stadium funding and new investment are seperate issues?

[Molby]

well obviously not completely seperate but we are told that the money is in place for the stadium and is not dependant on investment

 

if that's the case, why do you think the Post has run another story, in which they directly quote Steve Broomhead of NWDA saying that no proof of funding has been forthcoming, which obviously threatens the entire stadium funding?

 

there can be 3 reasons

 

1. It's true

2. Broomhead is lying

3. The Post have made up the story

 

 

 

If it's 2, he can and will end up out on his ear very soon

 

3? I have had to defend myself or my company on several occasions to the Post or Echo, and at other times they have come to us for positive publicity, and let me tell you, they NEVER run a story without substantiating it first and getting the version of the protagonists

 

so in this case Parry would give the usual no comment

 

but if they've made up comments and attributed them to Broomhead they have left themselves open to being sued - I just can't see it, regardless of their agenda

 

any one got any theories, especially about scenario 1?

[Kopfaithful]

Broomhead has his agenda. If he speaks there's a story. It doesn't matter what LFC say then, the Broomhead angle is enough to make a story.

[Rushian]

or quite possibly the Post is being drip fed stories by people with a vested interest in Stanley Park not going ahead.

[Guest BrianF]

I'd love us to get investment and then tell these Bluenoses at the NWDA to stuff their measly 9 million quid and we'll pay it ourselves.

[Molby]

of course, in general terms the above replies are completely plausible - we all know the history and the existing agendas

 

it's the fact that Broomhead has been quoted that worries me - either he has not had the proof or he has - but he says that he has not

 

 

I can only repeat that the Post do not make up quotes; they don't even publish a story that is inflammatory without interviewing all interested parties, for fear of getting sued

 

I'd love us to get investment and then tell these Bluenoses at the NWDA to stuff their measly 9 million quid and we'll pay it ourselves.

 

 

does it work like that? I mean is it the £9m or the £9m being from the NWDA that is connected to the Objective 1 money?

[Maldini]

Didn't we have to show proof to qualify for the money in the first place? They said we did then, are they now asking for further proof?

[Tim]

 

if that's the case, why do you think the Post has run another story, in which they directly quote Steve Broomhead of NWDA saying that no proof of funding has been forthcoming, which obviously threatens the entire stadium funding?

 

 

The club had to prove to the objective 1 committee that funding was in place in order for the european money to be secured. The money has been secured which suggests proof has been given.

 

a few months ago the Daily Post ran a story saying that the stadium project was about to collapse because the club did not have funding, later that day the Echo, Chris Bascombe, ran a story that completely contradicted the Daily Posts claims.

 

I know which I will believe, mainly because bascombe actually talks to people within LFC.

 

Reds handed stadium cashSep 28 2006

 

By Nick Colligan, Liverpool Echo

 

LIVERPOOL FC was today given £9m of European money for its new stadium project.

 

Officials said the club gave them assurances that it could afford to build a 55,000 seater ground on Stanley Park.

 

It brought to an end months of speculation whether the Reds had the cash to pay for their £180m share of the project.

 

But top European officials today confirmed they had received a guarantee from the club?s board that the money was in place.

 

The £9m grant will be topped up with other funding from the likes of the North West Development Agency and used to restore the rest of Stanley Park to its former glory and regenerate the Anfield community.

 

But officials warned that the money must be spent by the end of 2008 or it would have to be sent back to Brussels.

 

Councillor Flo Clucas, who chairs the Objective One European committee, said: "We think this is a tremendous opportunity for the people of Anfield and will make a significant and transformational difference to their lives.

 

"The committee was assured that if we approve the Stanley Park restoration, the stadium will go ahead.

 

"It is a matter for the club to speak about the funding package. If the stadium does not take place, then this £9m will have to come back to Objective One."

 

Planning permission was granted by Liverpool City Council for the stadium more than two years ago.

 

But the deal was dependent upon a wider regeneration of the area, including the shop-lined Anfield Plaza on the site of the current ground.

 

Council bosses have always said they would not allow the stadium to be built without the regeneration element.

 

If the Objective One committee had turned down the grant application, it would have potentially delayed the scheme while the club searched for alternative funding.

 

Edited November 24, 2006 by Tim

[Kopfaithful]

Didn't we have to show proof to qualify for the money in the first place? They said we did then, are they now asking for further proof?

 

As I posted on the other thread about this a day or two back, we have given this information to the council, but not the NWDA - but I was told that the reason we haven't done it, is because we don't have to. Broomhead wants it, but LFC believe there is not a legal requirement for this. Parry et al are having fun f***ing him about.

[Molby]

As I posted on the other thread about this a day or two back, we have given this information to the council, but not the NWDA - but I was told that the reason we haven't done it, is because we don't have to. Broomhead wants it, but LFC believe there is not a legal requirement for this. Parry et al are having fun f***ing him about.

 

 

ah well that makes perfect sense

 

I would dearly love this to be true

 

but if it is then Broomhead is 25 times the t*** that everyone already thinks he is, because he could get the same info directly from the council, unless Parry has vetoed the council from sharing it with the NWDA, which is a step up from messing them around

 

it's tantamount to telling them to f*** off

[Guest BrianF]

It's just a case of Broomhead using any excuse to drum up some bad publicity. He's even more bitter now that his s***ty club are selling out and becoming part of a supermarket chain.

[Tim]

ah well that makes perfect sense

 

I would dearly love this to be true

 

but if it is then Broomhead is 25 times the t*** that everyone already thinks he is, because he could get the same info directly from the council, unless Parry has vetoed the council from sharing it with the NWDA, which is a step up from messing them around

 

it's tantamount to telling them to f*** off

 

The council wouldn't be allowed to pass any info on as there would likely be a confidentiallity agreement in place until everything was signed off. If there isn't a legal requirement then there's no need to say anything, especially to an organisation who continually go to the press to try and get a groundshare in the agenda.

[Molby]

The council wouldn't be allowed to pass any info on as there would likely be a confidentiallity agreement in place until everything was signed off. If there isn't a legal requirement then there's no need to say anything, especially to an organisation who continually go to the press to try and get a groundshare in the agenda.

 

 

yeah of course but still - joined up thinking and all that

 

we have the council, and 2 related sources of grant funding

 

just seems strange that one of them doesn't have the right to see the proof of funding

 

£9m is £9m after all

[Kopfaithful]

yeah of course but still - joined up thinking and all that

 

we have the council, and 2 related sources of grant funding

 

just seems strange that one of them doesn't have the right to see the proof of funding

 

£9m is £9m after all

 

Didn't we reveal this to the council when we signed the lease (I can't remember now)? I would imagine the terms of the lease would have been we could actually prove we could build the ground. That's my guess anyway.

[fyds]

ah well that makes perfect sense

 

I would dearly love this to be true

 

but if it is then Broomhead is 25 times the t*** that everyone already thinks he is, because he could get the same info directly from the council, unless Parry has vetoed the council from sharing it with the NWDA, which is a step up from messing them around

 

it's tantamount to telling them to f*** off

Believe me mate, you have NO idea just how big a **** he is - and that's the non-litiginous version...

 

Flo Lucas has confirmed the Council have had full proof of the club's ability to fund the whole stadium project, btw....she is currently putting some distance between herself and the ****.

 

yeah of course but still - joined up thinking and all that

 

we have the council, and 2 related sources of grant funding

 

just seems strange that one of them doesn't have the right to see the proof of funding

 

£9m is £9m after all

The NWDA acts eventually via the Council..ergo, if the council is content with the proof, they should be on the council's say so.

[JRC]

Believe me mate, you have NO idea just how big a **** he is - and that's the non-litiginous version...

 

Flo Lucas has confirmed the Council have had full proof of the club's ability to fund the whole stadium project, btw....she is currently putting some distance between herself and the ****.

The NWDA acts eventually via the Council..ergo, if the council is content with the proof, they should be on the council's say so.

 

As I understand it, like you, the NWDA money was agreed to 'match' the Objective 1 Money - which has been approved. That all goes to the Regeneration project. Whilst agreeing to the Regeneration Project was essential for the Planning consent, that is actually a Council project - none of the Objective 1 or NWDA cash goes to the Stadium building costs.

 

So...as we have satisfied the Council sufficiently to get the Obj 1 approval, surely the release of the NWDA money is a matter between the Council and NWDA? If NWDA renege on their matching offer, it's not us who have broken the terms of the planning consent, so could that be revoked? Would the Council not have to find the remainder of the Regeneration money ? (Or sue the NWDA for it).

 

If Flo is not sh*t -stirring, as she has been wont to do, that tells me that we are bang to rights on this one. Broomhead can go f*ck himself.

[Eskimo]

I'd imagine part of it is the fact that the club want to keep details of the funding and or possible takeover under wraps, the less people that know the less likely the information will get leaked to the press..