Anfield Expansion - Anfield Road End (Main Stand Completed)

Kanonkop

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
7,207
Not questioning if prediction or not, just the cant see how you can say

" expansion of the ARE make safe standing (currently) less likely due to the increased infrastructure costs not making it viable (rather than fan sentiment)."

When the basis of your argument has been there is less infrastructure costs with safe standing till this point.

For me both factors have come into play. That fan sentiment is in the minority (even locally). However should not underestimate how damaging it could be to the club with just a few hundred very upset, angry fans.
I suspect what @Kopstar means by infrastructure costs is not the cost of the stadium expansion but the requirement of the club to fund any increased transport infrastructure above a certain Anfield capacity. If we develop ARE then any safe standing (whatever the stand) will then lead to the club having to fork out serious wedge to fund new rail/road/tram/whatever infrastructure to/from Anfield and the vicinity. (No prizes for guessing what Mayor Joe would have placed on Everton had they wanted to do the same of course!!!)

@Kopstar had previously said that it would likely be cheaper to expand capacity by going the safe standing route rather than redeveloping the ARE...within the capacity cap placed by the council.

Two separate capex issues.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,040
I suspect what @Kopstar means by infrastructure costs is not the cost of the stadium expansion but the requirement of the club to fund any increased transport infrastructure above a certain Anfield capacity. If we develop ARE then any safe standing (whatever the stand) will then lead to the club having to fork out serious wedge to fund new rail/road/tram/whatever infrastructure to/from Anfield and the vicinity. (No prizes for guessing what Mayor Joe would have placed on Everton had they wanted to do the same of course!!!)

@Kopstar had previously said that it would likely be cheaper to expand capacity by going the safe standing route rather than redeveloping the ARE...within the capacity cap placed by the council.

Two separate capex issues.
Indeed, thought I had been pretty clear on that point.
 

Iluvatar

Allez (x6)
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
9,271
I suspect what @Kopstar means by infrastructure costs is not the cost of the stadium expansion but the requirement of the club to fund any increased transport infrastructure above a certain Anfield capacity. If we develop ARE then any safe standing (whatever the stand) will then lead to the club having to fork out serious wedge to fund new rail/road/tram/whatever infrastructure to/from Anfield and the vicinity. (No prizes for guessing what Mayor Joe would have placed on Everton had they wanted to do the same of course!!!)

@Kopstar had previously said that it would likely be cheaper to expand capacity by going the safe standing route rather than redeveloping the ARE...within the capacity cap placed by the council.

Two separate capex issues.
I don't think there is a council cap.
 

i_still_miss_fowler

Open Your Eyes Morty!
Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
7,600
Indeed, thought I had been pretty clear on that point.
If that is what you were referring to then your statement is if complete irrelevance. Debate was in the context of current expansion. Telling a me and another poster they don’t know a lot of stuff and the following it by what amounts to a straw man/ false juxtaposition.

Debate over the last 10 paged has been about safe standing within the 62K. You have posted numerous times why you feel it is more economical along with why fans would not have an issue. Everyone know cost imposed by council the biggest issue above 62K.

However for this next expansion (upto 62k) the club has chosen not to go the safe standing route (despite it being cheaper). So if it’s not for “sentimental reasons” why is that ?
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,163
If that is what you were referring to then your statement is if complete irrelevance. Debate was in the context of current expansion. Telling a me and another poster they don’t know a lot of stuff and the following it by what amounts to a straw man/ false juxtaposition.

Debate over the last 10 paged has been about safe standing within the 62K. You have posted numerous times why you feel it is more economical along with why fans would not have an issue. Everyone know cost imposed by council the biggest issue above 62K.

However for this next expansion (upto 62k) the club has chosen not to go the safe standing route (despite it being cheaper). So if it’s not for “sentimental reasons” why is that ?
Probably because there's no documented proof that you can gain a significant attendance increase with the type of rail seats we'd have to use. The Celtic trial doesn't increase their capacity at all. The only stadiums that see an increase in capacity between standing and seating have much larger seats than we have so we would dramatically decrease our seated capacity by installing them. Then only reach our current capacity when standing. I see discussions on safe standing as completely separate to increasing capacity.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,163
Link please?
Have you got a link to the fact Liverpool is based on Merseyside or a link to the fact YNWA is an inspirational song or any other fact of life on Merseyside? I probably can, eventually find links to any of the facts I've mentioned in my post that most seem to know and accept but you question but I'm sure if you spend five minutes looking on this thread or on Google instead of asking someone else to do it for you then you'll find any answers you were looking for. Not even sure which part of my post you are questioning.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,040
If that is what you were referring to then your statement is if complete irrelevance. Debate was in the context of current expansion. Telling a me and another poster they don’t know a lot of stuff and the following it by what amounts to a straw man/ false juxtaposition.

