New Anfield - Latest Update

[Rehan]

I don't see how its possible to change the plans, It would take years to do the planning permission again and we would lose out on any grants.

I think the design will stay the same with minor adjustments to make it expandable in the future.

[AFII]

In short.

Parry and Moores ****ed up the first stadium plans and didn't think big enough and now Gillett and Hicks tries to save what they can.

[Meursault]

The current design is the Reebok Stadium with a 60K capacity - Parry should be sacked for that alone. Thank God G+H realise what a club of our stature should be aiming for.

His excuse of not wanting the stadium to be half-full during mid-week matches doesn't sell. Several mid-week league & cup games vs full weekend schedules? And the European nights are usually full anyways. This is Liverpool FC, not chelsea. Just look at the queue on the waiting list for the season tickets.

He is just not a very good at bringing in revenue.... and lets not even go to the Athens tickets fiasco he'd caused with his nonchalance with the press.

[Momosexual]

What's your source for the 78k capacity?

[Morph]

In short.

Parry and Moores ****ed up the first stadium plans and couldn't think big enough and now Gillett and Hicks tries to save what they can.

I think you'll probably find thats more accurate

[Pablo]

Phil - Cheers for the info. Have you got a reliable source for this? It sounds pretty believable. Fingers crossed for the 78,000, more in tune with what a club of our stature deserves.

[Lecter]

In short.

Parry and Moores ****ed up the first stadium plans.

I dont think they did

I think you have to look at the reasons WHY they chose the smaller stadium route which were quite understandable

Firstly it was almost half the cost of a 80,000 seater

Secondly it wouldnt impact as drastically on the transfer budget

Bearing in mind that the cost has trebled over the last 5 years we would be up ****creek without a paddle if the pre-takeover board / club was responsible for the financing of the larger capacity stadium

The only problem I have had with the smaller stadium was that it wasnt expandable which lacked foresight

[Rich]

I dont think they did

I think you have to look at the reasons WHY they chose the smaller stadium route which were quite understandable

Firstly it was almost half the cost of a 80,000 seater

Secondly it wouldnt impact as drastically on the transfer budget

Bearing in mind that the cost has trebled over the last 5 years we would be up ****creek without a paddle if the pre-takeover board / club was responsible for the financing of the larger capacity stadium

The only problem I have had with the smaller stadium was that it wasnt expandable which lacked foresight

Spot on, we seem to have this discussion every couple of months. You can't build something you can't afford!

[AFII]

I dont think they did

I think you have to look at the reasons WHY they chose the smaller stadium route which were quite understandable

Firstly it was almost half the cost of a 80,000 seater

Secondly it wouldnt impact as drastically on the transfer budget

Bearing in mind that the cost has trebled over the last 5 years we would be up ****creek without a paddle if the pre-takeover board / club was responsible for the financing of the larger capacity stadium

The only problem I have had with the smaller stadium was that it wasnt expandable which lacked foresight

That is what I meant

I can't understand why they even planned to build a stadium that isn't expandable. I can understand why they thought about a 60k stadium because of the costs but as I said. To even think about building a stadium that we can't in any way expand is crazy.