New Stadium or Redeveloped Goodison?

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Just out of interest is this a professional opinion?

If you're trying to suggest that my view would only be of value if I was an architect, then the answer is no mate.

 

[JordanianEmbassy]

If you're trying to suggest that my view would only be of value if I was an architect, then the answer is no mate.

No I'm certainly not suggesting that your view has no value. I'm not an architect either.

But to be fair if an architect or any sort of civil engineer told me it was "fanciful" I might take alot more notice. I'm basically reacting to the hoards of people who rattle on about footprint, the church, and a load of other so called problems which professionals have told us either aren't show stoppers, or aren't actually problems at all if the right approach is taken.

Just to be clear if we were offered an amazing new stadium in a great location I wouldn't be opposed to it - as long as re-development had been properly considered as an alternative.

 

[CahillsCornerFlag]

Be great if we were the first club in the prem to have safe standing. Works great for Borussia Dortmund and Schalke

View attachment 18710

View attachment 18711

Boss that, we should definitely have ourselves a bit of that.

 

[peteblue]

If it was available and affordable then Clarence dock for me. I expect that we will not be allowed to use Stanley Park so we'll be off to WHP........

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

No I'm certainly not suggesting that your view has no value. I'm not an architect either.

But to be fair if an architect or any sort of civil engineer told me it was "fanciful" I might take alot more notice. I'm basically reacting to the hoards of people who rattle on about footprint, the church, and a load of other so called problems which professionals have told us either aren't show stoppers, or aren't actually problems at all if the right approach is taken.

Just to be clear if we were offered an amazing new stadium in a great location I wouldn't be opposed to it - as long as re-development had been properly considered as an alternative.

This will no doubt be done to death in the coming weeks, months and years.....and there's a sense of real deja vu about it

What I remember from the Skempton stuff and the GFE documents was the suggestion that redeveloping the old lady would be no more expensive that building a new stadium on a brown field site.

I was never having that, as simple logic tells me that rolling into a clear open site and building a stadium with no obstructions and in one phase etc, could never come in as cheap as the highly complex piece meal building of a new stadium on the existing site - with all of it's problems and compromises.

For me the stadium has to be a multi use facility, that gets used for corporate and day to day non football use during the working week. For that you need parking - we'll never achieve that at Goodison without the ball ache of years of CPO battles. Plus I think the end result would always be some form of compromise in terms of it's design etc, compared to what we could achieve elsewhere starting from scratch.

 

[The Cowboy]

A redevelopment of Goodison is very romantic but given the level of investment and sponsorship we (hopefully) we see now I'm voting for a new stadium. We need to exploit the fact that Liverpool has an iconic waterfront and build something there. That alone would set us apart from every other Premiership ground and make the stadium recognizable world wide. Plus... how much would that aggravate the reds? Every time a photo is shown of Liverpool with the Liver Buildings and the docks... there will be our shiny new stadium. Liverpool will be known for Everton FC - and a smaller club somewhere around Anfield.

That last line is key, and something I believe has always been something of a not-so-hidden agenda from the council - they want, no, they NEED Liverpool FC and the City of Liverpool to be synonymous. The club bears the symbol of the city. Everton is not a name that is intrinsically linked to the city of Liverpool - not globally.

That's why I feel the council have always hamstrung our attempts to be anything like the dominant club of the city (commercially I mean, not on the pitch, though one does beget the other somewhat).

 

[jcgefc]

Voted for a redeveloped Goodison but that largely depends on the proposed design and location of a new ground.

Maybe it's fanciful thinking but if a waterfront location could be achieved I feel we would stupid not to take it.

Moving to WHP or something similar is what will cause a big divide.

 

[blulouie]

I admit that does seem the most far fetched of the various options presented in those docs - but the point is there are ALOT of options and many of them don't involve knocking down ANY houses and result in a huge increased capacity.

Anyone going to Villa tonight might want to look at the Holte End, then compare it to our current Park End, then look at the massive space behind it.

