Liverpool F.c.

[carmine]

You looked as bad as us last night - without Suarez you're just journeymen. I was disappointed with getting the usual biased ref at Anfield treatment, re the goal, but we didn't look like we had a match winner apart from that incident.

I enjoyed Gerard's downplaying of Liverpool finishing below Everton again this season (if you do, that is) suggesting it's not important. Try telling that to my Reds-supporting mates...

I know derbies can be dour affairs but that game was truely dreadful. So, you can imagine my astonishment when the Utd/chav game was argueably worse!!

[BangrakBob]

That game summed up our season......average with the odd moment of hope

Edited May 6, 2013 by BangrakBob

[wellred]

without Suarez you're just journeymen. I was

Rubbish. Granted he is a top player and an asset to any side but if anything is to be acknowledged from the win at Newcastle then it is that they don't depend on 1 player. Different players got into attacking positions and this was proven by the number of different goal scorers. Earlier in the season before they bought Coutinho or Sturridge maybe.

[rijit]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2013/may/06/anfield-liverpool-david-conn

'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'.

Edited May 6, 2013 by rijit

[sharecropper]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2013/may/06/anfield-liverpool-david-conn

'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'.

Shocking - I hope Reds' fans will be militating against this Soviet-style oppression and abuse of Planning laws to desecrate a historical Liverpool community in the shadows of Anfield.

Or will they say nothing and be complicit in this outrageous violation of human rights, as American capitalists wage war against the working class of Liverpool?

Stevie H?

Edited May 7, 2013 by sharecropper

[rott]

without Suarez you're just journeymen. I was

Rubbish. Granted he is a top player and an asset to any side but if anything is to be acknowledged from the win at Newcastle then it is that they don't depend on 1 player. Different players got into attacking positions and this was proven by the number of different goal scorers. Earlier in the season before they bought Coutinho or Sturridge maybe.

Bangrak Bob likes this...................................Well he would do wouldn't he.

Yes Suarez is a top player and an asset to any side, and without him you ARE a much lesser team. Be honest, that result against Newcastle shocked you as much as it did anyone, but you still have a lot more to play without him so it will be interesting to see how the rest go.

That Guardian article is a bit of a shocker, I am Anfield born and bred and familiar with all those roads mentioned, so I have a great deal of sympathy with the people who have seen their quality of life and the value of their homes cynically and deliberately destroyed.

While on the subject it is news to me that Epstein lived on Anfield Road, I always thought he was from Childwall somewhere.

[smokie36]

I think Stevie is on his holidays.

[rott]

Sadly missed, presumably enjoying the long school break and will soon be back to lead us towards enlightenment.

[wellred]

Yes Suarez is a top player and an asset to any side, and without him you ARE a much lesser team. Be honest, that result against Newcastle shocked you as much as it did anyone, but you still have a lot more to play without him so it will be interesting to see how the rest go.

The number of goals scored against Newcastle surprised me but the display didn't. We've made some real progress under Rogers and the signings of Coutinho and Sturridge have helped too.

Suarez is a world class player so to say we wouldn't miss him would be a silly comment. However I believe we are capable of holding our own on most occasions without him. There is a difference between this and saying we are a 1 man team which was what the original comment was.

[BangrakBob]

back to back season comparison

[rijit]

I think it's time to get the yanks out banners dusted off. These idiots haven't got a clue how to get us back in the top4. They had their chance to spend loads before FFp kicked in and sat around with their thumbs up their arse. But the good things is 3 years down the line when all our talented players have gone and we are bottom half at best we should be cheap so hopefully some rich Arab can come and put John Henry and his cronies out of their misery.

TBH, unfortunatly i think your completely wrong.

[wellred]

I think it's time to get the yanks out banners dusted off. These idiots haven't got a clue how to get us back in the top4. They had their chance to spend loads before FFp kicked in and sat around with their thumbs up their arse. But the good things is 3 years down the line when all our talented players have gone and we are bottom half at best we should be cheap so hopefully some rich Arab can come and put John Henry and his cronies out of their misery.

