Sorry Billy but it was a disgrace in the 60s - I went there every day. But it wasn't alone. My family came from off Park Road and that was a disgrace as well. The one thing that I will agree with you on was that the people were in general brill. Me Nan's door was open all day yet nobody even thought of robbing her. The steps were scrubbed and the brass done till it shone. The houses were poor terraces but the majority were so clean you could eat off the floor - it was a matter of pride. I can't argue with you about the clubs reaction in the 90s as I wasn't there. But what you say does not surprise me. Leadership at that time totally lost touch with the way that the market and society was changing.
However you describe it and however bad it was then mate this is what it's like now: please log in to view this image There's no one left to even scrub the steps or shine the brass now Dave. I'd never pretend the place was the garden of eden mate but my argument has always been the same. The area needed massive improvement then and it still needed it when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, the club needed to expand once all seaters came in and so needed a plan. Those running the club decided the best paln was to try and do everything on the sly. Had the club (via the owners) looked after and improved the lot of the people then we would have had all this boxed off a long time ago and everyone would have benefitted. It would have been a relatively small outlay for massive returns and yet they wanted to scrimp on that outlay and it's ultimately cost us big time. I've said all along (and often been derided by fellow friends/fans etc) that Shanks would have been turning in his grave just as much during the Moores era as the H&G one. Not only did those ****s lose touch with the markets and the financial realities they also completely lost touch with the soul of the club (and at a time when we should have been doing everything possible to unite the good folk of the city post Hillsborough). What were they thinking?
Billy they weren't thinking. We didn't lose our crown on the pitch. That happened because of the decisions made (and not made) in the Board Room. I totally agree with you about Shanks.
But Dave we are quick to blame H&G when the blame lies with one of our own, let's not forget he had **** all to do with our present owners buying the club, he sold us, our hopes and dreams and the residents of Anfield down the river, ok he made top dollar on his inheritance but he presented he was one of our own and shared the glory. #mooressoldhisoul
That's exactly what I mean. He was the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time when the tide started to turn against us. He inherited his wealth but he was not truly blessed with either leadership or executive skills. Unfortunately for us, the club and the people of Anfield, we had to pay the cost.
Let's just hope after all the ****e that we get it done this time and we do it right The area plans don't look too bad (slightly unambitious but a massive improvement nevertheless) and the suggestion in the op that we can do it without any reduction in capacity would be a massive bonus for the club if true.
Man City get the ok to add an extra 14,500 seats at The Etihad. http://www1.skysports.com/football/...anted-permission-to-expand-the-etihad-stadium Manchester City Council just make a decision and thats it, but the crap we have to go through(including having to get the ok from central government)shows the reason why this City is always left in Manchester's wake. Just like when our new proposed tram system and cruise terminal was backheeled by Westminster.
Don't we have a spade in the ground over at Stanley Park still... probably start rusting soon- we need to move it over to next to Anfield.
Its the difference between having an older ground where the city has grown around the stadium and a new stadium in the middle of waste ground. Means they have the space to expand, without having to buy up houses, and easy to gain permission to build as the land is at the moment empty. Don't see this as a issue of governments or councils (although it does seem Man City have had an easy ride), this is a problem of location.
Yep Roger , tbf they were given a brand new stadium for next to nothing after their city council had already cleared thousands of houses and businesses in the run up to the Commonwealth Games to get the stadium built, so City never had to get their hands dirty.
True Our owners had the choice between regeneration and a new build with future space. They went with the regeneration. Staying at Anfield is great, its home, has the tradition and history. Does make me wonder about the longer future, are we going to have to go through the same thing again when we want to expand more? Like I said Man City have had it easy, ready made stadium and capital to just throw at it. But it is easier for them when they have the land ready to go (granted the leg work already done for another event) and we have to buy up peoples houses and then gain permission in a residential area. Location, location location. Our expansion was always going to be difficult compared to other clubs, especially those in new outer city builds
When we finally get permission to refurbish and the council begin the regeneration of the area surrounding the ground it would have to be part of the overall agreement and plans for there to be future scope for further expansion. Not sure that's in place tbh.
Daily fail reports on stadium delay! So there is hope yet!! www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/...iverpool-county-council-homeowners-head-court
I would dearly like to know the terms of the Compulsory Purchase Orders with which the Council have already armed themselves. It would be very strange for such orders to be open-ended once they have been served. If the compensation fee itself is the stumbling block then the procedure would be via arbitration which can be completed quite speedily.
