Latest rumours claim that NESV will be taking a decision on either redeveloping Anfield or going for a new-build option in the coming weeks. There is anxiety amongst all supporters, especially those living in Liverpool, to know what the outcome will be.
John Henry has recently stated his desire to possibly redevelop Anfield. For hopeless romantics like me, the reasoning behind this, to preserve the ‘Magic of Anfield’, is a powerful enough argument to give this option the credit it deserves. Some argue that redeveloping and/or expanding Liverpool will be more costly than building a new stadium altogether, and that the increase in capacity will not be worth the cost, but I feel that the final decision of what will be done will not take the financial aspect as the determining factor. Having made this claim, I am also sure that if NESV are seriously considering this option, then they would be confident that it would make economical sense.
Considering how NESV went about with their other prized assets’ stadium, Fenway Park (home of the Boston Red Sox), it is not difficult to see where the new owners of LFC are coming from. Preservation of heritage seems to be a high priority for them and in many ways any fan would support this way of thinking. Fenway Park is very similar to Anfield in that it is surrounded by buildings on all sides, and brining these down was not an option. NESV gave modernization priority over capacity, as the home of the Boston Red Sox is arguably the oldest baseball shrine in North America.
At Anfield, the situation is slightly more delicate and intricate. This is because for the stands to increase in capacity, they will have to go higher, but they will also need to move backward, inevitably encroaching on any structure situated in close proximity. Rumours again talk about a possible 10,000/15,000 increase in capacity bringing the total capacity up to around 60,000 (practically the same capacity as the proposed new stadium at Stanley Park which also had an option to be increased to 70,000).
Should John Henry go for the redevelopment route, then there will be the need for the entire peripheral area to be redeveloped. Housing arrangements will be a necessity. Heritage issues with some surrounding buildings may prove to be an obstacle. There is no reason why this could not be the right occasion for the entire area to be given a much needed facelift.
Moving away from Anfield would be sad, and the ‘feel’ will not be the same again. Clubs like Man Utd and Arsenal are making double the Stg 43 million Liverpool make each season from gate sales. The need for the Club to boost income will become an urgent priority once the new UEFA rules come into play. It’s really a delicate balance of capital expenditure and revenues. NESV have promised that LFC will never be burdened with debt again, and this is one promise we all would want them to keep. So at the end of the day it’s a question of keeping the Anfield heritage, allowing a bigger audience to watch our home games, going for an economically viable option that will benefit the operation of the Club in financial terms, and ultimately giving Liverpool Football Club a modern sporting venue in line with the Club’s history and the worldwide respect it commands.
While I’d say redeveloping anfield is not a bad idea at all, as long as a new stadium had a single tiered Kop stand and liverpool fans, it would be brilliant as a stadium for liverpool football club. We outsing fans all round the country and make great atmospheres wherever we go…why would our own stadium be any different?
We cant live in the past, we NEED a NEW Stadium!, the old Kop is long gone and its the FANS that make Anfield and we will only be going next door for fooks sake wake up!.
Being a Red Sox fan from early childhood, I was delited to hear that NESV wanted to remodel and revamp Fenway Park as opposed to tearing it down and building a new one. Anfield should be the same as I would hate to see the Kop gone as it was where I saw my first LFC game. You can ask any Yankees fan, the feel of the new Yankee Stadium, that the feel is not there unless you grow up only knowing the new stadium. It’ll be the same with Anfield.
Re-develop Anfield? – a major blunder!! Seems the idea of living in the “real world” is alien to some and unfortunatelt those “some” appear to be the owners of LFC. This is NOT a baseball club in a small league. It is a major football club in a vastly greater league(s) encompassing a larger Europe.We will NEVER challenge the Manu’s or Gunners until we get our revenues at least to their levels in gate receipts. We take £40M and they take £80M ( hypothetical figs used here) and do we expect them to stand still for the next decade? – only an idiot would assume so.
I can see that Liverpool really are on the downward path and not on the field! To spend more money on a slight increase at Anfield where spending LESS would give us a vastly improved new stadium that is to all intents and purposes in the “backyard” is loonacy.
Mark my words! This would be a road to ruin….
