Are the Reds right to go for greater capacity at the expense of tradition?

 Read about Liverpool's plans here

Anfield has been the home of Liverpool Football Club since 1892, and fans hold its history and traditions dear.

But the current capacity of 45,000 - over 20,000 less than Old Trafford - is insufficient to meet demand, and club chiefs are keen to expand.

And a move to a state-of-the-art stadium would cement Liverpool's status in the Premiership's elite.

Despite opposition from local residents, the board are determined to have the new stadium, which would still be called Anfield, ready for the 2005 season.

Is a move the way forward for Liverpool?

It was too bad to see the Kop go - I saw Peter Beardsley clinch the 1988 league title from there against Spurs - but there is no question Liverpool have to move. But 55,000 is a limiting factor. They ought to be looking in the low to mid 60s
Daniel, United States

As a lifelong Liverpool fan I think we have to put aside all emotional ties to Anfield and build the new stadium. It's the only way for the club to move forward, but 55,000 capacity is far short of what is required. It needs to be bigger - much bigger - and retain the unique atmosphere of Anfield, though most of that is provided by the fan-base.

OK, prices might rise to cover the cost, but I think all true fans won't see this as a burden. The club can't afford to dwell on history if it intends to bring back the glory days of the 70s and 80s, and it will still be "Anfield".
Mike Corbin, England

The figures from the Premiership show that there is a need for an increased capacity. However, the number of empty seats at some European games at Anfield last year indicates that the Board were right not to go for a 70,000 seater.

Like it or not, Liverpool needs extra money to get and keep the best players. Therefore we should be ambitious. In fact, 10,000 extra seats means millions more in revenue each year. That ambition must be tempered with caution. Rick Parry and co seem to have made the best business decision for the club, and that is what they are paid to do.
Jim, Ireland

Liverpool should definitely move. They should look to the future and build a stadium big enough to cater for the support and likely growth in support. The costs of an additional 15,000 on top of the 55,000 are worth it. In the long term, the club will benefit considerably more than they would through signing players with the money.
Peter Lindsey, South Africa

It's sad to be leaving Anfield but it's the only option if we want to compete with Man U, Real Madrid etc. Going by the pictures it looks a fantastic stadium. I am disappointed with the capacity because I was hoping to start bringing my two lads. We only live 2 hours away but can never get tickets. It must be worse for fans who live in Liverpool and can't get in, so I hope the board will have a rethink and show a bit more ambition.
Andy, England

Building a new ground will increase capacity by 9,500. The Kop used to hold 27,000 happily standing; it now holds 13,000 reluctantly seated. The world is going mad.
Colin Wright, UK

Don't be blinded by the competition with Manchester. My club Ajax left it's old, history-rich Olympic stadium to move to a bigger one. Since then they have been a shadow of their former selves and then got a reputation of being cool and lifeless. A new stadium does not always bring more success, and certainly not a better atmosphere.
Ivo van der Veen, England

It has to be said that this is very short sighted by the Liverpool and Everton boards. What's the point of moving to a stadium that's only 10,000 more than you already have.

Shouldn't the two teams combine their assets and build an 80,000 seater stadium. If several teams in Italy can do it (Roma-Lazio, Milan-Inter et al) than why not ours? It's just a waste of time and money and I can see this turning into a bit of a farce when Liverpool realise the mistake they've made.
Mustafa Yilmaz, England

I believe the plans allow for a future increase to 60,000. Surely this is not enough if we want to be recognised as one of Europe's elite teams. As for ground sharing; my worst nightmare is red and blue seats, an Everton shop and a statue of Dixie Dean, Urgh.
Brian, Warrington

I am an Everton fan but I don't think Liverpool should move away from Anfield! The Kop is legendary and the Liverpool derby just would not be the same! Plus, Man Utd hate going to Anfield.
Matt Sheppard, England

A greater capacity crowd is definitely what the red men need. The new stadium could be a great success. However, the crowd must be as close to the pitch as architecturally possible. The old Anfield atmosphere was based on this and if it can be applied to the new stadium then I don't think the fans will mind too much. If you look at some of the new stadiums like the Riverside or the Reebok then the pitch is too far away from the crowd and the atmosphere disappears.
Joe, Liverpool/England

I am all in favour of a move to a new stadium although feel the capacity should be higher than the proposed 55,000. I hope the club remember what the present Anfield means to people and are sympathetic to its development. Bear in mind the many ashes scattered over the ground, my grandfather's included.
Ian, UK

I think that we should upgrade the existing Anfield, as it is like a fortress for opposition sides to come to. I also propose that while we are upgrading our stadium, we should make our temporary home ground the Millennium Stadium in Wales, as we seem to have had some considerable success there in the recent past! This way we can keep the great Anfield as it is known.
Luke Drummond, Australia

I totally agree with building a new Anfield. But 55k capacity is not enough for an English football giant. The design should able to be increased when the demand is higher.
Kevin Chong, Malaysia

I don't care where they play, but 55,000 is woefully short of being a strategic decisison! They should think about the long term. Look how long Anfield has been around. When the number of clubs is reduced and we move more to a US format of having fewer 'super-clubs'... 55,000 won't be big enough.

