New Anfield: The case for redevelopment

07.10.2010


Chairman Martin Broughton has confirmed that the potential new owners of the club, NESV, have committed to develop a 60,000 seater stadium for Liverpool FC.


“Where they haven’t finalised their view is whether that should be the new stadium or whether there are still opportunities to build at Anfield itself,” explained Broughton.

“They have done both. The people involved have built the new stadium at Baltimore Orioles, for example, and at Fenway Park they looked at the two options and decided that actually redevelopment with all of the tradition was better than a new stadium.

“They are committed to looking at both very professionally and seeing which is the best option.”

Some reports suggest NESV favour remaining at and redeveloping Anfield.

The situation with Liverpool parallels the situation John Henry and NESV inherited when they purchased the Boston Red Sox in 2002. The Red Sox already had plans in place for a new stadium, just as Liverpool do now, but in 2005 NESV announced that the team would remain at their iconic Fenway Park and the stadium would be modernised.

NESV’s decision was largely influenced by supporter opinion, with several fan groups opposing a move from their historic home. Fenway Park is now the oldest stadium in Major League Baseball.

The difference with Liverpool is that supporters realise the need for a new stadium in order to compete with the likes of Man United and Arsenal financially.

However, various suggestions have been made as to how Liverpool could increase their capacity while remaining at Anfield. The Club looked into these plans exhaustively during the 1990’s and in more recent years have successfully purchased the houses surrounding the current stadium, notably on Anfield Road (now demolished) and behind the Main Stand.

So, what if it were possible to remain at Anfield and raise the capacity to around 60,000 seats?

The current Anfield capacity is 45,000, with The Kop housing 12,390, the Centenary Stand 11,411 and the Anfield Road End holds 9,116 (all redeveloped in the nineties). The Main Stand and Paddock holds 12,277 combined. This is the oldest stand and the obvious place to begin any redevelopment.

Some excellent designs as the SkyScraperCity website proposed adding a third tier to the Centenary Stand, adding approximately 4,200 seats, and redeveloping the Main Stand to add 9,000 seats and bring the overall capacity to around 58,000.

Alternatively, some people have suggested rebuilding the Anfield Road Stand, which has been criticised since it’s opening in 1998, with pillars and an obstructed view from the lower tier. With the purchase of the houses behind the stand, could it be possible to build a larger stand at that end with the stand spanning over Anfield Road itself. This is something that Atletico Madrid’s Vicente Calderon Stadium features so is possible. This could bring the overall potential new capacity to around 62,000.

The main argument with redeveloping Anfield has been the loss of capacity while work is being carried out, and the subsequent financial loss from gate revenue. However, surely if money is being saved by not building a completely new stadium this becomes a non-issue. Obviously the decreased capacity remains an issue though.

However, if work is carried out in a logical manner, there can be limited disruption to the overall capacity. For instance, a third tier can be added to the Centenary Stand without disrupting the capacity. This would add around 4,000 seats. Next the Anfield Road End can begin work over the summer and could even be complete in time for a new season, thus making the overall capacity to well over 40,000 even without the Main Stand, which can begin work over the summer also and be completed during the season. So the overall capacity would never be below 40,000.

Another stumbling block often discussed with this notion is that the maximum capacity would then be stuck at around 60,000 but I see no reason why that is not adequate. Arsenal’s Emirates is the same capacity for instance.

Could it work? I’m no expert on stadium construction but I see no reason why it can’t as all the above ideas have been successfully implemented elsewhere.

I personally would always prefer to remain at Anfield. You cannot recreate the history and heritage the stadium has. Anfield is possibly the most iconic fan stadia in the world, if there were a way to keep that then it must be done.

Something for the new owners, and supporters, to ponder, perhaps?

Of course, it would also mean not sharing a ground with the Bitters!

[poll id=”91″]

Share:

More on This Is Anfield



More LFC news, opinion & videos

Fan Comments

Comments are retrospectively moderated. Some could be subject to delays before publication. They must obey the comment policy. Comments load below.

