A new home for Everton

[Bay City]

Originally Posted by robinsonky1

.. but having had visions of sugarplums dangled in front of them them for the last few years I don't think the red half would share now.

The biggest obstacle to a share is Parry. Once the Yanks have him out of the way a stadium share will most likely happen. Where it will be is another matter.

Vauxhall or Sandhills look good.

[robinsonky1]

Originally Posted by Bay City

The biggest obstacle to a share is Parry. Once the Yanks have him out of the way a stadium share will most likely happen. Where it will be is another matter.

Vauxhall or Sandhills look good.

but as 'permission' has been given for the park..... why not there?

[Bay City]

Originally Posted by robinsonky1

but as 'permission' has been given for the park..... why not there?

It will be at least 75,000. That area can't handle 75,000. It can't even handle 40,000

Best get away and leave those poor people in peace.

[Joe the red]

Bearing in mind both stadia have been there for over a century, people who moved to Anfield / Walton probably had a fair idea what they were letting themselves in for, so I don't have huge sympathy.

[Bay City]

Originally Posted by Joe the red

Bearing in mind both stadia have been there for over a century, people who moved to Anfield / Walton probably had a fair idea what they were letting themselves in for, so I don't have huge sympathy.

Many had Hobson's Choice. Whether who was first or not, large stadia should not be in residential areas. They are a total nuisance to many 100s of people Councils should discourage them at all costs. Would you build a large power station amongst houses? Mot much difference.

[Joe the red]

Anfield is 125 years old. Most houses surrounding it were built afterwards. The majority of people who live there chose to do so. I have little sympathy for those who complain that large numbers of people come to the area alternate weekends.

Your power station analogy is unsurprisingly a poor one.

[Bay City]

Originally Posted by Joe the red

Anfield is 125 years old.

I'll write gain for you....
Many had Hobson's Choice. Whether who was first or not, large stadia should not be in residential areas. They are a total nuisance to many 1000s of people. Councils should discourage them at all costs. Would you build a large power station amongst houses? Mot much difference.

Talking to brainwashed football fans is like talking to the wall.

[Joe the red]

Originally Posted by Bay City

I'll write gain for you....
Many had Hobson's Choice. Whether who was first or not, large stadia should not be in residential areas. They are a total nuisance to many 1000s of people. Councils should discourage them at all costs. Would you build a large power station amongst houses? Mot much difference.

Talking to brainwashed football fans is like talking to the wall.

Thanks for your enlightening comments and addressing my observations in your usual thought-provoking manner.

The nuisance that the new Anfield will be caused house prices in Anfield to rise by 10% almost overnight. I doubt the announcement that a new Sellafield or Drax would have a similar effect.

[Bay City]

Originally Posted by Joe the red

Thanks for your enlightening comments and addressing my observations in your usual thought-provoking manner.

Your lack of social awareness is apparent. The selfish attitude, of football fans of both colours, is nauseating.

The nuisance that the new Anfield will be caused house prices in Anfield to rise by 10% almost overnight.

Well two stadia in the area have failed to do that in 125 years making the areas decline. AS LFC have blighted the locale by boarding up 100s of houses dropping house prices radically, having house prices rise 10% is pitiful. 10% of not much isn't much at all.

[Joe the red]

Originally Posted by Bay City

Your lack of social awareness is apparent.

Your lack of reality is equally apparent across all threads and for that matter fora.

[Joe the red]

Originally Posted by Bay City

Well two stadia in the area have failed to do that in 125 years making the areas decline. AS LFC have blighted the locale by boarding up 100s of houses dropping house prices radically, having house prices rise 10% is pitiful. 10% of not much isn't much at all.

You've trotted this drivel out before on other threads with little substantiation. Indeed it is impossible to gauge the effect on property values as a result of the stadium locations. BTW house prices in the majority of Anfield did not fall radically as a result of the houses being boarded up in the Rockfield Road area but demonstrably did rise on the announcement of a new stadium with the associated benefits it will bring.

[Tom Hughes]

I find it peculiar how some people blame the footy grounds for the ills of the areas in which they reside. Walton and Anfield are relatively intact inner city areas with their own high streets still operating. Compare that to so many other once thriving areas that no longer have any density of population nor shopping high streets. I think it more likely that these over-a-century old institutions have helped these areas survive. Have a look at the whole of Everton/Vauxhall, big parts of the Dingle/Toxteth etc. These were highly populated areas, with a network of high streets serving them, perhaps if a footy ground had been amongst them they would still be functioning communities. The key to how our footy clubs relate to each other and their communities is deeply woven into the fabric of those areas and the city itself. This is how football evolved in this country, and how many other sports/stadia developed around the world. The sanitisation of which is not always the utopia preached..... Reebok stadium anybody?

[Joe the red]

Originally Posted by Tom Hughes

I find it peculiar how some people blame the footy grounds for the ills of the areas in which they reside. Walton and Anfield are relatively intact inner city areas with their own high streets still operating. Compare that to so many other once thriving areas that no longer have any density of population nor shopping high streets. I think it more likely that these over-a-century old institutions have helped these areas survive. Have a look at the whole of Everton/Vauxhall, big parts of the Dingle/Toxteth etc. These were highly populated areas, with a network of high streets serving them, perhaps if a footy ground had been amongst them they would still be functioning communities. The key to how our footy clubs relate to each other and their communities is deeply woven into the fabric of those areas and the city itself. This is how football evolved in this country, and how many other sports/stadia developed around the world. The sanitisation of which is not always the utopia preached..... Reebok stadium anybody?

