Anfield Debate

The enigma of Liverpool's proposed new stadium resurfaced last week in the wake of the club's newly-promoted managing director, Ian Ayre, repeating his preference to sell the naming rights.

Liverpool's owners, Fenway Sports Group (FSG), have been taking their time over a decision between a construction of a home in Stanley Park, or the redevelopment and expansion of Anfield.

Existing planning permission consents from Liverpool City Council (LCC) are due to expire later in April and in June, which adds expectation on a critically-important selection.

The process has received much scrutiny ever since Liverpool's former co-owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, failed to construct a replacement for Anfield, particularly after what has since become an infamous statement about spades going in the ground.

Architecturally-advised redesigns, the global recession and debates over a potential ground-share with Everton delayed Hicks and Gillett's plans, but the American pair were, of course, dramatically bought out by compatriots FSG last autumn.

Liverpool's new principal owner, John Henry, and chairman, Tom Werner, cited the stadium issue following their takeover in mid-October and it remains a topic of debate in their grand plan to restore the glory days of the 18-time champions of England and five-time kings of Europe.

It was thought that the approved plans for a 60,000-seater new stadium in Stanley Park, which had been favoured by Hicks and Gillett, would be followed by FSG. But in February, having been influenced by the atmosphere and nostalgia upon visiting Anfield, Henry hinted that he could expand or redevelop what has been Liverpool's famous home since 1892.

It is a difficult decision for FSG and information obtained by skysports.com from LCC illustrates that planning permission, community impact and travel links are among a number of factors that need to be taken into account.

Hicks and Gillett preferred a new stadium in Stanley Park, adjacent to Anfield, because it guaranteed increases in capacity and corporate hospitality opportunities, while the construction period would not interfere with the current stadium attendance and, as a result, matchday revenue.

LCC has granted consent on two alternative plans for a 60,000-seater stadium in Stanley Park, one by AFL Architects in 2006 and a second, most recently commissioned by Hicks and Gillett in 2008, by Ryder HKS.

But the consent for AFL's plans expires on 12th April, 2011. Ryder's consent expires on 19th June, 2011.

The schemes have included a number of commitments to the restoration of Stanley Park, which have already taken place, including landscaping and public facilities. There are also future pledges to traffic management and monitoring, public football pitches, tennis courts and a multi-use games area.

The necessary demolition of existing properties 47-71 on Anfield Road has already happened. At the same time, Outline Planning Permission (OPP), which agrees the basic principles of plans with some items still to be agreed, has been granted for the development of an 'Anfield Plaza' on the site of the current Anfield. The Plaza would incorporate a residential scheme, offices, retail, a hotel, and ensure there is no loss in public open space.

Ryder's plans include much the same as AFL, but also propose a club museum and shop, and a screened car park. Both the AFL and Ryder schemes require Liverpool to deliver improved transport links, including park and ride spaces and 17 Football Match Parking Zones (FMPZ), with the latter catering for residents on a permit-only basis, due to the increase in stadium capacity and a determination to avoid additional matchday car journeys.

The FMPZ already exist. If the park and ride spaces are not delivered, consent only allows a stadium capacity of 51,900. But for every 500 park and ride spaces provided the capacity would increase by 1,350 to a maximum of 60,000.

A new stadium would likely include a version of The Kop in an attempt to maintain the atmosphere of the existing Anfield, while, as much as fans may disapprove, Ayre's maintained stance on selling stadium naming rights could generate an estimated income of £120million-plus.

The debate regarding the impact of a new stadium on the surrounding community is a talking point. Opposing perspectives, which include that of the English Heritage body, balance the pros and cons of losing public parkland against the need, and the much-disputed capability, for a private-commercial venture to ensure suitable benefits for the Walton constituency with regards to history, housing, visual amenity, business, employment, open space and facilities.

Planning permission has yet to be submitted to LCC for any redevelopment or expansion of the current Anfield stadium. An expansion of 15,000 seats from a current 45,000 capacity and an increase of hospitality suites for increased corporate opportunities would be anticipated.

This would likely be achieved by building additional tiers on top of the Anfield Road Stand, Centenary Stand and Main Stand, while The Kop would remain untouched to preserve its prestige. A greater number of executive/corporate hospitality boxes are vitally important because this is where Liverpool have a significant deficit when compared to the likes of Old Trafford or Emirates Stadium.

Increasing the size of Anfield's current stands, which still have areas of restricted viewing, and improving the included facilities and access would also be expected to earn a higher rating in Uefa regulations.

Expanding Anfield would be favoured by most fans, who view the stadium as a part of the club's DNA. But the obvious hindrance to remaining at Anfield would be that there would be limited potential for expansion beyond 60,000 if so desired in the future.

Staying at Anfield would be subject to planning permission, and this would probably consider factors such as Right To Light in a congested urban area, while Anfield Road itself would likely require redirection.

The commitment to transport links, such as park and ride, would still be essential to cater for the increase in capacity.

Expansion would lead to a significant amount of interference to Anfield in the construction/building period in the coming seasons, when capacity, resulting matchday revenue and atmosphere would all be damaged. These could ultimately drive the cost up above that of constructing a new stadium.