Sunday 20 April 2008
New Stadium Interview
A source close to the design team for the new stadium has revealed that if everything goes to plan the new 60,000 seat stadium should be ready for the 2011/2012 season.
He also revealed that the delays over the past five years have been partly due to plans for the redevelopment of the Anfield area as well as calls for a shared stadium.
“At the moment the design team are working towards a level of design that the contractor can put a price on. All the small details need to be drawn out and specified in order for the cost of building the stadium to be established and then agreed with the Club.”
“The development of a new stadium will act as a catalyst for regeneration of the Anfield area. Stanley Park is a Grade II listed park, it has historic value, and part of the plan was to regenerate the area of Stanley Park. That part was nothing to do with Liverpool Football Club, but one element couldn’t happen without the other. The regeneration of the park is being funded by European grant monies. It then becomes quite complicated to have all the pieces set up at the same time. It was difficult to get that to happen.”
“If you add the political debate of the shared stadium that occurred in 2005 then it becomes even more drawn out. If someone asks the question about a shared stadium with Everton then all parties involved have to answer that question. It got to the point in 2005 when some of those pieces such as grant monies were not in place. The club then had to take stock and reconsider their plans.”
So a lot of the delays from 2003 are not necessarily down to the football club itself. However another big delay came about when the new owners came in. Hicks and Gillett brought new ideas and new plans to the stadium development.
“When new owners come in you cannot do anything to progress the project because they want to evaluate the business.. They have fresh and different ideas and brought in American architects in 2007 to prepare an alternative design.”
Ultimately the buck stops with the two feuding owners and asked whether the stadium would be ready for the 2011/2012 season the source couldn’t say.
“I don’t know. The timetables are decided by the owners and I can’t speak for them. The project is progressing towards an opening for the 2011/2012 season, but there is still a long way to go.”
So it pretty much looks as though until Hicks and Gillett sort out their differences the new stadium will remain on the drawing board. Until then the wait will continue.
He also revealed that the delays over the past five years have been partly due to plans for the redevelopment of the Anfield area as well as calls for a shared stadium.
“At the moment the design team are working towards a level of design that the contractor can put a price on. All the small details need to be drawn out and specified in order for the cost of building the stadium to be established and then agreed with the Club.”
“The development of a new stadium will act as a catalyst for regeneration of the Anfield area. Stanley Park is a Grade II listed park, it has historic value, and part of the plan was to regenerate the area of Stanley Park. That part was nothing to do with Liverpool Football Club, but one element couldn’t happen without the other. The regeneration of the park is being funded by European grant monies. It then becomes quite complicated to have all the pieces set up at the same time. It was difficult to get that to happen.”
“If you add the political debate of the shared stadium that occurred in 2005 then it becomes even more drawn out. If someone asks the question about a shared stadium with Everton then all parties involved have to answer that question. It got to the point in 2005 when some of those pieces such as grant monies were not in place. The club then had to take stock and reconsider their plans.”
So a lot of the delays from 2003 are not necessarily down to the football club itself. However another big delay came about when the new owners came in. Hicks and Gillett brought new ideas and new plans to the stadium development.
“When new owners come in you cannot do anything to progress the project because they want to evaluate the business.. They have fresh and different ideas and brought in American architects in 2007 to prepare an alternative design.”
Ultimately the buck stops with the two feuding owners and asked whether the stadium would be ready for the 2011/2012 season the source couldn’t say.
“I don’t know. The timetables are decided by the owners and I can’t speak for them. The project is progressing towards an opening for the 2011/2012 season, but there is still a long way to go.”
So it pretty much looks as though until Hicks and Gillett sort out their differences the new stadium will remain on the drawing board. Until then the wait will continue.
Hicks vs Gillett? Never Mind. A New Stadium should be the real priority
As the boardroom trouble at Liverpool FC takes more twists and turns than an Alton Towers rollercoaster one important piece of news seems to have slipped through the net.
Liverpool City Council released a statement on their website announcing that work would start on Liverpool’s proposed new stadium in May.
All seems to have been forgotten in a saga that has outlasted one chairman, and could well outlast another two. However what remains is that if Liverpool Football Club is to progress the new stadium must be built, and it seems that it could soon be on its way.
It did seem that any news on the stadium had gone dead, but the release on April 2nd confirmed that work is almost ready to get underway, but why have we had to wait six years for it to do so.
