- Apr 5, 2015
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!!!)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.
@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.