Please only discuss the article above. General chat can be made on our forums at forums.thisisanfield.com


81 COMMENTS

  1. yes u are right Matt. I would prefer we stay at Anfield and develop the seating capacity. “This is Anfield” is legendary in the club’s history.

  2. This may be controversial, but rather than try and redevelop the ground whilst still playing in it, maybe we can strike a deal with Everton that sees us ground share Goodison for 1 season. This way all the redevelopment can be done quickly, efficiently and safely. Just a thought that surely warrants consideration…

  3. Would much prefer to stay at Anfield…have always wanted that option so was rather happy when these “new owners” proposed that idea…surely it would cost less as well…it would just be strange not watching Liverpool at Anfield!!!!!

  4. Very Could Article, I also prefer Anfield redevelopment rather than new stadium with commercial name on it.

  5. When this was last discused, the mximum capacity was believed to be 55,000.

    I sit in the main stand and the facilities are extremely poor as all the space is taken up by offices and hospitality.

    Final point is that an initial 60,000 could be further inceased at a later date, as is the position at Arsenal.

  6. the difference is though that arsenal are in london so theyre prices will always be the highest in the league meaning we’d need extra seats just to get near the revenue they get. The scum have 18,000 more seats then them and yet have less match day revenue

  7. If they built over Anfield Road then they could extend development into Stanley Park and transfer the proposals that they had for the existing stadium site to the Stanley Park stadium location. As a result there would be no loss in redeveloping the Anfield area and jobs would still be created with outlets, bars hotel etc. still being built

  8. I favourite new development, bigger seats, corporate boxes, better facilities…lets not get left in the dark ages…we need a bigger better stadium with improved facilities…Anfield is crumbling unfortunately

  9. I have been a life long Liverpool fan since 1965, and been to over 3000 games, all over the world.
    Anfield is in need of redevelopment, keep the name, but build a brand new state of the art facility, 250 yards away, with 75,000 seats, and lead liverpool into the super league of world football.
    It could be filled every week, season ticket waiting list would drop, and corporate would bring so much.

    • So, in essence, do what the New York Yankees did with their new stadium?

      It is a good idea, but I will say that even though the Yankees moved the stadium just across the street, you do lose a bit of that “history happened right here” feeling. Although, most Yankee fans aren’t quite as sentimental to history as I am. Good call, though.

    • So, in essence, do what the New York Yankees did with their new stadium?

      It is a good idea, but I will say that even though the Yankees moved the stadium just across the street, you do lose a bit of that “history happened right here” feeling. Although, most Yankee fans aren’t quite as sentimental to history as I am. Good call, though.

    • I to have been watching the reds since the mid sixties and have had great times in Anfield , but your right it,s time to move to a twenty first century stadium with modern seats better facilities for the players and revenue generating corporate suites.The latest stadium design also keeps the Anfield style but on a much larger scale. This will allow people like myself to get a season ticket as I have been on the list for 15years.

  10. I agree with all you said Matt and i would love to stay at anfield if the reconstruction is viable if you listen to arsenal fans they will tell their ground is fantastic but has no atmosphere like highbury and i think that could be the case if we have to build a new ground . One thing i would like to see happen if we stay is the extra seats be pay at the gate seats for the local fans that cant afford to pay out for season tickets there are lots of local lfc fans that cant get to see games because of this reason I no we are a international club and fans around the world want to come to anfield but i believe we are loosing are identity as scousers thats is why the atmosphere is not what it used to be in the 60.70.80s

  11. I also would like them to redevelopment anfiels and like someone else said develop stanley park into shops, bars, hotels which would benefit traveling fans and would fetch in more revenue for the club and be good for the area i think.
    what ever happens the stadium should still be called Anfield tho

  12. Redeveloping Anfield is a must! I have always favoured that option. It really would be a shame to leave such a rich history behind us.

