Tbf, they're two slightly separate arguments. LFC's ticket prices are simply down to basic supply and demand. They could probably fill Anfield twice over with relatively well-healed out-of-towners alone. They have massive waiting lists of members prepared to pay what we pay for a season, just for one or two annual visits. The demand is that large, they can use it to squeeze their entire fanbase, regardless of the age of the stands.... however, their stadium investment and tight ROI policy means that their new stands have simply enabled that to be pushed even further. The fact remains that generally if a club is spending hundreds of millions on new stadia/stands, then ticket prices generally rise. Of course in some cases that would hopefully be somewhat offset by lucrative new corporate capacities helping to cross-subsidise the build and GA ticket prices..... or, as in Man City and West Ham's case, whole freeby stadiums.
The article provides a few links to other international articles and academic studies to back-up his basic (cynical) argument, to show that new stadia have often failed to live up to the rejuvenating economic hype that usually preceeds, or even prompts them. The reasons are multiple and quite obvious. The agglomerative effects of stadia are not a given, and usually quite limited. Otherwise the districts of Walton and Anfield would already have felt them. Of course you could argue that those districts have felt the benefits of Goodison and Anfield, in that they still have their local high streets pretty much intact, unlike many of their neighbouring districts, where those old high streets have nearly all long-since faded away.
What acts in BMD's favour is the proximity to the city centre and importantly the other major developments earmarked to fill that gap...... notionally bringing the city-centre, and hopefully its infrastructure, right up to BMD's doorstep.