TBH, unfortunatly i think your completely wrong.

Ok Mr Liverpool

[sharecropper]

Yes Suarez is a top player and an asset to any side, and without him you ARE a much lesser team. Be honest, that result against Newcastle shocked you as much as it did anyone, but you still have a lot more to play without him so it will be interesting to see how the rest go.

The number of goals scored against Newcastle surprised me but the display didn't. We've made some real progress under Rogers and the signings of Coutinho and Sturridge have helped too.

Suarez is a world class player so to say we wouldn't miss him would be a silly comment. However I believe we are capable of holding our own on most occasions without him. There is a difference between this and saying we are a 1 man team which was what the original comment was.

I thought Sturridge looked ordinary and selfish against Everton. Forget Newcastle, they're in deep trouble, although I grant you that's an improvement on your performance last season, when you did so badly against lower teams.

But against another middling side, like us, you don't look all that dangerous to me, and certainly no threat to the big Premier league teams.

[rijit]

I think it's time to get the yanks out banners dusted off. These idiots haven't got a clue how to get us back in the top4. They had their chance to spend loads before FFp kicked in and sat around with their thumbs up their arse. But the good things is 3 years down the line when all our talented players have gone and we are bottom half at best we should be cheap so hopefully some rich Arab can come and put John Henry and his cronies out of their misery.

TBH, unfortunatly i think your completely wrong.

Ok Mr Liverpool

surely 35 mil 4 carroll 17ish 4 henderson 12 ? ish 4 adams under dagliesh makes you wrong on them failing to splash the cash ? But Under rodgers imo he's relatively prudently put the best balanced squad you've had since early benitez post evans days, imo your 2 - 3 signings away from the next step. And i'm sure Rodgers wont be slow in making them and getting value for money something which,arguably, Benitez 4 all his tactical nouse at the end and dagliesh constantly failed to get, my gut reaction by the way they 'nipped in' and got couthino is they will bac him and when he feels its right he will spend, not b4 or just on the need to get in their b4 the fp thing comes in and the problem, if there is one is the director/ md level at liverpool. not the owners or the team. but hey ho you know more than me..

[sharecropper]

Another article about the decimation of Anfield (community) by "low-grade corporate evil", in the hardly-working Class-sympathetic Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100215464/is-liverpool-fc-deliberately-driving-anfield-in-poverty-in-order-to-keep-its-overheads-down/

This really is outrageous and I'm glad nobody has had the nerve to defend it.

[rijit]

Yes Suarez is a top player and an asset to any side, and without him you ARE a much lesser team. Be honest, that result against Newcastle shocked you as much as it did anyone, but you still have a lot more to play without him so it will be interesting to see how the rest go.

The number of goals scored against Newcastle surprised me but the display didn't. We've made some real progress under Rogers and the signings of Coutinho and Sturridge have helped too.

Suarez is a world class player so to say we wouldn't miss him would be a silly comment. However I believe we are capable of holding our own on most occasions without him. There is a difference between this and saying we are a 1 man team which was what the original comment was.

I thought Sturridge looked ordinary and selfish against Everton. Forget Newcastle, they're in deep trouble, although I grant you that's an improvement on your performance last season, when you did so badly against lower teams.

But against another middling side, like us, you don't look all that dangerous to me, and certainly no threat to the big Premier league teams.

Tbh i didnt see the game, but b4 he was injured , boy he looked sharp and tbh it wouldn't surprise me if he's still carrying a bit of an injury?

[BangrakBob]

Another article about the decimation of Anfield (community) by "low-grade corporate evil", in the hardly-working Class-sympathetic Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100215464/is-liverpool-fc-deliberately-driving-anfield-in-poverty-in-order-to-keep-its-overheads-down/

This really is outrageous and I'm glad nobody has had the nerve to defend it.

I think you need a personal account to comment and I don't have one, even if I did I really can't be bothered getting into an endless argument about it.

What I will say is that Guardian article from Conn was riddled with obvious sensationalistic journalism language and repetition, with selective quotes from a select few and view point with no factual references.

