Topic: Bradley says building work to start in April 2010 !!

[Gedo]

You're like a tired monkey banging the same tin drum.  Just because I say I will judge him by his actions does not make him my mate. It's that sort of retarded thinking and that is destroying any attempt at sensible discussion on these forums.

It really is incredibly tedious, please stop.

Say it aint so,you've got me all wrong.

I've mentioned Purslow to you twice and it's tedious?

Could it be that YOU might be wrong and rather than admit it,it suit you to pass me off as a "tired Monkey".

You and your Ilk are the main reason I no longer post on here reguarly,because when you start to lose the argument you "pick your ball up and head home"

[Gedo]

The lease was signed in sept 06 @ 300k per year for 999 years.

Don't think the lease was ever signed,maybe wrong.

[Billy1561]

Gedo, it's an old report from the echo as you can see. Down near the bottom.


Jul 25 2007 by Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo

 THE construction of New Anfield will kick-start one of the biggest regeneration projects north Liverpool has seen.

It will come as a relief to residents, who have waited years for pledges of huge amounts of investment to become reality.

To make up for the loss of a section of Stanley Park, millions of pounds will be pumped into the rest of the Victorian park.

Buildings, statues and fountains will be restored, gardens replanted and a new lake created to turn the park back into a destination for families.

The Grade II-listed Isla Gladstone conservatory will be transformed into north Liverpool’s version of Sefton Park’s Palm House, catering for weddings and other special events.

Once New Anfield opens in August 2010, the current ground will be bulldozed to make way for Anfield Plaza, a public square surrounded by shops, restaurants and flats.

It is highly likely to include the present Anfield pitch as its centrepiece.

A community partnership centre (CPC) will open within the stadium, housing Liverpool FC’s community development unit, an education facility and Vernon Sangster sports centre’s replacement.

The old Vernon Sangster had to make way for the new ground and has temporarily moved to Anfield youth club.

Big changes to housing and transport around Anfield are also planned.

Keith Watson, Liverpool council’s special initiatives manager, said: “Different people have come in with different ideas about the stadium, but it remains the major contributor to Anfield’s regeneration.

“After years of uncertainty, we are within touching distance of a clear statement on the future of the area and the park.

“We are still working on the basic concept for Anfield Plaza, which has outline planning permission.

“Once the stadium issues are resolved, we think the club’s owners will turn their attentions to Anfield Plaza.”

Transport bosses are working on improvements to help 60,000 fans get to the stadium for each game, an increase of 15,000 per matchday.

As well as modernising pavements and pedestrian crossings, Merseytravel is committed to the future of Soccerbus, which takes 3% of fans from railway stations to Anfield.

 The organisation is also seriously investigating whether to reopen Bootle branch line, currently used by freight, to passenger trains again.

Neil Scales, chief executive of Merseytravel, said: “We have identified three potential sites for a new station and have designed one able to take vast crowds, basically like Aintree.

“It would need wide platforms and a bridge so 1,000 people could get off a train and have no problems getting to where they want to be.

“If we tied it into the network properly, you could get to Anfield directly from Wigan and St Helens, and most importantly Lime Street.”

Twists & turns in road to big deal

June 2000: Plans for 70,000-seater New Anfield at Stanley Park. First images unveiled.

January 2001: Speculation the club has lined up Speke as a possible substitute.

May 2002: Consultants GVA Grimley say building a new stadium is better than rebuilding Anfield.

October 2002: 19,000 residents support new ground.

October 2003: Planning application for £80m, 60,000-seater stadium submitted.

July 2004: Planning permission granted by Liverpool council.

August 2004: Deputy prime minister John Prescott agrees not to call in plan.

January 2005: Talks over sharing new stadium with Everton FC collapse.

February 2005: Liverpool still waiting for decision on £23m funding from North-west Development Agency.

March 2005: NWDA says it still wants clubs to ground-share. Cost of the stadium is estimated to be rising by £750,000 a month and now standing at £120m.

June 2005: The ECHO reveals the NWDA will not put taxpayers’ money into the stadium scheme but will consider funding the regeneration of Anfield and Breckfield.

February 2006: The NWDA privately agrees to put about £10m towards the project’s regeneration elements.

September 2006: Liverpool land 999-year, £300,000-a-year lease on part of Stanley Park. Club given £9m Euro grant after assuring officials it can afford ground.

February 2007: American tycoons George Gillett and Tom Hicks buy club and say work will start on ground in two months.