One has to bear in mind that if Anfield is redeveloped with a capacitity less than that projected for a new stadium on the park then the the only way to increase match day revenue to that projected level would be to increase admission prices. Merseyside is not the most afluent area, and that could lead to a situation where the every day local supporter would have to reconsider their options I.e. TV coverage etc.. However, I think that the capacity could well be brought up to around 60,000 on the present site without even touching the Kop as there is capacity for expansion on both the Lothier road and Kemlyn road sides with even talk of Building over Anfield road creating a Tunnel type stucture beneath for passing traffic.
As much as id like anfield redeveloping the only stands the could viably extend are the centenary and main stands as they have some room to go backwards slightly and upwards, you cant make the Kop 2 tier and it is practically right up against walton breck road and the anfield rd end is already 2 tier and cant go backwards unless they shut anfield rd completely, also why 60000 why not go for more coz its a certainty we’d fill it
If you recall ,the original idea was to expand Anfield, that is why the club bought out all of Skerries Road in readiness. However, the local numpties comnplained, the City Council’s Chief Exec at the time, David Henshaw, blamed his predecessor and the idea was dropped. Now that Tancred Rd and Skerries Rd have been refurbished the only real option is newbuild on Stanley Park.
Pity that the numpties who stopped the scheme have all gone now, hence the mass demolition around the stadium.
Only so called fans who have never even been to Anfield want to move to a new home, those who haven’t been in and around the stadium on massive Euro nights, Derby’s and United games, we must allow Anfield to develope and the thought of destroying it and it’s memories discusts me. I’m not living in the past because the past is what makes my club great, without our history we’re just like the rest, i feel pride every time i see our beautiful historic stadium, If you don’t then support someone else!
Whilst a new stadium would be great – we need to see the business case behind it and that includes what the additional costs for tickets would be. We are being slightly blinkered if we think we can fill a 60k/70k stadium week in and week out. As recent times show when we have been lucky to fill Anfield with moderate ticket prices – filling a new stadium with increased prices would be a challenge. If we could increase Anfield by 15K, increase the hospitality and keep the tickets reasonable then it is a viable option. I’d like FSG to publish the costs for both options and the subsequent costs for supporters.
It is more than romance John, Anfield IS Liverpool FC. The reason why Liverpool FC exists today is because of Everton moving away from our beloved stadium. I simply can’t comprehend life without Anfield it is more than a football stadium, more than a cathedral, it is a big part of our identity.
Without Anfield we would not be talking about Liverpool FC today.
I live on Anfield Road (Arkles end). There is definitely scope to develop the current site. As the earlier poster mentioned, a road tunnel beneath an extended (by 5,000) Anny Rd end, would be innovative. The main stand is where I believe another 7-10,000 seats could be developed. The Centenary and Kop are up to modern standards and not in urgent need of development.
I’m open to new build or development; I remember the mid-80s shared ground at Aintree Racecourse rumour. It’s a long time coming this increase in capacity. Like many others, I’d like to see a 70,000 seater but the reality would be 55-60,000 with further scope. The surrounding area has to be able to handle the increase, also.
I have faith in FSG, whichever way we go!
New Stadium or re-developed Anfield. Don’t forget that those pressing Liverpool FC hardest to build a new Stadium at Stanley Park are also driving strongly to make that New Stadium a shared one.
My vote is for a re-deloveped Anfield to be enjoyed by The Reds and their wonderful supporters. Your idea is good Mr Henry.
the houses on both sides of the ground are all boarded up,the houses behind the annie rd end are no longer there,the kop is the only major issue as its a main rd and 1 corner of the kop almost touches the road….
its the council in liverpool that is the biggest issue,if we decide to re-develop anfield they will loose out on the millions of pounds worth of projects we had to agree to in order to get the permission to build on stanley park,ie new sports center,new school,re-development of the old train station amoung a few things.the council will then have to pay for this stuff and that aint happening…..
Seating and leg room at Anfield is way too small for a growing population, can’t see how they can modernise to the required standard. The new stadium is the ONE thing the last owners got right.
I want to see more Liverpool supporter in every game, but i just want everything to be happen in anfield, not in any stadium anywhere else. if 45000 seats can make such atmosphere, i wonder if we have 70 to 90.000 seats, more than trafford, we can double the force around anfield.
but if it is necessary, and if it is the only best way we can have, i wouldn’t mind to move to another stadium, i can take it as a part of new revolution, part of a journey.
From the comments that have come in so far, it seems that most are in favour of a re-development of Anfield.
I am taking all the comments on board because this is a subject I intend to follow.
Some insist in saying that redevelopment would cost more than a new build. Can I respectfully ask how these people have come to this conclusion?
