possible to go upwards, but of the cost of redevelopment is going to come in at 150m it has to be considered whether that is value for money in comparison to a brand new stadium. Article is based on my hunch of what I think will happen, hence I haven't dwelled too much on why Anfield cannot be redeveloped. Redman I'd go for at least 75,000 seats. We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we only went for 60,000. What would happen then if Man Utd and Arsenal went to expand again. Would we be left in their shadow for another 20 years. If FSG want to make an impression, they should make New Anfield the biggest club ground in the UK at 76,000 seats minimum. We really do need to harness the club's revenue and every seat will count, but so will the honour of having the biggest ground in the UK. It would give fans something to be really proud of and spur the club on to bigger and better things. Prole For me the best answer with regards naming the new stadium would be to use both the advert name combined with Anfield. For example, if it was Amex that wanted the naming rights to the new stadium, then call it the 'Amex Anfield stadium'. I understand that could be easier said than done but it's an idea. Mattwwhatley Liverpool have been given planning permission to build a stadium of upto 70000 capacity so given that