Topic: The degradation of the Anfield area. Who is to blame?

[TepidT2O]

Posts on this in here eh?

[Peter McGurk]

Let's be blunt the Club stands accused of secretly buying up occupied houses that people lived in and destroying those houses, something that has accelerated the decline of the streets those house are in. It is also accused of continually coming up with hare brained schemes and not following through with them. Something that has left the area in limbo for nearly two decades.

I think it is pretty clear to anyone with half a brain that the Clubs actions have damaged both the streets where they bought and tinned up houses and the wider community. Empty derelict houses start a domino effect that destroys neighbourhoods. for me the Clubs actions have quite clearly accelerated the decline of the area.

Are you really suggesting that because City and Chelsea have distorted the Premier League that we should turn a blind eye to the Club helping to destroy an area in an attempt to compete with them.

I have never said that people should make as much money from their properties as they can. For me all that should happen is that they should get the value of similar properties in similar areas that the Club didn't help blight plus they should be compensated for the appalling conditions they have been left in. The reason for that is very simple Peter, for me the Clubs actions have had an impact on the value of the houses in the locality. You might think that is okay but I don't.

Why should the Club profit from driving down the values of properties it subsequently bought ?

You say the club’s actions have accelerated a decline which has been ongoing since 1938. As I said, there are bigger forces at play than owning a few houses around Anfield. If you care to look into, there is plenty of evidence for the decline of the city and the reasons for it.

LFC play no part in that. If they did, how could you possibly support it ‘knowing’ what you ‘know’? If they did, you must be the most dishonourable, hypocrite that ever put on a red scarf. How can you support a club for which you have zero respect?

Just because you don’t know what the reasons for the city’s decline are or refuse to acknowledge them, those are not arguments in your favour. In fact you offer no argument whatsoever. You simply say black is white.

I do not say that it is ok for the club to run down the area but then I do not believe it has. As I say and you have ignored, this area is not special in its dereliction. This area is like so many others in the city. This area had gone south anyway.

Buying houses in such an area, houses that someone wants to sell and no-one else wants or no-one wants enough to pay more for, is not a crime. Protecting them against drug gangs, thieves and vandals is also, not a crime. Protecting your own interests is not a crime, particularly when you'd tried working with the community and got soundly kicked in the slats for trying.

And holding property for which there is no market, is not a crime. And if there were a market, the club like so many others would have been forced to have them occupied by the 'use it or lose it' legislation. But the area was already dead or dying - not a special condition in this city.

The only special thing about this area is that it has a thriving business at its heart that is prepared to invest in the area - not because it’s a holy saint on a crusade against capitalism and all its works but because it is in the interests of the club. Which interests happen to coincide, or rather the club put in a lot of time and effort to devise a plan which made it coincide, with the community’s. Which interests you cannot see to save your life.

Your so-called 'hare-brained' schemes consist of a new stadium (which had no benefit for the community) for which there was never any money but which the club was forced into pursuing, having to abandon a very similar scheme to that which is currently underway (which had benefit to the community) by just the kind of half-baked and paranoid, local politicking and prejudices against 'big business' that you are spouting.

And don’t talk to us about lost revenue from private landowners rents. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles son. The rules are no different for 'little business'. You speculate, you can lose. It doesn’t matter a fig that somebody couldn’t sell so they started renting. That just tells you the market’s broken. That's all this 'injustice' boils down to. Lots of people got screwed by a collapsed market. It happens.

Nevertheless, this area will be reborn, people will have been compensated a little more than adequately and those who actually live there will be in new accommodation at very advantageous rates. Other areas, areas where there is no football club, will not. But the regeneration of Anfield for you is a crime. A crime perpetrated by the club you say you support. Why don’t you just fess up and say you hate LFC and all it has ever stood for?

[Peter McGurk]

To be frank that is a crock of shit even for you Peter.

You are just trying to rewrite history. The Club in 1996 started buying HOUSES THAT WERE OCCUPIED secretly through a third party. It wasn't houses that there wasn't a market for and it wasn't houses that were for sale. The Club shoved letters through letterboxes of houses that the owners had no intention of selling. For years the Club point blank denied they were doing this until it was proven that they were.

They didn't do it to protect the houses from vandals or to protect the neighbourhood. they did it because they wanted to bank land by stealth so they could expand. Study after study has shown that leaving houses empty destroys neighbourhoods and communities. From the government

From the governments 2013 research into the effects of empty houses.

"High levels of empty properties are recognised as having a serious impact on the viability of communities. As the number of empty properties within an area increases, so does the incidence of vandalism, which acts as a further disincentive to occupation. This in turn can lead to falls in the levels of equity and the collapse of local businesses as households move out. This spiral of decline can continue as further households are deterred from moving into an area devoid of amenities, and where empty property and derelict shops add to a sense of neglect."

That is exactly what has happened to the Lothair/Alroy Rd area and is what happened to the Skerries Rd area in the late eighties early 90'a when the Club bought and tinned up houses for the centenary stand.

The long and short of it is that the Club is now in a situation where long term landlords are pissed off about the way they have been treated by the Club and rightly or wrongly aren't prepared to bend over for the Club and the City council. You might think that it is okay to fuck about with peoples lives for decades but the remaining owners of the properties don't agree.

The remaining owners of properties apparently aren't speculators or people who set out to block the development they are long term landlords who have other rental properties in the area. From what I can gather they have also co-operated time and time again with plans to redevelop the area but have been lied to time and time again.

As for working with the community you are talking rubbish. The Club didn't they plotted and planned in secret for decades only coming clean when they have been caught out time and time again.

As for hating the Club don't be so childish as it goes I love the Club I just happen to think they have acted very badly over the years and need to stop being an International Club that happens to play in Anfield and get back to it's roots and start being a committed member of the community.

The idea that 10 or so houses owned by the club caused the decline of the 1700 homes in the Anfield/ Breckfield HMRI is frankly and obviously ludicrous. Maybe the club could do up Toxteth while they’re about it.

[New York Red]

Peter, you speak massive amounts of wisdom. I'm with you 100%.

[Retro Red]

What year did Rockfield hit the CURS tipping point Peter?

Took a while for that to happen from 1938!

Even when the rest of the north end was badly hitting the skids in the 80s, there was still a viable housing market in Anfield. Anfield was never the worst area of north Liverpool. far from it. It was an area where people still wanted to buy houses. I know plenty of people for whom a move to Anfield was a step up the housing ladder when they were moving from around where I lived in Vauxhall. Anfield wasn't some haven for smackheads and the near homeless. It was an area where skilled workers, white collar workers, nurses and teachers lived. This was reflected in its politics.

When Anfield Plus hit the streets, it wasn't killed off by the politicians that Peter McGurk constantly goes on about. The politicians, including the then leader and deputy leader of the council, were 100% complicit in the secret planning and scheming with the club. The sole rebel voice was the professional outcast who was, to be honest, seen as a bit of a crank as he swapped from one party to another to none. The community killed it off because they saw a viable area being razed to the ground.

What followed was a war of attrition with the residents. Council employees were involved in negotiating house purchases - one of the people who was employed in this capacity is a mate of mine and a season ticket holder in 306. These houses were then tinned up, forcing neighbours into a flight or fight response. The majority got out, either by selling up to private landlords or by becoming low-rent landlords themselves and renting out their now unwanted properties. This made the previously sought after housing association properties "hard to let". HMRI gave the housing associations an "out" card. The more their properties were run down and unlettable the more HMRI money could be gained to knock them down and redevelop - until the programme was pulled.

Anfield was run down by a combination of Liverpool FC's shenanigans with Liverpool City Council and the social landlords seeing HMRI as their way out of owning loads of hard to lets. The losers were the people who owned their own houses, especially the elderly who'd paid their mortgages off and were all set up to live mortgage free for the rest of their days. 

[Peter McGurk]

The overall context is valid. The population of the city has halved since 1938. There really aren't the jobs and there aren't the people and there isn't the money. If Anfield was one of the last to go, it's still a general trend.

If houses were tinned up by council, RSLs or the club, it was because they weren't wanted or rather, couldn't be afforded. There's the start of a downward spiral if you like.

It's a general trend that was exacerbated by changing public housing policies. As the private market weakened, the public system moved from the meritocracies of the early garden tenements (like it or not, you had to be 'respectable') to a needs-based system ie., the worse off you were the higher up the list you went, no matter that this put other hard-working folk at a disadvantage. There's many a long-standing private owner bemoaning the running down of an area by the influx of the 'needy' and least able to fend for themselves. Add that to your downward spiral and people will be leaving as fast as they - if they can.

This is just one example. Owning ten houses in Alroy or Lothair out of 1700 in Anfield/Breckfield pales into insignificance compared with the major social and economics forces on the go.

[Eeyore]

The idea that 10 or so houses owned by the club caused the decline of the 1700 homes in the Anfield/ Breckfield HMRI is frankly and obviously ludicrous. Maybe the club could do up Toxteth while they’re about it.

Could you clarify something for me Peter are you seriously suggesting that the Club has only owned 10 or so houses in the streets that surround the ground?

As for the 1700 homes we both know that the vast majority of those properties were part of Anfield plus and have had a death sentence hanging over them ever since.

[CraigDS]

Could you clarify something for me Peter are you seriously suggesting that the Club has only owned 10 or so houses in the streets that surround the ground?

They own(ed) about 21 in total, but only 10 or so were on the roads immediately behind the Main Stand.

The exact details of the houses owned from old accounts are somewhere in the forum.

[Eeyore]

They own(ed) about 21 in total, but only 10 or so were on the roads immediately behind the Main Stand.

The exact details of the houses owned from old accounts are somewhere in the forum.

Thats incorrect mate because the club owned the houses it built the Centenary stand car park on and it owned other houses behind that in Skerries Rd that it gave away once the stand was built.

[CraigDS]

Thats incorrect mate because the club owned the houses it built the Centenary stand car park on and it owned other houses behind that in Skerries Rd that it gave away once the stand was built.

Yeah, those are years ago mate, they own none of Skerries anymore after selling them for £1 each I believe.

I meant owned as in at the time of the document I saw and was posted on here, in the last year or two more may well of been purchased.

[Peter McGurk]

Could you clarify something for me Peter are you seriously suggesting that the Club has only owned 10 or so houses in the streets that surround the ground?

As for the 1700 homes we both know that the vast majority of those properties were part of Anfield plus and have had a death sentence hanging over them ever since.

Yes, 10. It used to own more in Skerries Road (before they did them up and sold them on).

The 1700 are the HMRI houses. Nothing the club has done has ever stopped them going ahead. Grant Shapps pulled the money on them.

They would in any event have all been demolished. That was what Housing Market Renewal was supposedly about - house clearance first, new build second. A huge area. See Smithdown Road's lovely fenced off green space.

But all central government policy or misguided local authority misuse of grants depending on your point of view, not a football club playing little hero or Anfield Plus.

[Eeyore]

Yeah, those are years ago mate, they own none of Skerries anymore after selling them for £1 each I believe.

I meant owned as in at the time of the document I saw and was posted on here, in the last year or two more may well of been purchased.

Yeh I know which document you mean it was for the loan facilities when FSG took over. There is a bit of a pattern though there was the purchase of houses and tinning up followed by demolition of houses for the Centenary in the 70s and 80s. Then in the 90,s and noughties the same thing happened with the houses needed for the main stand and Annie Rd being destroyed.

[CraigDS]

Yeh I know which document you mean it was for the loan facilities when FSG took over. There is a bit of a pattern though there was the purchase of houses and tinning up followed by demolition of houses for the Centenary in the 70s and 80s. Then in the 90,s and noughties the same thing happened with the houses needed for the main stand and Annie Rd being destroyed.

I'm not sure where you're trying to get to Al.

All we know is currently (as of that document which is think was approx 11/12 ish) the club owned about 21 houses in the vicinity of Anfield. 10 or so in the streets behind the Main Stand, the rest a mix between Anny Rd (some of which were/are in use by the club) and some on Walton Breck with the odd other dotted around.

To get back to the point which raised this point, in the grand scheme of things the club owns a relative few houses when compared to some others.

[Eeyore]

Yes, 10. It used to own more in Skerries Road (before they did them up and sold them on).

The 1700 are the HMRI houses. Nothing the club has done has ever stopped them going ahead. Grant Shapps pulled the money on them.

They would in any event have all been demolished. That was what Housing Market Renewal was supposedly about - house clearance first, new build second. A huge area. See Smithdown Road's lovely fenced off green space.

But all central government policy or misguided local authority misuse of grants depending on your point of view, not a football club playing little hero or Anfield Plus.

Sorry Peter that's bullshit and you know it Anfield Plus was in 99 and earmarked 1800 homes for demolition and those were the houses that became part of the Housing market renewal initiative years later. Which is pretty evident considering HMRI wasn't even in existence until 2002 three years after Anfield Plus.

[Eeyore]

I'm not sure where you're trying to get to Al.

All we know is currently (as of that document which is think was approx 11/12 ish) the club owned about 21 houses in the vicinity of Anfield. 10 or so in the streets behind the Main Stand, the rest a mix between Anny Rd (some of which were/are in use by the club) and some on Walton Breck with the odd other dotted around.

To get back to the point which raised this point, in the grand scheme of things the club owns a relative few houses when compared to some others.

The club is a football club though not a property portfolio and the houses were bought in very specific areas behind the kemlyn when we wanted to build the Centenary and then in 1996 we started buying houses in Lothair, Alroy and behind the Annie Rd the exact areas we wished to expand into. You could just about make a case for that at first but to keep buying and tinning up houses when we had planning permission to build in the park was for me morally reprehensible.

[CraigDS]

The club is a football club though not a property portfolio and the houses were bought in very specific areas behind the kemlyn when we wanted to build the Centenary and then in 1996 we started buying houses in Lothair, Alroy and behind the Annie Rd the exact areas we wished to expand into. You could just about make a case for that at first but to keep buying and tinning up houses when we had planning permission to build in the park was for me morally reprehensible.

You didn't even know the numbers owned by the club a little further up, and now you know enough to call the club morally reprehensible.

Presumably you've since learned the purchase dates, the state of the houses when purchased, the cost to bring into a rentable state, etc? I mean you'd need to know all those to call them morally reprehensible.

[Eeyore]

You didn't even know the numbers owned by the club a little further up, and now you know enough to call the club morally reprehensible.

Presumably you've since learned the purchase dates, the state of the houses when purchased, the cost to bring into a rentable state, etc? I mean you'd need to know all those to call them morally reprehensible.

No one knows the number of houses the club has owned because they have been so secretive about it. In April 2001 cllr kemp who was on the housing committee said in the echo that the club owned around 200 houses. Since then houses have been demolished and transferred between LFC, arena and Lcc as well as AHDC.

As for the Club keeping hold of houses when we had planning permission meant those streets simply stayed in limbo for the best part of a decade.

[CraigDS]

No one knows the number of houses the club has owned because they have been so secretive about it. In April 2001 cllr kemp who was on the housing committee said in the echo that the club owned around 200 houses. Since then houses have been demolished and transferred between LFC, arena and Lcc as well as AHDC.

So now the club are falsifying accounts. Even for you Al that is some serious tinfoil hat territory.

No/extremely little housing has been demolished behind the Main Stand so not like the club has been stock piling houses there and/or demolishing them.

Also if housing was owned and any transfer went between LFC and another entity then this would show in the paperwork.

As for the Club keeping hold of houses when we had planning permission meant those streets simply stayed in limbo for the best part of a decade.

One minute the stadium/clubs actions isnt needed for the local area to be regenerated, next the club owning 10 houses has been the reason the area is in limbo.

[Eeyore]

Where have I said the club have falsified accounts behave yourself the individual properties owned by the club have AFAIK never been listed individually in the accounts . You said yourself that the club owned 20 odd houses in 2010 some of which were flats so we're more than twenty dwellings. Add in the 50 or 60 houses for the Centenary car park, houses in Skerries and tancred plus the houses the club owned opposite the kop and you are looking at three figures straight away.

As for houses demolished behind the main stand what about lake street and Tinsley street that have completely disappeared.

[CardinalX]

http://youtu.be/aXjQ9P3nhUs


I give up, how do you post a youtube video on here then?


http://youtu.be/qLK5lpwzvGM

[vivabobbygraham]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/aXjQ9P3nhUs&amp;feature=youtu.be" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/aXjQ9P3nhUs&amp;feature=youtu.be</a>

[Peter McGurk]

Sorry Peter that's bullshit and you know it Anfield Plus was in 99 and earmarked 1800 homes for demolition and those were the houses that became part of the Housing market renewal initiative years later. Which is pretty evident considering HMRI wasn't even in existence until 2002 three years after Anfield Plus.

It's bullshit because Anfield Plus existed or because there's 1700 homes in HMRI??? If it's bullshit, please explain what stopped the 1700 homes being replaced with new. A football club? No.

But then those houses owned by the club were not even in the 1700. They were not in HMRI. There were no plans for them. So the club could hardly be expected to have had such a damning influence on the 1700 can it?

HMRI was national government policy and government funded. Even believing Kemp on the numbers of houses the club may or may not own, LFC has no say or sway there. If Kemp had of kep his piece in 1999, this would all have been long done and dusted. Such is the power of paranoia.

Thing is, people like to have someone to blame as long as it's not themselves and the club is an easy target. And it sells newspapers and it makes for easy local politicking. With some members of the public, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[CraigDS]

Where have I said the club have falsified accounts behave yourself the individual properties owned by the club have AFAIK never been listed individually in the accounts .

Every property owned was on that document.

So you're either wrong or accusing the club of falsifying the info on the accounts. Which is it?

You said yourself that the club owned 20 odd houses in 2010 some of which were flats so we're more than twenty dwellings. Add in the 50 or 60 houses for the Centenary car park, houses in Skerries and tancred plus the houses the club owned opposite the kop and you are looking at three figures straight away.

As for houses demolished behind the main stand what about lake street and Tinsley street that have completely disappeared.

I'm talking what they currently owned in the year of that document, so a good indication what they own NOW.

Why your going on about houses they owned and sold some 15-20 years ago I've no idea.

[Eeyore]

It's bullshit because Anfield Plus existed or because there's 1700 homes in HMRI??? If it's bullshit, please explain what stopped the 1700 homes being replaced with new. A football club? No.

But then those houses owned by the club were not even in the 1700. They were not in HMRI. There were no plans for them. So the club could hardly be expected to have had such a damning influence on the 1700 can it?

HMRI was national government policy and government funded. Even believing Kemp on the numbers of houses the club may or may not own, LFC has no say or sway there. If Kemp had of kep his piece in 1999, this would all have been long done and dusted. Such is the power of paranoia.

Thing is, people like to have someone to blame as long as it's not themselves and the club is an easy target. And it sells newspapers and it makes for easy local politicking. With some members of the public, it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

The Clubs secret plans for Anfield Plus involved demolishing 1800 houses a full six years before Anfield/Breckfield was awarded renewal status. We both know that planning to demolish houses destroys areas. People stop maintaining there properties, people stop buying houses in that area, businesses stop investing in that area and you end up with a downward spiral.

When a poster on here spoke about his friend putting new windows and a new roof on his property you said he was stupid doing that when there was uncertainty over the area. You can't have it both ways Peter.

As for Kemp are you seriously suggesting that the council could of carried on plotting in secret with the club and turfed 1800 people out of their homes against their will.

[Eeyore]

Every property owned was on that document.

So you're either wrong or accusing the club of falsifying the info on the accounts. Which is it?

I'm talking what they currently owned in the year of that document, so a good indication what they own NOW.

Why your going on about houses they owned and sold some 15-20 years ago I've no idea.

I am posting about the last 30 years Craig because that is how long the Club have been buying up and systematically destroying houses in Anfield which has had a direct effect on the degredation of Anfield. That is far more important than a snapshot from 2010 that showed what the Club owned 30 years after it started destroying homes.

[CraigDS]

I am posting about the last 30 years Craig because that is how long the Club have been buying up and systematically destroying houses in Anfield which has had a direct effect on the degredation of Anfield. That is far more important than a snapshot from 2010 that showed what the Club owned 30 years after it started destroying homes.

How is knocking down a street to build the Centenary, and then selling on the street behind for £1 each to allow them to be viably renovated and sold on, got anything to do with the degradation of Anfield? Skerries is one of the nicest streets in the area if you take a walk down it.

[Retro Red]

How is knocking down a street to build the Centenary, and then selling on the street behind for £1 each to allow them to be viably renovated and sold on, got anything to do with the degradation of Anfield? Skerries is one of the nicest streets in the area if you take a walk down it.

But the years it was left boarded up had no effect on the area then? That side of Anfield, as you can see by the way Skerries is now, was far from being a slum clearance area.

I know this has nothing to do with FSG by the way. It's a context they bought into when they acquired the club.

[CraigDS]

But the years it was left boarded up had no effect on the area then? That side of Anfield, as you can see by the way Skerries is now, was far from being a slum clearance area.

I was pretty young then when those streets were being bought up so I'm not sure what sort of state it got into with regards to houses bought and boarded up for long periods. The club sold off Skerries at a massive loss per house to allow them to be done up and sold on though, which has certainly not added to any degradation.

I'm really not sure why anything beyond the current situation is being discussed anyway. The club bought up houses behind the Centenary, then sold off ones not needed at a loss and that road is now a pretty nice road when you walk down it. That all happened about 22+ years ago now, it's about as relevant to now as arguing why we only spent £100 net in the summer of 1990.

[Eeyore]

How is knocking down a street to build the Centenary, and then selling on the street behind for £1 each to allow them to be viably renovated and sold on, got anything to do with the degradation of Anfield? Skerries is one of the nicest streets in the area if you take a walk down it.

Liverpool started buying up houses in Kemlyn and Skerries Rd in the late 70's early 80's. The Centenary Stand was completed in 1992 but Liverpool did nothing with the 20 houses it owned in Skerries RD until 2001 nine years after the Centenary stand. In 2001 it started a refurbishment programme with Maritime Housing for the first ten of the houses it owned on Skerries and later it sold the other ten to AHDC for what we have been told was below market value, I can't find anything concrete that says they were sold for a pound..

The AHDC houses were sold in 2005 and 2006 for around 115k each. So the houses in Skerries Rd took around a quarter of a century to be returned to the housing stock. A cynic might ask why the Club sat on the houses for 9 years after the completion of the centenary and only done them up when it was trying to charm the community into allowing it to build in the park.

So the Club had tinned up properties in Skerries for 20 years and has had tinned up properties in the Lothair/Alroy area for 18 years. Are you seriously suggesting that the Club having tinned up houses for two decades hasn't affected the area.

This might help.



Read what the residents had to say and read what Cllr Kemp had to say about the 200 house the Club owned.

[CraigDS]

Once again Al, what has this got to do with the club now? Yes it owned a lot more, but these are either gone and replaced by the Centenary Stand or been sold & renovated which has made that side of the ground some pretty nice streets.

The club doesn't own 200 houses now. The club owns approx 20 odd properties, some of which are/were in use by the club, and some of which (on Anfield Rd) have since been demolished so the land can be used by the club (family zone thing).

So you're either dragging up over 40 years of history here which has little to no relevance to the modern day position of the club and situation of the area, or you are saying the club owns more than it says and making an accusation of something which for your own sake I hope you can back up.

[oojason]

Liverpool started buying up houses in Kemlyn and Skerries Rd in the late 70's early 80's. The Centenary Stand was completed in 1992 but Liverpool did nothing with the 20 houses it owned in Skerries RD until 2001 nine years after the Centenary stand. In 2001 it started a refurbishment programme with Maritime Housing for the first ten of the houses it owned on Skerries and later it sold the other ten to AHDC for what we have been told was below market value, I can't find anything concrete that says they were sold for a pound..

The AHDC houses were sold in 2005 and 2006 for around 115k each. So the houses in Skerries Rd took around a quarter of a century to be returned to the housing stock. A cynic might ask why the Club sat on the houses for 9 years after the completion of the centenary and only done them up when it was trying to charm the community into allowing it to build in the park.

So the Club had tinned up properties in Skerries for 20 years and has had tinned up properties in the Lothair/Alroy area for 18 years. Are you seriously suggesting that the Club having tinned up houses for two decades hasn't affected the area.

This might help.



Read what the residents had to say and read what Cllr Kemp had to say about the 200 house the Club owned.

Interesting article Al - cheer for posting that - hadn't seen it before. I didn't realise the club once owned 200-ish properties around the area (thought a few stated on here that it was around 10-20?).

[Machae]

From the article it seems like some were unsettled (Lilly) but others welcomed the new for old.

[Eeyore]

Once again Al, what has this got to do with the club now? Yes it owned a lot more, but these are either gone and replaced by the Centenary Stand or been sold & renovated which has made that side of the ground some pretty nice streets.

The club doesn't own 200 houses now. The club owns approx 20 odd properties, some of which are/were in use by the club, and some of which (on Anfield Rd) have since been demolished so the land can be used by the club (family zone thing).

So you're either dragging up over 40 years of history here which has little to no relevance to the modern day position of the club and situation of the area, or you are saying the club owns more than it says and making an accusation of something which for your own sake I hope you can back up.

I have provided a direct quote from the councils housing executive member regarding the number of houses owned by the club around the ground. So to be honest I have provided substance to what I have said. As for what it proves for me it shows two things.

1.Peter's notion that the club hasn't accelerated the decline of the area because they only owned 10 or so houses out of 1700 is almost certainly false.

2.FSG are for me reaping what the Club sowed a couple of decades ago.

After a slow start FSG seem to be coming through regarding redevelopment but are for me facing problems created by the secrecy and double dealing of the Moores-Parry regime. This has the potential for me to fatally stall the redevelopment plans with legal issues having the potential to drag on for a year or more. Maybe now is the time for FSG to hold its hands up admit the failings of past regimes and look to reconnect with the community. There may not be many people on here who blame the club for its part in the accelerated decline of Anfield but make no mistake there are plenty of people in Anfield who do.

[CraigDS]

Interesting article Al - cheer for posting that - hadn't seen it before. I didn't realise the club once owned 200-ish properties around the area (thought a few stated on here that it was around 10-20?).

No, the ones stating 10-20 are on about how many are currently owned (or were at last info around 11/12 or around then) - not how many they have owned since the 70's but now no longer do.

[CraigDS]

I have provided a direct quote from the councils housing executive member regarding the number of houses owned by the club around the ground. So to be honest I have provided substance to what I have said. As for what it proves for me it shows two things.

1.Peter's notion that the club hasn't accelerated the decline of the area because they only owned 10 or so houses out of 1700 is almost certainly false.

2.FSG are for me reaping what the Club sowed a couple of decades ago.

After a slow start FSG seem to be coming through regarding redevelopment but are for me facing problems created by the secrecy and double dealing of the Moores-Parry regime. This has the potential for me to fatally stall the redevelopment plans with legal issues having the potential to drag on for a year or more. Maybe now is the time for FSG to hold its hands up admit the failings of past regimes and look to reconnect with the community. There may not be many people on here who blame the club for its part in the accelerated decline of Anfield but make no mistake there are plenty of people in Anfield who do.

Al, you're clinging to an absolutely ridiculous position to try and back up what is probably a valid point.

Yes, since the 70's, the club has owned a decent amount of houses around the area, mostly purchased to expand the Kemlyn Rd stand. No, owning this amount of houses over the last 40+ years hasn't cause the state that Anfield is in currently.

Case in point is that a huge amount of the 200+ houses you state were on the Kemlyn side of the ground, and that area of Anfield is actually in a great state. So you could argue LFC's involvement there had a highly positive outcome.

On the other side of the ground, some 10 or so houses immediately behind the Main Stand are owned by the club, and behind the Kop pretty much no houses were owned by the club (I think some premises on Walton Breck were/are) - yet these are the two areas which need the massive amount of work which is finally happening.

The club certainly hasn't helped, but bringing up deals going back to the 70's which involves the one part of Anfield not needing to be included in the regen scheme is barking up the wrong tree.

[Eeyore]

Al, you're clinging to an absolutely ridiculous position to try and back up what is probably a valid point.

Yes, since the 70's, the club has owned a decent amount of houses around the area, mostly purchased to expand the Kemlyn Rd stand. No, owning this amount of houses over the last 40+ years hasn't cause the state that Anfield is in currently.

Case in point is that a huge amount of the 200+ houses you state were on the Kemlyn side of the ground, and that area of Anfield is actually in a great state. So you could argue LFC's involvement there had a highly positive outcome.

On the other side of the ground, some 10 or so houses immediately behind the Main Stand are owned by the club, and behind the Kop pretty much no houses were owned by the club (I think some premises on Walton Breck were/are) - yet these are the two areas which need the massive amount of work which is finally happening.

The club certainly hasn't helped, but bringing up deals going back to the 70's which involves the one part of Anfield not needing to be included in the regen scheme is barking up the wrong tree.

 

To be honest Craig I think you should re-read the thread have a look at your accusations and u-turns and then rethink who is clinging to an absolutely ridiculous position.

[CraigDS]

To be honest Craig I think you should re-read the thread have a look at your accusations and u-turns and then rethink who is clinging to an absolutely ridiculous position.

My position hasn't changed from the start.

The club holds a responsibility for it's involvement in the downfall of the area due to the fact they bought houses and tinned them up. In some cases this may of been the appropriate action (already tinned up, renovation costs to bring to a rentable state simply ridiculously high, etc) but this will obviously not be the case for all of them. The constant back and forth from the previous two owners over expanding/not expanding, moving/not moving, has also caused a huge amount of uncertainty which would of had a big effect on attracting investment into the area.

The latter part of the above paragraph is the biggest/worst thing the club has done, not the amount of housing the club owns/owned. I've explained above why I think bringing up the club owning 200+ homes going back to the 70's is a rather pointless exercise given that where most of these houses were owned (behind Centenary) is easily one of the nicer areas of Anfield and is not included in the planned regeneration zones for this reason.

The club's 10 or so houses in the streets behind Anfield are also not, on their own, enough to cause what has happened in that part of the area. There are/were private landlords who own nearly this many (I read an article yesterday with one who owned 8 houses). The council and Arena/Your Housing own 10x this amount I believe too, although that's from memory of past threads.

It's the lack of investment from these two main stakeholders (LCC and Arena/Your) coupled with the back and forth of the two previous owners over the stadium (however this should not of prevented the invested) is the cause of the current situation.

[Eeyore]

My position hasn't changed from the start.

The club holds a responsibility for it's involvement in the downfall of the area due to the fact they bought houses and tinned them up. In some cases this may of been the appropriate action (already tinned up, renovation costs to bring to a rentable state simply ridiculously high, etc) but this will obviously not be the case for all of them. The constant back and forth from the previous two owners over expanding/not expanding, moving/not moving, has also caused a huge amount of uncertainty which would of had a big effect on attracting investment into the area.

The latter part of the above paragraph is the biggest/worst thing the club has done, not the amount of housing the club owns/owned. I've explained above why I think bringing up the club owning 200+ homes going back to the 70's is a rather pointless exercise given that where most of these houses were owned (behind Centenary) is easily one of the nicer areas of Anfield and is not included in the planned regeneration zones for this reason.

The club's 10 or so houses in the streets behind Anfield are also not, on their own, enough to cause what has happened in that part of the area. There are/were private landlords who own nearly this many (I read an article yesterday with one who owned 8 houses). The council and Arena/Your Housing own 10x this amount I believe too, although that's from memory of past threads.

It's the lack of investment from these two main stakeholders (LCC and Arena/Your) coupled with the back and forth of the two previous owners over the stadium (however this should not of prevented the invested) is the cause of the current situation.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment Craig there are a few things I disagree with but in essence I think you are right there are numerous parties who have contributed to the accelerated decline of the area.

[CraigDS]

I think that's a pretty fair assessment Craig there are a few things I disagree with but in essence I think you are right there are numerous parties who have contributed to the accelerated decline of the area.

Glad we can agree 

[Peter McGurk]

Glad we can agree 

As long as someone's to blame, we can all feel better about ourselves.

Seriously. Shit happens and nobody and no football club can change that or be expected to. If we were talking about any other area, we wouldn't be having this kind of discussion.