Also, filling a 60,000 stadium would be an identical issue whether this is a redevelopment or a new build, so I don’t think this is a debatable argument!
The City of Liverpool will not pose obstacles for both options, and in the eventuality that NESV opt to redevelop, there is absolutely NO reason why these cannot be involved on a wider perspective and redevelop the surrounding area. These are businessmen after all.
I think they should build a new stadium and stop living in the past.I know we have a good history at anfield but weve got to think about the future and compete with other clubs which are building new stadiums of 60 000+ or who have already got these stadiums.Our history will not buy us players or help us win titles todays football is all about having money to do this. Y.N.W.A
Antoine, can you kindly organise a poll amongst the thousands visitors to this website to get a feeler of what Liverpool supporters would prefer?
Good idea Tonio, will do :-)
As far as I remember FSG never said that the club wouldn’t have debt again- there is still something like £80m debt at least on the club anyway. Whatever option is taken, it will be mortgaged against the club which is fine as long as we have something to show for it this time around! FSG aren’t going to pay for this out of their own pockets.
@lfcchris! Why is redeveloping Anfield living in the past and not maintaining an important heritage? Do you think NESV would consider redeveloping if the capacity would not reach/exceed 60,000?
I still wish to know how many have come to the conclusion that a new build would cost less than a redevelopment!
@Paul. I read this statement on several articles and interviews. What was the scope of wiping out the dept and then encumbering the Club with fresh debt? It could well be friend that they will finance a redevelopment themselves but its obvious that they will want to recoup the money.
NESV and John Henry himself has said on several occasions that they will re-invest the profits into the Club. This makes sense as in the process they will be raising the book and goodwill value of the Club.
This has to be one of those decisions that is a correct choice
either way, there are people for redevelopment and against. Just to throw a blue spanner in to the works, if we don’t redevelope stanley park i know another club that will……
Hey Tonio. As we know now the debt that’s now gone is the refinancing debt that H & G were killing the club with and the ridiculous interest rates etc that were costing around 30m a year. I have no problem with manageable debt borrowed against an actual stadium in the same way more or less as we might get a mortgage (the bit our previous custodians didn’t bother with!). I can’t see how we will build a stadium without taking on further debt. No club makes sufficient profit to build a stadium outright but we will use it essentially as a deposit for a new stadium. A new stadium will cost hundreds of millions, FSG won’t finance this… and neither should we expect them to realistically. I’ve not seen any interviews where they suggest they will finance a new stadium or redevelopment…although I’d love to be wrong! Arsenal have debt on their stadium and they seem to be the best financially managed club about- I don’t think debt is such a terrible thing when managed but obviously we’re a bit sceptical after the H & G debacle!
Whatever happens, I think we have a lot to look forward to over the coming years!!
Hi Paul. Let’s see how they go about it. As you say taking on a finance against a newly built stadium or a redevelopment project as colateral is not the end of the world. Better than H&G even did or planned to do.
I somehow feel these fellas are in for the long term and are more factual.
One thing’s for sure, they are trying their best, and succeeding, in taking the desire of the fans into account. The old debt has been wiped out, they have given the fans King Kenny, and they will, believe me, listen to the fans even as far as Anfield is concerned, because they know that they need the fans to be behind them because they are the ones, in the end, that generate the money to make it all viable.
I used to be against moving away from Anfield, but the economic realities have kicked in in recent years. We need the capacity to compete with Arsenal, Chel$ki, and Utd. Anything less than 70k+ would be a waste of money imho. Utd have the success to fill their capacity. Arsenal and Che$ki have a more affluent fanbase, and a larger area for that fanbase. Arsenal also have the higher capacity. One of the doubts I had about the previous new stadium ideas was that they would build with a lower capacity with the option of expanding, which I think is a stupid idea. Build a 70k stadium with an option to expand, nothing smaller.
I think the redevelopment plan will end up raising prices as they did in America, but that was relatively small league were the teams are spread across a much larger country, with much larger population to be affluent enough to afford those increases. While a new stadium may also raise prices, not filling the stadium would keep prices within reason, and if not the team would be getting the full 70k of higher prices.
A redevelopment also takes longer, and shuts parts of the stadium down during redevelopment, losing funds in the process. A new stadium can be built with no impact on the current capacity. A stadium can be designed to emphasize certain areas such as a Kop stand, and I think the previous plans did that. The Kop is not only the stand, but mainly the people, as with every game, it is the fans that make the atmosphere, not the bricks and mortar. Xavi was praising the Liverpool fans last week, not the building.
