When are we likely to get definitive stadium news?

[Guest San Don]

Its a Cunt of an Article

 

Have to agree with you. Shows how fans opinion has turned against the club. There was no outcry from the majority of fans against the club when the two old ladies stayed in Kemlyn Road holding up development of that stand.

 

If I remember correct, they actually got a lot of abuse for not moving and letting the club develop. Of course it wasnt right then that they did get abuse either.

 

All this shows that even if the club offers 'market value' or double, there will always be people who dont want to move. Its a very difficult position. Many fans dont want a new build or the associated cost while other want Anfield to be developed yet there's insufficient space.

 

xerxes is one of those unique breed of people who argues for and against a new stadium and developing Anfield at the same time.

[Major Tom]

Its a Cunt of an Article

 

Can you - or anyone else - give us the opposing view?

[KOP123]

This article is one of the worst pieces of sensationialism I have ever read, the sunday sport would be ashamed of this one, trying to blame the decline of anfield as an area on LFC is absolutley shocking, and just plain wrong. The root cause of Anfield becoming the hole it is today was due to housing associations bulk buying blocks of properties in the mid to late eighties off landlords and moving problem families in from other areas, i lived through it and saw the area i grew up in decline shockingly in the space of a few years. LFC have been naughty over the couple of roads near the ground, but that's about it

[Whelan]

Fucking hell - the Guardian is going to town on this! Anyone would think they have a sycophantic manc like Daniel Taylor for their sports editor....

 

Football news, match reports and fixtures | Football | The Guardian

[Spy Bee]

The Sky Is Falling In!

[Whelan]

Is it wrong to point out that - most of those houses were not bought for 'full market price' because they were in the vicinity of the ground!

 

Sorry but this isn't a bit of damp hidden by a coat of paint - they all bought their houses with the club in situ, and paid a price accordingly.

[Guest davelfc]

Is it wrong to point out that - most of those houses were not bought for 'full market price' because they were in the vicinity of the ground!

 

Sorry but this isn't a bit of damp hidden by a coat of paint - they all bought their houses with the club in situ, and paid a price accordingly.

 

No that's a very good point. The club has been there far longer than any of the residents and while I believe they should be treated fairly, you're right, the club just didn't appear overnight.

[Anubis]

Shows how fans opinion has turned against the club. There was no outcry from the majority of fans against the club when the two old ladies stayed in Kemlyn Road holding up development of that stand.

 

It's not a cunt of an article. The fact that, until recently, only a minority of fans have spoken out against things the club have done says more about our fans than Conn, who's actually one of the only sportswriters who can properly be labelled a journalist. I'm pretty sure TTWR spoke out about the two sisters in Kemlyn Rd at the time.

 

Maybe recent events from G&H onwards have woken a few of our fans up. Corporate cuntery can't be excused just because it's your favourite team doing it.

 

People like myself and Mick (DD) who've lived and/or worked for substantial parts of our lives in the Anfield area have been advocating a fair deal for the residents for some time.

[Anubis]

No that's a very good point. The club has been there far longer than any of the residents and while I believe they should be treated fairly, you're right, the club just didn't appear overnight.

 

Sorry, but what has that got to with the club deciding to expand its footprint. Lets turn that round, the area was residential housing when the ground was built. The club knew that when it built there.

[Whelan]

Sorry, but what has that got to with the club deciding to expand its footprint. Lets turn that round, the area was residential housing when the ground was built. The club knew that when it built there.

 

But that has nothing to do with prices and 'market price' though!

 

I grew up in Walton and around Everton's ground and the prices for houses were cheaper than would normally be the case, the same goes for Anfield, they were cheaper than would normally be the case because they were/are in the area.

 

And I am pretty sure that the ground has been there for over a hundred years, far longer than any of those houses which are post war I think. I could be wrong, but quite a lot of the housing is not Victorian which the ground is.

[Guest davelfc]

Sorry, but what has that got to with the club deciding to expand its footprint. Lets turn that round, the area was residential housing when the ground was built. The club knew that when it built there.

 

In answer to Whelan's mention that being close to the stadium could have affected house prices anyway. The club want to buy the houses, yes? If we ignore the dilapidated state of the area for a moment you're never going to get top cash for a house right next door to a football stadium.

 

I'm not on any side here, the residents should be treated fairly, (they appear to have been fucked around a lot) but then we're only hearing one side. I feel genuinely sorry for families that are being kicked out or forced to move that have lived there all of their lives and their patents before them.

 

I do want to see the club expand the stadium though, just want it to be done fairly on both sides.

