Is it time to leave Anfield?

After three years of debt, lies and broken promises new owners have finally arrived on Merseyside, replacing the lying parasites who proceeded them and making work on either a new stadium or redeveloping Anfield a realistic prospect.

Everyone connected with the club realises that something has to be done soon regarding the stadium issue.

We are struggling to compete with our main rivals on the pitch because we are miles behind them off it.

Manchester United have over 76,000 seats at their home ground Old Trafford. Arsenal can also house up to 60,000 at the Emirates. Combine this with their higher ticket prices and it is easy to see how a financial and sporting gap has developed between us and them.

Chelsea's Stamford Bridge may have only slightly more than 40,000 seats, however their obscenely wealthy owner and gargantuan ticket prices more than compensate for this fact, and mean that they continue to dominate on the pitch as a result of their massive income providing the funds to buy top stars on a regular basis.

Anfield remains the home of Britain's most successful club, however it is also part of the reason why we could soon lose that coveted status to the likes of United, Arsenal and Chelsea.

Even with 45,000 people paying over £30 every fortnight to watch the Reds, it simply does not provide enough income for us to compete at the top level of English football season after season.

It's not like Liverpool couldn't fill a bigger stadium either. It takes years to get a season ticket because the waiting list is so long, and many people are left unable to purchase match-day tickets as they are snapped up so quickly, regardless of how the club are performing.

With the desperate need to get more people paying to watch the club every other week, Liverpool's new American owners are left to consider three options.

The first option appears to be the most logical, and has been suggested since before Hicks and Gillett arrived in 2007.

They could build a new 60,000-seater stadium on Stanley Park.

The club already has planning permission to build a new stadium there, and, although Hicks and Gillett drew them up, the designs for the proposed new stadium are admittedly very impressive.

Moreover, not only would the new stadium provide a magnificent and much needed new home for the country's best football club, it would also lead to significant and vital redevelopment for the wider Anfield area, which has been left derelict for far too long.

However, NESV must take into account the considerable costs involved in such a major building project. Yes, the extra 15,000 seats could prove to be a valuable source of income for the long-term, but would the immediate cost of the new stadium reduce the benefit of the additional seating?

Also, leaving the club's historic home would be hard to take. Some might argue that it is a necessary evil, however could we really leave behind a stadium that has been the setting for so many unforgettable occasions?

In response to the issue of financing a new stadium, some people have recommended a second solution to the problem Liverpool face; sharing a new stadium with neighbours Everton, who are also looking to find a new home.

These people, normally media men or Evertonians, argue that Italian giants AC and Inter Milan have shared a stadium, and therefore Merseyside's footballing rivals should take a similar route.

They rightly state that this would halve the costs, however they fail to realise the fierce rivalry between the two clubs. The Merseyside derby may have been dubbed "the friendly derby" in days gone by, but nowadays the friendship has almost turned into outright hatred for some supporters.

The clubs still appropriately unite in times of tragedy, such as after Hillsborough or the death of Rhys Jones, however the enmity existing between the fans means that a ground-share is unlikely to be accepted by either party.

Besides, there are also practical issues surrounding a ground share.

Would the seats be red or blue, or a hideous mix of both?

Where would the Paisley and Shankly gates be placed?

What about the Shankly statue or the Hillsborough memorial?

For the manifold reasons given above a ground-share between Liverpool and Everton is extremely unlikely.

This leads me to the third and most sensible option; redeveloping Anfield.

The club's historic home has seen many sensational nights of European drama that will live long in the memory, and the chance of staying put at Anfield while also generating essential extra funding must not be ignored.

Although there are houses surrounding Anfield, the redevelopment work could lead to the destruction of these old houses, replacing them through modern housing projects that would lead to the re-invigoration of the Anfield area.

This would not only provide the extra seats needed to increase the club's income, it would also finally deliver the promised redevelopment to the people living in the vicinity of the ground.

I am not an architect and cannot fully comprehend the building work needed to successfully redevelop Anfield. However, I am sure that it is a possibility that could easily turn into a reality with the backing of the new owners and the local council.

So, is it time to leave Anfield?

For me, and many other Reds, the answer is no. With the backing of the local authorities, NESV could regenerate Anfield in the same way that they transformed the ageing Fenway Park once they had purchased the Boston Red Sox.

The history, tradition and immense atmosphere at Anfield is second to none, and would take time to replicate in any new stadium.

With the need to compete financially with England's other top teams ever increasing, the desire to build a new stadium altogether remains. However, we can redevelop Anfield to generate more capital whilst remaining at our historic home, killing two birds with one stone.

Whatever route NESV decide to take, work must begin soon otherwise the financial gap between us and our rivals will quickly extend into a canyon, leaving us left behind both on and off the field.

YNWA