The Etihad isn’t in Ancoats.
I believe ADUG own the Chrysler Building in New York, they are a property company at the end of the day
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
Boris
"The research primarily covers the Manchester Life partnership, a joint venture that has built 1,468 private apartments in the gentrified Ancoats district. In contrast to the common counter-argument that Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) investment has regenerated east Manchester, the report was “unable to identify any income received by the council from its joint venture stakes… despite being exposed to some of the risks of the project”.
It goes on to say that, under the terms of the deal, the council allowed ADUG to hold all land leaseholds, property assets and income rights through subsidiaries registered in “the secrecy jurisdiction of Jersey”.
"Most notably, it points out that the venture’s management company paid only £4,000 in corporation tax in 2021 on rental income of £10.1m."
What were you saying about Ratcliffe and avoiding tax?
You're so niave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And all you scousers are praying city win the title for some odd reason
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
comment by Ali - (U1192)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
Boris
"The research primarily covers the Manchester Life partnership, a joint venture that has built 1,468 private apartments in the gentrified Ancoats district. In contrast to the common counter-argument that Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) investment has regenerated east Manchester, the report was “unable to identify any income received by the council from its joint venture stakes… despite being exposed to some of the risks of the project”.
It goes on to say that, under the terms of the deal, the council allowed ADUG to hold all land leaseholds, property assets and income rights through subsidiaries registered in “the secrecy jurisdiction of Jersey”.
"Most notably, it points out that the venture’s management company paid only £4,000 in corporation tax in 2021 on rental income of £10.1m."
What were you saying about Ratcliffe and avoiding tax?
You're so niave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And all you scousers are praying city win the title for some odd reason
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps in your head, unless you've got some actual proof of this?
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Non if they were in Ancoats.
It’s not the responsibility of property companies to build Social Housing, that’s down to the Government.
I assume you would have been aware of that
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Non if they were in Ancoats.
It’s not the responsibility of property companies to build Social Housing, that’s down to the Government.
I assume you would have been aware of that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean the local authority not the government. Manchester City Council would sooner sell on the cheap to ADUG than build much needed affordable housing for the locals. As a thank you for the cheap land ADUG avoid paying taxes on the rents & profits they've made off the back of MCC.
But according to you ADUG are regenerating the area
Ancoats has become quite the cool trendy place of late. Our offices are there and the company my brother works for are based there too.
And I have some incredible memories of going to Sankeys in my late teens and 20's. Still my favourite night out in Manchester and it's a shame it's no longer around. Even had my stag do there too after a day at the races.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Non if they were in Ancoats.
It’s not the responsibility of property companies to build Social Housing, that’s down to the Government.
I assume you would have been aware of that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the responsibility of developers to deliver affordable housing as part of any planning application above (usually) 10 dwellings.
It is in the Council's gift to waive that, usually on viability grounds, but where the burden of proof justifying it lies with the developer.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Ali - (U1192)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
Boris
"The research primarily covers the Manchester Life partnership, a joint venture that has built 1,468 private apartments in the gentrified Ancoats district. In contrast to the common counter-argument that Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) investment has regenerated east Manchester, the report was “unable to identify any income received by the council from its joint venture stakes… despite being exposed to some of the risks of the project”.
It goes on to say that, under the terms of the deal, the council allowed ADUG to hold all land leaseholds, property assets and income rights through subsidiaries registered in “the secrecy jurisdiction of Jersey”.
"Most notably, it points out that the venture’s management company paid only £4,000 in corporation tax in 2021 on rental income of £10.1m."
What were you saying about Ratcliffe and avoiding tax?
You're so niave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And all you scousers are praying city win the title for some odd reason
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps in your head, unless you've got some actual proof of this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the football thread the other day every time city scored against Fulham you had almost every Liverpool fan going "GET IN!" - it was proper weird
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Non if they were in Ancoats.
It’s not the responsibility of property companies to build Social Housing, that’s down to the Government.
