The Stadium - getting closer.

[Steveo]

25,000 in the Kop sounds the business...
Make it happen Steveo...

Working on it…

[Martyboy]

This is very rough BUT shows clearly what could and should have been be phase 1.

Redevelopment phase 1. A stadium - not a collection of ill fitting stands.


Kop end = single tier as is today... claiming back the top spot that Spurs' new stadium currently holds.

[IMG][/IMG]


Phase 2 would be to fill in the corners like Dortmund did to brilliant effect. But even without - the ground would be superb imo.

Nice pic!....Here's an inside view.......https://easyupload.io/71kqoj

[Insidious]

This is very rough BUT shows clearly what could and should have been be phase 1.

Redevelopment phase 1. A stadium - not a collection of ill fitting stands.


Kop end = single tier as is today... claiming back the top spot that Spurs' new stadium currently holds.

[IMG][/IMG]


Phase 2 would be to fill in the corners like Dortmund did to brilliant effect. But even without - the ground would be superb imo.

Are these your renders Steveo?

[CCTV]

Having stated you'd be happy to see 60,000 seats at Anfield, it seems you are now unhappy once fulfilled. Desire is metonymical

Do you think Anfield looked better before the redevelopment ? It sounds like you preferred the mere 45k styling.

I've only spent a small bit of time around anfield a few years back, the main stand was done at that time. For me the stadium was a shining beacon in what looked like a rather run down part of the city. Out by the shankly gates the area looked very rundown up to that petrol station. Was nicer at the back of the main stand, the red brick houses there looked better kept with a little green area. Kid opted for the tate so only got see Anfield for a few minutes. So didn't get around the other 2 sides.

When I've attended Sporting events, I've never really paid too much attention to the stadium. Just a means to a seat to see the game.

Guess over here the games are about viewing. Are those 2 ends not redeveloped parts ? Stadiums over here aren't top top like you'd see elsewhere as you put it.
Croke park is a bit of a monstrosity in the area and like Anfield cannot build up an end to have the bowl effect. But it has a lot of seats and doesn't cause issues for players on the pitch.
The newly built aviva stadium is a bit harsh, again one end is very small, even smaller than hill 16 in croker, and is visually distracting/annoying. Though the exterior finish is raved about by people who like the styling of it I suppose.
I think in time the club will find a way to mirror the redeveloped parts. You'll still be perturbed by the differing heights but it may not be as much of an eye sore with stands the same height as those opposite them. If that makes sense.

I'm not sure why you put so much faith in public utterances and positions. Especially when you have prejudiced skepticism about the yanks.
I mean do we need go back over Klopp statements, who you've described as a throughly decent man in contrast to jwh.

I don't know the area, or matters of fact but I'll post a few comments from martys videos below.



First video comments:
"The answer to expanding capacity on the Kop is simple. In Germany, the safe standing areas allow 1.8 standing places per every seat. If legislation was passed allowing this, the Kop capacity could be increased from 12850 to 23130 without any major structural changes, increasing Anfield to around 72000 capacity and restoring the Kop to standing AND the highest capacity stand. A similar conversion of the lower tier of the Anfield Road end would also add another 5000 to the capacity, lifting Anfield to close to 80000 without any more major structural changes."

"If I had a choice between the Kenny and the kop for a stage 3 I'd go for the Kenny all day more capacity and the stadium won't look odd, having said that I don't live on them back houses. Kop you could go standing in certain parts like park head, nice work again pal and bringing up discussions 👍"

From what you've said before, it would seem like there are some planning issues like the underground/through stadium road, and that advised recapacity of the kop were it standing in itself adds massive capacity.

The second video:
"I believe further expansion would require public transport and other infrastructure to be improved first. If the SKDS is redeveloped I would expect a similar stand to the new main stand. Would probably require the purchase or at least one row of houses but they managed to get that done for the main stand so it is possible."

"The KDS will be expanded. LFC own over 60% of those houses directly behind the stand now. Once they squire 100% then the plans will move forward. It will happen, but it’s a waiting game. AR was as well. It’s the Kop that’s the unlikely stand that may not get expanded, and not many will kind that as the Kop has a special place in Football as a whole."

I'd suggest, there's some less negative outlooks than you're own in these 4 comments.

And plenty of good reasons why the club would make a public position of no more expansion, a kind of leveraging their position.

On the local council, on the PL/state re safe standing, and then waiting on houses on that row allegedly needed to expand.

Yes, I don't live in Liverpool and have given my limited impression of the area.
I do listen to people from Liverpool and those were the top/first comments.
Maybe you could argue against each comment and them as a whole, if you feel they are inaccurate.
Maybe the club hasn't bought 60% of the houses they might need to acquire for the skds to be redeveloped.
Maybe you can rebutt the points/claims made in those comments.

I evaluate public utterances for myself, rather than relying on the honesty of thoroughly decent men like Klopp .
Ward no1, the club not signing Virgil as part of an apology, or Alisson etc etc etc

So these are my posts, mixed to this thread and steveo had replied to many posts bar the last one.