  13. Anfield is as important as the Liverbird is on our crest.

    its part of what makes this the greatest club in the world

  14. JFT96 anfield is the home of the mighty red lets keep it that way redevelop anfield 2 much history 2 move YNWA.

  15. I would love us to stay at Anfield but I do want it to rival scumchester’s old trafford capacity. What ever happens new stadium or redevelopment I do hope Anfield doesn’t have a corporate name to it i.e. Emirates or anything like that, it would cold and take some of the heart if not all out of our beloved Anfield

  16. Redeveloped Anfield would get my vote. 58000 seats is easily enough. We would struggle to fill a 60000 seater week in week out and we would have no chance filling 75000, no chance.

    What I would be worried about is ticket prices, I may be wrong here but I heard something on 5 live last night saying the new owners would like to keep capacity relatively low, like Fenway park, which makes tickets harder to get, which puts up demand, which drives up the prrice!

  17. Im all for redeveloping Anfield, like you said, how can you recreate Anfields atmosphere in a new stadium, besides 58-60,000 capacity is a good size stadium and far more than we already have. Anfield has a reputation in football for having one of, in my opinion the greatest atmospshere’s in world football, in moving to a new stadium i feel we may lose that!

  18. [email protected]

    will manchester city agree to have it with manchester united? will the london clubs agree and co-share the stadiums where there are rich historys behind individual clubs at each individual stadiums? Isn’t it because of differences in football styles and traditions that liverpool became what is liverpool of today? which led liverpool started its own club apart from everton? will shankly agree if he was around? what is famous about liverpool, is ANFIELD. History will be all forgotten once moved to a new stadium. Rebuilding Anfield keeps liverpool fc’s history. That is why people all over the world would love Liverpool and would visit Anfield for its rich football history. would people want to go to stanley park? people who vote for the change doesnt appreciate history.

  19. if we goin to be bigger an better than every one wear we should be then we need a groud bigger than man utd an every one els in the prem with a would class ground that has room to grow we could do this dont get me wrong my heart is sayin stay at anfeild but even if we could get all 3 stands redeveloped the KOP would still be the same just think how much better the ground could be if we could get MORE seats (1000-5000) more fans to sing Y.N.W.A. to put fear in to any other team an fan comin to play us an that is sumthing a new ground could get us IF WE OWN IT OUT RIGHT an have no bitter bluse in are new ground

  20. Im sure that when all the dust settles and everything returns to normal (Hopefully New owners in place). They will take their time and evaluate all possibilities for this historic club. These people certainly seem to take all views on board,They took their time when they purchased the Red Sox and eventually redeveloped their historic stadium after a lot of consultation and views of the fans. What would I prefer well ! A new stadium would be fantastic if its designed right but I have a soft spot for our current home. This is where the passion started and we have sacrificed endless teams who have visited. Its like the Coloseum in Rome steeped in rich history and tradition. The issue the new owners will face is could they replicate this in a new build.I don’t think so.I think we may just have to wait and see.

  21. I am okay with both options, however what if we need more capacity 10 years down the line? we should think about this

  22. I favour redevelopment, but it’s gotta be a significant renovation, not just add seats. I don’t know what Anfield is lacking compared to modern stadium, but whatever it lacks, let’s have it. Corporate box? fans probably don’t like them but they generate lots of income. Let’s have it. Better seat? why not, have it. Better/bigger locker room? Better amenity? Let’s have it all. If we are gonna spend money, we gotta do it right. From what I read about Red Sox’s fenway park, this is exactly what happen. A remodeling that exceed fan’s expectation. Even if we have to share ground with everton for a year, it could be worth it.

  23. I favour redevelopment, but it’s gotta be a significant renovation, not just add seats. I don’t know what Anfield is lacking compared to modern stadium, but whatever it lacks, let’s have it. Corporate box? fans probably don’t like them but they generate lots of income. Let’s have it. Better seat? why not, have it. Better/bigger locker room? Better amenity? Let’s have it all. If we are gonna spend money, we gotta do it right. From what I read about Red Sox’s fenway park, this is exactly what happen. A remodeling that exceed fan’s expectation. Even if we have to share ground with everton for a year, it could be worth it.