The Telegraph blog writer you've quoted usually writes about science and his recent other articles include, one about a politicians ability to swear and a second one about how historical figures of the past would look like on modern tv shows like The Only Way is Essex. Seriously, I'm supposed to give this muppet credence???

Crap, dumbed down journalism, subjective, opinionated tabloid sh*te to sell papers, keep the sheep inline and appease corporate agenda.

Edited May 7, 2013 by BangrakBob

[mad mary]

Another article about the decimation of Anfield (community) by "low-grade corporate evil", in the hardly-working Class-sympathetic Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100215464/is-liverpool-fc-deliberately-driving-anfield-in-poverty-in-order-to-keep-its-overheads-down/

This really is outrageous and I'm glad nobody has had the nerve to defend it.

It's only outrageous if you are gullible enough to believe it...No facts just scurrilous supposition.

[rijit]

Another article about the decimation of Anfield (community) by "low-grade corporate evil", in the hardly-working Class-sympathetic Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100215464/is-liverpool-fc-deliberately-driving-anfield-in-poverty-in-order-to-keep-its-overheads-down/

This really is outrageous and I'm glad nobody has had the nerve to defend it.

What I will say is that Guardian article from Conn was riddled with obvious sensationalistic journalism language and repetition, with selective quotes from a select few and view point with no factual references.

Mate all he said was true, else Liverpool would no doubt prosecute, 'selective' few LOL what the f do u want he's picked a few that bac the story up, ive heard 4 years they' ve been offering shit low prices cos the areas run down, why , ONe of the major reasons is Liverpool fc have bought and been buying up houses and boarding them up, then using that to effectively 'bully' /pressure people into selling at prices they cant go and buy again for. It aint nice , but that's life or business in liverpool TOUGH AND NASTY, shame really 4 a club that supposedly famed for having such deep lying roots in the community.

[mad mary]

Another article about the decimation of Anfield (community) by "low-grade corporate evil", in the hardly-working Class-sympathetic Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100215464/is-liverpool-fc-deliberately-driving-anfield-in-poverty-in-order-to-keep-its-overheads-down/

This really is outrageous and I'm glad nobody has had the nerve to defend it.

What I will say is that Guardian article from Conn was riddled with obvious sensationalistic journalism language and repetition, with selective quotes from a select few and view point with no factual references.

Mate all he said was true, else Liverpool would no doubt prosecute, 'selective' few LOL what the f do u want he's picked a few that bac the story up, ive heard 4 years they' ve been offering shit low prices cos the areas run down, why , ONe of the major reasons is Liverpool fc have bought and been buying up houses and boarding them up, then using that to effectively 'bully' /pressure people into selling at prices they cant go and buy again for. It aint nice , but that's life or business in liverpool TOUGH AND NASTY, shame really 4 a club that supposedly famed for having such deep lying roots in the community.

"Mate all he said was true"

"I've heard 4 years"

Aye mate you've nailed it ,I'm now convinced

[rijit]

Another article about the decimation of Anfield (community) by "low-grade corporate evil", in the hardly-working Class-sympathetic Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100215464/is-liverpool-fc-deliberately-driving-anfield-in-poverty-in-order-to-keep-its-overheads-down/

This really is outrageous and I'm glad nobody has had the nerve to defend it.

What I will say is that Guardian article from Conn was riddled with obvious sensationalistic journalism language and repetition, with selective quotes from a select few and view point with no factual references.

Mate all he said was true, else Liverpool would no doubt prosecute, 'selective' few LOL what the f do u want he's picked a few that bac the story up, ive heard 4 years they' ve been offering shit low prices cos the areas run down, why , ONe of the major reasons is Liverpool fc have bought and been buying up houses and boarding them up, then using that to effectively 'bully' /pressure people into selling at prices they cant go and buy again for. It aint nice , but that's life or business in liverpool TOUGH AND NASTY, shame really 4 a club that supposedly famed for having such deep lying roots in the community.

"Mate all he said was true"

"I've heard 4 years"

Aye mate you've nailed it ,I'm now convinced

good.