[Whelan]

A lot the details in the article are from previous owners, in fact Parry and Moores were acting like twats long before you could accuse FSG of doing so. I don't remember Anfield being anything other than poor, as with Walton there are a lot of problems that are nothing to do with the club or the ground.

 

There doesn't seem to be that many houses available at the back of the main stand - and nothing at the back of the Anny Road - so I would be interested to know how many houses we are talking about now. But lets be fair - the area is club, that is where most its money comes from and the club are easily the biggest employers in the area - they don't want the area to be downtrodden. It doesn't help with hotels or corporate hospitality if the area is not doing well.

[Anubis]

 

Had a look for this. There may not be houses imediately behind tbe main stand, but its heavily residential on the Kemlyn side and there are clearly large Victorian houses on Anfield Road.

 

I grew up in Anfield. I lived the first fifteen years of my life in Gilman Street and Salisbury Rd - both just either side of the ground. I've worked in Anfield for the past four years. The difference is startling. Anfield may have been a working class area, but it was never as impovorished as it is now. I'd like the club to expand, but its not fair to just pay base price when you know those people can't afford to move somewhere else wifhout saddling themselves with debt on top.

 

I think the club missed a trick when all the housing on the other side of Oakfield Rd became empty. When the council demolished them the club could have offered to swap tbeir houses for a purpose built Eldonian-like estate with gardens, a small park and a community centre to keep the residents close to their former homes, but also keep a sense of community.

[Guest San Don]

It's not a cunt of an article. The fact that, until recently, only a minority of fans have spoken out against things the club have done says more about our fans than Conn, who's actually one of the only sportswriters who can properly be labelled a journalist. I'm pretty sure TTWR spoke out about the two sisters in Kemlyn Rd at the time.

 

Maybe recent events from G&H onwards have woken a few of our fans up. Corporate cuntery can't be excused just because it's your favourite team doing it.

 

People like myself and Mick (DD) who've lived and/or worked for substantial parts of our lives in the Anfield area have been advocating a fair deal for the residents for some time.

 

I think its a sensationalist article myself. I completely agree the club should be making better than market value offers on the outstanding homes. As I have said in a previous thread, even if the club paid 200k per house, in the grand scheme of building a new stand or money spent on players, its not that much money.

 

But then the question becomes one of what if people still wont move? What about the people who did move for a lot less money?

 

As I have said, its not a good situation. Fans dont want a new build, they want to redevelop Anfield but what about people holding that up?

 

Im all for fairness. Fairness should be equally given on both sides ie the club not taking the piss with offers and residents not taking the piss holding out for absurd sums.

 

as I said, a virtual no win situation, one not helped by a sensationalist piece of journalism that could very well entrench both sides.

[Guest ShoePiss]

They've already decided it's a refurb so why don't the club start on the Anfield road end while this is going on? Seems the easier of the two stands.

[Guest San Don]

They've already decided it's a refurb so why don't the club start on the Anfield road end while this is going on? Seems the easier of the two stands.

 

I'd have thought this is where they will start first. Im not certain if any plans of the stadium are in the public domain but feel sure, some concept drawing by the club's architects must have been drawn up.

 

I'd imagine the ARE will be part redesigned to curve into a re built Main Stand and clearly, they need to make sure this (Main Stand) can be built without hinderance before they 'put a spade' in the ground. Only summising though.

[Guest ShoePiss]

I'd have thought this is where they will start first. Im not certain if any plans of the stadium are in the public domain but feel sure, some concept drawing by the club's architects must have been drawn up.

 

I'd imagine the ARE will be part redesigned to curve into a re built Main Stand and clearly, they need to make sure this (Main Stand) can be built without hinderance before they 'put a spade' in the ground. Only summising though.

 

I'm sure they could build it so that it doesn't fall down if the main stand isn't built for years or at all. They could be treated as independent projects like other expansions are.

[Guest San Don]

I'm sure they could build it so that it doesn't fall down if the main stand isn't built for years or at all. They could be treated as independent projects like other expansions are.

 

Hahaha! No, I mean if they build it and if they cant build a Main Stand as intended, there could be a 1000 or so seats that couldnt be used,

 

Structurally, the build would be safe.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Hahaha! No, I mean if they build it and if they cant build a Main Stand as intended, there could be a 1000 or so seats that couldnt be used,

 

Structurally, the build would be safe.

 

Glad you laughed, it was a joke!

 

I think if they were serious about expansion and being around for it when completed they'd press ahead. You raise some convenient excuses I reckon.

