We'll see how it pans out mate, but the fella who told me reckons its a done deal for the dock and some adjoining land - £20m. Are you on about the Shanghai Tower there? As it's already had outline planning hasn't it?
Not Shanghai tower as far as I know, this one is to be a 34 storey privately rented apartment block. When you say adjoining land do you mean the Nelson Dock because all that's there is a row of docks. The Bramley Moore is the furthest north before the next dock [Wellington] which is a working dock.
I never pressed him on it, but I assumed it was where Sound City is and the vacant land over the road
I think Spurs are mad spending £30m on Sissoko. I do wonder where he will fit in. Charlie Nicholas http://www.skysports.com/football/n...he-premier-league-title-says-charlie-nicholas
I would agree with him! the needed pace but not this guy. he is... well wanting to play no 10 i bet and well...
The details don't really matter tobes, I was just curious because there is no adjoining land. If it materialises it will be great for the area and the city. We've been hearing about EFC starting to show ambition now you have a new investor, the summer signings weren't it, but this definitely would be. Put Liverpool [city of] right back on the footballing map
Indeed mate, it's be fantastic for the City, as iirc the new Cruise liner terminal is just beyond that isn't it? As a 'football City' it'd be very fitting to have a stadium on the Skyline imho. We'll see what happens fella
Do you not understand "net spend". After allowing for sales we made a profit of £14.5m, City paid out £169.05, Utd paid out £141.05. It's irrelevant how much a team spends, what is important is the net spend
Again irrelevant to the argument, we are talking about business in the transfer window which has just concluded. In January LFC may buy £50m of players and not sell any, then there business in that transfer window would be - £50m. Using your argument you would have to go back to when all clubs were formed and add up all ins and outs to arrive at a figure, and then make allowance for the length of time each club has existed. I'll leave that calculation for you to do as I am halfway through a bottle of expensive red wine and do not feel up to it.
Exactly, and highly relevant. Whoever thought up this "net spend" bullshit is a total flake, how can you totally discount the players you have lost to sales. Using my argument other players don't come into it, the question is "how much did a team spend on new players" It's a bit like when they publish figures for the costliest squads, do you think they take into account all player sales during the building of these squads? Nope, they take the purchase price of all the players in each squad at the time and total them up.
My original post was about "net" spend in the recent transfer window, relevant because any business must be concerned about net spend unless you have a bottomless pit of money, like City. We do not at present, but the Chinese interest might change this. If so this will be another nail in football's coffin as prices will escalate further. Eventually only teams with foreign government's money will be able to afford the top players. Even teams like Utd will struggle if they can only buy based on their income as I can't see the likes of the Glaziers or Abramovich being able to keep up.
