Page 5 of 7
Posted:
Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:32 pmby kop11
iam sure the standuim would be filled!!
if the mancs can fill there place we could fill the new stadia!!
i dont no why people worry about transport concerns!!
i know its hectic at the momment but the whole area of anfeild is beeing ripped out and rebuilt!!
there would be many park and ride facilties- the lot!!
things are on the up!!
Posted:
Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:25 pmby RUSHIE#9
Echo Report
Reading the Echo article it sounds like Gillet and Hicks have rightly come to the conclusion that the original plans are short sighted and that redesigning the ground to allow for future expansion is prudent. We may see the capacity raised from the current 61,000 planned but I just don't see 80,000 being a realistic target if we;
a) want to stay in Anfield and build in the current proposed site.
b) want the place open before 2010.
The infrastructure around the area would need massive improvements to handle 80,000 people and I think to get all of this in place would delay the project too much.
Posted:
Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:59 amby The Manhattan Project
It'd be nice if they could come up with a design that didn't require those ugly supporting "masts".
Posted:
Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:14 amby Dalglish
Talk of increasing the capacity to 80,000 is just that at present ....talk.
Its a difficult one to answer adequately IMO.
I still remember the early to late 90's when it wasn't uncommon to see Anfield with a lot of empty seats and I'm not sure that fans would fill a 80K stadium if we suddenly hit a bad patch.
61K on the other hand sounds a touch on the low side so maybe a 70K capacity would be a practical compromise ?
Most Premiership clubs sell out when Utd, Chelsea or we are in town but it's been noticeable this season just how many clubs have struggled to fill their respective grounds....... I wouldn't want to see that replicated at Anfield.
Posted:
Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:04 amby The Manhattan Project
Maybe Hicks and Gillett could use this for inspiration:
Dallas
Posted:
Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:24 amby puroresu
The best idea for me is a 65000 seater with the option to expand when need be.
Posted:
Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:58 amby Ace Ventura
The Manhattan Project wrote:Maybe Hicks and Gillett could use this for inspiration:
Dallas
That stadium is f'ckin brilliant, and the stands are pretty close to the pitch, which is a priority.
Posted:
Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:43 pmby tommycockles
The Manhattan Project wrote:Maybe Hicks and Gillett could use this for inspiration:
Dallas
well apparently they're consulting the company the designed and are building this stadium so hopefuly we'll get something which looks better than the current plans.
I think building a stadium for 65,000 and then expanding it gradually later is a great idea and i for one would help keep it full as much as possible!
Posted:
Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:22 amby azriahmad
A marvel of design and enginering by the looks of it and surely cost a lot to build.
Can we consistently fill 80,000, week in week out?
Posted:
Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:51 amby RUSHIE#9
I honestly think that 70k should be the maximum limit on the capacity of the new stadium for the time being. I honestly think that 80k as great as that could be may just end up being a bit too much. I remember a few years back watching the barcodes play in the Nou Camp and the crowd that night was something like 45/50K and yet the place still looked like there was about 10k in. It didn't look good for either team and the same could deffo happen to us when we're playing somebody like MK DONS or SWINDON on a cold November night in the League Cup.
I think the whole point of this review is going to be more a case of adjusting the stadium design to allow for future expansion more than building it bigger from scratch. i.e. getting rid of those bloody stupid masts at each corner.
Posted:
Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:07 amby The Manhattan Project
Posted:
Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:00 amby dward
Posted:
Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:14 amby 112-1077774096
how cool would it be to have a removable roof
Posted:
Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:18 amby Sabre
Talk of increasing the capacity to 80,000 is just that at present ....talk.
Its a difficult one to answer adequately IMO.
I still remember the early to late 90's when it wasn't uncommon to see Anfield with a lot of empty seats and I'm not sure that fans would fill a 80K stadium if we suddenly hit a bad patch.
61K on the other hand sounds a touch on the low side so maybe a 70K capacity would be a practical compromise ?
Most Premiership clubs sell out when Utd, Chelsea or we are in town but it's been noticeable this season just how many clubs have struggled to fill their respective grounds....... I wouldn't want to see that replicated at Anfield.
According to the 2001 data I have, Liverpool has 439.473 population.
Despite being the best crowd in the world, and the most loyal, it's obvious that a bad patch in results makes some empty seats appear, as you point out. In lesser extent that other clubs, but it has to be taken in consideration.
For a city of that size, a 80K stadium would be exceptionally big, but then with your loyalty you never know what would happen, I cannot make direct comparisons with Spain in this case.
But a big city like Barcelona (1.605.602) has a 98K stadium, and Madrid (3.000.000) has a 80K stadium. Both clubs have to see a lot of empty seats in many games. I know that Scouser loyalty is proven, but if you put into the equation the size of the city, I do think that 80K would be too big.
60K wouldn't bee too much whatsoever. Bilbao, a slightly larger city is going to make one of 60K. I think the 65-70K would be more than ok for LFC.
Posted:
Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:38 amby 112-1077774096
liverpool has that population mate, but that doesnt take into account sefton, knowsley and wirral, which most people class as liverpool, this raises the population even higher