Remember the main reason that George Gillett and Tom Hicks landed on these shores was to deliver the stadium that David Moores could not.
Liverpool had at first signalled their intention to move to a new 70,000 seat stadium for the start of the 2004/05 season, later revising this to ‘officially’ announce plans for a 55,000 seat stadium to be ready for the 2005/06 season. These plans were announced in May 2002.
Site ideas were thrown around, Speke? No. Kirkby? Defiantly not. Stanley Park? Perfect.
Almost six years later and yet another two re-designs and Liverpool still are yet to even begin building on Stanley Park.
Fans are very much left in the dark over what is happening, but at least we know that the building is going to begin, but until that first shovel is dug into the Stanley Park ground we can never be sure. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
The first impressions of the ‘New Anfield’ Stadium were drawn up in 2003 and you were able to take an interactive tour on Liverpool’s official website. Those same impressions were there four years later and only taken down when fantastic new pictures by the new owner’s own architects were put up. Things were finally looking up for Liverpool’s new stadium. Nearly a year on and once again the plans were subject to a redesign and downscaled. Brand new pictures were again posted on the website.
Liverpool finally seems to have decided to stick on these designs, but with so many twists the delays have been huge and surely cannot go on any longer. After all, the club was only granted a 999 year lease on the site.
Meanwhile fans have stressed the importance of the new stadium to the clubs future plans.
Liverpool fan Paul Johnstone, 20, a regular attendee at home and away matches admits the move has to happen in order for Liverpool to progress as a club,
“Manchester United and Chelsea are miles ahead compared to us in how much they can spend and with Arsenal taking advantage of their stadium they will be too. I don’t want us to leave Anfield but it has to happen if we want to compete.”
Paul believes a new stadium could be Tom Hicks and George Gillett’s saving grace but he ultimately believes they will leave without delivering what they had promised.
“I don’t think they (Hicks and Gillett) will stick around for much longer but if they did build the stadium they showed us then they might be liked a little more. It was a really good design.”
Fans will always be divided on whether or not Liverpool should leave their current home, Anfield, but what is clear is that that ground cannot be redeveloped.
It looks as though Tom Hicks and George Gillett will keep fighting amongst themselves and giving the tabloid easy back pages for a lot longer. If so and you never know, maybe nobody will notice a new stadium being built in Stanley Park.
Liverpool City Council released a statement on their website announcing that work would start on Liverpool’s proposed new stadium in May.
All seems to have been forgotten in a saga that has outlasted one chairman, and could well outlast another two. However what remains is that if Liverpool Football Club is to progress the new stadium must be built, and it seems that it could soon be on its way.
It did seem that any news on the stadium had gone dead, but the release on April 2nd confirmed that work is almost ready to get underway, but why have we had to wait six years for it to do so.
Remember the main reason that George Gillett and Tom Hicks landed on these shores was to deliver the stadium that David Moores could not.
Liverpool had at first signalled their intention to move to a new 70,000 seat stadium for the start of the 2004/05 season, later revising this to ‘officially’ announce plans for a 55,000 seat stadium to be ready for the 2005/06 season. These plans were announced in May 2002.
Site ideas were thrown around, Speke? No. Kirkby? Defiantly not. Stanley Park? Perfect.
Almost six years later and yet another two re-designs and Liverpool still are yet to even begin building on Stanley Park.
Fans are very much left in the dark over what is happening, but at least we know that the building is going to begin, but until that first shovel is dug into the Stanley Park ground we can never be sure. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
The first impressions of the ‘New Anfield’ Stadium were drawn up in 2003 and you were able to take an interactive tour on Liverpool’s official website. Those same impressions were there four years later and only taken down when fantastic new pictures by the new owner’s own architects were put up. Things were finally looking up for Liverpool’s new stadium. Nearly a year on and once again the plans were subject to a redesign and downscaled. Brand new pictures were again posted on the website.
Liverpool finally seems to have decided to stick on these designs, but with so many twists the delays have been huge and surely cannot go on any longer. After all, the club was only granted a 999 year lease on the site.
Meanwhile fans have stressed the importance of the new stadium to the clubs future plans.
Liverpool fan Paul Johnstone, 20, a regular attendee at home and away matches admits the move has to happen in order for Liverpool to progress as a club,
“Manchester United and Chelsea are miles ahead compared to us in how much they can spend and with Arsenal taking advantage of their stadium they will be too. I don’t want us to leave Anfield but it has to happen if we want to compete.”
