Liverpool FC Forum

by **Poolinc.** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:17 pm

I think it should be 80,000 seater, but they'll probably balls it up and design it as 60,000 with provision for another 20,000 seats, if needed down the line!! Those extra 20,000 seats will then cost a fortune to add...
so I say, put them in now,
"If you build it, they will come!!"

And I presume we can call the new stadium anything we like so why not call it "Anfield"? Not "New Anfield", just "Anfield!"

by **ivor_the_injun** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:31 pm

I must admit I was disappointed when I heard that they were only talking about 60,000. It's ridiculously unambitious. In 15 years time, Man U and Arsenal will probably up their capacity still further, but it just seems that we're going to be permanently playing catch up in this regard.

We would comfortably fill an 80,000 every single week. And in the unlikely event that seats are unsold, what better way to get young kids off the streets than to offer them cheap tickets on match day? Or freebies to schools, for that matter? If a kid comes in for free and buys a drink and a programme, I'm sure the club will still come out of it with a decent profit.

If we're going to get serious investment in, they'd be stupid if they didn't review the plans and start further up the ladder. It's big money we're talking about, but if it doesn't get spent, the rewards will be so much smaller further down the line.

by **Red @ Heart** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:32 pm

Field of Dreams good movie.

Im guessing that Anfield at the mo is not expandable right? which is why they are going to build a new one. like some one above posted if the new stadium is built so that later on it can be built on, why? of course that would cost sh1t loads more than it would cost to build a stadium which has 80,000 seats. and if they did decide to build a stadium that holds 60.000, and then in the future decided to up the gate to 80.000 we would not only lose money buy expanding the stadium but think of the money they could lose by shutting one of the sides of the stadium down you could lose over 10.000 fans per game for a whole season. and im guesing thats a lot of money,. :down:

i racked my brain trying to type that up :down:

my head hurts :kungfu:

by **ivor_the_injun** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:46 pm

Very good point Red @ Heart.

Remember when Arsenal shut an entire end at some point in the 90s? Highbury's capacity at the time was around 30000, but all season long they had an entire stand out of commission. The hit they must have taken financially not only on rebuilding a stand but also on all the missed ticket sales must have been absolutely phenomenal.

Now translate that to a stadium double the size. If you have to close stands in a 60,000 stadium to increase capacity, you will miss those ticket sales badly.

Based on £30 a ticket, that's £450,000 lost per game.

Over a season, you're missing out on £17.1million of ticket sales in the league alone. Factor in Cup and European ties and you're well over 20 mill.

I'd love to see the difference in cost in building an 80,000 compared to a 60,000. I'd be surprised if it's more than £35.2m. That's how much you'd LOSE over two seasons by upgrading the capacity later.

by **Danny165** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:29 pm

They should make the biggest stadium in the country

by **Poolinc.** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:18 pm

Danny165 wrote:They should make the biggest stadium in the country

You're right! They should! We are Liverpool FC and will fill 80,000 every week no problem!!

by **RUSHIE#9** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:08 pm

The new arsenal stadium is only going to have a capacity of 60,000 seats and NOT 70,000. The plans for our new stadium being only 60,000 seat capacity was decided upon because at the time the descision was made to start the process of building a new ground the ITV Sport Channel going tits up brought about a very unstable period in football when the possibility of the bottom falling out of the football business was real. The original plan was for 55,000 seats but once the plans were finally drawn up the capacity was increased to 60,000 seats. I think the plans are now at such an advanced stage that to increase the proposed capacity would mean the club would have to go right back the begining of the planning process and have to re-acquire planning permission from the council again and with the increased capacity it would more than likely be called in for an inquiry by the government thus delaying the project even further.

Judge Posted on Mar. 29 2006,07:45

we could drop the pitch at anfield to create more seating, just like barca have done

Judge, this I believe just wouldn't be physically never mind financially possible for a couple of reasons.
1. The main reason this couldn't be done is the fact that the current stands are already so close to the pitch that to take them down like Barcelona did would mean that there just wouldn't be any room left for the pitch if the added anymore than two rows of seats and lets face it that just wouldn't be worth it.

2. The cost. It wouldn't cost as much as the new stadium would but it probably wouldn't be financially viable for the extra 1,000 seats at maximum that it'd probably create.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:40 am

According to my sources inside Anfield, this is the man we are talking to, in regards to future investment:

Vladimir Cossack started his crimi...erm....business activities in Moscow in 1992. He received help in these activities from his friend Josef Delenkov, best pimp in all of mother Russia. After his pivotal role in the overthrow of Communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1992-1995 Cossack founded six companies across the Siberia plains concentrating on uranium extraction.

Of course, these facilities did not conform to environmental codes of conduct, but hey, trees look nice when they glow green. The opening of these plants created nearly three hundred jobs in the barren region. Unfortunately, the opening of these plants also required the displacement of three thousand Roma gypsies who promptly starved in the cold Russian forests after losing their villages and livelihoods.

His alleged criminal activities during this period were noticed by law enforcement. In the Summer of 1992, the chief prosecutor of Moscow approved Cossack's arrest for violating article A84890-2 of the Russian criminal code which states that all workers at Cossack's industrial facilities must by law wear hard hats. The case was dismissed before reaching the Russian Supreme Court, following the delivery of several brown envelopes to the Supreme Court Justices.

Cossack obtained the majority of his wealth by cheaply acquiring shares of privatized state companies in the mid 90s with the help of Boris Yeltsin. Of course, the fact that under Communist theory, the natural resources of the nation must by definition be shared equally among the population, was quietly forgotten. He became the majority shareholder in a large oil company based on the shore of the Caspian Sea. Granted, given the currents and tides of the Caspian, most of the harmful industrial waste ends up flowing into Estonia, but heck that's just business. Cossack is also a major shareholder in the world's third-largest aluminium producer, as well as various other companies spread around the South American continent, where Cossack has personally funded the military coups of several governments unfavourable to his business practices in their country.

When asked about what attracted him to invest in Premiership club Liverpool, Cossack said "Hey, I loves the Liverpools, de are mine favourite teams. I vonz saw vem perform at da Cavern Club when I stayed in Englands az a student. Paul was my favourite. I liked John until he married the Japanese bitch".

Liverpool FC Forum

New ground - Maybe i'm missing something?

Who is online