Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

New Everton Stadium

davek said:
Have O'Keeffe and Boyland been retweeting this favourably?

It's a scandal that 'journal' has been allowing the Kopite scum Hughes to dictate to them the history of that dock as if it reflects on Everton. The whole of Liverpool is a slave trade disaster zone...but that wouldn't fit the agenda.

I'd urge anyone who has a subscription with that rag to ditch it and tell them why.
Click to expand...
I found it fairly informative.
I don't think it slammed the club or the city.
In fact by the end it started listing the ways the city was acknowledging its past.
The club have moved away from the use of the BMD name.
I presume the history of the site will be told in some permanent way.
Until the project is finished there's no point in judging anyone.
And I'm not sure this video did.
 
Ruairi77 said:
I found it fairly informative.
I don't think it slammed the club or the city.
In fact by the end it started listing the ways the city was acknowledging its past.
The club have moved away from the use of the BMD name.
I presume the history of the site will be told in some permanent way.
Until the project is finished there's no point in judging anyone.
And I'm not sure this video did.
Click to expand...
I dont think it was informative at all...in fact, Hughes conscioulsy ignored contacting the club to get their comments on it. That is standard journalistic practice. The feller is a dyed in the wool kopite with multicple sychophantic books under his belt about Liverpool FC and he is NO friend of this club.

It was a hit piece, pure and simple. And it was bad history too. A 'kin chimp could have written that...as he proved.
 
davek said:
I dont think it was informative at all...in fact, Hughes conscioulsy ignored contacting the club to get their comments on it. That is standard journalistic practice. The feller is a dyed in the wool kopite with multicple sychophantic books under his belt about Liverpool FC and he is NO friend of this club.

It was a hit piece, pure and simple. And it was bad history too. A 'kin chimp could have written that...as he proved.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize Brazil was the primary destination for African slaves.
I didn't know JBM was mayor.
I don't feel in any way that it was a hit piece.

So far, the club have done very well with the stadium.
Taking their time to release a specific site and social content.
Working well with private drone operators.
Keeping the whole thing moving along.

Presumably they have seen the Athletic piece and maybe this and thought there's nothing to be gained from responding to media attention that's not accusing them of anything.

Or have I missed something, is someone accusing the club of something?
 
Ruairi77 said:
I found it fairly informative.
I don't think it slammed the club or the city.
In fact by the end it started listing the ways the city was acknowledging its past.
The club have moved away from the use of the BMD name.
I presume the history of the site will be told in some permanent way.
Until the project is finished there's no point in judging anyone.
And I'm not sure this video did.
Click to expand...
Ok, so why make the video then?
Why now?
The pub, named after him, is 200 years old. The Dock has apparently been in use until shortly before we started work on it.

If its not an attempt to discredit the club, who are essentially taking over a plot of land that has no previous connection to them, and are repurposing it to something as far removed from what it was initially used for as possible, then what is it and why bring it up in 2 consecutive articles on an international publication?

It has a clear intent. If you choose not to see it, i cant help you.
 

Kever10 said:
Ok, so why make the video then?
Why now?
The pub, named after him, is 200 years old. The Dock has apparently been in use until shortly before we started work on it.

If its not an attempt to discredit the club, who are essentially taking over a plot of land that has no previous connection to them, and are repurposing it to something as far removed from what it was initially used for as possible, then what is it and why bring it up in 2 consecutive articles on an international publication?

It has a clear intent. If you choose not to see it, i cant help you.
Click to expand...
yea, I get that.
It's clearly fishing for hits. Same with the athletic
And maybe there's a deeper implication that the club have or are doing something wrong but I just don't see it.
The club are building a stadium on a dock named after a slave trader.
Some media outlets are using this as a story to sell ad space and make money.
All fairly inevitable.
Not the end of the world either.
 
arch stanton said:
As a matter of interest, have these reporters done any digging on the names of the other docks? I would guess that there would be a similar story behind them all as most rich people of that era would have utilised slaves, it was normal then.
Click to expand...

7 other docks are named after slave traders.

Not sure why some people are taking it as a direct insult to Everton or its fans.

The name of the stadium will be whoever pays us the most.

Liverpool was a slave trading city, a lot of people in the day made a lot of money from it. The same people would be seen as philanthropists as they would donate money to the church and charities to repent for what they done in the thought of buying themselves into heaven.

Anyway, the Journalist who wrote this piece earlier this week wrote another about Liverpool having to ditch it morals if they want owners to match City.
 
Moomin said:
7 other docks are named after slave traders.

Not sure why some people are taking it as a direct insult to Everton or its fans.

The name of the stadium will be whoever pays us the most.

Liverpool was a slave trading city, a lot of people in the day made a lot of money from it. The same people would be seen as philanthropists as they would donate money to the church and charities to repent for what they done in the thought of buying themselves into heaven.

Anyway, the Journalist who wrote this piece earlier this week wrote another about Liverpool having to ditch it morals if they want owners to match City.
Click to expand...

It really is a tomato tomato thing all this. Like any port, Liverpool made traders rich. One cargo they (shamefully, by todays standards) dealt in was the trafficking of slaves from largely West Africa to the US and Brazil.

The self same traders also bought stuff like cotton and coffee back to the UK. (Both harvests generally as a result of the slaves they had sailed to the Americas in the first place).

Cotton made many NW towns and cities rich. Tobacco made Bristol rich. (slaves, again).

In 150 years folk will most likely view BP and Shell in the same way we view the merchants and traders who dealt in the slave trade these days.

And to cap it off, in a week or so, we are all going to watch football in grounds built, pretty much, by slaves.
 

Moomin said:
7 other docks are named after slave traders.

Not sure why some people are taking it as a direct insult to Everton or its fans.

The name of the stadium will be whoever pays us the most.

Liverpool was a slave trading city, a lot of people in the day made a lot of money from it. The same people would be seen as philanthropists as they would donate money to the church and charities to repent for what they done in the thought of buying themselves into heaven.

Anyway, the Journalist who wrote this piece earlier this week wrote another about Liverpool having to ditch it morals if they want owners to match City.
Click to expand...

BMD has been derelict for donkeys years why bring this biz up now. The past has nothing to do with Everton.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top