Search the Community

Ladies & Gents, please find below a copy of an email sent this evening to the head of Liverpool City Council - Joe Anderson, and also copied to Liverpool Football Club and the media in the UK and USA about the stadium and regeneration issues. joe.anderson@liverpool.gov.uk Dear Sirs, Kop Faithful welcomed the update on the stadium issue following the joint statement released by LFC and Liverpool City Council on the 10th of July ‘011, however we are disappointed and frustrated to learn that after 9 months of dialogue between the two parties, there are still obstacles preventing the potential re-development of Anfield. Many supporters would prefer the club to stay and redevelop our iconic home, particularly as we consider this to be a more cost effective solution than building a new stadium in Stanley Park. A significant refurbishment of the main stand and Anfield Road stands is a viable option that would bring prosperity to the area and create employment both during the construction phase and post completion. It would also trigger the same much needed regeneration of the area. At the very least, the club should be free to explore both options unfettered. Council leader Joe Anderson claims that the Council will continue to support what the club are trying to deliver, but how can that be the case if there are still land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory issues that are blocking Liverpool FC’s proposed plans? It has come to light that when Mr Anderson first met with Fenway Sports Group following their takeover in October 2010, a potential ground-share with Everton FC was discussed. It's fair to say that the vast majority of Liverpool fans abhor the notion of a ground-share with Everton, and fear that key Everton-supporting individuals within the local council may be trying to block Liverpool’s plans in preference for a ground-share with our cash-strapped neighbours. Kop Faithful has learnt that the council are still attempting to force Liverpool FC into a groundshare with Everton and have recently presented the club with proposed plans for a shared stadium at the central docks (http://onfinite.com/libraries/1529119/54a.jpg). 650 acres of redundant docks in Liverpool and Birkenhead are due for regeneration as part of the £10 billion Liverpool Waters and Wirral Waters schemes due to be carried out by Peel Holdings. The property investment company have previously worked in close partnership with Liverpool City Council before and seemingly enjoy a very close relationship with Mr Anderson. “Joe Anderson is working for Peel Holdings, he may not be taking a wage, but he is working for them alright. Today's paper is a joint effort from the Daily Peel and Council to propagate the myths that English Heritage will not be listened to by this current council. We have laws to protect us from Joe and the cosy little relationship with Peel Holdings, and the World Heritage Steering Group and all that the council is. They are proving to be no better than the last lot of uneducated clowns that destroyed the Pier Head. Take no nonsense from this man he is far too close to Peel Holdings and Lindsay Ashworth their chief arrogant bastard.” Liverpool Preservation Trust: Joe Anderson-Spiving for Peel Holdings. Back in February 2006 the Echo reported that Everton FC (the club that Mr Anderson supports) were in talks with Peel Holdings regarding the construction of a new stadium at Switch Island (icLiverpool - We'll build Blues' new stadium ). Kop Faithful understands that Mr Anderson and Peel Holdings are now proposing that a new shared stadium is constructed at Clarence Docks and will be the centre piece of the Liverpool Waters development. We believe that Peel are attempting to model the Liverpool Waters development on a similar scheme in Melbourne, where a stadium was used as a driver to get investment down to the docks, which had been unused and fell into disrepair since the 1980's due to containerisation taking the trade away. The stadium at Melbourne attracts 2 million people a year and was a key driver to getting multi-national companies like Sony and Ericsson to invest in the area. The proposed scheme sounds like a money spinner for Peel Holdings, the docks and for those who will have their palms greased with silver, but what about the regeneration of Anfield and the wellbeing of the local community that Mr Anderson was so keen to safeguard? Liverpool fans worldwide fully support the clubs plans, whether they involve redeveloping Anfield or building our own new stadium in Stanley Park - both would clearly make a positive contribution to the local area. However, it's fair to say that all Liverpool fans totally oppose a groundshare with Everton FC and question the Council's commitment to doing all they can to keep Liverpool FC in L4, and to regenerate the local area. It is time for Liverpool City Council and Joe Anderson to stop trying to bail out Everton FC, put their cards on the table and work in partnership with the city’s biggest revenue earner for the good of the people of Anfield and the city as a whole. NO TO GROUNDSHARE. Yours faithfully, KOP FAITHFUL The Kop Faithful - No to RBS refinance - Liverpool FC Twitter

Have a word with yourself and stop sending me PM`s when you are drunk or at least I hope thats your excuse.

Detractors of Fox, America's No. 1 cable news network, have always complained that it twists the truth, refracting people and events through a conservative prism until they acquire the distortions of a fun house mirror. These criticisms, of course, are metaphors – or at least they were until a week ago, when a Fox program aired unflatteringly altered photographs of two New York Times staffers whose work had raised the broadcaster's hackles. The doctored pictures, which weren't identified as such to viewers, have stirred a froth about journalistic ethics in media circles here, pitting liberal-minded broadsheet against populist network in a conflict that bears all the scars and sniping of a political race. The seeds of the dispute were sown last week, when Times reporter Jacques Steinberg wrote a story on cable news ratings. The piece acknowledged that while Fox remained the most popular news destination for prime-time viewers in the coveted 25-54 demographic, its once dominant lead had eroded, with rivals CNN and MSNBC adding viewers at a faster clip. A few days later, on the morning show Fox and Friends, co-anchor Steve Doocy described the article as a “hit piece” and averred that Mr. Steinberg had been doing a “bunch of attack stories” on the network. Further, he added, Mr. Steinberg's boss, Steven Reddicliffe, was a former employee of the Fox media empire and reportedly had “an axe to grind” with the company. At the same time, Fox ran modified pictures of both men. Mr. Steinberg's teeth had been yellowed, his nose and chin made more bulbous, and his ears jugged. Mr. Reddicliffe was given black bags under his eyes, and his hairline was pulled back. A Times columnist struck back Monday. Veteran media scribe David Carr portrayed the Fox media relations team as a group of vindictive bullies, and raised the spectre of anti-Semitism in the network's visual treatment of Mr. Steinberg. The column elicited feverish activity on blogs over the past two days, with one, Gawker, publishing a scathing piece about a Fox public-relations executive. “In a technique familiar to students of vintage German propaganda,” Mr. Carr wrote of Mr. Steinberg's image, “his ears were pulled out, his teeth splayed apart, his forehead lowered and his nose was widened and enlarged in a way that made him look more like Fagin than the guy I work with.” A spokeswoman for Fox declined to discuss the matter, pointing only to the network's characterization of these insinuations to The Times as “vile and untrue.”

Does anyone visit the site using their phone? I've just installed some plug in that should make the site easy to read as there's a new style set up thats basically just text based. I've set it up so when someone logs in from a mobile, it should automatically force them to use this new style rather than the normal TLW CLassic style. Problem is, I don't think it's working. It works for me, but thats because I'm admin and I can view any style that's on the system, even if it's hidden to everyone else. I don't want to make this 'mobile' style visible as an option because when it's selected it doesn't give you the option to change back unless you log out and log back in again. So can someone check the site out on their phone and tell me what it looks like. Basically, if it looks anything like the way it does on your pc then it hasn't worked. There shouldn't really be any colour in the mobile style. You shouldn't have to change your style either, it should be done automatically.