Anfield redevelopment announcement

[Jose Jones]

The council have announced things yeah. There's nothing confirmed by the club about expanding Anfield apart from a desire to do so compared to weighing up the options of a new stadium versus expansion. It's taken 2 years to come to this point.

 

There's fuck all currently to get excited about in my opinion.

 

Nothing too excited about I agree - especially as we've been here a few times before. I guess I'm reading a bit between the lines and thinking the council wouldn't have made those announcements unless they had agreed a path forward with the club.

The club would only have been able to make a decision on whether to redevelop Anfield or build a new stadium by getting detailed costings together - which would have included designs, building specs, funding costs, etc.

 

There is obviously a lot of work to still go on buying houses, getting final designs, planning permission and what not. But I don't think there would have been an agreement with the council without being a bit down the line.

[xerxes]

But I don't think there would have been an agreement with the council without being a bit down the line.

 

There is no agreement. The Council have taken the initiative, it is now up to the club to do something.

 

There is aboslutely nothing stopping the Club from buying the land required to redevelop- apart from a reluctance to spend money.

 

The reason why there was no element of what FSG are bringing to the party is that currently it is zero.

 

And the silence on the £50m stadium development provision continues.

[OOTer]

Well... owning and funding issues aside. I'm please we're staying at Anfield. My biggest concern over any new stadium is that we start to build it and just when it gets completed attendances across the leagues start to drop and we can't make use of the extra seats and can't pay for the stadium. I just can't see people forking out to watch football if the economy worsens and ticket prices keep going up.

 

With that in mind... here's an interesting link. BBC News - BBC Sport Price of Football survey 2012

[Guest alantkayll]

There is no agreement. The Council have taken the initiative, it is now up to the club to do something.

 

There is aboslutely nothing stopping the Club from buying the land required to redevelop- apart from a reluctance to spend money.

 

The reason why there was no element of what FSG are bringing to the party is that currently it is zero.

 

And the silence on the £50m stadium development provision continues.

 

The council have not taken the initiative, what the council have finally agreed to do is stop pushing the club down a route they do/fans not want, and realizing the club can only redevelop Anfield so with this the council now know its the only way the area gets the redevelopment needed.

 

Why should the club pay Johnny Concrete's £500,000 for a house worth £60,000. The days of this club being shafted up the arse by people is long gone.

 

Amen to that.

[Mathewbet1]

Club Cheapest season ticket Most expensive season ticket Cheapest match-day ticket Most expensive match-day ticket Cheapest day out Programme Pie Tea

