Rushian

What a top player as well. Little known fact, this one.

they've already made a request to the FA.

the "Bellamy clause" has been reported consistently in the press since he signed for Blackburn e.g. Impulsive Bellamy signs for Blackburn By Tim Rich (Filed: 08/07/2005) Daily Telegraph When Craig Bellamy said earlier this summer that he wanted to move to a club that matched his ambition, it was unlikely he had Blackburn in mind. Unlike his other two suitors, Everton and Celtic, the Lancashire club could not offer this mercurial striker Champions League football, nor match his £2.5 million Newcastle salary. His decision to go to Ewood Park for a substantial pay cut surprised his friends on Tyneside and appears to have been taken on impulse. Less than 12 hours after meeting the Blackburn manager, Mark Hughes, at Clayton Blackmore's wedding (Hughes was best man), Bellamy was undergoing his medical. However, the reassurance of familiar faces in the shape of Hughes and his assistants, Mark Bowen and Eddie Niedzwiecki - all of whom had coached him successfully with Wales - was enough to secure his move on a four-year contract for an undisclosed fee. Bellamy said, somewhat gauchely, that if it were not for the circumstances, "they would have paid much more for me". There is, however, a clause in Bellamy's contract with Blackburn that would allow him to leave for £6 million should a club in the Champions League make a bid. On his first day at Ewood Park, Bellamy declined to enter into further criticisms of Newcastle, who will use most of the fee of around £5 million to fund their bid for Inter Milan's Turkish midfielder, Emre Belozoglu. "It is up to me to show that I'm not a disruptive influence," he said, which will come as a relief to a dressing room that already boasts his Wales team-mate, Robbie Savage.

Mike you're getting a bit stalkerish. fyds has mentioned his shares numerous times on here.

Russian money.

The "report" is from late 2003 not 2000 (it's an extract of our submitted planning proposal), Morgan doesn't sit on the board and David Dein started on his stadium project three years before Liverpool - to match his timescale we have to be in Stanley Park in 2009. Much of what Molby has been criticising the board for not doing, they've actually done as you can see by the summary above, though his comments on the council and the ability to do business in Liverpool v Manchester are very accurate. But apart from all that, everyone else can carry on as normal

That's the best I've seen Torres play in ages. Thought he had a very disappointing season at Atletico.