[CCTV]

For me expansion has not finished, so I guess I do not believe the press release that has Steveo so disheartened. Steveo believing the owners pr that no more shall be built.

From the brief reading of comments on youtube videos: here are some points that chime with my impression of the situation overall. I asked Steveo to pass comment on these comments.

● The KDS will be expanded. LFC own over 60% of those houses directly behind the stand now. Once they squire 100% then the plans will move forward. It will happen, but it’s a waiting game. AR was as well.
● I believe further expansion would require public transport and other infrastructure to be improved first. If the SKDS is redeveloped I would expect a similar stand to the new main stand. Would probably require the purchase or at least one row of houses but they managed to get that done for the main stand so it is possible
● The answer to expanding capacity on the Kop is simple. In Germany, the safe standing areas allow 1.8 standing places per every seat.
If legislation was passed allowing this, the Kop capacity could be increased from 12850 to 23130 without any major structural changes, increasing Anfield to around 72000 capacity and restoring the Kop to standing AND the highest capacity stand. A similar conversion of the lower tier of the Anfield Road end would also add another 5000 to the capacity, lifting Anfield to close to 80000 without any more major structural changes


For me there are good reasons why the club would make a public position of no more expansion, a kind of leveraging their position.
On the local council, on the PL/state re safe standing, and then waiting on houses on that row allegedly needed to expand.

If those above comments are reasonable estimates of safe standing, and an expanded SKDS is built, adding similarly to the Main stand redevelopment, that would see Anfield close to 90k.

[CCTV]

85k minimum

[Steveo]

Didn't realise this was a Yoga class.

The amount of stretch and reaching posted above is commendable, I don't believe wrinkled dick himself could have worked a better PR narrative with his army of illusionists at the Boston Globe.


Also CCTV - why are you asking me to reply to you in response to what others have said on YouTube?

[CCTV]

Didn't realise this was a Yoga class.

The amount of stretch and reaching posted above is commendable, I don't believe wrinkled dick himself could have worked a better PR narrative with his army of illusionists at the Boston Globe.


Also CCTV - why are you asking me to reply to you in response to what others have said on YouTube?

Simple, your inside local knowledge, might pass comment on the claims made.

For example:
1) Has the club bought 60% of the houses for the skds to be expanded ?
That was claimed.

2) is the claim around safe standing reasonable ?

If I take the impact of safe standing being introduced as given above,
And I say the skds adds another 8,500 like the main stand.

Then you can get up towards the capacity given.

[Steveo]

Simple, your inside local knowledge, might pass comment on the claims made.

For example:
1) Has the club bought 60% of the houses for the skds to be expanded ?
That was claimed.

2) is the claim around safe standing reasonable ?

If I take the impact of safe standing being introduced as given above,
And I say the skds adds another 8,500 like the main stand.

Then you can get up towards the capacity given.

Ok for those who clearly no nothing about it and choose to take comments on a youtube video as evidence.

The club bought up homes around the ground DECADES ago that's almost 2 and a half decades ago to be precise. So as to the exact amount at this time - and 60% sounds a little nicely rounded to me - I cannot say.

The claim around safe standing is not a direct solution to the issues for at least 2 reasons...

1. The very stands in question are ridiculously cramped as things are and in dire need of ACTUAL physical EXPANSION.
2. Every other club could do the same - so a 100,000 seater Old Trafford could become 120,000 or 130,000. Every stadium in the land could increase capacity that way BUT bring back the very real danger inherent in overcrowding that a club like Liverpool FC should be only too well aware of. Just because the term has the word safe in it does not mean that safety is actually paramount! They are always safe until the first incident.

Regardless of your desperate attempt to state that the owners are going to do what they are - on the record - as saying they have no plans to do - the ground is a mess.

50% of it needs to be scaled up. As mentioned and as anyone who has been on the Kop Or the SKD knows - there is not nearly enough room.

Squeezing moire and more people into a space that is already too small is the opposite of what needs to happen.

Not sure how else to say it.

[CCTV]

With all your local knowledge, you don't seem to know how many of those houses are owned by the club. That sort of info was what I was expecting from you. The comment said 60% of those houses needed for the skds to be expanded have been acquired.

The example of Germany cited around safe standing, and the projected increase in capacity of the Kop based on that ratio would be further expanded if the Kop is redeveloped and made bigger.
Are you against or suspicious of safe standing ? Most of the redmentv and TAW youtubes I've seen have edged in favour of it.

Iirc I was the first to rubbish the clubs apology to Southampton and position that we'd ended our interest in Virgil.
I argued the PR/Public-utterances cannot be taken on their face with the BRC back then. We signed Virgil that January. I'll continue to call bs where I see it.

I'd say it's most probable the stadium will be expanded further. Skds & Kop.
Club are probably wise to wait and see if safe standing is good to go, see what the council can do re transport and capacity of more matchgoers, see what they can get through with planning and holding out for properties to come under their control is just the nature of these developments.