Arsenal

£ 985.00*

£ 1,955.00*

£ 26.00

£ 126.00

£ 34.30

£ 3.00

£ 3.30

£ 2.00

Aston Villa

£ 325.00

£ 595.00

£ 20.00

£ 45.00

£ 28.30

£ 3.00

£ 3.20

£ 2.10

Chelsea

£ 595.00

£ 1,250.00

£ 41.00

£ 87.00

£ 49.60

£ 3.00

£ 3.60

£ 2.00

Everton

£ 399.00

£ 672.30

£ 31.00

£ 43.00

£ 38.90

£ 3.00

£ 2.80

£ 2.10

Fulham

£ 399.00

£ 959.00

£ 20.00

£ 75.00

£ 29.30

£ 3.50

£ 3.90

£ 1.90

Liverpool

£ 725.00

£ 802.00

£ 39.00

£ 48.00

£ 47.30

£ 3.00

£ 3.10

£ 2.20

Man City

£ 275.00

£ 695.00

£ 26.00

£ 58.00

£ 35.00

£ 3.00

£ 3.50

£ 2.50

Man Utd

£ 532.00

£ 950.00

£ 30.00

£ 52.00

£ 38.60

£ 3.00

£ 3.10

£ 2.50

Newcastle

£ 322.00

£ 909.00

£ 15.00

£ 70.00

£ 23.00

£ 3.00

£ 2.80

£ 2.20

Norwich

£ 471.00

£ 790.00

£ 30.00

£ 50.00

£ 38.00

£ 3.50

£ 2.50

£ 2.00

QPR

£ 499.00

£ 949.00

£ 25.00

£ 55.00

£ 33.00

£ 3.00

£ 3.00

£ 2.00

Reading

£ 350.00

£ 595.00

£ 37.00

£ 50.00

£ 45.00

£ 3.00

£ 3.20

£ 1.80

Southampton

£ 495.00

£ 780.00

£ 28.00

£ 48.00

£ 36.20

£ 3.00

£ 3.20

£ 2.00

Stoke

£ 344.00

£ 609.00

£ 25.00

£ 50.00

£ 33.10

£ 3.50

£ 2.60

£ 2.00

Sunderland

£ 400.00

£ 845.00

£ 25.00

£ 40.00

£ 33.00

£ 3.00

£ 2.90

£ 2.10

Swansea

£ 429.00

£ 499.00

£ 35.00

£ 45.00

£ 42.80

£ 3.00

£ 3.00

£ 1.80

Tottenham

£ 730.00

£ 1,845.00

£ 32.00

£ 81.00

£ 41.20

£ 3.50

£ 3.70

£ 2.00

West Brom

£ 349.00

£ 449.00

£ 25.00

£ 39.00

£ 33.10

£ 3.00

£ 2.90

£ 2.20

West Ham

£ 480.00

£ 850.00

£ 36.00

£ 67.00

£ 44.50

£ 3.50

£ 3.00

£ 2.00

Wigan

£ 255.00

£ 310.00

£ 20.00

£ -

£ 27.10

£ 3.00

£ 2.30#

£ 1.80#

[Trumo]

The figures in that report don't give much context. A club might be listed as having the most expensive single ticket in the Premier League, but that price might only be for 1% of all tickets available. Likewise, another club might be 10th on the list for most expensive single tickets, but that price might be applicable for at least half their capacity.

 

All that those numbers show for Liverpool is that there is a very small range of prices, dictated in the main by a relatively small capacity and fairly high demand. If Anfield had a larger capacity, the pricing structure I'm sure would be very different.

[Whelan]

Everton do not have cheap season tickets at £400 quid! This has to be a concessionary price surely?

[Mathewbet1]

Think it might be a restricted view season ticket, true that these stats can be misleading, but our prices are generally near the top.

[Whelan]

Think it might be a restricted view season ticket, true that these stats can be misleading, but our prices are generally near the top.

 

Considering my ticket 4 years ago was directly i.e. the row directly behind a pillar and that wasn't a restricted view I think they have just abolished that as Park Road apart I think the whole ground is restricted.

[Harry Squatter]

The 300m expansion of the docks at seaforth starts early next year so there may be a lot more freight traffic on that line in the near future.

[Guest San Don]

There is no agreement. The Council have taken the initiative, it is now up to the club to do something.

 

There is aboslutely nothing stopping the Club from buying the land required to redevelop- apart from a reluctance to spend money.

 

The reason why there was no element of what FSG are bringing to the party is that currently it is zero.

 

And the silence on the £50m stadium development provision continues.

 

Of course there's fucking agreement. The council, your housing and LFC are all on board. Yes, there may be disagreements along the way but you arent half a drama queen.

 

There's absolutely nothing stopping the club spending money? On what? They havent submitted a new planning application yet but you're expecting them to splash the cash.

 

Next thing is you'd be whinging about the club 'jumping the gun' or spending money it doesnt need to.

 

Why do you keep banging on about the "£50m" development when this is clearly accounted for in the club's accounts and is due solely to the previous administration?

[xerxes]

The council have not taken the initiative, what the council have finally agreed to do is stop pushing the club down a route they do/fans not want, and realizing the club can only redevelop Anfield so with this the council now know its the only way the area gets the redevelopment needed.

 

Why should the club pay Johnny Concrete's £500,000 for a house worth £60,000. The days of this club being shafted up the arse by people is long gone.

 

Amen to that.

 

Alan for a man with some knowledge of the detail of this I am astounded by your post which grotesquely misrepresents the position.

 

The Council have taken the initiative by announcing a regeneration project which may involve CPO’s applications.The club has done nothing.

 

The Club have not been forced to do anything. Since the Taylor report a mixture of a lack of foresight, vision, inertia, bad luck and bad judgement has beset the Club- not the Council.

 

The fans would like a modern stadium with enhanced capacity and facilities- it is the Club that has failed to deliver that.

 

Your contempt for local residents and landowners is breathtaking. Why should they not get £500k a house ( less than a month of Joe Coles wages) if that is what it takes? It is the price of fish. If a 60k redevelopment generates an extra £30m a season then it is excellent value. Local people have seen the value of their homes slide as the club shilly- shallies allowing property they have bought to deteriorate further down-valuing their homes.

 

Why should local people have their assets wrecked by slum landlords intent on making £100m's for foreign investors? Amen to that.