Thought this might help: Preliminary Assessment 2.33 An initial study of 14 potential alternative sites for the stadium proposal was carried out with a preliminary report prepared in Autumn 2000. This was on the basis of a sieve analysis including planning policy, access/transportation issues, environmental constraints, site size/capacity to accommodate the development, site availability and, as a reflection of the Club’s desire to remain in the northern part of the city, proximity to Anfield. Consultation was undertaken with Liverpool City Council, Knowsley and Sefton Councils and further sites were identified and considered; in total 18 sites were assessed for the new stadium, including an option to extend the existing ground. 2.34 The majority of alternative sites were rejected, following discussions with the City Council, at an early stage of the review process; this was due to a variety of reasons including planning, site, transport and land ownership constraints. Seven sites were initially identified for further detailed review, although most were subsequently rejected for reasons of ownership constraints and conflict with wider employment regeneration objectives across the city. The plan and table at Appendix 2 identities all of the considered sites. Further Assessment of Short- Listed Sites 2.35 Ultimately, only three sites were subjected to further detailed assessment; they were Gillmoss, Speke Boulevard and Stanley Park. The initial consideration of those sites was to assess them against the tests set out in para 1.10 of Planning Policy Guidance note 6 (PPG6) relating to whether they were available, suitable or viable for the stadium development. Whilst those tests relate, principally, to new retail development, they are also relevant in the general context of alternative sites assessment since failure to meet any of those preliminary tests would result in the project being unable to proceed; this is also consistent with the leisure development policy of the UDP (See Section 4). 2.36 Following further discussions between LFC and the City Council officers the three short-listed sites were reviewed and discussed in the context of the identified policy tests. As a result of those discussions it was established that: Gillmoss should be discounted as the site is of strategic importance as an employment site and the area would become the next focus for strategic regeneration and employment in the City after Speke Garston; that site has subsequently been purchased with grant funding from NWDA and is now being developed for employment purposes; Speke Boulevard would not be capable of acquisition without the use of compulsory purchase powers in the light of its use for storing imported cars in connection with the nearby Halewood car factory; Given the fact that economic regeneration can play a significant role in addressing the overall physical, environmental and social problems in the city, it would be appropriate for the shortlisted sites to also be considered in the context of economic regeneration benefits. 2.37 Notwithstanding the Council’s advice in respect of the Gillmoss site, the Club’s consultancy team carried out a further review of the three short-listed sites, including a review of the potential to achieve planning permission for a stadium within the time period required by the Club. This had regard to issues of: planning policy transport infrastructure and accessibility environmental constraints land assembly economic regeneration benefits cost. 2.38 Following further discussions with the City Council in February 2001, it was agreed that a stadium development at Gillmoss would not be supported in view of its key employment development potential; and that only the sites at Stanley Park and Speke merited further serious consideration. 2.39 At that time it was generally agreed that the site at Speke Boulevard, comprising a brownfield site, on a main radial route into the city and in close proximity to rail and air transport, was the most sustainable site and the preferred location for the development. However, it was also clear that the site could not be secured by negotiation and that it was only a genuine (available) alternative if the Council would agree to support CPO (compulsory purchase) action to acquire all of the necessary land. Without such action, Stanley Park was the only genuinely available, suitable and viable site. 2.40 Further analysis of the final two short-listed sites was then carried out having regard to the following issues: economic regeneration; market and ownership; and infrastructure requirements. Regeneration 2.41 During 2001, whilst assessing the potential for economic regeneration in north Liverpool, including Anfield, it became apparent that there were many economic benefits associated with the Club and stadium and that is was desirable to see the Club remain in North Liverpool for economic and regeneration reasons. The local MP (Peter Kilfoyle) led a delegation to the Treasury to address the north Liverpool issue; as a consequence, the Club were advised that a regeneration package for North Liverpool was being prepared and that this should be relevant to the Club’s consideration of alternative sites. Market and Ownership 2.42 The City Council owns Stanley Park. Whilst it had not, at that time, indicated a willingness to allow a new stadium to be built in the Park it had also not ruled out that possibility. Stanley Park was, therefore, considered to be a genuinely available site. However, the same was not true of the Speke Boulevard site; further discussions with marketing agents and the Speke Garston Development Company highlighted significant ownership constraints leading to questions over the genuine availability of that site to the Club; principally the marketing agent confirmed that ANSA, majority owners of the site, were raising significant local and employment concerns such that ANSA were to make a press statement that the site was not available for development and would be retained by them in connection with the ongoing Jaguar cars operation at Halewood. A meeting with the Chief Executive and officers of the Speke Garston Development Company on 30 April 2001, confirmed that the Company were neutral to relocation of the Club to Speke as the regeneration of the area was already underway and did not require pump-priming investment by the introduction of a further key development proposal. Transport 2.43 One of the key considerations in identifying a site to accommodate the development is the ability to achieve satisfactory access and transport facilities. Both sites were therefore subject to initial work to assess transport issues and infrastructure requirements, including liaison with the Highway Authority, Merseytravel, Arriva North West, Speke Garston Development Corporation and the Police. As a result of those consultations, it was determined that the Speke site, whilst more accessible to alternative forms of public transport, would require considerable investment in road infrastructure in order to accommodate all of the new 60,000 match day fans entering the area; the cost of such works could render the scheme unviable. In contrast, the Stanley Park site, which was acknowledged as being less accessible by public transport, could accommodate the necessary infrastructure for a 60,000 seat stadium, and satisfactorily address the additional 15,000 spectators accessing the area. The key difference between the two sites was that the base position is considerably different due to the existing presence of LFC’s ground in the Anfield area. Summary 2.44 In the light of the above further assessment, it was concluded by the consultant team that Speke was not available to the Club or viable for the development. It was also concluded that by developing a new stadium in Stanley Park there is potential for significant material benefits linked to the regeneration of Anfield and North Liverpool generally; and that those benefits could outweigh the environmental and policy issues arising from development in the historic park. Speke Boulevard was, therefore, finally rejected as an alternative site in September 2001. 2.45 On 11th October 2001 the Club wrote to the Chief Executive of Liverpool City Council requesting ‘preferred partner status’ for the development of a stadium in Stanley Park linked to a commitment to the wider regeneration agenda in North Liverpool. This request was considered at a meeting of the Executive Management Board of the City Council in late October 2001 when the following recommendation was agreed: 1. The Chief Executive be authorised to respond to Liverpool Football Club on behalf of the City Council welcoming its invitation to engage in joint working arrangements to develop its proposals as outlined in its letter dated 11th October. 2. A small team of officers be formed under the direction of the Executive Director, Regeneration to progress this work and to report back to the Executive Management Board as appropriate. 3. The officers be requested to continue to work with the Anfield/Breckfield Community Steering Group and others to establish effective linkages between the development of LFC’s proposals and the regeneration of the wider area. ----------- Appendix 2 1 Gilmoss Site Capable of accommodating the development and infrastructure; accessible by public transport with potential to improve access. However a key strategic employment site identified in the Regional Economic Strategy, important for the city due to good motorway access. Grant funding provided by the NWDA the site is now being developed for employment purposes. 2 Walton Hall Park Greenfield site capable of accommodating the development and infrastructure in proximity to Anfield. However, the development would result in the loss of a considerable area of allocated open space with no opportunity for replacement provision nearby. Potential residential amenity issues. A covenant on the site prevents it from being used for purposes other than a park or recreation ground. 3 Everton Park Topographical constraints; multiple ownerships; no ability to replace loss of open space. Impact on residential amenity and poor accessibility. 4 Kings Dock Inadequate size to accommodate stadium development. Significant transport and public safety concerns. Proximity to proposed World Heritage site. 5 Prescott Road Brownfield site that would be capable of accommodating the development. However, limited accessibility for cars and severe constraints on highways infrastructure. Land ownership and site assembly constraints. Close proximity of residential premises resulting in amenity issues. 6 John Moores/MTL Brownfield site capable of accommodating the development in a reasonably accessible location. However, the site is a strategic employment site adjacent to the Wavertree Technology Park and identified as one of the key employment sites for the city. Site recently purchased by NWDA for an extension to the technology park. 7 Wavertree Playground A greenfield site capable of accommodating the development. However, all open space would be lost and there is no potential to replace in the area. Accessibility issues and proximity to residential properties. 8 Former Garden Festival Site Brownfield site that can accommodate the development. However, significant access constraints and ground conditions issues. Site in sensitive location on the River Mersey and in close proximity to important Nature Conservation sites. 9 Speke Northern Airfield Brownfield site capable of accommodating the development. Unavailable as required by Speke Garston Development Corporation as a strategic employment site (Estuary Commerce Park) with potential for over 6,000 jobs. 10 Former Dunlop Site Brownfield site that can accommodate the development; accessible but limited current public transport access. Now earmarked for airport related development and therefore unavailable. 11 Dunnings Bridge Road Insufficient size to accommodate the development. Accessibility and links to motorway network of concern to the Highways Agency. 12 Stanley Park Greenfield site capable of accommodating the development. Open space could be replaced in the area (existing stadium site). Retains historic links to Anfield area and offers potential for regeneration including improvements to Stanley Park. Planning policy and transport constraints need to be addressed. 13 Anfield (extension) Insufficient size to accommodate a 60,000 capacity stadium. Proximity to residential properties raises significant amenity issues. Local regeneration benefits much more limited than with new stadium solution. 14 Stanley Dock Insufficient size to accommodate the development; poor accessibility issues; Demolition of major listed building and impact on listed dock walls. 15 Central Dock Urban brownfield site being actively pursued by landowners (MDHC) for high value mixed development, including residential and offices. Land, transport and viability constraints. 16 Atlantic Industrial Strategic employment development site in South Sefton. LPA would strongly resist development. 17 Garston Dock Part operational port, the remainder sold to Speke Garston Development Corporation for employment development, therefore, not available. Access constraints. 18 Speke Garston Brownfield urban site in close proximity to rail and air transport; car accessibility more limited. Ownership constraints require further detailed review.

