Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
yea, I agree, if the stadium is designed well, a packed 50k each game would be fine by me.I honestly would be happy with a 50000 seater, the way football is going, id rather have a full 50000, than do a City and have empty seats all over the place
Dave,
I suggested to you the other day to hold your water on this kind of nonsense statement - you're making yourself look increasingly daft and next week will see that opinion confirmed.
I honestly would be happy with a 50000 seater, the way football is going, id rather have a full 50000, than do a City and have empty seats all over the place
he's looking to build us a new stadium which we are now further down the line than any move previously.
Apart from stating the date of the SPV announcement back in March, I don't think the Echo have proven themselves particularly informed on any of the stadium detail have they Dave? Think they are speculating just like many of us, whilst a few on here seem fairly confident they are wrong. LFC have had a bigger capacity than us for quite a while now so whats the difference? 3000 or 10000, theirs would still be bigger. Big imposing stadium would be fantastic but 61878, 55,000 or 50,000....Not that fussed so long at it is on that waterfront (ideally with room to expand should the capacity need to be a bit lower.)Did you listen to the recent podcast from the Echo? The capacity was discussed there. And I can easily see the figures they mention of around 50,000 to be the case. that last Elstone statement prepared the ground for a decision on that basis.
I'm sure when/if it is announced there will be plenty of talk of "upwards of 55,000" like...what with the (whispered at this stage) possibility of safe standing areas to come.
I take it you are nailing your colours to the mast on a 60,000 seat stadium announcement in the future then?
We were heading for relegation under RM I would regard that as dud football. The team was in free fall when he left.Lol. So wrong in all sorts of ways.
Take a look at that absolute pile of stinking dung on the pitch now and tell me with a straight face that was "dud" football we watched under Martinez.
It matters because the (apparent) reason for building this stadium was to use it as a facility-led recovery of the club to commercial success again.Apart from stating the date of the SPV announcement back in March, I don't think the Echo have proven themselves particularly informed on any of the stadium detail have they Dave? Think they are speculating just like many of us, whilst a few on here seem fairly confident they are wrong. LFC have had a bigger capacity than us for quite a while now so whats the difference? 3000 or 10000, theirs would still be bigger. Big imposing stadium would be fantastic but 61878, 55,000 or 50,000....Not that fussed so long at it is on that waterfront (ideally with room to expand should the capacity need to be a bit lower.)
That's not true currently.
Agreed but the fact that the other one got called in, (& always was going to be) means that as soon as planning permission hits the council offices this will become the closest we have been.
It was one signature away from a reality.The Kirkby debacle also had a main contractor appointed. It was way further down the line than the Bramley Moore move.
It was one signature away from a reality.