Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Anfield or New Anfield


Cherry Ghost
 Share

Recommended Posts

Still not happy with Ayre he is decent at that side of things no doubt and a new stadium would get him a lot of respect but I wish that's all he would deal with,keep him away from any media outlets and please keep the slimy cunt away from anything to do with the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest davelfc

Liverpool poised to ditch new stadium in favour of Anfield expansion | Football | The Guardian

 

Liverpool's new Anfield stadium is tale of lost years and lost homes | David Conn | Football | The Guardian

 

 

Liverpool having decided on Brendan Rodgers as their manager, are expected to announce within weeks they intend to stay at Anfield, not build their long-planned new stadium on Stanley Park. Under plans drawn up by Liverpool city council and revealed to local residents, houses would be demolished to enable the club to expand Anfield's main stand.

 

At a meeting on 15 May attended by Ian Ayre, the Liverpool managing director, residents living in neighbouring streets to Anfield were presented with three worked-up options involving knocking down rows of houses. The council's assistant director for regeneration, Mark Kitts, told the Guardian that Liverpool have confirmed, in discussions with the council, that the demolitions would meet the club's requirements.

 

"We have been working with the club very closely," Kitts said, "and they have said this will accommodate their needs if they stay at Anfield and refurbish the current stadium."

 

Kitts said homes would be given "an open market valuation" – which he suggested could be upgraded to reflect an area in better condition – plus a 10% "home loss payment" and removal costs. Liverpool will not have to negotiate directly with residents or buy their houses. Kitts said the council has the option of applying for compulsory purchase powers, to force residents to sell, if necessary. Some home-owning residents are fearful that they will not receive enough to pay for a similar home elsewhere.

 

Liverpool's principal physical obstacle is not enlarging Anfield's footprint – their plan is understood to involve adding an extra tier, plus corporate facilities, to the Anfield Road and main stands. Doing so, however, would block the "right to light" of those neighbouring houses. Kitts said he believed the demolitions would "solve the right to light issues".

 

The plans, presented to a neighbourhood "stakeholders meeting", including the Rockfield Residents Association, all propose knocking down the row of terraces closest to the main stand, on Lothair Road. The second two options, more favoured, involve demolishing two additional rows of houses – both rows on Lothair Road, and the first on the next street, Alroy. The remaining houses are planned to be refurbished: one option suggests replacing the demolished houses with a commercial development, possibly a hotel.

 

Liverpool are still maintaining they are keeping open both their options – to expand Anfield or proceed with the new stadium on Stanley Park. However, the demolition plan, on which Kitts said the council hopes to begin work as soon as this summer, has convinced many local people that this is to facilitate Liverpool staying at Anfield. The council still favours the new stadium but Liverpool's owners, John W Henry's Fenway Sports Group, has made it clear since it bought the club that it would prefer to enlarge Anfield, mainly because it is cheaper.

 

Liverpool declined to comment on the revelation of the housing demolition blueprint, saying: "The private discussions and plans that Liverpool Football Club has or may have with residents or other stakeholders are, in our opinion, exactly that: 'private'."

 

Last week Ayre said Liverpool would "need to convince" residents if the club were to stay at Anfield, and said: "We're having some great dialogue with them."

 

However, Ros Groves, chair of the neighbouring Salisbury Residents Association, said she "hit the roof" when she read that. Her group has also been presented with demolition plans, for a corner opposite the main stand and Kop, which the club could develop commercially. But she said Liverpool have held no meaningful discussions with residents.

 

"I cannot see how it can be called 'great dialogue' when Ian Ayre has been to one meeting with one residents group," Groves said. "Everybody can see which way this is going now. We just want Liverpool football club to be open with us." Many houses around Anfield have been blighted for years – a significant number bought by the football club and left empty, a source of great resentment among residents left coping with the area's decline.

 

Some who own their homes, Groves said, fear were worried that that the money they would be paid by the council who will demolish them, will would not be enough to buy a similar home elsewhere.

 

"Everybody wants a solution to this area's problems," Groves said. "But people who have paid off their mortgages, and long-term tenants, are very concerned about the impact on them."

