Dublinred4ever Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 If this Dubai investment goes through, is there scope to change the plans for the new stadium, or are they set in stone as per the planning permission we were granted? I ask this based on a trip to Dubai last year where the ethos seemed to be that everything they build was the biggest or the best of it's type anywhere. For example, the Burj Al Arab hotel, the World and Palms developments and the imminent construction of the worlds tallest building. Would they favour the same approach to the new ground?
Sion Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I would highly doubt any changes would be made. very highly doubt.
Guest RedIsMyColour Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 It does change things a bit. If they are prepared to invest in a larger stadium (granting permission) it would be well worth doing.
Morse Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Just thinking aloud here... Maktoum owns the Godolphin horse racing stables and is possibly interested in the area around Aintree; I wonder whether putting Anfield and Aintree together would make sense for Merseyside/DIC? The Vegas of the North perhaps...
Guest spk Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 i would have thought so - especially when you look at what emirates have done with the arsenal stadium. purely guess work but i'd think they'd want to develop the area too, not just build a stadium, museum and shop - build housing, offices, etc. it would be great for public relations alone
McBain Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 We haven't put two bricks together yet so there may be leeway. It would depend if contracts have been signed that tie the clubs hands
Tosh Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Questiopn would be, how much variation would be allowed before anew aplication submitted and the inevitable delays etc that would create. So, for example, of they specified a concrete exterior, would changing it to solid gold warrant a new submission, and therefore, would the change be worth the grief. More specificically, would the change from 60k to 70k be a major change? Yes. Would they/we want the delays that the new submission would create? Or would the "expandable" stadium be put back on the table? You do of course realise that one of the early buyers of a plot on "The Palm" was a certain horse-racing mad welsh midget who counts Real Madrid and Newcastle among his employers You heard it here first folks. He's coming home...
Archangel Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Correct me if i.m wrong but the plans were granted on the understanding that it would be a 60000 seater - i believe to build more would require us to move out of the area
Maldini Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I don't think they'd let us expand it, and it was hard enough to get this one passed, can't see them allowing a bigger stadium. You never know though, maybe if we give them their money back they might be more accomodating.
Stevie H Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Looks a bit like Zippy doesn't it?that was lucas' idea. he was having a fling with bungle at the time. hence chewbacca being a woman.
Guest spk Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 i thik they wwould be happy to expand. it would bring more jobs and more money to the city - its win win. naturally the stadium would be built in the same way as unites, so that it could be expanded in the future. i think the 60k limitation would mainly be due to budget constraints - tho that would no loner be an issue. i think there is a reasonable probability that a new stadium could be design for the reasons RedIsMyColor gives - they would want the biggest and the best - a showpiece
Herbie von Smalls Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 i can't really see any sense in ripping up the plans and starting from scratch. hasn't much of the project administration been signed off already, and a tentative date for demolition and construction pencilled in?
Guest RedIsMyColour Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 If you're correct Herbie then I doubt much can be done. Which is a shame, its like booking an holiday to pontins and then winning the lottery (with some unforeseen reason that you cannot change plans )
Mike Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 the stadium is going ahead as isthe council have requested more bogs is the last i heard !
growler Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I would imagine it would stay at 60, and the changes would be internally with making choices which are better and not cutting any corners.
PLY Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 As long as we have glass staircases with fish inside I'll be happy.Oh , and more scouse pies too , they all sell out by the time I fall in from the alehouse at 2.55.
chrisbonnie Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Just thinking aloud here... Maktoum owns the Godolphin horse racing stables and is possibly interested in the area around Aintree; I wonder whether putting Anfield and Aintree together would make sense for Merseyside/DIC? The Vegas of the North perhaps... i never even thought of that, you could well be on to something there
Maldini Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 They also own Travelodge so we may see an LFC themed hotel before long.
Stanley Leisure Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 They also own Travelodge so we may see an LFC themed hotel before long. or a travelodge themed football team?
Tim Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 might be able to get a great discount for cup finals.
Herbie von Smalls Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 They also own Travelodge i thought someone said the makhtoums had a commitment to quality?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now