Gordon Hodgson

If you take the 30 yr period before the Mancs started the expansion of OT they averaged around 45,000 per season. LFC averaged around 41,000 (over most of this period OT also had at least a 10% larger capacity). Arsenal averaged 32,500 over the same period. We then saw the massive increase in popularity of the game. Our season ticket waiting list went from zero in the early 90s to the tens of thousands a decade later. If we take these figures forward then a 70,000 stadium would be about the right size based on the historic data.

Was expecting as much when Chavski Broughton came out with his statement about it not being the best price but the best buyer for the club. That gives them plenty of room for dodgy dealings behind the scenes.

If I was putting someone in to manage a business then I would expect them to display the basics in stakeholder management. Cecil has so far managed to completely alienate one of the main supporter representative groups. Spent a year completely undermining a senior manager and engineering his dismissal. Slagged off the main shareholders. Publicly snubbed a club legend because he didn't go along with his cunning plan. Dragged the good name of the club through the mud with his constant leaks and press briefings designed to present himself in the best possible light. Is it any wonder that most stakeholder groups are sick of the guy. This type of behaviour would probably lead to the removal of the manager in any of the organisations I've worked in. Cecil is working in a complete vacuum and has taken full advantage. Broughton is a part-timer tasked with selling the club, and the Yanks are on their way out. He could have handled this situation very differently and kept the majority of the stakeholders onside. It is a mark of the character of the man that his has chosen to behave in the way he has.

The thing that doesn't add up in Broughton's statement is this article from over three weeks ago: Liverpool takeover: Tom Hicks scuppers two 'perfect fit' offers for Anfield club - News - MirrorFootball.co.uk Barclays Capital are frustrated at his “unyielding stance in negotiations”. Why would Purslow be leaking this to Maddock if Hicks really had no say in the process. The final sentence is interesting: “The RBS are increasingly frustrated at the process, and sources close to the deal are suggesting there is a chance they will offer the Americans an ultimatum of finding a buyer "within months", or they will pull the plug on the loans.” Has that actually happened in the last three weeks and Broughton is attempting to present it as being part of the plan from the start?

He will probably get some cash. “Undisclosed” probably means £2m to Hicks, £2m to Gillett, £1m to RBS, and £1.5m for Roy to sign Turan.

Try KLM. Links to the best hub in the world at Schiphol, which is a far better passenger experience than Heathrow. Access to the Air France-KLM routes, which are larger than BA. The response was about the statement “the once great port city couldn't foresee the new age of air travel”, which is completely inaccurate.

Oh dear. More Manc propaganda. Confused history here. LCC did have the foresight to recognise the growth of air travel and built one of the largest terminals in the country in the early 30s. It had a number of established international routes and was the main airport for the N.West. Ringway was built later and had not really established any major traffic by the time WW2 started. The main problem for Speke was that it was requisitioned by the Air Ministry during WW2. It was not returned to the council until the 1960s. This limited the opportunity for them to expand and invest during this period. Ringway did not have this restriction and was able to establish contracts with the main airlines during this time. This allowed them to build their main terminal in the 1960s. The next opportunity for Speke to gain a foothold in the market was the introduction of the low-cost airlines, which Manchester initially ignored and preferred to stick with their existing charter operations (living in the past?). As a result LJL is now one of the fastest growing in the country. At a time when most airports are losing passengers in the recession they saw a 17% increase in February (Manchester fell by over 10%). The impact of the canal on Liverpool trade is always exaggerated by Mancs. Traffic through the PoL increased following the building of the canal. Salford docks have now largely been turned into apartments and yet the PoL is still thriving. A £100m extension is now planned so that it can handle the largest post-Panamax ships. Is this living in the past?

Just looked at this and the accompanying chart. Very poor article. Anfield regularly hosts Champions League games. It already has a bigger capacity than the grounds in 10 of the competing cities. They are also proposing new/extended stadia that do not yet exist. Even without any additional work it would still be larger than the proposed grounds in 8 of them, including Milton Keynes. What is to say any of the prosed work will be completed in any of these? The author appears to have randomly selected Liverpool as “vulnerable” in order to gain the most sensational headline.

It's about much more than just the stadium. Liverpool has a greater footballing and music heritage than any other city in the UK. It is currently the 5th most visited place in the UK (likely to be higher by 2018). It has a massive range of attractions and is a World Heritage site. Top quality hotels. World-class museums and galleries. Superb nightlife, restaurants, and bars. The city's brand awareness overseas is second only to London's. Who from overseas has even heard of Milton Keynes and would want to make a visit? It is relatively easy to get a stadium/improved built in a few years so that is not an excuse. If MK is chosen over Liverpool then it can only be due to corruption in the Manc-led bid team.

CEO of the bid organisation is Andy Anson, who is the former commercial director of Manchester United and a lifelong fan …....

Isn't this the same for Liverpool and shouldn't the distribution be more equitable? A couple of examples - the £100m for the redevelopment of Piccadilly Station (Lime St. received £1m) or £500m for the tram extension (Liverpool was refused £170m). Merseyside already has a congestion charge in the form of the tunnel tolls. When the new Mersey crossing is built the two Runcorn bridges will be tolled, and so all southern routes in to the city will require a charge. Does this mean the city will receive any additional funding for public transport? The success of Manchester in attracting UK government jobs and investment coincided with the election of NU Labour. This put many of the Manc-based Blairites such as Purnell, Bev Hughes, Woolas, Hazel “Bride of Chucky” Blears etc. in strong positions of power. The policy to set up “Regional Centres” meant that it was very easy for them to channel investment to Manchester over competing cities such as Liverpool.

Yes, already built, but with tax payers' money. Does that justify the current stitch-up by the regional Labour cronies and NWDA to steal the asset from Preston in order to find a purpose for the building? It's not currently empty and as you say, has delivered some very good exhibitions in the past. The issue is that in its current guise it does not have a viable offer. This is exactly what is being levelled at Preston. However, a £5m subsidy from the tax payer, on top of the £8m they have already put in to build Urbis in the first place, makes the football exhibition a different proposition. Perhaps the NWDA should consider the criteria they use in deciding to plough tax payers' money over to Manc projects on demand. The £13m could instead be spent on regenerating the Anfield/Breckfield area.

The issue is how the NWDA is using its position to transfer assets from one part of the region to Manchester. In this case it is Preston, but it has happened many of times already with Liverpool. It’s a direct result of the NU Labour policy of regional centres. This doesn’t make much sense in most parts of the country, but even less so in the N.West, with two large conurbations only 35 miles apart. Is the role of the NWDA to undermine our city in this way, particularly utilising tax payers money? Here are a few for you: - Liverpool Film Office (the first of its kind in the country and the most successful) was forcibly merged by the NWDA into a new organisation "NorthWest Vision". They were then subsequently moved to Manchester. - Mersey Regional Health Authority HQ was moved from Liverpool to the N.West Regional Health Authority in, yes, Manchester. - Government Office N.West is in the process of moving almost their entire presence in the city out of the Cunard building to, guess where – yes, Manchester. - Games industry. The NWDA wants to create a games development centre of excellence in the region. Liverpool has one of the strongest sectors of any city in the UK, including Sony Computer Entertainment Studios Europe. Manchester's sector is almost non-existent by comparison. Where would you think this should be set up? Well, according to the current NWDA plans, it's surprise, surprise, Manchester.

What you omit reveals your agenda and doesn't really explain the disgusting stitch up that was perpetrated here. The museum did not approach Manchester City Council to invite a bid this was done via the NWDA (the regional development agency funded by the UK tax payer). To quote Sir Richard Leese “We were approached by the regional development agency with the idea and agreed that it looked sound.” Why did they not also approach Liverpool City Council with the idea? The city, after all, is the most successful footballing city in England and covered by the same development agency. Manchester is the 3rd most visited city with Liverpool 6th and growing much more quickly. Liverpool also has a much more successful museum sector. Why not even consider putting it in Liverpool? The answer – because that does not fit with the current aim of the NWDA to concentrate all of the regional assets in Manchester (the North West Diversion Agency as it is known locally). They were no doubt helped by the fact that with Bobby Charlton as President and Alex Ferguson as Vice President of the museum this was a lot easier. You mention the 5m the NWDA are contributing to move it to Manchester. They also contributed many millions to build Urbis in the first place and were then left with a white elephant of a building. The current museum on the site has been a relative failure and so throwing in more taxpayers money appears to be the solution. I'm sure the world-class museum operation in Liverpool could have found a building had they been approached. If the NWDA want to steal assets from another part of the region then we should at least have a transparent bidding process open to all cities. Not spending tax revenues on supporting corrupt, dodgy dealings done behind closed doors that only benefit one city. It is hardly surprising that Finney feels aggrieved by the way some Manc cronies in regional government have shafted his beloved club.

Yep. Embarrassing. Don't worry, they will be “supporting” Citeh next year.