52,000 would also be smaller than Newcastle’s ground. We would be a laughing stock.
And would it really make good financial sense to spend half a billion Pounds for just 12,000 more seats?
This is the thing I wish people would admit about their capacity hang-ups.
It's really mostly about what the Liverpool fans are going to say, isn't it? I'll let you in on a secret: it wouldn't matter if we built the best stadium on earth, they'd still "laugh" at us. Opposition fans will laugh at us when we inevitably don't fill a 60k+ ground. They'd laugh at us even if we did, for having to give tickets away like West Ham. That's football.
It's as if people forget that if this thing is built, it'll be on the banks of the Mersey, part of the famous skyline, close to the City centre, part of a major development for the area, will have a design that'll be the envy of most if not all the other clubs in the country (if it's anything like the workshop images), will deliver very competitive matchday revenue in part through the greater supply of expensive (corporate, box etc) seating rather than simply more standard seating, will be the premier stadium venue in the city for hosting events, will be a stadium we can actually fill regularly AND will still be comfortably over 50k in overall capacity.
I'm pretty sure in terms of what we originally wanted the new ground to look like, that's the dream. It certainly was for me, before this move was ever talked about. I think anyone laughing at that would be a kopite and/or insane. It'd be so much better than L4, as great a home as it's been.
Tldr; If having the best ground was a competition and actually mattered (which it isn't and doesn't), rest assured that BMD would beat Anfield hands down every time.
