Topic: Liverpool confirm decision to redevelop Anfield

[Peter McGurk]

I've lifted this one off Peter's site for you

More or less right. Toilets a bit small.

AFAIK exactly the same thing happened with the Red Sox; they could either move to a new stadium or upgrade the current one. They stayed and prices went up to make up the lost differential

Completely different at the Red Sox. Different city. Different people with different spending power - but there's no 'lost differential' at Fenway or Anfield. The 'differential' is bigger at both for staying there.

[LiamG]

I've lifted this one off Peter's site for you

looks a lot better than the H&G idea!

[Eeyore]

Whilst people are talking about Fenway this is worth a read http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/11/07/streets_use_a_sweet_deal_for_red_sox/ especially considering the change of purpose for Lothair and Alroy.

[The Lord Admiral]

Whilst people are talking about Fenway this is worth a read http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/11/07/streets_use_a_sweet_deal_for_red_sox/ especially considering the change of purpose for Lothair and Alroy.

Cheers. That was worth a read, very interesting and it's hard not to draw comparisons.

[CraigDS]

Cheers. That was worth a read, very interesting and it's hard not to draw comparisons.

Other than the fact LCC will have no intention of handing over the land or houses on the opposite side of Lothair Rd and beyond to the club.

[Eeyore]

Other than the fact LCC will have no intention of handing over the land or houses on the opposite side of Lothair Rd and beyond to the club.

Would you honestly be surprised if the Club swapped houses they own in other streets for land in Lothair and Alroy ?

[Peter McGurk]

Would you honestly be surprised if the Club swapped houses they own in other streets for land in Lothair and Alroy ?

Yes I would. I very much doubt the owners of properties in Lothair Road would want houses in other streets. Out of the frying pan...

There are clearly comparisons with Yawkey Way and a potential Anfield Plaza/Fans Village on Walton Breck Road.

There's much mutual benefit for the club and the community but there's also an obvious issue with local businesses being once or twice a fortnight busy.

It's a shame we don't play as many games as Baseball. But the development of WBR and the stadium as a week-round visitor attraction would be good for everyone. The ground/museum tour is already third (?) biggest visit generator to Liverpool. Perhaps we could think about 'reserves' matches and ladies' football at Anfield to up the number of games a bit. That Denso Grassmaster is pretty tough.

[CraigDS]

Would you honestly be surprised if the Club swapped houses they own in other streets for land in Lothair and Alroy ?

Maybe not for the land for the stadium (so the side of Lothair that backs onto Anfield) but even that would be a long shot for me.

My guess is the club will sell, for a nominal fee, the houses they own on that side to LCC and in turn once (if) planning is granted we will pay a pretty handsome lease for the land.

I don't think we own too many more houses outside of these roads to be able to use them to persuade LCC and Your Housing (who do own a lot more) to give over the land without some big money exchanging hands or some other revenue sharing scheme being agreed upon.

No one really knows though so we can't really say I guess.

[Eeyore]

Yes I would. I very much doubt the owners of properties in Lothair Road would want houses in other streets. Out of the frying pan...

There are clearly comparisons with Yawkey Way and a potential Anfield Plaza/Fans Village on Walton Breck Road.

There's much mutual benefit for the club and the community but there's also an obvious issue with local businesses being once or twice a fortnight busy.

It's a shame we don't play as many games as Baseball. But the development of WBR and the stadium as a week-round visitor attraction would be good for everyone. The ground/museum tour is already third (?) biggest visit generator to Liverpool. Perhaps we could think about 'reserves' matches and ladies' football at Anfield to up the number of games a bit. That Denso Grassmaster is pretty tough.

In theory the Council needs to buy the properties that LFC owns, the Club wants to acquire land to extend I am sure they will come to some sort of arrangement. The Council are already on talks with Your housing over transferring some of the councils stock to Your housing for their knock two houses into one scheme.

As for Yawkey way it is a shame the football quarter idea never gained traction.

[Peter McGurk]

In theory the Council needs to buy the properties that LFC owns, the Club wants to acquire land to extend I am sure they will come to some sort of arrangement. The Council are already on talks with Your housing over transferring some of the councils stock to Your housing for their knock two houses into one scheme.

As for Yawkey way it is a shame the football quarter idea never gained traction.

An Anfield Plaza on WBR has legs outside of a Football Quarter but only in the margins of the stadium viability and that's not nailed on yet. I suspect the club would in due course get round to a fan village/Yawkey way. I can't see any reason why council wouldn't welcome it as long as it stays a football thing and not a shopping centre.

[Snaily]

Yes I would. I very much doubt the owners of properties in Lothair Road would want houses in other streets. Out of the frying pan...

There are clearly comparisons with Yawkey Way and a potential Anfield Plaza/Fans Village on Walton Breck Road.

There's much mutual benefit for the club and the community but there's also an obvious issue with local businesses being once or twice a fortnight busy.

It's a shame we don't play as many games as Baseball. But the development of WBR and the stadium as a week-round visitor attraction would be good for everyone. The ground/museum tour is already third (?) biggest visit generator to Liverpool. Perhaps we could think about 'reserves' matches and ladies' football at Anfield to up the number of games a bit. That Denso Grassmaster is pretty tough.

or maybe we could get back in europe for a potential 10 extra home games a season 

[CraigDS]

or maybe we could get back in europe for a potential 10 extra home games a season 

Would still only be less than half the 80+ games MLB teams play at home in a season.

[Nessy76]

Would still only be less than half the 80+ games MLB teams play at home in a season.

Ideally, we'd play the reserve games and ladies matches at Anfield, but the pitch probably couldn't stand it.

[CraigDS]

Ideally, we'd play the reserve games and ladies matches at Anfield, but the pitch probably couldn't stand it.

I doubt the crowds are large enough for the vast majority of games to make it worthwhile.

[Snaily]

so make games more attractive, free entry?? club owned bars and restaurants along with other local businesses can then take advantage of larger numbers of people coming into the area more often.

[CraigDS]

so make games more attractive, free entry?? club owned bars and restaurants along with other local businesses can then take advantage of larger numbers of people coming into the area more often.

I hardly think prices are putting people off currently (is it £5 entry at the moment with kids free?) so doubt that will attract so many more.

[Nessy76]

I doubt the crowds are large enough for the vast majority of games to make it worthwhile.

Don't need to open the whole stadium, just the Kop. I think the club could do more to promote those games, but it would always be a niche market.

[No666]

So basically Peter, if someone outspends the market on a property they will no more recoup it from a council (whether under CPO or negotiated agreement) than if they sold it privately? And I infer from your post that the market in Anfield is so low, there was no financial point in maintaining a property to a high basic standard? (From Macca's account, it's not as if he's put in a glass sliding roof, he's just tried to be a decent landlord.)

[Peter McGurk]

Don't need to open the whole stadium, just the Kop. I think the club could do more to promote those games, but it would always be a niche market.

It would be another reason to go there, do the tour, spend some time and money in the area. Help to raise the Anfield area's game to seven days a week instead of one/twice a fortnight.

So basically Peter, if someone outspends the market on a property they will no more recoup it from a council (whether under CPO or negotiated agreement) than if they sold it privately? And I infer from your post that the market in Anfield is so low, there was no financial point in maintaining a property to a high basic standard? (From Macca's account, it's not as if he's put in a glass sliding roof, he's just tried to be a decent landlord.)

Err, yeah. It's called 'over-capitaisation' or in plain English, spending money you won't get back.

I'd struggle to define a 'high basic' standard but yes absolutely true, it was and is a massive risk to spend more money than you can get back on any individual house in Anfield or anywhere else, no matter how 'decent' you are.

Of course if you got the money to be a philanthropist... fill your boots

[Eeyore]

It would be another reason to go there, do the tour, spend some time and money in the area. Help to raise the Anfield area's game to seven days a week instead of one/twice a fortnight.


Err, yeah. It's called 'over-capitaisation' or in plain English, spending money you won't get back.

I'd struggle to define a 'high basic' standard but yes absolutely true, it was and is a massive risk to spend more money than you can get back on any individual house in Anfield or anywhere else, no matter how 'decent' you are.

Of course if you got the money to be a philanthropist... fill your boots

I think that is really unfair Peter the owner occupiers and small landlords were left between a rock and a hard place by the Clubs actions of buying up houses and tinning them up. There hasn't been an option to sell at a reasonable price for a long time because of the uncertainty of the area. So if you have a mortgage and a long term tenant then you have to keep that tenant happy. If the roof and the windows leak then you have to repair or replace them. Otherwise you end up with a mortgage and no tenant and no way of selling your property without taking a massive loss.

For me the Club has deliberately destroyed the area to force people out and to enable it to extend the footprint of the ground. I would love to see the reaction if say Tesco had spent a couple of decades buying up perfectly good properties and destroying them so they could extend a supermarket.

[CraigDS]

I think that is really unfair Peter the owner occupiers and small landlords were left between a rock and a hard place by the Clubs actions of buying up houses and tinning them up. There hasn't been an option to sell at a reasonable price for a long time because of the uncertainty of the area. So if you have a mortgage and a long term tenant then you have to keep that tenant happy. If the roof and the windows leak then you have to repair or replace them. Otherwise you end up with a mortgage and no tenant and no way of selling your property without taking a massive loss.

For me the Club has deliberately destroyed the area to force people out and to enable it to extend the footprint of the ground. I would love to see the reaction if say Tesco had spent a couple of decades buying up perfectly good properties and destroying them so they could extend a supermarket.

The whole wider area has been bought up and tinned up over the years, by individuals, LCC, Your Housing (formerly Arena) and LFC.

At the end of 2010 the club only owned 10 houses on Lothair (numbers 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 33, 35 and 39). The rest were owned by the other 3 mentioned above or landlords/individuals living in them (about 8 houses). Outside of this the club owned a lot of Anfield Rd (which it has tidied up and used) and 1 houses (number 190) on Walton Breck Rd.

So LFC have had a hand in the area being how it is, I'm certainly not saying it doesn't, but it has about 10 maybe 11 houses boarded up compared to 100's in the area owned by others.

[CraigDS]

Also, a bit of news I have just found.

It appears there are 4 houses remaining to be purchased on the odd side of Lothair, however one has agreed a deal. And 3 on the even side left to purchase.

[Eeyore]

The whole wider area has been bought up and tinned up over the years, by individuals, LCC, Your Housing (formerly Arena) and LFC.

At the end of 2010 the club only owned 10 houses on Lothair (numbers 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 33, 35 and 39). The rest were owned by the other 3 mentioned above or landlords/individuals living in them (about 8 houses). Outside of this the club owned a lot of Anfield Rd (which it has tidied up and used) and 1 houses (number 190) on Walton Breck Rd.

So LFC have had a hand in the area being how it is, I'm certainly not saying it doesn't, but it has about 10 maybe 11 houses boarded up compared to 100's in the area owned by others.

The problem is the motivation I don't really see what Arena or LCC had to gain by destroying the area in the immediate vicinity of the ground.

 

Also, a bit of news I have just found.

It appears there are 4 houses remaining to be purchased on the odd side of Lothair, however one has agreed a deal. And 3 on the even side left to purchase.

Cheers Craig.

[CraigDS]

The problem is the motivation I don't really see what Arena or LCC had to gain by destroying the area in the immediate vicinity of the ground.

But it is not just in the immediate vicinity, they have bought and boarded up houses for the last decade or more spreading right out away from the stadium.

If it was one street (Lothair) and LCC/Your Housing had refurbished/knocked down and rebuilt all the others in the wider area then I could kind of see the point that LFC are the main culprit here, but in the grand scheme LFC is just an owner of 10 houses out of a shed load more.

I've just looked it up and Arena/Your Housing owns/owned 740 houses in the Anfield area, 243 in the immediate vicinity behind the Main Stand (Rockfield). Not totally sure how many LCC own.

[Peter McGurk]

I think that is really unfair Peter the owner occupiers and small landlords were left between a rock and a hard place by the Clubs actions of buying up houses and tinning them up. There hasn't been an option to sell at a reasonable price for a long time because of the uncertainty of the area. So if you have a mortgage and a long term tenant then you have to keep that tenant happy. If the roof and the windows leak then you have to repair or replace them. Otherwise you end up with a mortgage and no tenant and no way of selling your property without taking a massive loss.

For me the Club has deliberately destroyed the area to force people out and to enable it to extend the footprint of the ground. I would love to see the reaction if say Tesco had spent a couple of decades buying up perfectly good properties and destroying them so they could extend a supermarket.

There's nothing unfair about it. It's the way property works. So until the revolution...

Areas like these have been going down for years and not just in Anfield and not just in Liverpool. LFC have had very little to do with those economic circumstances.

In fact at times, it has been the only economic contributor to the area. The club has bought  properties in poor condition and empty properties too. Sometimes to tin them up to put out the fires and keep the drug gangs and vandals out. They've cleaned out rats and rubbish in jiggers. They might have had an eye to protecting their position (at a time when they were considering whether to go or stay) but they're hardly to blame for starting the rot or continuing it.

Yes the owners and tenants are in a hard place but just like so many across the city. You could argue it’s only the presence of the club that‘s giving them this out. Certainly before the club decided to stay at Anfield there where NO plans for these streets. NONE whatsoever. It was being left to rot, not by the club - by market forces.

I can assure you that Tesco wouldn’t bother hanging around to do up houses even as part of a part-clearance programme.

The inalienable ‘right-to-buy’, the declining local economy, a reckless property boom and let’s be honest, the individuals-as-‘property developers’ market pumped up by that boom (not to mention frankly irresponsible television programmes) is responsible for this housing mess - not the club.

The fact is, house prices and building costs have outstripped the ability to afford decent houses and unless there's a very significant adjustment in the market (hopefully over a very long period of time), it's going to stay that way.

[Eeyore]

There's nothing unfair about it. It's the way property works. So until the revolution...

Areas like these have been going down for years and not just in Anfield and not just in Liverpool. LFC have had very little to do with those economic circumstances.

In fact at times, it has been the only economic contributor to the area. The club has bought  properties in poor condition and empty properties too. Sometimes to tin them up to put out the fires and keep the drug gangs and vandals out. They've cleaned out rats and rubbish in jiggers. They might have had an eye to protecting their position (at a time when they were considering whether to go or stay) but they're hardly to blame for starting the rot or continuing it.

Yes the owners and tenants are in a hard place but just like so many across the city. You could argue it’s only the presence of the club that‘s giving them this out. Certainly before the club decided to stay at Anfield there where NO plans for these streets. None whatsoever. It was being left to rot, not by the club - by market forces.

I can assure you that Tesco wouldn’t bother hanging around to do up houses even as part of a part-clearance programme.

The inalienable ‘right-to-buy’, the declining local economy, a reckless property boom and let’s be honest, the individuals-as-‘property developers’ market pumped up by that boom (not to mention frankly irresponsible television programmes) is responsible for this housing mess - not the club.

The fact is, house prices and building costs have outstripped the ability to afford decent houses and unless there's a very significant adjustment in the market over a very long period of time, it's going to stay that way.

You leave the ground and head along Arkles lane to the right are terraced house, turn right into Priory Rd rows of terraced houses on both sides, along Lower breck terraced houses on both sides, turn left onto west derby Rd rows of terraced houses on both sides, turn right into green lane rows of terraced houses on both sides, up Prescot Rd rows of terraced houses on both sides, go along Rathbone and Wellington down Gainsborough onto Smithdown and along allerton Rd and rows of terraced houses on both sides.

Why are those terraced houses from the same period still standing and providing great accommodation for families yet exactly the same houses adjacent to the ground where Liverpool want to develop are derelict. the answer for me is very simple because the Club started buying up houses and destroying them. A perfect example is the houses in Albany, Saxony, Albert Edward, Empress, Adelaide and Leopold in Kensington, houses that were supposed to come down for the new hall lane. Those houses were in exactly the same state as the houses in Lothair before the area was destroyed but there was a will to refurb and those houses look great now and will provide great accommodation for years to come.

For me it is lunacy to knock down solid Victorian terraces that have stood for over a hundred years and to replace them with modern shite that needs replacing every couple of decades.

[CraigDS]

You leave the ground and head along Arkles lane to the right are terraced house, turn right into Priory Rd rows of terraced houses on both sides, along Lower breck terraced houses on both sides, turn left onto west derby Rd rows of terraced houses on both sides, turn right into green lane rows of terraced houses on both sides, up Prescot Rd rows of terraced houses on both sides, go along Rathbone and Wellington down Gainsborough onto Smithdown and along allerton Rd and rows of terraced houses on both sides.

Why are those terraced houses from the same period still standing and providing great accommodation for families yet exactly the same houses adjacent to the ground where Liverpool want to develop are derelict. the answer for me is very simple because the Club started buying up houses and destroying them. A perfect example is the houses in Albany, Saxony, Albert Edward, Empress, Adelaide and Leopold in Kensington, houses that were supposed to come down for the new hall lane. Those houses were in exactly the same state as the houses in Lothair before the area was destroyed but there was a will to refurb and those houses look great now and will provide great accommodation for years to come.

For me it is lunacy to knock down solid Victorian terraces that have stood for over a hundred years and to replace them with modern shite that needs replacing every couple of decades.

You've picked out some of the few roads around Anfield which have good condition houses in them. Have you taken a walk down any of the streets behind the Kop (where the club own no houses) in the last decade?

The club own what, 10 houses out of about 1000+ in the streets surrounding Anfield which are boarded up awaiting demolition or have just been demolished yet you keep singling out the one street in Lothair.

[Peter McGurk]

...For me it is lunacy to knock down solid Victorian terraces that have stood for over a hundred years and to replace them with modern shite that needs replacing every couple of decades.

Yes it is but then, who’s doing that here?

[Eeyore]

You've picked out some of the few roads around Anfield which have good condition houses in them. Have you taken a walk down any of the streets behind the Kop (where the club own no houses) in the last decade?

The club own what, 10 houses out of about 1000+ in the streets surrounding Anfield which are boarded up awaiting demolition or have just been demolished yet you keep singling out the one street in Lothair.

One of my best mates had a house in Salisbury Rd and the road was fine until the council and the Club came up with their pie in the sky regeneration programme under Coco. You look all around the city and the areas with boarded up empty houses are almost solely areas that have have had failed or botched regeneration plans. Then you look at identical houses a couple of hundred yards up the road and the houses are fine.

Once there are plans for an area then people stop investing and the sharks start circling.

Buying and boarding up houses creates a vicious circle that almost inevitably leads to the destruction of an area, An honest question would you buy a property in a street full of empty houses ?

[Eeyore]

Yes it is but then, who’s doing that here?

An honest question Peter if HMRI funding was still in place do you think the houses would be being refurbed or do you think the lot would come down and the Council and Your housing would start again ?

[CraigDS]

One of my best mates had a house in Salisbury Rd and the road was fine until the council and the Club came up with their pie in the sky regeneration programme under Coco. You look all around the city and the areas with boarded up empty houses are almost solely areas that have have had failed or botched regeneration plans. Then you look at identical houses a couple of hundred yards up the road and the houses are fine.

Once there are plans for an area then people stop investing and the sharks start circling.

Buying and boarding up houses creates a vicious circle that almost inevitably leads to the destruction of an area, An honest question would you buy a property in a street full of empty houses ?

Of course not, and don't get me wrong I am not absolving the club of wrong doing here. They have bought up 10 houses and boarded them up.

However my point is there are a further 1000+ houses which have been bought and boarded up right around the ground which are nothing to do with the club, and nothing to do with the club moving to a new stadium or regenerating the current.

You seem intent on saying the club has destroyed the area to force people out, but with the club buying those 10 houses or not, the area was already being destroyed by people/companies/councils owning a hell of a lot more than 10 houses.

[Rox]

For me it is lunacy to knock down solid Victorian terraces that have stood for over a hundred years and to replace them with modern shite that needs replacing every couple of decades.

This is a wider issue, though isn't it?  Liverpool Council have been knocking down some beautiful 3 storey Victorian houses, plenty of very useable buildings destroyed - nothing to do with LFC.

Having said all that, with the various H&S issues refitting, refurbishing and bringing homes into reuse, a lot of Councils prefer to start from scratch.  Local Councils often find (during routine refurbishing work) that previous regimes have included asbestos, lead pipes and other harmful materials in their build, or when a home has been refurbished.  They don't know that these things were there.  It opens a huge can of worms, a simple run of the mill council kitchen refit can turn into tens of thousands of pounds as one horror is discovered after another.  In some cases, by the time the wiring, pipework and asbestos issues are sorted, they've spent more than a new build would have cost.

So it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that Councils come to these decisions because building new houses as part of a scheme can be cheaper than trying to modernise older housing.

[Eeyore]

Of course not, and don't get me wrong I am not absolving the club of wrong doing here. They have bought up 10 houses and boarded them up.

However my point is there are a further 1000+ houses which have been bought and boarded up right around the ground which are nothing to do with the club, and nothing to do with the club moving to a new stadium or regenerating the current.

You seem intent on saying the club has destroyed the area to force people out, but with the club buying those 10 houses or not, the area was already being destroyed by people/companies/councils owning a hell of a lot more than 10 houses.

The clubs motivation for me was to buy the houses and board them up to speed up the process of general dereliction of the area. I can't really think of any other reason for buying the houses can you Craig.

[CraigDS]

The clubs motivation for me was to buy the houses and board them up to speed up the process of general dereliction of the area. I can't really think of any other reason for buying the houses can you Craig.

Well their clear aim was to gain control of the land they occupied, thats for certain, and theya re fully to blame for their contribution of keeping those 10 houses boarded up.

However you're failing to see the wider picture of the whole area, on in which 1000+ houses within a few 100m of the clubs 10 houses had been boarded up for years upon years, and none of this was to do with the club.

Given the club has sold properties backing onto Anfield for £1 before now to allow for them to be refurbished, what motivation was their for them to refurbish (or keep in a habitable condition if they bought it in this state) given 100's of houses locally were sat boarded up?

[Peter McGurk]

One of my best mates had a house in Salisbury Rd and the road was fine until the council and the Club came up with their pie in the sky regeneration programme under Coco. You look all around the city and the areas with boarded up empty houses are almost solely areas that have have had failed or botched regeneration plans. Then you look at identical houses a couple of hundred yards up the road and the houses are fine.

Once there are plans for an area then people stop investing and the sharks start circling.

Buying and boarding up houses creates a vicious circle that almost inevitably leads to the destruction of an area, An honest question would you buy a property in a street full of empty houses ?

Of course I wouldn't and as I said anyone that would would need balls of iron.

The scheme 'under Coco' as you put it, was part of the then government's Pathfinder proposals (HMRI) which failed miserably halfway through and was then pulled by this government. What that has to do with the club is well beyond me.

[Peter McGurk]

Well their clear aim was to gain control of the land they occupied, thats for certain, and theya re fully to blame for their contribution of keeping those 10 houses boarded up.

However you're failing to see the wider picture of the whole area, on in which 1000+ houses within a few 100m of the clubs 10 houses had been boarded up for years upon years, and none of this was to do with the club.

Given the club has sold properties backing onto Anfield for £1 before now to allow for them to be refurbished, what motivation was their for them to refurbish (or keep in a habitable condition if they bought it in this state) given 100's of houses locally were sat boarded up?

Why accept that the club is to blame? If it doesn’t make sense for anyone to invest in these houses, why on earth should the club go against the prevailing economic realities (and end up like Macca’s mate)?

The club bought houses that clearly no-one else wanted and at least kept out the thugs who were terrorising the remaining residents. At the same time they protected their position at a time when new or redeveloped Anfield was in the balance. Their’s no blame to attach there.

[CraigDS]

Why accept that the club is to blame? If it doesn’t make sense for anyone to invest in these houses, why on earth should the club go against the prevailing economic realities (and end up like Macca’s mate)?

The club bought houses that clearly no-one else wanted and at least kept out the thugs who were terrorising the remaining residents. At the same time they protected their position at a time when new or redeveloped Anfield was in the balance. Their’s no blame to attach there.

I did explain my thought a little further down where I mentioned if they were bought when in a habitable condition.

If they were in a state when bought then agreed the club had no reason to spend money on them. If they were habitable then they could maybe of kept them not boarded up for the time being.

[Peter McGurk]

An honest question Peter if HMRI funding was still in place do you think the houses would be being refurbed or do you think the lot would come down and the Council and Your housing would start again ?

Clearly HMRI was about funding NEW houses. John Prescott (being an expert) thought that Victorian terraced houses were beneath the people and they should all be swept away. As clear, HMRI was about propping up house prices by subsidy ie., people living in house they couldn't afford to buy (or rent at a rent to cover costs). Economics of the madhouse.

So, his numbers didn't stack up and it went tits up. So yes, if HMRI were still here houses would come down but yes, HMRI never could have worked and was thus always doomed to failure.

But, the Rockfield Triangle was never, ever in any HMRI scheme so the relevance of the reference completely escapes me.

[Peter McGurk]

I did explain my thought a little further down where I mentioned if they were bought when in a habitable condition.

If they were in a state when bought then agreed the club had no reason to spend money on them. If they were habitable then they could maybe of kept them not boarded up for the time being.

As I said, the club was entirely within its rights to buy houses (that no-one else wanted) in order to protect their position with regards to a possible expansion whether the houses were habitable or not (which I believe they were not). Or did the club become a Registered Social Landlord when no-one was looking?

Even if they'd bought the whole of Lothair Road and tinned them up for no other reason, they could hardly be blamed for the failure of the housing market in the rest of Anfield (and in the rest of the city).

People are effectively saying that the demise of properties from Venmore Road (kind of, behind the kop) all the way down to West Derby Road is all down to the club. Give me a break.

[Peter McGurk]

The clubs motivation for me was to buy the houses and board them up to speed up the process of general dereliction of the area. I can't really think of any other reason for buying the houses can you Craig.

I tell you what - "let's buy those houses in case we need them one day even though we're probably going to build a new stadium, so we can drive the area down to the point at which we'll have to give them away to council to get rid of them. Ok boss, where do we sign?"