Paul believes a new stadium could be Tom Hicks and George Gillett’s saving grace but he ultimately believes they will leave without delivering what they had promised.
“I don’t think they (Hicks and Gillett) will stick around for much longer but if they did build the stadium they showed us then they might be liked a little more. It was a really good design.”
Fans will always be divided on whether or not Liverpool should leave their current home, Anfield, but what is clear is that that ground cannot be redeveloped.
It looks as though Tom Hicks and George Gillett will keep fighting amongst themselves and giving the tabloid easy back pages for a lot longer. If so and you never know, maybe nobody will notice a new stadium being built in Stanley Park.
Friday 29 February 2008
Thursday 28 February 2008
Tennis Blog
It was a blog by Gerald Mcgloughlin that caught my eye this week. Not just because he makes an interesting point, but because it is a point that completely disagrees with the blog I wrote two weeks ago.
McGloughlin believes Andy Murray, can be the next John McEnroe. I dont completely disagree with this, he could be, but i very much doubt he will be, and im not alone. Judging by the responses the blog got, alot of the readers disagreed also.
"If Murray can overcome his innconsistency his talent would take him to where those top players are.' I don't disagree, but at this moment in time I think that Murray may well never overcome those inconsistancies, and if he dosent soon there is alot of talent ready to overtake him.
My fear for Murray, a fear that Mcgloughlin obviously dosent have though, is that he will become a player who wins maybe one or two majors, but dosent really ever go on to become a great player. Mcgloughlin believes Murray can win Wimbledon within two years, I cannot agree for one minute, I cannot see Murray being able to stop Federer's dominance, and that is even before we take into account other players, Djokovic, Nadal or Gasquet.
Murray is young, and still has alot of time, but then so is Djokovic, Nadal and the man who comfortably beat Murray in the Australian Open, Tsonga. Mcgloughlin is hopeful im much more sceptical.
What Mcgloughlin calls an inconsistancy is to be becoming a much more serious problem for Murray, he is developing a habit for getting beat by wildcards in the opening rounds of tournaments. A complex which could hold Murray back in the future.
I hope im wrong and that Mcgloughlin is right, but im still sceptical. The next John McEnroe? I just cannot see it.
McGloughlin believes Andy Murray, can be the next John McEnroe. I dont completely disagree with this, he could be, but i very much doubt he will be, and im not alone. Judging by the responses the blog got, alot of the readers disagreed also.
"If Murray can overcome his innconsistency his talent would take him to where those top players are.' I don't disagree, but at this moment in time I think that Murray may well never overcome those inconsistancies, and if he dosent soon there is alot of talent ready to overtake him.
My fear for Murray, a fear that Mcgloughlin obviously dosent have though, is that he will become a player who wins maybe one or two majors, but dosent really ever go on to become a great player. Mcgloughlin believes Murray can win Wimbledon within two years, I cannot agree for one minute, I cannot see Murray being able to stop Federer's dominance, and that is even before we take into account other players, Djokovic, Nadal or Gasquet.
Murray is young, and still has alot of time, but then so is Djokovic, Nadal and the man who comfortably beat Murray in the Australian Open, Tsonga. Mcgloughlin is hopeful im much more sceptical.
What Mcgloughlin calls an inconsistancy is to be becoming a much more serious problem for Murray, he is developing a habit for getting beat by wildcards in the opening rounds of tournaments. A complex which could hold Murray back in the future.
I hope im wrong and that Mcgloughlin is right, but im still sceptical. The next John McEnroe? I just cannot see it.
Friday 22 February 2008
Thursday 21 February 2008
Whilst browsing through this week's tennis blogs I found an interesting one Nina Rota on the state of U.S. tennis.
Rota started by bemoaning the crowd's support of American James Blake against Kei Nishikori in the recent ATP event at Delray Beach. Nishikori became the first Japanese player to win a singles title in 16 years, which deserved a mention in itself, but Rota's real point was that the American crowd failed to get behind Blake, ho has come through so much adversity to bounce back and appear in any final.
However after a few paragraphs Rota got to the point, and what a good point it was, that Nick Bollettieri, the famous tennis trainer was in fact helping aid the downfall of American tennis.
