Parrybowl & Warrior it is then:

[FoxForceFive]

I assume they'll be looking at ways to make it unique that don't neccessate a new planning application, what they may be I don't know.

Anyone know if there was scope to expand seating on future with that design?

 

[Mystic]

I can't remember what the inside looks like, but it's quite nice from the outside, maybe it's because the mock ups of the A design is a but tacky looking compared to the old design, but thats due to the renders, not the design itself. It'll be interesting to find the details about the original design. Anyone have links to them?

 

[Judge Jules]

[quote author=RedZeppelin link=topic=48335.msg1465624#msg1465624 date=1326789159]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=48335.msg1465617#msg1465617 date=1326788165]
[quote author=RedZeppelin link=topic=48335.msg1465593#msg1465593 date=1326774681]
the best thing of the Hicks design was the single Kop with what like 18000 capacity ? That would have been special and it will be crap if whatever they build doesn't have a single Kop.


How crap will it be just having some generic big bowl stadium , i'd rather stay where we are and fuck the "we need the money to compete and buy players " ...well what would we get for that money ? more carrolls and downings
[/quote]

or suarez' and enriques
[/quote]

true ... but we got them without a big shiny stadium . Big stadium doesn't mean we'll win fuck loads so i am less in a rush to get one if it just going to be for the sake of it .
[/quote]

Lack of a new stadium guarantees we won't win f'ckloads. We HAVE to get that level of matchday income in order to keep investment - in all aspects of the club - where it needs to be.

 

[gkmacca]

It would be extremely surprising if the Fenway group just go with some old design. Given what they've said in the past, you'd expect them to have a pretty detailed period of consultations with fans' representatives before going ahead. Obviously it might just mean they're almost as shallow and insincere as the last lot, but otherwise I'd expect this to develop with a bit more thought and reflection.

 

[Richey]

[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=48335.msg1465664#msg1465664 date=1326794570]
I assume they'll be looking at ways to make it unique that don't neccessate a new planning application, what they may be I don't know.

Anyone know if there was scope to expand seating on future with that design?
[/quote]

I think both applications have expired now to be honest.

If they do have to put in another planning application they would be wise to do so pretty soon

 

[SaintGeorge67]

Wouldn't we have to pay hicks for his design now anyway?

 

[peterhague]

this is all so fucking depressing. football is a big pisstake these days, so whatever soulless arena they shove us all into hardly makes a difference.

i really think the game needs to consider a return to standing and cheaper tickets as they have in germany. who's going to make it happen, though, and fuck all these parasitic owners off?

 

[Mystic]

[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=48335.msg1465737#msg1465737 date=1326804614]
Wouldn't we have to pay hicks for his design now anyway?
[/quote]

Not if the design was bought/commissioned by Liverpool football club (which is probably was because he was a tight arse), in which case, we own it.

 

[Irish_Red]

LIVERPOOL FC have reverted to their original nine-year-old stadium plans for new Anfield - and ditched ones drawn up by the previous owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

LFC are focusing on the designs created by Manchester-based firm AFL - the company which designed the club's training facility at Melwood - plans first made when Liverpool FC were under the stewardship of ex chairman David Moores.

It is understood that scrapping the plans of the former American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett in favour of the original option has been the focus of Fenway Sports Group, the current owners, for well over a year.

Planning permission for the first set of plans was granted by Liverpool City Council in 2004 and so with the AFL plans now revived the club do not need to seek the green light a second time.

Given the AFL designs were drawn up some time ago, Liverpool have "tweaked" the plans to bring the new stadium as up to date as possible but while staying within the parameters which gave them the go-ahead from the local authority in the first place.

The stadium design plans of the Hicks and Gillett-era were pulled together by American firm HKS, but with the takeover of FSG those plans were shelved as Liverpool continue to work towards the possibility of moving away from their beloved Anfield.

However, the club is continuing to look at the option of staying where they are with the development of the AFL scheme in Stanley Park running alongside the prospect of a refurbishment of Anfield - but such a decision is proving increasingly difficult, so the main focus of the club remains a new build.

Liverpool FC remain in constant dialogue with the City Council and are making "reasonable progress" in finding a major brand to take up the naming rights option of any new stadium.

A new build would cost in the region of £300m and given the current financial climate the 60,000 seater stadium is considered the most appropriate decision at this stage, leaving the HKS plans of the doomed previous regime out in the cold

Read More http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/01/17/liverpool-fc-reject-tom-hicks-and-george-gillett-stadium-plans-and-return-to-original-new-anfield-designs-100252-30139849/#ixzz1jiprL45v

 

[Mystic]

Just some reminders for you. My only real dislike is the distance to the pitch, and it is a bit lifeless, I can't decide if thats due to the mock ups or the design though.

 

[SummerOnions]

Stop hotlinking polish sites!

 

[Mystic]

Polish sites?!

 

[Asbo]

http://furnitureclinic.co.uk/Wood_Oils_Waxes.php?gclid=COmj38ai160CFQUOfAoddWbzlg

 

[SaintGeorge67]

[quote author=Mystic link=topic=48335.msg1465760#msg1465760 date=1326806915]
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=48335.msg1465737#msg1465737 date=1326804614]
Wouldn't we have to pay hicks for his design now anyway?
[/quote]

Not if the design was bought/commissioned by Liverpool football club (which is probably was because he was a tight arse), in which case, we own it.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it's still his. Can't remember where. That book about them maybe? But anyway, it may be irrelevant.

 

[gkmacca]

I still don't see why permission couldn't be granted for another design. Why not? There's always been a whiff of fatalism about what the council will or won't do. If the council really gave a damn about that bloody bombsite of an area they're supposedly so determined to 'regenerate' they'd have bent over backwards to assist the club to redevelop Anfield. The whole thing's an embarrassing farce.