 

Liverpool was sold in 2007, to the Americans Tom Hicks and George Gillett, specifically so that finance would be found to build the new stadium on Stanley Park. After they failed to progress the new stadium, Martin Broughton, the chairman conducting the Liverpool sale, said any buyer would "have to accept" building a new stadium. But after FSG bought Liverpool, Henry always made it clear he favoured remaining at Anfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest davelfc

Liverpool's hardening plan not to build their interminably mooted new stadium on Stanley Park but instead to expand Anfield in a fashion eerily similar to a scrapped plan from 1999 might be darkly funny, were it not a tale of lost years, hope and money. Anfield has become a monument not only to Premier League football and a grand club's ambition to keep up with its rivals but also, sadly, to spectacular inequality. Outside the walls of the ground in which footballers play for multimillionaires' salaries, for a club owned principally by John W Henry, a billionaire in Boston, people are living amid dereliction and decline approaching the country's grimmest.

 

Liverpool city council still says the new stadium on Stanley Park is its preferred option, even while it presents plans for house demolitions behind the main stand, and on the corner opposite the main stand and Kop, which will enable the expansion of Anfield. Liverpool have declined to comment on those demolition plans being revealed or to respond to criticism from residents that they failed to communicate openly. But Henry has made it abundantly clear he wants to scrap the new stadium plan and take the cheaper option of expanding Anfield.

 

The proposed clearances of three rows of terraced houses on Lothair and Alroy Roads behind the main stand were revealed by Liverpool city council to the Rockfield Residents Association at a meeting attended by Ian Ayre, Liverpool's managing director, on 15 May. The council's assistant director for regeneration, Mark Kitts, told the Guardian that the demolitions would make the number of houses more "sustainable" and allow for refurbishment. Kitts said Liverpool have confirmed, in discussions with the council, that these demolitions would meet the club's requirements.

 

"We have been working with the club very closely," Kitts said, "and they have said this will accommodate their needs if they stay at Anfield and refurbish the current stadium."

 

Liverpool's main physical difficulty expanding Anfield is not in enlarging the footprint, because their plan is understood to involve adding an extra tier, plus corporate facilities, to the Anfield Road and main stands. Building high, however, would block neighbouring residents' "right to light". Kitts, discussing the planned demolitions, told the Guardian: "My understanding is that this will solve the right to light issues."

 

Ros Groves, chair of the local Salisbury Residents Association, says her members who own their own homes are worried they will not be paid enough, if their houses are demolished, to buy a house outright elsewhere. Kitts confirmed homeowners will be paid the market rate plus 10% "loss of home payment" but said the council is "very sympathetic" and he hoped this would be enough.

 

Groves criticised Liverpool for not openly telling the residents what the club are now planning. Last week Ayre said Liverpool would "need to convince" residents if the club were to stay at Anfield, and said: "We're having some great dialogue with them."

 

Groves, whose association represents residents in the Baltic Street area planned for clearance nearer the Kop, said she "hit the roof" when she read that. "I cannot see how it can be called 'great dialogue' when Ian Ayre has been to one meeting with one residents group," Groves said. "Everybody can see which way this is going now. We just want Liverpool football club to be open with us."

 

Ann O'Byrne, the council's cabinet member for housing, said its priority is to "regenerate the area" for residents and she confirmed that Liverpool had said they could "work with" these demolition plans.

 

Building a brand new stadium was always not just about the football club but about trying to improve physically a sunken area and to generate a working economy. It was the conclusion reached after a painful process sparked by uproar when those original 1999 plans were exposed, involving an expanded Anfield, a commercial area for the club in the same corner proposed to be cleared now and the demolition of 1,800 homes about which no resident had been consulted.

 

After that a detailed community structure was established to ensure full consultation with the residents. The proposed new 60,000-seat stadium on Stanley Park emerged from that, approaching 10 years ago. Liverpool came to the conclusion they could build better facilities, including enough corporate dining to make money in Manchester United proportions, if the club moved from Anfield, its hemmed-in home since 1892. The site of the current ground was then going to be developed into "Anfield Plaza", with shops, restaurants and office space, to attract visitors and, it was hoped, generate jobs for local people.

 

Liverpool, then 51% owned by the Littlewoods Pools family scion, David Moores, and run by the chief executive, Rick Parry, were anxious, however, about borrowing the money to build it. Parry believed that, even if rich men taking over were not actually going to provide the money needed, they would at least stand behind borrowing it, and it is still remarkable to reflect that Liverpool was sold only to finance the new stadium. The result was the Tom Hicks and George Gillett takeover. They paid £174m for the club, Moores receiving £89m for his shares; they described it as a "multi-generational commitment" by their families but had borrowed the money from Royal Bank of Scotland for only 12 months. They promised a spade in the ground within 60 days to build the new stadium but then said global financial conditions meant they could not borrow the money required.

 

When RBS in effect installed Martin Broughton as the Liverpool chairman in April 2010 to sell the club, he said explicitly that he would seek new owners who would build that new stadium: "We want to do the right thing for Liverpool and a new stadium is doing the right thing," he said. "It will add long-term value to the club and, if we are looking for a new owner, that is something they will have to accept."

 

However, after Henry and his Fenway Sports Group emerged victorious from the bitter October 2010 court battle to buy Liverpool, Henry said from the beginning he did not want to build it. The economics of spending around £300m effectively to fund 15,000 new seats(although there would also be commercial areas in a new stadium) did not make financial sense, Henry said. Liverpool maintain they still have the new stadium option open but the demolition plans strongly point to Anfield being expanded instead.

 

In the club's accounts for 2010-11 £49m was written off relating to the new stadium, adding to £10m previously in 2010, making £59m seemingly wasted. The council, under these plans, would take care of the right-to-light issues and negotiate with residents, possibly backed by compulsory purchase orders if any stubbornly refuse to go. That is also a source of unhappiness among some, who believe Liverpool should negotiatie upfront themselves. Liverpool declined to comment, saying: "The private discussions and plans that Liverpool Football Club has or may have with residents or other stakeholders are, in our opinion, exactly that: 'private'."

 

Kitts said he is expecting the club to make an announcement by the end of June. It would be a great surprise if that heralds a new stadium, to be built on Stanley Park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A half new/half old bodge job on land already owned by the Club, likely to replicate the Parry Plan of over a decade ago with i will guess a capacity of around 55,000.

 

Liverpool's hardening plan not to build their interminably mooted new stadium on Stanley Park but instead to expand Anfield in a fashion eerily similar to a scrapped plan from 1999 might be darkly funny, were it not a tale of lost years, hope and money. Anfield has become a monument not only to Premier League football and a grand club's ambition to keep up with its rivals but also, sadly, to spectacular inequality. Outside the walls of the ground in which footballers play for multimillionaires' salaries, for a club owned principally by John W Henry, a billionaire in Boston, people are living amid dereliction and decline approaching the country's grimmest.

 

Liverpool city council still says the new stadium on Stanley Park is its preferred option, even while it presents plans for house demolitions behind the main stand, and on the corner opposite the main stand and Kop, which will enable the expansion of Anfield. Liverpool have declined to comment on those demolition plans being revealed or to respond to criticism from residents that they failed to communicate openly. But Henry has made it abundantly clear he wants to scrap the new stadium plan and take the cheaper option of expanding Anfield.

 

The proposed clearances of three rows of terraced houses on Lothair and Alroy Roads behind the main stand were revealed by Liverpool city council to the Rockfield Residents Association at a meeting attended by Ian Ayre, Liverpool's managing director, on 15 May. The council's assistant director for regeneration, Mark Kitts, told the Guardian that the demolitions would make the number of houses more "sustainable" and allow for refurbishment. Kitts said Liverpool have confirmed, in discussions with the council, that these demolitions would meet the club's requirements.

 

"We have been working with the club very closely," Kitts said, "and they have said this will accommodate their needs if they stay at Anfield and refurbish the current stadium."

 

Liverpool's main physical difficulty expanding Anfield is not in enlarging the footprint, because their plan is understood to involve adding an extra tier, plus corporate facilities, to the Anfield Road and main stands. Building high, however, would block neighbouring residents' "right to light". Kitts, discussing the planned demolitions, told the Guardian: "My understanding is that this will solve the right to light issues."

 

Ros Groves, chair of the local Salisbury Residents Association, says her members who own their own homes are worried they will not be paid enough, if their houses are demolished, to buy a house outright elsewhere. Kitts confirmed homeowners will be paid the market rate plus 10% "loss of home payment" but said the council is "very sympathetic" and he hoped this would be enough.

 

Groves criticised Liverpool for not openly telling the residents what the club are now planning. Last week Ayre said Liverpool would "need to convince" residents if the club were to stay at Anfield, and said: "We're having some great dialogue with them."

 

Groves, whose association represents residents in the Baltic Street area planned for clearance nearer the Kop, said she "hit the roof" when she read that. "I cannot see how it can be called 'great dialogue' when Ian Ayre has been to one meeting with one residents group," Groves said. "Everybody can see which way this is going now. We just want Liverpool football club to be open with us."

 

Ann O'Byrne, the council's cabinet member for housing, said its priority is to "regenerate the area" for residents and she confirmed that Liverpool had said they could "work with" these demolition plans.

 

Building a brand new stadium was always not just about the football club but about trying to improve physically a sunken area and to generate a working economy. It was the conclusion reached after a painful process sparked by uproar when those original 1999 plans were exposed, involving an expanded Anfield, a commercial area for the club in the same corner proposed to be cleared now and the demolition of 1,800 homes about which no resident had been consulted.

 

After that a detailed community structure was established to ensure full consultation with the residents. The proposed new 60,000-seat stadium on Stanley Park emerged from that, approaching 10 years ago. Liverpool came to the conclusion they could build better facilities, including enough corporate dining to make money in Manchester United proportions, if the club moved from Anfield, its hemmed-in home since 1892. The site of the current ground was then going to be developed into "Anfield Plaza", with shops, restaurants and office space, to attract visitors and, it was hoped, generate jobs for local people.

 

Liverpool, then 51% owned by the Littlewoods Pools family scion, David Moores, and run by the chief executive, Rick Parry, were anxious, however, about borrowing the money to build it. Parry believed that, even if rich men taking over were not actually going to provide the money needed, they would at least stand behind borrowing it, and it is still remarkable to reflect that Liverpool was sold only to finance the new stadium. The result was the Tom Hicks and George Gillett takeover. They paid £174m for the club, Moores receiving £89m for his shares; they described it as a "multi-generational commitment" by their families but had borrowed the money from Royal Bank of Scotland for only 12 months. They promised a spade in the ground within 60 days to build the new stadium but then said global financial conditions meant they could not borrow the money required.

 

When RBS in effect installed Martin Broughton as the Liverpool chairman in April 2010 to sell the club, he said explicitly that he would seek new owners who would build that new stadium: "We want to do the right thing for Liverpool and a new stadium is doing the right thing," he said. "It will add long-term value to the club and, if we are looking for a new owner, that is something they will have to accept."

 

However, after Henry and his Fenway Sports Group emerged victorious from the bitter October 2010 court battle to buy Liverpool, Henry said from the beginning he did not want to build it. The economics of spending around £300m effectively to fund 15,000 new seats(although there would also be commercial areas in a new stadium) did not make financial sense, Henry said. Liverpool maintain they still have the new stadium option open but the demolition plans strongly point to Anfield being expanded instead.

 

In the club's accounts for 2010-11 £49m was written off relating to the new stadium, adding to £10m previously in 2010, making £59m seemingly wasted. The council, under these plans, would take care of the right-to-light issues and negotiate with residents, possibly backed by compulsory purchase orders if any stubbornly refuse to go. That is also a source of unhappiness among some, who believe Liverpool should negotiatie upfront themselves. Liverpool declined to comment, saying: "The private discussions and plans that Liverpool Football Club has or may have with residents or other stakeholders are, in our opinion, exactly that: 'private'."

 

Kitts said he is expecting the club to make an announcement by the end of June. It would be a great surprise if that heralds a new stadium, to be built on Stanley Park.

Liverpool's new Anfield stadium is tale of lost years and lost homes | David Conn | Football | The Guardian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ShoePiss

So what of the China Airlines rumours earlier this week? How does that tie in to an expanded Anfield? Ah it's only over a century of history I suppose, can't get in the way of progress after all.

 

When they expanded Fenway they removed lower priced seats and replaced them with premium ones, I suppose people will be excited by the extra revenue that brings in because it won't be due to better access to tickets for the average fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ShoePiss
So, things are starting to look a little differently. Imagine that.

 

How are things looking any different to last week, last year, 5 years ago or 10? Are you basing this new vision on a couple of articles you've just read?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest San Don

This article suggests the club will develop the Anny Road and main Stand pretty much as I said ie a bigger tier incorporating corporate \ hospitality boxes in Anny Road and main Stand.

 

Liverpool poised to ditch new stadium in favour of Anfield expansion | Football | The Guardian

 

Sport

Football

Liverpool

 

Exclusive

Liverpool poised to ditch new stadium in favour of Anfield expansion

 

• Residents shown proposals to demolish nearby houses

• Liverpool council hopes to begin work on plan this summer

 

Share 205

Email

 

David Conn

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 31 May 2012 22.29 BST

 

John W Henry Liverpool

John W Henry, Liverpool's owner, has always made it clear he favours remaining at Anfield rather than building a long-planned stadium on Stanley Park. Photograph: Carl Recine/Action Images

 

Liverpool, having decided on Brendan Rodgers as their manager, are expected to announce within weeks they intend to stay at Anfield, not build their long-planned new stadium on Stanley Park. Under plans drawn up by Liverpool city council and revealed to local residents, houses would be demolished to enable the club to expand Anfield's main stand.

 

At a meeting on 15 May attended by Ian Ayre, the Liverpool managing director, residents living in neighbouring streets to Anfield were presented with three worked-up options involving knocking down rows of houses. The council's assistant director for regeneration, Mark Kitts, told the Guardian that Liverpool have confirmed, in discussions with the council, that the demolitions would meet the club's requirements.

 

"We have been working with the club very closely," Kitts said, "and they have said this will accommodate their needs if they stay at Anfield and refurbish the current stadium."

 

Kitts said homes would be given "an open market valuation" – which he suggested could be upgraded to reflect an area in better condition – plus a 10% "home loss payment" and removal costs. Liverpool will not have to negotiate directly with residents or buy their houses. Kitts said the council has the option of applying for compulsory purchase powers, to force residents to sell, if necessary. Some home-owning residents are fearful that they will not receive enough to pay for a similar home elsewhere.

 

Liverpool's principal physical obstacle is not enlarging Anfield's footprint – their plan is understood to involve adding an extra tier, plus corporate facilities, to the Anfield Road and main stands. Doing so, however, would block the "right to light" of those neighbouring houses. Kitts said he believed the demolitions would "solve the right to light issues".

 

The plans, presented to a neighbourhood "stakeholders meeting", including the Rockfield Residents Association, all propose knocking down the row of terraces closest to the main stand, on Lothair Road. The second two options, more favoured, involve demolishing two additional rows of houses – both rows on Lothair Road, and the first on the next street, Alroy. The remaining houses are planned to be refurbished: one option suggests replacing the demolished houses with a commercial development, possibly a hotel.

 

Liverpool are still maintaining they are keeping open both their options – to expand Anfield or proceed with the new stadium on Stanley Park. However, the demolition plan, on which Kitts said the council hopes to begin work as soon as this summer, has convinced many local people that this is to facilitate Liverpool staying at Anfield. The council still favours the new stadium but Liverpool's owners, John W Henry's Fenway Sports Group, has made it clear since it bought the club that it would prefer to enlarge Anfield, mainly because it is cheaper.

 

Liverpool declined to comment on the revelation of the housing demolition blueprint, saying: "The private discussions and plans that Liverpool Football Club has or may have with residents or other stakeholders are, in our opinion, exactly that: 'private'."

 

Last week Ayre said Liverpool would "need to convince" residents if the club were to stay at Anfield, and said: "We're having some great dialogue with them."

 

However, Ros Groves, chair of the neighbouring Salisbury Residents Association, said she "hit the roof" when she read that. Her group has also been presented with demolition plans, for a corner opposite the main stand and Kop, which the club could develop commercially. But she said Liverpool have held no meaningful discussions with residents.

 

"I cannot see how it can be called 'great dialogue' when Ian Ayre has been to one meeting with one residents group," Groves said. "Everybody can see which way this is going now. We just want Liverpool football club to be open with us." Many houses around Anfield have been blighted for years – a significant number bought by the football club and left empty, a source of great resentment among residents left coping with the area's decline.

 

Some who own their homes, Groves said, fear were worried that that the money they would be paid by the council who will demolish them, will would not be enough to buy a similar home elsewhere.

 

"Everybody wants a solution to this area's problems," Groves said. "But people who have paid off their mortgages, and long-term tenants, are very concerned about the impact on them."

 

Liverpool was sold in 2007, to the Americans Tom Hicks and George Gillett, specifically so that finance would be found to build the new stadium on Stanley Park. After they failed to progress the new stadium, Martin Broughton, the chairman conducting the Liverpool sale, said any buyer would "have to accept" building a new stadium. But after FSG bought Liverpool, Henry always made it clear he favoured remaining at Anfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
How are things looking any different to last week, last year, 5 years ago or 10? Are you basing this new vision on a couple of articles you've just read?

 

Nope, I'm basing it on the fact that things are starting to look a little bit differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ShoePiss
Nope, I'm basing it on the fact that things are starting to look a little bit differently.

 

Those italics are great but what are you actually talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
Those italics are great but what are you actually talking about?

 

Well, things are beginning to appear different to how they were two weeks ago when a large portion of the forum were going spastic about nothing being done on the stadium, the manager being sacked, the clueless clown owners, etc. Some, like Cardie and others, said that things might well look different by the time the season starts; a new manager, stadium progress, CEO, maybe DoF, etc.

 

It looks like those things are starting to change. For the better. It was just a throw away comment. I'd not analyse it too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ShoePiss
Well, things are beginning to appear different to how they were two weeks ago when a large portion of the forum were going spastic about nothing being done on the stadium, the manager being sacked, the clueless clown owners, etc. Some, like Cardie and others, said that things might well look different by the time the season starts; a new manager, stadium progress, CEO, maybe DoF, etc.

 

It looks like those things are starting to change. For the better. It was just a throw away comment. I'd not analyse it too much.

 

We have appointed a manager to replace one we fired and we were always going to do that. Nothing else has changed apart from a couple of articles about a stadium.

 

Two weeks ago we'd fired Kenny Dalglish when the vast majority felt he should have been given at least another year. I'll forgive anyone for 'going spastic' over that.

 

It wasn't a throw away comment, it was a snide one in this stadium thread and when challenged we find out it's based on fuck all, well in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

It wasn't a throw away comment

 

I think I'll be the judge of what I mean when I say something, thanks.

 

it was a snide one in this stadium thread and when challenged we find out it's based on fuck all

 

Who's 'we'? Still, regardless, no idea what you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have appointed a manager to replace one we fired and we were always going to do that. Nothing else has changed apart from a couple of articles about a stadium.

 

Two weeks ago we'd fired Kenny Dalglish when the vast majority felt he should have been given at least another year. I'll forgive anyone for 'going spastic' over that.

 

It wasn't a throw away comment, it was a snide one in this stadium thread and when challenged we find out it's based on fuck all, well in.

 

He's ace isn't he. Anything to justify his stance on Dalglish.

 

He'll be heading for that higher ground now.

 

The bad biff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
He's ace isn't he. Anything to justify his stance on Dalglish.

 

He'll be heading for that higher ground now.

 

The bad biff.

 

You sad little cunt, chasing me 'round the forum. Fuck off back to the other thread where you're making stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ShoePiss
I think I'm the one who'll just what I mean when I say something, thanks.

 

 

 

You're a shithouse, one that can't string a sentence together to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
You're a shithouse, one that can't string a sentence together to boot.

 

Right, thanks. Strange swing of attitude towards me, piss. Nevermind, I'll live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sad little cunt, chasing my 'round the forum. Fuck off back to the other thread where you're making stuff up.

 

It's your round?

 

You referred to me originally in that thread, you quoted me. You instigated an exchange. Your cheap tactics didn't work and now you claim i'm 'chasing your round the forum'.

 

You really are dim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
It's your round?

 

You referred to me originally in that thread, you quoted me. You instigated an exchange. Your cheap tactics didn't work and now you claim i'm 'chasing your round the forum'.

 

You really are dim.

 

Yes, I'm stupid, we've gone over this; I'm a highly educated idiot. We've been through this, haven't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm stupid, we've gone over this; I'm a highly educated idiot. We've been through this, haven't we?

 

Hahighly ha educated haha. That really stands for something when you're completely devoid of any sense of awareness.

 

haha, ah dear me. That's good. You got me chuckling. haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
Hahighly ha educated haha. That really stands for something when you're completely devoid of any sense of awareness.

 

haha, ah dear me. That's good. You got me chuckling. haha

 

Come on, Coro, come up with something new. This is becoming a chore. You use the same insults for every person you disagree with. You do it time and time again.

 

Ah, I'm off to bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...