The barriers to Liverpool FC

If you would like to contribute any news items, press releases, newsletters, stories, photos or anything worthy of inclusion on the Website - please contact us

“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” ― Albert Einstein

Quick Links

We are committed to helping the residents of the Rockfield Triangle and the wider Anfield area by addressing the important issues that have blighted the Anfield community for so long.

Fly through of proposed Anfield Regeneration
Adam Sargeant

The barriers to Liverpool

FC being able to stay at

Anfield

Jul 11, 2011

By David Bartlett City editor of the Post and Echo
Published @ Liverpool Daily Post

David Bartlett City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read David's Posts »

Liverpool FC's stadium

saga is a story fans are

well accustomed to.

Under the previous ownership of Tom Hicks and George Gillett it was one of delays and broken promises.

Now under the guidance of John Henry the club is keen not to over promise but is now facing considerable problems. But it is clear that Henry would prefer to stay at Anfield because of its heritage, and because it is cheaper than moving to an all singing all dancing new ground in Stanley Park.

But the club has come up against the city council that wants it to keep to its previous commitment to move to a new ground in Stanley Park. Not least because the regeneration plans for the area were built around the club's plans to move ground.

For years the community in the area has waited while LFC failed to get its act together. Visiting Anfield it is impossible not to notice the dereliction in nearby streets.

Understandably the council wants the club to make its mind up one way or the other. So it has given the club a short three month extension on an option for a 999-year lease on the Stanley Park site.

The club says it is cheaper to stay at Anfield but that "land/property acquisition, environmental and statutory issues" are creating barriers to the club's ambition. LFC clearly want the council to change its mind and chief executive Ian Ayre says it will not be pressured into making a decision. Let's break down what the club means.

For land and property acquisition read that the club needs to buy up nearby houses. Without help from the council to issue Compulsory Purchase Orders this could take years or mean the club paying hugely inflated prices for houses.

The environmental and statutory issue refers to a number of issues.
If the club wants to redevelop Anfield it will need to go for yet another planning approval, that too will take time. It is my understanding that the height the club would like to add to stands could present real problems in achieving planning permission.

There is also the fact £8.2m has already been spent renovating Stanley Park ahead of the planned stadium development.The money came from a European grant and will be re-payable if the stadium does not go ahead. Liverpool council have an agreement in place which means LFC pick up the tab.

Clearly moving to Stanley Park is the quickest and easiest option, but as ever money is an issue. The credit crunch and the recession that followed mean that banks are no longer willing to throw money at football clubs in the way they once were.

Hicks and Gillett could not afford to build a new stadium without borrowing, and LFC are currently in talks with various financiers about how it could raise money for a new stadium.

Stadium naming rights would form part of the package, but would not pay for a new ground which would cost somewhere around £400m.

Mr Ayre speaks of the club being a business that can only proceed when it is clear on all the elements and will not be rushed.

But as Mr Ayre knows only too well the longer this drags on the bigger the gap will be between the likes of Manchester United that has been reaping huge rewards from having a 75,000 seater stadium for years.

David Bartlett City editor of the Post and Echo

Home About Us The Secret Marks Press Cuttings Speak Out Human Rights Housing Deal

1. LFC need land and over the last decade or so they've been buying as much as possible. They have added to the dereliction and abandoned look of the area by keeping scores of their properties unoccupied, boarded up and ill maintained. Over the years, LFC bought up a number of properties on both sides of Lothair Road (not just immediately behind the main stand) – but they were left to fall into decay and dereliction. The road became the target of vandals and arsonists, with 16 (not 14) separate fires in the properties over six years, causing misery to the few residents who remained. LFC land - banking dates back to David Moores' time at the club, it was adopted by H&G and until recently still existed under FSG. Someone at LFC took the decision to do this and until recently they continued to do it. LFC and FSG know how to play the "media" game - with sound bites and PR men neatly avoiding the fact that for many years they have been land-banking properties in the area therefore they played a part in creating or at least adding to the blighted problem.

2. Arena Housing (Your Housing) who are Registered Social Landlords (RSL) with a Corporate Social Responsibility, own possibly the largest number of empty properties in Lothair Road . 2a. Why is a government funded housing association with a corporate social responsibility charter - allowed to actually negate that responsibility by boarding up and neglecting their properties over a very long period of time? Arena have in the recent past, said that they won't spend money fixing their properties because LFC might want to demolish them! 2b. Has that been Arena's policy for the past 10 - 15 years? 2c. How can Liverpool football club's indecision dictate a government funded housing association's policy?

3. Liverpool City Council own properties in Lothair Road but beyond that, they hold immense power when it comes to procedures for dealing with long term empty properties. These procedures enable the council to force owners to think about the long term future of their EMPTY properties and to bring them back into use - yet not one (as far as I am aware) of these many blighted properties which are an eyesore and have had a negative effect on the neighbourhood and its residents, has had such measures implemented upon it.

The Triangle Website "FAIR USE" Declaration
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use. The Triangle website and forum may contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. In the wider interests of the Anfield community - The Triangle website has made this material available – in an effort to advance the understanding of social and environmental responsibility issues, corporate accountability and human rights. Where possible The Triangle website has endeavoured to acknowledge ownership of such content contained herein.

It's Time To End The Lies

The Triangle website members volunteer their time and knowledge of key issues in the Rockfield Triangle to help and support our fellow residents.
Copyright © 2012 The Triangle. All rights reserved. The Triangle website is non-funded and non-profit generating