Page 7 of 9
Posted:
Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:05 amby The Manhattan Project
Richard Branson's "Virgin" group would be a decent sponsor.
It looks cool on a shirt.
And yes, we may get stick from Mancs, but that's only because there are no virgins left in Greater Manchester.
Posted:
Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:20 amby Lando_Griffin
puroresu wrote:Leonmc0708 wrote:puroresu wrote:The Manhattan Project wrote:Will the Arabs continue with Carlsberg as a sponsor?
I would be glad if Liverpool made tops avaliable without the Sponsor. Rangers sell tops for there Muslim fans without Carling on them and and would be great if Liverpool did that.
Why ?
Thats football.
If you dont like it then dont follow it.
Does my head in all this.
You cant even have a St Georges flag i nyer garden incase you
a paki off !!
What is your problem. I wasnt saying Liverpool must get rid of Carlsberg. Like you said If I dont like it, dont buy it which I choose to not to do.
I just brought up the idea of LFC selling shirts with and without the sponsor so the fans who dont buy shirts with carlsberg over it will buy the shirt.
It isnt beyond the realms of possibility that a player will be signed who doesnt want to wear a shirt which promotes something against his beliefs. What u going to say to him? " off". Sissoko could say it. Kanoute said it at seville and they got him a shirt without 888.com on it. Is this wrong? Not at all.
What all this has to do with your flag story I have no idea.
I see that thing call Racism still is ok to you.
Shut up you tart. You've done nothing but p*ss and whine over the last few weeks.
You're a Muslim - WE GET IT!
But surely you are educated enough to realise that just because you're forbidden from DRINKING alcohol, it doesn't mean you can't own anything that has a company's name on it!?!
Crikey me! 
Posted:
Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:41 pmby Red_lass
for the life of me i hope they won't change the name. theres too much history within those seven letters. 
Posted:
Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:49 pmby puroresu
Lando_Griffin wrote:puroresu wrote:Leonmc0708 wrote:puroresu wrote:The Manhattan Project wrote:Will the Arabs continue with Carlsberg as a sponsor?
I would be glad if Liverpool made tops avaliable without the Sponsor. Rangers sell tops for there Muslim fans without Carling on them and and would be great if Liverpool did that.
Why ?
Thats football.
If you dont like it then dont follow it.
Does my head in all this.
You cant even have a St Georges flag i nyer garden incase you
a paki off !!
What is your problem. I wasnt saying Liverpool must get rid of Carlsberg. Like you said If I dont like it, dont buy it which I choose to not to do.
I just brought up the idea of LFC selling shirts with and without the sponsor so the fans who dont buy shirts with carlsberg over it will buy the shirt.
It isnt beyond the realms of possibility that a player will be signed who doesnt want to wear a shirt which promotes something against his beliefs. What u going to say to him? "
off". Sissoko could say it. Kanoute said it at seville and they got him a shirt without 888.com on it. Is this wrong? Not at all.
What all this has to do with your flag story I have no idea.
I see that thing call Racism still is ok to you.
Shut up you tart. You've done nothing but p*ss and whine over the last few weeks.
You're a Muslim - WE GET IT!
But surely you are educated enough to realise that just because you're forbidden from DRINKING alcohol, it doesn't mean you can't own anything that has a company's name on it!?!
Crikey me!
Nothing to do with me being Muslim. the guy who posted said paki. I aint asian but I always thought the word paki was infact racist. Or am i wrong?
Posted:
Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:05 pmby account deleted by request
Paki is short for Pakistani, is it racist to call a British man a Brit? The only reason Paki is termed racist is because some people have used it in a derogatory way. I would rather be called a Brit or English than be called European, which is basically the same as calling a Pakistani an Asian.
Posted:
Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:34 pmby red37
Some details are in over the construction of the new stadium and the company Laing O' Rourke who have been designated to take control of the project. (N.B taken from Koptalk - although i dont see much controversy in putting the article up) Some of the information is confirmed already...
anyway here's the article in full:
****************************************************
It would appear that Liverpool Football Club have reached an agreement with Laing O'Rourke Plc to build the club's new stadium.
Laing are the largest privately owned construction firm in the UK with offices overseas in places such as Australia, Germany, India and the United Arab Emirates. They are responsible for some fine constructions including one that is very special to Liverpool fans, The Millennium Stadium. They're also responsible for the construction of an 80,000-seat Olympic stadium and athletes' village for the 2012 Olympic games in London.
While this may not excite many fans as it's not related to buying the next Ronaldinho, if the deal is confirmed, this is a master coup for Liverpool duo David Moores and Rick Parry. It also suggests to me that a deal with Dubai-based D.I.C. is more advanced than many think.
From what I've read, Laing have been handed the contract without even an official round of bidding. Carillion Plc were the named preferred bidder in 2003 but when plans were revised they weren't invited to bid again. Carillion were responsible for making the Anfield Road stand two-tier. Construction firm Sir Robert McAlpine (builders of The Emirates Stadium) claim they declined to bid.
Laing have various contracts all over the world. They have recently built two new grandstands at Aintree race course and have worked on a £900million redevelopment of Liverpool city centre. They're also building a new terminal building at Dubai International Airport.
Mark Hughes, a construction analyst based in Liverpool, told Bloomberg reporters: "Liverpool are right to be doing this ahead of getting a new owner so they can start building straight away."
A deal with Laing hasn't been publicly announced yet so we'll have to wait and see what happens.
Meanwhile I'm informed that D.I.C. have made it clear to club officials that they don't favour a groundshare with feeder club Everton. They have also talked about "maximising capacity" at the new Anfield and if you believe the latest whispers, they have top brands already lined up for stadium and shirt sponsorship.
New investment, a new stadium... things are finally falling into place after a long, long drawn out affair.
************************************************
like i say, treat with caution...but i cant see much conflict arising through the bones of this. it certainly sounds legit. And here's to the right moves being made in making it a successful project overall. Lets hope and pray they get the Design spot-on, Laing have a good track record and im certain there will be no compromise in achieving those aims. Its all go from here....so it would seem. Finally!
Posted:
Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:20 pmby account deleted by request
Sounds as though things are moving pretty quickly now. How long does it take to build a stadium? (Dont mention Wembley lol) Could it be ready for next season?
Posted:
Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:22 pmby stmichael
s@int wrote:Sounds as though things are moving pretty quickly now. How long does it take to build a stadium? (Dont mention Wembley lol) Could it be ready for next season?
i think we're realistically looking at the 2009-2010 season.
Posted:
Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:28 pmby account deleted by request
stmichael wrote:s@int wrote:Sounds as though things are moving pretty quickly now. How long does it take to build a stadium? (Dont mention Wembley lol) Could it be ready for next season?
i think we're realistically looking at the 2009-2010 season.
As long as that hopefully we won't have to wait that long for the EPL title.
Posted:
Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:46 pmby aCe'
call it arabfield and play the saudi national team to open the stadium
Posted:
Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:15 pmby RUSHIE#9
Carillion Plc were the named preferred bidder in 2003 but when plans were revised they weren't invited to bid again. Carillion were responsible for making the Anfield Road stand two-tier.
Considering the fact that the top tier was like Rolf Harris' 'Wobble board' 
is it any wonder they weren't asked back. 
When the Takeover/Investment does go through I'd be inclined to say that the stadium must become top priority. We've been waiting for this for too long now and I think that because all obstacles have been seemingly overcome we should take this opportunity to get the ground broken and start laying some bricks and mortar.
Posted:
Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:20 amby Kharhaz
Change one of the roads nearer to the new stadium to ANFIELD ROAD then change the old Anfield Road to ANFIELD WAZ ERE ROAD then we can call the new stadium ANFIELD and the jobs a good un !
Posted:
Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:03 amby The Manhattan Project
"Stanley Park" is a cool name for the new stadium.
I would be happy with that.
Posted:
Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:45 pmby RUSHIE#9
There's an interesting article HERE regarding the New stadium and some possible changes that G&T might be looking to make. The key change mentioned is the inclusion of 'Bunker' style executive boxes. These are effectively executive boxes built under the stadium with elevators(for the americans ) linking them to the seats. When you look at the drawings of the new ground
the exec. boxes do take up alot of space so I wonder if this would allow the capacity to be raised without physically enlarging the foot print of the stadium.
Posted:
Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:40 pmby J*o*n*D*o*e
first off they had better revise that picture to include a single tiered kop end bigger than the away end.
put the away supporters in the corner where they belong
also looking at that picture would the teams emerge from the corner like at manure.