 47 to 71 Anfield Road - would be demolished to pave the way for the stadium, and the club also wants to dismantle the historic bandstand in the park and re-erect it on a new site opposite Everton FC's ground in Walton Lane.

A bowling green pavilion will also be moved to a new site.

Joe Kenny, chairman of Anfield Residents Action Committee, said: "We will be objecting to the plans again at the planning committee and raising a number of new issues. If that fails, then we will take it to the next level, which means taking out an injunction against the council.

"Our lawyers tell us the council has acted against the local and national planning guidelines."

A spokesman for Liverpool City Council said: "Liverpool Football Club has resubmitted its planning application for a new stadium to ensure it meets all the changes in planning law over the last two years."

[ivor_the_injun]

Oh dear. It all sounds like a bit of a shambles.

An idea I had the other day for you...

How about we propose, for the first season in the new stadium, that we get permission to show all of our matches live on big screens at Anfield as well, at something like a fiver a head. That way, with two screens, back to back in the middle of the park, we'd almost certainly pack out both sides of the ground every week.

[The Manhattan Project]

The new stadium MUST hold a minimum of 60K otherwise there's no point in building it. The stadium must also be capable of expansion to add more capacity to it if deemed necessary. I'm confident that we have more supporters than Manchester United and we can fill a larger stadium. In terms of construction, maybe they should hire the same company who built Ashburton Grove, since they have done a great job on that.

[SouthCoastShankly]

I think this news of it being re-assessed is a direct cause of our lack of funding. If we had the money we would of been building the stadium by now.

The board have to work hard this summer to secure some investment or the deal will fall through completely

[tommycockles]

I was just reading over the interview with RP on the offical site and here's what he had to say about the choice of 60,000 capacity:

Some people will ask: Why 60,000 seats? Why not 70,000 seats?
 
Going back to the very early days, we were thinking about 70,000 seats but what we had to look at was the economics and how we could make that work. Our starting point in terms of any new stadium was that it has to pay for itself and it has to be able to generate more funding. Had we gone ahead with a 70,000 stadium, the ground itself would cost something like #130m to build which you would then have to look at the transport implications of bringing another 10,000 fans into the area. Coming back down to 60,000 is not something that I'd call a compromise because we're proud of what we've achieved. But it does enable us to increase capacity significantly whilst still being a sound business case. OK, it's not as big as Old Trafford but that was never our starting point. Our starting point was what works for us and what's right for us. Nobody knows what the demand will be for tickets in 10 years or 20 years time but we think what we're doing is right. We've gone back and looked at trends in terms of attendances over the decades at Anfield and we think 60,000 will be big enough for this club. There is no historic case really that says there is an absolute justification for building a 70,000-seater stadium. If you look back through the 60s and 70s and track our attendances, they were never at the level of 70,000 every other week. If we achieve success on the pitch, we'll fill it. If we don't, we won't. Having said that, it's never been part of our philosophy to plan for mediocrity. If you plan for mediocrity, you'll achieve it.

I don't want to criticise as i know he has the best thoughts of the club in mind, but isn't settling for 60,000 planning for mediocrity compared to the other leading clubs grounds! Surely increasing the capacity again will cost evenmore money!!

Either way- at least 60,000 is a big improvement on what we currently have!!

[2520years]

Old Trafford has grown bit by bit over the years.  Personally, I'd be very happy with 60,000 (it gives me 50% more chance of getting a ticket) as long as expansion was built into the design.  One of the problems with Anfield, and many other grounds, is that there is no room for growth.  I've also noticed that many of the European grounds can hold 60-70,000 but they're rarely full.  Juventus were playing in the Champions League Quarter-Final last night and are top of Serie A, but they still didn't fill their stadium.

[48-1119859832]

That's the problem, what's the point in building a huge stadium and only perhaps filling it out on European nights? What about league matches? I think we need a new stadium but I think we should just leave it at 60,000 and if in say a decades time the stadium fills up each week and there is still more demand for tickets ans seats to watch the games then considered expanding it by a few thousand seats.

[SouthCoastShankly]

That's the problem, what's the point in building a huge stadium and only perhaps filling it out on European nights? What about league matches? I think we need a new stadium but I think we should just leave it at 60,000 and if in say a decades time the stadium fills up each week and there is still more demand for tickets ans seats to watch the games then considered expanding it by a few thousand seats.

What makes you think we're not going to fill it?

Why do you think Liverpool have a priority ticketing system? Because demand exceeds supply. If Manure can fill 60000 seats then we can if not more. In my opinion they should make it as bigger rather than smaller. Extending at a later date will cost substantially more than if they were incorporated at the design stage.

[tommycockles]

That's the problem, what's the point in building a huge stadium and only perhaps filling it out on European nights? What about league matches? I think we need a new stadium but I think we should just leave it at 60,000 and if in say a decades time the stadium fills up each week and there is still more demand for tickets ans seats to watch the games then considered expanding it by a few thousand seats.

What makes you think we're not going to fill it?

Why do you think Liverpool have a priority ticketing system? Because demand exceeds supply. If Manure can fill 60000 seats then we can if not more. In my opinion they should make it as bigger rather than smaller. Extending at a later date will cost substantially more than if they were incorporated at the design stage.

i agree- at the moment the demand far exceeds the supply- and this is just from the people that bother trying to get tickets. There are many others (like me) who give up trying to get tickets for most games as i know there's no chance of me getting any! Once the capacity is increased there will be far more people pushing to get tickets week in, week out as there's less chance of disappointment!

[2520years]

I reckon it's down to cash flow.  Once we're selling 60k tickets every fortnight the revenue will allow us to 'extend'.  I can never work out why these stadia cost so much (lawyers getting rich probably) but I'm not sure we can afford to build a 70k stadium just yet.