Besides, as a nation we should be building grounds that are top-dollar, ready for World Cup capacity both now and for years to come. The clubs should pay because they'll get it back in the long-run!
Jason Thomas, Houston, Texas (British citizen)

There is only one Anfield, a new stadium will surely accommodate the corporate sponsor and not the average fan that lives and breathes football. Is a move from one of the bastions of English football worth 10,000 extra seats? Never.
Wayne, NZ

The new stadium is no where near big enough for a club our size. When Rick Parry first announced plans to move he said it was important to keep up with the likes of United who currently have 23,000 seats more than us. We are in effect spending �70m on 10,000 extra seats.

I am really disappointed with these proposals and will vote against them as a season ticket holder if given the opportunity. If we aim to be the number one club in Europe, we should not opt for a ground which is inferior to a lot of current stadia (Celtic 61,000, Utd 67,500 Arsenal's new stadium 60,000 and Sunderland have plans to make their ground 60,000).

I feel Parry has seriously underestimated the size of our support with this unambitious plan. Why not start with a 65,000 with the option to increase instead of 55,000. I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed.
Lee Hemmings, Liverpool

Moving to a new and bigger stadium is part and parcel of the modern game. However, I don't see much point if it only means an additional of 10,000 seats. After all, one should build taking into account the future demand, ie, perhaps for 80 to 100,000 seats.

If the club is facing financial constraint right now, perhaps the move should be postponed until the position is stronger. Perhaps the club can apply to be listed on the stock exchange for easier funding purpose.
Don, Malaysia

The club, as all LFC supporters know, is the most important thing on earth. The club consists of players, staff (from the chairman down to the tea lady), the brilliant unique supporters and Anfield. Anfield has been a shrine and will continue to be.

We can all take a part of it away with us but we must move on to a new shrine and more realised dreams and experiences. I am confident that the chairman, manager, supporters, and staff will endeavour earnestly to make our new home as warm and as monumental and memorable as our current home. We're an institution, a phenomenon, nothing will change that, only enhance it.
John D, Dublin

Liverpool would be well advised to hold fire and review this option again in few years! The spectacle that is the English Premiership has peaked and all the issues surrounding TV coverage in the Nationwide league will have their turn in the Premiership soon - the bubble WILL burst!!

Anfield is a fine stadium and my guess is that it will prove to be more than adequate for the foreseeable future.
Matthew White, Scotland

I am a bit disappointed in the Reds moving from Anfield. I am not that convinced with the design of the new stadium, as it looks like the Reebok stadium and cannot be increased. Also the corners are missing therefore leading to a loss of atmosphere.
Oli, Lancs

Move to Stanley Park? Well, that's where a lot of us first played football, (coats for goals of course) but with the direction that football is going in, why stop there. Let both Liverpool and Everton share the ground.

Many teams will be out of business before long; only the rich and powerful will survive. Perhaps they should eventually combine. Come on Everpool.
Colin Richardson, Canada

Liverpool suffered through the 90's because they were reluctant to give up the past and made a series of wrong managerial appointments until they came to their senses and found Houllier. A new ground is progress.

Parry's words suggest that the past will not be forgotten - it will still be Anfield. But the Anfield of the future.
Jeremy Sloan, Australia

I'm a Rangers fan and so not directly concerned by Liverpool's plans. But sometimes in life you have to be brave and expand your frontiers. However, I agree with those who say that 55,000 are too few seats, given the upheaval such a move would cause. Liverpool need to think big!
William Hogg, France

Short sighted or what! Why not build a super stadium, incorporating other sports such as athletics, and knock both the existing Anfield and Goodison down. Shared expenditures, shared profits and share with the nation as our national stadium.
Steve, UK

Liverpool need a significant increase in capacity if they are ever to compete financially with Man Utd. If anything, I feel the increase is too small, but agree with Rick Parry's comments that the team must come first. I only hope that the designs allow for extra expansion should it be found necessary.
Paul Wright, UK

Not enough capacity! The stadium will be there long after Gerard Houllier and his plans are consigned to history. What will remain (hopefully) is the need for far more than 55,000 to watch Liverpool's games. If the club cared for the fans, they would fork out for a bigger stadium.