 

If you are now representing FSG’s views this is a new low. I remind you of the following released in 2011:

 

Rockfield Residents Association Committee said:

 

Ian Ayre yesterday claimed that there are obstacles in the way of the redevelopment of the current stadium, but he says it is mostly about getting people to concede to sell their properties. What he doesn’t say is that Liverpool Football Club have been attempting to get people to sell their HOMES by offering them a price (via their purchasing agents GVA Grimleys) which is just not acceptable to the property owners often with the added phrase of “take it or leave it because you won’t get a penny more”.

 

He stated that Liverpool Football Club already own a lot of properties within the Rockfield Area however at the Housing and Physical Regeneration Strategy Meetings, Liverpool Football Club constantly refuse to say how many properties they do own or what properties if any they have recently purchased.

 

Some people may well say to themselves “look at the state of the streets in the area, they have lots of boarded up derelict houses in them so why should the club be paying these people decent money for homes in an area like that”? Maybe if people understood that it has been the policy of the club to buy up homes and leave them empty for the past decade, they will understand the anger of the property owners left in these streets when they are offered such a small sum of money for their homes. After all many of these people own their homes outright and given the values placed upon the properties by LFC they would be unable to live a mortgage free life if they sold their homes to the club.

 

It was announced by Arena Housing Ltd that they would be starting the renovation of their properties in Alroy Road, with work commencing in May 2011. No work has yet commenced is this maybe because Arena are in negotiations with LFC over the ownership of these properties?

 

The homeowners and residents in the Rockfield area are most certainly not to blame for the empty and derelict homes which blight their lives, but Liverpool Football Club most certainly shoulder some of the responsibility as they have admitted that they own many of these derelict and empty properties that blight the area.

 

Can you imagine the outcry if a supermarket chain was to buy up homes in an area of the city and then decide to leave them derelict and boarded up for a decade just on the off chance that they may decide to build a store there one day? But this is exactly what Liverpool Football Club has been doing to the residents of the Rockfield Area. Do we get an apology for this reprehensible behaviour? No we are being described as obstacles instead.

 

Where is our MP Steve Rotheram voicing his outrage at the treatment of the residents? He is nowhere to be seen or heard. Does he reply to any emails or questions that the residents association send him? No he does not, however he was certainly very vocal when he wanted the previous owners of LFC to sell up.

 

Regards

 

Rockfield Residents Association Committee

[xerxes]

Of course there's fucking agreement. . Yes, there may be disagreements ?

:P

[xerxes]

 

There's absolutely nothing stopping the club spending money? On what? They havent submitted a new planning application yet but you're expecting them to splash the cash.

 

Next thing is you'd be whinging about the club 'jumping the gun' or spending money it doesnt need to.

 

Why do you keep banging on about the "£50m" development when this is clearly accounted for in the club's accounts and is due solely to the previous administration?

 

The club have agreed to do nothing- fact.

 

If the club would like to expand the stadium they might like to buy the land on which to expand- it's what you do.

 

FSG accepted a £50m provision in the accounts from G&H. Fact. They did not need to. At no point has anyone ever said how much of that money has been spent, by whom, on who and what. Those seem pretty pertinent questions to me.If they don't interest you- fine.

[Guest alantkayll]

Alan for a man with some knowledge of the detail of this I am astounded by your post which grotesquely misrepresents the position.

 

The Council have taken the initiative by announcing a regeneration project which may involve CPO’s applications.The club has done nothing.

 

The Club have not been forced to do anything. Since the Taylor report a mixture of a lack of foresight, vision, inertia, bad luck and bad judgement has beset the Club- not the Council.

 

The fans would like a modern stadium with enhanced capacity and facilities- it is the Club that has failed to deliver that.

 

Your contempt for local residents and landowners is breathtaking. Why should they not get £500k a house ( less than a month of Joe Coles wages) if that is what it takes? It is the price of fish. If a 60k redevelopment generates an extra £30m a season then it is excellent value. Local people have seen the value of their homes slide as the club shilly- shallies allowing property they have bought to deteriorate further down-valuing their homes.

 

Why should local people have their assets wrecked by slum landlords intent on making £100m's for foreign investors? Amen to that.