March 2007: Gillett and Hicks order a review of stadium design to see if it can be made bigger.

April 2007: Shared stadium deal killed off for good.

July 2007: New construction timetable means ground will not open until August 2010.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Can't believe the likes of you Kev are anything but cyncial. It's the same old Yank defending from Tim but surely you can't actually hold any faith in this?

The new stadium will not have a spade in the ground within 180 days. Fact!

I am cynical of course I am.  However this is coming from the city council rather than the club so one would assume that something more concrete has been given than the usual worthless promises.  I'll believe it when it happens but at the same time I'm not going to blindly parrot that it's another lie. I'll wait until April and see what happens before making a judgement.

I also think you are being very unfair to Tim who has not in his posts in this thread defended the owners at all.  He has merely used his knowledge to explain the possible financial methods that could be employed to generate funding for the ground, and as such his posts were far more interesting than 99% of the tripe on these ownership threads.

I remain implacably opposed to their continuing ownership, but a closed mind is a very dangerous thing to have.

[Groundskeeper Willie]

Couldn´t this mean that they are confident of securing a new investment in the club?
Purslow has been given the task to look for new investments, hasn´t he?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Say it aint so,you've got me all wrong.

I've mentioned Purslow to you twice and it's tedious?

Could it be that YOU might be wrong and rather than admit it,it suit you to pass me off as a "tired Monkey".

You and your Ilk are the main reason I no longer post on here reguarly,because when you start to lose the argument you "pick your ball up and head home"

What is tedious is you bring the same tired misrepresentations from one thread onto another. As for losing the argument, that would be tricky because as far as I am concerned I haven't had one. I have no position on Purslow other than that I will judge him on his actions.

I am still here with the ball mate, willing to discuss whatever you want, but if you want to go elsewhere then I'll not shed any tears about that either. It's a free world, you go where you feel comfortable.

[anon-y-mouse]

I remain implacably opposed to their continuing ownership, but a closed mind is a very dangerous thing to have.

What do you mean by a closed mind?

I have a closed mind when it comes to the Yanks, anything they say and their ownership of our club.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Billy, thanks very much for digging that report up, a timely reminder that, as much as the club has suffered as a result of these delays, the way the American's lies have delayed the regeneration of the whole Anfield area is truly criminal.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

What do you mean by a closed mind?

I have a closed mind when it comes to the Yanks, anything they say and their ownership of our club.

I mean the abandonment of rational evaluation in favour of blind yanks out dogma.  That's dangerous mate, there are plenty of reasons to despise them and want them out based on the evidence.  There is no need to shut your mind to what they are up to.  It is more important to understand your enemy than it is to simply hate him.

[Gedo]

Gedo, it's an old report from the echo as you can see. Down near the bottom.


Jul 25 2007 by Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo

 THE construction of New Anfield will kick-start one of the biggest regeneration projects north Liverpool has seen.

It will come as a relief to residents, who have waited years for pledges of huge amounts of investment to become reality.

To make up for the loss of a section of Stanley Park, millions of pounds will be pumped into the rest of the Victorian park.

Buildings, statues and fountains will be restored, gardens replanted and a new lake created to turn the park back into a destination for families.

The Grade II-listed Isla Gladstone conservatory will be transformed into north Liverpool’s version of Sefton Park’s Palm House, catering for weddings and other special events.

Once New Anfield opens in August 2010, the current ground will be bulldozed to make way for Anfield Plaza, a public square surrounded by shops, restaurants and flats.

It is highly likely to include the present Anfield pitch as its centrepiece.

A community partnership centre (CPC) will open within the stadium, housing Liverpool FC’s community development unit, an education facility and Vernon Sangster sports centre’s replacement.

The old Vernon Sangster had to make way for the new ground and has temporarily moved to Anfield youth club.

Big changes to housing and transport around Anfield are also planned.

Keith Watson, Liverpool council’s special initiatives manager, said: “Different people have come in with different ideas about the stadium, but it remains the major contributor to Anfield’s regeneration.

“After years of uncertainty, we are within touching distance of a clear statement on the future of the area and the park.

“We are still working on the basic concept for Anfield Plaza, which has outline planning permission.

“Once the stadium issues are resolved, we think the club’s owners will turn their attentions to Anfield Plaza.”

Transport bosses are working on improvements to help 60,000 fans get to the stadium for each game, an increase of 15,000 per matchday.