I love Anfield, you could walk in to an empty Anfield and still feel the buzz, the excitement, the rush of blood. There is no place like it for me. But it’s time to bite the bullet and move on. We need to compete with the Big teams like Manure, Arsenal and City. Romanticism is the ideal scenario and we would all be happy, except for one thing, we’d be falling further behind in terms of revenue. Let’s get to the reality of the situation, Redeveloped Anfield = Legend (but with lower gate receipts and high cost for alterations). New Anfield = Cheaper building costs in comparison to the expanded capacity and revenue. I hope FSG make the right decision, we all love Anfield but the New bigger single tiered KOP, (hopefully 16000 + capacity) will have the same loyal supporters who can make the atmosphere just as special as it is now. YNWA
Redevelop Anfield is great but looked like Liverpool will forever be playing catch up with the likes of Man Utd, Real Madrid, Barcelona and possibly Chelsea, Arsenal and Man City who are planning or already looking at 95,000-100,000 stadium.
Having been to The Emirates a couple of times (among the home supporters) and Anfield (also among the home supporters) I think there’s a lot to be said for redeveloping/expanding Anfield.
Modern stadium design gives you nice seats, better access and possibly better views, but not a nicer match experience, in my opinion.
Sitting right at the back of the Emirates is much like watching a match on a 14in TV from across the room, small coloured dots scurry around a pitch and the ball’s rarely visible.
Even from the back of the Centenary Upper, you still feel involved in the match and a lot closer to the pitch.
If we can get Anfield up to 60K capacity, without losing the atmosphere, it’s a vastly preferable option, in my opinion.
But as someone else mentioned almost as important is controlling ticket prices. £40 per seat is a vast sum of money, especially for a family and that restricts the number of games I can get to as much as the capacity at the ground. If the only way we can compete economically with other clubs is a new ground with even bigger capacity and ticket prices that stay the same (or even reduce) then I think that’s just about preferable to a redeveloped Anfield and £50-60 tickets.
@Patrick! Catching up? Man Utd (most successful team in the last 20 years in England with a 75,000 capacity stadium (during most of this time)), Real Madrid and Barcelona are owned by the people of the city and their fan base is tremendous (they would both fill 200,000 capacity stadia hands down), Chelsea and Man City (oil&gas money thrown in without any hope of recovery – sugar daddy style which we will never have) and finally Arsenal: sensible Club with sensible spending and investment, perhaps this is the model LFC should follow.
Lets be realistic here folks it ha to be a new stadium, there are too many of u missing out and the fans make the atmosphere, we could build without having to unsettle the team. We enjoy a couple more years or so at Anfield while the Stanley Park es being built, bigger capacity without crazy prices, seating restrictions and stand closures.
Personally I am open to both ideas, though my heart would want the Anfield legacy to continue. The question is if we are looking at 60,000 capacity it’s probably a redeveloped Anfield can take it, if we are looking beyond that, 70,000/80,000 it will have to be a new stadium. Do we have a strong enough fanbase in the UK to jump from 44,000 to 70,000 per game? And realistically, should the decision be to go for a new build, how much would this cost? What would a redevelopment cost. Its a delicate balance between heritage and financial viability.
I have been reading all the comments made and yes while a redevelopment of Anfield is best for the romantics in the world but we need to think about the next 100 years here, if we increase Anfield to 60000 we will have to wait a while for that to be done and as such far reduced revenue we desperatly need now,but then Anfield will not be able to grow any bigger and as we need to think about the serious long term future here and you really think that manure are going to stay at 75000 i have already heard rumours that they are looking to increasing there ground to eventually 100000 people once the banks really start lending again then you can bet the manure will expand their staduim. my vote is to build a 60-70K stadium now with the option to build bigger in say 25 years later once alot of that debt is paid off , with the Redevelopment of Anfield in a far later time we will have to leave Anfield anyway to keep up with all the other teams around as the footballers wages are going to keep increasing as well as everything else even more so with still being in a old stadium.
so we need to think about our very long term future and go with the New staduim i would love to be 70k straight away but 60k with the option or the room to eventually build to say a 90 to a 100k in the very far future then that way we are ready for the next 100 years and longer.
