City of Liverpool bid for 2022 Commenwealth games and........

johnnytodd · Jul 16, 2015

Everton will get / be offered a FREE 65,000 seater stadium

There is a god !

Ablur · Jul 16, 2015

I thought it was bad enough with 40k+ fans booing you off the pitch last season. I can't wait to hear 60k+ do it.

If you fill it.

Super_horns · Jul 16, 2015

Only if the Government help out..

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-only-bid-commonwealth-games-9541111

Pagnell · Jul 16, 2015

At least Arsenal fans will feel better, their stadium will no longer have the most empty seats in the league.

johnnytodd · Jul 17, 2015

There's only 1 team on Merseyside who have had MULTIPLE attendances over 75k for a home game

The Peoples club !

johnnytodd · Jul 17, 2015

Ablur said:
I thought it was bad enough with 40k+ fans booing you off the pitch last season. I can't wait to hear 60k+ do it.

If you fill it.

On your telly in Ipswich?

Pagnell · Jul 17, 2015

johnnytodd said:
There's only 1 team on Merseyside who have had MULTIPLE attendances over 75k for a home game

Isn't it meant to be us that live in the past?

silkyman · Jul 17, 2015

Super_horns said:
Only if the Government help out..

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-only-bid-commonwealth-games-9541111

Which they probably won't.

Ablur · Jul 17, 2015

johnnytodd said:
On your telly in Ipswich?

You need to get more clued up on your geography.

Ipswich is nowhere near Norway

AFCB_Mark · Jul 17, 2015

The city of Liverpool and Everton FC to go cap in hand to a Tory government asking them to pay for the city to host the Commonwealth Games and to give Everton a free new stadium?

Super_horns · Jul 17, 2015

silkyman said:
Which they probably won't.

Particularly now its the Tories!

johnnytodd · Jul 17, 2015

Ahh but the next Labour leader Andy Burham is a blue and the council leader of Liverpool is a blue..........it's all coming together.

in my head at least.

Christian Slater · Jul 17, 2015

How about not hosting events in places without the facilities?

silkyman · Jul 17, 2015

That's kind of not how it works...

Red · Jul 17, 2015

johnnytodd said:
in my head at least.

Meanwhile, back in reality...

Christian Slater · Jul 17, 2015

silkyman said:
That's kind of not how it works...

The way it works is shite. No surprise you like it seeing as it led to City getting a free stadium via the taxpayer.

silkyman · Jul 17, 2015

Yes. Lucky old City. It's not like every World Cup, Olympics, commonwealth games, euro championships etc have seen large venue constructions. You only think it's shit is because it was the main catalyst that put City into success.

silkyman · Jul 17, 2015

And by free you mean rented, yes?

johnnytodd · Jul 17, 2015

I've reserved my seat next to the shot put.

Christian Slater · Jul 17, 2015

silkyman said:
Yes. Lucky old City. It's not like every World Cup, Olympics, commonwealth games, euro championships etc have seen large venue constructions. You only think it's shit is because it was the main catalyst that put City into success.

Yes and they're all financial disasters, which is the point. I suppose the handout culture at City has left you confused about throwing money away. In the real world that's money that could be better spent.

You pay £3m a year rent to the council, that's the income of two home games. It's free.

silkyman · Jul 17, 2015

So amazingly, the one that hasn't been a financial disaster was the one when they had a tennant waiting to come in.

It's £4m a year, and the council got all of the land around Maine Road. It wasn't totally free at all, and without City, the games would never have happened.

Christian Slater · Jul 17, 2015

The things people convince themselves of.

silkyman · Jul 17, 2015

It's more remembering events really.

Anyways, the stadium cost £112m and city are paying £4m a year. Pays for itself in 28 years, or roughly the same timeframe as a mortgage.

Nice to know I'm living in a free house.

TheArtfulDodger · Jul 17, 2015

Be brilliant for the city if it happened, it's certainly capable of handling big events and hundreds of thousands as shown by the giants/Cunards. However, the infrastructure is not there, but it worked for Manchester, so why not?

TheArtfulDodger · Jul 17, 2015

silkyman said:
It's more remembering events really.

Anyways, the stadium cost £112m and city are paying £4m a year. Pays for itself in 28 years, or roughly the same timeframe as a mortgage.

Nice to know I'm living in a free house.

Don't see why Manchester City have anything to be guilty for. As you say, Manchester City are paying for their stadium, but on the another note, they're a Manchester club and the stadium was essential to hosting a worldwide event which boosted Manchester considerably. It was a good thing for the city as a whole.

Cheese & Biscuits · Jul 17, 2015

silkyman said:
It's more remembering events really.

Anyways, the stadium cost £112m and city are paying £4m a year. Pays for itself in 28 years, or roughly the same timeframe as a mortgage.

Nice to know I'm living in a free house.

You have an interest free mortgage? Wow

silkyman · Jul 17, 2015

No, but it'll be paid off in that sort of timescale. City, meanwhile will keep paying it making Manchester's investment in the stadium even better. Not to mention the money they made from the event itself. So it really was a win win for the council. They host a successful event and by having a ready tenant for the stadium ensure they are not only not left with the white elephant some cities end up with but end up with a regular income for years to come.

silkyman · Jul 17, 2015

TheArtfulDodger said:
Don't see why Manchester City have anything to be guilty for. As you say, Manchester City are paying for their stadium, but on the another note, they're a Manchester club and the stadium was essential to hosting a worldwide event which boosted Manchester considerably. It was a good thing for the city as a whole.

That's about the size of it, and I'm sure it's a model that Liverpool will be looking to emulate, because it was excellent for the city.

Kyle Hatch · Jul 18, 2015

there are lots of things to hit city over with the money, the stadium isn't one of them. It was a shame for athletics that there wasn't some sort rolling base (ala olympic stadium) which allowed manchester to maybe host again in the future, or a world championship. But considering the investment in the local area around eastlands, as well the maine road redevelopment, the council won't be complaining too much. Someone needs to choose their battle better.

As for liverpool hosting...again i'd like to see a proper stadium plan, not a con job like the olympic stadium, which was promised to stay an athletics track and not football, when everyone knew it was going to be a premier league stadium eventually. Pre plan the design for both and make that the agreement for any tennant moving in.

Avatar · Jul 18, 2015

Pagnell said:
At least Arsenal fans will feel better, their stadium will no longer have the most empty seats in the league.

Club: Av. tickets sold – Capacity (% filled)

Chelsea: 41,546 – 41,623 (99.82)

Swansea: 20,555 – 20,700 (99.30)

Arsenal: 59,992 – 60,432 (99.27)

Man Utd: 75,335 – 76,100 (98.99)

West Ham: 34,871 – 35,333 (98.69)

Spurs: 35,728 – 36,274 (98.49)

Liverpool: 44,659 – 45,362 (98.45)

Liverpool mid table on attendance. Can't imagine how Lucas Leiva and Joe Allen aren't keeping bums in seats.

City of Liverpool bid for 2022 Commenwealth games and........

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Pick Up The Gun

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pick Up The Gun

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Active Member

Log in

Forum statistics