  24. I waited 30 ++ years to get to visit ANFIELD since the 70s Finally sat in the kop for game against Benfica. Atmosphere out of this world did tour next day the ANFIELD sign made me cry. Shanks was right THIS IS ANFIELD puts fear in opponents hearts. Keep the history this is what its all about ANFIELD

  25. Rather sort out on the pitch improvement first.

    You know you’re never gonna survive unless you get a little bit crazy

  26. Yes, I always thought re-devlopment was a better idea if it was feasible. 60,000 is enough if we re-develop Anfield because it’s a cathedral of world football and you couldn’t buy the history the ground holds.

    However, if we do move to a new stadium I agree it should be no less than 75,000. Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan and Manure all have stadiums of that capacity or more. That is what Liverpool Football Club should have too, unless we stay at Anfield and can’t make it that big.

  27. I am no expert, but if Man U can upgrade a stadium built in 1902 to one of the best in Europe, why can’t we do the same with Anfield?
    I like the idea of getting the job done quickly by groundsharing with Everton while the work is completed, it would not be a permanent thing, just a marriage of convenience!

  28. corporate revenue on matchday is where liverpool is hugely lacking compared to other teams, in particular chelsea who have a similar capacity at stamford bridge but much higher corporate seats. the problem with redeveloping anfield is fixing this issue

  29. Sounds great to stay at Anfield, but the reality is that we WILL need a new stadium sooner or later if we “modernize” Anfield anyway. Presently, modern stadiums derive a large part of their revenue from corporate/luxury boxes. You can’t just increase seats. It will defnitely help, but that alone won’t close the gap much with the top matchday revenue earning teams.

  30. i think the new owners should invest in the team first then redevolp anfield otherwise we may not need a bigger ground if we stay in the bottom 3 and stagnate with torres going posibly and b munich after reina doesnt bare thinking about i can live without torres but not pepe and stevie g carragher past his best no real replacement for hyppia yet or wingers redevolp and make anfils road end bigger and the old stand two tier and maybee the kop aswell save a little money no ground share with everton either

  31. i think the new owners should invest in the team first then redevolp anfield otherwise we may not need a bigger ground if we stay in the bottom 3 and stagnate with torres going posibly and b munich after reina doesnt bare thinking about i can live without torres but not pepe and stevie g carragher past his best no real replacement for hyppia yet or wingers redevolp and make anfils road end bigger and the old stand two tier and maybee the kop aswell save a little money no ground share with everton either

  32. I have to agree with th corporate boxes argument. In our company our ceo has a season ticket box at Chelsea and apparently some of them go for around £200,000. Compare that to a normal season ticket which at Stamford Bridge goes for around £1,000. The new stadium will generate so uch from corporate/ luxury tickets.

  33. One thing not mentioned is that when the new Kop was built it was designed in such a way that you could either add another tier or build out the sides.
    For those kopites you will know what I’m talking about as each side of the Kop narrows the further back, this was build this way because of the capaicity restaints by planning department at the time (this capacity rulling has since gone away).

  34. Plans & Planning permissions were both done in the 90’s to expand & get round the problem with loss of capacity. The idea was to demolish four streets behind the Main & Centenary stands. Two new stands modelled on the Centenary would be built on these sites. When completed the existing Main & Centenary stands would be demolished and the pitch turned so the “new” stands would be behind each goal. The Anfield road & Kop would be extended along the sides of the pitch with options to add the upper tier to the Anfield Rd and potentially at least an upper tier in the Kop giving a total capacity of 60,000+

  35. i would love to stay at anfield, however i fear in 20 years we will want more than 60,000 seats, and will want to re-develop again and so on…

    build for the future now with a 75,000 seat stadium.

  36. [email protected]

    The people in Liverpool wanna destroy the very place that once Bill Shankly said : “The very word Anfield means more to me than I can describe” . So sad…

  37. I’d favour a new stadium. The kop fans of the future generations are who we should think of – not just us, right right now. Our history has been our greatest crutch that has stifled progress. Anfield’s memories are a state of mind, a state of mind that can be changed.