 

[nealmac]

[quote author=gkmacca link=topic=48335.msg1#msg1 date=1326813283]
I still don't see why permission couldn't be granted for another design. Why not? There's always been a whiff of fatalism about what the council will or won't do. If the council really gave a damn about that bloody bombsite of an area they're supposedly so determined to 'regenerate' they'd have bent over backwards to assist the club to redevelop Anfield. The whole thing's an embarrassing farce.
[/quote]
Pretty much what I was thinking. It isn't exactly Times Square, is it?

 

[peterhague]

[quote author=gkmacca link=topic=48335.msg1465812#msg1465812 date=1326813283]
I still don't see why permission couldn't be granted for another design. Why not? There's always been a whiff of fatalism about what the council will or won't do. If the council really gave a damn about that bloody bombsite of an area they're supposedly so determined to 'regenerate' they'd have bent over backwards to assist the club to redevelop Anfield. The whole thing's an embarrassing farce.
[/quote]

i think we both know it's money, no?

i'm just fucking sick of all this bollocks. Crump was right: they're all just cunts.

fuck em.

 

[Richey]

[quote author=gkmacca link=topic=48335.msg1465812#msg1465812 date=1326813283]
I still don't see why permission couldn't be granted for another design. Why not? There's always been a whiff of fatalism about what the council will or won't do. If the council really gave a damn about that bloody bombsite of an area they're supposedly so determined to 'regenerate' they'd have bent over backwards to assist the club to redevelop Anfield. The whole thing's an embarrassing farce.
[/quote]

Permission could and would be granted for any number of designs I imagine but it takes forever for an application that is as big as that.

I agree about the council. You'd think they would do whatever they could to help matters but they see private money coming into an area and if they can get away with it they want to get that money used on stuff they have wanted done anyway, in the way they want it done and not have to spend anything themselves.

So afterwards if it comes to it they can then turn round to people who might not be best pleased and say that they couldn't stop it but they fought hard to get this, that or the other included in the scheme to help improve the area

 

[Jack D Rips]

What about this design from Manchester?


https://twitter.com/#!/pauldalglish/status/159302674418896896/photo/1

 

[Athens]

[quote author=Jack D Rips link=topic=48335.msg1465866#msg1465866 date=1326822028]
What about this design from Manchester?


https://twitter.com/#!/pauldalglish/status/159302674418896896/photo/1
[/quote]
That lid lifts, it's clearly not retractable.

 

[Farkmaster]

The seat plan for Parrybowl is completely symmetric with 0 difference between the kop and the away end.


The newer version is far better but wasn't approved. I have a hard time seeing how any cosmetic changes will fundamentally make any of the stands stand out in any way.

 

[peterhague]

[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=48335.msg1465898#msg1465898 date=1326829460]
The seat plan for Parrybowl is completely symmetric with 0 difference between the kop and the away end.


The newer version is far better but wasn't approved. I have a hard time seeing how any cosmetic changes will fundamentally make any of the stands stand out in any way.
[/quote]

i imagine they could probably arrange a single-tier and more or less separate kop, as in the redesign, but, yeh, basically it'd be pretty much that ground that was underwhelming 9 fucking years ago.

 

[mike2903]

I'm sure this design was without any prospect for expansion, so if we do go ahead we could be in the same boat in 20 yrs time.

Season ticket list longer than ever but stuck in a ground we can't do anything with.

Personally i think 60k will be enough but it's always nice to have to option to expand if it's required.

 

[Vlads Quiff]

[quote author=mike2903 link=topic=48335.msg1465904#msg1465904 date=1326830387]
I'm sure this design was without any prospect for expansion, so if we do go ahead we could be in the same boat in 20 yrs time.

Season ticket list longer than ever but stuck in a ground we can't do anything with.

Personally i think 60k will be enough but it's always nice to have to option to expand if it's required.
[/quote]

Exactly, that was the main issue at the time. It's not like any Yanks to think small................and shit.

regards

 

[FoxForceFive]

[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=48335.msg1465949#msg1465949 date=1326838292]
[quote author=mike2903 link=topic=48335.msg1465904#msg1465904 date=1326830387]
I'm sure this design was without any prospect for expansion, so if we do go ahead we could be in the same boat in 20 yrs time.

Season ticket list longer than ever but stuck in a ground we can't do anything with.

Personally i think 60k will be enough but it's always nice to have to option to expand if it's required.
[/quote]

Exactly, that was the main issue at the time. It's not like any Yanks to think small................and shit.

regards
[/quote]

Except our owners will not be overly worried about whether the ground is suitable in 20 years time, so they won't see it as an issue.

Ryan had it spot on in his post, cheapest & quickest way to increase revenue by getting more people in. Sad but true.

 

[Vlads Quiff]

I would have thought they would be thinking shorter term than that and any potential buyer would want to see some future proofing

In fact I chose not to believe it

regards

 

[Vlads Quiff]

I just don't think the numbers stack up. They didn't at the time when it was a third of the price to build, it's not worth all the fucking about for an extra 15k seating.
The whole purpose of this is maximizing the revenue, that capacity just brings in around £600k extra per sold out game. an extra 25k brings in £1m. Pro-rata it would not cost that much more to build a 70k seater than a 60k one.

regards

 

[Ryan]

I'd assume they'll want more corporate boxes/seating though Vlad in any refurb, which would generate further revenue.

 

[Vlads Quiff]

I would take that as a given Ryan, but presumably that would differ little from a 60k stadium to a 70k one

regards

 

[SaintGeorge67]

Would we consistently fill 70k though (serious question).

I know the waiting list, the trillions of fans around the world etc, but will they come every week?