DIC and the new Anfield

[Imy]

If they want to start as soon as possible then the first HKS design is the only choice. We don't have planning permission or even tried to get that for the second design and that is very strange.

The footprint is the same on both the new and old HKS stadium, no?

For the additional capacity i think the club would need planning permision

[wishiwasascouser]

For those not liking the stadium, Hicks could of had a design like this http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...m2_468x351.jpg drawn up.I think the stadium is the best (and only good thing) Hicks has done for us....

[Vermilion]

For those not liking the stadium, Hicks could of had a design like this http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...m2_468x351.jpg drawn up.I think the stadium is the best (and only good thing) Hicks has done for us....

Sort of agree, but so as not to give him ANY credit, i will say he never exactly designed it did he. There, i feel better now. Also i'm not sure any stadium would be built unless DIC are on board. But yes i do agree that the Bitters new home to be....is no more than a glorified shed with lights shining on it.

[El Jefecito]

The footprint is the same on both the new and old HKS stadium, no?

For the additional capacity i think the club would need planning permision

I thought so, I thought the only difference was using different materials to cut the cost.

[El Jefecito]

The first version of the HKS stadium looks good the second one looks cheap.

It is definitely cheaper, to the tune of 100m I think. I'll go for #2 if it means more transfer money or the debt being paid off quicker. Wouldn't you?

[Vermilion]

I thought so, I thought the only difference was using different materials to cut the cost.

Big difference is the underground car park that was on the 1st HKS, but not the 2nd, could be the stumbling block for the planning permission..

[El Jefecito]

Big difference is the underground car park that was on the 1st HKS, but not the 2nd, could be the stumbling block for the planning permission..

Ta! Didn't even realize there was one in the original design.

[Vermilion]

Ta! Didn't even realize there was one in the original design.

The bigger Capacity of the 2nd design coupled with the removal of the car park must have an impact on the planning permission. I seem to remember this being discussed, better rail links & a station i think were the ideas to overcome the problem, as i rememeber.

[Marshy]

Big difference is the underground car park that was on the 1st HKS, but not the 2nd, could be the stumbling block for the planning permission..

Yep, cheaper materials and no underground car park, that may present a problem to the planners, we do however have all the necessary permissions in the bag already for the previous design that Hicks/Gillett couldn't afford...

[wavydavy]

Don't know if there's much relevence in this but I've just opened a letter from the council informing me of a revised planning application for the new stadium..... 60,000 and a 970 vehicle car park together with access. It says it's a revised one but it sounds like the first HKS design to me

[dom9]

Don't know if there's much relevence in this but I've just opened a letter from the council informing me of a revised planning application for the new stadium..... 60,000 and a 970 vehicle car park together with access. It says it's a revised one but it sounds like the first HKS design to me

Weird. HSK mk II is supposed to have 70,000 -odd seats .