[sharecropper]

Another article about the decimation of Anfield (community) by "low-grade corporate evil", in the hardly-working Class-sympathetic Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100215464/is-liverpool-fc-deliberately-driving-anfield-in-poverty-in-order-to-keep-its-overheads-down/

This really is outrageous and I'm glad nobody has had the nerve to defend it.

I think you need a personal account to comment and I don't have one, even if I did I really can't be bothered getting into an endless argument about it.

What I will say is that Guardian article from Conn was riddled with obvious sensationalistic journalism language and repetition, with selective quotes from a select few and view point with no factual references.

The Telegraph blog writer you've quoted usually writes about science and his recent other articles include, one about a politicians ability to swear and a second one about how historical figures of the past would look like on modern tv shows like The Only Way is Essex. Seriously, I'm supposed to give this muppet credence???

Crap, dumbed down journalism, subjective, opinionated tabloid sh*te to sell papers, keep the sheep inline and appease corporate agenda.

Very amusing response. The Guardian and the Telegraph not good enough for you eh?

More coverage of this nasty residential cleansing programme here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2320797/Anfield-regeneration-track-insists-Liverpool-City-Council.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[BangrakBob]

Another article about the decimation of Anfield (community) by "low-grade corporate evil", in the hardly-working Class-sympathetic Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100215464/is-liverpool-fc-deliberately-driving-anfield-in-poverty-in-order-to-keep-its-overheads-down/

This really is outrageous and I'm glad nobody has had the nerve to defend it.

What I will say is that Guardian article from Conn was riddled with obvious sensationalistic journalism language and repetition, with selective quotes from a select few and view point with no factual references.

Mate all he said was true, else Liverpool would no doubt prosecute, 'selective' few LOL what the f do u want he's picked a few that bac the story up, ive heard 4 years they' ve been offering shit low prices cos the areas run down, why , ONe of the major reasons is Liverpool fc have bought and been buying up houses and boarding them up, then using that to effectively 'bully' /pressure people into selling at prices they cant go and buy again for. It aint nice , but that's life or business in liverpool TOUGH AND NASTY, shame really 4 a club that supposedly famed for having such deep lying roots in the community.

If there was a story in it, he made a meal of it with its delivery. A balanced view might have helped.

I don't know if you managed to read through some of the readers comments, but some people who actually live in the area and others with greater knowledge & understanding made some interesting counter points.

[BangrakBob]

Another article about the decimation of Anfield (community) by "low-grade corporate evil", in the hardly-working Class-sympathetic Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100215464/is-liverpool-fc-deliberately-driving-anfield-in-poverty-in-order-to-keep-its-overheads-down/

This really is outrageous and I'm glad nobody has had the nerve to defend it.

I think you need a personal account to comment and I don't have one, even if I did I really can't be bothered getting into an endless argument about it.

What I will say is that Guardian article from Conn was riddled with obvious sensationalistic journalism language and repetition, with selective quotes from a select few and view point with no factual references.

The Telegraph blog writer you've quoted usually writes about science and his recent other articles include, one about a politicians ability to swear and a second one about how historical figures of the past would look like on modern tv shows like The Only Way is Essex. Seriously, I'm supposed to give this muppet credence???

Crap, dumbed down journalism, subjective, opinionated tabloid sh*te to sell papers, keep the sheep inline and appease corporate agenda.

Very amusing response. The Guardian and the Telegraph not good enough for you eh?

More coverage of this nasty residential cleansing programme here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2320797/Anfield-regeneration-track-insists-Liverpool-City-Council.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

jeez sharecropper have you been doing a tabloid journalism course yourself, "nasty residential cleansing". Why not go a step further, "Anfield or Auschwitz?"

[rijit]

yeah just had a look through the first couple of pages, and tbh couldn't see, much to defend the clubs behavior, which ever way you look at it in relation Anfield as an area and the people who live their the club have behaved poorly, and with their recent track record of handling issues that have attracted media interest they will carry on doing so.