As well as modernising pavements and pedestrian crossings, Merseytravel is committed to the future of Soccerbus, which takes 3% of fans from railway stations to Anfield.

 The organisation is also seriously investigating whether to reopen Bootle branch line, currently used by freight, to passenger trains again.

Neil Scales, chief executive of Merseytravel, said: “We have identified three potential sites for a new station and have designed one able to take vast crowds, basically like Aintree.

“It would need wide platforms and a bridge so 1,000 people could get off a train and have no problems getting to where they want to be.

“If we tied it into the network properly, you could get to Anfield directly from Wigan and St Helens, and most importantly Lime Street.”

Twists & turns in road to big deal

June 2000: Plans for 70,000-seater New Anfield at Stanley Park. First images unveiled.

January 2001: Speculation the club has lined up Speke as a possible substitute.

May 2002: Consultants GVA Grimley say building a new stadium is better than rebuilding Anfield.

October 2002: 19,000 residents support new ground.

October 2003: Planning application for £80m, 60,000-seater stadium submitted.

July 2004: Planning permission granted by Liverpool council.

August 2004: Deputy prime minister John Prescott agrees not to call in plan.

January 2005: Talks over sharing new stadium with Everton FC collapse.

February 2005: Liverpool still waiting for decision on £23m funding from North-west Development Agency.

March 2005: NWDA says it still wants clubs to ground-share. Cost of the stadium is estimated to be rising by £750,000 a month and now standing at £120m.

June 2005: The ECHO reveals the NWDA will not put taxpayers’ money into the stadium scheme but will consider funding the regeneration of Anfield and Breckfield.

February 2006: The NWDA privately agrees to put about £10m towards the project’s regeneration elements.

September 2006: Liverpool land 999-year, £300,000-a-year lease on part of Stanley Park. Club given £9m Euro grant after assuring officials it can afford ground.

February 2007: American tycoons George Gillett and Tom Hicks buy club and say work will start on ground in two months.

March 2007: Gillett and Hicks order a review of stadium design to see if it can be made bigger.

April 2007: Shared stadium deal killed off for good.

July 2007: New construction timetable means ground will not open until August 2010.

Billy I'm pretty certain that although the lease was agreed in principal,it wasn't actually signed,as I say I maybe wrong but, wouldn't the Council be entitled to the £300k form Hicks/Gillett,
Somehow I very much doubt they'd get that kind of money from these pair of shysters.

[Billy1561]

Billy I'm pretty certain that although the lease was agreed in principal,it wasn't actually signed,as I say I maybe wrong but, wouldn't the Council be entitled to the £300k form Hicks/Gillett,
Somehow I very much doubt they'd get that kind of money from these pair of shysters.

I know as much as you it's just something i had dug out this afternoon.
Can't see G&H being liable to the 300k lease. They may be ultra careful with their personal cash but they are not stupid. Nah mate it's the club ( you & me) that would be anchored with that imho.

[Billy1561]

Billy, thanks very much for digging that report up, a timely reminder that, as much as the club has suffered as a result of these delays, the way the American's lies have delayed the regeneration of the whole Anfield area is truly criminal.

Cannot see Hicks or Gillett losing any sleep over the regeneration of Anfield from 3000+ miles away. Besides, i would bet my house if they could wriggle out of it they would. It's entirely possible that it is a condition of getting the planning permission that they regenerate The old site.

You're spot on though, it's criminal.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Cannot see Hicks or Gillett losing any sleep over the regeneration of Anfield from 3000+ miles away.

Me neither mate, but they should be getting more flak for it from local media and local politicians.

[KiNki]

a quick question, who's funded the regeneration of the park, the gladstone conservatory, as that seems to be done now?

[Billy1561]

a quick question, who's funded the regeneration of the park, the gladstone conservatory, as that seems to be done now?

From this other snippet i had unearthed it seems the council had hoped for governmentand european funding.

Feb 16 2005

By Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo

CAMPAIGNERS have given a cautious welcome to plans to spend 11m on Liverpool's Stanley park.

The council wants to transform the rundown park, including the restoration of its conservatory.

They want to give it a facelift to coincide with Liverpool FC's controversial plans to build a stadium on part of the site.

Initially, £390,000 would pay for drawing detailed designs to attract more funding.

But campaigners today cast doubt on whether the £11m scheme would ever take place.

They say the long- awaited improvements could be scuppered if they successfully challenge the Reds' stadium scheme in court. Joe Kenny, chairman of the Anfield Regeneration Action Committee, said: 'We support any investment to protect and restore the park, which should have happened a long time ago.

'But there are still some outstanding issues about the stadium which we plan to challenge in court.

'We have seen funding agreed for schemes which later collapse so it would be no surprise if we are going down a similar road here.'

The entire regeneration of the area surrounding the new stadium is expected to cost £140m and create hundreds of jobs.

Liverpool's famous stadium would be demolished and replaced with a new Anfield Plaza, home to a hotel, office space, restaurants, cafes and open space for a market.

Stanley park is described by the council as 'seriously degraded, vandalised and perceived to be unsafe'.

The £11m scheme aims to bring more families into the park, improve security and make surrounding communities more attractive to prospective residents.

Some of the cash would be spent on the park's Gladstone conservatory to see it renovated and turned into a function centre similar to the Sefton park palm house.

The conservatory, which was built in 1898, would also have a visitor centre with displays about the history of the Gladstone family.

Councillors are set to agree the £390,000 funding package which will be spent on detailed designs and drawings.

Planners say the detailed plans are vital to attract government and European funding.

Existing football pitches on Stanley park would be relaid and new changing facilities constructed within the new stadium.

Plans would also see the renovation of the neighbouring Anfield cemetery and an innovative genealogy centre."

[electricghost]

a quick question, who's funded the regeneration of the park, the gladstone conservatory, as that seems to be done now?

http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Leisure_and_culture/Parks_and_recreation/Parks_and_gardens/Stanley_Park/index.asp

"Funding for Stanley Park has come from the NRF (Neighbourhood Renewal Fund), European Union Objective One and HMRI (Housing Market Renewal Initiative) and Liverpool Football Club.   The total cost of the project is around £14 million pounds, all of which has come from external funding support."

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

a quick question, who's funded the regeneration of the park, the gladstone conservatory, as that seems to be done now?

"Funding for Stanley Park has come from the NRF (Neighbourhood Renewal Fund), European Union Objective One and HMRI (Housing Market Renewal Initiative) and Liverpool Football Club.   The total cost of the project is around £14 million pounds, all of which has come from external funding support."
http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Leisure_and_culture/Parks_and_recreation/Parks_and_gardens/Stanley_Park/index.asp

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

you ghosted in before me

[electricghost]

you ghosted in before me

Great minds Kev

[KiNki]

thankyou all three of you.

I haven't had a proper nosey of the conservatory.  It is quite a beautiful building and i'm glad they've done it up.   

[Alf]

My thoughts on this.

With a new Spurs stadium in the pipeline we already can't compete financially with Chelsea, Man City & Man Utd while Arsenal take more in gate receipts than any other club in the country we need to crack on with a new stadium. The cost of steel and borrowing is only likely to increase as the economy picks up.

It's very dangerous to start work on a stadium we might not be able to afford to finish. Although we may be able to attract sponsorship for it and I think it will assist in the search for new owners.

I wouldn't take what Warren Bradley says as gospel and Christian Purslow will have to earn my trust after what has happened with G & H.

[Billy1561]

My thoughts on this.

With a new Spurs stadium in the pipeline we already can't compete financially with Chelsea, Man City & Man Utd while Arsenal take more in gate receipts than any other club in the country we need to crack on with a new stadium. The cost of steel and borrowing is only likely to increase as the economy picks up.

It's very dangerous to start work on a stadium we might not be able to afford to finish. Although we may be able to attract sponsorship for it and I think it will assist in the search for new owners.

I wouldn't take what Warren Bradley says as gospel and Christian Purslow will have to earn my trust after what has happened with G & H.

Agree with all of that.

[RedJam70]

The lease was signed in sept 06 @ 300k per year for 999 years.

Like Gedo says it wasn't officially signed, at least not then it wasn't. Daily Post on 30/08/08

 

Basic preparatory works for the new Stanley Park ground started some weeks ago, but the council and LFC are yet to sign an agreed 999-year lease on the park.

“I would not want the council to sign the lease until such a time as we know that Liverpool FC can deliver it 150%,” said Cllr Bradley last night.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2008/08/30/stanley-park-lease-fear-for-liverpool-fc-92534-21636849/

Of course it may have been signed since, it would be interesting to know if so or even if they plan to soon, considering Bradley's comments about being convinced about funding and his recent quotes re the stadium. 

[Billy1561]

Like Gedo says it wasn't officially signed, at least not then it wasn't. Daily Post on 30/08/08

 
Of course it may have been signed since, it would be interesting to know if so or even if they plan to soon, considering Bradley's comments about being convinced about funding and his recent quotes re the stadium. 

Am happy to be corrected. 

[gerrardspetal]

Progress on the new stadium is good news for the club regardless of the ownership issue.  We are stagnating and getting left behind.  Let's hope it is true.

yep fingers crossed.

This could only mean good news surely? 

[Zelnaga]

Ill believe it when I see diggers on that site. For now this is more talk to get our hopes up.

[Tonyh]

It is not a question of can we afford to start building the stadium, but can we afford not to. There will never be a cheaper time to do it with unemployment high, building companies, contractors etc begging for business and our competitors all in or planning new stadia.

The yanks will only get full value from their investment if it is built, and it is certainly true that the money markets are starting to ease. My personal view is that economically we have a very tough 3 months ahead before things start to improve and that may cause problems.

As to whether you believe the spade in the ground stories, I will only be convinced when the diggers move in. We have been miseld too many times. Whether we can afford it or not, it has to happen now if we want a future as a top club (with or without G&H). 

[its cold in the stands]

on the 8th of september 1888, when the first ever league fixtures were played, everton beat accrington stanley 2-1 at anfield.
although there were 12 `original` clubs there was only 5 fixtures played on that first ever saturday of league football, and anfield was one of only 5 grounds to host a league fixture anywhere on this planet.
when the likes of torres, gerrard and reina run around anfield they are running on the same patch of ground that those players did all those years ago.
football was played at anfield before old trafford, before wembley, before the nou camp, before the maracana and before even goodison park.
a famous writer once said something like `if football is just 22 men kicking a bag of wind then shakespeare is just ink and paper and a violin is just a piece of wood and a few strings`
anfield should be re-developed, knocking down a place of such historic significance just so `revenue`s can be maximized` or whatever the correct business speak is, is cultural vandalism.
then again the way footy is going maybe the old place is better off being a car park or a supermarket or something, but whatever plans the money men have in store for the old place one things for sure, that stadium can tell more stories of epic battles and heroic tales than all the poets of ancient greece put together.
on the bright side we might get a blue plaque on the car park though - this was the site of anfield, stadium of immense cultural and sporting significance, home of the famous spion kop, knocked down for a few corporate boxes -

[decisivemoment]

This is good news for Liverpool F C no matter who is in charge.  If there's one single lesson to be drawn from the past 15 years it is that stadium development and redevelopment means huge increases in club revenues.  Unfortunately, because of David Moores selling the club to Beavis and Butthead for blood money right as the world was heading into another Great Depression, we're having to do it the hard way, with drama, instability, and ridiculous amounts of interest.  But no matter what, a new stadium means a huge increase in revenue for the club, generated from more than 20,000 extra seats; leasable office and conference space; corporate boxes; and the basics such as bigger kitchens and more counter space from which to sell many more pies. 

The real lesson for what a new stadium means can best be observed at clubs that weren't sold for leveraged blood money.  The Emirates stadium has transformed Arsenal from middling Europa League material that somehow managed to overachieve into one of football's financial elite.  Looking down the feeding chain, Reebok Stadium has kept Bolton in the Premier League when they ought to be wobbling between the Championship and League One.

Liverpool with the new stadium become more financially viable.  Less likely to drop out of the top tier of clubs no matter who owns the club.   More likely to field a competitive team.

[LiamG]

Roll on April then....

[goertye]

on the 8th of september 1888, when the first ever league fixtures were played, everton beat accrington stanley 2-1 at anfield.
although there were 12 `original` clubs there was only 5 fixtures played on that first ever saturday of league football, and anfield was one of only 5 grounds to host a league fixture anywhere on this planet.
when the likes of torres, gerrard and reina run around anfield they are running on the same patch of ground that those players did all those years ago.
football was played at anfield before old trafford, before wembley, before the nou camp, before the maracana and before even goodison park.
a famous writer once said something like `if football is just 22 men kicking a bag of wind then shakespeare is just ink and paper and a violin is just a piece of wood and a few strings`
anfield should be re-developed, knocking down a place of such historic significance just so `revenue`s can be maximized` or whatever the correct business speak is, is cultural vandalism.
then again the way footy is going maybe the old place is better off being a car park or a supermarket or something, but whatever plans the money men have in store for the old place one things for sure, that stadium can tell more stories of epic battles and heroic tales than all the poets of ancient greece put together.
on the bright side we might get a blue plaque on the car park though - this was the site of anfield, stadium of immense cultural and sporting significance, home of the famous spion kop, knocked down for a few corporate boxes -

Thats a good interesting post, and an angle that has not been fully discussed, I think that could provoke a lot more debate, and rightly so.

[fatlip13]

new stadium is good news!
how it is financed is the real issue here. naming rights and future ticket sales to fund a loan just does not seem like a probable way to get a loan in the current climate. i know it has been done before but we are nearly bust according to some sources.
my thoughts are that:
1. we have a new investor taking a share in the club
2.G & H have decided to put in more money, gillette sold canadiens and hicks in process of selling rangers(texas)
3. purslow is some sort of genius
the big issue with 60-70,000 seats is you need sucess and this means investment in the team. chelsea talked about a bigger stadium and they could not fill the ground they have when things are not going great on the pitch. matches not being sold out must serve as a warning to G & H that the team comes first if they want to make a profit. they seem to have missed this point up to now.

[Gromit]

on the 8th of september 1888, when the first ever league fixtures were played, everton beat accrington stanley 2-1 at anfield.
although there were 12 `original` clubs there was only 5 fixtures played on that first ever saturday of league football, and anfield was one of only 5 grounds to host a league fixture anywhere on this planet.
when the likes of torres, gerrard and reina run around anfield they are running on the same patch of ground that those players did all those years ago.
football was played at anfield before old trafford, before wembley, before the nou camp, before the maracana and before even goodison park.
a famous writer once said something like `if football is just 22 men kicking a bag of wind then shakespeare is just ink and paper and a violin is just a piece of wood and a few strings`
anfield should be re-developed, knocking down a place of such historic significance just so `revenue`s can be maximized` or whatever the correct business speak is, is cultural vandalism.
then again the way footy is going maybe the old place is better off being a car park or a supermarket or something, but whatever plans the money men have in store for the old place one things for sure, that stadium can tell more stories of epic battles and heroic tales than all the poets of ancient greece put together.
on the bright side we might get a blue plaque on the car park though - this was the site of anfield, stadium of immense cultural and sporting significance, home of the famous spion kop, knocked down for a few corporate boxes -

Isn't one of the conditions for letting us build partly on Stanley Park, is for the current Anfield stadium to be turned into a park/garden so it 'replaces' the green area lost to the new ground?

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Isn't one of the conditions for letting us build partly on Stanley Park, is for the current Anfield stadium to be turned into a park/garden so it 'replaces' the green area lost to the new ground?

I think it is, so the pitch will remain.  And after all, it is only the pitch which now bears any resemblance to the Anfield as described in it's cold in the stands post.  I think that there was a very strong argument for preserving the Kop as a cultural monument, but we are 15 years too late for that debate aren't we.

[beardsley4ever]

Isn't one of the conditions for letting us build partly on Stanley Park, is for the current Anfield stadium to be turned into a park/garden so it 'replaces' the green area lost to the new ground?

Yes, but it doesn't change the thrust of the lad's post, which I thought was excellent and thought provoking.

[shelovesyou]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dkc-nAclLg

[Trada]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dkc-nAclLg

"It's a insult to the fans to be told something they should already know"

I like that but I have a feeling thats G+H's mantra we are not lying we've just not telling the fans something they should already know.

I was just wondering with Anfield being on the list of stadiums that would be used if we get the World cup would they now get more help in building the new stadium?

[xerxes1]

Isn't one of the conditions for letting us build partly on Stanley Park, is for the current Anfield stadium to be turned into a park/garden so it 'replaces' the green area lost to the new ground?

The planning consent, which is a public document viewable on line ( although I cant find the ref no at the moment)said that the current Anfield site has an outline consent for mixed use development.

[mccred]

Interesting video,he seemed have a fair understanding of what a football ground should be.
When he said "were finally going to get the financing to go ahead",did he mean to go ahead and build or go ahead and plan it?
I think the point earlier in the the thread about knocking down Anfield being cultural vandalism is a fair one but Anfield isn't the same stadium I stood in as a boy,let alone what was there over a hundred years ago. That said I will be devastated if or when it does go.

[ttnbd]

I think the general land swap was ditched a while ago, hence the lease for the land the stadium would be sitting on.