• Hey Guest!
    Enjoy the This Is Anfield Forums but want to remove the adverts? Now you can do so by clicking here.
    Thanks for your support!

Anfield Expansion - Main Stand and potential Anfield Road End

bazza66

TIA Youth Team
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Messages
949
This is good news but as the article says, the new bar in the Kop that can accommodate 700 people will have a negative impact on local businesses, especially the pubs of course. Having said that, I can imagine most of the customers being day trippers and away fans who might feel more comfortable there rather than in a local boozer. It would be a great place to go to watch a televised game. Almost like being on the Kop itself.
TBH, I don't think it will have the slightest impact. People are used to meeting at the local pubs. Look at the club's shitty food outlets, and then look at the massive queues for the chippies! I think most people who have had a beer in the ground know the beer is shite at a rip-off price. I think you are right that first-timers and oppo fans will feel more comfortable there.
 


rupzzz

TIA Regular
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
7,012
So WBA have had proposals for safe-standing rejected by the govt;

"West Brom have had a proposal to introduce safe standing at The Hawthorns rejected by the government.

The pilot scheme would have meant 3,600 seats in the Smethwick End were converted to 'rail seats', which can be locked in an upright position.

West Brom - who are bottom of the Premier League - hoped to install them in time for next season.

Sports minister Tracey Crouch says there are no plans to change the all-seater policy at football stadiums.

That law was introduced followed recommendations made in the Taylor Report into the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, which claimed the lives of 96 Liverpool fans.

But West Brom say their proposal was based on safety concerns, because of persistent standing.

The club's director of operations Mark Miles, who has led the proposal, described the decision as "surprising" and "disappointing".

"I think the minister has taken a short-sighted view and is preventing the club from creating a safer environment for supporters," he said.

"The all-seater policy was developed over 25 years ago and football is a very different place now."

Miles has travelled to Scottish champions Celtic and German club TSG 1899 Hoffenheim, where the same system is used.

"The system we proposed is well tested across Europe and has also worked successfully at Celtic, who are governed by different legislation than in England and Wales," he said.

"We were prepared to run a pilot which would enable the club to gather data and feedback to further inform us in the issue of crowd safety.

"But I have become convinced that rail seating would enhance safety. The club is extremely disappointed with this decision and we have written back requesting a review."

A spokesperson for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said: "We have no plans to change our position and introduce standing accommodation at grounds in the top two divisions covered by the all-seater policy.

"Alongside the sports ground safety authority we will continue to monitor the issue of spectator accommodation and the use of safe standing where it is permitted."

How would it have worked?
The standing positions would have been offered to both home and away supporters.

Away fans would have been given a choice of whether to stand in the upper section of the stand or sit in the lower part.

Ticket prices were expected to remain unchanged and the necessary changes would have been completed in time for the new season in August, when the Baggies are likely to be playing in the Championship.

West Brom's safety officials have tried a number of initiatives to resolve the problem of persistent standing in certain areas of the ground.

The club sought to allay security fears and problems with identifying troublesome fans by highlighting their high-resolution cameras fitted in the stands.

Advanced ticketing and new turnstile operations have also been introduced in recent years.

Officials are also said to have emphasised they would enforce a much more stringent requirement for fans in other sections of regular seating to remain seated.

History of all-seater stadiums
The current legislation relating to all-seater stadiums dates back to the early 1990s and the recommendations of the Taylor Report.

That requires all clubs in the top two divisions of English football to have seating.

Any sanctioning of 'rail seating' would not require a change in the law. Instead, it is thought to be down to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to modify how they exercise powers given to them by the legislation.

Celtic - given Scottish clubs are not subject to the legislation affecting their English counterparts - successfully applied to Glasgow City Council to install 'rail seating'.

Their 2,600 rail seats were used for the first time in July 2016 and the club have had visits from a number of English sides keen to learn from their experience.

Link - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43701400
 



Claymenza

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
1,844
I find it rich when fans on the forums make demands for the club to buy expensive players, but they don't want the price of tickets to go up.
Fans are reselling their tickets anyway.
 

Irishanfield

Internet Terrorist
Joined
May 5, 2017
Messages
4,737
I find it rich when fans on the forums make demands for the club to buy expensive players, but they don't want the price of tickets to go up.
Fans are reselling their tickets anyway.
You do realise that the income from ticket sales is only a small fraction of the clubs income. Like just say a £3 increase across the board is only a increase of a little over £150k per game. You max get 30 home games per season which isnt even £5m so basically you are talking out your arse
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
24,552
You do realise that the income from ticket sales is only a small fraction of the clubs income. Like just say a £3 increase across the board is only a increase of a little over £150k per game. You max get 30 home games per season which isnt even £5m so basically you are talking out your arse
Of course, I doubt that it is particularly difficult to find a fan who thinks the Sky subscription is too expensive and streams instead, but thinks his club should splash the cash and buy that £50M striker.
 

