KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum New Stadium

Re the out of city move. I know warrington council are trying desperately to move forward Omega. Theres huge land there ex RAF airbase right by side of M62, 20 mins from Liverpool centre. There is a chance of development grants as its a development zone. It would need far sighted thinking have we got that I wonder?

Isnt that what the wimbledon owners said!?

we need to be building a 85000 seater why mess around with 60000 when we planning for the future

out of town would be a definate no from me its got to be stanley park and high on my list of requirements is that the hillsborough memorial and shankley gates are incorperated in the new stadium

were ever or when ever a new stadium is built either in warrington,kirkby,speke, or stanley park those features of the club will be included .

So where are you going to build an 80 odd thousand seater stadium in Stanley park given the state of the transport and roads in the area. You have to decide wether you want a stadium in Stanley Park were these two yankee owners will put 2 quid on a ticket each season to pay for it or cut your heart and sentiment strings and build it outside the City where you can build as big as you like, charge cheaper admission prices and reintroduce families back into going to the game which in turn will safeguard future support.

i think its to late now but i remember signing a petition to stop liverpool possibly moving to the old speke airport site , but i think this was about 1995 or sometime around that time , now thing have changed dramaticly since then and maybe the old airport site is no more but maybe speke is ideal there is still loads of land there all the motorways , rail links to everywhere including london and of course speke airport and its still in the boundries of the city of liverpool .

Showing your age there Faz its called John Lennon airport now.

i still call it speke airport hahaha

In the statement a few weeks ago the club publically stated their preference was to re-develop Anfield because (in the chilling phase) it was more economically viable. But we might have to go for new build because of planning barriers. For which I read we want to invest but only enough to maximise our sell on profit in 5 years building on our equity which we got by screwing Gillet and Hicks because they had nowhere to go re financing and we got the club on the cheap. But maybe I am wrong maybe the planning issues are just a bone to throw to the Anfield spiritual home brigade (who actually never go to Anfield but anyway..) and the real aim is to develop on Stanley Park. We are continually told Henry and co know how to develop sporting brands that being the case they would quickly spot that tarting up Anfield and wacking up the ticket prices is something that will not work. With the new fair play rules meaning clubs will have to live within their turnover means Liverpool must have a high turnover for Henry to achieve his sell on profit. No point in skimping on the investment if in 5 years Liverpool is no longer a top European club. The sell on from that brand with dwarf a few hundred million especially if naming rights take up a proportion of the investment. A very interesting statement from Ian Ayre this weekend re the debate about Man City’s new sponsorship and are they bending the fair play rules. He said that was inconsistent with reality in that no club has ever had naming rights for an existing stadium. I think this is another hint by the club that it is going to be new build on Stanley Park. As you know my view is the club should and must build elsewhere either in or near the city and there are some world class options as we have described. But the problem here is planning we have missed the boat it would take several years to get the planning for such a site and the club does not have several years. However Omega (Burtonwood ex RAF Site) is somewhere we could probably move straight in. Back to Stanley Park yes the infrastructure is very poor but with the development of L1 and the wider development of Liverpool (fasting growing city in UK / Ocean Gateway) that will all change. Another interesting point is Goodison if Stanley Park goes ahead and the infrastructure is developed link roads / rail etc then does this make the case for developing Goodison. If so then we might not ground share but we could share the infrastructure and maybe some of the costs. The council also seem to be pushing for new build and they obviously have their agenda which is the development of L1 which would no go ahread with tarting Anfield which is the disaster option.