The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 181
Very interesting :beard: There has been a lot of criticism of 60,000 not being enough but when you see how many games this season have gone to GS you can understand why it would not be possible to risk a larger stadium. I do hope it is built in a way that allows it to be expenaded very easily. The new corporate facilities will be the best thing about the new stadium in terms of finance though :yep:

I must say it is a bit sad not to be able to see what FSG would actually like to do themselves, in terms of a plan.
Reply 182
Original post by L18
Sounds like sour grapes to me. My understanding of it is that they offered to match Warriors offer at the last momment, but FSG have strong ties to Warrior via Boston.

They are probably just smarting over the fact we haven't got Rick Parry in charge anymore so they can't **** us over a barrell.

Bayern Home and Real MAdrid Away are ****ing boss.

We constantly got utter ****e kits of them.

I'm concered about what Warrior have up their sleeve though. Rumours atm are that the third kit is a monstrosity, but the home kit is pretty nice.

Will have to have a look at them two :beard: but we always looked like Chelsea :yawn:

Original post by L18
That stadium is ****ing ****.

FSG are really letting me down on this stadium lark tbh. Pissed off.


I can't even remember what that stadium looks like :sigh: We do need to get a move on with the stdaium though, the amount we have lost in the 8 years since the original plans is ridiculous.
Be very interesting to see what comes out of the stadium, considering if we do move, we shouldn't have to move again for another 100 years.

The original plan was better than the G&H plan wasn't it?
Reply 184
Original post by Zerforax

Original post by Zerforax
Be very interesting to see what comes out of the stadium, considering if we do move, we shouldn't have to move again for another 100 years.

The original plan was better than the G&H plan wasn't it?


http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/01/fsg-decide-on-new-stadium-report/

Doesn't look that bad tbph :dontknow:

Edit: The 2008 not 2003 design obviously.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 185
Original post by Mess.
Will have to have a look at them two :beard: but we always looked like Chelsea :yawn:






Original post by Mess.

I can't even remember what that stadium looks like :sigh: We do need to get a move on with the stdaium though, the amount we have lost in the 8 years since the original plans is ridiculous.



****ign crap. Another souless bowl.
Original post by Mess.
http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/01/fsg-decide-on-new-stadium-report/

Doesn't look that bad tbph :dontknow:

Edit: The 2008 not 2003 design obviously.


+1

It's a fair point. 2003 looks like it might be easier to expand? Unrestricted and simple (if boring) shape.

Shame really that they won't create their own design.
Reply 187
Original post by L18







****ign crap. Another souless bowl.

I think the kits are nice but nothing too creative. The Bayern one is the nicer of the two but Addidas are generally incredibly boring kits that aren't that nice. I do always wonder why they go all out for Marseille though.

Original post by Zerforax
+1

It's a fair point. 2003 looks like it might be easier to expand? Unrestricted and simple (if boring) shape.

Shame really that they won't create their own design.


It is a pretty boring and souless bowl but I seriously doubt we would have ended up with anything too much better if FSG created their own one. It is a very generic American style and seems to be the way football stadiums in England are going sadly.

Hopefully they modify the plans slightly for things like acoustics and making sure people are as close to the pitch as possible.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 188
Prefer the 2008 design tbh.
Reply 189
Original post by Mess.
I think the kits are nice but nothing too creative. The Bayern one is the nicer of the two but Addidas are generally incredibly boring kits that aren't that nice. I do always wonder why they go all out for Marseille though.


Simple is best imo. I'd love a plain red shirt with the old school Liverbird badge, sponsor and warrior logo and thats it.
Original post by Mess.


Hopefully they modify the plans slightly for things like acoustics and making sure people are as close to the pitch as possible.


They need to sort the kop out imo. On those designs, it looks the same height as everythign else. It should dominate the structure imo.

And they NEED to get acoustic professionals in otherwise we'll end up with another Emirates/Ethiad
Reply 190

Original post by L18
Simple is best imo. I'd love a plain red shirt with the old school Liverbird badge, sponsor and warrior logo and thats it.


They need to sort the kop out imo. On those designs, it looks the same height as everythign else. It should dominate the structure imo.

And they NEED to get acoustic professionals in otherwise we'll end up with another Emirates/Ethiad


Completely agree on the Kop point. It should dwarf the other points but with the way the council is pushing this Everton nonsense perhaps it is best to just start moving at the very least and then slightly modify the plans blaming it on idiot builders :awesome:
Original post by Mess.
I still think we should allow him to go on a free at the end of the season as long as somebody takes him straight away. Every week we wait costs us a minimum of £90,000 to £100,000 so holding out for £1m-£3m is just wasting money, especially if it never comes in.


What if he isn't willing to take a pay cut to move though? If we can't shift him for free, we might have to keep him on our books. Hopefully Lille will take him though since he's done good for them..

Nevermind you've already responded to someone else about this :p:

I'm not quite sure what I think of the plans. I've never liked the bowl shape stadia to be honest - how would one even expand it in the future with that sort of shape, as it's a seemless continuous structure. I didn't like the overhead view of the H&G stadium but from the outside I thought it looked pretty sweet.

Any idea what will become of our current Stadium? Knock it down? :frown: Sell it back to Everton? :p:
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 193
Original post by Mess.
http://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/01/fsg-decide-on-new-stadium-report/

Doesn't look that bad tbph :dontknow:

Edit: The 2008 not 2003 design obviously.

2008 one looks similar to the aviva stadium in a way
Tbh the original designers, AFL, were asked to create the stadium without restriction and sensibly by Parry. Then it got revised by HKS, who were instructed to no doubt cut corners by G&H.

While it might look nicer from the outside, I'd still side with the AFL design on that basis alone (out of the two).
Liverpool look to end legacy of false promises over new stadium but finance remains the stumbling block

In the shadow of one of the most iconic stadiums in football lies a depressing picture of dereliction. Houses are abandoned, streets which are vibrant with passion on a match day possess an eerie emptiness for the rest of the year. This is Anfield.


It is not meant to be like this. Lavish new stadium plans, supposedly the catalyst for regeneration of one of the poorest areas of Britain, have stalled for over ten years.

While Liverpool FC's home plays hosts to its millionaire players and benefactors, its neighbours’ continue to wonder when the ageing promises will be kept.

Fenway Sports Group were left a shambolic inheritance by their predecessors, and if they underestimated the scale of the problem when they bought the club they are still coming to terms with it.

It was as far back as 2000 when Liverpool announced intentions to move to Stanley Park and committed itself to improving the surrounding areas. It is eight years since Liverpool City Council first granted them permission to do so.

The aspiration then was to move by 2007. Five years ago, a second planning application by ex-owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr was also given the go-ahead.

Three Liverpool FC boardroom upheavals and three chief executives since expressing their desire to move house, the furniture removal firm is yet to be called. There will be no real progress until a naming rights partner is found, or finance secured via other channels.

Liverpool’s new owners are eager to end the legacy of false promises but are still unable to offer any timescale to residents or supporters as to when work can begin. They’ve avoided making any pledges of their own since day one.

By adopting the original, 2003 architects designs of Manchester-based AFL, they have at least ensured, technically, Liverpool could start constructing a new arena on Stanley Park tomorrow morning if the money was there. There is at least a promise, of sorts, to cling onto.

Liverpool supporters less than impressed with the favouring of the older plans need a reality check. Too many jump to the wrong conclusions based on a photograph. Any lack of enthusiasm would be churlish given the saga the club and residents have endured and dire need for a practical solution.

A new stadium is essential for the club and the surrounding area for a multitude of reasons, and although FSG must stick to the dimensions they’ve been given when they eventually build it, there is still plenty of scope to make it modern, unique and worthy of its association with Liverpool.