ILLOK

In the Danger Zone.
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
15,743
I find it rich when fans on the forums make demands for the club to buy expensive players, but they don't want the price of tickets to go up.
Fans are reselling their tickets anyway.
Of course, I doubt that it is particularly difficult to find a fan who thinks the Sky subscription is too expensive and streams instead, but thinks his club should splash the cash and buy that £50M striker.
I don't see the problem.

It would only be 'rich' if ticket prices and subscriptions prices came down and fans were still demanding that the club keeps its current levels of spending up. That'd be unsustainable but it's not the case.

I think virtually all match going fans would accept the club having 2-3 million less per year to spend on players if it means a freeze on ticket prices.
 
Last edited:



redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
13,675
I don't see the problem.

It would only be 'rich' if ticket prices and subscriptions prices came down and fans were still demanding that the club keeps its current levels of spending up. That'd be unsustainable but it's not the case.

I think virtually all match going fans would accept the club having 2-3 million less per year to spend on players if it means a freeze on ticket prices.
I very much doubt all match going fans would agree to that. Social media is full of match going fans with just as outlandish expectations as those following from their armchair or local pub - and spending more on incoming transfers is always a thing they are calling for.
 

ILLOK

In the Danger Zone.
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
15,743
I very much doubt all match going fans would agree to that. Social media is full of match going fans with just as outlandish expectations as those following from their armchair or local pub - and spending more on incoming transfers is always a thing they are calling for.
Misses the point somewhat. I'd bet their argument would be that the club already has plenty of money to spend, not that the fans should be chipping in even more.

I've never spoken to any match going red who disagrees with me. I also think the various campaigns regular matchgoing fans have ran about ticket price rises further backs up my argument. It's not as if we've been quiet on the issue.
 

redfanman

TIA Regular
Ad-free Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
13,675
Misses the point somewhat. I'd bet their argument would be that the club already has plenty of money to spend, not that the fans should be chipping in even more.

I've never spoken to any match going red who disagrees with me. I also think the various campaigns regular matchgoing fans have ran about ticket price rises further backs up my argument. It's not as if we've been quiet on the issue.
I dont think it does miss the point. The assumption hinges on what the fan believes the club has available to spend. Not doubting that matchday fans would like to pay less or rather not pay more than they do currently and there may be a significant number who like yourself are rational enough to understand and accept that it might mean the club spends less on transfers as a result - but match attending fans are just as diverse and those elsewhere and there are plenty of fans that just expect the club's owners to sign off on blank cheques.
 



Noo Noo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
3,776
Of course, I doubt that it is particularly difficult to find a fan who thinks the Sky subscription is too expensive and streams instead, but thinks his club should splash the cash and buy that £50M striker.
That would be me but I dont point any blame towards the clubs for that. Premier League and TV companies however...........................

I'll also be brutally honest that its currently too expensive for me to visit Anfield unless it was a one off special occasion and UK TV subscriptions are a bit of a joke in reality. You need to get Sky and BT Sport and even then you don't get all of the games. Even then I don't get anywhere near the opportunity to watch a big chunk of games that are available so, for me it doesn't represent value. But I still want LFC to compete at the highest level of course.

However regarding ticket prices, do I feel they're expensive? Probably but not extortionately so because having a game costs money in security, stewarding, policing, even maintenance and service bills. How much that adds up to be I don't know but it isn't cheap. I believe I read somewhere that just policing a West Ham game would cost in the region of £100k at the moment. So costs are not insignificant plus I also believe our pitch maintenance costs are near the highest in the league.

Personally, I believe the route to cheaper tickets can only really come from more seats and most importantly more games. Only when stadium revenue seriously outstrips matchday costs can the club consider bringing them down.
 

Mascot88

Yours for £1m. Need to make room for Dean Saunders
Admin
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
21,820
I think more dialogue and honesty with the match going fans would be the way forward.

Questions like would you be happy to see Anfield sponsored to bring down ticket prices.
 

liveforthereds

asp67 twitter
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
5,959
You do realise that the income from ticket sales is only a small fraction of the clubs income. Like just say a £3 increase across the board is only a increase of a little over £150k per game. You max get 30 home games per season which isnt even £5m so basically you are talking out your arse
You maybe right but it's not just ticket sales, as other income is also gained on matchday. Prices are what they are and if you want top players to play for us and also keep said players then sadly we the fans have to pay the price for that, in what ever way that means. The clubs money streams no mater where they get comes from the fans in the long run
 

liveforthereds

asp67 twitter
Joined
Apr 20, 2008
Messages
5,959
Of course, I doubt that it is particularly difficult to find a fan who thinks the Sky subscription is too expensive and streams instead, but thinks his club should splash the cash and buy that £50M striker.
Totally agree, Watch football in the UK is far higher than any where else in Europe and you don't get all the games. Even in the USA you can watch every game of you favoured team even in other sports like the NFL, NBA and MLB, was watching the other week a US stream and an advert for sports came on and you can get Football and all the American Sports for less than you can in this Country.

As for the club splashing out on players, they need to buy what is needed to be successful but also develop are own at the same time, it's a fine balancing act today and I for one think the club is doing a good job of this although some fans don't
 



Zoran

Fighting like beavers.
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
18,251
Was it September 2019 the deadline to announce plans for Annie Road? Forgot, so just checking. Will the delay over Kirkby for a year also delay plans for this?
 

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
740
Was it September 2019 the deadline to announce plans for Annie Road? Forgot, so just checking. Will the delay over Kirkby for a year also delay plans for this?
Yes the outline planning approval for ARE runs to September 2019. No the development of Kirkby should not delay ARE. The club is still looking at the best options for joining ARE to the Main and KD stands plus whether boxes are feasible and other facilities etc. I also understand the club is looking closing off Anfield Road, diverting it up to the park boundary or simply building over and behind it.

So in all probability the club will apply for extended planning permission well before it is due to run out.
 

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
740
The problem with safe standing is say a section was built into the Kop those people not in the safe standing will still stand as they do now. The idea that a 3000 or 5000 standing section in a 12000+ seat stand will mean the other 7000 will all sit down is pretty ludicrous to me. Yes it works at Celtic because they didnt have 12000 people in that stand standing up all game. Thats not the case at Anfield.
 

richieh10

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
1,183
I’d say if you’re having it in part of a stand (Kop for example) it needs to be all or nothing
 



jaffod

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
2,704
I’d say if you’re having it in part of a stand (Kop for example) it needs to be all or nothing
Agreed. The old paddock that ran the length of the pitch would have been ideal but has now been swallowed up by the new stand. Probably held the best part of 5000 people and was shallow enough for crushing not to be an issue with the right sort of barriers in place.
Don't know where they got that 5% figure from, seems ridiculously low to me and if anything just shows how much the traditional working class support has been watered down over the years.
 

Arminius

FSG PR plant
Moderator
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
24,552
Agreed. The old paddock that ran the length of the pitch would have been ideal but has now been swallowed up by the new stand. Probably held the best part of 5000 people and was shallow enough for crushing not to be an issue with the right sort of barriers in place.
Don't know where they got that 5% figure from, seems ridiculously low to me and if anything just shows how much the traditional working class support has been watered down over the years.
There are two key pieces:

1. That is 5% who wish to stand for the whole game. That is a fairly high bar, compared to being able to stand at various times during the match. Other polls have shown a majority of fans wish to be able to stand.

2. There is a form of sample bias in the method the PL used. The population they used is all match-attending fans, which has a certain logic. However, if I were to be flying in for my once-in-a-lifetime PL game and was surveyed, selfie stick in hand, my response would count the same as the season ticket holder who goes to every match, home and away. The percentage of fans who would be willing to stand for the whole match in any given match-stadium combination is probably well above 5%, because that 5% is probably strongly correlated to more frequent attendance.
 

jaffod

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
2,704
There are two key pieces:

1. That is 5% who wish to stand for the whole game. That is a fairly high bar, compared to being able to stand at various times during the match. Other polls have shown a majority of fans wish to be able to stand.

2. There is a form of sample bias in the method the PL used. The population they used is all match-attending fans, which has a certain logic. However, if I were to be flying in for my once-in-a-lifetime PL game and was surveyed, selfie stick in hand, my response would count the same as the season ticket holder who goes to every match, home and away. The percentage of fans who would be willing to stand for the whole match in any given match-stadium combination is probably well above 5%, because that 5% is probably strongly correlated to more frequent attendance.
I don't get the whole 'stand up for part of the match' thing. How does that work? Stand up for 10 minutes and then sit down for 10? Who decides when to stand? It's a load of bollocks.
 

rupzzz

TIA Regular
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
7,012
Who stands, and for how long, is entirely down to the match being played.

Generally, in my experience, it's a mix, which usually sees standing when the ball is at the other end of the pitch for a set piece, or as an attack is forming and looking like it will result in a clear chance - basically waiting for wild celebrations to start.

I've been at games at Anfield where the Kop stood for the entire match - largely European nights, but occasionally for big PL games also. I agree, it should be an all or nothing rail seating stand. I was in the main stand for the Man City game, and we pretty much were stood the whole night.

If the Kop were to be made a full rail seating stand, then those who have seats (season tickets) there now, that want to sit, can be offered up Main Stand seats, whilst others in other sections can be offered the safe standing one.

You hear the argument that "old Jim is now too old to stand for 90 mins in the Kop, but why should he move from the Kop - he's always been there". Whilst I agree that sentiment has a part to play, I'd also argue that back when there were terraces, Jim would have had no choice.

No idea who Jim is.

Away stands should be safe standing. I don't think I've been to an away Liverpool game and sat other than before kick off, or at HT.
 
Last edited:

dockers_strike

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
740
Even the proposals being discussed do not go as far as turning a whole stand such as the Kop into all standing.