Debate over the last 10 paged has been about safe standing within the 62K. You have posted numerous times why you feel it is more economical along with why fans would not have an issue. Everyone know cost imposed by council the biggest issue above 62K.

However for this next expansion (upto 62k) the club has chosen not to go the safe standing route (despite it being cheaper). So if it’s not for “sentimental reasons” why is that ?
Strawman? No.

Replacing existing seating with rail seats is cheaper than rebuilding a whole stand, yes. It's a more economical way to increase capacity.

Why wouldn't the club do that? Two obvious factors come to mind:

1. It's currently not permitted.

2. It wouldn't generate as much revenue medium to long term.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,163
Strawman? No.

Replacing existing seating with rail seats is cheaper than rebuilding a whole stand, yes. It's a more economical way to increase capacity.

Why wouldn't the club do that? Two obvious factors come to mind:

1. It's currently not permitted.

2. It wouldn't generate as much revenue medium to long term.
3. It would decrease capacity for games we have to sit for and only minimally increase capacity for standing games. As per the Celtic trial.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,040
Have you got a link to the fact Liverpool is based on Merseyside or a link to the fact YNWA is an inspirational song or any other fact of life on Merseyside? I probably can, eventually find links to any of the facts I've mentioned in my post that most seem to know and accept but you question but I'm sure if you spend five minutes looking on this thread or on Google instead of asking someone else to do it for you then you'll find any answers you were looking for. Not even sure which part of my post you are questioning.
Tbf, the increased infrastructure costs above ~60000 has been talked about at length but whenever I've asked or looked for confirmation of this being the case or even what that precise capacity point is, I've never been able to find anything remotely substantive.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,040
3. It would decrease capacity for games we have to sit for and only minimally increase capacity for standing games. As per the Celtic trial.
That's possible. We tossed this back and forth a fair bit and I reckon capacity when standing would be approximately 1.4-1.5 what it is now when seated (in the Kop).

As you say, would need to be seated for UEFA competitions although that may change in the future.
 

Anfield rd Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
13,163
That's possible. We tossed this back and forth a fair bit and I reckon capacity when standing would be approximately 1.4-1.5 what it is now when seated (in the Kop).

As you say, would need to be seated for UEFA competitions although that may change in the future.
I think you'd get more rows in but not more columns if that makes sense? Width wise there is no room. So if you took 5 rows out you'd maybe get 3 rows of rail seats in. Being generous. Then when standing you'd get 6 in for 5. That would lead to an increase over a whole stand when we can stand. But would be a severe reduction when seated. Would we be able to keep the little poxy seats in the other stands? Would we have standing in all stands? I actually dont see it as a capacity answer or a cost efficient option at all. Need to work on the layout of much of the inside of the stadium not just take seats out and put different seats in. The steps would need work on as they go upwards in line with the rows of seats if that makes sense? I really don't think it'd work the way you foresee. I'm trying my best to see it your way. I'd like safe standing just simply because it's safe. Standing in the seated rows now isn't as safe as rail seats/standing would be.
 

Iluvatar

Allez (x6)
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2015
Messages
9,271
Have you got a link to the fact Liverpool is based on Merseyside or a link to the fact YNWA is an inspirational song or any other fact of life on Merseyside? I probably can, eventually find links to any of the facts I've mentioned in my post that most seem to know and accept but you question but I'm sure if you spend five minutes looking on this thread or on Google instead of asking someone else to do it for you then you'll find any answers you were looking for. Not even sure which part of my post you are questioning.
What a load of rubbish, you said well documented then when asked to provide said documentation you start with completely unrelated nonesense.

Its never been proven the council will not allow Anfield to get over a certain cap, the sweet number was 60k anyway, and the plans clearly say 61k which means the 'rumor' was always that.
 

i_still_miss_fowler

Open Your Eyes Morty!
Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
7,600
My position so long as groups such as Hillsborough Family support group oppose safe standing (Kopstar you wrongly state their position) Liverpool will never have safe standing. Irrespective if vast majority of SOS support it.

The opinion of SOS members means very little in this context. Only show the broader fan base support it.

Safe standing will be in the PL very soon. It is believed Spurs new stadium will have it. The PL has asked clubs to trail it. It’s going to happen probably before our extension is complete.

It costs approx 100M to build a new stand vs a fraction of which for conversion to standing (as you have outlined). The time to recoup the difference (under the premise you can charge more let’s say £30 more for a seat) would be roughy 20 years even with a very conservative estimate.
 

Lowton_Red

No football club is successful without hard work.
Ad-free Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
2,579
Tbf, the increased infrastructure costs above ~60000 has been talked about at length but whenever I've asked or looked for confirmation of this being the case or even what that precise capacity point is, I've never been able to find anything remotely substantive.
IIRC, as planning consent was never sought for a stadium capacity in excess of 60,000 there was never any formal statement regarding a requirement to invest in transport infrastructure or the exact increase in capacity that would trigger the need for this investment.

However when a possible increase to 70,000 was mooted (c.a. 2007/2008) the council "let it be known" that they would only support the application (for increased capacity) if Liverpool committed to invest in local transport infrastructure e.g. one of Merseytravel's pet schemes, upgrading the Bootle branch line.

Hence, such nonsense as this : "Reds’ top brass and transport chiefs travelled on the old Bootle branch line to see where a new Anfield station could be built."
 

Hope in your heart

Loyalty and patience, two undervalued concepts.
Admin
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
24,049
My position so long as groups such as Hillsborough Family support group oppose safe standing (Kopstar you wrongly state their position) Liverpool will never have safe standing. Irrespective if vast majority of SOS support it.

(...)
It's not as clear-cut as that. Here is an article from last summer on the topic:

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/new...iews-hillsborough-families-survivors-13355415

Opinion is clearly evolving fast on that matter. Only a couple of years ago, HFSG and indeed all other support groups would stand as one man against the idea. Most fans wouldn't entertain it either. But things are changing as we see.

(With the other thread closed, we can use this thread in order to discuss the matter of safe standing along with the ARE topic, but we should avoid any talk about the Hillsborough disaster in itself.)
 

i_still_miss_fowler

Open Your Eyes Morty!
Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
7,600
I agree it’s an evolving issue, but there are three mains groups.

SOS who support safe standing
HFSG who oppose
HJC who hold no opinion

That’s their official stance. For to quote the chair of HFSG

‘We have had a vote not so long ago with the families and they voted against any form of standing whatsoever We don't call it safe standing we call it unsafe standing “

Whilst there are those associated with these groups (often simultaneously) which hold different views this is the current state of play.
 

Kopstar

★★★★★★
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
15,040
My position so long as groups such as Hillsborough Family support group oppose safe standing (Kopstar you wrongly state their position) Liverpool will never have safe standing. Irrespective if vast majority of SOS support it.

The opinion of SOS members means very little in this context. Only show the broader fan base support it.

Safe standing will be in the PL very soon. It is believed Spurs new stadium will have it. The PL has asked clubs to trail it. It’s going to happen probably before our extension is complete.

It costs approx 100M to build a new stand vs a fraction of which for conversion to standing (as you have outlined). The time to recoup the difference (under the premise you can charge more let’s say £30 more for a seat) would be roughy 20 years even with a very conservative estimate.
I said the majority at the private meeting of HFSG spoke out in favour of safe standing last year, that's true.

Has HFSG had a vote on it since? Not that I'm aware of.

Out of interest, the words you've quoted, when we're they said?

[Never mind, it was before the meeting at which the majority spoke in favour.]
 

i_still_miss_fowler

Open Your Eyes Morty!
Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
7,600
Yes it was stated just before that that private meeting. The private meeting that no one voted in and was never intended to be used as such. At best what is reported is it seemed marginally more were supportive but many did not speak or attend. The official position of HFSG did not change and openly opposed safe standing (eg the meetings the following week).

The club representative stated after the private meeting.

We would appeal to all fans to continue to be respectful of the Hillsborough families and take their views into account during whatever deliberations take place.’ It is highly unlikely that the club will support the introduction of safe standing while any of the Hillsborough families are opposed.

To me this statement is quite clear. “Sentiment reasons” is right at the heart of the issue. SoS poll means nothing.
 

Semmy

tho your dreams be tossed and blown
Ad-free Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
9,039
would think that for the options available in the safe standing idea, that the Kop end would be the choicest (and most popular) location? Looking forward to my first Anfield visit in the next 5yrs.
 

mattyhurst

TIA Regular
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
15,140
There would be a reason why they won't adopt safe standing for the ARE.... It's not currently allowed.

Why spend extra money on something you might still not to be able to use, considering winter breaks and VAR have taken ages to be implement don't expect it to be back in the PL before 2025.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
The thread
Anfield expansion - Main stand COMPLETED
Anfield expansion - Anfield Road end ????

The elephant in the thread, so to speak, of safe standing can, in this thread, only be applied to the Anfield Road end otherwise it really has no place in this thread. So are we solely talking of the possibility of bringing in safe standing at that end only if it's sanctioned or am I losing the thread?
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
26,451
The thread
Anfield expansion - Main stand COMPLETED
Anfield expansion - Anfield Road end ????

The elephant in the thread, so to speak, of safe standing can, in this thread, only be applied to the Anfield Road end otherwise it really has no place in this thread. So are we solely talking of the possibility of bringing in safe standing at that end only if it's sanctioned or am I losing the thread?
This thread is actually a catch-all for stadium build issues, with a title that is amended to pick up the current focus. The very first post predates the finalized decision to stay at Anfield, and the previous version of the title said nothing about the Anfield Road End. The next title might well include something about the Kop, and perhaps something about safe standing if it comes to it.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
This thread is actually a catch-all for stadium build issues, with a title that is amended to pick up the current focus. The very first post predates the finalized decision to stay at Anfield, and the previous version of the title said nothing about the Anfield Road End. The next title might well include something about the Kop, and perhaps something about safe standing if it comes to it.
Thanks for the heads up. It's just that I was going by the title of the thread which is : Anfield Expansion - Main Stand and Potential Anfield Road End. If safe standing, etc, is to include all Anfield then I have wasted Posting space and give you my apologies.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
I hope our FSG management decide to increase the capacity at the Anfield Road End. To compete with the other top five clubs our ability to increase our finances is imperative. Of the predictions that have been made so far my personal preference is for a triple tier in a similar style to that of the Main Stand. Whether our club's finances will stretch to an improvement of this magnitude is something only our owners are privy to, but I live in hope that it can be accomplished.
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
15,809
I hope our FSG management decide to increase the capacity at the Anfield Road End. To compete with the other top five clubs our ability to increase our finances is imperative. Of the predictions that have been made so far my personal preference is for a triple tier in a similar style to that of the Main Stand. Whether our club's finances will stretch to an improvement of this magnitude is something only our owners are privy to, but I live in hope that it can be accomplished.
United have almost double our income. Increasing ours through ARD probably won't make that big a difference. We need better commercial deals which require consistent CL qualification and winning trophies....or a very very rich and generous sugar daddy to match the richest clubs financially year on year.
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
United have almost double our income. Increasing ours through ARD probably won't make that big a difference. We need better commercial deals which require consistent CL qualification and winning trophies....or a very very rich and generous sugar daddy to match the richest clubs financially year on year.
Yeah, when it comes to finances, riches, compared to what I call the 'big three' moneybags clubs - Chelski, Citeh and the Mancs, we are dining on the scraps off their table. If either of those three want a player, bang, the job's done. If we want a top player we have to try and pry them away from their clubs, and usually fail to land them. We really do need more income and, as you say, better commercial deals at home and around the world, but we also have to increase the capacity of the ground, to be able to get a steady, continual profit there. And the first ground improvement has to be the Anfield Road End.
 

[email protected]

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
3,959
Yeah, when it comes to finances, riches, compared to what I call the 'big three' moneybags clubs - Chelski, Citeh and the Mancs, we are dining on the scraps off their table. If either of those three want a player, bang, the job's done. If we want a top player we have to try and pry them away from their clubs, and usually fail to land them. We really do need more income and, as you say, better commercial deals at home and around the world, but we also have to increase the capacity of the ground, to be able to get a steady, continual profit there. And the first ground improvement has to be the Anfield Road End.
Well yes, and no. Chelsea wanted Lukaku, got shafted. United wanted Perisic(?), got shafted, City were odds on to get Sanchez, got shafted. Not to mention that VVD was courted by City, no?
 

William Clarke

REDSHIRT ~ I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one
Joined
Dec 28, 2017
Messages
2,246
Well yes, and no. Chelsea wanted Lukaku, got shafted. United wanted Perisic(?), got shafted, City were odds on to get Sanchez, got shafted. Not to mention that VVD was courted by City, no?
Yeah, the big three do have their hiccups like we do, but overall their spending power is far superior to ours. Yeah, you're going to talk of the top dollar we paid for VVD, but that as you very well know was a one-off. If we went after a player one of the big three really, and I mean really wanted, do you honestly believe we would be successful? We bought VVD beating Citeh to the punch, but they already had a wealth of centre backs, so they didn't push that hard to get him. What the previous Posts were talking about was us as a club being able to increase our overall finances in order to compete against the big three on a level playing field.