In a nutshell Rota's point was that by bringing in so many Eastern Europeans Bollettieri was making champions, but at the same time restricting America's chances in tournaments.
Rota rounded things off by claiming that after Blake, Andy Roddick, 'whats left' of the Williams sisters and Lindsey Davenport, there is'nt much left for American tennis, oh and then she tried to claim Sharapova was really an American.
Excuses? Sounds alot like it. But she has a point. Bollettieri is coaching foreigners and making them better than his own, but he is after all a coach, and can you blame him for wanting to coach the best?
It seems the dog eat dog commercial nature of American sport has finally caught up with them, at least within tennis. Whats left of the sport, Blake, Roddick, the Williams sister and Davenport still aint bad though is it?
Rota started by bemoaning the crowd's support of American James Blake against Kei Nishikori in the recent ATP event at Delray Beach. Nishikori became the first Japanese player to win a singles title in 16 years, which deserved a mention in itself, but Rota's real point was that the American crowd failed to get behind Blake, ho has come through so much adversity to bounce back and appear in any final.
However after a few paragraphs Rota got to the point, and what a good point it was, that Nick Bollettieri, the famous tennis trainer was in fact helping aid the downfall of American tennis.
In a nutshell Rota's point was that by bringing in so many Eastern Europeans Bollettieri was making champions, but at the same time restricting America's chances in tournaments.
Rota rounded things off by claiming that after Blake, Andy Roddick, 'whats left' of the Williams sisters and Lindsey Davenport, there is'nt much left for American tennis, oh and then she tried to claim Sharapova was really an American.
Excuses? Sounds alot like it. But she has a point. Bollettieri is coaching foreigners and making them better than his own, but he is after all a coach, and can you blame him for wanting to coach the best?
It seems the dog eat dog commercial nature of American sport has finally caught up with them, at least within tennis. Whats left of the sport, Blake, Roddick, the Williams sister and Davenport still aint bad though is it?
Friday 15 February 2008
Andy Murray
It seems that Britain’s number one tennis players career for the time being seems to have ground to a halt.
When Murray broke through as an exciting 18 year old in 2005 the nation needed somebody to represent British tennis, especially as Tim Henman was in the twilight of his own career. Murray seemed like the ideal replacement, promising on the court, shy and soft spoken off the court.
However since then Murray has not really climbed the heights expected of him, and didn’t endear himself to all of the British public with his comments about the English football team.
In 2005 Murray was making progress, reaching the second round of the U.S. Open and the third round of Wimbledon, however three years on it 2008 it seems Murray has not made the progress he would have like it the major tournaments, and the hype has inevitably died down.
This criticism of Murray may seem harsh, but if you compare his progress to that of Novak Djokovic, of around the same age, it seems that he hasn’t reached the heights his potential should allow.
Murray has only won four ATP Tour titles and hasn’t made much of an impression on any of the Grand Slams in three years, compare this to Djokovic, who broke on to the scene a little later than Murray and he is just celebrating his first Grand Slam, defeating Jo-Wilfred Tsonga, Murray’s victor, in the Australian Open final. He was also runner-up in the US open.
In order to reach the same adoration that Henman received, Murray must do something that Henman was so good at, come out fighting.
When Murray broke through as an exciting 18 year old in 2005 the nation needed somebody to represent British tennis, especially as Tim Henman was in the twilight of his own career. Murray seemed like the ideal replacement, promising on the court, shy and soft spoken off the court.
However since then Murray has not really climbed the heights expected of him, and didn’t endear himself to all of the British public with his comments about the English football team.
In 2005 Murray was making progress, reaching the second round of the U.S. Open and the third round of Wimbledon, however three years on it 2008 it seems Murray has not made the progress he would have like it the major tournaments, and the hype has inevitably died down.
This criticism of Murray may seem harsh, but if you compare his progress to that of Novak Djokovic, of around the same age, it seems that he hasn’t reached the heights his potential should allow.
Murray has only won four ATP Tour titles and hasn’t made much of an impression on any of the Grand Slams in three years, compare this to Djokovic, who broke on to the scene a little later than Murray and he is just celebrating his first Grand Slam, defeating Jo-Wilfred Tsonga, Murray’s victor, in the Australian Open final. He was also runner-up in the US open.
In order to reach the same adoration that Henman received, Murray must do something that Henman was so good at, come out fighting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)