[nellyp]

It seems to me that this has been ongoing for a lot longer than the current management and owners can be accountable for. Never the less it also seems to be another bad situation. It should also be noted that Liverpool have only bought 8-10 houses over a period of over 10 years. The others have been purchased by the council and Arena. The whole area of some 2,000 properties is unfortunately run down. It would have been affordable (and desirable) for the club to have paid over the odds for the houses they bought. As far as I am aware the council are offering packages to the remaining tenants. I can't remember what it is, but it probably isn't enough.,It would be nice to be out of the papers for a while.

[sharecropper]

Liverpool have only bought 8-10 houses over a period of over 10 years. The others have been purchased by the council and Arena. The whole area of some 2,000 properties is unfortunately run down

Look up the phrases "concert party", which this scam is very similar to,but in a real estate context, and also the word "corruption".

The Liverpool "slum" clearance outrage of the 1970s is something I still cannot believe bent (Socialist) Liverpool politicians got away with, and I hope this present lot of bent scumbags don't get away with this.

[StevieH]

Liverpool have only bought 8-10 houses over a period of over 10 years. The others have been purchased by the council and Arena. The whole area of some 2,000 properties is unfortunately run down

Look up the phrases "concert party", which this scam is very similar to,but in a real estate context, and also the word "corruption".

The Liverpool "slum" clearance outrage of the 1970s is something I still cannot believe bent (Socialist) Liverpool politicians got away with, and I hope this present lot of bent scumbags don't get away with this.

no defence here. off the field we've been a joke for over twenty years and this just stinks of the typical moores and parry incompetence. don't think we're particularly well run now either, but at least these lot have the excuse(?) of not actually knowing where L4 is and being on the other side of the atlantic. it was on moores' and parry's doorstep for a long time and they still <deleted> over a lot of residents and the area in general. clubs have a duty to look after their communities and very few do. liverpool today are more concerned about money-spinning summer jaunts to australia and thailand.

david conn is an excellent journalist by the way, one of the best around. his work on the financial side of the game and also his investigative stuff on hillsborough have always been superb.

[sharecropper]

no defence here. off the field we've been a joke for over twenty years and this just stinks of the typical moores and parry incompetence. don't think we're particularly well run now either, but at least these lot have the excuse(?) of not actually knowing where L4 is and being on the other side of the atlantic. it was on moores' and parry's doorstep for a long time and they still <deleted> over a lot of residents and the area in general. clubs have a duty to look after their communities and very few do. liverpool today are more concerned about money-spinning summer jaunts to australia and thailand.

david conn is an excellent journalist by the way, one of the best around. his work on the financial side of the game and also his investigative stuff on hillsborough have always been superb.

I wasn't sure whether to report this post, as someone has clearly abducted Our Ste and replaced him with a better bloke!

But seriously, an excellent post.

[nellyp]

Here you go, I looked it up

A concert party, also called a Pierrot troupe, is the collective name for a group of entertainers, or Pierrots, popular in Britain during the first half of the 20th century. The variety show given by a Pierrot troupe was called a Pierrot show

But seriously

A 'concert party' is a group of people acting in concert in a takeover bid. In the UK, there are rules for such bids, regulated by regulators such as the Takeover Panel.

There is a 30% threshold at which a Mandatory Offer must be made. This is considered to be reached when a concert party jointly hold 30% of the shares in a company, not when one of them does. The same applies to other financial instrument holdings such as derivatives. Some entities are presumed to be acting in concert unless shown otherwise. These include the directors, subsidiaries, associate companies and the parent company of the bidder.

As far as I'm aware Arena are a housing association. Do they and Liverpool have some kind of relationship? If so I can't find it, I suppose it is quite possible that LCC and Arena do, but I still don't understand how LFC are a concert party in this.

Please don't get me wrong I think this is bad and that the councils offer (They are offering current value (which will not be the true value), plus 10%, plus costs, plus giving interest free loans.) is not good enough. I really do believe that when the club decided to start buying they should have started buying at over the odds. i also think that the plans for redevelopment of Anfield must have had an effect on house prices. I simply don't think you can blame the club for all the problems of the area. but yes we should have done more. As a side note does anybody actually know what the councils are offering? because nobody seems to be saying