 

If you are now representing FSG’s views this is a new low. I remind you of the following released in 2011:

 

Rockfield Residents Association Committee said:

 

Ian Ayre yesterday claimed that there are obstacles in the way of the redevelopment of the current stadium, but he says it is mostly about getting people to concede to sell their properties. What he doesn’t say is that Liverpool Football Club have been attempting to get people to sell their HOMES by offering them a price (via their purchasing agents GVA Grimleys) which is just not acceptable to the property owners often with the added phrase of “take it or leave it because you won’t get a penny more”.

 

He stated that Liverpool Football Club already own a lot of properties within the Rockfield Area however at the Housing and Physical Regeneration Strategy Meetings, Liverpool Football Club constantly refuse to say how many properties they do own or what properties if any they have recently purchased.

 

Some people may well say to themselves “look at the state of the streets in the area, they have lots of boarded up derelict houses in them so why should the club be paying these people decent money for homes in an area like that”? Maybe if people understood that it has been the policy of the club to buy up homes and leave them empty for the past decade, they will understand the anger of the property owners left in these streets when they are offered such a small sum of money for their homes. After all many of these people own their homes outright and given the values placed upon the properties by LFC they would be unable to live a mortgage free life if they sold their homes to the club.

 

It was announced by Arena Housing Ltd that they would be starting the renovation of their properties in Alroy Road, with work commencing in May 2011. No work has yet commenced is this maybe because Arena are in negotiations with LFC over the ownership of these properties?

 

The homeowners and residents in the Rockfield area are most certainly not to blame for the empty and derelict homes which blight their lives, but Liverpool Football Club most certainly shoulder some of the responsibility as they have admitted that they own many of these derelict and empty properties that blight the area.

 

Can you imagine the outcry if a supermarket chain was to buy up homes in an area of the city and then decide to leave them derelict and boarded up for a decade just on the off chance that they may decide to build a store there one day? But this is exactly what Liverpool Football Club has been doing to the residents of the Rockfield Area. Do we get an apology for this reprehensible behaviour? No we are being described as obstacles instead.

 

Where is our MP Steve Rotheram voicing his outrage at the treatment of the residents? He is nowhere to be seen or heard. Does he reply to any emails or questions that the residents association send him? No he does not, however he was certainly very vocal when he wanted the previous owners of LFC to sell up.

 

Regards

 

Rockfield Residents Association Committee

 

 

You do not know as much as you think about this issue. Why throw FSG in for the last 10 years? FSG have since the first month worked on which way to increase capacity, just because they never gave a running commentary does not mean they did no work 24/7.

 

The council were never interested in CPO's all they pushed for was ground share and whilst FSG would have gone down that route they knew it would kill them dead. So again and again they asked the council for help, it never came until 3 months ago.

 

The reason the club will not pay £500,000 for one of the houses is that its not residents asking for that amount at all, its billy big bollocks who bought them,kept them rat infested derelict houses hoping for this day to come.

 

Well they can fuck off, and who gives a fuck about what Cole earns? The reason this sort of money won't be paid is because pricks at the club gave Cole £130k a week alongside all the other now multi millionaire's who were given obscene amounts by the club and contributed to fuck all. Its cost FSG £40m in pay offs in 2 years, so quite rightly these pricks asking for this money have been told to shove it and thankfully the council will CPO them.

[Captain]

Gotta love having atk back with his definite version of the truth.

 

He got his wish with the TARTs. Anyone but Benítez.

[redasever]

 

If you are now representing FSG’s views this is a new low.

 

 

Another example of your ‘balanced and impartial’ presentation???

 

It’s the council’s job to look after housing.

 

.

[Guest alantkayll]

Another example of your ‘balanced and impartial’ presentation???

 

It’s the council’s job to look after housing.

 

.

 

Correct Peter. LFC are trying to extend their capacity, when did we become developers?

[FanchesterCity]

It beggars belief that the the council cannot discover the owner of a property. Is the Land Registry no longer in existence?

 

It sounds like there are two theories at play (and both could be true).

 

1) Liverpool FC have purchased some of the houses, and those houses are effectively derelict. Either by design (on LFC's part), or as a result of prolonged decision making.

 

2) Some speculative investors have also bought houses, and either rented them out, or left them derelict. One would assume speculating that the land will have worth to either the council or LFC, thus putting the speculative landlords in a strong bargaining position.

 

Then there's the genuine residents, who (understandably) will see themselves being 'forced out' either by the pressure of dwindling property value, or via a CPO at some point in the future. The irony being that as property values dwindle the harder it becomes for many residents to vacate.

 

Now there's a potential stalemate, where the club do not want to be held to ransom by speculators who may be demanding a higher price.

They will also face genuine residents who will acknowledge their current property values are low, but will argue SOME of that is a consequence of LFC and speculators, ergo, they don't want the current value, they want the amount it would take to be rehoused to a similar standard home, and some recompense for the inconvenience. That is entirely 'fair' in the eyes of the public, I would suggest.

 

I do not know the detail as some of you do (or claim to do), however, surely IF the council have had the intention to regenerate the area they had a couple of options:

 

1) Press ahead with a plan, regardless of the clubs, and if the clubs wanted to get involved along the lines of the council's plan, all the better.

 

2) Talk to the clubs, try and gain a common vision, then press ahead with the commonly agreed plan.

 

3) Wait for the clubs to decide on their own expansions / moves, then formulate a regeneration plan with that information in mind.

 

 

Nothing was stopping them from 1)

Nothing was stopping them from 2), and if a common view couldn't be agreed, they could still revert to 1)

If they chose 3) then you're left with the situation where a council is 'held up' by a commercial businesses, and that cannot possibly be justified over a prolonged period.

 

So again, as a relatively casual observer, it still looks like the council have stalled every bit as much as the clubs, only they have a duty to the public not to stall unduly.

 

The ultimate authority for progress is the council. Involving the clubs is a matter of courtesy and potential mutual benefit, but the delays in regeneration cannot possibly be blamed on the clubs.

 

Or is it a case that they require the clubs to contribute financially to the regeneration in some way?

[Reckoner]

Sorry bores, but on a different note, does it not bother anyone......Our cheapest season ticket is about 3 or 4 hundred quid more expensive than the majority of other premier league clubs, including many that have finished above us.

Doesn't anyone else think this is a disgrace? Our club represents one of the poorest cities, a working class culture, yet our season tickets cost up of 725. These are not statistics out of context btw, you can watch Newcastle, Man U or man city or Everton for less than 400 quid.

Hopefully if we have a bigger stadium there will be more concessions and cheaper seats. Yeah, sure that's what they have in mind. Not the club I fell in love with.

[xerxes]

You do not know as much as you think about this issue. Why throw FSG in for the last 10 years? FSG have since the first month worked on which way to increase capacity, just because they never gave a running commentary does not mean they did no work 24/7.

 

The council were never interested in CPO's all they pushed for was ground share and whilst FSG would have gone down that route they knew it would kill them dead. So again and again they asked the council for help, it never came until 3 months ago.

 

The reason the club will not pay £500,000 for one of the houses is that its not residents asking for that amount at all, its billy big bollocks who bought them,kept them rat infested derelict houses hoping for this day to come.

 

Well they can fuck off, and who gives a fuck about what Cole earns? The reason this sort of money won't be paid is because pricks at the club gave Cole £130k a week alongside all the other now multi millionaire's who were given obscene amounts by the club and contributed to fuck all. Its cost FSG £40m in pay offs in 2 years, so quite rightly these pricks asking for this money have been told to shove it and thankfully the council will CPO them.

 

Since you do not know what I know, that is a worthless observation. I stick with the facts.

 

I have never doubted that FSG have been “working on” ways to increase capacity since buying us. I do query whether they have been very good at doing so. If, as you claim, the result of two years working twenty four hours a day seven days a week, is that they have decided not to build the consented new stadium but redevelop....oh but don’t own the land on which to do so, won’t pay a commercial rate for it , have no indicative stadium proposals, nor indication of how LFC’s plans dovetail with the Council’s regeneration plans. That is not very impressive.

 

CPO’s are not given to private companies to enable private investors to make cash. Hitherto there has been no basis on which to consider CPO’s. The Council have done a magnificent job in putting forwards their own proposals and securing finance themselves.

 

The club has never revealed how many ownerships need to be secured to advance expansion ( mainly because without an indicative proposal they don’t know). Those outstanding ownerships combine private house owners, the Council, Housing Associations, and ownerships acquired speculatively, which the Club could have bought if it wanted to. This is a commercial proposition. A 60k stadium should generate £30m extra a year, £300m over ten years. Even if it were thirty houses at £500k it would still make commercial sense.The Club can afford to pay whatever it takes to buy the outstanding land.

 

CPO’s are by no means a foregone conclusion. Unless the club can demonstrate that the stadium expansion, a private investment, is part of a broader regeneration initiative they are unlikely. The Club will most likely have to make a financial contribution to the regeneration project sufficient to demonstrate their involvement- it may be cheaper simply to pay what it takes to buy the houses.

 

CPO’s are not a device to enable private investors to buy land on the cheap.

[xerxes]

Another example of your ‘balanced and impartial’ presentation. It’s the council’s job to look after housing. .

 

Thank you Peter.

 

The judgement that those baying for landlords, private investors to deny local people a fair price for private profit can be condemned, as well as being balanced.

 

You are right to point out that housing is the Council's business. However if the Club wants CPO's to help it expand it will need to demonstrate that it is part of the regeneration process either in terms of physical contribution, cash, or both.

 

CPO's based soley on stadium expansion are unlikely to succeed.

[xerxes]

It beggars belief that the the council cannot discover the owner of a property. Is the Land Registry no longer in existence? etc

 

Picking up your points, I am not aware that unknown ownership has played any part in the redevelopment debate. As you suggest, it can be resolved within the time it would take for the development to proceed.

 

The Council have stalled at nothing. For the past several years there has been a live planning consent for a new stadium which itself would have been the catalyst for regeneration and jobs. Until the Club gave notice that they were dropping those proposals, allowing those plans to lapse, they had to wait. Curiously Ayre has not wholly closed the door on a new stadium- keeping the problem alive for the Council and local residents.

 

The Council favours a new stadium because it is the easier , cleaner solution creating more jobs and bringing more money into the area. That is their job. The Club wants to stay put now, that is fine. But there are adverse consequences from remaining which its supporters have either ignored or didn’t realise which result. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

 

LFC does own a number of now derelict properties which has contributed to the decline of the area. It could have refurbished them and rented them out, producing income, but chose not to.

 

Land ownership is a free market. Speculators do own some of the properties. LFC could have bought them. In a free market declining to speculate hoping that you can buy on the cheap is a high risk strategy. Well advised owners will point to the commercial value of those ownerships to LFC- and seek an appropriate level of payment.

 

Your three options are a bit of a mish mash. The Council has been unable to press ahead with regeneration without knowing what LFC are doing (point 3). Effectively they are now pressing ahead regardless ( point one), and are in discussions with the Club as a result to seek their involvement in the process (point two).

 

If the Club wants/needs CPo's it will have to be part of the regeneration process either physically ( beyond stadium expansion) or by financiual contribution.

[redasever]

 

The Council have stalled at nothing....

 

Oh dear. What tripe.

 

Prior to the last two years, there has been NO plan - none whatsoever - for regeneration of the housing in the area behind the Main Stand - new stadium or not.

 

The proposed Anfield Plaza was a planning patsy if ever you saw one. Not even costed and of ‘uncertain economic benefit’ (report to Planning Committee).

 

The new stadium would have done nothing more than a redevelopment in terms of job creation and increased economic activity. Nothing.

 

Whereas... the development of sports and leisure facilities in the park and community and football-related leisure and retail high street on Walton Breck Road together with the redevelopment of Anfield is a rather more productive and more realistic prospect for the area.

 

That’s the reality of the matter. Thew new stadium was a dud where a redevelopment is a benefit.

 

***

 

LFC bought empty homes that were in danger of being burnt down by local yobs and drug gangs (for a bit of a laugh) or filling up with rats and infestation. The club cleared jiggers and alleyways and got rid of rats.

 

They bought them up and boarded them and kept them secure because no-one else wanted them because the area was going down the toilet all on its own thank you very much. How was that the fault of the club in the 80s and 90s? Nothing to do with the club and a hell of a lot to do with a city consigned to the bin by the powers that were elsewhere.

 

There’s fellas in there with four or five houses complaining there going to lose their homes and livelihood. Who’s the ‘slum landlord’ there? And this with market rate plus 10% on offer plus moving compensation, assisted mortgages and removal expenses. They’ll be moving into ‘new’ homes at hugely advantageous cost.

 

That’s pretty good treatment as it happens and quite a bit better than many private householders and tenants are expecting elsewhere in this and many other cities.

 

***

 

But let’s say a few residents throw that back in council’s face and the council regeneration scheme fails. What then?

 

And remember, as is - no-one wants to live in the empty and all-but derelict houses in private hands. You can’t give them away. The area will not stay just as it is. It will decline even further. Thanks to the few.

 

And the club? No sweat - extend the Anfield Road End and fill in all four corners. 60,000. Done. Dusted.

.

[redasever]

Thank you Peter.

.

 

Editing other people's quotes to make yourself look a bit better is just about the lowest form of life you can get on an internet forum.

 

.