YNWA
Liverpool are following Arsenal in many ways already, Im for staying at Anfield defo. We can rebuild Anfield for £100m easily. There is room to do so around the ground already, we are not going to toss away our heritage!!!!
@TonioBone
you do realise that barca rarely fill the Nou Camp? Their average attendance in La Liga is lower than the scums.
Can’t believe that priorities for Liverpool supporters are architecture and comfortable seats. Yes we want the stadium improved to accommodate more supporters and the best facilities available for our players.
If John Henry and his Board think the best value for money is a re-developed stadium I don’t care if the seats are a little neat because if the team is winning I will feel no discomfort.
If the blue noses move in next door and build on Stanley Park who cares – it’s what is happening on the green stuff that really matters.
It seems to me (if I can repeat myself) the choice is simple:
a. do you want a new shared stadium on Stanley Park? – OR
b. an improved capacity redeveloped Anfield for Liverpool players and their magnificient supporters to enjoy?
@ Dave. The Nou Camp has a capacity of 93,000 plus and is the biggest stadium in Europe. They have an average attendance of 77,000 per game.
building a new stadium is nver a bad idear but concidering the time the new owners came to power,i’ll surport re-developing of[ANFIELD],and we should think about the heritage and the spirit in -ANFIELD-also the atmosphere and others surrounding the stadium,and also we the [LFC] should’nt forget that this is our battling period which the owners are promising to bring our club back to were it belongs,pls we should’nt hurried them for new stadium instead they should spent money to bring top players in at the summer for us to be in champions league next season.
Anfield should be a football heritage site.
It is criminal that any ‘fan’ wants us to bulldoze it.
There is too much history there.
If we bulldoze and move into a modern soulless dome I guarantee that most who experienced the current ground will regret it and say we made a huge error.
But it will be too late.
If we leave Anfield I will never watch Liverpool again in the flesh.
It’s our home.
What I never get about any of these articles is they never want to go above 70k Why arnt we building for the future? increase to 90/100k problems filling the stadium? give the kids free tickets we need to be leaders not followers. You say arsenal / manure are making 86 mil why are we not looking to make 90-100m.
Anfield was a good home if the owners have the money a new stadium would be best. I would hate us to re-develop to only have this debate again in 10 years time….
How many times does this need looking into? This has been going on for TEN years and we are still no closer to a new stadium or redeveloping Anfield! How much money has been wasted on assesments and designs looking into the best options by Moore,Cowboys and Henry?
Barca get around 75- 76,000 on average per game.
LFC need at the most 65,000 to 75,000 seat, and that would make us till compact in the ground, ANFIELD SHOULD BE REDEVELOPED AND IT CAN BE DONE FOR AROUND 150,MILLION, ID RATHER STAY AT OUR HOME AND GET A NEW CAPACITY AND NOT MOVE WHILE NOT GETTING INTO HUGE FANANCIAL PROBLEMS, WE DO NOT WANT ANYMORE HUGE LOAN REPAYMENTS AND ETC,
SPEND 150 MILL AND RE BUILD ANFIELD, AND EXPAND AND STAY AT ANFIELD,
Quite right too
1. Unthinkable to move from “Anfield” anything else wouldnt be
2. Cheaper – therefore more money to spend where its REALLY needed … on the pitch
3. 60,000 can EASILY be achieved with minimal disruption
4. The special atmosphere would be retained – we would not be miles away from pitch
Can you ever imagine moving from Anfield ???? – No thanks – Mr Henry is very astute
Anfield can and most likely be redeveloped.
Infrastructure issues are greater than the Local Authority permissions, but dangle a carrot and they will follow.
77,600 is a realistic target for attendance. As eluded to briefly earlier, the Anfield Road stand can be completely demolished and a new one built spanning the road like a tunner.
More radical, and this will be hot off the press soon, the pitch will be lowered and moved to negate the need to raise the height of the stadium as the KOP will become too disproportionate.
Removing the old paddock and the Anfield Road stand permitts moving the pitch a few metres West and North towards the park.
This can be a phased build and the pitch would cost in the region of £200k, it’s the Anfield Road and another tier for the Main Stand that bears the brunt of costs.
Remember the Main Stand build in the 70’s? Remember the Centenary Stand build in the late 80’s? I do, the stadium never closed and the plan is to ensure that as works commence that closure of any part of the ground at a later stage will never leave us below the current capacity, and only then for short periods, possibly close season anyway.
5 years and Anfield will be the biggest club stadium, bigger than that place up the road as well.
