109_ultra

The Gladys street end has a track record for this. Could reel off loads of examples of players being hit by coins down that end. I think they were in the shit for the stuff that happened when Shrek went back with the mancs for the first time and Roy Carroll was bombarded. Also remember Chris Kirkland getting hit square on the fod when he played there for Coventry, fucking Coventry! Suspect it will be the usual merseyside police "investigation" looking at some tv footage to see if they can identify the individuals and threatening anyone found guilty with a lifetime ban, only for the whole thing to fall by the wayside and never to be heard of again. Clearly whatever they are doing to stop this happening is just not working. The fa should hit them in the pocket with a nice big fine which they will struggle to pay after throwing half their transfer kitty at Suarez.

Joe Anderson....a real man of the people :thumbup:

The decision to grant a planning application rests with the Local Authority. We can only infer that an application has not been lodged to redevelop anfield because its probably doomed to failure, for a lack of authority support. The private individuals holding the club to ransom for selling cannot show any legitimate reason that property should not be subject to a CPO. There is a greater interest in the local area flourishing as a result of the redevelopment than there is in one individual recovering a disporportionate amount of money for an empty house. A lot of excuses being made to absolve the council of any responsibility for our predicament, when really they hold all the cards.

Given that Floyd has granted leave to Hicks to issue proceedings for damages, it looks like George has given up the ghost. If you ask Hicks even now does he wish he'd have sold to DIC and thereby doubling his investment, he'd probably still say no. As a businessman i'd say he's on a par with David Moores. Two of the thickest cunts to ever be involved in the sport, just unfortunate for us we had them both as owners.

To whom has the land upon which the houses behind the main stand once stood gone to? I repeat this question in relation to the houses behind anfield road and again ask why have they gone? Finally, who are we to adjudicate on what land this council is free to take or leave? As has been mentioned the majority of these homes are boarded up or unoccupied. Your post suggests that the demolition of anfield is a good thing when really, all that is offered in exchange is a new stadium around the corner for an uplifted price and cost which in this climate is uneconomical. Development is not confined to the mainstand but anfield road also whilst giving us the chance to protect the heritage and build upon the platform anfield can provide as it stands.

Maybe she went back to the hotel room with him in the early hours of the morning for a game of scrabble. Maybe she just wasn't much of a sleeper and was banking on getting a free continental breakfast whilst having a cursory read of the complimentary daily mail newspaper. Either way, the guys guilty until proven innocent. Joke

I agree. I ask how there cannot be a public interest in scrapping these houses to make way for a major regeneration, which would serve to increase economic growth, increase job opportunities and provide for better housing? It has been suggested that the Council have zero incentive to let us stay and rebuild. Well I put it to the leaders of this city that they are stunting the growth of an institution and cultural icon upon which the very foundations of this city was built. Adopting the socialist doctrine of the great Bill Shankly, do not what is best for you alone, but for the greater good of us all.

If we wanted to push the issue through as a fanbase we could...even if it meant legislative changes. That is how much I believe in the power of our support.

I think your post succinctly highlights the many obstacles in the clubs way of not just a new ground, but moving forward by retaining or indeed building a competetive edge. Anfield can only be redeveloped if there is sufficient space to facilitate not just an expansion of existing features but the construction of everything else required to take the club forward. I havn't seen land registry plans but surely the boundary adjoining Lothair Road at the back of the Main Stand is club owned. I'm not convinced that much more space beyond this (save for another row of houses perhaps) is required to develop the main stand sufficiently. Directly behind the Anfield Road stand you then have a square piece of land between Utting Avenue and Priory Road. This land is unoccupied. Why can the club not construct the other major facilities it needs to take the club forward? Only the council can tell us the answer to this. The legal issues as to ownership of the land behind the mainstand are very easily dealt with. In this property market i think anyone but the council owning a property there would bite the clubs hand off for a price. As for CPO's we have to ask why this challenge has not been taken up? Regeneration is a valid reason for such and the Council if they wished could quite easily apply to the Secretary of State tomorrow for permission to take title of that land for regeneration. As already pointed out this creates problems of re-housing which any Council worth its salt would deal with. I look at Manchester and see the help the Council gives to a thriving redevelopment initiative. CPO's were used to develop an old mill called Ancoats for nothing more than a very bad tourist attraction and apartments. Yet here we have a club known world over, a symbol of the city it has inhabited for more than 100 years crying out for help from its political leaders. As for the potential of falling attendances I cannot envisage that being a problem for us as things stand. I can see a contingency plan though whereby a smaller ground could in some ways be more profitable if you like...and it comes in the form of PPV. If fans in the future are given the option of buying their own teams games (as I envisage) then those not at anfield will elect to pay and watch at home. In this way a smaller capacity could not be as hard hitting as first thought. That said, we need to at least make up some ground on the likes of Arsenal by doing what we can, now. You note borrowing costs are low, but equity is required if financiers will lend. FSG may need to bring a large lump sum to the table to make that happen but that involves risk, one the banks will no longer take. I'm just worried that we're standing still at the moment...because we have to.

It looks like the design of St James Park more closely resemble what I was thinking by increasing the size of a side and end stand. I still think a refurbed anfield will be more than enough to see us right into the future. A major issue is the parking spaces which are needed to increase capacity. Without further parking we can't go above 52k capacity. That said it looks like a third tier around the main stand, anfield road and centenary is a very real possibility.

As for the room around Anfield its a case of re-housing the residents into new homes through CPO's. The row of houses behind the main stand has already gone as well as some behind the anfield road, its paving the way for a redevelopment of anfield.

I don't understand the fixation with a new ground. The comparison is borne out of the possibility that an existing ground can be redeveloped to make a modern home. I have been to Old Trafford numerous times and its design certainly lent itself to development over a course of decades as you say in its almost bowl shape design (the WWII bombing of it going some way to assisting an earlier refurb than intended). I'm no architect but i'd like to think the designers of the new Kop and Anfield rd which are only comparatively young considering they were built in the 90's could facilitate corners being filled in to join a new main stand with possibly 3 tiers? Maybe the cost of doing that isn't too far off a new stadium but its one of a number of possibilities that shouldn't be dismissed.

Anfield can and will be redeveloped. Old Trafford is proof that you do not need to move to a new stadium. Henry is on record as saying the cost of a new stadium cannot justify the returns an extra 15,000 seats would bring. Any development of the Main Stand and Anfield road would mean more corporate boxes as well. The footballing factors you cite are all relevant but the one prevailing factor out of everybody's control is the economic climate now, which makes lending for this type of venture nigh on impossible. A naming rights deal would be the only way funding of any kind could be made available but that alone will not be enough. The surrounding area of Anfield can also be developed but problems of development are not ours alone. If the council is to move residents on from those homes which are occupied nearby then they too need funding to re-house and build new homes. In a nutshell, until the lenders start lending again we are stuck where we are in which is in Anfield in its current form.

Great story and Beane deserves a lot of credit but not sure I share his pessimistic view of the future for those "smaller" franchises. The Giants whilst in a different league are a great example of what clever draft picks can do for you, as they by strengthening their pitching roster over a period of time. But with a username like Omar Vizquel you probably know that!

Wonder what sort of odds you'd get on that accy?

Luis Suarez Jose Enrique Andy Carroll

Too many wools on the kop these days. As with the "Keano" chants for Robbie Keane, anyone calling Bellamy fucking "Bellers" will be told to fuck off back to sheepsville.

Bit unfair considering (i) Kenny still hasnt had chance to put his best team out and (ii) the new lads havn't had chance to settle in properly yet. Judge them in May...you win nothing in November.

I agree that perhaps Suarez is maybe papering over the cracks, especially defensively where we just cant seem to buy a clean sheet lately. The defence as a unit is a concern but Lucas and Adam is just too static. They arnt in people's faces and allow opposition midfielders too much time and space on the ball. O'Hara pulled the strings at times today and I'm worried that whenever we meet a side with some industry in the middle, they're going to punish us. I think we'd be better served with Spearing in there for games like today just to shut their passing down a bit. That said, surely its there for all to see that we are creating more chances in games than we have done for a long time? Offensively we are a different proposition and we just need to be more clinical in front of goal and once that happens were gonna give someone a proper hiding. Fingers crossed all the chances go in next weekend.

And here's what the little mad fella had to say about the strop... "Happy for the winning and scored again! Is important to gain more points in this championship! I felt really sad and sorry because I always want to help my team to win the match!! Thanks for your support!" The guy just loves playing the sport. He's the polar opposite to Torres in that respect.

Some good bursts of pace from him today, thought he looked quick and strong. Just a shame that the derby has probably come a little too soon for him. Adam and Lucas as a pair lack mobility and allowed O'Hara far too much room today, as they did Modric last week.

Remember reading the comment at the time and it just seemed more weird than anything that he would say the things he did. His views seem very warped, not just on 9/11.

Yep, exception rather than the rule big Sami.

Excellent post and I agree that footy has changed beyond all recognition. In 1994 the Kop had its last stand and my ticket cost me £4.50. Nothing could have prepared me for the changes to come, on and off the pitch. It was chelsea in the mid 90's who first started to change things with the influx of foreigners like Vialli, Gullit, Zola and Leboeuf. They came to anfield and were beaten 5-2 and were mocked with "go back to italy". The number of foreigners has made it even harder to identify with the players and vice-versa, do they know or dare I say care what their club means to them. For me the day I realised football as we once knew it was finished was when Mascherano went on strike. It made me sick in the pit of my stomach when the news broke about an hour before kick off vs. city. The irony somehow emphasised when city brushed us aside 3 nil with a team of what seemed like machines assembled by the Sheikh who was there to see his "hobby" for the very first time. But then I've seen the King come back and bring in some raw british talent which takes me back to 1994. The Kop, bouyed by this second coming, has in many respects been rekindled and the feel good factor of going the match again has returned. As for Chelsea I honestly believe they are the biggest time bomb in football. Mr Abramovich is not going to be around forever. When he does decide to call it a day, through choice or not, who comes in to continue to carry the burden and debt. Like City, neither club is self sustaining. Thats a big problem in the eventuality the sugar daddy ups and leaves. You only need look at fanbase size for a realistic appraisal of the situation and club potential for marketing - using possibly the best international poll of popularity these days I refer to facebook. Official pages for each club puts fan size as follows: Chelsea & Liverpool - 7 million followers each Man City? Just 1 million....

He always gets better as the season goes on. History tells us he makes the odd mistake early season.