• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Liverpool set to sell Naming Rights to new Stadium

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can't disagree with that peter. The council are shocking in their behaviour at times.
 
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=38421.msg1363222#msg1363222 date=1310382349]

Totally agree with this. I think the council would invest into a shared stadium but I doubt Everton could foot their share of the bill and we'd be left footing the bill for another team to use. Most fans wouldn't want a shared stadium anyway - red or blue.
[/quote]

To be fair it would be awkward for them to put funding into one but not the other in a situation where both are looking to move. Good way to alienate half of the city that, and ultimately they want votes!

However, with big clubs they would tend not to need the council to fund the construction, just to be supportive of the application and to realise the potential it might give by supporting and funding transport links etc. Its a very short-sighted council that would receive a planning application, put their wallets away and try to get the external developers to fund more and more and more on top of it. All that will do will delay things, so nobody is better off.
 
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=38421.msg1363230#msg1363230 date=1310382817]
Can't disagree with that peter. The council are shocking in their behaviour at times.
[/quote]

manu have 70,000 I bet the manchester council made it easy for them even though weekends much bring manchester to a standstill.
 
[quote author=Richey link=topic=38421.msg1363233#msg1363233 date=1310383119]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=38421.msg1363222#msg1363222 date=1310382349]

Totally agree with this. I think the council would invest into a shared stadium but I doubt Everton could foot their share of the bill and we'd be left footing the bill for another team to use. Most fans wouldn't want a shared stadium anyway - red or blue.
[/quote]

To be fair it would be awkward for them to put funding into one but not the other in a situation where both are looking to move. Good way to alienate half of the city that, and ultimately they want votes!

However, with big clubs they would tend not to need the council to fund the construction, just to be supportive of the application and to realise the potential it might give by supporting and funding transport links etc. Its a very short-sighted council that would receive a planning application, put their wallets away and try to get the external developers to fund more and more and more on top of it. All that will do will delay things, so nobody is better off.
[/quote]

They get the planning permission, look at the surrounding area being run down, & say 'you're responsible for that area cos you use it, so we want you to do X, Y & Z, & fund A, B & C'. The truth is they should be thinking that if they demand more & more it may force the club to move to a brownfield area, such as Speke, making Anfield desolate wasteland, & driving tourist/fan money out of the city centre hotels & businesses.

It's not just short-sighted, it's positively fucking criminal.

BTW, LFC paid for most of that new Isla Gladstone conservatory development (the conservatory isn't new, its listed but was derelict) in Stanley Park, refurbing it to the tune of 12m in total, & arent even fucking mentioned on the site for it, never mind thanked.
 
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=38421.msg1363248#msg1363248 date=1310384319]

They get the planning permission, look at the surrounding area being run down, & say 'you're responsible for that area cos you use it, so we want you to do X, Y & Z, & fund A, B & C'. The truth is they should be thinking that if they demand more & more it may force the club to move to a brownfield area, such as Speke, making Anfield desolate wasteland, & driving tourist/fan money out of the city centre hotels & businesses.

It's not just short-sighted, it's positively fucking criminal.

BTW, LFC paid for most of that new Isla Gladstone conservatory development (the conservatory isn't new, its listed but was derelict) in Stanley Park, refurbing it to the tune of 12m in total, & arent even fucking mentioned on the site for it, never mind thanked.
[/quote]

Well yeah, that quite possibly would be criminal! If the City Council want to build something in Speke then its up to them to do so and tender for it. They can't take one planning application and say 'no, not there but we'd say yes if you did it over here' instead.

Its not criminal to ask a developer to do X, Y and Z as a clause within the application but its a big risk to do so and often extremely unwise, especially with something like a football club which has a track record of bringing a huge amount of benefit to the city.

If you had a great big global company coming in wanting to take over a town centre by buying up all the buildings then yeah, as a council you would try to get what you can out of them but I don't think the same should apply for a football club. The Council should be well aware that the club is not loaded and should see the benefits of helping.
 
I thought it was pretty funny;all 'Airplane' like from peter

Its good to see a lot of practical thinking from Ayres on this, I'd actually thought that whilst we're talking about 60000, a new stadium clearly made less sense than refurbishing Anfield. The stadium has such a strong hold on millions of fans worldwide and to all intents and purposes,it is probably the most iconic structure in Liverpool, even more so than the Graces and the most humongous church in Britain.Leaving it will be heart-wrenching,and an extra 15000 seats and 400 million in debt ceertainly made less sense than perhaps another 6-8000 seats at maybe a quarter the cost. Its annoying that the Council isn't moving heaven and earth to keep us in Anfield,or at least close to the city. So much is lost when you move the stadium far away,you lose the sense of identity the locals bring to it. So much of Anfield is found in the hearts of the locals of the area, and in the pilgrims trekking their way there from all over. If we move,its scary to think it'd something like Taksim Square
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=38421.msg1363228#msg1363228 date=1310382643]
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=38421.msg1363214#msg1363214 date=1310381747]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=38421.msg1363174#msg1363174 date=1310378080]
Tbh if we have to leave anfield then i'm coming round to Vlad's view that we should just relocate to somewhere like Speke and be done with it. Better transport links and the freedom to choose our own capacity without first having to redesign half of North Liverpool. As for the design, I'd like to see something on the lines of the Dortmund stadium, which has the benefit of being fairly unique, focussed on the fans/atmosphere, and relatively simple and therefore, one would presume, cheap.
[/quote]

Speke would be a terrible move. There's nothing there. There's a social scene tagged onto going the match and having it in the middle of nowhere in Speke just doesn't fly with me as those facilities are not available. The public transport links to Speke are pitiful as well. We've had an airport there for fucking years and the nearest rail station they've been able to build is 2 miles away ! The councill are acting like bellends as well. Instead of using us a cash cow they need to realise there's a number of businesses in Anfield whose very existence rely on LFC being there. The council are being utter idiots in the way they are behaving. LFC moving out of Anfield will see the area become even more deprived than it is. Squiggles is right - they're putting unnesccesary pressure on a business that brings millions into the city every year just because they've been unable to get their own shit together as regards regeneration. Apart from the 2008 European and private investment the council have consistently and conveniently failed for years with regards to regeneration instead relying on pity and outside investment which isn't enough.

LFC belongs in Anfield for me. Yes we have to move on but we have to retain some of our history at least plus its proximity to the centre of the city is of great value. When our OOTer fans come to visit they will generally stay in the city centre. Any new ground should be near the city and Speke is nearer to Widnes than Liverpool city centre. Planting a new stadium in a soulless brownfield site at the southern arse end of Liverpool doesn't do that. It'll be shite. Look at the Riverside stadium as an example. Nice stadium with fuck all around it.

No to Speke.
[/quote]

ok, i'm sure you're probably right re location tbf. i'm just frustrated like the rest of you with the demands the council place on the club: as others have said they should be making it as easy as possible for us to grow and reach our potential. the one thing i don't want is some compromise whereby we leave anfield but end up in a similar situation 10 years down the line because we can't grow without onerous demands from the local gov.
[/quote]

I thought Speke, when it was first raised five years or more ago made some sense actually Sunny.
I accept the reservations over where to meet and have a pint without well.....reservation, and there would be nowhere that could be a substitute for the Harry, but the rest of it from a practicality point is different
The transport links and the suitability of the infrastructure are really something else. Liverpool SouthParkway transport hub is just over a mile away , that is local rail, main line and bus (I agree it is over two miles from the airport and that did not make much sense). The site in question was Silcocks old marshalling yard , that is still used but not to the same extent as it used to be when Fords where at the most productive. The site actually has it's own rail spur going into it. It is at the start of route 7 which now links into the knowsley express-way which in turn links with the M62 in both directions and the M57 (dead handy for North Liverpool as you will know Mr S). It also feeds onto the Runcorn bridge and when the new bridge is built will enhance transport even further.
With not too much traffic management by the authorities you could empty the area in no time There are loads of industrial areas around for turning into parking too.
The airport is on the door step as has been noted, and there are quite a few new hotels springing up.
I am flattered that anyone remembered my support for Speke, but as Peter reminds us , it is in an industrial area so no issue with neighbours and planning (which has been a big plus for the Mancs), and it is also still in Liverpool....oh and it is only about ten minutes away from me 😉.

