Liverpool FC housing association

  • Thread starter Thread starter c1973
  • Start date Start date
The area around the ground has been the dumps since the 60's - it has needed regeneration for decades now

The club did approach a great amount of the owners of the houses and a number sold out at above market value but a number refused to leave

Now hopefully the area will be regenerated and things can move forward for both the area and the club
 
This article seems to be a hatchet job to me. I am not a Liverpool fan but I know that area and the history due to family living around there. Liverpool wanted to expand the ground and for about 20 years plus have asked residents to sell. They bought as many houses as they could and a very small number said no. I am not aware of undue pressure put on those left but what were the club supposed to do with the houses they had bought? Fill them with tenants who would then have to be evicted the moment the mainly elderly remaining home owners died allowing their homes to be bought by the club? That would have been worse PR.

The area around the ground is not great so if they can improve it then good for them.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
This article seems to be a hatchet job to me. I am not a Liverpool fan but I know that area and the history due to family living around there. Liverpool wanted to expand the ground and for about 20 years plus have asked residents to sell. They bought as many houses as they could and a very small number said no. I am not aware of undue pressure put on those left but what were the club supposed to do with the houses they had bought? Fill them with tenants who would then have to be evicted the moment the mainly elderly remaining home owners died allowing their homes to be bought by the club? That would have been worse PR.

The area around the ground is not great so if they can improve it then good for them.
Click to expand...

LFC done what they've needed to do to acquire the land around the stadium. The football club have held the council and local area to ransom with their false promises. Remember the new stadium we should've been in by 2004, 10 years later we're no closer to a new stadium.

Between themselves and the local council over the last 20 they've let down the whole north end with their lack of funding and investment in some of the most deprived areas.

But not to worry we'll have a nice new stand, a hotel and more shop space empty or full.
 
Stuart_C said:
LFC done what they've needed to do to acquire the land around the stadium. The football club have held the council and local area to ransom with their false promises. Remember the new stadium we should've been in by 2004, 10 years later we're no closer to a new stadium.

Between themselves and the local council over the last 20 they've let down the whole north end with their lack of funding and investment in some of the most deprived areas.

But not to worry we'll have a nice new stand, a hotel and more shop space empty or full.
Click to expand...

The club and the council have been poor over the whole of the last 15 years on this.

However, there is an arc of similar areas 2-3 miles out of the city centre that have been in a similar situation for the last 15 years. Smithdown, Edge Hill, Kensington, Everton and Anfield have also fell into the same neglect.

The only plus is that Anfield does now seem to be coming through it with some decent housing, schools and community facilities being built. Still a long way to go though.
 
I use to go to a lot of away grounds around England in all divisions and believe me, there were some places that were a lot worse than anything this article portrays. It does seem a little sensationalistic (strange that) but I never really felt Liverpool was any worse than many others. There again as a travelling fan in the late 70's and early 80's you never really given much time to look at the neighbourhood nor to be fair would you have wanted to hang around
 
Liverbirdie said:
The club and the council have been poor over the whole of the last 15 years on this.

However, there is an arc of similar areas 2-3 miles out of the city centre that have been in a similar situation for the last 15 years. Smithdown, Edge Hill, Kensington, Everton and Anfield have also fell into the same neglect.

The only plus is that Anfield does now seem to be coming through it with some decent housing, schools and community facilities being built. Still a long way to go though.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree with most of your point, the council have always blamed the club for them not investing in the area. Instead of them pulling their fingers out of the backside and regenerating the area round the ground instead of standing still.

The residents in the anfield/breckfield community have been left to live in run down areas all because of the council and LFC.

The council have blamed LFC and LFC have blamed the council but all the while the residents suffer. That should never have been allowed to happen under any government/local authority.

The whole area needs investment in jobs, and looking at Liverpool's recent changes to their own staff contracts changing them to zero hours contracts it doesn't look like they care very much.
 
Stuart_C said:
Whilst I agree with most of your point, the council have always blamed the club for them not investing in the area. Instead of them pulling their fingers out of the backside and regenerating the area round the ground instead of standing still.

The residents in the anfield/breckfield community have been left to live in run down areas all because of the council and LFC.

The council have blamed LFC and LFC have blamed the council but all the while the residents suffer. That should never have been allowed to happen under any government/local authority.

The whole area needs investment in jobs, and looking at Liverpool's recent changes to their own staff contracts changing them to zero hours contracts it doesn't look like they care very much.
Click to expand...

And on that we are fully agreed.

Be funny to see how Everton get on with Wally hall park (please let them call it the wally hall stadium).:whoo:
 
Liverbirdie said:
And on that we are fully agreed.

Be funny to see how Everton get on with Wally hall park (please let them call it the wally hall stadium).:whoo:
Click to expand...

There's going to be a lot of local people against it, if they use that space there won't be much green land left.

Wally hall park is well used too and I'm sure the residents in the immediate area won't be happy. I actually know a fella personally who bought a house overlooking the park.
 
It is the ideal spot though. When I go to games it is where I park, they set up as a car park for home games. 10 minute walk from Goodison, corner shop and chippy nearby (okay maybe that is just me who likes them although by the queue size after matches I suspect not), good road connections. Ticks all the boxes. I appreciate there is a price to pay but that applies to any new build where you are moving the stadium. The alternative, they have been looking for years, is a ground move miles away and that is never popular.

Would this be a good time to highlight the absolute logic in a ground share and the pig headedness of a refusal to look at it?
 
Lord Tyrion said:
And so it begins................
Click to expand...

I do think that our clubs do have distinct identities, and then there are another million factors.

However, if it was for us to get the Olympics (never happen) or something like that, I would be in favour.

I don't know why, but can I ask you as a neutral, why do the two Merseyside clubs always get held up as the main protagonists on this discussion (even over the last 30 years, before others moved grounds)?

Ok, our two grounds are very close and both need a big upgrade, but I never see many other 2 club cities asked this question as much.

A communal ground at Washington for Newcastle/Sunderland, 1 for the two Sheffield clubs, Bristol and Nottingham. Birmingham and West Brom, Soton/Pompey.
 
Last edited:
Even with the Olympics I don't think the culture of football in the UK allows clubs to ground share just look at the farce of the London Olympic stadium.
Manchester had the commonwealth games and there was never 1 iota of a chance of the stadium being shared.

Can only assume the close proximity and the fact there's a "nice" big park to build a ground on causes neutrals to sight Liverpool as a pioneer.
Can't ever see it happening though.

Even down the leagues Bristol Rovers went to bath rather than City when they needed a ground share.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
It is the ideal spot though. When I go to games it is where I park, they set up as a car park for home games. 10 minute walk from Goodison, corner shop and chippy nearby (okay maybe that is just me who likes them although by the queue size after matches I suspect not), good road connections. Ticks all the boxes. I appreciate there is a price to pay but that applies to any new build where you are moving the stadium. The alternative, they have been looking for years, is a ground move miles away and that is never popular.

Would this be a good time to highlight the absolute logic in a ground share and the pig headedness of a refusal to look at it?
Click to expand...

Before i start my opinion is not biased against EFC whatsoever.

It may tick all the boxes for a matchgoing fan but how about the regular user's of the beautiful park??

That park is a wonderful open space for everybody to use and it's well kept/patrolled. Building a stadium on it would be scandalous imo.

There's plenty of open space in other areas of the city that could be used without much disturbance.

On the groundshare issue, the boat has been missed on this.

LFC alone have spent millions on plans,acquiring land etc in the last 20yrs, and to be fair EFC haven't had a penny of their own money or sponsorship to be able to come to the table with a package to finance a groundshare. Do EFC have the finances or sponsorship to be able to build a new stadium of their own?

Everton had their chance of a new stadium but was vetoed by their fans. Maybe that was down to the "pigheadedness" of the majority thy voted against the move.
 
I think there are two answers, proximity and need. One joint stadium in Stanley Park would have minimum impact for both sets of supporters as the location is near to both existing stadiums. One stadium in Washington for example would mean a significant move for fans of both Newcastle and Sunderland. For either team it would be an illogical move.

Need, most of the teams mentioned either have perfectly decent stadiums, Man City + Utd, Newcastle + Sunderland or simply can not financially justify a new one being built, Sheffield Utd + Wedensday, Bristol City and Rovers. Everton need a new stadium, Liverpool need an upgraded and larger stadium. Both are established Premier League teams with relatively sound financial set ups.

Rather than hamstring both clubs why not share the costs of the build and day to day running costs? It works in Italy, it works in Germany. Even the mighty Bayern Munich stadium share. We need to move on and face reality.

Head raised above parapet.
 
Stuart_C said:
Everton had their chance of a new stadium but was vetoed by their fans. Maybe that was down to the "pigheadedness" of the majority thy voted against the move.
Click to expand...

To be fair that related to a move to Kirkby. It was a significant move in terms of distance and few fans like that whatever their club.

LFC have not only bought houses around Anfield, they actually had planning to build in Stanley Park, designs the lot as you know. Another wedge spent on an alternative so they were running two boats so to speak. That was the obvious groundshare. It could be re-visited if the will was there but I doubt whether it is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
New women's tees
4 5 6
Replies
115
Views
4K
Tashyboy
Tashyboy
1
West Coast Golf Trip
Replies
12
Views
7K
patricks148
patricks148
virtuocity
Custom Fitting- The Evidence Base (VERY long post)
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
22K
Backsticks
Backsticks
Qwerty
Salford 92 FC
Replies
10
Views
1K
bluewolf
bluewolf
F
Cleveland Golf Club
Replies
6
Views
3K
2blue
2blue
Top