This content is not viewable to guests.

Might also be worth pointing out the club did look at the Central Docks with the City Council as part of the feasability study with regards to a new stadium and it was ruled out as entirely impractical as a site.

groundshare

yep that's what I sort of meant. Ours is complicated as we're taking land on a public park so we have to be seen to be giving something back in return i.e. the current site for redevelopment. Without the redevelopment grants we wouldn't get Stanley Park so it's all a vicious loop. We've just been given renewed planning permission for a new 3 year period.

Arsenal started their stadium project three years before Liverpool. If we move into Stanley Park in the summer of 2009 we'll have matched their timescale. They were expected to be moved a couple of months earlier and were given prior warning. Now they are moving. Without the finds from the NWDA and EU Obj 1 our planning permission was invalid. It took until Feb/March this year to secure this.

Ian - tim on RAWK has noticed that the club has recently applied for planning permission to convert three houses in Walton Breck Road (265, 267, 269) into offices. Now not too big a deal, but part of the recently renewed planning permission for the new stadium is to knock down the houses in Anfield Road (69-71) where the Development Association, ETC, liverpoolfc.tv is housed so they'll need to be moved somewhere of similar size during the build. Also sport classes are now finally being told to move out of the Vernon Sangster. Club has to announce funding to the NWDA by the end of June or they lose the money.

If it's Radio City the story is probably nicked from one of this morning's tabloids.

it's not that I denied it, more that I commented it was a very strange link which only ever appeared on one of those general football websites not known for breaking news stories or being connected to LFC (Eatsleepsport), and thus highly unlikely.

and/or Dave Usher's. Both lads had flagged up our serious interest in Crouch well in advance.

£6m for Bellamy, problem solved with minimal financial impact.

that would be incredibly surprising - surgeon on RAWK who deals with these fractures all the time reckons he'll be out for 9 months and it's a worse injury to deal with than the last one.

My understanding is there's always been the facility to borrow extra money for any player, it's just something we prefer not to do.

Looked like it on TV - his right leg had an extra joint in it at calf level.

you could see it go. Poor lad.

Is it just me that thinks the Guardian article is absolute gibberish? I think they've used Babelfish for it.

he made his debut at Southampton.

if you read it they don't know anything, just total speculation probably based on a Malbranque story in one of the papers last week.