Matt Ladson

Editor

New Anfield: The case for redevelopment

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!

Which would you prefer?
  • Redevelop Anfield (72%, 17,399 Votes)
  • Build new stadium (28%, 6,838 Votes)

Total Voters: 24,224

Loading ... Loading ...

Share with your friends









Submit
The following two tabs change content below.
Co-founder of This Is Anfield. Writer for Bleacher Report and Metro newspaper.
  • Red Robbo

    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+

  • bobby

    this would be awesome!

  • Fred

    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.

  • Kaka_socialwork

    I want new stadium because i want to see lfc could challenges with others top club in EPL.

  • only@anfield

    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…

  • Aiyic

    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.

  • Xabi Alonso – Legend

    I always though 60 000 max was aiming too low….

  • Michaelwilde65

    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.

  • Rock king

    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

  • SHAHROZ KHAN

    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

  • gilly

    Lets get cahllenge Anneka in to knock down the stadium and build another in the close season

  • ARSLAN

    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

  • A.ALI

    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

  • Kevinbradbury

    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

  • http://twitter.com/St1jere Sam Wanjere

    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.

  • http://twitter.com/St1jere Sam Wanjere

    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.

  • ARSLAN.A

    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

  • ARSLAN

    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]

  • ROCKSTAR

    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.

  • ALI

    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.