I assume you would have been aware of that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the responsibility of developers to deliver affordable housing as part of any planning application above (usually) 10 dwellings.
It is in the Council's gift to waive that, usually on viability grounds, but where the burden of proof justifying it lies with the developer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They can be excluded if it isn’t economically viable.
ADUG didn’t write the rules and non of the Big Hitters in the area like Reneker, Salboy or Capital & Centric build properties to sell or rent out at a loss.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Non if they were in Ancoats.
It’s not the responsibility of property companies to build Social Housing, that’s down to the Government.
I assume you would have been aware of that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the responsibility of developers to deliver affordable housing as part of any planning application above (usually) 10 dwellings.
It is in the Council's gift to waive that, usually on viability grounds, but where the burden of proof justifying it lies with the developer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They can be excluded if it isn’t economically viable.
ADUG didn’t write the rules and non of the Big Hitters in the area like Reneker, Salboy or Capital & Centric build properties to sell or rent out at a loss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, as i said, viability.
But there is a game being played here, Because usually a developer buys land, finds it to have high costs associated with it (contamination etc) and then make the viability argument to avoid Financial contributions including affordable housing.
But in this instance, the land was probably bought for a song because of the contamination....and then also avoided affordable housing provision, for the same reason.
As a public body, disposing of a public asset, the Council should have sold for a value that took into account the circumstances of the site and their ongoing responsibility to ensure the delivery of affordable housing and other infrastructure, even if this meant giving the land away for free.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Non if they were in Ancoats.
It’s not the responsibility of property companies to build Social Housing, that’s down to the Government.
I assume you would have been aware of that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the responsibility of developers to deliver affordable housing as part of any planning application above (usually) 10 dwellings.
It is in the Council's gift to waive that, usually on viability grounds, but where the burden of proof justifying it lies with the developer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They can be excluded if it isn’t economically viable.
ADUG didn’t write the rules and non of the Big Hitters in the area like Reneker, Salboy or Capital & Centric build properties to sell or rent out at a loss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, as i said, viability.
But there is a game being played here, Because usually a developer buys land, finds it to have high costs associated with it (contamination etc) and then make the viability argument to avoid Financial contributions including affordable housing.
But in this instance, the land was probably bought for a song because of the contamination....and then also avoided affordable housing provision, for the same reason.
As a public body, disposing of a public asset, the Council should have sold for a value that took into account the circumstances of the site and their ongoing responsibility to ensure the delivery of affordable housing and other infrastructure, even if this meant giving the land away for free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
No houses were built on that land, Fields is talking about a different area that’s more than a mile away.
City’s new training ground is on the site of the old Clayton Analine site along with the East Manchester Sports Centre and the Connell 6th Form College which City built and donated to the community.
It’s actually a great example of how a PPE can help all concerned with no cost to the taxpayers
comment by Robb Garnacho (U22716)
posted 14 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Neo (U9135)
posted 13 seconds ago
Some of the videos on twitter are mad, it's like watching scenes from the Titanic film.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s just Varane drawing Garnacho like one of his French girls
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely he'd have painted Aaron Wan-Bukater?
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 43 minutes ago
Boris
"The research primarily covers the Manchester Life partnership, a joint venture that has built 1,468 private apartments in the gentrified Ancoats district. In contrast to the common counter-argument that Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) investment has regenerated east Manchester, the report was “unable to identify any income received by the council from its joint venture stakes… despite being exposed to some of the risks of the project”.
It goes on to say that, under the terms of the deal, the council allowed ADUG to hold all land leaseholds, property assets and income rights through subsidiaries registered in “the secrecy jurisdiction of Jersey”.
"Most notably, it points out that the venture’s management company paid only £4,000 in corporation tax in 2021 on rental income of £10.1m."
What were you saying about Ratcliffe and avoiding tax?
You're so niave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They've basically given away a part of Manchester so that they can have nice buildings to look at while making fack all money. All that land is basically now part of the Kingdom of UAE.
They then sportswashed the idiots to look the other way.
Yes a college and a sports centre are of no use to a deprived area and the derelict land should have been left a a car park.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TBk-VFlp0A
Guy and some in the community look distraught.
Hope there'll be a solution to improve the area soon.
That looks like South Kensington compared to how Beswick looked before
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 50 minutes ago
Yes a college and a sports centre are of no use to a deprived area and the derelict land should have been left a a car park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No let's give it all the UAE because we are helpless and can't do anything for ourselves.
I wonder if Steve Maclaren had his brolly up in the changing rooms
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 50 minutes ago
Yes a college and a sports centre are of no use to a deprived area and the derelict land should have been left a a car park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No let's give it all the UAE because we are helpless and can't do anything for ourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...and that's City's or ADUG's fault?
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
Yes a college and a sports centre are of no use to a deprived area and the derelict land should have been left a a car park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case cool! Have the land as cheap as you want and avoid as much tax as you want.
comment by Ali - (U1192)
posted 16 hours, 58 minutes ago
What is leaking? The plumbing system?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back four constantly....it's not just a patch up job though
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ali - (U1192)
posted 16 hours, 58 minutes ago
What is leaking? The plumbing system?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back four constantly....it's not just a patch up job though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was gushing out just next to Casimiro apparently
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
Yes a college and a sports centre are of no use to a deprived area and the derelict land should have been left a a car park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case cool! Have the land as cheap as you want and avoid as much tax as you want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You prefer car parks to schools and leisure facilities?
Cool.
Both the college and the sports centre have car parks.
Best of both worlds eh?
Sign in if you want to comment
Old Trafford
Page 3 of 5
posted on 13/5/24
The Etihad isn’t in Ancoats.
I believe ADUG own the Chrysler Building in New York, they are a property company at the end of the day
posted on 13/5/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
Boris
"The research primarily covers the Manchester Life partnership, a joint venture that has built 1,468 private apartments in the gentrified Ancoats district. In contrast to the common counter-argument that Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) investment has regenerated east Manchester, the report was “unable to identify any income received by the council from its joint venture stakes… despite being exposed to some of the risks of the project”.
It goes on to say that, under the terms of the deal, the council allowed ADUG to hold all land leaseholds, property assets and income rights through subsidiaries registered in “the secrecy jurisdiction of Jersey”.
"Most notably, it points out that the venture’s management company paid only £4,000 in corporation tax in 2021 on rental income of £10.1m."
What were you saying about Ratcliffe and avoiding tax?
You're so niave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And all you scousers are praying city win the title for some odd reason
posted on 13/5/24
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
posted on 13/5/24
comment by Ali - (U1192)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
Boris
"The research primarily covers the Manchester Life partnership, a joint venture that has built 1,468 private apartments in the gentrified Ancoats district. In contrast to the common counter-argument that Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) investment has regenerated east Manchester, the report was “unable to identify any income received by the council from its joint venture stakes… despite being exposed to some of the risks of the project”.
It goes on to say that, under the terms of the deal, the council allowed ADUG to hold all land leaseholds, property assets and income rights through subsidiaries registered in “the secrecy jurisdiction of Jersey”.
"Most notably, it points out that the venture’s management company paid only £4,000 in corporation tax in 2021 on rental income of £10.1m."
What were you saying about Ratcliffe and avoiding tax?
You're so niave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And all you scousers are praying city win the title for some odd reason
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps in your head, unless you've got some actual proof of this?
posted on 13/5/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Non if they were in Ancoats.
It’s not the responsibility of property companies to build Social Housing, that’s down to the Government.
I assume you would have been aware of that
posted on 13/5/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Non if they were in Ancoats.
It’s not the responsibility of property companies to build Social Housing, that’s down to the Government.
I assume you would have been aware of that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean the local authority not the government. Manchester City Council would sooner sell on the cheap to ADUG than build much needed affordable housing for the locals. As a thank you for the cheap land ADUG avoid paying taxes on the rents & profits they've made off the back of MCC.
But according to you ADUG are regenerating the area
posted on 13/5/24
Ancoats has become quite the cool trendy place of late. Our offices are there and the company my brother works for are based there too.
And I have some incredible memories of going to Sankeys in my late teens and 20's. Still my favourite night out in Manchester and it's a shame it's no longer around. Even had my stag do there too after a day at the races.
posted on 13/5/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Non if they were in Ancoats.
It’s not the responsibility of property companies to build Social Housing, that’s down to the Government.
I assume you would have been aware of that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the responsibility of developers to deliver affordable housing as part of any planning application above (usually) 10 dwellings.
It is in the Council's gift to waive that, usually on viability grounds, but where the burden of proof justifying it lies with the developer.
posted on 13/5/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Ali - (U1192)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 11 minutes ago
Boris
"The research primarily covers the Manchester Life partnership, a joint venture that has built 1,468 private apartments in the gentrified Ancoats district. In contrast to the common counter-argument that Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) investment has regenerated east Manchester, the report was “unable to identify any income received by the council from its joint venture stakes… despite being exposed to some of the risks of the project”.
It goes on to say that, under the terms of the deal, the council allowed ADUG to hold all land leaseholds, property assets and income rights through subsidiaries registered in “the secrecy jurisdiction of Jersey”.
"Most notably, it points out that the venture’s management company paid only £4,000 in corporation tax in 2021 on rental income of £10.1m."
What were you saying about Ratcliffe and avoiding tax?
You're so niave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And all you scousers are praying city win the title for some odd reason
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps in your head, unless you've got some actual proof of this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the football thread the other day every time city scored against Fulham you had almost every Liverpool fan going "GET IN!" - it was proper weird
posted on 13/5/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Non if they were in Ancoats.
It’s not the responsibility of property companies to build Social Housing, that’s down to the Government.
I assume you would have been aware of that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the responsibility of developers to deliver affordable housing as part of any planning application above (usually) 10 dwellings.
It is in the Council's gift to waive that, usually on viability grounds, but where the burden of proof justifying it lies with the developer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They can be excluded if it isn’t economically viable.
ADUG didn’t write the rules and non of the Big Hitters in the area like Reneker, Salboy or Capital & Centric build properties to sell or rent out at a loss.
posted on 13/5/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Non if they were in Ancoats.
It’s not the responsibility of property companies to build Social Housing, that’s down to the Government.
I assume you would have been aware of that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the responsibility of developers to deliver affordable housing as part of any planning application above (usually) 10 dwellings.
It is in the Council's gift to waive that, usually on viability grounds, but where the burden of proof justifying it lies with the developer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They can be excluded if it isn’t economically viable.
ADUG didn’t write the rules and non of the Big Hitters in the area like Reneker, Salboy or Capital & Centric build properties to sell or rent out at a loss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, as i said, viability.
But there is a game being played here, Because usually a developer buys land, finds it to have high costs associated with it (contamination etc) and then make the viability argument to avoid Financial contributions including affordable housing.
But in this instance, the land was probably bought for a song because of the contamination....and then also avoided affordable housing provision, for the same reason.
As a public body, disposing of a public asset, the Council should have sold for a value that took into account the circumstances of the site and their ongoing responsibility to ensure the delivery of affordable housing and other infrastructure, even if this meant giving the land away for free.
posted on 13/5/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 24 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 2 minutes ago
Boris
How many of those 1,400 flats they avoided corporation tax on were affordable housing for locals in need?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Non if they were in Ancoats.
It’s not the responsibility of property companies to build Social Housing, that’s down to the Government.
I assume you would have been aware of that
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the responsibility of developers to deliver affordable housing as part of any planning application above (usually) 10 dwellings.
It is in the Council's gift to waive that, usually on viability grounds, but where the burden of proof justifying it lies with the developer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They can be excluded if it isn’t economically viable.
ADUG didn’t write the rules and non of the Big Hitters in the area like Reneker, Salboy or Capital & Centric build properties to sell or rent out at a loss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, as i said, viability.
But there is a game being played here, Because usually a developer buys land, finds it to have high costs associated with it (contamination etc) and then make the viability argument to avoid Financial contributions including affordable housing.
But in this instance, the land was probably bought for a song because of the contamination....and then also avoided affordable housing provision, for the same reason.
As a public body, disposing of a public asset, the Council should have sold for a value that took into account the circumstances of the site and their ongoing responsibility to ensure the delivery of affordable housing and other infrastructure, even if this meant giving the land away for free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
No houses were built on that land, Fields is talking about a different area that’s more than a mile away.
City’s new training ground is on the site of the old Clayton Analine site along with the East Manchester Sports Centre and the Connell 6th Form College which City built and donated to the community.
It’s actually a great example of how a PPE can help all concerned with no cost to the taxpayers
posted on 13/5/24
comment by Robb Garnacho (U22716)
posted 14 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Neo (U9135)
posted 13 seconds ago
Some of the videos on twitter are mad, it's like watching scenes from the Titanic film.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s just Varane drawing Garnacho like one of his French girls
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Surely he'd have painted Aaron Wan-Bukater?
posted on 13/5/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 3 hours, 43 minutes ago
Boris
"The research primarily covers the Manchester Life partnership, a joint venture that has built 1,468 private apartments in the gentrified Ancoats district. In contrast to the common counter-argument that Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG) investment has regenerated east Manchester, the report was “unable to identify any income received by the council from its joint venture stakes… despite being exposed to some of the risks of the project”.
It goes on to say that, under the terms of the deal, the council allowed ADUG to hold all land leaseholds, property assets and income rights through subsidiaries registered in “the secrecy jurisdiction of Jersey”.
"Most notably, it points out that the venture’s management company paid only £4,000 in corporation tax in 2021 on rental income of £10.1m."
What were you saying about Ratcliffe and avoiding tax?
You're so niave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They've basically given away a part of Manchester so that they can have nice buildings to look at while making fack all money. All that land is basically now part of the Kingdom of UAE.
They then sportswashed the idiots to look the other way.
posted on 13/5/24
Yes a college and a sports centre are of no use to a deprived area and the derelict land should have been left a a car park.
posted on 13/5/24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TBk-VFlp0A
Guy and some in the community look distraught.
Hope there'll be a solution to improve the area soon.
posted on 13/5/24
That looks like South Kensington compared to how Beswick looked before
posted on 13/5/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 50 minutes ago
Yes a college and a sports centre are of no use to a deprived area and the derelict land should have been left a a car park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No let's give it all the UAE because we are helpless and can't do anything for ourselves.
posted on 13/5/24
I wonder if Steve Maclaren had his brolly up in the changing rooms
posted on 13/5/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson (U1282)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 50 minutes ago
Yes a college and a sports centre are of no use to a deprived area and the derelict land should have been left a a car park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No let's give it all the UAE because we are helpless and can't do anything for ourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...and that's City's or ADUG's fault?
posted on 13/5/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
Yes a college and a sports centre are of no use to a deprived area and the derelict land should have been left a a car park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case cool! Have the land as cheap as you want and avoid as much tax as you want.
posted on 13/5/24
comment by Ali - (U1192)
posted 16 hours, 58 minutes ago
What is leaking? The plumbing system?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back four constantly....it's not just a patch up job though
posted on 13/5/24
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ali - (U1192)
posted 16 hours, 58 minutes ago
What is leaking? The plumbing system?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Back four constantly....it's not just a patch up job though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was gushing out just next to Casimiro apparently
posted on 13/5/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 56 minutes ago
Yes a college and a sports centre are of no use to a deprived area and the derelict land should have been left a a car park.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case cool! Have the land as cheap as you want and avoid as much tax as you want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You prefer car parks to schools and leisure facilities?
Cool.
posted on 13/5/24
Both the college and the sports centre have car parks.
Best of both worlds eh?
Page 3 of 5