The Anfield area barely copes with 45k people now, let alone a 50% increase on that.

I would not be too dismissive of it


regards
 
Walton MP Steve Rotheram wants meeting with Liverpool FC over stadium progress
by David Bartlett, Liverpool Echo


WALTON MP Steve Rotheram has warned that Liverpool FC’s delays in deciding to stay at Anfield or move to a new stadium is causing tensions in the local community.

The Labour MP, who is also a Reds season ticket holder, is in the process of arranging a meeting with the club to discuss the situation.

He said: “We are trying to organise a meeting with owners for an update, the uncertainty for the residents is really starting to cause tensions. I hope that the football club are able to come up with the right decision for the club that helps the area.”

He said he understood that the new owners need time as the decision is crucial to the club and the surrounding area.

He added: “It has to be the right decision for everybody, this is a massive opportunity to regenerate the whole of the north of Liverpool not just Anfield.

“Residents have put up with a lot of issues over the past few years.

“My preference is that the local residents there get something they have been looking for – the opportunity for something to happen in that area.

“The broken promises of the previous owners have come back to haunt the current owners.”

He said he hoped to meet with the club’s hierarchy within the next “two weeks or so” to discuss the stadium question.
 
Council leader Joe Anderson: Don't blame us over Liverpool FC Anfield redevelopment saga
by David Bartlett, Liverpool Echo

Anfield and the site of the proposed new stadium on Stanley Park LIVERPOOL City council leader Joe Anderson today insisted the local authority is not to blame for Liverpool FC’s problems redeveloping Anfield.

He warned the club it would likely take three years to clear all the hurdles required to stay in its present ground.

In an interview with the ECHO, he spelled out the facts he sees standing in Liverpool FC’s way with one of the most significant being national planning restrictions.

Cllr Anderson said that the extra height of extended stands blocking daylight to nearby homes is a key consideration.

His remarks followed a statement from Liverpool FC chief executive Ian Ayre on Sunday, saying that redevelopment of Anfield was looking increasingly unlikely, due to land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory barriers.

Cllr Anderson said: “You can’t build something right next to someone’s house that blocks day light – whether Liverpool FC like it or not. That is something that exists.

“It existed 10 years ago when they were talking about it then, and it exists today.”

He also said issuing a compulsory purchase order (CPO) is not as easy as many people believe, as there have to be clear regeneration grounds.

* View an interactive timeline below of the whole stadium story since LFC first announced their plans to build on Stanley Park in June 2000 (click on each item in the timeline to for reports on how we covered the stories at the time)

Cllr Anderson said: “They are not our rules, they are national legal requirements.

“We will do everything we can to assist Liverpool FC and help them.

“The original problems, before they decided to move to Stanley Park, are the same now because people have the right to light, and there are all kinds of issues like that.

“We have said that they have to make the decision. If they want to negotiate with people around the stadium and come to a deal with them that allows them to build higher to increase capacity [that is fine].

“From our point of view, when Ian Ayre talks about the statutory requirements, local people have the right to light.”

He said he understands that the situation is not of the current owners’ making but that the community in Anfield has waited a long time for the club to move forward.

He added: “They are not starting with a blank sheet of paper, they have to deal with the situation they inherited.

“There is a cost in re-developing Anfield, they may have to wait three years before they can start.

“Even if it gets planning permission, that does not mean that people can’t appeal.

“People have rights. They have to be able to object and there has to be a strong regeneration argument.


“You can’t just move people out of their houses because you want a [redeveloped] stadium.

“There have to be wider benefits to the area, that includes jobs and the environment.”

Liverpool FC also face paying £8.2m of European Objective 1 grant funding that has already been spent renovating Stanley Park in preparation for the building of a new stadium.