Why not share a super-stadium with Everton? And why not build on the outskirts where there is easier access to motorway links? This would reduce the traffic problems which for years have made getting to Anfield problematic.
Don Campbell, UK

I speak as one of the majority of Liverpool season ticket holders who live away from Anfield, indeed outside the city. LFC have prevaricated for two or three years on this question and are still pussy-footing about, which is not like them.

But finally having made the decision to leave Anfield, which should have been made years ago, why on earth are they only moving to Stanley Park. The area around Anfield - apart from the fact it is now so run-down that you have to walk past rows of burnt-out and otherwise derelict houses to get there, is also a dreadful place to reach by car or public transport.

So having sort of decided to move, why didn't they do the sensible thing and move to Speke or somewhere else near to the motorways, airport and rail? For once, LFC have thought small, thought insular, and missed the whole point.
David Crocker, UK

I just hope in 2010 they won't look to built the 70,000+ seater stadium. Wouldn't it be better to find the money now??
Brona, Czeck rep

They are making a good decision over the building of the new stadium. They should keep Anfield as a memorial site for the 96 who died at Hillsborough, and those with sprinkled ashes.
Jordan Knight, England

I'm all for the move, but surely a 60,000-70,000-seater would be much more beneficial. If you look at all the top teams in Europe (excluding Bayer Leverkusen), they all have huge 70,000+ stadiums. Surely we cannot compete (money wise) with only 55,000 seats. I only want what's best for Liverpool FC so if this turns out to be the best decision then, fantastic.
Tony, England

Having been a life-long Liverpool supporter, I will be sad to see Anfield go. However, it simply isn't big enough. It has expanded as far as possible amongst rows of terraces and there is nowhere else to build. A move to Stanley Park would be fantastic and to keep the name of Anfield would show loyalty to the area as well as the club's achievements and history.

But I agree with many other comments - why settle for 55,000? Is this a lack of ambition - can we really imagine Liverpool's new Anfield being upstaged by Everton's new stadium? Coming second in the Premiership this year is a positive move forwards - let's keep it that way and aim higher and build a larger capacity stadium.
Nicky, England

I think the new stadium will be fantastic for LFC, the team and the supporters that will fill it. Rick Parry has pointed out that the stadium will not be the 70,000-seater that a lot of fans were expecting because he wants to ensure that funds are available in the long-term to Gerard Houllier if the squad needs strengthening.

It would be folly to build a 70,000 capacity stadium if the debt taken on could threaten the future of the club and the team.
Paul, England

It'll be sad to see the old Anfield go, but if we are to continue to challenge for the top honours we need to have a stadium capable of bringing in revenue to buy the top players.

My only concern is that we don't want to lose things from our past, such as the Shankly gates and, most importantly, the Hillsborough Memorial. But I'm sure Liverpool FC have thought of that. Above all, it's an exciting prospect for the club (and its fans), and I only hope that it becomes a reality in the near future.
Simon Gray, England

I cannot believe they are thinking of moving, is there any real difference between a 45,000 and 55,000-seater stadium...I always believed I would be able to take my children to Anfield, the way I was!
Nigel, UK

Liverpool should move with the way football is at the moment, and moving towards Europe. Facilities are important and there would be more capacity for fans, it would help in attracting the top players to play for the club, which is what it's all about.
Kevin Wade, Republic of Ireland

I am a true Liverpool fan and I have to admit, this is a great idea. At first I disagreed but when I found out it would be called Anfield I was delighted, as Anfield is our home and nothing can beat the atmosphere.
Wayne Gardiner, United Kingdom

I don't think Liverpool FC should move to a new stadium at all. Anfield has been the home to Liverpool FC for the past 110 years. People like Bill Shankly and Bob Paisley were there, and now LFC are wanting to leave for a new ground a few yards away. Anfield has always been one of the best stadiums in Europe and I am against the move to a new stadium.
Gavin McAllister, Ireland

This is an eminently sensible decision and reflects well on Rick Parry and the board. I was worried that the 70,000-seater stadium might overstretch the budget and it seems they have come to the same conclusion.

Liverpool maintain their status as a well-run club with genuine concern for the image and status in their local community and beyond, and I cannot commend them enough for that. That's why I support LFC.
Paul Owem, UK

Been going to to Anfield when I can for over 25 years. So many memories. But time to move on and break free of sentiments that haven't brought success. Two things though;
1. Why compromise. If you're going to move, build a super stadium which would be filled and 70k people would bring in a lot of revenue.
2. Why do all plans for new stadiums look the same. Some imagination please. Let's have an outstanding stadium, not another Wembley reject.
Chris Ellison, England

There are doubts over the required capital investment and doubts over the proposed capacity. It appears these concerns have been reflected by the board who have reduced the capital risk and in turn have compromised the capacity.

�70m is a lot of expenditure for 10,000 more fans, which begs the question, is it a stadium for corporate hospitality? If the team and the fans really do come first, why don't we hold off until we can structure a commercially viable 70,000+ seater stadium?
Paul, UK

No, they shouldn't move. Think of the glory days the Kop has had. Think of the heritage. Just expand the stadium.
Dan, UK

Liverpool's new plans may only be 10,000 seats bigger than the current stadium, but the designs seem to have plenty to allow for additional capacity if and when needed. Surely this make more sense than upping capacity by, say, 20-25000 with many empty seats. If the demand is there then more seats will surely be added.
Steve, UK

The more big stadiums we get, the better; we won't need a national stadium, England can continue to travel around different stadiums giving more fans the opportunity to see them. The FA Cup, Worthington Cup, play-offs etc. can be played in different stadiums depending on the location of the finalist.

Plus, if Arsenal and Liverpool and all the other big clubs get the go-ahead to build new stadiums, we would stand a better chance of hosting the World Cup in the future. Also, all the money saved on not building a national stadium could be ploughed back into the smaller clubs.
Stef, London

I am delighted with the plans. I live right next to the stadium and think that it is a much-needed change. The current condition of the park is appalling and this will be a breath of fresh air to the area. Well done Rick Parry!
Peter Rodrigues, Liverpool, England

In an ideal world, we'd all be applauding the fact that 10,000 extra fans can watch games. In the world we live in, Liverpool fans are going to be left footing the bill for this 'investment for the fans' for years to come.
Imran Lakhi, England

Why only 10,000 more seats?? I only hope that the design will allow for further expansion as has happened at Old Trafford. There will be no space restrictions so it should be possible. I hope they have not been short-sighted. Time will tell. Either way, a move is necessary and I welcome it.
Phil, UK

Stanley Park lies directly between Anfield and Goodison Park. I hope Liverpool Football club demonstrate respect for both the residents and area of green space they will be taking up. I am sure as an ex-Liverpool resident the acres of green space to be used are more valuable to those in the area than greater revenues associated with the larger seating capacity for the club.
Des McIvor, UK

They have a sell out almost every game, they play two games a week for 75% of the season. I know I am no financial wizard, but 70,000 bums on seats each at about 30 quid is over �2m a game, �60m a year. I know 75% of this will be lost due to wages and other expenses but it will still only be 25 years of repayments, just like all other mortals pay to move home.

Go for the big one and then see the coffers swell with European finals, England internationals maybe even the odd rugby league final. Salford United have 65,000, Barcelona have 100,000 and Man City will have 55,000. What are Liverpool competing for, the Champions League or to retain Premiership status?
Michael, UK

I'm completely in favour of the short move but have two major problems. Firstly, the design seems to have not learnt the lesson of other recent new grounds, namely stands close to the pitch and steeply banked. Also 55,000? That's almost a pathetically small increase, I understand the team is of importance but with time the extra seating will easily pay back the extra costs.

A good case study on stadiums is to look at the difference between Scotland and Wales's new national grounds. The Millennium stadium is big, close to the pitch and the best atmosphere of any ground in Britain. Hampden Park has low spaced out stands and a tiny 50,000 capacity with a woeful atmosphere. Rick Parry, please take note!
Dave, UK

Liverpool are a massive European club. They've won more in Europe then any other English club - as they keep saying. And now they're proposing a stadium of just 45,000. Lack of ambition? Lack of faith? Anfield is the creaking facade of a once great club, but the half hearted new plans do little do convince that the club really believes its own press.
Dom, London

I can't believe all the fans who are saying that Liverpool should move. Why do they have to move? At present there is a terrific atmosphere with true supporters of the club. The only thing a new ground would achieve is higher ticket prices and allow more Norwegians and southerners into the ground at the exclusion of the local support.

Maybe it is all those so-called fans who are in favour of the move. Surely loyalty to the people of Liverpool and to the heritage of the club should dictate that they stay at the ground that has brought them so much glory. All the owners of the club are thinking of is the prospect of grabbing more money out of the supporters' pockets.

