Interesting news...

[kurtangle01]

How long did Wembley take to build ?

Four years ?

7 years. They knocked the old stadium down in 2000.

[Rich]

Wembley also cost close to £1bn.

[Tee]

I would be more than happy to wait that bit longer if it meant we would get a much better stadium.

[anfieldanfield]

Wembley also cost close to £1bn.

****ing hell!

[kurtangle01]

Wembley also cost close to £1bn.

It's a very, very, nice stadium though.

[Tee]

I hope the new stadium is not used for other events like concerts and Rugby League finals!!

[Shaggy]

I hope the new stadium is not used for other events like concerts and Rugby League finals!!

I think it will mate. Dunno about ****ing rugby (surely we can't allow 30 odd fat ******* meatheads to plod around cutting up our pristine pitch?), but I'm pretty sure GG said something along the lines of having gigs and other events at the stadium to increase our revenue.

[kurtangle01]

I hope the new stadium is not used for other events like concerts and Rugby League finals!!

They will definitely hold concerts there in order to increase revenue. I doubt we'd host rugby matches though.

[janmolby99]

The current planning permission explicitly excludes use of the stadium for concerts.

And there's no way on earth we'll get permission to build 70,000 on Stanley Park, so an out of town stadium or groundshare with Everton looks like it would be back on the agenda if this is true.

[kurtangle01]

The current planning permission explicitly excludes use of the stadium for concerts.

And there's no way on earth we'll get permission to build 70,000 on Stanley Park, so an out of town stadium or groundshare with Everton looks like it would be back on the agenda if this is true.

Groundshare wont happen.

[Diego]

who knows there might be numerous things to take into account here, maby the new stadium will only be 60.000, but can be expanded to 70.000, and there for the old license can be used, but in time it will expand and transport facilities will be built as well when the time comes.

[Marshy]

The current planning permission explicitly excludes use of the stadium for concerts.

And there's no way on earth we'll get permission to build 70,000 on Stanley Park, so an out of town stadium or groundshare with Everton looks like it would be back on the agenda if this is true.

When the club first came up with the idea of building a new stadium on the park it was for a 70,000 seater, we eventually scaled that figure down to 60,000 for reasons of cost not because the council would never allow it or the park site couldn't handle a stadium of that size.

[Rich]

I think the biggest problem will be the shade for the grass.

The Stands will be that high, that it'll cast an almighty shadow over Goodison Park, and it'll turn into a puddin' pitch. Only suitable for Long Ball football.


Oh wait

[rushscored4]

A different, more worrying version of the same rumour...

http://www.soccer24-7.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128476

If this is true we will have at least another season added onto the original 'two more seasons left at Anfield' line...

That's interesting. I genuinely hadn't read that before I wrote my original post and had never even heard of that website. I got told about it from my architect mate whilst watching the Mancs v Middlesborough game in the pub yesterday. I stayed out and got ****faced hence I didn't post anything until this afternoon when I finally dragged my lazy, fat arse out of bed...

The info from 'Groucho' confirms what I said though and the twist about the Texan architects buying a London practice makes sense from what I'd heard previously. The original architects, AFL, are not very imaginative and their design for 'New Anfield' is similar to the Emirates, City of Manchester and lots of other stadia across Europe. Looks like the Yanks mean business...

[bazza76]

...about the new stadium I heard yesterday.

Apparently Statler and Waldorf (Hicks and Gillett) have sacked the Manchester-based architects Atherden Fuller Leng (AFL) and appointed another firm from London. And just to please all those of you out there that don't think 60,000 is enough, the new architects have been given a specific brief - increase the capacity to 70,000.

I've no idea how they will do that as I've always said the planning permission granted was based on 60,000 (or 61,000 to be more precise) being the maximum limit set after considering the infrastructure and the effect on the roads, etc, of an extra 16,000 fans at each game.

Anyway, I thought I'd pass on the news...

thanks mate.
Im not supprised at all by this news, after all, they do seem to be pretty keeen business men, why would they want to limit the money they could make by going for a 61,000 seat stadium, they did mention about the 50,000 odd waiting list that was around for season tickets. So you would be thinking they would want to capaitalise on this.
Im not sure what route this would take us with a planning application though, sounds like a new aplication and loss of grants.