With respect to Villa park they have steps & proper walkways even 2 car parks outside the ground , we have tight roads even tighter pavements with houses
far too close to the ground . But by far the biggest problem for me is planning applications (nightmare) cost & massive disruption. It would take years and
years for all these things to be put in place. We've now got a guy who will no doubt by looking to increased matchday revenue & marketing , both would be severly
hampered just on time scale alone. Yes Villa Park is a great example but then again most German new builds are much better.

 

[The Cowboy]

Reclaim some land from the Mersey and build on part of the Garden Festival site. Imagine a stadium not only on the banks on the Royal Blue Mersey, but actually built on it!

 

[JordanianEmbassy]

With respect to Villa park they have steps & proper walkways even 2 car parks outside the ground , we have tight roads even tighter pavements with houses
far too close to the ground .

But not behind the Park End. Which was why I mentioned the Holte End. The Holte Ends capacity is 13,000. Our current Park End is 6000. If we built something like that at the Park End + a corporate tier we'd already have pretty much everything a new build would give us in terms of capacity.

But by far the biggest problem for me is planning applications (nightmare) cost & massive disruption.

Planning permission is still necessary in a new build.

It would take years and years for all these things to be put in place.

But spin it the other way and that is the advantage of a re-development scheme. ie you do it in stages.

We've now got a guy who will no doubt by looking to increased matchday revenue & marketing , both would be severly
hampered just on time scale alone.

Again you can spin that the other way. A re-development doesn't need the funds to all be available in one go.

Yes Villa Park is a great example but then again most German new builds are much better.

I totally agree with both of those statements (although the only new builds I've been to in Germany are Wolfsburg and FC Union). Hopefully if we get a new build it will be more akin to those than other recent UK new builds.

 

[blulouie]

But not behind the Park End. Which was why I mentioned the Holte End. The Holte Ends capacity is 13,000. Our current Park End is 6000. If we built something like that at the Park End + a corporate tier we'd already have pretty much everything a new build would give us in terms of capacity.



Planning permission is still necessary in a new build.



But spin it the other way and that is the advantage of a re-development scheme. ie you do it in stages.



Again you can spin that the other way. A re-development doesn't need the funds to all be available in one go.



I totally agree with both of those statements (although the only new builds I've been to in Germany are Wolfsburg and FC Union). Hopefully if we get a new build it will be more akin to those than other recent UK new builds.

All relevant points mate.

Ive made mine , youve made yours.

Far to many complications with redevelopment for me.

So as it stands New Stadium possibly Stanley Park (planning has already been granted on it) over to you Mr Anderson.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

A

So as it stands New Stadium possibly Stanley Park (planning has already been granted on it) over to you Mr Anderson.

Building on SP would be popcorning the kopites to the max.

For that reason alone - I'm in.

 

[Logans run]

No I'm certainly not suggesting that your view has no value. I'm not an architect either.

But to be fair if an architect or any sort of civil engineer told me it was "fanciful" I might take alot more notice. I'm basically reacting to the hoards of people who rattle on about footprint, the church, and a load of other so called problems which professionals have told us either aren't show stoppers, or aren't actually problems at all if the right approach is taken.

Just to be clear if we were offered an amazing new stadium in a great location I wouldn't be opposed to it - as long as re-development had been properly considered as an alternative.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=t...hUKEwi5zK_TiOvKAhVEgQ8KHUZHCAUQ7AkIUg#imgrc=_
There were some Goodison redevelopment plans pick one from the link above.
Not saying they are viable but probably merit consideration.
If you take the sentiment out of the equation, which I find hard to do, a new home may be the solution.

 

[billytoffee]

Building on SP would be popcorning the kopites to the max.

For that reason alone - I'm in.

Would be great but I think we all know quite well that that any previous planning applications made by that lot would hold no precedence for us. They would rolll out some dog turd excuse that the new Tampax stand at analfield has already altered the whole area and would use that as the reason to knock us back.

 

[Callum_efc]

A redeveloped stadium would take too long. And money wise i'd assume its more expensive in the long run considering anfield is going to cost 250m for 2 sides.
Give me a stadium on the water front down by Costco.