 

All we read about is how they're buying up property and that is the stumbling block, a little knowledge of project planning shows they've got their critical path all wrong if they're being honest.

[Gym Beglin]

Queen’s Speech: Homeowners forced to sell properties to make way for HS2

Thousands of homeowners face being forced to sell their properties to make way for a new £33 billion high speed train from London to Manchester and Leeds. Ministers have introduced legislation which gives them the power to make a "compulsory acquisition" or take "temporary possession" of land for the 351-mile railway. The bill also gives people who stand to lose their homes the right to petition parliament and have their case heard by a committee of MPs who will scrutinise the legislation.

Telegraph p6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Compulsory purchase = murder. Go on David Conn, expand your theory outside of LFC.

[Guest San Don]

Glad you laughed, it was a joke!

 

I think if they were serious about expansion and being around for it when completed they'd press ahead. You raise some convenient excuses I reckon.

 

All we read about is how they're buying up property and that is the stumbling block, a little knowledge of project planning shows they've got their critical path all wrong if they're being honest.

 

Well they cant press ahead if they dont have the money. Unless they want to put all the redevelopment cost onto the club but, havent we been there before?

 

I dont make excuses for the owners. I offer an objective opinion, albeit my own, on how and why things may or may not happen.

 

There are far too many cynics around nowadays. Just my opinion though. :whistle:

[Guest ShoePiss]

Well they cant press ahead if they dont have the money. Unless they want to put all the redevelopment cost onto the club but, havent we been there before?

 

I dont make excuses for the owners. I offer an objective opinion, albeit my own, on how and why things may or may not happen.

 

There are far too many cynics around nowadays. Just my opinion though. :whistle:

 

No we haven't, putting development costs for the stadium onto the club is perfectly acceptable and expected. If they can reduce that via sponsorship in some way that's great too. You're getting confused with putting the purchase debt onto the club.

 

Yeah, you're right (not being sarcastic) I am cynical when it comes to these owners. I don't see that as a negative though.

[Guest San Don]

No we haven't, putting development costs for the stadium onto the club is perfectly acceptable and expected. You're getting confused with putting the purchase debt onto the club.

 

Yeah, you're right (not being sarcastic) I am cynical when it comes to these owners. I don't see that as a negative though.

 

Im not getting confused at all. There have been no figures bandied about regarding costs for redevelopment including loss of income from matchday attendance while each stand is out of commission. Over 3 or 4 seasons, that could be more than the 120m overdraft facility they arranged recently.

 

Bottom line is, it doesnt matter whether its 'redevelopment cost' or 'purchase debt,' it is still money the club has to finance. 100m could easily bring the club down as much as 200m could.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Im not getting confused at all. There have been no figures bandied about regarding costs for redevelopment including loss of income from matchday attendance while each stand is out of commission. Over 3 or 4 seasons, that could be more than the 120m overdraft facility they arranged recently.

 

Bottom line is, it doesnt matter whether its 'redevelopment cost' or 'purchase debt,' it is still money the club has to finance. 100m could easily bring the club down as much as 200m could.

 

Yeah you were and yeah there has. So now it's a money issue, great.

 

Everything they do is great, even when they're wrong they're right.

 

Okay.

 

And it was purchase debt plus debt already incurred for the 'new stadium'. We haven't been here before, you're confused.

[razor]

Queen’s Speech: Homeowners forced to sell properties to make way for HS2

Thousands of homeowners face being forced to sell their properties to make way for a new £33 billion high speed train from London to Manchester and Leeds. Ministers have introduced legislation which gives them the power to make a "compulsory acquisition" or take "temporary possession" of land for the 351-mile railway. The bill also gives people who stand to lose their homes the right to petition parliament and have their case heard by a committee of MPs who will scrutinise the legislation.

Telegraph p6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Compulsory purchase = murder. Go on David Conn, expand your theory outside of LFC.

 

This.

 

David Conn used to be a fantastic writer. I loved his first book which basically took apart modern football and the greed of the big clubs.

 

But over recent years I think his work has got weaker and weaker. I know about the Hillsborough writing, and that was done as a humanist.

 

My whole family are from Anfield, and it's horrible to see the deprivation there. It's true that it has been left behind.

 

I just reckon that although he has a very valid point here, there is an inescapable sense that he doesn't like Liverpool. One of his articles on Suarez was ridiculously sloppy (and potentially libelous). It was removed and replaced within hours and the comment I made on it has gone from my Guardian account also, so I can't remember the exact detail.

 

He fights for the people against the machine - I like this.

 

But there is valid reason to believe that he has a secondary agenda, too.