I think a redevelopment of Anfield is for the best - putting loyalties aside, it's a historic stadium and with an update is still more than fit for purpose. I can't see how Liverpool would be allowed to go a season without admitting away fans, though.
Sentiment is great but unless the numbers add up, I had/have no problem moving to a new ground. Until now, we've always been told the numbers didn't add up though.
Ignoring, H&G's choice of a new stadium over a redevelopment (as they had no intention of building anything), the reasons why a redevelopment wasn't considered under Moores/Parry were because of the physical constraints/planning permission and loss of earnings while a redevelopment is taking place. When you consider what Parry claimed was and wasn't possible with regards to the Stanley Park designs/plans and then look at what we have permission for now, it shows how much he knew. And any loss of earnings from a redevelopment would have only been a fraction of what both Moores/Parry (they had 3 different designs) and then H&G wasted on designs and planning permission for the new stadium.
Regarding the away fans; obviously nothing has been confirmed yet but I've read that it has happened before. I'm too young to remember myself but I'm told that Utd (as well as other clubs) admitted no away fans for all or at least most of a season around 1995 (the season Cantona made his comeback after his suspension) when they were redeveloping OT.
Didn't they rebuild Fenway Park as well?
Yea but it's a slightly different situation. From what I've read, the main reason why the Red Sox were looking for a new ballpark was because Fenway was falling apart rather than to increase their capacity.
IIRC, they've spent $200m+ redeveloping Fenway but have only increased the capacity by ~3,000. They've simply modernised it.
.![[Olly]](/styles/overclockers/avatars/2.png){kind=avatar}