    The Shankly Gates can be removed and re-erected, as well as Shanks statue. If we’re going to move with the times in other areas such as tactics, training and fitness, why hold back on a new stadium if it’s feasible?

    If we stay now, what will happen to Stanley Park in twenty years time? They might say that we should have moved when the time was right twenty years ago.

  38. Anfield is the home of Liverpool FC no question. In the late 70s they were looking to buy properties from local residents,to redevelope, at that time there was no chance. If you look at the area now its a shadow of its former proud self. Surely Anfield is the only place for Liverpool FC with its massive history with THE KOP and the Shankley gates not to mention the Hilsborough memorial.These cannot be replaced.

  39. redevelop anfield this is a great idea of keeping your history,identity,& atmosphere while expanding the capacity plz redevelop anfield you cant buy history or pride with money.stanley park should be used for shops,hotels,bars etc as it fetches plenty of revenue & gives fans great facilities.new owenrs nesv are great sport thinkers they should do what they did at red sox redevelop anfield when man.u can redevelop their stadia into one of europes best why cant liverpool? when we can retain our name & everything while having a 60,000 all seater why we should not do it?i pledge to all lfc true fans support redevelopment of Anfield & demand that from nesv

  40. PLZ REDEVELOP ANFIELD I TOTALY AGREES WITH ROCK KING.NESV PLZ ANNOUCE IT SOONER THEN LATER THAT ANFIELD WILL BE REDEVELOPED & THANK GOD HICKS+GILLETT ARE GONE THEY WERE THINKING OF DEMOLISHING ANFIELD WHAT A MONEY HUNGARY IDIOTS.NESV KNOWS THAT ANFIELD IS AS IMPORTANT AS LIVERBIRD ON OUR CREST

  41. REDEVELOP ANFIELD WHEN WE WILL HAVE A 60,000 CAPACITY SATDIUM WHILE STAYING AT ANFIELD WITH PRIDE,HISTORY THEN WHY WAIST 300 MILLION ON BUILDING NEW STADIA WITH LOSING OUR IDENTITY NAME AND 3 YEARS OF TIME I ASK THIS QUESTION FROM THOSE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT BUILDING NEW STADIA ARE THEY
    IDIOTS LEAVING ANFIELD AND GOING IN A SAME CAPACITY STADIA ?THIS IS ANFIELD COME ON REDEVELOP IT.YOU’ILL NEVER WALK ALONE

  42. I THINK ANFIELD SHOULD BE REDEVELOPED BECAZ IF WE CAN HAVE 60,000 CAPACITY AT ANFIELD WHY WE LEAVE IT AND WAIST 300 MILLION AND LOSE OUR IDENTITY HISTORT IF NEW STADIUM IS GOING TO BE BUILD THEN IT SHOULD BE 75,000 CAPACITY NOT 60,000 SEATER.I HOPE NESV SHOULD BE NEW OWNERS BECAZ THEY HAVE THINKED A GREAT IDEA OF REDEVELOPMENT RATHER THEN NEW STADIA FANS SHOULD SUPPORT THEM AND STOP THE CORRUPT CUONCIL FROM BLOCKING REDEVELOPMENT.ANFIEL FOR LIFE. LONG LIVE LIVERPOOL

  43. i say stay i,m a steward at the ground i love it if we go its all gone the history the heart and soul. kevin

  44. One thing about Anfield, we vacate it and lose our soul. We stay as is and lose out on the income game. A seemingly no win situation. Stadium redevelopment is the middle way, and arguably the best. Looking at our pros, we retain our essence, we don’t move from where we’ve been since 1884, but just modernize – and we need a lot of that. We also retain touch with that local community that’s an integral part of making us Shankly’s true people’s club.New and upgraded facilities is one of the surest indicators of ambition and change in attitude. I would compare our situation with that of Arsenal. Fine, they do have a bigger stadium in the Em but where is that atmosphere of Highbury? I think moving up should never mean leaving the core constituents behind. It should more resemble growing old together. Isn’t that what one of the club’s chief pillars are?Capacity aside (numbers), we still have one of the best turfs, all year round, around. We should only leave if we reach the ceiling that upgrade offers. This to me remains the best option for a ground that’s more historic than even Goodison Park.

  45. One thing about Anfield, we vacate it and lose our soul. We stay as is and lose out on the income game. A seemingly no win situation. Stadium redevelopment is the middle way, and arguably the best. Looking at our pros, we retain our essence, we don’t move from where we’ve been since 1884, but just modernize – and we need a lot of that. We also retain touch with that local community that’s an integral part of making us Shankly’s true people’s club.New and upgraded facilities is one of the surest indicators of ambition and change in attitude. I would compare our situation with that of Arsenal. Fine, they do have a bigger stadium in the Em but where is that atmosphere of Highbury? I think moving up should never mean leaving the core constituents behind. It should more resemble growing old together. Isn’t that what one of the club’s chief pillars are?Capacity aside (numbers), we still have one of the best turfs, all year round, around. We should only leave if we reach the ceiling that upgrade offers. This to me remains the best option for a ground that’s more historic than even Goodison Park.

  46. NESV SHOULD ASK CITY COUNCIL TO MOVE THE EXISTING PLANS FOR ANFIELD SITE WHICH IS ANFIELD PLAZA CONTAINING SHOPS,HOTEL,RESTAURANTS,OFFICES & ETC TO STANLEY PARK.AND REDEVELOP ANFIELD BECAZ WHAT EVER YOU DO YOU CANT BUY OR RE-CREATE YOUR HISTORY OR PRIDE & NOT AT ALL A CATHEDRAL LIKE ANFIELD.IF WE WILL HAVE A 60,000 CAPACITY STADIA THEN IT SHOULD BE ANFIELD NOT A NEW ZERO ATMOSPHERE & HISTORY STADIUM.NESV SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY TRUE FANS[THE KOPITES] TO PUT PRESURRE ON CITY COUNCIL AND STOP THEM FROM SNATCHING OUR HISTORY.PLZ DO IT BEFORE TIME GETS OUT OF OUR HANDS AND WE SEE ANFIELD BEING DEMOLISHED.COME’ON YOU KOPITES.ONCE YOU ALL START IT AND THEN…………………………. YOU’ILL NEVER WALK ALONE

  47. I ASK 3 IMPORTANT QUESTIONS FROM LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL.THEY ARE SAYING THAT THEY WILL BLOCK NEW OWNERS[NESV] PLANS TO REDEVELOP ANFIELD AND FORCE THEM TO BUILD NEW STADIUM AT STANLEY PARK.MY QUESTION IS THAT WHY LCC ARE DOING IT IF LFC WANTS ANFIELD REDEVELOPMENT THEN THEY CAN BUILD ANFIELD PLAZA BUILDING ON STANLEY PARK INSTEAD OF DEMOLISHING FOOTBALL CATHEDRAL[ANFIELD] AND THEN BUILD THE PLAZA ON THAT SITE.IS ANFIELD IS NOT A PART OF LIVERPOOL CITY CULTURE?OR IS IT NOT THERE HISTORY PRIDE?I MEAN ANFIELD IS BIGGEST AGRICULTURE,HISTORIC,PRESTIGES,HERITAGE & A CATHEDRAL OF NOT JUST LIVERPOOL FC BUT OF LIVERPOOL CITY AND ENGLAND.WHY DEMOLISH A FOOTBALL CATHEDRAL?PLAZA AND BUILDING ARE EVERY WERE BUT ANFIELD IS ONE.AND PLAZA CAN BE BUILT ON STANLEY PARK BUT WE CANT BUY OR RE-CREATE A FOOTBALL CATHEDRAL 118 YEARS OF HISTORY,GLORY,PRIDE.WE GOT RID OF HICKS+GILLETT NOW FIGHT AGAINST [LCC] AND REDEVELOP ANFIELD INTO THE BEST EUROPE HAS TO OFFER WITH AROUND 60.000 CAPACITY AND HISTORY.WOW.FANS SHOULD FIGHT AND SUPPORT [NESV] IN REDEVELOPMENT AGAINST [LCC]

  48. ANFIELD IS AS IMPORTANT AS LIVER BIRD ON OUR CREST.IMAGINE IF LIVER BIRD IS TAKEN OF FROM OUR CREST HOW OUR CREST IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE?AND WE WILL SAVE MONEY WITH REDEVELOPMENT RATHER THEN NEW STADIUM BECAZ NEW STADIUM REQUIRES 400 MILLION WHICH IS AN ESTIMATED COST AND REDEVELOPMENT WOULD COST HALF OF THAT AND WE WILL HAVE 60,000 SEATS AT OUR BELOVED ANFIELD.AND WE WILL GAIN REVENUE FOR REDEVELOPMENT.STRIKE 1 YEAR DEAL WITH EVERTON FOR GROUND SHARE OR PLAY ELSEWARE AND LET ANFIELD BE RENOVATED SAFELY.AND WORKERS WILL ALSO HAVE TIME TO DO THERE BEST AND A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT NOT A MINOR ONE.A BEST AND MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT.

  49. the people who think that just buying players is success formula then they are wrong lfc has the best squad all they need is that atmosphere should be good and managers plans should be right.as carragher retires we need a right center-back we have agger a great left CB.that is the nescessary investment not buying too many players as it effects team chemistry.as now there was uncertaincy and negativety around liverpool.hodgson should play gerrard behind torres instead of joe cole and play cole at is orignal left midfield place.gerrard and torres had so much success as pair and in 2008 and 2009 season and till end of 2009/2010 season they were great upfront then benitez made mistke that cost him his job of playing gerrard in deep midfield and now roy is doing a mistake of playing gerrard in midfield instead of behind torres now gerrard was settled at that position and had great chemistry with torres and cole was settled at his orignal LEFT-MIDFIELD great performances for chelsea and england were at LM.

  50. I’m in favour of re-developing Anfield. Especially since money will still be tight, even with new owners. We’re not Man City or Chelsea.

    Clever redevelopment could see us extend the useful life of a stadium steeped in tradition for maybe another 10 years. By this time, given that LFC is a proffitable business, despite the mess we were left in by G&H, we should have enough to fund a huge new stadium in Stanley Park.

    The only problem is whether or not people living in the streets around the stadium would be affected. We need to remember that it’s pretty built up around there. Would they need to take out compulsory purchase orders on some of the houses?

  51. I’m 37 and a lifelong red who has experienced Anfield from all 4 sides of the ground. Standing on the kop for European nights, sat in the paddock with me old man when we lost 0-2 to Arsenal in 89, main stand for 4-0 against mancs when Beardsley scored 3, Annie Rd end with Derby fans when the King last pulled on red jersey…. the list goes on and on and on, everyone has their own memories of this great place.
    Its time to move on though. We need a new state of the art 70,000 stadium not re-named Anfield (there will only ever be one). Stanley Park Stadium with a HUGE Kop End, a statue of Shanks, Shankly gates, Paisley Gateway, obviously the flame and memorial to the 96 and also a memorial to the 39 of Heysal.
    Thats my view

  52. I am not sure what we should do. however i do not believe it will be ok to just get 60,000 capacity and be “equal” with arsenal. surely we want to overtake them. this calls for a much bigger redevelopment than most of you here are considering increasing the capacity to 70-80,000 is whats needed. if we upgrade our stadium to 60,000 arsenal will just improve their and we will be behind again. if we go ahead they ahve to catch up which is always much better.to do this i believe every part of the stadium can be redeveloped. I include the KOP in this idea and believe it to be an awesome sight to opposition. make the KOP bigger, to say 20,000, anfield road stand to say 15,000 especially as this has lots of room to expand, centenary stand to 18,000 and main stand also to 20-22,000 since this is the main stand. Also remember for these stands we can also go up especially the low already main stand, we can make as tall as the KOP and also the same with the centenary stand. We could say do centenary stand over the summer, not causing disruptions then do each stand in turn not affecting any capacity since each new stand brings more capacity.