Spot on Tom. Look at Kenny in comparison to County Road. Says it all really.

[Bay City]

Originally Posted by Joe the red

You've trotted this drivel out before on other threads with little substantiation. Indeed it is impossible to gauge the effect on property values as a result of the stadium locations. BTW house prices in the majority of Anfield did not fall radically as a result of the houses being boarded up in the Rockfield Road area but demonstrably did rise on the announcement of a new stadium with the associated benefits it will bring.

House prices dropped. When a 75,000 stadium is there house prices will drop as no one wants that crap every week, and through the week too. To get a 75,000 stadium would entail massive infrastructure improvements to the area. The new station planned would only scratch at the surface in moving 75,000 quickly. The throughput on Merseyrail is just not good enough.

Liverpool has lots of suitable brownfield sites for a stadia, the clubs should be made to go to one of those. The council give two sites for the clubs to choose: Garston Docks and Speke. The Speke site is now built on.

This useless LibDem council are to blame. They should have had a good word with both clubs and told them that Walton and Anfield are out of the question as they are too residential. Then the clubs would have known the situation and reserved, bought, etc, suitable sites or whatever.

Everton's new state-of-the-art training ground is opposite Speke in Halewood. It makes sense for them to go to Speke or Garston Docks. Garston gives an impressive near river fronting location too.

[Toadboy]

House prices rocketed when Liverpool FC got planning permission.

It wasn't the stadium that kept house prices low per say it was a bottomed out economy, planning blight and a strategy by Liverpool FC of buying properties and running them down that casued the house market around the stadium to enter a black hole.

Dispersal rates at Anfield and Goodison are excellent by any measure, far better than any single road served or edge of town ground I've been to. in Anfields case the 40 odd thousand help to sustain the local economy and yet the district is still operating at less than capacity, the fabric and infrastructure of Walton and Anfield could easily cope with larger influxes of people on matchdays without having to increase retail capacity.

Anyone who fails to grasp that fails to understand the human and urban dynamic.

[Joe the red]

So the the knowledge that a new stadium will be built sent house prices up by 10% immediately and doubled the enquiries about properties in the area. But the actual completion of the stadium will result in a downward trend in prices. It is impossible to comprehend your logic.

[Bay City]

Originally Posted by Tom Hughes

I find it peculiar how some people blame the footy grounds for the ills of the areas in which they reside.

Oh they really do help Anfield and Walton don't they!

Walton and Anfield are relatively intact inner city areas with their own high streets still operating.

Both areas are very poor with high unemployment, poor housing, etc, etc. Anfield is one of the poorest districts in the country. LFC have been spouting propaganda that the area will become like Monte Carlo if a large concrete nuisance structure is built.

The key to how our footy clubs relate to each other and their communities is deeply woven into the fabric of those areas and the city itself.

The clubs are no longer local clubs supported by the local population. That went 40 years ago. The 1000s of Norwegians who attend Liverpool home games is indicative of that.

Man U could still be a top club playing on a training ground with no fans around, the non-stadium revenue is so strong. The world appeal is apparent with the Thai and Dubai governments wanting to buy Liverpool FC indicating that.

This is all clearly obvious!! Get your heads out of your football obsessed bums.

Get the clubs into suitable locations away from people.

[Bay City]

Originally Posted by Toadboy

House prices rocketed when Liverpool FC got planning permission.

Rocketed!!! Wow!! The Russian billionaires will be wanting live there soon.

It wasn't the stadium that kept house prices low per say it was a bottomed out economy,

What tripe!

Dispersal rates at Anfield and Goodison are excellent by any measure,

No parking provision and the fans park in residential streets where they are a nuisance. And these areas have low car ownership. Once that rises the problems will be exasperated. And that is with only 40,000 for each ground right now. God only knows what it will be like with 65,000, 75,000.

Get ones head out of one's selfish footy bum. There are countless suitable sites for the clubs in the city.

[Bay City]

Originally Posted by Joe the red

Spot on Tom. Look at Kenny in comparison to County Road. Says it all really.

Yep! County Rd looks like Bond Street Doesn't it!!! Duh!!!

Look what they did to Walton

[Toadboy]

Talking out of your arse again John. House prices did rocket, house builders and developers are investing in the area now - unheard of even a couple of years ago.

Cars are a problem, they're an issue in any development, largely because of the lack of investment in transport and the over development of car based residential areas for a couple of generations. You'll know all about that coming from Milton Keynes and being so keen on building car stadiums with enormous car parks served by a single road!

As for being selfish, maybe there's something in that but not much. All publicy accessed sites with impinge on somebody for somebody elses benefit. On the flip side there's outside money pouring in to neighbourhoods which have local economies largely based on this income. It would appear that in your world you'd like to see a segregation of people, homes, businesses, venues etc. No doubt in your selfish world you'll be happy to see people working for low wages or getting a few hours extra in then losing a chunk of that in transport costs...at the same time you'll see a high street and a local shopping district die as Tesco rip the fabric out of historic neighbourhoods.

Go away John, you spout the same shite time and again without offering much in return.