Talk of Liverpool’s supposed new stadium seems as old as the league itself, with more too’ing and fro’ing than a tug-of-war competition between Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks. Just like The Clash once so eloquently asked, their major question, as ever, remains: Should they stay or should the go?
Speaking recently Liverpool supremo and principle owner John W. Henry spoke openly about his first 10-months at the helm of the club and again, seemed to answer honestly when questioned about the future possibility of moving from Anfield and building a new stadium. It has previously been reported that Liverpool may be looking to build a new 60,000 capacity stadium, but with current home Anfield already able to hold 45,000 fans, Henry questioned the financial logic of such a build.
‘If Anfield cannot be expanded a new stadium is wonderful choice. But the fact is we already have 45,000 seats. If a new stadium is constructed with 60,000 seats you’ve spent an incredible sum of money to add just 15,000 seats.’ Henry answered when asked about the progress on building a new ground, adding: ‘If the cost is £300m for an extra 15,000 seats, that doesn’t make any sense at all. Liverpool isn’t London, you can’t charge £1 million for a long-term club seat.’
So is Henry right? For the sake of just 15,000 extra seats would it be wise and logical to place the financial burden on the club for not much extra gain?
Give Henry is due. He seems to have the club’s (as well as FSGs) best interests at heart and answers questions in a straight-forward, open manner. A far cry from many other owners who trumpet their arrival with brash and outlandish statements that leads to unfulfilled promises. Much as many Liverpool fans don’t wish to leave the spiritual home of Anfield, times and football has changed. In order to stay competitive, the extra revenue from the extra capacity will help massively. Whilst there has been talk of staying and redeveloping Anfield (the best option for a lot of fans, I know), Henry seemed to state this was no longer on the cards: ‘We would love to expand Anfield, but there are enough local and regulatory issues to keep that avenue stalled for years with no assurances that once begun it would bear any fruit.’
to be fiar he has always spoken clearly, sensibly and with grace.
So far (& I don’t mean I expect him/them to change) he has led the club admirably. Our dead wood is almost completely sorted, we have new players of good quality & all done with dignity (no fan fares like previous regimes).
More of the same please Mr
If stanley Park can enclipse ‘old trafford’. I dont mind.
@dee: I wouldn’t mind too if only I understood what “enclipse” mean.
Take a look at Ajax and Psv stadium we also must build a statdium of olypic capacity with 120,000 seats.
That’s Liverpool way.
All around Anfield is…or rather was…. derelict. When the former leadership decided to refurbish Skerries Road, it limited expansion on the Centenary Stand side. When the City Council decided that expansion behind the Kop was not possible ‘because of local opposition’ (where are those residents now ?) it stuffed up expansion of the ground.
Therefore new stadium with long term naming rights is the only sensible way forward
How about new expandable stadium?
If 70 000 seats can be filled why don’t have 70 000 seats?
I know the money is an issue always, but still, difference 60 000 to 70 000 is a lot less than redeveloping Anfield to building new stadium.
Sorry to say, corporate name is coming, only hope is to find a sponsor that would include “Anfield” in a full name of the new stadium.