    • I agree with your reasoning and Kop etc., capacities. Much redevelopment can be done by removing the roofs and developing the stands in a wrap-around style then re-installing the roofs as we did with the ‘G (MCG). The Kop should be a separate single tier structure with a capacity 20,000 and developed last. The old REAL Kop was smaller but held nearly 30,000. See my previous two comments. WE CANNOT FORGET OUR HERITAGE AS IT IS WHAT MAKES US WHAT WE ARE. But saying that, we need to not always dwell on the past but use it as a basis to build for the future. Although I have lived most of my in Australia, the memories of the boys’ pen and standing on the most famous world’s most famous terracing are vivid.

  53. I am in Favour of building a new 70 000 seater in stanley park and keeping anfield for the reserve and youth teams

  54. I am in Favour of building a new 70 000 seater in stanley park and keeping anfield for the reserve and youth teams

  55. in terms of commercialism if it could be caled addidas anfield park or something i’d be happy with the cash for players

  56. It sound good but in 20 or 30 years tyime id like to be watching us play in a 80,000 seater. To do that we would have to build a brand new 60,000 seater to start with. I love Anfield but we have to move.

  57. It sound good but in 20 or 30 years tyime id like to be watching us play in a 80,000 seater. To do that we would have to build a brand new 60,000 seater to start with. I love Anfield but we have to move.

  58. I would love LFC to stay at Anfield but only if there was a future to increase the capacity to 80 – 100,000.

    Old trafford is currently 76,000 and they’ll probably add to that. The Camp Nou is 99,000. I think we should be competing with them. Surely there should be an aim to rival the rest in europe?

  59. G’day from Downunder. Increase the Kop to 20,000 (single tier). Triple tier Main, Kemlyn and Anfield Road and make wrap around. In Melbourne we re-built the ‘G (MCG) whilst still being used and Anfield would fit within the playing surface (180 metres x 160 metres). Google and see how big it is. Forget about sharing a ground (unless it’s Tranmere or Guiness Exports) Surely, that should increase the capacity to 65-70,000. Start with the Kop by taking off the roof.

  60. G’day from downunder again. Just a further comment. When I came back to Liverpool for a holiday in 1996 after 30 years in Aussie and saw the new stadium. I thought someone had dropped their meccano set on the ground and the box had bust open, It looks like it was designed by someone whose knuckles dragged along the ground and what are those things in the corrners about. Surely, they’re not coroprate boxes.

  61. G’day from downunder again. Just a further comment. When I came back to Liverpool for a holiday in 1996 after 30 years in Aussie and saw the new stadium. I thought someone had dropped their meccano set on the ground and the box had bust open, It looks like it was designed by someone whose knuckles dragged along the ground and what are those things in the corrners about. Surely, they’re not coroprate boxes.

  62. theres nothing more i would love than to stay and expand are special home anfield but im sorry i can not accept around the 60.000 mark being the limited maximum possible capacity to me its like accepting not ever being able to be the best and as a liverpool fan i will only ever accept the best i and we as l.f.c should never not expect to be the best in all aspects i expect and will not be happy until l.f.c stadium capacity is greater than man ures old trafford holds and every one elses… spirit of shankly lives forever and he will to god bless you bill …

  63. 4 Feb 2011 – John Henry strongy suggesting redevelopment.
    Don’t blame him, it’s their hard earned money; but

    LFC like Man Ure have to compete with wealthy London seat prices, by us having shear capacity
    So a massive capacity, fresh start, stadium with bigger seat pitch/room,
    and tonnes of exec areas, is the only long-term way to compete with
    Man Ure, Barca, Arsenal et seq.

    A compromised old stadium with some ugly extra tiers will just not set us up
    for the rest of the 21st Century. And a meagre say 58,000 … will be second rate.

    Go new, but keep first seats row close to touchline, steep sides, & a mega-Kop.

Leave a Reply