The problem for FSG is they’ve always been limited to one of the two designs for which the council granted planning permission. The AFL design with planning permission was dismissed by Hicks. A second AFL design in 2006 was also rejected by the Texan and never submitted to planners. His vision, championed by Dallas architects HKS, had an estimated cost of £400m three years ago and has been rising ever since.

Although the council gave it the green light, among its many flaws are 200 executive boxes covering two tiers of the stadium. Try filling them outside of London.

A spade did go into the turf of Stanley Park, ensuring that technically work began and the planning permission on both schemes has still not run out. That has bought the new owners time.

John W. Henry decided upon taking over Anfield he’d rather redevelop the existing ground. Liverpool fans cheered, but residents and city councillors did not join the applause.

Feasibility studies have focused purely on the architecture suggested redeveloping Anfield would be cheaper, while universally more popular among Liverpool fans. Another tier on the Anfield Road and Main Stand could extend the stadium to 60,000.

To suggest those plans encountered an obstacle would be an understatement. Think of several Olympic steeplechases and a few Grand Nationals and you may begin to brush the surface the hurdles FSG have been faced with.

Firstly, Liverpool City Council do not want Liverpool to stay put. They have maintained a firm position they want the move to Stanley Park and commitments to assist regeneration of Anfield to go ahead.

They still regularly float the idea of a groundshare on the park with Everton, and had Liverpool tried to pursue another new set of plans they’d undoubtedly be under more pressure to negotiate with the Goodison hierarchy.

Whatever the logical arguments are for this, they are repelled by severe emotional resistance and a brutal economic fact. Liverpool can afford to pay for half a new stadium. Everton cannot, unless they’re prepared to accept a tenancy (they have made it clear they never will).

Extending the current ground also has severe geographical disadvantages.

The terraced streets of Lothair Road, Alroy Road, Rockfield Road and on Anfield Road referred to as the 'Rockfield Triangle' are directly behind Liverpool's Main Stand. It is here where you will encounter the worst conditions, with ‘tinned up’ properties which have been empty for years.

For Liverpool to rebuild they will need most of these properties demolished, and that goes against a pledge to retain and renovate all the dwellings made by the council in their own redevelopment plans.

Liverpool could try to buy all the properties in vicinity themselves, but this brought more problems.

The cost of entering private negotiations with each home-owner or landlord is incalculable in terms of price and time.

One solution was the compulsory purchase of the properties by Liverpool City Council, but they have no wish to pursue this and it would be subject to a legal challenge if they tried to.

So Liverpool find themselves back where they were in 2004, when ex-Chairman David Moores decided to sell the club. They have the AFL stadium design and the permission to build it.

Now they just need the money.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/9020351/Liverpool-look-to-end-legacy-of-false-promises-over-new-stadium-but-finance-remains-the-stumbling-block.html

Some decent articles by the telegraph regarding the stadium.

Wonder if we'd flush out more investors if we managed to qualify for the champions league?
Newcastle close to signing Papiss Demba Cisse for 10mil.

Could that have been the cheap striker signing we needed?

Spurs will slap on a £20mil price tag on Defoe so we won't get him either.

QPR picking up Henrique.

Doesn't leave many options out there..
Reply 198
Defoe can **** right off.

4 league goals last season when Spurs were making a **** load of chances and missing them. Hence why they went gung hou for a striker in January. Much like ourselves now.
Original post by L18
Defoe can **** right off.

4 league goals last season when Spurs were making a **** load of chances and missing them. Hence why they went gung hou for a striker in January. Much like ourselves now.


1529 FOOTBALL: Liverpool striker Andy Carroll believes the return of Steven Gerrard can bring the best out of him. "When you're on the same team as him in training, some of the passes he puts through for you and the chances he creates are incredible really. So hopefully I can keep working hard, get a nice run of games, give some good performances and get a few goals," Caroll said.

Maybe we don't need one :awesome:

First time I really remember Carroll making a statement to the press in a positive manner? Or maybe I've just not been noticing them..

Latest