Liverpool
Moderator: Moderatorji
-
The_Milkman
- Vseved
- Prispevkov: 3876
- Pridružen: 20 Apr 2007, 20:23
-
The_Milkman
- Vseved
- Prispevkov: 3876
- Pridružen: 20 Apr 2007, 20:23
Tudi Keane ni ubežal cultural shocku ob selitvi na Mersyside...
pa'b zaklenu samo upam, da revčku niso ukradli tista ubogo medaljo
The Ireland striker's penthouse apartment was broken into while he was away on international duty for the country's 2-1 win over Georgia on Saturday.
The burglars sneaked into the flat he shares with model wife Claudine, 25, and are believed to have stolen an expensive watch and jewellery.
Keane, 28, had been using the city centre property in Liverpool while he searched for a home after his £20 million move from Tottenham FC to Merseyside.
Medaljo bo dobil nazaj, zlatnine in denarja pač ne...Na Merseysideu so tudi lopovi nogometni fanatiki in nekaterih stvari se pač ne sme. Medalja je medalja. Verjetno so jo vzeli po pomoti, bo dobil s FedExom nazaj....
Glede zdravstvenega stanja edinih ljudi, ki lahko zabijeta gol, pa...kaj vem. Mislim, da ne bosta igrala. Ne eden ne drugi. Bo pač potrebno stisniti zobke in upati na čudež. Vprašanje tudi, v kaki fazi bo Utd. Obe ekipi zaenkrat igrata pod svojimi zmožnostmi. Kaj to pomeni za derbi, pa.....
Glede zdravstvenega stanja edinih ljudi, ki lahko zabijeta gol, pa...kaj vem. Mislim, da ne bosta igrala. Ne eden ne drugi. Bo pač potrebno stisniti zobke in upati na čudež. Vprašanje tudi, v kaki fazi bo Utd. Obe ekipi zaenkrat igrata pod svojimi zmožnostmi. Kaj to pomeni za derbi, pa.....
We shall not be moved!
-
The_Milkman
- Vseved
- Prispevkov: 3876
- Pridružen: 20 Apr 2007, 20:23
Vredno branja
Jamieeeee
http://www3.talksport.net/
(klik na carragherja)
Fenomenalno
in pa še toleStadium delay puts Liverpool on dead-end street
Failure to begin building in Stanley Park hurts residents of run-down Anfield as well as damaging top-four hopes
Manchester United's arrival at Anfield on Saturday for Liverpool's first match since the club's owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, failed to raise the money for a proposed new stadium, could almost have been timed deliberately to hammer home Liverpool fans' crushing disappointment with the North American duo.
It was United's dominance of English football in the mid-1990s - eclipsing Liverpool, relentlessly expanding Old Trafford and wringing every last penny out of it - that drove Liverpool into their agitated search for a new and larger stadium. The only reason Liverpool were put up for sale was to find "investors" who would build the new stadium on Stanley Park, thereby pushing Liverpool's earnings somewhere near a level at which they would be able to compete with United. David Moores, the club's chairman and major shareholder, ultimately favoured the Americans over the rival billions of Dubai International Capital partly because Hicks and Gillett were more positive about their ability to get the stadium built.
In their formal offer to take over the club, Hicks and Gillett wrote to all shareholders that they had: "Indicated [their] intention to take forward the Stanley Park development ... and to commence building one of the leading stadia in Europe as soon as is reasonably practicable."
The offer document also made it clear that Hicks and Gillett had borrowed the £185m necessary to buy the club, and another £113m to pay off its debts and fund player signings. Instead of moving quickly to raise money for the stadium, last January the co-owners were refinancing those initial loans, taking out a £350m credit facility with Royal Bank of Scotland. RBS now has a mortgage over Anfield, the Melwood training ground and every lock, stock and barrel owned by Liverpool Football Club. That £350m has been borrowed just until this coming January, with the option to extend it only as far as next July.
Sceptics argued that Hicks and Gillett, having brought so much debt to the club, rather than investment, would struggle to borrow another £400m to fund the stadium, but Hicks denies that the club's indebtedness was a factor in the failure to do so this year. Instead, in a cursory statement last month, Liverpool blamed the credit crunch, saying "the building of the new stadium will be subject to delay" due to "global market conditions".
No further explanation has been forthcoming from Hicks, other than that all large projects are affected by banks' current reluctance to lend. The revised aim is for Liverpool to kick off in the new stadium a year later than planned, for the start of the 2012-13 season. Even if that does happen, putting Liverpool £750m in debt, by then United will have had four more seasons at their 76,000-capacity Old Trafford home; Arsenal will have had the same time at their lucrative new Emirates Stadium; and Chelsea will have had four more seasons enjoying the fruits of Roman Abramovich's largesse. Furthermore, Sheikh Mansour of Abu Dhabi is now threatening to make Manchester City into nouveaux riches contenders for a top-four Premier League finish.
If Liverpool were to be knocked out of the qualification places for the Champions League, which earned them £21.6m last season, their long tenancy of English football's first rank could be lost.
Yet there is more to Hicks' and Gillett's failure to finance the new stadium than the challenge to Liverpool's footballing status. The new stadium on Stanley Park and plans to develop the current Anfield site into a hive of restaurants, shops and offices are central to plans to regenerate the area around the old ground, which, over the years, has declined into near-devastation.
Anfield could currently lay claim to being the most economically unequal place in Great Britain. Around the Premier League club's famous ground are rows of shattered streets whose houses have stood empty and boarded up for years. Like many areas in formerly industrial towns and cities, particularly in the north-west, old jobs disappeared in the 1980s and people moved away. Houses, if they were occupied at all, were let short term to people who had no stake in the area. The terraced streets of Anfield and neighbouring Breckfield were blighted by crime and many houses were burnt out before being sealed with grimly familiar metal shuttering, a process known locally as being "tinned up".
The area around Venmore Street, opposite the stadium, is, according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation, the most deprived local authority ward in Britain. Crowds of fans walk past its boarded-up terraces on matchdays and it is difficult to imagine that Liverpool's Spanish striker Fernando Torres, the very definition of a European golden boy, can be parading his multimillion-pound skills just over the stadium wall.
The football club's role in this neighbourhood's decline and planned resurrection has been a long-running issue. Many residents bitterly resented the club, a decade ago, for buying up houses on Skerries Road, next to Anfield, and leaving them empty in case the club ever wanted to knock the row down and expand the stadium. Then, in 2000, there was uproar about leaked plans worked up by Liverpool and the city council, without consultation, to build a new stadium and, in the process, demolish 1,800 houses.
That prompted a change at the club, towards a closer relationship with the community, and the current plans for Stanley Park followed extensive consultation with groups of residents who retain a defiant pride in the area.
A group remains opposed to building on the park, but planning permission was granted largely because the project is intended to regenerate this blighted district. The new stadium was conceived not only as a landmark move for the world-famous club, but as a statement of confidence in the city's future. The development of the old stadium site, to be renamed Anfield Plaza, is designed to bring in 900 jobs.
"Anfield Plaza is central to the area's economic revival," explains John Kelly, Liverpool city council's executive director for regeneration. "We are very disappointed that the project has been delayed. The local people, in one of the most deprived areas of the country, have been waiting a long time."
While the club stagnates, the council and local organisations have been getting on with things. Improvements to Stanley Park are going ahead, helped by £16m in grants. New housing has been built, or houses improved - including on Skerries Road, which was taken on by a development company and now looks very spruce. The football club lost a £5m European Union grant to build the required community centre in the new stadium because they ran out of time; the money has been allocated instead to improving four local facilities.
However, people are still living around bleak streets, with hundreds of houses awaiting demolition, amid poverty which is shaming.
"A lot of work is going on," says Marie Rooney, a long-term activist and chair of the local Anfield and Breckside Community Council. "But the stadium was supposed to be a catalyst, and jobs created, which hasn't happened. I've lost confidence. A lot of people have, because we have been waiting so long. It's an embarrassment now. The Americans seem to want to do it without spending their own money, but I have lost confidence in whether they have the ability to deliver."
Hicks and Gillett say they still have that ability, with borrowed money, but starting next year.
Jamieeeee
http://www3.talksport.net/
(klik na carragherja)
Fenomenalno
-
The_Milkman
- Vseved
- Prispevkov: 3876
- Pridružen: 20 Apr 2007, 20:23
-
The_Milkman
- Vseved
- Prispevkov: 3876
- Pridružen: 20 Apr 2007, 20:23
http://www.paultomkins.com/Shankly's Liverpool - 'banned' by LFC.
'Dynasty' is now printed, and currently making its way to the wholesalers, which means that the book can be made available in retail outlets within the next few days - once the wheels grind into motion. So effectively the official release date is now mid-September, despite what it might still say elsewhere.
Unfortunately, and much to my shock, the powers that be at the club have seen fit to ban all mention of Dynasty from the official website, thus scuppering my usual route of promotion. (A form of promotion that is essential to me, seeing as I'm only paid a very nominal fee to write for the site; their offer from the outset in 2005 was that I would be allowed to promote my books, given that they couldn't pay me at all for two years, and an amount around just 10% of the going rate in the past year.)
As I was informed: "We have received communication from the commercial team that they are concerned with some elements of the book - in particular perceived criticism of the owners and the current manager."
I obviously don't agree with this decision, and have expressed my disappointment to the club. However, for the time being I will respect their decision. Having said that, I will express my opinion on the matter, as is my right.
I do not feel that the book is at all controversial, but instead merely documents what has taken place behind the scenes in the past year, as has been extensively reported in the press, including various statements made by the parties concerned. After all, it is a history of the past 50 years of the club, and as such, no credible book could exist without at least mentioning what is already very much in the public domain. I find it baffling. I merely state that those involved cannot be happy with how the sorry saga played out in public on the back pages of all newspapers; if that is up for debate, that might suggest that this is not the case, and that they weren't bothered. Which would concern me even more. I appreciate that the club don't want to draw attention to the 'troubles', but no-one was asking them to publish any part of the book or state that they agree 100% with the content.
As someone who has spent the past three years ardently defending Benítez, to the point of receiving abuse and ridicule at times, I am shocked that the club feel that the book is also too critical of the manager. I would obviously ask that fans read it for themselves and draw their own conclusion on both issues. (Please note that I have no beef at all with the people at .tv, all of whom I like and respect.)
pošteno povedano se ne spomnim kdaj je on nazadnje napisal kaj slabega o Benitezu...je pa to vsekakor a must have&read material.
"Aj Riki Parice, brate shvati me,The_Milkman napisal/-a:
nemoj da lapaš gluposti,
aj Riki Parice, brate shvati me,
dobit češ batineeeeeeee...."
Edini človek, ki je vseskozi stal za Benitezom, je Paul Tomkins. Vse prev(b)erljivo in kristalno jasno. Očitno je Krusty dobil navodila z vrha, ker je Tomkins napisal par resnic o Stanu in Oliu, zraven pa so kot alibi navedli še "križanje" Beniteza, ki ga nikoli ni bilo. Absolutno bom kupil.
We shall not be moved!
-
The_Milkman
- Vseved
- Prispevkov: 3876
- Pridružen: 20 Apr 2007, 20:23
Zakaj bi bili budale in prekinjali tradicijo...
V soboto izredno težka in pomembna tekma, zato je seveda potrebno preusmeriti bilokako pozornost
V soboto izredno težka in pomembna tekma, zato je seveda potrebno preusmeriti bilokako pozornost
Liverpool takeover: Sheikh Mohammed ditches DIC to make solo bid for club
By David Maddock 11/09/2008
Sheikh Mohammed will step up his bid to buy Liverpool by using his own money to invest in the club.
The oil-rich Arab leader of Dubai has ditched DIC - the investment arm of his government - as the buy-out company he will use if he gets the chance to purchase the Anfield club from Americans Tom Hicks and George Gillett.
Instead, he will dip into his own wealth to get his hands on the Premier League outfit, with insiders suggesting that will allow him to invest far more money into Liverpool.
DIC's charter states the government company must "maximise long-term shareholder value", which in effect means it should turn over a big profit as soon as possible.
But the current financial climate wouldn't allow that with Liverpool, and instead the Arab billionaire is ready to sink his own money into the club to build a new stadium and invest heavily in the team.
Sheikh Mohammed wants to rival the Abu Dhabi owners of Manchester City, and now sees Liverpool less in terms of a pure investment. But despite being among the wealthiest men in the world, he still refuses to pay over the odds to the Americans.
The Mirror understands that Hicks and Gillett are prepared to sell, but only at £300million above the Arab's valuation of around £450million.
Sheikh Mohammed's advisors though, feel that the Americans are in deep trouble because of the global credit crunch, and will be forced to sell unless there is a swift economic upturn.
Bože nedaj da bi naši tole plačali za Mascherana....in vsi vemo da ga potrebujemo ASAP nazaj da se spočije in pripravi na gležnje iz manćestra.
Manchester City are splashing out over £150,000 to jet home Robinho and their other South American stars to face Chelsea.
City's new billionaire owners, Abu Dhabi United, have sent a private plane on a 16,000-mile round trip to collect the ir record £32.5million signing together with Jo, Elano and Pablo Zabaleta.
The quartet, who cost City £65m, were involved in World Cup qualifiers last night and would not have arrived in Manchester in time for Saturday evening's match if they had used scheduled flights.
The luxury jet was expected to pick up Zabaleta in Lima this morning, where he was playing for Argentina against Peru, before flying the 2,340 miles across the continent to Rio de Janeiro to collect Robinho and his Brazilian team-mates.
The four would then jet the 5,900 miles from Rio to Manchester, touching down in the early hours of tomorrow morning.