Author Topic: Why we are where we are  (Read 30669 times)

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #80 on: August 31, 2016, 10:10:11 AM »
They gave in? Or were they happy with the £100m to be spent on the area? Or their own arrangements? Let's face it, there's plenty in this city who'd be happy to get what they got.
It was a mix.

The uncomfortable truth is that post Taylor, the Club behaved like a slum landlord in allowing the deterioration of property under its ownership in order to devalue subsequent purchases. The Club was also extraordinarily fortunate to benefit from compulsory purchase offering pretty much zero in return.

The long game worked in terms of increasing capacity for the minimum outlay.

Offline Bigly Red Richie

  • Thread killer extraordinaire. For future reference the order is T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,145
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #81 on: August 31, 2016, 01:22:54 PM »
Whilst LFC may not be whiter than white, you have to say, multiple consecutive city councils have also been equally complicit in letting the area deteriorate to what it has become.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,202
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #82 on: August 31, 2016, 01:28:15 PM »
I read somewhere that they were going to delay the ARE due to lack of take up on the hospitality. Was the new tier going to have executive boxes in?

No - all General Admission.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,622
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #83 on: August 31, 2016, 02:00:00 PM »
It was a mix.

The uncomfortable truth is that post Taylor, the Club behaved like a slum landlord in allowing the deterioration of property under its ownership in order to devalue subsequent purchases. The Club was also extraordinarily fortunate to benefit from compulsory purchase offering pretty much zero in return.

The long game worked in terms of increasing capacity for the minimum outlay.

Or could it just be that no-one else wanted them? Market price plus 10% plus expenses is not 'pretty much zero'. It's a whole lot better than many people who didn't have a stadium next door managed. If anyone has complained since, who has seen it?

And the current owners played no long game. People got more than the houses were worth in pretty short order.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2016, 02:02:20 PM by Peter McGurk »

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,622
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #84 on: August 31, 2016, 02:04:29 PM »
Whilst LFC may not be whiter than white, you have to say, multiple consecutive city councils have also been equally complicit in letting the area deteriorate to what it has become.

What would you have councils do? Fight back waves of successive recessions with money they didn't have?

Offline Bigly Red Richie

  • Thread killer extraordinaire. For future reference the order is T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 14,145
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #85 on: August 31, 2016, 03:32:46 PM »
What would you have councils do? Fight back waves of successive recessions with money they didn't have?
Whoa. Bit touchy aren't we. Bit defensive.

Funny that successive councils could find money for the city centre, or southern suburbs, not even to mention vanity projects, yet the North end of the city has largely been left to rot for donkeys years.


Anyway. That's a who different argument for another thread.

Offline Al 666

  • 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.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,084
  • JFT 96
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #86 on: August 31, 2016, 03:45:41 PM »
Or could it just be that no-one else wanted them? Market price plus 10% plus expenses is not 'pretty much zero'. It's a whole lot better than many people who didn't have a stadium next door managed. If anyone has complained since, who has seen it?

And the current owners played no long game. People got more than the houses were worth in pretty short order.

Has anyone complained. Really. ?


Ruth Little, Chair of the Anfield and Breckfield community council, says: "After people suffered so much, from the football club and Your Housing leaving properties empty and blighting the area, when they went back to the original plan I did wonder what the last 12 years of consultation have been for.

Ros Groves, chair of the Salisbury Residents Association, said she "hit the roof" when she read that Ian Ayre said Liverpool would "need to convince" residents if the club were to stay at Anfield, and said: "We're having some great dialogue with them." Groves said; “Liverpool FC have never held any meaningful discussions with residents.”

"I cannot see how it can be called 'great dialogue' when Ian Ayre has been to one meeting with one residents group," Groves said. "Everybody can see which way this is going now. We just want Liverpool football club to be open with us." Many houses around Anfield have been blighted for years – a significant number bought by the football club and left empty, a source of great resentment among residents left coping with the area's decline.

James McKenna, chair of the Spirit of Shankly supporters' union, says the fans have sympathy for the club's neighbours. "The stadium expansion is all about the club making more money, and fans will have to pay more for tickets," McKenna says. "To do that, Liverpool have played a part in derelict houses, streets boarded up. It's a blot on LFC's record.

ill McGarry, vice-chair of the Anfield Rockfield Triangle Residents Association, said: "People have suffered blight and are entitled to adequate compensation, real replacement value of their homes, particularly given what the football club stands to gain. There has to be some social justice about this."

