November 16, 2018, 02:03:02 PM

Author Topic: [News]Bramley Moore Dock update  (Read 322468 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

February 03, 2017, 03:52:48 AM
Reply #15
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
A running track around the pitch would be an unprecedented disaster.

Hope not.

There's no chance of a running track as the commonwealth games will be very unlikely.


February 03, 2017, 02:21:29 PM
Reply #16
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
What dock does the Belfast/Liverpool ferry arrive at?

It actually goes to Birkenhead not Liverpool. Well the Stenaline one does anyway, not sure if there is more than one.

February 08, 2017, 07:16:10 PM
Reply #17
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
This has been mentioned before. The roads will be made fit for purpose but footfall is tougher.

The attached picture shows current holes in the wall. The blue cross represents Bramley Moore dock's gate.
Two things are certain:
- That is insufficient space for police/fire/premier league rules and regulations for both home and away fans to use to exit the area
- We will not be able to knock down any of the dock wall at all.

I'd say we'll buy access to the gates represented by the purple & green crosses (and thus the break in the wall represented by the 2 red lines as well). Routes will have to be made through working docks then - which will be a shitty way of getting the match.
In saying this, Nelson dock is part of Liverpool waters so that will imrpove (see pic 2)


If i was a betting man i'd say the green and blue crosses and the red lines would be for home supporters and away fans would be herded through the purple gate.
Whether this offers sufficient egress from the "halo" still I dont know.


I'm guessing one of the things being discussed is the provision of other amenities down there such as pubs / bars / restaurants etc and whether they would be on site or part of the overall Liverpool Waters scheme and what that means for working on that whole area.

For instance I'd be amazed if Peel don't want some sort of promenade along the front; maybe they want us to pay for some of that for example.

But it's this sort of thing which makes it easier to see why the negotiations take so long.


February 08, 2017, 09:10:13 PM
Reply #18
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
@blue1948 haha, yes - yes i do. (Even typing it i thought 'was the market there greaty or the heritage. Still didn't get onto it!)

There is no reason 'concourse bridges' cannot be deployed @Alanvideo & @Toddacelli , there are one or two places with sufficient land. As you say though, the design of them would have to be pretty impressive to be in keeping with the surroundings. (Heights isn't it's normal issue due to the Regent Road bridge at Collingwood dock).

More than filling in the dock, more than it smelling of shit a couple of times a week due to the treatment works, more than the eyesore the surrounds currently are now, this is (make no mistake) the single largest problem this site has.
It is that big of a problem that i'm still not certain it will go ahead.

You'd hope that they'd have considered this sort of thing at the outset of course.

So while it is an obviously big issue, you'd hope that it was considered and ruled in at the start to save time / money / emotion if it wasn't feasible.

February 09, 2017, 07:26:26 PM
Reply #19
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Interesting this.

Would putting in similar gates, with similar stone etc be a problem?

March 20, 2017, 08:12:43 PM
Reply #20
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
That line isn't an actual plan - someone has just come up with it and emailed Merseytravel.

There is a likely station mentioned a few weeks ago opposite the Tobacco warehouse on the existing Northern Line.


March 21, 2017, 04:53:35 PM
Reply #21
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
ah, i hadn't heard that. I know they kicked off over the main stand for that.
But as the Anfield road was guaranteed to just be general sale tickets with no corp's i thought they were made up with it.

One of the directors basically said that the increased prices in the main stand that they kicked off about were going to pay for the new anfield Rd end.

Therefore currently the next Expansion isn't viable.

March 21, 2017, 04:59:38 PM
Reply #22
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Looking at what everyone else is doing / could do I think we should be going for 60,000.

There's too much worry over what the atmosphere would be like if we're averaging 53,000 say.

Barça "only" average 70k ish yet they're expanding to 100k capacity.

When Spurs is built, "if" L'pool expand and when Chelsea is redone that will mean all the other "big" clubs (plus West Ham :) ) will have 60k+ stadia.

It would be remiss to have a completely new build and position the capacity behind that level. We'd essentially be in the same position that we are now.

We're not a club that can charge huge ticket prices and we won't have 10-20k worth of corporate "customers" that would make up a capacity shortfall.

We need to have a capacity that will hold demand for big games. And this isn't our big games now - the stadium move is designed to have big games as late stages of the CL etc.

March 21, 2017, 10:01:19 PM
Reply #23
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
This is the one Meis is building for Roma.

http://www.meisstudio.com/work/#/stadiodellaroma/

It is a bowl but inside I have to admit I like the look of it.

Think he's done it as a bowl to resemble the Coliseum.

I presume that sort of thinking will influence what ours will look like.

March 23, 2017, 02:41:50 AM
Reply #24
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Wouldn't that then put us back in massive debt?

Only like a mortgage essentially.

No one was going to just go here's a load of money for a stadium.

If you think that we'll be there for 50+ years then as long as the debt costs aren't crippling then it's not an issue.

March 23, 2017, 04:56:02 PM
Reply #25
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
This is what I'm reading everywhere too
Was just going to post this

Can't see why the council would be making an announcement.

It would either be Peel or us.

LCC will only enable elements of the deal.

As @Alanvideo has said if there was any sort of agreement of council funding it would have had to go to a public meeting (even if the exact details weren't publicly disclosed).

March 23, 2017, 06:59:23 PM
Reply #26
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
This is the meeting tonight...

http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1491&MId=15797

Could come under either the 10 streets stuff or the commonwealth games bit.

March 23, 2017, 07:01:55 PM
Reply #27
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
Note to add re the meeting. It's only a select committee meeting so it wouldn't be authorised to do anything re funding.

March 23, 2017, 07:05:46 PM
Reply #28
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
No Joe Anderson on the attendance list?

Guess he'll be on site...

March 23, 2017, 08:49:04 PM
Reply #29
Offline

GLewis

NSNO Subscriber
No it's not. That is a meeting from the 28th Feb. It's 23 March today. Looking at all the Committee meetings I can't see any scheduled for today. There is a planning meeting next week though.

Ha not sure why I thought clicking on the calendar would bring up today's date...