As bad as it looks it looks much better than what a redeveloped Goodson would have looked like, and a lot of fans wanted that. Thankfully that never went ahead, as we’d have done it a much lower budget.
Not at all, there seems to a hefty chunk of revisionism in there. Some people didn't want to go to Kirkby, so they formed KEIOC and presented one scheme for redevelopment (out of several from a previous study, because they only had a couple of weeks to do so, and that was the only scheme that still had completed drawings ready). All while you and many others (about 15k I think) were probably voting and happy-clapping your way out of the city. As the months passed, the same group of fans then also approached Peel about building a stadium on central docks, several yrs before the club had even thought about it. They also approached BESTWAY/LCC about a stadium on their site, who then commissioned HOK to do a preliminary Design. The club rejected it because it only held 55k and they said it couldn't be extended to 75k, as if that was an issue (despite the fact that HOK/LCC said it could). That was probably about the same time as you (and the aforementioned 15k) were crying into your beer, mourning the passing of Destination Kirkby at the public inquiry, where the same group of people successfully and systematically pulled apart every aspect of the out-of-town proposal, leading to its subsequent rejection.
I was in the Bernabeu a few months ago to see how it's changed after its recent redevelopment. I first visited it over 40yrs ago, and I've been there several times over the years and seen it transformed a couple of times in that period. The Nou camp is now getting the same treatment.... and of course the San Siro has also had several refurbishments. Living proof that not all redeveloped stadia have to look like Anfield. I've no idea why you think that we would've done it at a lower budget when we're currently looking at a £760m outlay, that could yet sink us if this sale doesn't complete, and suitable owners come in. GP would've also been cheaper construction cost per seat than Anfield as a lower contruction volume is required on 3 sides...... but again, why would that even be an issue, with an owner who's prepared to spend almost the cost of LFC's 2 new stands on just acquiring and prepping the dock?
Kirkby happened because the club was skint due Kenwright having us in hock to his paymaster, and he thought he could get a stadium for almost free (at the behest of his silent partners who wanted a retail park in Kirkby, who had/have been milking us for years). BMD happened because Moshiri was still being led by the architects of the Kirkby debacle, and because he was burning through the Russian's money anyway.... so who cared what it costed. He preferred the blank canvas and was also attracted by LCCs vision for a CWG bid at BMD, that would bring massive enabling funds to help build it. That bid died when the Durban games fell through and shifted the window, the 61,878 stadium died too. Following another consultation period... the 52,888 version magically emerged.... and construction started, before funding had even been secured. USM was sanctioned just after the dock was filled. Still no finance secured... we carried on regardless because Moshiri said he'd cover the costs. Then the loans started. Hence the current financial mess, which could've easily relegated us and now requires the owner to take at least a half-billion pound haircut for a sale to even be possible, with who-knows what kind of debt. Dodged a bullet at GP, or ran under an atom bomb at BMD?
Only time will tell, but let's not pretend all is rosey because Liverpool went bargain basement.