Just because every other club in this country is betraying its fans does not mean that Liverpool should do the same. So what if Manchester United have a bigger ground? They could never have the atmosphere inside Anfield, and that will be lost forever once the plastic scousers take over.
Jonathan Rogers, UK

Should any football club be thinking of expanding in the present unsettled financial climate that the whole of football is experiencing? Why don't the Premiership donate some of their millions to the struggling lower leagues and save the sport, not better themselves.
Sarah Parnell, England

I have been a Liverpool fan most of my life and feel that Anfield is a great stadium. However, anyone who went to Anfield before 1989 and then didn't go until 2002 would probably not recognise the place.

Therefore, why should we continue to build onto the current stadium when it bears no resemblance to the original Anfield. We need to move to expand.
Gareth Jones, Germany

They should be honest and say they are not interested in the extra 10,000 fans who will get into the new ground, but all the extra space they would have for corporate sponsors and exec boxes etc.

Losing all the heritage of Anfield for little benefit for the average real fans is not on. Stay at Anfield.
Keith, UK

Anfield is surrounded by terraced housing and it would be impossible to continue expanding in such a residential area. The main stand is thirty years old, the Anfield Road end is a poor development, and there is no symmetry in the stadium.

A new Anfield will give Liverpool the stadium it deserves, finally living up to Manchester United and Newcastle for Stadia size and glamour. Just a shame its going to be that much closer to Everton...
David Poulton, UK

I fully agree that Liverpool need to move to a new stadium in order to fulfil their fan base potential. However, I think the new stadium plans are slight short-sighted in adding only 10,000 to their current capacity. With Everton about to unveil plans for a �125m new stadium, it would make a lot of sense to join forces and build a major new stadium on Merseyside. After all, the two giants in Milan achieved it.
David Uden, UK

This is a great opportunity to move the club forward. The 70,000 seater stadium would have been nice but its right that the board still put the team first. It was proposed by Anfield residence to move to Speke but that would have been ridiculous not only for the club and the many fans but also for the residents themselves.

I have always been in favour of a move away from Anfield, in order to compete on a level playing with Man Utd ... but we are still 12,000 seats short, so what is the point! Whilst the new stadium design is attractive, there is a huge space between each stand, so it will be difficult to replicate the cauldron of passion that a tightly packed Anfield brings.
Craig, London

As a life-long fan, its hard to imagine the loss of a ground that has seen so much action, drama and glory. That having been said, the move is a must not only for Liverpool's future, but also for that of football as a whole to ensure balance between the major clubs and also to provide world class stadia across the country. Anfield is dead....Long Live Anfield!
Darren Badrock, England

It will be sad to say goodbye to Anfield, but the club has to move with the times and a larger capacity for home games is definitely required. I would have one reservation however, why are we building a new stadium if it will only hold 9,000-10,000 more than Anfield currently holds, surely a 65,000 or 70,000 seater stadium is required and not a 55,000 seater one. But hopefully it will bring as much success to Liverpool as Anfield has.
Jude, Ireland

Building an entire new stadium just to increase capacity by 10,000 is a poor, poor decision, and shows a chronic lack of ambition and confidence. This is the one chance Liverpool have to set their stall out for the next 50 years... why on earth have they not gone for the 70,000 seater option?

LFC have needed serious alterations to their stadium for a while now with Anfield looking tired with too many restricted view seats. With the massive disruption caused by expanding a ground while a team still playing there being immense, I agree that the best option is to move.

It will be a loss to leave the heritage of Anfield behind, but how much of this heritage is instilled in the stadium itself? Surely what makes a ground is the team and the fans and the atmosphere they create, more than anything else.

I do feel that the disruption caused by moving seems a big price to pay for only a 10,000 seat increase in capacity. The new stadium capacity will be Ok for now, but what if demand increases further in ten years time and the club feel then that they are missing out on potential revenue?

Does modern stadia design allow modular additions in the future or will we have to build a new ground and move then?

I find it intriguing that clubs (particularly premiership clubs) are continuing with ambitious plans for new stadia when the indicators point to a peak in revenues from TV franchises. Perhaps this coloured Liverpool's decision to reign in the original budget.

Since any salary cap (almost certainly unworkable in any event) would effectively exempt clubs on a sound financial footing, this kind of expensive project, along with spiralling wage bills will only result in one thing: higher entrance fees to the ground for the paying public.

Liverpool's plans are in keeping with their machinations on cementing a place in Europe's elite; increasingly important as old lines of local team support are eroded further and we move into an era where the domestic game increasingly plays second fiddle to big-money European competition with its enormous international audience. This may have been swept under the carpet in a rare close run championship.
Damon, UK

The only way forward!! We have spent too long dwelling on the success of days gone by...times have moved on and the history will never be forgotten; let's write a new chapter in the success story that is Liverpool, and what better way to do it than in a new home.
Johnny King, London