Liverpool to Redevelop Anfield

A few financials details on the build. The total cost of the new main stand will be approximately £115m, including all the land acquisition costs, which will be paid by an interest free loan from FSG. That loan is expected to be repaid in around 5 years from the increased match day revenue once the stand is completed.

Purdy said:
Corporate seats hype while anyone 5'11" or over can't comfortably sit in any seat on mainstand, kop or annie road \o/
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken all new seats added will have to be bigger to meet current regulations so the main stand should be fine once the work is finished and the Anfield road stand once that's done too.
 
JohnnyG said:
59,000, they'll never fill it!!11
Seems a bit odd to be starting work mid-season, I assume it's going to reduce capacity for a while?
Click to expand...

Nope. They're going to build behind the existing stand and then they'll remove the old roof and join the existing stand to the new teirs in the close season.
 
Supposedly its fairly straightforward as we're in effect simply adding two tiers on top of the current stand. Do Chelsea have the space to expand backwards? That was the issue for us. For years we were told it wasn't possible but suddenly the council bought up all the properties behind the stand to give us the space.
 
Following the clubs' announcement in the summer that they were revising plans for the Anfield Road stand, some details have now been released as part of the public consultation process:

https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/an...es-public-consultation-anfield-road-expansion

An additional 7k seats bringing capacity to over 61k. It will cost the club approx £60m and will be self financed. Providing the consultation runs smoothly then a planning application will be made early next year, hopefully with work to begin mid to end of the year.
 
The second stage of the public consultation starts today. No massive changes from the first stage other than the plans now keep Anfield road open after a few locals objected to the road being closed.

The club have confirmed that they hope to submit a planning application in the next few months with work to begin late this year, ready for the start of the 22/23 season.
 
I've no idea about Arsenal but did Spurs have to build a new ground? They've built on the exact same plot as the old stadium so I assume that expanding the old ground was an option to them. Either way I'm not sure it's lucky, it's just the situation the club were in. Liverpool aren't in London where they can sell £100+ tickets nor could they have redeveloped the plot of the current stadium into houses and flats and sold them off for millions to fund a new stadium.
 
rebel rebel said:
Yeah lucky maybe isn't the right word. But you are now in an excellent situation where you are the leading team and can capitalise on your position by improving the ground without sacrificing current players or reducing money spent on new ones.

New stadiums cost upwards to 1billion now. And Arsenal have never recovered from the move.

I think the apartments Arsenal built on the old site didn't make them as much money as they thought, as the housing market crashed when they were ready.

I would have preferred they built a stand like the north bank at the clock end. And then filled in the corners. Surely we could have fit over 50k then.
Click to expand...

As I said, it was just the situation Liverpool found themselves in. The circumstances meant that the best solution was to redevelop Anfield. Had we been in London then maybe it would have made more sense to pay £1bn and build a new stadium.

Re Arsenal, the stadium move is an excuse for your decline, not a reason. Increased matchday revenue more than paid for the finance costs of building the stadium and Arsenal have sat on a mountain of cash in the bank for years. I remember reading something a few years back that Arsenal had profited (not just sales revenue) by near £100m from property sales and iinm Arsenal still have an undeveloped plot on the books too. The only negative, from a financial pov, linked to the stadium move was locking yourself into a long deal with Emirates but that was more than made up for by the increase in matchday revenue.

I've speculated before that it's possible that Arsenal's lack of spending is more likely linked to what Kroenke's doing in the US.
 
No surprises that the club have announced that this has been delayed by a year. To have it completed in time for the start of the 2022/23 season work would have needed to begin in the next 6 months and with the final stage of the build only being possible during the close season, even a very short delal would have meant it wasn't possible.
 
MissChief said:
Reading the article they’re not even new plans, only they had to be resubmitted as they expired due to Covid restrictions on council meetings.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The club received outline planning permission to expand the Anfield Road stand back in 2014 at the same time as they began work on the Main Stand. The club decided that those plans from 2014 were no longer big enough so allowed them to expire (work had to begin by 2019 or the permission expired) and drew up plans for a bigger expansion which was due to be submitted Spring/Summer last year however due to uncertainty & delays caused by covid* that got postponed. Plans were finally submitted sometime in January iinm but it's taken 6 months for the council to meet and give their approval due to covid restrictions.

*Work was meant to begin in late 2020 with the final stage of the build process taking place at the end of the 2021/22 season when cranes etc can get onto the pitch to remove the old roof and join the new tier(s) to the existing lower tier. As soon as covid hit it was all but certain that planning permission and the first stages of the build wouldn't be completed by May 2022 allowing them the close season to finish things off, meaning that the stand couldn't have opened until 2023/24 anyway.
 
Tombstone said:
Do we know if the extended stand will be renamed? Possibly raise some revenue by selling its naming rights?
Click to expand...
I'm sure they'll be looking for a sponsor but they were for the Main stand too and that never happened. Naming rights never really caught on over here compared to in the US - 2 years after Spurs stadium was due to open and they've still not managed to secure a naming rights partner and that's on a brand new, whole stadium not a rename of a stand, which should be easier.

It was reported with the Main stand that the club found that the club could raise more revenue sponsoring bars and lounges within the stand than what they could have got from a sponsor of the entire stand.
 
ik9000 said:
You'd hope not, but money speaks these days and overseas owners can forget mighty quick when it suits them/their agenda...
Click to expand...
Debating whether the owners would sell the naming rights to them is about as sensible a debate as debating whether you'd shoot your parents if you were offered enough.

Fwiw, despite the boycott of that particular newspaper by most of the city and with almost all players & staff not giving them inverviews since the disaster, their journalists were still permitted to cover our press-conferences & matches up until 2017. The decision to remove their accreditation reportedly came from John Henry, after the club spoke with families of the 96 regarding the Total Eclipse of The S*n campain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom