Author Topic: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals  (Read 34773 times)

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #120 on: October 27, 2012, 03:56:21 pm »
That area is precisely the area that was being redeveloped as part of the regeneration that was planned a a decade ago and would of been regenerated if the Club under Parry hadn't of pissed about so much humming and harring. Once there are plans to demolish houses and regenerate then people are moved out, houses are boarded up and the area goes to rack and ruin. As for the government paying for it wasn't it mostly European objective one funding.

All right. I understand. You know damn all about it. The area shown is the Housing Market Renewal Initiative area for Anfield Breckfield.

HMRI was a central-government funded scheme to subsidise the cost of building new homes in depressed areas for which there was no market. ie., to help build homes in areas that people didn't want.

Grant Shapps pulled the plug on the necessary £130m as soon as this government came into power. Nothing to do with the club or Rick Parry. Nothing to do with Europe.


The Rockfield triangle was being redeveloped as the Anfield village project LFC has basically tagged on to an existing project.

Again. Totally 100% incorrect. The Anfield Village is what was phase 6 and 7 of the HMRI (see above).

The Rockfield Triangle wasn't even on the map for regeneration. There were no plans to fix it.

The redevelopment of the stadium has been tagged on to nothing. It is not part of the housing regeneration.

.

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,293
  • JFT 97
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #121 on: October 27, 2012, 03:56:46 pm »
All right. I understand. You know damn all about it. The area shown is the Housing Market Renewal Initiative area for Anfield Breckfield.

HMRI was a central-government funded scheme to subsidise the cost of building new homes in depressed areas for which there was no market. ie., to help build homes in areas that people didn't want.

Grant Shapps pulled the plug on the necessary £130m as soon as this government came into power. Nothing to do with the club or Rick Parry. Nothing to do with Europe.

.

Really

http://myliverpoolfc.org/newanfield-08.htm
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #122 on: October 27, 2012, 04:00:22 pm »
Really

http://myliverpoolfc.org/newanfield-08.htm

Yes. Really. The EU grant is for the restoration of the park. Read your source again.


.

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,293
  • JFT 97
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #123 on: October 27, 2012, 04:01:40 pm »
All right. I understand. You know damn all about it. The area shown is the Housing Market Renewal Initiative area for Anfield Breckfield.

HMRI was a central-government funded scheme to subsidise the cost of building new homes in depressed areas for which there was no market. ie., to help build homes in areas that people didn't want.

Grant Shapps pulled the plug on the necessary £130m as soon as this government came into power. Nothing to do with the club or Rick Parry. Nothing to do with Europe.

.

The original plans for the Stadium and were unveiled in 2000 a full two years before HMRI and the plan was to use 9m of Objective one funding which would of triggered a 9m grant from the NWDA.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #124 on: October 27, 2012, 04:02:31 pm »
The original plans for the Stadium and were unveiled in 2000 a full two years before HMRI and the plan was to use 9m of Objective one funding which would of triggered a 9m grant from the NWDA.

For the park mate. For the restoration of the PARK! Jeez...

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,293
  • JFT 97
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #125 on: October 27, 2012, 04:06:50 pm »
For the park mate. For the restoration of the PARK! Jeez...

The Stadium and the regeneration were completely and utterly linked. Liverpool pulling the plug on the Stadium has directly led to the stalling of the regeneration of the wider area. Without the private investment the public money was not triggered.

I think this line might of made it clear

The grant will be topped up with £15.6m of club and taxpayers' money to pay for regeneration of the Anfield community
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 04:11:35 pm by Al 555 »
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #126 on: October 27, 2012, 04:23:18 pm »
The Stadium and the regeneration were completely and utterly linked. Liverpool pulling the plug on the Stadium has directly led to the stalling of the regeneration of the wider area. Without the private investment the public money was not triggered.

I think this line might of made it clear

The grant will be topped up with £15.6m of club and taxpayers' money to pay for regeneration of the Anfield community

Tell me where you got that from and I'll tell you what that money was for.

The tangible commitments to 'wider regeneration' for the new stadium were:

1. the restoration of the park including the restoration of the Isla Gladstone conservatory
2. rebuilding the Vernon Sangster sports stadium
3. obtaining an outline planning consent for the Anfield Plaza.

No houses. No housing regeneration. No input into housing costs

HMRI. The scheme shown on the plan. The only scheme in town for regeneration of housing was NOT linked to a stadium. HMRI was a national and government-funded scheme worth billions. Worth £130m in Liverpool alone. It did not depend on what time Rick Parry got out of bed.

.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 04:25:30 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,293
  • JFT 97
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #127 on: October 27, 2012, 04:28:52 pm »
FEBRUARY 14
New Anfield is back on track after £10m grant

By Nick Coligan - Liverpool Echo

A major breakthrough in Liverpool FC's plans for a new stadium is revealed today.

Government officials have privately agreed to pump around £10m into the regeneration of the area around the club's planned £150m ground at Stanley Park, the ECHO has learned.

It means the Reds' stadium project is still on track after months of uncertainty.

A spokeswoman for the Northwest Development Agency, which holds the purse strings, today said no formal decision had been made.

The news of the cash boost comes a day after the ECHO revealed that property giant Peel Holdings has offered to build Everton FC a new stadium at Switch Island.

Last summer, Liverpool was told by the Northwest Development Agency it could not have £23m of taxpayers' money because £9m would be spent purely on club facilities.

Instead, the council was asked to come up with proposals to use government cash for the regeneration of the deprived Anfield and Breckfield areas.

The ECHO today learned that the council's bid has been successful, and that a grant of just under £10m is set to be rubber-stamped.

A source close to discussions said: "The agency has privately agreed to fund a sum just under £10m.

"It will not be used for the stadium itself - it will be for the regeneration of Anfield and Breckfield."

The NWDA told Liverpool last June that it cannot use public money to pay for the construction costs of the planned 60,000-seater ground.

Around £9m of the money was due to be spent on the stadium roof, soundproof wall cladding and an underground car park.

But agency officials were not opposed to Liverpool's plans for a new ground, even though they would have preferred the club to share a home with neighbours Everton.

They recognised the positive spin-offs for a new stadium for the Anfield area, including a job-creating plaza on the site of the current ground.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #128 on: October 27, 2012, 04:32:25 pm »
FEBRUARY 14
New Anfield is back on track after £10m grant

By Nick Coligan - Liverpool Echo

A major breakthrough in Liverpool FC's plans for a new stadium is revealed today.

Government officials have privately agreed to pump around £10m into the regeneration of the area around the club's planned £150m ground at Stanley Park, the ECHO has learned.

It means the Reds' stadium project is still on track after months of uncertainty.

A spokeswoman for the Northwest Development Agency, which holds the purse strings, today said no formal decision had been made.

The news of the cash boost comes a day after the ECHO revealed that property giant Peel Holdings has offered to build Everton FC a new stadium at Switch Island.

Last summer, Liverpool was told by the Northwest Development Agency it could not have £23m of taxpayers' money because £9m would be spent purely on club facilities.

Instead, the council was asked to come up with proposals to use government cash for the regeneration of the deprived Anfield and Breckfield areas.

The ECHO today learned that the council's bid has been successful, and that a grant of just under £10m is set to be rubber-stamped.

A source close to discussions said: "The agency has privately agreed to fund a sum just under £10m.

"It will not be used for the stadium itself - it will be for the regeneration of Anfield and Breckfield."

The NWDA told Liverpool last June that it cannot use public money to pay for the construction costs of the planned 60,000-seater ground.

Around £9m of the money was due to be spent on the stadium roof, soundproof wall cladding and an underground car park.

But agency officials were not opposed to Liverpool's plans for a new ground, even though they would have preferred the club to share a home with neighbours Everton.

They recognised the positive spin-offs for a new stadium for the Anfield area, including a job-creating plaza on the site of the current ground.

As I said:

1. the restoration of the park including the restoration of the Isla Gladstone conservatory
2. rebuilding the Vernon Sangster sports stadium
3. obtaining an outline planning consent for the Anfield Plaza.

No houses. No housing regeneration. No input into housing costs - oh I forgot: a multi-use games area (a 'MUGA' on the outside broadcast area) was also to be provided - by the club.

« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 05:05:11 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,293
  • JFT 97
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #129 on: October 27, 2012, 05:10:35 pm »
This is Anfield

By Jane Woodhead and Mark Thomas - Liverpool Echo

Liverpool Football Club wants to build its new stadium
in Stanley Park.

The ECHO can reveal the first glimpse of the spectacular new 55,000 seat home Liverpool aims to build from scratch in the park.

The club says the first matches could be played in the £70m stadium as early as 2005.

 

The venue would form the centrepiece of a £240m development plan incorporating a new village centre, college, museum, a new Vernon Sangster sports centre, a possible hotel and extensive tourist facilities.

The plan includes the clearing of 1,405 houses, the refurbishment of 1,871 homes and the building of 390 new ones.


It is bound to cause controversy in the local community.

Club chief executive Rick Parry said: "What is being presented is a complete regeneration initiative for the area with the stadium as the catalyst for that. There will be as many benefits for the community as for the club."

The club declared its wish to stay at Anfield last year, and faced a choice between developing a new stadium on its current site or building a new Stanley Park home.

A joint steering group involving the club, city council, the Anfield Breckfield Community Steering Group and other key agencies has spent four months evaluating the impact of the two options.

Today the council's ruling executive board was told that consultants GVA Grimley have concluded Stanley Park is the best option both for the club and the Anfield Breckfield area.

The report says: "The decline of the Anfield Breckfield area has been rapid and continues at a significant rate.

"The spiral of decline is vicious and unless arrested will result in the death of Anfield Breckfield as a community.

"What is clear is that doing nothing is not an option."

There is no overall estimate of jobs created, but the report claims that, in addition to construction work, 80 non-match day jobs would be created in the stadium together with 350 indirect jobs and 23 jobs at the education innovation centre. The overall figure is expected to be much higher.

Liverpool FC's board has already decided in favour of the Stanley Park option. Controversially, the scheme will cut a large swathe into the park, but with the current stadium site being opened up, planners insist that there will be no overall loss of public space.

The club originally planned to build a 70,000 seat stadium, but that would have cost almost twice as much as the current plan.

Mr Parry said: "It is an economic decision. To increase the capacity by a further 20,000 people could double the cost of the new stadium.

"The new plans are expandable to 60,000 seats without altering the roof."

He explained that developing the current stadium would have meant three years of disruption as new stands were built.

"Even 10 years ago when the Kop was rebuilt football was very different from the game we know now.

"With mid-week European dates, TV and pay per view commitments, games are moved all over the place.

"You can't just hand the stadium over to the builders during the week and claim it back on a Saturday any more."

A specialist company has now been called in to embark on a two month programme of intensive consultation with every Anfield resident and organisation.

Mr Parry said: "We are going to talk to individual residents, a street by street referendum measuring feedback.

"We hope to carry the people of Anfield with us. This is a total package, not just a football stadium.

"It is not for us to dictate what happens now. It is what the community wants." Liverpool council chief executive David Henshaw said: "This is the first holistic look at the regeneration of Anfield and the effects of Liverpool Football Club on regeneration.

"It is a powerful piece of work. We need to be radical and comprehensive. "It is when you are being radical that you make change. If you do not get radical then we could not have a very big impact on solving some long term problems."

Council sources doubt that the club's 2005 ambition is achievable, believing that 2006 is more realistic, with 2007 a possibility if the plans go to a public inquiry.


 

This is from way before New heartlands the name for the Anfield HMRI scheme and clearly shows the Stadium and Housing being linked together. This piece is from April 2002 and before the HMRI scheme even existed.



http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=17672.0

LIVERPOOL Football Club today (Monday, September 15) reassured residents they would not be abandoned as the club presses ahead with plans for a £250m stadium on Stanley Park.

The application going to Liverpool council next month does not include detailed plans to regenerate the old ground.

But the club today promised the regeneration of the whole of Anfield would be addressed.

A spokesman said: "The club will be taking into account the regeneration of the whole area in its plans to develop a new stadium."

Council officials also said regeneration in Anfield remained on target.

Residents had expressed fears that they would lose out on the promise of a major facelift after Liverpool leave their famous stadium.

When the plans were first revealed, the club announced proposals for new education, health and sports facilities for the area.

The Anfield Regeneration Action Committee, set up three years ago to fight the stadium move, says it has not been presented with any concrete proposals for improving the area.

Secretary Mike Butler said: "We are left wondering what is happening with the regeneration of our area.

"It is as if the people of Anfield do not matter. Everything is being concentrated on LFC."

Around 1,400 homes face demolition to make way for the new ground but residents say they have no idea which ones.

An LFC spokesman said: "The planning application is just for the stadium. But as part of the planning application process, information about what is planned in terms of regeneration for the whole community is included.

"This is something which has followed extensive dialogue with the community in the last three years.

"The club sees the new stadium as a catalyst for the regeneration of the entire area, which will be to the benefit of the whole community."

Liverpool council say residents have been extensively consulted.

A spokesman said: "We have used every means possible to engage the local community. Roadshows have been held and consultants carried out a survey, visiting 4,000 properties.

"There have been exhibitions of the proposals and newsletters have been sent out."

Some locals still have some reservations over the development:

* CATHERINE Farrelly, 63, from Arkles Lane, who has lived in Anfield all of her life: "We are being told the new building will be a 365-day arena. Things are bad enough just living on top of a football ground without having a venue which will have people coming in and out every day of the year. I have spent a lot of money on my home and all I can envisage now is the value of my home falling."

* ARTHUR Brown, 70, who has lived in the shadow of the ground in Watford Road for 40 years: "There is concern about the impact the stadium will have but what is more worrying is that we are being kept in the dark. We want to ensure that we are all part of the regeneration process which is what has always been promised."

* RAY Barrigan, 68, a widower, who has lived in the area for 40 years: "I welcome inward investment to the city but we do not want the stadium transferred to the park which belongs to the people of this city. We need to be told about what the plans are for regeneration in the area."

Upgrade for 60s estate

SOME regeneration projects have gone ahead in Anfield.

Work already done includes the refurbishment of the 1960s Radburn estate through stock transfer and an £8m investment in the refurbishment of houses on Skerries Road next to the football ground.

The council has promised that the community steering group, which has been working on plans for the regeneration of the area, can expect to see its proposals coming into effect at the beginning of next year.

These include the demolition of around 1,405 houses, the building of 400 new homes and the refurbishment of 1,800 others.

A local regeneration office is also due to open next month.

Plans to  be submitted

THE club is due to submit its plans for a new 61,000-seater stadium to council chiefs on October 3.

If the go-ahead is given, the stadium could be ready for the 2006/07 season.

The club's original plans announced three years ago included proposals to regenerate the site of the current stadium:

* An adult and further education centre to be run by Liverpool Hope university

* Sports centre for the local community and schools

* Local health centre with GP and specialist services

* Internet youth cafe

* The restoration of Stanley park and Anfield cemetery and the creation of an Anfield Plaza on the site of the existing stadium.

The plaza is likely to include a market place, hotel, community centre, restaurant and café. An area of open space will also be created for concerts.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 05:25:08 pm by Al 555 »
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #130 on: October 27, 2012, 05:31:26 pm »
This is Anfield

By Jane Woodhead and Mark Thomas - Liverpool Echo

Liverpool Football Club wants to build its new stadium
in Stanley Park.

The ECHO can reveal the first glimpse of the spectacular new 55,000 seat home Liverpool aims to build from scratch in the park.

The club says the first matches could be played in the £70m stadium as early as 2005.

 

The venue would form the centrepiece of a £240m development plan incorporating a new village centre, college, museum, a new Vernon Sangster sports centre, a possible hotel and extensive tourist facilities.

The plan includes the clearing of 1,405 houses, the refurbishment of 1,871 homes and the building of 390 new ones.


It is bound to cause controversy in the local community.

Club chief executive Rick Parry said: "What is being presented is a complete regeneration initiative for the area with the stadium as the catalyst for that. There will be as many benefits for the community as for the club."

The club declared its wish to stay at Anfield last year, and faced a choice between developing a new stadium on its current site or building a new Stanley Park home.

A joint steering group involving the club, city council, the Anfield Breckfield Community Steering Group and other key agencies has spent four months evaluating the impact of the two options.

Today the council's ruling executive board was told that consultants GVA Grimley have concluded Stanley Park is the best option both for the club and the Anfield Breckfield area.

The report says: "The decline of the Anfield Breckfield area has been rapid and continues at a significant rate.

"The spiral of decline is vicious and unless arrested will result in the death of Anfield Breckfield as a community.

"What is clear is that doing nothing is not an option."

There is no overall estimate of jobs created, but the report claims that, in addition to construction work, 80 non-match day jobs would be created in the stadium together with 350 indirect jobs and 23 jobs at the education innovation centre. The overall figure is expected to be much higher.

Liverpool FC's board has already decided in favour of the Stanley Park option. Controversially, the scheme will cut a large swathe into the park, but with the current stadium site being opened up, planners insist that there will be no overall loss of public space.

The club originally planned to build a 70,000 seat stadium, but that would have cost almost twice as much as the current plan.

Mr Parry said: "It is an economic decision. To increase the capacity by a further 20,000 people could double the cost of the new stadium.

"The new plans are expandable to 60,000 seats without altering the roof."

He explained that developing the current stadium would have meant three years of disruption as new stands were built.

"Even 10 years ago when the Kop was rebuilt football was very different from the game we know now.

"With mid-week European dates, TV and pay per view commitments, games are moved all over the place.

"You can't just hand the stadium over to the builders during the week and claim it back on a Saturday any more."

A specialist company has now been called in to embark on a two month programme of intensive consultation with every Anfield resident and organisation.

Mr Parry said: "We are going to talk to individual residents, a street by street referendum measuring feedback.

"We hope to carry the people of Anfield with us. This is a total package, not just a football stadium.

"It is not for us to dictate what happens now. It is what the community wants." Liverpool council chief executive David Henshaw said: "This is the first holistic look at the regeneration of Anfield and the effects of Liverpool Football Club on regeneration.

"It is a powerful piece of work. We need to be radical and comprehensive. "It is when you are being radical that you make change. If you do not get radical then we could not have a very big impact on solving some long term problems."

Council sources doubt that the club's 2005 ambition is achievable, believing that 2006 is more realistic, with 2007 a possibility if the plans go to a public inquiry.


 

This is from way before New heartlands the name for the Anfield HMRI scheme and clearly shows the Stadium and Housing being linked together. This piece is from April 2002 and before the HMRI scheme even existed.

The 2002 GVA report does look into the regeneration of the area of which the stadium options were  part:

This report has been prepared by GVA Grimley in
response to a brief agreed and issued by “The
Liverpool Football Club Stadium Proposals Joint
Steering Group” in January 2002. It brings together
a series of strands relating to the regeneration of
Anfield/Breckfield and the wider North Liverpool
area, of which the proposed expansion of Liverpool
Football Club’s stadium is [just] one.




The report really did try to tie them together:

The establishment of the JSG has provided a
unique opportunity to knit together the
Community’s Report with LFC’s ambition to
develop a new, expanded stadium in Anfield and
produce a comprehensive package of proposals
for Anfield/Breckfield.

Full consideration has been given to LFC’s
proposals and the Community’s Report in
developing a comprehensive regeneration
strategy. However, it has also been possible,
from an external perspective, to critically appraise
both LFC’s and the Community’s proposals and
consider measures to bind the different strands
together.




Perhaps it's a shame (perhaps not) but the club and/or council never went ahead with it that way.

A. Application No. 03F/3214 for –
(i) FULL PLANNING APPLICATION - To erect a new 60,000 seater
stadium (to include a community resource centre, access, parking,
and landscaping; demolition of properties at 47-71 Anfield Road;
erection of new electricity substation; laying out of football pitches,
tennis courts, and multi-use games area on Stanley Park; new
pathways and upgraded access points, and re-levelling works in
Stanley Park); and

(ii) OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION - To erect a new development
of Anfield Plaza for mixed uses including offices, retail and food &
drink uses, community uses, a residential scheme, a hotel, and public
open space (subject to an illustrative masterplan and development
brief),




No houses (or village) there (or in the planning consent conditions either)



.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 05:43:22 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,293
  • JFT 97
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #131 on: October 27, 2012, 05:52:33 pm »
Come off it Peter mate, if Liverpool make a planning application next year then that won't include building new houses but like we did a decade ago we are part of a wider regeneration of Anfield that does include the demolition and rebuilding of houses. For me SOS were quite to highlight the plight of the people living in the shadow of the development.

Liverpool have acted badly for a decade and we should acknowledge that. The houses that were part of the 2002 plan have been stuck in limbo for a decade and have been allowed to fall apart whilst houses in areas that were not part of the regen haven't. 
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #132 on: October 27, 2012, 06:26:36 pm »
Come off it Peter mate, if Liverpool make a planning application next year then that won't include building new houses but like we did a decade ago we are part of a wider regeneration of Anfield that does include the demolition and rebuilding of houses. For me SOS were quite to highlight the plight of the people living in the shadow of the development.

Liverpool have acted badly for a decade and we should acknowledge that. The houses that were part of the 2002 plan have been stuck in limbo for a decade and have been allowed to fall apart whilst houses in areas that were not part of the regen haven't.

Nothing to come off. What happened, happened. What should happen, should happen.

It is not our responsibility to house people. It is council’s - under the Housing Acts. That’s were the moral and legal responsibility starts and finishes. That’s where you’ll find the elected representatives of the people’s definition of good and bad behaviour.

The 2002 report was just that - a report, for consideration. Some issues were acted on. Some were not. The houses in limbo as you put it have never been part of the club’s plans (the houses in the Rockfield Triangle have never been part of anyone’s plans).

Have you been to the Welsh Streets or Queen’s/ Bedford/Klondyke HMRI areas? Or most of Walton or Kirkdale? What’s left of Scottie Road? There’s more to this problem than a £10m grant from the NWDA.

The big bad bogey man is life - a city in free fall and ultimately government withdrawal of the wherewithal to fix it (the housing). Various bodies and members of the government and the press trying to park the responsibility at LFC’s door is a bit bloody disingenuous to say the least.

.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 06:31:50 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,293
  • JFT 97
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #133 on: October 27, 2012, 06:45:57 pm »
Nothing to come off. What happened, happened. What should happen, should happen.

It is not our responsibility to house people. It is council’s - under the Housing Acts. That’s were the moral and legal responsibility starts and finishes. That’s where you’ll find the elected representatives of the people’s definition of good and bad behaviour.

The 2002 report was just that - a report, for consideration. Some issues were acted on. Some were not. The houses in limbo as you put it have never been part of the club’s plans (the houses in the Rockfield Triangle have never been part of anyone’s plans).

Have you been to the Welsh Streets or Queen’s/ Bedford/Klondyke HMRI areas? Or most of Walton or Kirkdale? What’s left of Scottie Road? There’s more to this problem than a £10m grant from the NWDA.

The big bad bogey man is life - a city in free fall and ultimately government withdrawal of the wherewithal to fix it (the housing). Various bodies and members of the government and the press trying to park the responsibility at LFC’s door is a bit bloody disingenuous to say the least.

.

If you come up with outlandish promises about what you are going to do and say things like "What is being presented is a complete regeneration initiative for the area with the stadium as the catalyst for that. There will be as many benefits for the community as for the club." like Parry did and then fail to act as a catalyst despite people bending over backwards for you then I'm sorry but you do bear some responsibility.

The area of Anfield has been in stuck in limbo for a decade and the Club has to share some of the blame for that. As for HMRI and the removal of the requirement of developers to provide affordable houses the chances of a regen are slim to nil for me.

As David Conn said the Club are back where they where 13 years ago.

Oct 1999; by John Campbell and Larry Neild - Liverpool Echo. An investigation was launched today into "secret" plans for the redevelopment of land around Anfield stadium. Anfield Councillor Joe Kenny called for the inquiry, after discovering that local officials and LFC were discussing radical plans for the area, months before the public was told.

Dec 1999; by Micheal Doran - Star. Liverpool Football Club has plans to develop the main stand and Anfield Road ends of its stadium - demolishing nearby homes. Contrary to previous statements the club's chief executive, Rick Parry, made the admission in a face to face meeting with the Oakfield and District Business Association.

Dec 1999; by Micheal Doran - Star. James McFadden, of Cloister Developments, has been revealed by LFC chief executive Mr Parry as a major cog in the clubs designs to expand. Speaking exclusively to the Star Mr McFadden, who hails from Glasgow, said he has sold several properties to LFC this year.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #134 on: October 27, 2012, 11:10:01 pm »
If you come up with outlandish promises about what you are going to do and say things like "What is being presented is a complete regeneration initiative for the area with the stadium as the catalyst for that. There will be as many benefits for the community as for the club." like Parry did and then fail to act as a catalyst despite people bending over backwards for you then I'm sorry but you do bear some responsibility.

The area of Anfield has been in stuck in limbo for a decade and the Club has to share some of the blame for that. As for HMRI and the removal of the requirement of developers to provide affordable houses the chances of a regen are slim to nil for me.

As David Conn said the Club are back where they where 13 years ago.

Oct 1999; by John Campbell and Larry Neild - Liverpool Echo. An investigation was launched today into "secret" plans for the redevelopment of land around Anfield stadium. Anfield Councillor Joe Kenny called for the inquiry, after discovering that local officials and LFC were discussing radical plans for the area, months before the public was told.

Dec 1999; by Micheal Doran - Star. Liverpool Football Club has plans to develop the main stand and Anfield Road ends of its stadium - demolishing nearby homes. Contrary to previous statements the club's chief executive, Rick Parry, made the admission in a face to face meeting with the Oakfield and District Business Association.

Dec 1999; by Micheal Doran - Star. James McFadden, of Cloister Developments, has been revealed by LFC chief executive Mr Parry as a major cog in the clubs designs to expand. Speaking exclusively to the Star Mr McFadden, who hails from Glasgow, said he has sold several properties to LFC this year.

What does Conn want? Free housing for the unlucky? Council to wave a magic wand? The club to shoulder council’s legal and moral responsibilities? Or would he prefer any business to run a mile from investing anywhere for fear of being left with someone else’s bill. That is the bleak alternative.

Over 40 years decline is the issue here, not looking for someone, anyone, to blame for economic circumstances beyond any individual’s control.

And exactly which part of buying houses that no-one else wants is a crime? And what bending over backwards was there exactly? And what promised benefits failed to accrue/how was HMRI in limbo (before government pulled the plug)? And what plans for the Rockfield Triangle were there that the club was holding up? (Clue - there were none)

.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 11:23:18 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,293
  • JFT 97
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #135 on: October 27, 2012, 11:26:50 pm »
What does Conn want? Free housing for the unlucky? Council to wave a magic wand? The club to shoulder council’s legal and moral responsibilities? Or would he prefer any business to run a mile from investing anywhere for fear of being left with someone else’s bill. That is the bleak alternative.

Over 40 years decline is the issue here, not looking for someone, anyone, to blame for economic circumstances beyond any individual’s control.

And exactly which part of buying houses that no-one else wants is a crime? And what bending over backwards was there exactly?

.

I don't speak for Conn but I imagine like me he wants the Club to stop making announcements and proclamations that it doesn't know whether it can keep or not. You don't put peoples lives on hold unless you are pretty certain you can deliver. We had yet another massive announcement which when it was stripped back promised absolutely fuck all. Anderson and Ayre took the limelight and the plaudits about a brave new Anfield which was yet again reduced to a load of platitudes and soundbites as soon as anyone asked any meaningful questions.

We had the usual headlines about this fantastic new vision but as soon as anyone was asked to back it up they couldn't. We can't tell you how much it will cost, or when it will happen or who will pay for it but trust us it will be brilliant. Well the residents of Anfield have been hearing the same bollocks for a decade whilst there community has been destroyed around them, So like them I will believe the brave new or should that be old redeveloped or should that be new Stadium when I see it.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #136 on: October 28, 2012, 12:21:38 am »
I don't speak for Conn but I imagine like me he wants the Club to stop making announcements and proclamations that it doesn't know whether it can keep or not. You don't put peoples lives on hold unless you are pretty certain you can deliver. We had yet another massive announcement which when it was stripped back promised absolutely fuck all. Anderson and Ayre took the limelight and the plaudits about a brave new Anfield which was yet again reduced to a load of platitudes and soundbites as soon as anyone asked any meaningful questions.

We had the usual headlines about this fantastic new vision but as soon as anyone was asked to back it up they couldn't. We can't tell you how much it will cost, or when it will happen or who will pay for it but trust us it will be brilliant. Well the residents of Anfield have been hearing the same bollocks for a decade whilst there community has been destroyed around them, So like them I will believe the brave new or should that be old redeveloped or should that be new Stadium when I see it.

Your frustration may be out of the misconception that the regeneration depends on the stadium. It does not. The regeneration is going ahead no matter what the stadium answer is. There is the certainty.


.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2012, 04:05:31 pm by Peter McGurk »

Offline koppite118

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 236
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #137 on: November 4, 2012, 10:40:45 am »
With respect to spirit of shankly they have and still will be a voice for all supporters...

Cant wait for the regeneration work to start...

Offline connorpaisley

  • Boys Pen
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #138 on: November 8, 2012, 02:05:47 pm »
Al 555 I have to side with Peter in the debate the two of you have been having.  I bought a house in Venmore Street in 2004 only to find out 3 weeks later it was part of phase 1 of the regeneration(there is school on the site now not bungalows as originally planned).

During the talks I had with the council and Arena Housing it was made clear to myself (because I asked them) by Arena that the regeneration of the area was fast tracked thanks to our plans at the time to move to a new stadium which finally helped end 20 years of trying to regenerate. The council was using the clubs plan as a bargining tool to get the money and then once the go ahead was given to start the council didn't care whether we moved or not because all they wanted was the money to do their bit.

I hope that helps with your debate.

Offline The Flying Pig

  • Bill. Not improving with age.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,652
  • Truth? Yes. Justice? Not yet. JFT96.
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #139 on: November 8, 2012, 06:42:10 pm »
Al 555 I have to side with Peter in the debate the two of you have been having.  I bought a house in Venmore Street in 2004 only to find out 3 weeks later it was part of phase 1 of the regeneration(there is school on the site now not bungalows as originally planned).

During the talks I had with the council and Arena Housing it was made clear to myself (because I asked them) by Arena that the regeneration of the area was fast tracked thanks to our plans at the time to move to a new stadium which finally helped end 20 years of trying to regenerate. The council was using the clubs plan as a bargining tool to get the money and then once the go ahead was given to start the council didn't care whether we moved or not because all they wanted was the money to do their bit.

I hope that helps with your debate.

Welcome to the board,thanks for the informative post.
Suddenly I turned around and she was standin' there
With silver bracelets on her wrists and flowers in her hair
She walked up to me so gracefully and took my crown of thorns
"Come in", She said, "I'll give you shelter from the storm."

I might be in!

Offline Growl

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
  • Grizzled.
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #140 on: January 16, 2013, 02:41:20 pm »
With respect to spirit of shankly they have and still will be a voice for all supporters...

Cant wait for the regeneration work to start...
Less than one percent of us actually.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 02:44:28 pm by Growl »

Offline Maggie May

  • A true Grandmother of Sirs. The Next Vera Lynne. The Pigeon Queen. Lobster Botherer Knockout Champ. RAWK's favourite gog. Belshie Gets Hard For Her. Call that a knife??
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,249
  • Nemo me impune lacessit. Semper Fi
Re: Spirit of Shankly Statement on Regeneration Proposals
« Reply #141 on: January 16, 2013, 06:28:51 pm »
Less than one percent of us actually.

Meaning 99% "of you" (presumably you are referring to non-members) get the benefit of SoS's work without being arsed to lift a finger to join and pay subs.  Nice.   ::)   :wanker
Rather a day as a lion than a lifetime as a sheep.

I can only be nice to one person a day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look too good either.
I tried being reasonable.  I didn't like it.  Old enough to know better.  Young enough not to give a fuck.