Anfield: the victims, the anger and Liverpool's shameful truth

Aboutreika18 · 7th May 2013, 00:37

Quote:

In the blighted streets around Liverpool's Anfield stadium, residents are packing up and leaving their family homes, so the football club can have them demolished and expand their Main Stand. In the six months since the club scrapped their decade-long plan to build a new stadium on Stanley Park, and reverted to expanding Anfield instead, Liverpool city council has been seeking to buy these neighbours' homes, backed by the legal threat of compulsory purchase.

People's farewells are bitter, filled with anger and heartbreak at the area's dreadful decline and at the club for deepening the blight by buying up houses since the mid-1990s then leaving them empty. A few residents are refusing to move, holding out against the council, which begins negotiations with low offers. These homeowners believe they should be paid enough not only to buy a new house but to compensate for the years of dereliction, stagnation and decline, and crime, fires, vandalism, even murders which have despoiled the area. Their resentment is compounded by the fact that they are being forced to move so that Liverpool, and their relatively new US owner, Fenway Sports Group, can make more money.

On Lothair Road, which backs on to the Anfield Main Stand, one man who lived next door to a house Liverpool own and have left empty, shuttered – "tinned up" as the locals call it – shook his head. "I'm not moving out," he told the Guardian, "I've been driven out."

Residents' bitterness derives from when the club started buying houses in Lothair Road, without saying they were doing so or making their intentions clear. The club used an agency to approach some residents, while some houses were bought by third parties then sold on quickly to the club. That left residents with the belief, which has endured ever since, that Liverpool were buying up houses by stealth, to keep prices low.

The club have never publicly explained in detail what they did, and declined to answer the Guardian's questions about their historic behaviour and current plans. Neighbours, many of whom have lived in Anfield for decades, remembering a vibrant, flourishing area, believe Liverpool bought and left houses empty to deliberately blight the area, intending it would prompt people to leave and drive house prices down.

Howard Macpherson, now 52, was the first to sell his house on Lothair Road to the club, in 1996. He had lived there, at No 39, a four-bedroom end terrace, for 10 years. Macpherson says it was a fine home, which he had spent money refurbishing, but after Liverpool bought it they always left it empty – now for 17 years.

"Anfield was a good area, all the houses occupied, nothing like it is today," says Macpherson, who runs a garage, Aintree Motors. "The area started to decline in the early 1990s with the city's economic problems. But Liverpool football club accelerated the decline, by leaving good houses empty and boarded up. It wasn't a natural decline; it was engineered."

...

Aboutreika18 · 7th May 2013, 00:39

Quote:

The involvement in the process of a notorious solicitor, Kevin Dooley, acting for the club, did not encourage confidence. Dooley, who acted for several Liverpool players and the convicted drug baron Curtis Warren as well as the club before he died in 2004, was struck off by the Law Society in 2002 after it found him guilty of being involved in fraudulent purported bank schemes.

Liverpool were motivated to buy neighbouring houses by a fear of losing pre-eminence in English football after their mighty playing success and financial dominance of the 1970s and 80s. The club felt bruised by having been delayed in building the new Centenary Stand because of two elderly sisters, Joan and Nora Mason, who refused to leave their house at No 26 Kemlyn Road, until November 1990. Manchester United entered the super-commercialised Premier League era by floating on the stock market in 1991, raising £6.7m to seat the Stretford End, and with Old Trafford's ceaseless, lucrative expansion and Sir Alex Ferguson's team-building, Liverpool fell behind United's money-making capacity.

The club turned their attention to expanding the Main and Anfield Road stands, although they did not announce this intention or discuss it openly with residents. The Main Stand backs tightly on to the terraced row of odd numbers on Lothair Road. Liverpool began buying houses in 1996, mostly leaving them empty. Land Registry records reveal that between January 1996 and March 2000, Liverpool bought 10 houses on Lothair Road.

Most were on the odd side, closest to the Main Stand: Nos 1, 3, 7, 9, 15, 33, 35 and Macpherson's No 39. In March 1999 Liverpool made their first purchase across the road, on the even side, No 16. That row is not needed for a bigger Main Stand itself, but the residents, and those in the row behind on Alroy Road, would have their right to light blocked by it, a major obstacle to planning permission. In March 2000 Liverpool bought No 10 Lothair Road. That house, like most Liverpool bought, was never again occupied, has been empty for 13 years and is "tinned up".

Liverpool also bought houses on Anfield Road: grander Victorian piles with front gardens, backing on to Stanley Park; almost the whole row opposite the stand, Shankly gates and Hillsborough memorial: 51, 53, 55, 61, 63, 69 and 71. These houses were also left mostly empty and allowed to fall into disrepair.

With houses empty and demand for them falling in a city struggling to recover from its 1980s economic decimation, the Anfield area collapsed into dramatic decline. Alongside Liverpool football club, family homes and private landlords, the main other property owner was Your Housing, a large group of housing associations, then called Arena. It also began to leave properties "tinned up" – 265 were empty in the wider Anfield area by 2011. Residents complain that as the area was blighted, problem tenants moved in, bringing crime and antisocial behaviour.

Liverpool's secret plan to get houses knocked down and expand the stadium, which the residents had suspected from the beginning, was exposed by a local free newspaper in September 1999. The club, with the council and Arena, had produced Anfield Plus, a plan to demolish both rows of houses on Lothair Road, the one on Alroy Road backing on to Lothair, and those on Anfield Road, for two enlarged stands. In the wider area, 1,800 properties were designated for demolition. A food, drink and retail area was planned on a cleared corner across from the Kop and Centenary Stand. New social housing, shops, a supermarket and community centre were also envisaged.

Shock at such a plan being conceived without discussion with residents produced an outcry. The council did not support the plan with compulsory purchase threats but instead embarked on a consultation process. Rick Parry, Liverpool's then chief executive, acknowledged the club were seeking a bigger Anfield to compete financially with Manchester United, but said nevertheless: "I believe we can also work much better with the community, be a good neighbour."

In the intense, often fraught discussions with residents, some progress was slowly made. New homes were built or renovated, including the Skerries Road terrace, behind Kemlyn Road, which Liverpool had previously bought up and left blighted. Two health centres have been built and the new Four Oaks primary school and North Liverpool Academy. Yet Lothair Road, Alroy and Anfield Road, on which the club had set their sights, were left to rot.

While the Premier League, its club owners, players, managers and agents were growing rich on pay-TV millions, right around one of its most revered clubs there was squalor and horror. The many empty houses were vandalised, robbed, stripped, set on fire. People living next door to Liverpool's tinned-up houses told the club they feared waking up in the night to find them ablaze. Still, the club did not put tenants in them. Some people began to move out, their houses' value having tumbled, but many good people stayed, determined not to be forced out.

Liverpool's switch to a plan for a wholly new stadium on Stanley Park came partly out of the post-Anfield Plus community consultation. In one meeting, Parry looked at a map and was struck by how hemmed in by houses the ground would still be, even if expanded. Yet even as the plans developed over years, many residents did not believe Liverpool would ever build a new stadium. Partly this was because even after all the outcry over Anfield Plus, Liverpool still bought houses on Lothair Road, including No10.

In October 1999, 33 Lothair Road, owned by Liverpool and unoccupied, was set on fire, filling the house of the elderly couple who lived next door with smoke and soot. Residents say that three people were killed, set alight, in a horrific incident, in a house further along Lothair Road. A woman reported to be renting on Lothair Road who worked as a prostitute was murdered, in 2001.

A Lothair Road resident, who did not want to be named because he is in negotiations with the council to finally leave, recalled his elderly father going out to fill a coal bucket from the old-fashioned scuttle under the front steps. Two tenants who had moved in across the road threw a brick at his father's head. The resident went across the road, banged on both doors, and roared at them to come out, which they did not.

"These are some of the drastic things we've had to do," he said, talking on his doorstep. "I brought three children up here. If Liverpool had been honest from the beginning, said they wanted our houses to expand their ground, we're realistic, we know they're a huge football club, most of us support them, deals could have been done. Instead they were underhand, blighted the area and we've had to live like this for years."

The sorry saga of how the new stadium plans turned to dust was played out in public, while residents suffered stagnation and wreckage. The club had continued to buy houses on Anfield Road: No 65 in 2001, 47, 49 and 67 in 2007. Parry and the then majority shareholder, David Moores, believed they needed rich owners to stand behind the borrowing required for a new stadium, which could have been built in the early 2000s for perhaps £140m. It took years before finally in 2007 they sold the club for £179m to the Americans Tom Hicks and George Gillett. Moores personally made £89m.

Hicks famously promised "a spade in the ground" and work to begin on the new stadium in 60 days, but he and Gillett had borrowed the money to buy the club and were planning to borrow for the stadium too, then could not. Under pressure from Royal Bank of Scotland, in October 2010 Hicks and Gillett were forced by court order to sell the club, John Henry's FSG paying the £200m price of the RBS debt.

FSG, which renovated the Boston Red Sox stadium, Fenway Park, rather than build a new one, suggested from the beginning it might scrap the new stadium plan as too expensive. In October, Liverpool's managing director, Ian Ayre, confirmed that, describing the intention to go back to expanding Anfield as "a great leap forward".

FSG's current plan envisages expanding the Main and Anfield Road stands, with both sides of Lothair Road, and one side of Alroy Road, demolished. A hotel is proposed behind the enlarged Main Stand on the footprint of Lothair Road's even side and Alroy, because a commercial property does not have the same right to light as homes. A development, probably bars and restaurants, with training promised for young people, is proposed opposite the corner of the Kop and Centenary Stand. With Liverpool having purchased a whole row on Anfield Road, they have already knocked those houses down, so there is no obstacle to enlarging that stand.

This FSG plan, then, is strikingly similar to Anfield Plus, which was worked up in 1999, then put on hold for 13 years in favour of the new stadium proposal.

Ruth Little, of the Anfield and Breckfield community council, says: "After people suffered so much, from the football club and Your Housing leaving properties empty and blighting the area, when they went back to the original plan I did wonder what the last 12 years of consultation have been for.

"A lot of good work has been done, though, much of it by local people volunteering. At least we have some certainty now, and we have to make sure that the people who are left are treated with respect."

Reports on that are mixed. While many homeowners have sold their houses over the years for little, the council's final offers now are more generous. Some residents have settled for around £80,000, more than the houses would have fetched on the market in such blighted conditions, and the council is also providing interest-free loans. This enables those who own their own homes to buy another similar house without taking on a new mortgage.

However, several people accuse the council, which is negotiating via agents, of starting with low offers, forcing people in difficult circumstances to negotiate hard or be seriously disadvantaged.

Bill Higham, who owns 25 Alroy Road, says he was offered £55,000, which he refused outright, for a house he has had to refurbish twice after it was seriously vandalised.

"I find it disgraceful," he says. "After the way the area has been run down, I'm being forced out and they want the properties for a song. They could pay everybody up, properly, for less than one Liverpool player's wage."

Bill McGarry, vice-chair of the Anfield Rockfield Triangle residents' association, a qualified town planner, has helped some residents negotiate with the council. Patrick Duggan, chair of Artra, is an ardent critic of the club, whom he vehemently accuses of running the area down. Duggan runs Epstein House, a refurbished hotel in the old Anfield Road family home of the Beatles' manager, Brian Epstein. Duggan bought it for £450,000, partly, he says, because Liverpool were building a new stadium which would regenerate the area. He has been shocked instead to find the area's degradation, then felt betrayed when FSG scrapped the new stadium plan.

"I have always been a Liverpool fan," says Duggan, who has mounted a campaign targeting Ayre. "They play 'You'll Never Walk Alone' but they have left their neighbours to walk alone for years."

Paddy McKay, 58, a builder who has lived for 37 years on Walton Breck Road, is refusing to accept the council's offer. He and his wife Carol brought up three daughters there; he has paid his mortgage off in full and argues that, if he is forced to move, he should be paid enough to buy a similar house somewhere decent and compensation for the years of blight. Even now, antisocial behaviour is continuing on those streets, including house fires.

"Liverpool FC have said they want to be good neighbours? They're the world's worst neighbours; they couldn't care less," McKay says. "After all the damage they have done to the area, they should do the decent thing by the residents."

James McKenna, chair of the Spirit of Shankly supporters' union, says the fans have sympathy for the club's neighbours. "The stadium expansion is all about the club making more money, and fans will have to pay more for tickets," McKenna says. "To do that, Liverpool have played a part in derelict houses, streets boarded up. It's a blot on LFC's record."

A council spokesman declined to discuss details of the house-buying process. "Since last autumn we have been developing a robust set of plans for the area which are absolutely on track," he said. "This will include working with the local community on a blueprint for the wider regeneration of Anfield."

Brian Cronin, chief executive of Your Housing, defended his organisation's property stewardship in the area and said the group has invested more than £23m in refurbishments or new homes around Anfield since 2009. Your Housing has 22 properties on Lothair, Alroy and Sybil Roads behind the Main Stand, of which 12 "are long-term vacant". Cronin said: "We are currently working very closely with Liverpool city council and other partners in Anfield to establish the best long-term future for these properties as part of the wider regeneration of the area."

Liverpool declined to comment but last month Ayre updated the Liverpool Daily Post, saying: "To extend Anfield, we need to acquire a bunch of privately owned property around the stadium. We're making really good progress with that. We said some months back it would take several months to improve that property acquisition situation. We're definitely on target so far."

Once the properties are bought, Ayre said, the club will apply for planning permission. After that, the third challenge is to "build the thing".

He told the Guardian in October that an expanded Anfield with a 60,000 capacity will not allow cheaper tickets; its aim is to make more money. Liverpool have employed PricewaterhouseCoopers to survey fans, and corporate customers, to help plan price brackets for the new facilities.

Some fans wonder if FSG, which is quite remote as owner, with Henry hardly in Liverpool and progress slow and costly, may sell the club, particularly once planning permission has been secured. FSG and Henry have not said that is a possibility. The stated plan is to expand the ground and enable Liverpool to compete again by making more money, so attracting better players by offering them huge wages on a par with the other top clubs.

Liverpool's remaining neighbours, suffering some of Britain's worst living conditions, are grappling with hardball offers, to have their houses knocked down and make way for it all. In the Premier League of the 21st century, this is Anfield.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/d...ool-david-conn

Irwynwastheking · 7th May 2013, 00:40

A fine and noble club.

Grinner · 7th May 2013, 00:48

I'm sure if they'd been up front about the purchases they'd have had owners trying to milk them for above-market value. It sounds like they paid fair prices for those that they bought.

surf · 7th May 2013, 01:04

Agent Joan and agent Nora did a fine job then.

Stobzilla · 7th May 2013, 01:15

Aren't we doing similar with the area near the train tracks at OT ?

Gazza · 7th May 2013, 01:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stobzilla

Aren't we doing similar with the area near the train tracks at OT ?

I thought the houses the club bought were demolished some time ago?

Gazza · 7th May 2013, 01:29

Lothair Road, Anfield

fishfingers15 · 7th May 2013, 05:53

Is this right? So David Conn is accusing Liverpool FC that they took part, along with the city council to attempt a 'managed decline' of the Anfield area? Isn't that the city of Liverpool/fans of Liverpool FC they hate Lady Thatcher/Witch?

I know most people love David Conn for his investigative journalism, and the Hillsborough work he did was absolutely great, but he pretty much let City have a free pass while complaining about foreign leaches sucking out the soul of Premiership. So, don't know how much exaggeration he has put into this article. Blaming a football club for arson and murders is a bit extreme.

Vidic's Head · 7th May 2013, 08:59

There are plenty of properties in the UK that are in much the same state, not just Anfield.

Sparky_Hughes · 7th May 2013, 09:12

Boycott Anfield, open letters to everyone etc etc

Rado_N · 7th May 2013, 09:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazza

Lothair Road, Anfield

Looks like Hamsterdam.

Giggsforever · 7th May 2013, 09:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishfingers15

Is this right? So David Conn is accusing Liverpool FC that they took part, along with the city council to attempt a 'managed decline' of the Anfield area? Isn't that the city of Liverpool/fans of Liverpool FC they hate Lady Thatcher/Witch?

I know most people love David Conn for his investigative journalism, and the Hillsborough work he did was absolutely great, but he pretty much let City have a free pass while complaining about foreign leaches sucking out the soul of Premiership. So, don't know how much exaggeration he has put into this article. Blaming a football club for arson and murders is a bit extreme.

He is not blaming them for it, he is blaming them for bringing it to a decent area and ruining the lives of it's nabours and supporters. Horrible club.

retardman5 · 7th May 2013, 09:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giggsforever

He is not blaming them for it, he is blaming them for bringing it to a decent area and ruining the lives of it's nabours and supporters. Horrible club.

These homeowners believe they should be paid enough not only to buy a new house but to compensate for the years of dereliction, stagnation and decline, and crime, fires, vandalism, even murders which have despoiled the area.

I was brought up in the Anfield area during the late 50's & 60's. These sort of things have happened all the time. A lot of northern Liverpool has suffered a similar decline, it's not just indigenous to the L4 area. & it would have happened even if Liverpool Football Club wasn't around. To suggest that the club is someway responsible for the social problems in & around Anfield is absolutely ridiculous. The decline of the city as a whole under the Thatcher regime is a key factor. Maybe these people should go to the Tories & ask for compensation for the place being a shit-hole.

Nogbadthebad · 7th May 2013, 09:58

Hmm, buying up houses in the 90's on the quiet to keep prices down is sensible business, but then leaving them empty for 17 years and the effect on the area is a shitty thing.

Renting them out at reduced cost with first option to season ticket holders would have been excellent PR .

But the current wave, where the council is negotiating compulsory purchase for the club seems a bit off. Buy the fucking houses directly at a decent price you cheap bastards, its worth it in good faith alone , it does actually highlight the culture problem.

Not of US/Uk but of the corporate world and the local business world.

In the corporate world the bottom line is everything, you are entirely divorced from the immediate impact of any decisions, its just the profits that matter. Local business has to take into account goodwill of the community as they usually represent significant percentages of its customer base as well.

A football club is a strange beast, its global , but also a very local business in terms of matchday revenue. Pissing off the local community is something they should be actively avoiding.

retardman5 · 7th May 2013, 10:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nogbadthebad

Hmm, buying up houses in the 90's on the quiet to keep prices down is sensible business, but then leaving them empty for 17 years and the effect on the area is a shitty thing.

Renting them out at reduced cost with first option to season ticket holders would have been excellent PR .

But the current wave, where the council is negotiating compulsory purchase for the club seems a bit off. Buy the fucking houses directly at a decent price you cheap bastards, its worth it in good faith alone , it does actually highlight the culture problem.

Not of US/Uk but of the corporate world and the local business world.

In the corporate world the bottom line is everything, you are entirely divorced from the immediate impact of any decisions, its just the profits that matter. Local business has to take into account goodwill of the community as they usually represent significant percentages of its customer base as well.

A football club is a strange beast, its global , but also a very local business in terms of matchday revenue. Pissing off the local community is something they should be actively avoiding.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...w-stadium.html

CPO's are nothing new when it comes to modern day football clubs. Do you honestly think that if Old Trafford was in a built-up area, that your club wouldn't have used similar methods to expand the ground ?

hp88 · 7th May 2013, 10:13

That area around the ground is dump, as long as your getting market value I don't know why anyone would complain about having to leave.

Spiersey · 7th May 2013, 10:14

At the end of the day it's smart business from Liverpool, because they are a business. Why would they want to pay more than they have to? The only mistake they have made is leaving them empty. Nothing wrong with secretly buying them.

moyses · 7th May 2013, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nogbadthebad

Hmm, buying up houses in the 90's on the quiet to keep prices down is sensible business, but then leaving them empty for 17 years and the effect on the area is a shitty thing.

That's 'progress' though and how it works, they would have rathered just buy them all but they are not ever going to be all available at the same time, it happens all the time with development in urban areas. Yes it sucks, but to get all righteous just because it's LFC is a bit lame.

Conn is very selective with what is and isn't offensive to his own vague sensibilities, like has been said above City have rarely felt the scorn of this guardian of financial misdeeds within the game.

Bill.s.preston · 7th May 2013, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by moses

That's 'progress' though and how it works, they would have rathered just buy them all but they are not ever going to be all available at the same time, it happens all the time with development in urban areas. Yes it sucks, but to get all righteous just because it's LFC is a bit lame.

Conn is very selective with what is and isn't offensive to his own vague sensibilities, like has been said above City have rarely felt the scorn of this guardian of financial misdeeds within the game.

I don't see why they couldn't have rented the properties out through an agency. They could have kept the area more habitable that way and made most of the money back for the properties they purchased in the 90's. They could control the length of the rental contracts and move people out whenever they wanted.

The natural assumption is to believe the reason they didn't do this is to let the area degenerate and drive the prices down, not very ethical and potentially damaging for the clubs image.

moyses · 7th May 2013, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill.s.preston

I don't see why they couldn't have rented the properties out through an agency. They could have kept the area more habitable that way and made most of the money back for the properties they purchased in the 90's. They could control the length of the rental contracts and move people out whenever they wanted.

The natural assumption is to believe the reason they didn't do this is to let the area degenerate and drive the prices down, not very ethical and potentially damaging for the clubs image.

The natural assumption for me is they didn't think of the long term damage of the empty properties, which is poor, but to think it was all a big evil plan is a bit tinfoil hat for me. The money saved would pale compared the to the money lost in the delay. I hate the way this works, Cork St, near where my Mum grew up here in Dublin was akin to bombsite for decades until all the properties were acquired to widen the road. It's the way it works. I agree there are better ways it could have been done but the leaping to condemn LFC is a bit sad.

Bill.s.preston · 7th May 2013, 11:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by moses

The natural assumption for me is they didn't think of the long term damage of the empty properties, which is poor, but to think it was all a big evil plan is a bit tinfoil hat for me. The money saved would pale compared the to the money lost in the delay. I hate the way this works, Cork St, near where my Mum grew up here in Dublin was akin to bombsite for decades until all the properties were acquired to widen the road. It's the way it works. I agree there are better ways it could have been done but the leaping to condemn LFC is a bit sad.

That's a good point.

With regards to the condemning of Liverpool, that's always going to happen on a rival football forum, but perhaps the reporter could have toned things down a touch. I don't usually read the Guardian so I don't know if he's biased at all. It'll be interesting to see if the club respond in any way.

Judge Red · 7th May 2013, 11:14

Quote:

Liverpool's desperation to expand Anfield to compete with Manchester United has made victims of many of their own fans.

johnny boy · 7th May 2013, 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by moses

The natural assumption for me is they didn't think of the long term damage of the empty properties, which is poor, but to think it was all a big evil plan is a bit tinfoil hat for me. The money saved would pale compared the to the money lost in the delay. I hate the way this works, Cork St, near where my Mum grew up here in Dublin was akin to bombsite for decades until all the properties were acquired to widen the road. It's the way it works. I agree there are better ways it could have been done but the leaping to condemn LFC is a bit sad.

Good points, there are widespread areas around the ground that to say the least need attention, however to blame LFC for them all is ridiculous.

It's only back in the news because the chances of a new ground have decreased.
The club bought some houses up as there was an opportunity to do so.

The article talks about one boarded up street of about 40 houses.
In the general vacinity of Anfield there are I would imagine several hundred more, the club can't be blamed for these also, some aren't that close to the ground to be considered to be anything to do with the club.

And like there are not similar communities in other cities also.

I suppose the club might need to look at how some things have been managed, however, when you have a ground surrounded by houses there will always be friction of some nature when it comes to talks of expansion.

moyses · 7th May 2013, 11:21

Conn is an expert at presenting elements of truth while ignoring the glaringly obvious.

SteveJ · 7th May 2013, 11:41

How come so few of Conn's fearless exposés centre around his beloved Manchester City? Decent journalist, indecently biased...

RedRover · 7th May 2013, 11:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nogbadthebad

Hmm, buying up houses in the 90's on the quiet to keep prices down is sensible business, but then leaving them empty for 17 years and the effect on the area is a shitty thing.

Renting them out at reduced cost with first option to season ticket holders would have been excellent PR .

But the current wave, where the council is negotiating compulsory purchase for the club seems a bit off. Buy the fucking houses directly at a decent price you cheap bastards, its worth it in good faith alone , it does actually highlight the culture problem.
Not of US/Uk but of the corporate world and the local business world.

In the corporate world the bottom line is everything, you are entirely divorced from the immediate impact of any decisions, its just the profits that matter. Local business has to take into account goodwill of the community as they usually represent significant percentages of its customer base as well.

A football club is a strange beast, its global , but also a very local business in terms of matchday revenue. Pissing off the local community is something they should be actively avoiding.

CPO's are there for a reason. Whilst a trainee I did a bit of legal work on one in my home town. Half the houses were decent and lived in by respectable families, the other half absolute shitholes lived in by scumbags. Guess which lot came crying to the Council demanding more money than the house was worth because they thought they had a "nuisance" value?

One bloke warned that he would just stay where he was and let them knock the street down around him. He didn't once he realised he wouldnt be getting more than he was offered.

Its not the ideal situation but it allows Coucils to redevelop grim areas. This particular place now has a load of cheap, clean affordable housing and the area is better as a result.

SteveJ · 7th May 2013, 11:58

It's a bit crap of David Conn to use a loaded word like 'victims' with regard to Liverpool FC, knowing the reaction that will cause. Still, all's fair in the shameless quest for website hits, I guess...even the Guardian winds-up its readers lately.

Marching · 7th May 2013, 12:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by retardman5

These homeowners believe they should be paid enough not only to buy a new house but to compensate for the years of dereliction, stagnation and decline, and crime, fires, vandalism, even murders which have despoiled the area.

I was brought up in the Anfield area during the late 50's & 60's. These sort of things have happened all the time. A lot of northern Liverpool has suffered a similar decline, it's not just indigenous to the L4 area. & it would have happened even if Liverpool Football Club wasn't around. To suggest that the club is someway responsible for the social problems in & around Anfield is absolutely ridiculous. The decline of the city as a whole under the Thatcher regime is a key factor. Maybe these people should go to the Tories & ask for compensation for the place being a shit-hole.

You can't polish a turd.

golden_blunder · 7th May 2013, 12:28

Thats Robbie Fowler's rental properties

Badunk · 7th May 2013, 13:03

First time I went to Anfield was 1993 and it was a smack-infested dump. Doesn't surprise me that the club have ballsed things up over the years, but they aren't solely to blame for the area being a shithole.

noodlehair · 7th May 2013, 17:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vidic's Head

There are plenty of properties in the UK that are in much the same state, not just Anfield.

The argument is that in this case it has been engineered by Liverpool FC, which if the details supplied in the article are accurate, would seem to pretty blatantly be the case (not sure about blaming murders and crime on it but leaving properties derelict and empty is obviously never good for an area).

It's underhand behaviour and not really that great at all. Unsure if United would do anything better in the same scenario...in fact I think they are up to something similar just that it happens to be there aren't many houses on the land they're buying.

Grinner · 7th May 2013, 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by retardman5

These homeowners believe they should be paid enough not only to buy a new house but to compensate for the years of dereliction, stagnation and decline, and crime, fires, vandalism, even murders which have despoiled the area.

I was brought up in the Anfield area during the late 50's & 60's. These sort of things have happened all the time. A lot of northern Liverpool has suffered a similar decline, it's not just indigenous to the L4 area. & it would have happened even if Liverpool Football Club wasn't around. To suggest that the club is someway responsible for the social problems in & around Anfield is absolutely ridiculous. The decline of the city as a whole under the Thatcher regime is a key factor. Maybe these people should go to the Tories & ask for compensation for the place being a shit-hole.

...nothing to do with Militant at all, I suppose.

77 · 7th May 2013, 17:27

The homeowners should get some tshirts printed up.

fishfingers15 · 7th May 2013, 18:54

It's not for nothing. David Conn's going to get death threats pretty soon.

misterredmist · 8th May 2013, 11:53

Are LFC changing their signature tune to "You'll never live alone" ???

Whilst LFC can't be blamed for all the crime, their "stealth" policy, which I imagine took far longer than they anticipated, has without doubt created an uncertainty in the area, and helped with the stagnation of the area and the end of the community.

I know some people have said that "if they'd have gone public over their plans they'd have been held to ransom" .... that's ridiculous, with the budgets for players, transfers, staff, academies - paying a few "K" over the odds for even a couple of hundred houses would have been small beer......

somebody decided on a poorly thought out policy there.....

RedCafe.net

The Leading Manchester United Forum

Member's Login

Anfield: the victims, the anger and Liverpool's shameful truth

Latest Forum Topics

Jump to Forum

Not yet registered?

7th May 2013, 00:40	#3 (permalink)
Irwynwastheking Skilled creeper Join Date: May 2009 Location: Manchester United - Bumrushing the box since 1878 Posts: 22,672	A fine and noble club.

7th May 2013, 00:48	#4 (permalink)
Grinner Fat gutted, hairy shouldered, stinky Arse. Join Date: May 2003 Location: I love free dirt and rocks! Posts: 34,820	I'm sure if they'd been up front about the purchases they'd have had owners trying to milk them for above-market value. It sounds like they paid fair prices for those that they bought.

7th May 2013, 01:04	#5 (permalink)
surf Reserve Team Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: In the wilderness Posts: 4,259	Agent Joan and agent Nora did a fine job then.

7th May 2013, 01:15	#6 (permalink)
Stobzilla Official Team Perv Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: sir alex macheda fergsuson the bumble king. i respect david moyer but he is fragile like china Posts: 8,494	Aren't we doing similar with the area near the train tracks at OT ?

7th May 2013, 01:29	#8 (permalink)
Gazza Magic Carpet Pilot Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: "some place faaar away... yes, that'll do" Posts: 27,937	Lothair Road, Anfield

7th May 2013, 05:53	#9 (permalink)
fishfingers15 First Team Sub Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Nani Are you ok? Are you ok? Are you ok Nani? Posts: 6,465	Is this right? So David Conn is accusing Liverpool FC that they took part, along with the city council to attempt a 'managed decline' of the Anfield area? Isn't that the city of Liverpool/fans of Liverpool FC they hate Lady Thatcher/Witch? I know most people love David Conn for his investigative journalism, and the Hillsborough work he did was absolutely great, but he pretty much let City have a free pass while complaining about foreign leaches sucking out the soul of Premiership. So, don't know how much exaggeration he has put into this article. Blaming a football club for arson and murders is a bit extreme.

7th May 2013, 08:59	#10 (permalink)
Vidic's Head Youth Team Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Older but no wiser. At all. Not even a tiny bit. Posts: 490	There are plenty of properties in the UK that are in much the same state, not just Anfield.

7th May 2013, 09:12	#11 (permalink)
Sparky_Hughes Donkey Buggering Tyrant who cheats at Monopoly Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: knee deep in the despair of others and loving it Posts: 6,473	Boycott Anfield, open letters to everyone etc etc

7th May 2013, 09:58	#15 (permalink)
Nogbadthebad Reserve Team Player Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Wolverhampton Posts: 1,718	Hmm, buying up houses in the 90's on the quiet to keep prices down is sensible business, but then leaving them empty for 17 years and the effect on the area is a shitty thing. Renting them out at reduced cost with first option to season ticket holders would have been excellent PR . But the current wave, where the council is negotiating compulsory purchase for the club seems a bit off. Buy the fucking houses directly at a decent price you cheap bastards, its worth it in good faith alone , it does actually highlight the culture problem. Not of US/Uk but of the corporate world and the local business world. In the corporate world the bottom line is everything, you are entirely divorced from the immediate impact of any decisions, its just the profits that matter. Local business has to take into account goodwill of the community as they usually represent significant percentages of its customer base as well. A football club is a strange beast, its global , but also a very local business in terms of matchday revenue. Pissing off the local community is something they should be actively avoiding.

7th May 2013, 10:13	#17 (permalink)
hp88 First Team Regular Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: W3103 Posts: 10,120	That area around the ground is dump, as long as your getting market value I don't know why anyone would complain about having to leave.

7th May 2013, 10:14	#18 (permalink)
Spiersey Reserve Team Player Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: United Kingdom. Posts: 703	At the end of the day it's smart business from Liverpool, because they are a business. Why would they want to pay more than they have to? The only mistake they have made is leaving them empty. Nothing wrong with secretly buying them.

7th May 2013, 11:21	#25 (permalink)
moyses Beardless Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: I can gather all the news I need on the weather report. Posts: 18,261	Conn is an expert at presenting elements of truth while ignoring the glaringly obvious.

7th May 2013, 11:41	#26 (permalink)
SteveJ Newbie of the Year 2011. Twat of the Millenium. Hide yo' wife, oates! Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: "Holistic" Posts: 23,347	How come so few of Conn's fearless exposés centre around his beloved Manchester City? Decent journalist, indecently biased...

7th May 2013, 11:58	#28 (permalink)
SteveJ Newbie of the Year 2011. Twat of the Millenium. Hide yo' wife, oates! Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: "Holistic" Posts: 23,347	It's a bit crap of David Conn to use a loaded word like 'victims' with regard to Liverpool FC, knowing the reaction that will cause. Still, all's fair in the shameless quest for website hits, I guess...even the Guardian winds-up its readers lately.

7th May 2013, 12:28	#30 (permalink)
golden_blunder Back in action Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: In the shadows fighting e-crime Posts: 66,491	Thats Robbie Fowler's rental properties

7th May 2013, 13:03	#31 (permalink)
Badunk First Team Sub Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: If it is important to you, you will find a way. If not, you will find an excuse Posts: 9,645	First time I went to Anfield was 1993 and it was a smack-infested dump. Doesn't surprise me that the club have ballsed things up over the years, but they aren't solely to blame for the area being a shithole.

7th May 2013, 17:27	#34 (permalink)
77 First Team Regular Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: http://youtu.be/BGVSTsgcCvw Posts: 15,724	The homeowners should get some tshirts printed up.

7th May 2013, 18:54	#35 (permalink)
fishfingers15 First Team Sub Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Nani Are you ok? Are you ok? Are you ok Nani? Posts: 6,465	It's not for nothing. David Conn's going to get death threats pretty soon.

8th May 2013, 11:53	#36 (permalink)
misterredmist Reserve Team Player Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baguley Posts: 1,928	Are LFC changing their signature tune to "You'll never live alone" ??? Whilst LFC can't be blamed for all the crime, their "stealth" policy, which I imagine took far longer than they anticipated, has without doubt created an uncertainty in the area, and helped with the stagnation of the area and the end of the community. I know some people have said that "if they'd have gone public over their plans they'd have been held to ransom" .... that's ridiculous, with the budgets for players, transfers, staff, academies - paying a few "K" over the odds for even a couple of hundred houses would have been small beer...... somebody decided on a poorly thought out policy there.....