Interesting news...

[Lecter]

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...

For the information to be correct we would have to completely re-start the planning permission process from scratch, including public consultation etc....

This could mean a 2 to 3 year delay before work could start this would mean losing some of our grants because one of the grants expires within 60 days from Gillets / Hicks takeover announcement

The only way around it I could see would be to build a 61,000 seater within the current planning application but to make that stadium expandable

As soon as its built apply for planning permission to increase the capacity

[Angry Dan]

To retain the grants my understanding is that the work has to start which means breaking the earth.

[rushscored4]

For the information to be correct we would have to completely re-start the planning permission process from scratch, including public consultation etc....

This could mean a 2 to 3 year delay before work could start this would mean losing some of our grants because one of the grants expires within 60 days from Gillets / Hicks takeover announcement

The only way around it I could see would be to build a 61,000 seater within the current planning application but to make that stadium expandable

As soon as its built apply for planning permission to increase the capacity

Lecter, if you've read my previous posts on this subject over the years you'll know I said exactly the same and got bored of hearing the usual "why can't we increase the capacity" comments. However, this is 'virtually' from the horse's mouth. Basically it seems the Yanks do not rate the old architects' design and, after witnessing the atmosphere for themselves last week, have decided to see what they can do within the restrictions of the planning permission.

As I said earlier, the main problem is the infrastructure around the ground. An extra 25,000 seats probably means an extra 5-10,000 cars on the roads and all needing a parking space plus thousands more arriving my bus, coach, train or plane.

[Lecter]

To retain the grants my understanding is that the work has to start which means breaking the earth.

We are hardly likely to break earth then leave things idle whilst we re-apply for a 70,000 seater stadium

[Guest]

For the information to be correct we would have to completely re-start the planning permission process from scratch, including public consultation etc....

This could mean a 2 to 3 year delay before work could start this would mean losing some of our grants because one of the grants expires within 60 days from Gillets / Hicks takeover announcement

The only way around it I could see would be to build a 61,000 seater within the current planning application but to make that stadium expandable

As soon as its built apply for planning permission to increase the capacity

That's the more logical route if this information is proved correct.

[rushscored4]

We are hardly likely to break earth then leave things idle whilst we re-apply for a 70,000 seater stadium

I don't think we will need to re-apply for planning permission. As I understand it, the new architects' brief is to see how they can change the design to increase the capacity within the constraints of the approved application.

[bazza76]

I don't think we will need to re-apply for planning permission. As I understand it, the new architects' brief is to see how they can change the design to increase the capacity within the constraints of the approved application.

thing is though, I think it is too big a change to make without re-applying for planning.

[Guest]

I don't think we will need to re-apply for planning permission. As I understand it, the new architects' brief is to see how they can change the design to increase the capacity within the constraints of the approved application.

Excellent mate.

PS: Where did you quote that excellent phrase in your sig mate ?

[Revo]

cant see it happenening at this stage of the game and im not so sure the blue nose councillors would embrace any change in permission already granted. if it did happen, i would also like to see an outreach to the LOCAL community regarding the windfall of 9,000 extra seats.

[bazza76]

i would think that the instructions are mroe to "explore" the implications of changing the capacity.
They sound a determined enough bunch as we have already seen though, so I woud expect them to follow the probability of increasing the capacity very strongly.

[Kopite_Colin]

If it means the only way would be to move out of Anfield to accomodate a 70,000 seater stadium, for which we could gain planning permission quickly then I'd go for that. It's crazy to stick it in Stanley Park anway, given the roads, etc. IMHO, it should have been somewhere out towards the intersection of the M62 / M57 / M58 - where there's loads of space and the transport links are so much better.

[rushscored4]

Excellent mate. PS: Where did you quote that excellent phrase in your sig mate ?

It's a quote by Albert Camus, the guy in my avatar...

By the way, the new architects are the same firm that designed the American Airlines Center for Hicks and are currently working on the new Dallas Cowboys stadium. They are called HKS Inc and are based in Dallas:

http://www.hksinc.com/

[Endless Dream]

http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/

I like the look of that, what do you think?

[Lecter]

Lecter, if you've read my previous posts on this subject over the years you'll know I said exactly the same and got bored of hearing the usual "why can't we increase the capacity" comments. However, this is 'virtually' from the horse's mouth. Basically it seems the Yanks do not rate the old architects' design and, after witnessing the atmosphere for themselves last week, have decided to see what they can do within the restrictions of the planning permission.

As I said earlier, the main problem is the infrastructure around the ground. An extra 25,000 seats probably means an extra 5-10,000 cars on the roads and all needing a parking space plus thousands more arriving my bus, coach, train or plane.

I know its to do with the infrastructure still no getting away from the fact we would have to re-apply for planning permission if we wanted a 70,000 seater stadium

The current planning appplication allows 61,000 seats as far as I know there are no options within the planning consent to increase it beyond that, whether we meet the previous infrastructure requirements or not

[rushscored4]

http://stadium.dallascowboys.com/

I like the look of that, what do you think?

Welcome to the Dallas Cowboys new stadium. This tour will give you a feel for the enormity of the structure which will seat approximately 80,000 but can be expandable to up to 100,000 for major events, like a Super Bowl, which could be held in the Metroplex as early as February of 2011.