Toffeeweb - The Mail Bag - Why no fight over Stanley Park?

Why no fight over Stanley Park?

18 Comments: First | Last

I see that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson,has offered to pay Spurs £17M in `compensation` if the club withdraws its objection to West Ham being gifted rights to the Olympic Stadium. Now that begs the question why Everton didn`t kick up a fuss about a huge tract of Stanley Park being gifted to the dark side!

I know Liverpool Council may not have been as generous with ratepayers' money as Daft Boris but very similar principles of fair play and even-handedness apply and it would have been well worth a try. Even if an award had been ring-fenced for development, even half that amount would have financed the aborted Park End scheme at least!

An enquiry to the Goodison Press Office brought the response that `legal advice was against such a claim and, anyway, it`s history!`.

So yet again, Blue Bill has been sold short by his advisors and, as I wrote recently, with advisors like these ? no wonder he`s in trouble!

Richard Dodd, Freshfield Posted 04/10/2011 at 14:00:44

back Return to the Mail Bag : Add your Comments

Comments

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

James Marshall
1 Posted 04/10/2011 at 14:41:04

Where there's blame there's a claim!

Nick Entwistle
2 Posted 04/10/2011 at 15:04:48

Why do Spurs get £17m? Complaining? What about Leyton Orient?

Jeremy Benson
3 Posted 04/10/2011 at 15:31:25

Could we afford that kind of legal challenge? I doubt it.

James Marshall
4 Posted 04/10/2011 at 15:35:41

Leyton Orient will be out of business in 5 years, tops. My old Grandad would be turning in his grave if he could see his beloved O's now. Modern football sucks the fat one.

Steve Wolfe
5 Posted 04/10/2011 at 16:18:05

We never made an official enquiry into Stanley Park, so we have no grounds to be compensated on.
End of thread!

Brian Waring
6 Posted 04/10/2011 at 17:16:43

Spurs and West ham both wanted to use the olympic stadium, Spurs lost out.

We weren't going toe - to - toe with the shite for Stanley park, so I don't understand why we would have a compensation claim.

John Anderson
7 Posted 04/10/2011 at 19:02:31

Steve/Brian, we did enquire about the possibility of buiding a new stadium on Stanley Park but were told that under no circumstances could the park be used for a commercial venture, stadium etc as there was a covenant in place dating back to the 1900s.

Liverpool where then offered the chance to build a stadium on the Kings Dock but, as the capacity would only be 55,000, they ? to the astonishment of the council ? turned it down. We then jumped in and said we'd have it and, having offered it to the Shite, they obviously couldn't knock us back.

With us getting a new stadium ,those cheeky fuckers asked if they could have Stanley Park and unbelievably got the go-ahead. So, with us having been given the Kings Dock site, we didn't complain! The rest is history.

Charlie Percival
8 Posted 04/10/2011 at 19:39:06

Steve we applied for a stadium on SP and it was refused outright,dont even think it went to the application stage

Brian Waring
9 Posted 04/10/2011 at 19:52:26

Charlie, we made an informal enquiry about the chances of building on the north west section of the park, but we didn't take it any further, because there was a Victorian covenant in place.

For something to get to application stage, and then get refused outright, you actually have to have something in the first place.

Dennis Stevens
10 Posted 04/10/2011 at 20:32:48

It's a scandal the way in which the rules have been conveniently forgotten as Leyton Orient don't tick the right boxes & the bigger clubs & the respective authorities feel it's ok to act as though Orient don't really exist - which they probably won't in a few years time.

Gavin Ramejkis
11 Posted 04/10/2011 at 20:44:00

Doddy, the RS applied for planning permission on Stanley Park, the majority of the plan covers what is already just a coach park, Everton have NEVER applied for planning permission on it so I dont know how they would have a leg to stand on regarding some form of compensation.

Spurs and West Ham applied for the same site and Spurs are seekig compensation.

Nick Entwistle
12 Posted 04/10/2011 at 21:06:11

Why does someone get compensation because their desired use of ground that is not theirs to begin with is not given?
Could I apply for say some scrub land that Tesco could build on and be given £17 million too?

Brendan O'Doherty
13 Posted 04/10/2011 at 21:22:33

At first I thought that the title was "Why no fight over in Stanley Park," and thought that I must have missed some post-derby thread in which ways of getting even with THEM were discussed.

Having re-read it....you must be joking Richard. I know we are desperate for cash, but the words clutching and straws spring to mind. Funny though.

Lee Smith
14 Posted 05/10/2011 at 05:55:57

Charlie #8 - "We applied for a stadium on SP and it was refused outright, dont even think it went to the application stage.

Anybody else think that this statement makes no sense whatsoever?! ;)

Charlie Percival
15 Posted 05/10/2011 at 07:15:25

Brian, all I was trying to say is we looked at building on Stanley Park before the RS and I also know our board are useless. Lee Smith, It does make sense because if you want to spend a lot of money on a project but get told such and such from people who have power then you dont think about the appplication stage. It was refused outright verbally. Thats what I should have said to make it clearer to 'everyone'

Matt Traynor
16 Posted 05/10/2011 at 09:07:14

I'm pretty sure that the £17m is not compensation, but is money that would be provided by TfL for improvements to transport infrastructure. For any significant development that is going to have a transport impact, there needs to be a funded transport plan in place - this £17m would be a contribution towards that - probably in off-the-shelf schemes that TfL would bring forward as part of their contribution.

Eric Myles
17 Posted 05/10/2011 at 09:56:33

Phil Green probably didn't want a Top Shop in Walton, Doddy.

That's why no action was taken in the first place.

Richard Dodd
18 Posted 05/10/2011 at 10:55:22

You certainly have a point, Eric. Without `enabling funding` we seem to have no chance of getting a new ground in the foreseeable future. If, as suspected, Robert Green pushes all Bill`s buttons (both have denied it!) then it`s taking a hell of a time to find a site. Perhaps he just feels his firms have enough exposure on Merseyside already.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.