Patrick Duggan, chair of the Anfield Rockfield Triangle Residents Association, is an ardent critic of the club, whom he vehemently accuses of running the area down. "I have always been a Liverpool fan," says Duggan, "They play 'You'll Never Walk Alone' but they have left their neighbours to walk alone for years."

Howard Macpherson, now 52, was the first to sell his house on Lothair Road to the club, in 1996. He had lived there, at No 39, a four-bedroom end terrace, for 10 years. Macpherson says it was a fine home, which he had spent money refurbishing, but after Liverpool bought it they always left it empty – now for 17 years.

"Anfield was a good area, all the houses occupied, nothing like it is today," says Macpherson, who runs a garage, Aintree Motors. "The area started to decline in the early 1990s with the city's economic problems. But Liverpool football club accelerated the decline, by leaving good houses empty and boarded up. It wasn't a natural decline; it was engineered."

Paddy McKay, a builder who has lived for 37 years on Walton Breck Road, is refusing to accept the council's offer. He and his wife Carol brought up three daughters there; he has paid his mortgage off in full and argues that, if he is forced to move, he should be paid enough to buy a similar house somewhere decent and compensation for the years of blight. Even now, antisocial behaviour is continuing on those streets, including house fires.

 "Liverpool FC have said they want to be good neighbours? They're the world's worst neighbours; they couldn't care less," McKay says. "After all the damage they have done to the area, they should do the decent thing by the residents."

Mrs Highfield, Lothair Road resident said: I am 60 years old and I moved into this road in 1953 with my parents, my mother died very young, and my father looked after myself and my older brother. Eventually I was married and brought up my 3 lovely children in the house I have always lived in, Lothair Road was once a lovely happy residential area.

As time passed and my father got older he became housebound, and when he could sit at the front door he would become very upset at having to look at boarded up houses in front of him and all around him, to think he had scrimped and saved to pay for his house all to see it come to the shambles surrounding the once very admired road.

We have had to waited long enough. 10 - 15 years is a very long time and the blight started even before that. I am absolutely heartbroken for my poor dad who died 5 years ago, and now for myself and my children.

Evan Roberts,  Lothair road resident/retired fire-fighter said: One can only speculate that perhaps enough properties in the road have now been secured in order for the rest to be made the objects of compulsory purchase orders and then demolished.

Many residents believe that LFC expansion is the major reason why so many homes in the Rockfield area have been left derelict for more than a decade. Long-term decisions have been made in the interest of LFC while the wider implications of what those decisions have done to this community - have been negated. We know it started years before FSG became owners - but it still continues under their ownership.

Garry Houghton, Alroy road home-owner, said: I think this should go to a public inquiry, the whole thing is just for LFC’s benefit with the city council acting as the go between. Joe Anderson we know your real motive is profit. The land you unlawfully obtain from residents will be leased to LFC, we want a public inquiry!

Wake up, the city council are the problem, most of the residents don't trust the council. This mess could have been dealt with years ago, if only David Moores and Rick Parry had been bothered to talk to residents of Lothair/Alroy/Rockfield and Walton Breck Road.

Why didn't Ian Ayre speak to residents 5 years ago? He's always sprouting on about great dialogue with residents! We don't know what residents this dialogue was with? It wasn't with anyone affected by CPO and demolition to clear the way for LFC expansion, that's a bit strange don't you think?


Is that enough people for you Peter.

The funniest bit though is market value plus 10%. You know full well that once the streets were full of derelict boarded up houses the property values crashed in value. When the value of your house falls by 30-40% then market value plus 10% leaves you massively out of pocket and unable to afford a similar property.
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,622
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #87 on: August 31, 2016, 05:32:03 PM »
This was all before settlement. How many of those are still complaining?

The funny thing about the market is something is only worth what people will pay. As it happens, these people did better than the market, which had been in recession right across the city for decades.

And yes, if the residents had listened to the club instead of Cllr Kemp, this would have been done and dusted 10 years ago.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2016, 05:39:53 PM by Peter McGurk »

Offline Al 666

  • 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.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,084
  • JFT 96
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #88 on: August 31, 2016, 05:53:25 PM »
This was all before settlement. How many of those are still complaining?

The funny thing about the market is something is only worth what people will pay. As it happens, these people did better than the market, which had been in recession right across the city for decades.

And yes, if the residents had listened to the club instead of Cllr Kemp, this would have been done and dusted 10 years ago.

Nothing at all to do with the settlement Peter many of the people above complaining had already settled. The reason you don't hear about it now is because it is no longer newsworthy.

Re the market value Peter you know full well that a CPO can only take into account the current market value and cannot take into account people with a vested interest deliberately driving down the value of a property by letting neighbouring properties rot.

Cllr Kemp eh. Maybe people would of listened to him if he had not acted immorally and hatched a secret plan with the Club to bulldoze peoples homes . A good analogy would be blaming the victims of torture for their own injuries because if they had only told the interrogators what they wanted to know in the first place it would of been over ages ago.
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,622
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #89 on: August 31, 2016, 06:45:43 PM »
Nothing at all to do with the settlement Peter many of the people above complaining had already settled. The reason you don't hear about it now is because it is no longer newsworthy.

Re the market value Peter you know full well that a CPO can only take into account the current market value and cannot take into account people with a vested interest deliberately driving down the value of a property by letting neighbouring properties rot.

Cllr Kemp eh. Maybe people would of listened to him if he had not acted immorally and hatched a secret plan with the Club to bulldoze peoples homes . A good analogy would be blaming the victims of torture for their own injuries because if they had only told the interrogators what they wanted to know in the first place it would of been over ages ago.

I think you're re-writing Cllr Kemp's history. Cllr Kemp decided the club were crooks when the club took their scheme to the public for consultation because it was 'secret'. How anyone can develop a scheme for consultation without doing it in 'secret' ie., in an office or a meeting, is still beyond me.

I recognise as many comments from before, when everyone was pitching for whatever they can get. Of the two people I know personally on that list, I wouldn't trust either as far as I can throw them.

Yes, if any CPO were used, they can only take into account the current market value - and market value plus 10% plus expenses is rather better than that. Actually, I don't see why anyone should get better treatment than say, a resident in Smithdown Road or anywhere else in a city on the skids since the seventies, just because they are next to a stadium and think they are sitting on a gold mine. But as it happens, they did.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2016, 06:48:16 PM by Peter McGurk »

Offline Al 666

  • 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.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,084
  • JFT 96
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #90 on: August 31, 2016, 07:43:45 PM »
I think you're re-writing Cllr Kemp's history. Cllr Kemp decided the club were crooks when the club took their scheme to the public for consultation because it was 'secret'. How anyone can develop a scheme for consultation without doing it in 'secret' ie., in an office or a meeting, is still beyond me.

I recognise as many comments from before, when everyone was pitching for whatever they can get. Of the two people I know personally on that list, I wouldn't trust either as far as I can throw them.

Yes, if any CPO were used, they can only take into account the current market value - and market value plus 10% plus expenses is rather better than that. Actually, I don't see why anyone should get better treatment than say, a resident in Smithdown Road or anywhere else in a city on the skids since the seventies, just because they are next to a stadium and think they are sitting on a gold mine. But as it happens, they did.

Come off it the Club spent decades buying up and destroying houses just so they could expand. That is immoral, instead of acknowledging that you are trying to accuse the people whose lives were destroyed of being gold diggers.
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,622
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #91 on: August 31, 2016, 09:15:51 PM »
Come off it the Club spent decades buying up and destroying houses just so they could expand. That is immoral, instead of acknowledging that you are trying to accuse the people whose lives were destroyed of being gold diggers.

Whose lives were destroyed?  The absentee landlords? Or the multiple landlords in it just for the money? Or the hotel owner still in residence but upset because he couldn't get in on the Thomas Cook deals? Or the squatters? The kids setting fires for fun? Those who had sold up years previous? Or the professional agenda-drivers hitching a ride? Or just the ordinary folk who are well out of it and settled elsewhere?

And how did the club destroy the houses? By clearing out the rats and the alleyways? By boarding up houses to keep gangs out? By buying what other people didn't want for the going rate? Or by their involvement in £100m regeneration bringing an otherwise unviable area back from the brink?

Get real yourself. The area was in terminal decline long before 2002 and long before the club got kicked in the teeth for coming up with a plan which was of mutual benefit to the club and residents, only to spend 15 years getting back to where they started because no one trusts anyone with any capability to do anything about it. You can cut the paranoia with a knife.

Offline Al 666

  • 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.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,084
  • JFT 96
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #92 on: August 31, 2016, 09:39:30 PM »
Whose lives were destroyed?  The absentee landlords? Or the multiple landlords in it just for the money? Or the hotel owner still in residence but upset because he couldn't get in on the Thomas Cook deals? Or the squatters? The kids setting fires for fun? Those who had sold up years previous? Or the professional agenda-drivers hitching a ride? Or just the ordinary folk who are well out of it and settled elsewhere?

How about the normal working class people who scrimped and saved and bought their own house Peter. Who took out mortgages and ended up in negative equity and were offered a pittance by the Clubs agents and as a result ended up trapped living in a LFC created squalor. Or how about the people conned into believing that there was going to be a new stadium and massive investment under H&G.

And how did the club destroy the houses? By clearing out the rats and the alleyways? By boarding up houses to keep gangs out? By buying what other people didn't want for the going rate? Or by their involvement in £100m regeneration bringing an otherwise unviable area back from the brink?

The Club destroyed houses by buying them and tinning them up. Why the fuck would a business buy houses and not let them out unless it was to deliberately destroy an area.

Get real yourself. The area was in terminal decline long before 2002 and long before the club got kicked in the teeth for coming up with a plan which was of mutual benefit to the club and residents, only to spend 15 years getting back to where they started because no one trusts anyone with any capability to do anything about it. You can cut the paranoia with a knife.

So if the area was in terminal decline then why aren't the houses on the Centenary end of Anfield Rd in terminal decline, why aren't the houses of Priory Rd in terminal decline. Amazingly all the houses that have been flattened were in one of the various schemes the Club were involved in. As for paranoia are you taking the piss. The end game was exactly what people said it would be in 1999. That the area would be systematically destroyed until the Club got it's way.
 
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,622
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #93 on: September 1, 2016, 04:18:04 AM »
How about the normal working class people who scrimped and saved and bought their own house Peter. Who took out mortgages and ended up in negative equity and were offered a pittance by the Clubs agents and as a result ended up trapped living in a LFC created squalor. Or how about the people conned into believing that there was going to be a new stadium and massive investment under H&G.

The Club destroyed houses by buying them and tinning them up. Why the fuck would a business buy houses and not let them out unless it was to deliberately destroy an area.

So if the area was in terminal decline then why aren't the houses on the Centenary end of Anfield Rd in terminal decline, why aren't the houses of Priory Rd in terminal decline. Amazingly all the houses that have been flattened were in one of the various schemes the Club were involved in. As for paranoia are you taking the piss. The end game was exactly what people said it would be in 1999. That the area would be systematically destroyed until the Club got it's way.

The end result is £100m of investment in the area.

Offline Alf

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,526
  • Leader of Alf Quaida & the Scaliban
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #94 on: September 1, 2016, 08:06:23 AM »
I read somewhere that they were going to delay the ARE due to lack of take up on the hospitality. Was the new tier going to have executive boxes in?

I do wonder if we'll see more members tickets in the ARE, if the club can sell more corporate tickets in the main stand.

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #95 on: September 1, 2016, 03:35:55 PM »
The end result is £100m of investment in the area.
The Echo is quoting £260m.

This is good in terms of regenerating the district, but bad in the sense that it further boxes in future redevelopment, one of the significant drawbacks of not relocating.

Beyond the money being spent on the stand, and within the curtilage of our land ownership, how much money is the Club contributing to the regeneration in return for the CPO's?

Offline Al 666

  • 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.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,084
  • JFT 96
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #96 on: September 1, 2016, 05:36:07 PM »
The end result is £100m of investment in the area.

And how much of that is public money that would not of needed to be spent if the Club and it's partners hadn't of left the area to rot.
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,202
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #97 on: September 1, 2016, 05:57:51 PM »
I do wonder if we'll see more members tickets in the ARE, if the club can sell more corporate tickets in the main stand.

The number of corporate/hospitality seats is set and agreed with the ARE being all general admission.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Cork Red

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 746
  • Justice for the 96
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #98 on: September 1, 2016, 06:05:09 PM »
The number of corporate/hospitality seats is set and agreed with the ARE being all general admission.

That could change surely?  It's not something that I'd be wishing for at all, just to make clear, but if it meant the difference between the stand being expanded and not expanded at all, it might be worth revisiting.

As it is, there a quite a number of Hospitality tickets in the Upper ARE, where the hospitality is provided off site in the Isla Gladstone and in some city centre hotels.  It would probably make more sense, from the club's point of view, if those facilities were in the expanded ARE.

If an expanded ARE was all General Admission, hopefully the concourses would be brought up to the  standards of the new Main.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,622
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #99 on: September 1, 2016, 07:25:57 PM »
The Echo is quoting £260m.

This is good in terms of regenerating the district, but bad in the sense that it further boxes in future redevelopment, one of the significant drawbacks of not relocating.

Beyond the money being spent on the stand, and within the curtilage of our land ownership, how much money is the Club contributing to the regeneration in return for the CPO's?

I wouldn't worry to much about what the Echo says but we've all been led to believe that the total investment in the area, including the stadium, is £260m. No business can pay for CPO. CPO are issued in the public interest. As far as I'm aware no CPO were issued or very few indeed to the absentee and overseas landlords who could not be contacted.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,622
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #100 on: September 1, 2016, 07:33:35 PM »
And how much of that is public money that would not of needed to be spent if the Club and it's partners hadn't of left the area to rot.

It's all public money and it's been needed since the 90s if not the 80s. The government had allocated over £200m to regenerate an area comprising 1700 homes stretching from the Isla Gladstone corner to Breck Road. That was the extent of the decline in the area

Offline Al 666

  • 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.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,084
  • JFT 96
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #101 on: September 1, 2016, 08:10:17 PM »
It's all public money and it's been needed since the 90s if not the 80s. The government had allocated over £200m to regenerate an area comprising 1700 homes stretching from the Isla Gladstone corner to Breck Road. That was the extent of the decline in the area

Those were the houses that were part of the Club and Councils scheme. Remarkably pretty identical housing stock on the other side of the ground all the way down to Pinehurst Road hasn't needed regeneration. You know the score Peter houses are ear marked for demolition and that means no one invests in those properties and the scumbag speculators snap them up and the area is destroyed.
One thing does need to be said: in the post-Benitez era, there was media-led clamour (but also some politicking going on at the club) to make the club more English; the idea being that the club had lost the very essence of what it means to be ‘Liverpool’. Guillem Ballague 18/11/10

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #102 on: September 1, 2016, 11:29:46 PM »
I wouldn't worry to much about what the Echo says but we've all been led to believe that the total investment in the area, including the stadium, is £260m. No business can pay for CPO. CPO are issued in the public interest. As far as I'm aware no CPO were issued or very few indeed to the absentee and overseas landlords who could not be contacted.

So not £100m then...

Your point about CPO's only being available in the public interest is well made. Which is why the Council vote to approve the use of CPO's, which is on record, was so extraordinary.

Like you, I am unaware if any were ultimately used, but the approval of their use was all that was required.

I also do not believe that any owners could not be contacted, only that there were those who, understandably, held out for as long as they could.

The acquisition of all the necessary ownerships was not our finest hour, and another casualty of the half new/half old project.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,622
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #103 on: September 2, 2016, 05:16:46 AM »
Those were the houses that were part of the Club and Councils scheme. Remarkably pretty identical housing stock on the other side of the ground all the way down to Pinehurst Road hasn't needed regeneration. You know the score Peter houses are ear marked for demolition and that means no one invests in those properties and the scumbag speculators snap them up and the area is destroyed.

You are 100% wrong. The 1700 houses were part of central government's Housing Market Renewal Initiative (HMRI) - led by Tony Prescott and ultimately canned by Grant Shapps and selected on an assessment of the city housing stock and condition.

And NONE of the houses behind the main stand were included - all the way back to Rockfield/Anfield Road. In fact houses in Tancred Road cost MORE to refurbish than they could be sold for. That's the extent of the pre-existing decline. Or are you suggesting that the club is responsible for all the houses from Walton Lane to Breck Road? Ridiculous.


So not £100m then...

Your point about CPO's only being available in the public interest is well made. Which is why the Council vote to approve the use of CPO's, which is on record, was so extraordinary.

Like you, I am unaware if any were ultimately used, but the approval of their use was all that was required.

I also do not believe that any owners could not be contacted, only that there were those who, understandably, held out for as long as they could.

The acquisition of all the necessary ownerships was not our finest hour, and another casualty of the half new/half old project.

Yes, £100m. £100m provided for regeneration and the rest for the stadium. What's so hard to understand?

If CPO had been used, it would have been in the greater public interest. That is what they are for. As far as we know, none were used. So, everyone got paid over market value - everyone got paid market value plus 10% including landlords whether absentee or not, plus expenses for moving etc for all residents including tenants.

As you well know as I've told you often enough, there was NO money for regeneration coming from the new stadium. NONE. A new stadium would have left the area to rot.

The club working with the city has turned that round and managed to secure funding to replace at least part of the funds axed by government (see above) as a direct result of redeveloping the existing ground.

Finest hour is a bit grand but yes, redevelopment and regeneration of Anfield is a great achievement.
« Last Edit: September 2, 2016, 05:48:29 AM by Peter McGurk »

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #104 on: September 2, 2016, 10:49:52 AM »

Yes, £100m. £100m provided for regeneration and the rest for the stadium. What's so hard to understand?

If CPO had been used, it would have been in the greater public interest. That is what they are for. As far as we know, none were used. So, everyone got paid over market value - everyone got paid market value plus 10% including landlords whether absentee or not, plus expenses for moving etc for all residents including tenants.

As you well know as I've told you often enough, there was NO money for regeneration coming from the new stadium. NONE. A new stadium would have left the area to rot.

The club working with the city has turned that round and managed to secure funding to replace at least part of the funds axed by government (see above) as a direct result of redeveloping the existing ground.

Finest hour is a bit grand but yes, redevelopment and regeneration of Anfield is a great achievement.
This is a pretty disingenuous post.

You say £100m “provided for regeneration and the rest for the stadium”. Are you suggesting that public money was provided for the stadium as you imply?

The question regarding the use of a CPO was how enlarging the stand and increasing the revenue of an extraordinarily rich private company was in the public interest?

Somehow, the Council was able to swing CPO’s for land the Club needed to expand the Main Stand under the auspices of a broader regeneration project. Quite a favour.

IF the New Anfield had been built, the consent provided for the pitch to be retained as POS, and the surrounds to be redeveloped as Anfield Plaza. That in turn would have been part of the regeneration which is happening now. Your claim that a new stadium would “have left the area to rot” is simply untrue.

The idea that redeveloping the existing ground, rather than building a new stadium with facilities far greater than a new main stand can match, and creating Anfield Plaza, has facilitated investment for the former, that would not have been forthcoming for the latter, has no basis whatsoever.

We are agreed that regenerating the Anfield district is a good thing. But the Club has played no part in that other than building a new stand.
« Last Edit: September 2, 2016, 11:40:21 AM by whiteboots »

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,622
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #105 on: September 2, 2016, 07:06:22 PM »
This is a pretty disingenuous post.

You say £100m “provided for regeneration and the rest for the stadium”. Are you suggesting that public money was provided for the stadium as you imply?

The question regarding the use of a CPO was how enlarging the stand and increasing the revenue of an extraordinarily rich private company was in the public interest?

Somehow, the Council was able to swing CPO’s for land the Club needed to expand the Main Stand under the auspices of a broader regeneration project. Quite a favour.

IF the New Anfield had been built, the consent provided for the pitch to be retained as POS, and the surrounds to be redeveloped as Anfield Plaza. That in turn would have been part of the regeneration which is happening now. Your claim that a new stadium would “have left the area to rot” is simply untrue.

The idea that redeveloping the existing ground, rather than building a new stadium with facilities far greater than a new main stand can match, and creating Anfield Plaza, has facilitated investment for the former, that would not have been forthcoming for the latter, has no basis whatsoever.

We are agreed that regenerating the Anfield district is a good thing. But the Club has played no part in that other than building a new stand.

I imply nothing of the sort. They are funded separately, working together for mutual benefit. Acquiring (all) of the land was indeed in the public interest. The club could not possibly have any need or interest in houses up to half a mile away.

Do you imagine the club spent £100m on regeneration to get the threat of CPO? Pretty illegal stuff. Of course it's public money. No one has ever claimed otherwise. Even that amount of money would have been hard pressed to put up an extra lamp post, let alone match the 106 agreements which are no doubt funding the public realm around the stadium.

As you also well know but continue to bang on about, the 'Anfield Plaza' was a sop. Never really costed and had no basis in financial viability. There wasn't even a commitment to build it.

There was no money for regeneration out of a new stadium. NONE. There was a commitment to refurbish the park in partnership with council, part-funded by EU money and a ground rent to be paid on that end of the park - and to rebuild the Vernon Sangster. That is all. Nothing for houses. No market value plus 10%. No moving expenses. Nothing for public improvements - unless you count a dog toilet where the pitch used to be.

« Last Edit: September 2, 2016, 07:21:57 PM by Peter McGurk »

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #106 on: September 3, 2016, 12:48:08 AM »
I imply nothing of the sort.
My point is that the Club have made no contribution whatsoever to the regeneration of the area, but benefitted from the CPO instrument to redevelop the main stand.

Anfield Plaza was not a sop. It was part of the planning permission which would have generated capital value and income for the club which would have far exceeded the rent we were asked to pay for Stanley Park. It would also have been “free money” under FFP. My belief, and understanding, is that FSG simply took a strategic decision not to become involved in any investment beyond the existing Anfield stadium itself.

The regeneration of the Anfield district would have occurred if we had moved to the new stadium. We have contributed nothing following the Main Stand redevelopment, so how would the redevelopment offer any benefit in that regard?

You are wrong when you say that there was no regeneration money from a new stadium move. A 106 contribution was part of the consent, but never negotiated, as the scheme did not go ahead.

I am proud of my club, and city. I am not proud of the fact that FSG has done the bare minimum to improve the ground, whilst offering nothing back to the city which supports it. That pretty much summarises why, on topic, “We are where we are”.

Offline Peter McGurk

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,622
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #107 on: September 3, 2016, 02:26:39 PM »
My point is that the Club have made no contribution whatsoever to the regeneration of the area, but benefitted from the CPO instrument to redevelop the main stand.

Anfield Plaza was not a sop. It was part of the planning permission which would have generated capital value and income for the club which would have far exceeded the rent we were asked to pay for Stanley Park. It would also have been “free money” under FFP. My belief, and understanding, is that FSG simply took a strategic decision not to become involved in any investment beyond the existing Anfield stadium itself.

The regeneration of the Anfield district would have occurred if we had moved to the new stadium. We have contributed nothing following the Main Stand redevelopment, so how would the redevelopment offer any benefit in that regard?

You are wrong when you say that there was no regeneration money from a new stadium move. A 106 contribution was part of the consent, but never negotiated, as the scheme did not go ahead.

I am proud of my club, and city. I am not proud of the fact that FSG has done the bare minimum to improve the ground, whilst offering nothing back to the city which supports it. That pretty much summarises why, on topic, “We are where we are”.

This 'free money' idea is ridiculous. A pound is a pound and if you have to spend it, it still has come from your own pocket. While stadium money would not count towards the profit and loss calculation under FFP, someone still has to pay it!

Not only that but it would be a huge stretch to suggest that money spent on a commercial development of Anfield Plaza would qualify. And not only that, but if you look at the proposed content, it is extraordinarily vague. There was no feasibility study and even the planners report to committee threw doubt on its viability and its potential for employment generation.

It's time to move on from all that. Anfield Plaza was always a sop, a pie-crust promise, any analogy you like. It would never have happened and it offered nothing to the community.

There was no cross-funding from the stadium for the regeneration of Anfield. The benefits were as I stated - mostly to do with the park. The regeneration of the area was funded by HMRI, which Grant Shapps duly pulled the plug on, leaving council with nothing and a load of empty land already cleared in preparation.

FSG have or will invest over £150m in a stadium for the club. Working with council and through the planning system and 106 agreements to the club and the area's mutual benefit. They could have moved to Kirkby or anywhere they damn well pleasey.

That is their business. It is not their business to build or refurbish houses. It's not the club or the owner's responsibility to look after the area - that would be council's responsibility. It was completely in their own interests of the club and the owners for LFC to stay at Anfield. No doubt about it. You should be proud that they and council have managed to do it in such a way as to be of benefit to the community as well.
« Last Edit: September 3, 2016, 02:44:08 PM by Peter McGurk »

Offline Alf

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,526
  • Leader of Alf Quaida & the Scaliban
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #108 on: September 3, 2016, 03:35:56 PM »
The number of corporate/hospitality seats is set and agreed with the ARE being all general admission.

I take it that's in the planning application?

Offline whiteboots

  • Kopite
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #109 on: September 5, 2016, 11:18:47 AM »
This 'free money' idea is ridiculous. .
“Free money” is a fact. It is a reference to Clubs under FFP being able to spend money on an investment ( stadium and associated infrastructure) where that expenditure is not counted under FFP, but where the income from it can be allowed. Hence the income being deemed to be “free”.

Man City have expertly exploited the revenue generation from associated activities on their site for that reason.

There is, and was, absolutely no reason why a commercial development of Anfield Plaza could not have been a success, indeed the Council saw it as an integral part of the overall regeneration of the area which is now taking part. Would it have been for certain? We will never know as it didn’t happen.

I agree there was no cross funding. You must agree that the Anfield area regeneration would have taken place anyway.

You are correct in saying that the club is likely to invest £150m in the stadium ( if the new ARE is built too). I saw the planning consents. I saw no 106 requirement, or associated community payment, in respect of the building of either new stand. Correct me if I have missed something.

The new Anfield DID come with such obligations, not negotiated, as the consent was not implemented.

To be fair, FSG have been consistent. They expressed no desire to invest in non-footballing activity ( why invest in Anfield when you can invest in Mayfair?). They have also maximised revenue from the site, whilst  letting others spend money on the surrounds.

The Council would have been better off if we had moved to Stanley Park as they would have benefitted from the rent from the stadium, the rates from Anfield Plaza, and the 106 and associated payments which were a condition of planning.

You are right to say that FSG have maximised FSG’s position, but at the expense of the community, and I am not proud of that.


Offline Peter McGurk

  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,622
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #110 on: September 5, 2016, 09:14:48 PM »
“Free money” is a fact. It is a reference to Clubs under FFP being able to spend money on an investment ( stadium and associated infrastructure) where that expenditure is not counted under FFP, but where the income from it can be allowed. Hence the income being deemed to be “free”.

Man City have expertly exploited the revenue generation from associated activities on their site for that reason.

There is, and was, absolutely no reason why a commercial development of Anfield Plaza could not have been a success, indeed the Council saw it as an integral part of the overall regeneration of the area which is now taking part. Would it have been for certain? We will never know as it didn’t happen.

I agree there was no cross funding. You must agree that the Anfield area regeneration would have taken place anyway.

You are correct in saying that the club is likely to invest £150m in the stadium ( if the new ARE is built too). I saw the planning consents. I saw no 106 requirement, or associated community payment, in respect of the building of either new stand. Correct me if I have missed something.

The new Anfield DID come with such obligations, not negotiated, as the consent was not implemented.

To be fair, FSG have been consistent. They expressed no desire to invest in non-footballing activity ( why invest in Anfield when you can invest in Mayfair?). They have also maximised revenue from the site, whilst  letting others spend money on the surrounds.

The Council would have been better off if we had moved to Stanley Park as they would have benefitted from the rent from the stadium, the rates from Anfield Plaza, and the 106 and associated payments which were a condition of planning.

You are right to say that FSG have maximised FSG’s position, but at the expense of the community, and I am not proud of that.

Permission has been granted subject to the applicants entering into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Details of the agreement are available on request.

All anyone is obliged to do is to mitigate any impact of their proposed development on the locality. In this instance that is to the mutual benefit of club and community. I would absolutely hope the club maximises the revenue from the property because that revenue is staying in the club.

And then there's £150m interest free, which if you want to sniff at...


Can I have a free fiver till pay day? It won't count under FFP.
« Last Edit: September 5, 2016, 09:36:38 PM by Peter McGurk »

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,202
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #111 on: September 5, 2016, 09:38:15 PM »
That could change surely?  It's not something that I'd be wishing for at all, just to make clear, but if it meant the difference between the stand being expanded and not expanded at all, it might be worth revisiting.

As it is, there a quite a number of Hospitality tickets in the Upper ARE, where the hospitality is provided off site in the Isla Gladstone and in some city centre hotels.  It would probably make more sense, from the club's point of view, if those facilities were in the expanded ARE.

If an expanded ARE was all General Admission, hopefully the concourses would be brought up to the  standards of the new Main.

I doubt that would make any sense. If there are any hospitality seats in the ARE after everything's complete I think the facilities would be off site.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Believer
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,202
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Why we are where we are
« Reply #112 on: September 5, 2016, 10:20:12 PM »
We seem to be going round in circles in this thread. Locked.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.