Without wishing to impose on private grief, the serious problems faced by our neighbours over the funding of New Anfield are brought into sharp focus in today`s Daily Telegraph.
The article serves as an economics lecture for all those misguided souls who think OUR club would have a hope in hell of raising sufficient money to build a new stadium without the assistance of a Tesco. I bet that as I write Parry &Co are putting the flags out for a similar partner without which their super project will founder.
Good!I hear you say!
Sebastian St.Clare, Posted 20/12/2007 at 10:38:01
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 20/12/2007 at 14:19:51
2 Posted 20/12/2007 at 14:35:00
How long have they got before the council can consider over plans.
Just a thought. Can someone clarify?
3 Posted 20/12/2007 at 14:52:27
4 Posted 20/12/2007 at 14:32:02
Where does it do that? Did Arsenal need Tesco? Can "a" Tesco equate to Bestway? Where is the pertinent comparison other than the use of the words "New Stadium"? The scale and cost of this project, and the whole funding process by which they took over LFC in the first place makes our predicament look like playing with the "petty cash". Where are the enabling projects for the Stanley park project that there would be for the Loop for instance? It would appear they made too many promises they couldn’t keep, and when they’re basically financing their purchase debt via the club’s income their prospects were always going to be tenuous which was predicted by many people on these forums
At what point does it make the case for redevelopment versus relocation? Could Liverpool go back along that route, viable plan B? I think the only point being made is that you can’t expect finance to be forthcoming for a massively ambitious and expensive stadium, when you’re in essence already in hock to the tune of hundreds of Millions. Very little of which relates to our position.
5 Posted 20/12/2007 at 15:39:43
6 Posted 20/12/2007 at 18:21:47
Oh! But I forgot. We don’t want shops do we? And we certainly don’t want Tesco because they are crap and are only intent on taking over the world aren’t they and despite being an Evertonian and doing as much as he can for the Club, Terry Leahy’s really a shithouse isn’t he and we don’t want anything to do with him do we?. And besides, the Stadium design is crap too isn’t it? (despite Lyndon liking it once!) All plasticky and cowshedy!
The fact is, if the the Kirkby scheme was about to be built on Stanley Park, the Stadium design would be absolutely brilliant, Terry Leahy would be an Everton legend and Tesco would be our ’forever best friend’ and Bill and Keith would be lauded for engineering the best deal ever envisaged! That is what has annoyed me within the stadium issue over the last few months. If you don’t like Kirkby as a destination then fine, argue it out on that basis. But this constant slagging off of the design, of Tesco, of Leahy, of the Club and of anybody who is in favour of... or at least open-minded about the move is a disgrace.
But wouldn’t it be different if it was all aimed at Stanley Park? C’est la vie!
7 Posted 20/12/2007 at 22:37:50
We need a larger capacity stadium with better corporate facilities to bring in more money to compete.
Whats the point in taking the club to a place were the majority don’t want to go and a large section of supporters wont go.
Any new stadium has got to attract new support and new corporate money.
Think of it this way, If LFC were moving out of the city how would you look at it then. We would be rubbing our hands in glee, we would be thinking, well thats them out of the way, we’ve got the place to ourselves now. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
8 Posted 20/12/2007 at 23:26:10
9 Posted 20/12/2007 at 23:54:04
10 Posted 21/12/2007 at 12:14:14