Liverpool to Redevelop Anfield

BaZ87

BaZ87

BaZ87

Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
47,155
The worst kept secret in football has finally been confirmed this morning - Liverpool have confirmed that they're planning to stay at and redevelop Anfield.

Previously we've always been told that redeveloping Anfield wasn't possible but today the council, as part of their regeneration of the area, have announced plans to demolish homes immediately backing onto the stadium and the change of use of homes (which would have been subject to right of light issues with a bigger stadium) to commerical properties.

The aim is for the Council to begin buying up the homes not already owned by them or the club and hopefully be in a position to submit plans for the regeneration of the area and redevelopment of the ground by the middle of next year, with work to begin in 2014. The possibility of CPO's could delay that though - although only a handful of homes aren't already owned by the club/council, there's already talk of at least one home owner refusing the council permission to value his home.

Because of the above no details regarding the design or capacity have been confirmed yet but the redevelopment is supposedly going to consist of an additional tier being added to the Anfield Road and Main stands, bringing the capacity to 60-65k.
 
Russinating said:
Wish I owned one of those homes as a buy-to-let.
Click to expand...

There's not going to be any king's ransom paid to the owners. They're going to get around 10% on top of the value of the homes + moving costs covered if they live in the properties (+ favourable mortgages etc). They're going to have a choice of accepting that or almost certainly being forced to accept it via a CPO.

It seems like the majority of home owners aren't kicking up a fuss but at least one is and it's easy to understand why. Over the years the club have bought up a lot of the houses around the stadium and left them empty, further running down the area (some say deliberately) which means that even with the extra 10% these people will get, they won't be able to buy a comparable house elsewhere.
 
others will follow now that one has dug their heels in.

interesting. i've noticed the houses around anflield and didn't realise a lot of them were empty due to being purchased by the club.
 
I think it's unlikely that they will as they have nothing to gain. A CPO may mean they get less than what the council are willing to offer them now.
 
This should be debated in parliament, yes it keeps 80,000 Liverpool supporters happy but I'm sure the general public would rather anfield was bulldozed for social housing or affordable housing. I'm sure if it went to referendum that option would win. :p
 
i'm sure he wasn't but there will be people out there who would rather the space it occupies was used for social housing etc and i would bet that there is an argument put forward for it.

if liverpool are to redevelop the area. it's a good idea.
 
Anyone that puts forward the idea that the area is better off without the football club needs their head testing.

The council didnt/dont want Liverpool to redevelop Anfield, they want a new stadium built near by but have all but been forced to allow the club to do as they wish because if the club told them where to go and moved to another area, the Anfield area would go into further decline.

The football club is the driver for the regeneration of the area.
 
a1ex2001 said:
True but they would definitely be better off without two football stadiums within 1000m of each other, if I was a local resident I would push for any regeneration scheme to only include one stadium.
Click to expand...

That might be true in general but in Liverpool those living in and around the area are most likely to be football fans. I would guess that they are probably against the idea of a shared stadium which is why there hasn't been any major movement for a single stadium from the locals.
 
shine said:
That might be true in general but in Liverpool those living in and around the area are most likely to be football fans. I would guess that they are probably against the idea of a shared stadium which is why there hasn't been any major movement for a single stadium from the locals.
Click to expand...

And besides - having the two stadiums so close is a unique opportunity re: area re-development and regeneration, to make something really awesome and unique! :)
 
a1ex2001 said:
True but they would definitely be better off without two football stadiums within 1000m of each other, if I was a local resident I would push for any regeneration scheme to only include one stadium.
Click to expand...

Why's that? The football clubs are the only things that bring any money into the area. If either Liverpool or Everton left the area, the amount of jobs and money being spent in the area would would decline.
 
BaZ87 said:
Why's that? The football clubs are the only things that bring any money into the area. If either Liverpool or Everton left the area, the amount of jobs and money being spent in the area would would decline.
Click to expand...

Neither club has the will to leave the area if they did they would already have gone. One stadium makes much better sense from every perspective except football fans have some weird idea that if they share bricks and mortar it will destroy the soul of their club which I've never understood.
 
Tummy said:
Works just fine for the Nerazzurri and Rossoneri :)
Click to expand...

Except Inter have decided to move now and will be having a new stadium built.

It's far more common in Italian football it was Torino+Juve and Lazio+Roma, as well as being all huge rivals but like Juve and now Inter we'll see more of these teams building new stadiums for themselves. With lower capacities so games are actually full, the San Siro is only full for big rivalry/derby and CL matches otherwise there are 40K+ empty seats. Makes more sense to go the way Juve have and make sure it's a packed ground better atmosphere/no running track win/win

But yes it's worked for decades in Italian football something I'm surprised isn't done at least in London.
 
ObixConstant said:
Except Inter have decided to move now and will be having a new stadium built.

It's far more common in Italian football it was Torino+Juve and Lazio+Roma, as well as being all huge rivals but like Juve and now Inter we'll see more of these teams building new stadiums for themselves. With lower capacities so games are actually full, the San Siro is only full for big rivalry/derby and CL matches otherwise there are 40K+ empty seats. Makes more sense to go the way Juve have and make sure it's a packed ground better atmosphere/no running track win/win

But yes it's worked for decades in Italian football something I'm surprised isn't done at least in London.
Click to expand...

As you mentioned, it's only recently due to money that clubs in Italy have decided to build their own stadia, well not 'just' money but that has played a large role. It's not strictly true about attendances at the San Siro, but they have certainly dropped off in a very big way this season.

It has always baffled me when in a big city two clubs don't share a ground, makes much more sense for a big city.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom