KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum News Stadium Naming Rights

If we are only extending to 60k seating id rather stay at Anfield. My choice is moving to a new stadium with 80k-90k seating and make one of the biggest stadiums, with a multiple story car park attached =P

Are you sure we can fill a 90k stadium?

If the ticket prices were reasonable I am sure we could fill a 70k seater by reasonable I mean about £30. Man Utd fill 76k now although the prices are starting to put people off. As for the previous posters point the issue is flexibility new stadium 60k plus option to expend to 80k or whatever. Whereas Anfield 60k until eternity.

I think if it was 90k we could fill it, cheaper tickets, send tickets round schools and youth centres which in turn will safeguard future local generations of fans and maybe a fan park which would encourage fans to turn up earlier, beer tents, stages and screens. The only problem with all this is that the roads and travel network not to mention the community could never sustain it in the Anfield area, thats where United have it lucky due to it being situated on an industrial site surrounded by factories rather than a densely populated residential area.

spot on. However that same council wants Liverpool and Everton to re-generate the whole anfield area. Thats the biggest sticking point. It's not just stell and concrete but a mass of clauses which basically LFC have to pay, tube station into central, road widening and refurbishment, housing improvements. All because the greedy council want cash in the bank to spend friviusoly elsewhere. Rather than invest with the clubs to build the football quarter and the investment would come back ten fold, happens in Madrid who know they are onto a good thing with Real. The council sold the kings dock from under Everton because they could get more cash, simple

nonsense its not about a greed council its about the clubs obligation to the city of liverpool and the residents of anfield and breckfield

why is it nonsense? LFC/EFC are the second biggest income provider to the city after the beatles stuff etc. Why should they have an obligation to the anfield area? the clubs have more than paid there dues and various councils have had 130yrs+ to get the area developed, why the clubs? it's not as if they have just arrived is it?
The council bent over backwards for Liverpool one, did they pay for the 'big dig'? no WE the local tax payers did. It's about time the council stopped milking this 'football cow' and put something tangible towards both city clubs.

because the club have run down the anfield breckside area and have an obligation to the local area as a very very very rich company .

Fazakerly I don't understand why does the club have any obligation to the residents of Anfield and Breckfield. We have been there since 1892 before the great grandparents of the current residents. If I bought a house in Anfield I would be well aware there was a stadium there. And what if it was a factory rather than a football ground its the same thing private sector commercial business. Would the factory be responsible for all the roads in the area ? of course not so why LFC? I am not sure what you are suggesting?

The club is not very very rich at all have you seen the accounts it made a loss in some years. The players are rich not the club. But even if it was that does not mean its responsible for the local roads.