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

An interesting article from the Guardian here. In a nutshell, it says Liverpool FC have been buying houses around Anfield then leaving them empty in the hope that the remaining residents will move away from the now rundown area of their own accord so they can expand the stadium without too much hassle. They started doing it in the mid-90's.

Stay classy, Liverpool. You'll never walk alone. Aye, right.

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

I'm sure some of the Liverpool fans on here must have been aware of this before? First I'd heard about it. Pretty disappointing, but not surprising that a football club (any, not just LFC) would do this.

I'm sure its someone elses fault. It always is.

I blame Suarez

In Uruguay, buying the houses around a venue shadily and leaving them empty is a way of showing someone you need to poop.

GSC wrote:In Uruguay, buying the houses around a venue shadily and leaving them empty is a way of showing someone you need to poop.

i know right , its not his fault at all ,just a misunderstading like the cannibalism and the racism

Exactly. Damn Thatcher, always making Suarez out to be the perpetrator.

its those bloody tories and the EU!

Personally, the buck stops with Obama for me on this one.

Obama is only self respomsible for this whole fiasco, the Bush regime set this all up, Obama is only trying to fix this mess.

I BLAME BUSH

This miscalculation is clearly the result of his drug addled mind, stemming from that one blunt he smoked in college.

Ban marijuana imo.

however the legalistion in some american states is putting a message out that marijuana is good, it all stems from colarado adn the devil that is John Hickenlooper , the stae govenor of that palce

BLAME HICKENLOOPER

cherriesfna wrote:Obama is only self respomsible for this whole fiasco, the Bush regime set this all up, Obama is only trying to fix this mess.

I BLAME BUSH

How very dare you!

Leave Bush alone, ya bully!

I blame whoever came up with the name Hickenlooper (I hope his first intial was C) for Johns desire to legally cope with that pain.

it apparently means favoured by GOD, god however was heavily thrust upon people in the middle ages and who did that the most, yep Henry VIII

I BLAME HENRY VIII

I blame his second wife for being a witch

witches are magic and thats evil

I blame J K Rowling for idolising magic

I blame Gandalf for creating such a high bar for magic users. Nobody will ever top him.

I blame The Miz.

Just have to lower the tone don't you Crimey?

I blame you.

Il Gialloblu wrote:An interesting article from the Guardian here. In a nutshell, it says Liverpool FC have been buying houses around Anfield then leaving them empty in the hope that the remaining residents will move away from the now rundown area of their own accord so they can expand the stadium without too much hassle. They started doing it in the mid-90's.

Stay classy, Liverpool. You'll never walk alone. Aye, right.

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

I'm sure some of the Liverpool fans on here must have been aware of this before? First I'd heard about it. Pretty disappointing, but not surprising that a football club (any, not just LFC) would do this.

Alternatively they have tried to buy all the houses in question, but some of the residents have continually refused as is their right. However, this has left liverpool in ownership of some of the houses but not all of them. What do you then want them to do? Abandon their plan and resell the houses? Rent them out? Or keep trying to buy the remaining houses as they have been trying for the past 10 years at least. This is a story made out of nothing from a terrible newspaper. No surprise it is from the guardian - a manchester newspaper originally.

LivinginItaly wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:An interesting article from the Guardian here. In a nutshell, it says Liverpool FC have been buying houses around Anfield then leaving them empty in the hope that the remaining residents will move away from the now rundown area of their own accord so they can expand the stadium without too much hassle. They started doing it in the mid-90's.

Stay classy, Liverpool. You'll never walk alone. Aye, right.

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

I'm sure some of the Liverpool fans on here must have been aware of this before? First I'd heard about it. Pretty disappointing, but not surprising that a football club (any, not just LFC) would do this.

Alternatively they have tried to buy all the houses in question, but some of the residents have continually refused as is their right. However, this has left liverpool in ownership of some of the houses but not all of them. What do you then want them to do? Abandon their plan and resell the houses? Rent them out? Or keep trying to buy the remaining houses as they have been trying for the past 10 years at least. This is a story made out of nothing from a terrible newspaper. No surprise it is from the guardian - a manchester newspaper originally.

I don't really want them to do anything. Not as much as I wanted to get some decent, sensible responses to counter what looked a pretty one sided article anyway, so thanks for being the first to do that.

I know there are Liverpool fans on here and I wondered what the other side of the coin to what The Guardian wrote might be. Why couldn't they have rented them out by the way?

Funnily enough this exact same thing has been happening at Barnsley for years. I'd agree with what Il G said except the whiny stuff about the Guardian. What blooming newspapers are we allowed to buy these days

chris.wilkerson13 wrote:Funnily enough this exact same thing has been happening at Barnsley for years. I'd agree with what Il G said except the whiny stuff about the Guardian. What blooming newspapers are we allowed to buy these days

I'm not sure I follow.

Il Gialloblu wrote:

LivinginItaly wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:An interesting article from the Guardian here. In a nutshell, it says Liverpool FC have been buying houses around Anfield then leaving them empty in the hope that the remaining residents will move away from the now rundown area of their own accord so they can expand the stadium without too much hassle. They started doing it in the mid-90's.

Stay classy, Liverpool. You'll never walk alone. Aye, right.

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

I'm sure some of the Liverpool fans on here must have been aware of this before? First I'd heard about it. Pretty disappointing, but not surprising that a football club (any, not just LFC) would do this.

Alternatively they have tried to buy all the houses in question, but some of the residents have continually refused as is their right. However, this has left liverpool in ownership of some of the houses but not all of them. What do you then want them to do? Abandon their plan and resell the houses? Rent them out? Or keep trying to buy the remaining houses as they have been trying for the past 10 years at least. This is a story made out of nothing from a terrible newspaper. No surprise it is from the guardian - a manchester newspaper originally.

I don't really want them to do anything. Not as much as I wanted to get some decent, sensible responses to counter what looked a pretty one sided article anyway, so thanks for being the first to do that.

I know there are Liverpool fans on here and I wondered what the other side of the coin to what The Guardian wrote might be. Why couldn't they have rented them out by the way?

If they rented them out, then had to kick out the tenants, that would be seen as just as bad if not worse.

I'm not sure it would, Crimey.

There's nothing wrong with a rental agreement coming to an end. Happens all the time. Part and parcel of renting. Just give the tenants the amount of notice they agreed on when they signed the contract.

Better than houses being empty for over a decade.

Trouble is though how could they offer a rental agreement for an unknown period of time? Liverpool would also have preferred a much quicker resolution.

Sorry but the renting scenario would be all too easily manipulated by the media into a son story. Simple fact is if the residents had accepted the offers years ago we wouldn't have this situation now. They didn't, which is their right, but they can't now complain about the consequences.

This is nothing new, as it you say been happening since the 90's
Some people living near by are stubborn and wont sell. (not that thats a bad thing ) so you have some houses being lived in others empty.
In the end liverpool will keep hold of the properties because it counts as an asset to potentially take loans out again

Alot of developers buy up property and let it fall apart so they can tear it down. so maybe the Guardian have a point.

Also you have to think about a cost element if they rented them out. The houses would need to be renovated and then there is the running costs on top.

End of the day Liverpool arent the only business to do this let alone football club. And i say business cause lets face it most clubs are now

GSC wrote:I'm sure its someone elses fault. It always is.

First time I've read to article.

What is this in reference to and what are you trying to imply GSC?