redasever

Aye, it's not bad for a 'lick of paint'

Still it’s not so bad for what was never viable and couldn’t be done, on a site that could never be acquired, in a surrounding development that was in too many bits and was just a splash of paint anyway. Don’t worry Xerxes lad, you’re safe. Your mega money-hungry flop will never be built and never will crash. You can bitch forever. Enjoy.

Nothing new of substance other than the rather silly and wholly unsubstantiated slur on the owners' development expertise. Have you thought about the stage?

Oh dear... doesn't matter whether it's material to FFP or not, expenditure always counts for those who pay for it.

Because under FFP, you don't have to find the money, you don't have to pay back loans and you don't have to pay back interest on loans? Complete nonsense. A new stadium never made money - it was either a dying administration clutching at straws or a paper exercise to increase the value of the club to sell it on the turn. Still, there's one born every minute.

If only you could name one. Just one. It was interesting reading a couple of your recent posts. Nothing has changed with you. I would have thought you would have picked up something over time. Sadly not. Meanwhile, everyone else has moved on. The new stadium has been exposed for the dead weight that it was. The Anfield Plaza, a weak and pathetic sop to planning. The total absence of any tangible or intangible benefit to the area of community. The complete lack of action on housing. And a redeveloped Anfield emerges at or about 60k costing £150m (should be a fine job) and more... a reinvigorated High Street, a food plaza in the park (whether you like or not) and more, very much more indeed - a 20-year housing stalemate unlocked and transforming the area - all the things you said couldn't happen, or even shouldn't happen. Never mind mate. I suppose you had fun while it lasted. I did.

There's every chance to introduce wider pricing. Particularly for lesser category games and 'junior' competitions. The flat pricing structure is turning people away. .

Anyone who imagines that the lower portions of the ARE and Main Stand will stay as they are, would be extraordinary. Anyone who wants to pay more for a better seat or improved facilities in the lower centenary (or any part of the ground) will get their chance. Some will even get the chance to pay less. .

None of those columns would stay. The Anfield Road End upper tier will not stay. All of these poor views can go. .

If regeneration and redevelopment are intertwined, each will fail. When I say gutted, I mean back to structure and go again. Potentially a place or seat under the stand for every seat in it (plus parking) - that's a big 'bolt-on': anfield_mainsection1 by redasever, on Flickr “The club's plan is to build over the existing stands during a close season in order to avoid the dip in revenue that would be suffered by playing in a ground with a reduced capacity.” This strongly implies that the existing stand is retained. Else why do it that way? Bearing in mind the existing 12,000 seats earn probably in excess of £12m a year. Brave man to bulldoze it. We don’t need boxes. We have enough. They're too expensive to build. We need premium seats. Premium seats make more money. .

There's no economic argument for dumping the cost of 12,000 seats in the skip. The Main Stand can stay - gutted, refitted and extended and will if this is to be believed: The club's plan is to build over the existing stands during a close season in order to avoid the dip in revenue that would be suffered by playing in a ground with a reduced capacity. http://soccernet.esp...ts-deal?cc=5901 If you really want boxes, they can go in at the required height. If you really want more legroom it can be extended. As long as you're ready to pay the increase in ticket price. It's only money. .

Procedurally, they are separate entities and it's important that they be so for the success of each. There will be no regeneration that depends on a stadium. A stadium may benefit from regeneration but there will be no stadium that depends on CPOs. .

Xerxes lad, I don’t know where your expertise really is but you are seldom right in any area. As noted below the residents are indeed broadly in agreement. That is what public consultation is all about. The owners, occupiers and tenants (including the multi-owners) have been made offers of market value plus 10%, compensation for moving, moving expenses, assisted mortgages for what has to be said are properties no-one else wants. That’s the offer. Take it or take less via CPO. I am sorry for you but the ‘rules’ here takes no cogniscance of the concept of the value of ‘enabling space’ - cute phrase, I must throw it in the bin some time. It refers to the market value of a house, simply as a house in the market. That’s all. And whether lawyers wish to bush-whack unsuspecting residents or not, it is just. That’s all any of us get. The stadium, new or redeveloped has nothing to do with that process. Which is just what is in place. Council have a plan which is tangible. It is one of three that has the support of the majority of participants in a public consultation of the residents of the area. Any lawyer will note that the procedure followed is careful, correct and robust. Council are keeping what has been refurbished already, refurbishing what can economically be refurbished and clearing what can not. The plan is thus based on an assessment of the condition of the houses themselves, the prevailing economic conditions/ financial balance between cost and price to pay for it and the financial constraints of council itself. They have the money to fund it. They have the developer to develop it (Your Housing). It IS happening. .

I'm sorry to piss on your parade but council can't afford new houses just now and if they could they can't build new houses that people can afford - refurbishment is the viable option but those particularly houses are beyond even that. .