Keep the faith, keep Anfield.
@James. Maybe the reason we are lucky to fill Anfield each week is that we charge the 2nd highest (average) season ticket prices (after Arsenal) in one of the most poorest areas of the country. sure some teams might have higher season ticket prices. but Liverpool have very few concessional rates. and most tickets cost around £780 a season. some clubs are letting kids in for a whole season for £100 odd. eg Man City or Sunderland. Not Liverpool. we must have the oldest fan base in the country!
Liverpool’s new owners have decided to redevelop Anfield and scrap plans for a new stadium in Stanley Park that were set in motion by the previous regime, our sources understand.
FSG have been in town this week to discuss their long-term strategy for the club, with the stadium issue being the first priority for the Americans. Having seen the club fall hundreds of millions of pounds behind the likes of Manchester Utd and Arsenal in ticket revenue, John Henry et al have concluded that increasing capacity is an absolute must, although they do not see it imperative that the club start from scratch with a new build.
Previous plans to redevelop Anfield had been scrapped due to the impracticality of undergoing building work in such a densely populated area. Now, though, the council has given the green light for the project to go ahead after reassurances that the redevelopment will be less intrusive than was first thought. It will also see the surrounding area regenerated, which will appease the concerns of local residents and committees.
It is believed that the target capacity for the new stadium is between 65000 and 70000 seats.
@ DT! I hope your source is correct. This is the best news all Liverpool and those living in close proximity needed to hear.
It’s sound Tonio, we have the Local Authority in our pockets.
The owners wanted to leave an announcement until after the season but walls have ears and eyes it seems.
Big expenditure on the local infrastructure swings it.
Looks like Lothiar Road is coming down and the Anfield Road will be re-routed.
@DT. Do you mind if I write an article on EOTK tomorrow on this????? This is fantastic news and am sure it will stir up a good discussion!
Go for it Tonio.
It looks like we are seeing additional tiers on the Main Stand with 50 Corporate boxes, a wrap around from the Main Stand all the way to the Centenary Stand in the same style over the Anfield Road (which will see the current 2nd tier removed to facilitate the build) with additions to the quadrants on the KOP and filled in at the rear.
Can’t do much to the KOP at the moment except fill in the gaps to the rear due to comprimising the Lower Breack Road but raising the incline of the terrace is an option later apparently.
No mention of the Centenary Stand being touched but plans for later development are likely. All in good time it seems.
That figure of 65,000 and 70,000 seats could drop to an initial 60,000 with a possible extension in the coming years. I suspect the Centenary Stand and KOP will remain extant, for now.
The finer details will be announced by the club once Henry has concluded the rest of his business on Merseyside this week!
There is a limit of 60k or so before the transit and road infrastructure is addressed before they can go higher to 65k+ with redevelopment. Its the same with a new stadium as well.
I suspect they will expand Anfield Road and Main stands to get to the 60k+ requiring the homes to be demolished and the road relocated. At a later date when the transit and road infrastructure is in place they could expand the Centenary stand by adding a third tier which may or may not involved demolishing more homes. I don’t think they will be allowed to increase the Kop much.
If the final redeveloped stadium of 66k+ ended up with three similar tiers in a horse shoe arrangement with the present Kop, I believe most fans would be pleased.
@ Don. I feel that the plans are to redevelop Anfield. Even Ian Ayre has said since his appointment that he would personally prefer a re-developed Anfield. Anything above 60,000+ capacity should be acceptable. This coupled with more modern facilities and a regeneration of the stadium peripheral area would be fantastic. Someone did howeve mention the possibility of raising the angle of the kop in an effort to increase capacity but not having to go backwards. We will just have to wait and see.
Bunch of lies and unrealistic pipe dreams in those comments, funny to read, Mr. “DT”
To do any work on the Kop you must take down the entire roof, you mastermind architect. You will never easily achieve any sort of “horseshoe” at the existent Anfield without enormous investment.
All you can do is leave Centenary and The Kop, and rebuild Main and Anfield Road Stands, as you will have to move the pitch first to adjust it to current international regulations of size and its distance between the crowd. Eventually, the outcome will face a patchwork muddle of stands at different heights and slopes like St. James Park, bearing in mind that theirs has more symmetry than Anfield will ever have except for doing a 80% rebuild in a residential area and investing a sum of money that would easily build a new ground from scratch a couple of yards away from the current stadium.
Idiotic thinking here…