Cllr Anderson said: “If Liverpool City Council has to pay the money back, Liverpool Football Club will have to pay the money back.

“Liverpool signed up to that, albeit under different owners.

“We believe we are in a strong position because we made it clear that Liverpool FC would be responsible.

“At the end of the day, I am working in a positive way with the club.”

He admitted he would consider extending the September deadline for the club making a decision on whether or not to take an option of a 999-year lease on Stanley Park.

He said: “If they can show me the progress that has been made, I don’t see us refusing point blank.

“We are working behind the scenes to move things on

“The bottom line is that Ian Ayre represents Liverpool FC, but I represent the city and the residents of Anfield.

“I want what is best for the residents of Anfield, the city, and the football club.”

Mr Ayre said that he understood frustrations, but that it was vital the club did things properly with the long term in mind.

“Just like any other business, we can only proceed as and when we are clear on all elements and we will not be forced to make a decision that is not in the best long-term interests of our club and we will not make any promises to our fans that we cannot keep.

“It’s disappointing that, based on where we are at the moment, we seem to be unable to press on with the more viable economic option of a refurbishment, but we remain committed to finding the best possible long-term solution.

“We already have a very healthy dialogue in place with several leading brands regarding naming rights for a new stadium, but like every major deal we have ever done, that just takes time to explore in full.

“Our challenge now is to try to find a way to bring all of those elements together in a solution that is in the best interests of Liverpool Football Club and its fans.”
 
Yet again more indications that our useless MPs are looking primarily to any Anfield or new stadium development to ensure the local area is regenerated. Well guess what? That's really the councils job. What are they throwing into it ?
 
I don't really see the problem. Liverpool fans wouldn't mind too much, and Everton fans have been living in our shadows for years, so what difference would it make to them?
 
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=38421.msg1362865#msg1362865 date=1310313546]
I know we use cunt liberally here but that seems a bit unnecessary.
[/quote]HAHAHAHHAHA How did you get off scott free for this beauty.

[move][size=18pt]WHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSHHH!![/size][/move]
 
Problem with all this is that Rotherham is a red and if he is seen leaning towards LFC he will have all manner of accusations and Anderson is a bluenose and will have similar problems the other way.
The thing is if Liverpool pulled out of the area it would become a wasteland, it is really struggling as it is. The top and bottom of all this is whatever is best for LFC is best for the area as a whole, if the club grow and expand that will bring more money into the area.
It's a very high handed way of looking at it but in truth it's not a case of look what LFC can do for the area, it should be a case of what can the area do for LFC


regards
 
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=38421.msg1363607#msg1363607 date=1310463928]
Problem with all this is that Rotherham is a red and if he is seen leaning towards LFC he will have all manner of accusations and Anderson is a bluenose and will have similar problems the other way.
The thing is if Liverpool pulled out of the area it would become a wasteland, it is really struggling as it is. The top and bottom of all this is whatever is best for LFC is best for the area as a whole, if the club grow and expand that will bring more money into the area.
It's a very high handed way of looking at it but in truth it's not a case of look what LFC can do for the area, it should be a case of what can the area do for LFC


regards
[/quote]

Agreed. This is what primarily irks me. It's as if the council are relying on us to redevelop the area which is fundamentally wrong. They should have had regeneration plans for the area regardless of LFC. I can understand they need to know LFC plans as it obviously does have a large impact on the area but for people who appear so focused on the wellbeing on Anfield's residents they've allowed it to decline into a disgraceful level of deprivation for which they really have no excuse.
 
Anderson is of course technically totally correct about the planning application to redevelop Anfield. People do have the rights he is talking about and CPO-ing houses is not an easy process - though he obviously wants the club to pay through the nose to buy those properties and fund the entire regeneration.

There is nothing stopping a council setting up a scheme to regenerate an area and including the club within those plans, apart from the fact it will cost them in the short term. Why do that when you can just try to get the club to pay for everything eh?
 
[quote author=Richey link=topic=38421.msg1363632#msg1363632 date=1310466513]
Anderson is of course technically totally correct about the planning application to redevelop Anfield. People do have the rights he is talking about and CPO-ing houses is not an easy process - though he obviously wants the club to pay through the nose to buy those properties and fund the entire regeneration.

There is nothing stopping a council setting up a scheme to regenerate an area and including the club within those plans, apart from the fact it will cost them in the short term. Why do that when you can just try to get the club to pay for everything eh?
[/quote]

Exactly
 
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=38421.msg1363628#msg1363628 date=1310466168]
They should have had regeneration plans for the area regardless of LFC. I can understand they need to know LFC plans as it obviously does have a large impact on the area but for people who appear so focused on the wellbeing on Anfield's residents they've allowed it to decline into a disgraceful level of deprivation for which they really have no excuse.
[/quote]

Well this opens up another question - do they want the area redeveloped?

As I say I suspect they probably do but don't fancy paying anything for any of it and are hoping the club will fund it all.
That also gets them out of having to CPO any houses or do anything else that might be unpopular ("it wasn't us, it was that football club&quot😉.
The recent statement from the council fits in with that in a sense too because they can then say down the line that they stood up to the football club and demanded that the plans were only approved once it was acceptable and the club put money into the community, whilst at the same time boasting about this lovely regenerated area and World Class stadium.
Every political box ticked there then basically.

On the other hand (the extremely cynical hand, I am happy to admit), maybe they don't want the area regenerated at all. Yes it is a run down area but in some circumstances, for some councils that can rather suit them in a way.
 
I mean for how many properties would light now become an issue ?. The club have been there for a long time so surely if you chose to live in that area then you'd be prepared to suffer a little from living beside a major stadium . I mean it's not like it was just built, locals should have known what they were getting into . I never get people who move into an area like that and then moan about the stadium impacting on their life . fair enough if they were placed in council housing there .
 
[quote author=RedZeppelin link=topic=38421.msg1363646#msg1363646 date=1310468821]
I mean for how many properties would light now become an issue ?. The club have been there for a long time so surely if you chose to live in that area then you'd be prepared to suffer a little from living beside a major stadium . I mean it's not like it was just built, locals should have known what they were getting into . I never get people who move into an area like that and then moan about the stadium impacting on their life . fair enough if they were placed in council housing there .
[/quote]

Chances are it wouldn't be light that is the issue really, it would be parking, or noise, or litter or vandalism or just general hassle that will come with having more people there every other Saturday.

If you have a planning application in your area you don't want you essentially go down the list of things that you might be able to raise as issues and pick the one(s) that might help you win the argument. Light is a difficult one to defend because whatever the club does, if it builds a big new stand it will block the light. If it has been turned down before on light too then then they can refer to the previous application and decision, whereas if a resident complains on the argument of litter for example then it can be passed on the condition that the club employs hundreds of cleaners to sweep it up after every match day.

You are right, the fact that people should know what they are getting themselves into by moving there should come into it but sadly it doesn't really.
 
If we're leaving Anfield to build a new stadium then I would prefer Vlad's Speke idea to Stanley Park.
 
Well, it's not exactly my idea Wilko, it looked at when Moores and Parry were looking at options .
As Sunny said there are some bits of tradition that surround the ground , not just the ground itself, like all the local boozers and meeting places that just will not survive.
But as I say, there are some distinct advantages to it.
The whole problem about this debate is a lot of good arguments defy logic, and a lot of bad ones make sense because of emotion and sentiment, and no harm in that, it makes us what we are.


regards
 
[quote author=Wilko link=topic=38421.msg1363662#msg1363662 date=1310470986]
If we're leaving Anfield to build a new stadium then I would prefer Vlad's Speke idea to Stanley Park.
[/quote]

Just wondering why that is Wilko ? Why would you have a preference to where the ground sits seeing as you're based across the pond and you're not likely to visit very often. Not having a pop there BTW just wondering why anyone based abroad would express such a preference.
 
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=38421.msg1363359#msg1363359 date=1310406307]
I thought Speke, when it was first raised five years or more ago made some sense actually Sunny.
I accept the reservations over where to meet and have a pint without well.....reservation, and there would be nowhere that could be a substitute for the Harry, but the rest of it from a practicality point is different
The transport links and the suitability of the infrastructure are really something else. Liverpool SouthParkway transport hub is just over a mile away , that is local rail, main line and bus (I agree it is over two miles from the airport and that did not make much sense). The site in question was Silcocks old marshalling yard , that is still used but not to the same extent as it used to be when Fords where at the most productive. The site actually has it's own rail spur going into it. It is at the start of route 7 which now links into the knowsley express-way which in turn links with the M62 in both directions and the M57 (dead handy for North Liverpool as you will know Mr S). It also feeds onto the Runcorn bridge and when the new bridge is built will enhance transport even further.
With not too much traffic management by the authorities you could empty the area in no time There are loads of industrial areas around for turning into parking too.
The airport is on the door step as has been noted, and there are quite a few new hotels springing up.
I am flattered that anyone remembered my support for Speke, but as Peter reminds us , it is in an industrial area so no issue with neighbours and planning (which has been a big plus for the Mancs), and it is also still in Liverpool....oh and it is only about ten minutes away from me 😉.

The Anfield area barely copes with 45k people now, let alone a 50% increase on that.

I would not be too dismissive of it


regards



[/quote]

Fair enough points Vlad but it would be completely sterile and there's more to going the match than just going to the match. I don't care if having stadium banged on to some industrial wastelands suits other teams I simply don't think it suits Liverpool. It also 9 miles outside the city centre which is where most visiting people will be located accommodation wise. New hotels or not, there's not enough to cope with the numbers. Nor is there enough public transport to cope with numbers. South Parkway is in Garston/Allerton, not Speke. The rail line you speak of that it maybe situated on is a mainline not a local line and thus people would have to get into town and transfer at Lime St. The buses would not cope with the numbers coming from everywhere. I don't care what people say about the infrastructure of Anfield. Fact is, it's central Liverpool and thus has links from the city, North and South Liverpool and thus the public transport load is well distributed whereas being in Speke will mean it's unidirectional. It'll be chaos and about £20 odd quid into town in a Joe. How many people do you seriously think will get off a plane and go straight the game ?

And it may be near for you Vlad but it's fucking miles for me and it would mean having a bevvy locally and getting a cab there and back and you're looking at £50-60 just in cab fares or about an hour on the train or double that on buses. Fuck all of that. My mates live all over the city and it would be logistically impossible for us to all meet up at the match as we have for 20 odd years. I'd be saying the same if they were looking in Kirkby by the way - which is 10 minutes for me !

So, in my view, if people want to retain what to me is the real occasion of going the match - meeting up, having a chat and a few beers, maybe a jaunt into town afterwards then LFC needs to remain in Anfield or at least central. If all it is about is just going to watch a game of footy then fine - plant it on some soulless sterile landscape in the arse end of the city.
 
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=38421.msg1363782#msg1363782 date=1310487078]
It's nearer the airport.
[/quote]

I'm sure there'll be loads of transatlantic flights landing just in time for the match
 
[quote author=RedZeppelin link=topic=38421.msg1363646#msg1363646 date=1310468821]
I mean for how many properties would light now become an issue ?. The club have been there for a long time so surely if you chose to live in that area then you'd be prepared to suffer a little from living beside a major stadium . I mean it's not like it was just built, locals should have known what they were getting into . I never get people who move into an area like that and then moan about the stadium impacting on their life . fair enough if they were placed in council housing there .
[/quote]

Loads of houses are boarded up. Get loads of light that way
 
Exactly Sunny.

Like I said, footy is about the exact opposite of logic.

If we were being logical we'd have a fucking belter of a stadium in Speke shared between us & Everton, but we'd all be supporting Utd or Chelsea anyway, cos if we're being logical, what's the point of supporting this group of overpaid foreigners, why not support the group of overpaid foreigners who are currently winning instead?
 
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=38421.msg1363761#msg1363761 date=1310484044]
Football isn't about logic. It's about the exct opposite in fact.
[/quote]

That's what I was trying to say 😉

regards
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom