Tranmere Rovers' Ingleborough development plan is approved (From Wirral Globe)

It shows how much Stuart Kelly knows about the origin of the field, he thinks by moving the memorial stone it makes everything right,another councillor that purports to represent Wirral, not much of a fan of DJ but I think his words ring true "will come back to haunt Wirral"lets hope the sponsorship deal will now cease seeing as TRFC has lined its pockets,job now done some of our councillors can get back to supping at the TRFC table.

Was at the meeting,DJ didn't stand up,he had some side kick do it for him
What was the reason ?

The right decision.

The Trust's press releases seem to have been the only balanced views expressed here.

The campaigners against the scheme had many valid points, but on balance, this scheme represented a step forward for the Wirral.

Dean Johnson has led a vile and self centred campaign. How can the Globe call him the "Lead Campaigner". What has he done to achieve this accolaid?

I'm glad it's gone through but surely the stone should be restored and put on the new memorial at the same site. I wouldn't want it moved just more access to it.

Councillor Reaney really needs to justify her comments. Clearly the Woodchurch scheme is funded by the Ingleborough development. Not a hard concept to follow.

wirral1981 wrote:
Councillor Reaney really needs to justify her comments. Clearly the Woodchurch scheme is funded by the Ingleborough development. Not a hard concept to follow.

Well maybe she knows about the mortgages rumoured to be about £3.6 million taken out on the land at Ingleborough ??

If that's true then there is not going to be much left to develop at Woodchurch if that has to be repaid .... Something not adding up here !!

There are already plans to incorporate that memorial stone in the new housing development making it accessible by everyone, but this fact is completely ignored by people with their own agenda.

The correct decision for the vast majority of people who will benefit from these two developments has been made despite the selfish objections from one or two obnoxious individuals who have stooped extremely low during their distasteful smear campaign.

And as for Councillors not knowing much...please read the nonsense spouted by Councillor Realy (sp ?)...she should be embarrassed.

But publishing untruths, lies and misleading statements was the basis of the objectors campaign so it was no surprise that continued into the town hall meeting.

Good luck to the Woodchurch residents I hope they get their new facilities without further obstacles put in the way.

And also maybe our WW1 soldiers, who lost their lives all those years ago, can now really rest in peace and will never again be used as some sort of publicity tool by self serving, wretched, and dare I say shameful individuals....they certainly deserve better.

woodyres2 wrote:

wirral1981 wrote: Councillor Reaney really needs to justify her comments. Clearly the Woodchurch scheme is funded by the Ingleborough development. Not a hard concept to follow.

Well maybe she knows about the mortgages rumoured to be about £3.6 million taken out on the land at Ingleborough ?? If that's true then there is not going to be much left to develop at Woodchurch if that has to be repaid .... Something not adding up here !!

Unfortunatly as a football club Tranmere have to publish thier accounts. Thus meaning its very easy to see that no such mortgage has ever been taken. RUMOUR is the main word there yet another RUMOUR set about by certain people with an agenda.

I am sincerely bored by this constant attacking of Tranmere and the fact that we are sponsored by the council. I was hoping that now the decision has been approved by the council, with the proviso that Woodchurch is also regenerated, would be the end of it, but apparently not as some people just want to complain for the sake of complaining (not aimed specifically at you uncatom).

In terms of Wirral Councils sponsorship, Tranmere actually receive an incredibly small amount compared to most clubs, while the amount of work done in the community far outstrips the work of most clubs in the community. Regular school trips by players as well as sport schemes and charitable drives aim to help those in and around Wirral. If you still want to complain about Wirrals sponsorship of Tranmere, take it up with the Cabinet, who had to ratify the councils ability to sponsor the club when the Tory government came in, as even they felt that the work done by the club in the community was worthwhile. Tranmere hardly 'lines' its pockets when you look at how Manchester United have just bought out their training kit sponsor for £10 million because they feel they can get more money for a training kit. If memory serves me correct, I think Tranmeres sponsorship deal amounts to something along the lines of £122,000. In fact, in the last decade of sponsorship, Tranmere has received just over £1.3 million (http://www.liverpoo
lecho.co.uk/liverpoo
l-news/local-news/20
12/06/06/council-s-f
ootball-sponsorship-
for-tranmere-rovers-
tops-1million-over-l
ast-decade-100252-31
120178/). Would it also interest you to know perhaps, that the original sponsorship was approved as a way of paying back a loan that the club owed to the council? A loan that has was paid back in full, in 1998? Tranmere is not just a part of the community on the Wirral, it is a club that is willing to put back into the community.

With regards to the development, as mentioned in the article, no development in Woodchurch, no development on Ingleborough, the memorial stone stays where it is, hidden from public view. The development allows for a proper and fitting monument for the memorial stone, as a focal point of a new community. No one who lives there will miss it, and the younger generations who live there will obviously ask about it, and learn about the history of the area and the men who gave their lives for future generations freedoms.

Finally, Dean Johnson, a man who has been given far too much air time, who has a talent for using overly emotive language, who has no problem creating controversy with false pictures. I appreciate his position, and his reasons behind it, but the levels he has stooped to at certain points has created a wave of anger against him from certain parts of the Tranmere fan base, who I feel on the whole have treated this issue with dignity and respect. His vilification of Tranmere as a 'wretched club' is completely over the top. I sincerely doubt that this will 'come back to haunt Wirral' as Housing and sports facilities for the community are two things that are capable of attracting people to an area.

Here is the report on Wirrals sponsorship of Tranmere. Note, that if we attain promotion we stand to gain roughly £13,000 a year in sponsorship, while if we get relegated, we stand to lose £19,000.

I hope this article now finishes what has been a sorry time for Wirral and most of all a sorry time for a media outlet like The Wirral Globe. Continually over the last year The Wirral Globe has published one sided nature to fuel its own agenda. It has contnued to give a voice to people who time after time can make accusations with now proof or fact. It has done this for a small amount of people who they then claim are the vocal part of a much larger group against the development which is totally untrue. The actions of The Wirral Globe over the last few months and the actions of The editor in charge are totally against what Wilfred Owen originanally fought for in the war. This country is a democracy which means the press have an obligation to publish both sides of the story all the way through the debate which in this case simply did not happen. If you really want to see the real Mr Johnson just read the insulting and horrible remarks he has made about Wirral Football Club on the BBC website. Mr Johnson Tranmere Rovers is watched by many thousands of fans each week and Hundreds or Thousands accross the years have taken great Love from OUR local league football club. Ask yourself how many have from Wilfred Owen a man who was born elsewhere. Before you give out your usual dire war responce. I have a family memeber who has died recently serving this country and many in Wirral have or know members of their family who figt or did fight for this country. They are the men who should be idolised now. Te men who are born and grow up in Wirral. As a close Tranmere are letting all servicemen in to watch a great game tomorrow against Preston for £5.00. Come along guys us Tranmere fans will pat you all on the back.

The club do not have a mortgage of £3.8m on Ingleborough. Fact.

Look in the club's accounts if you want to identify this and Councillor Reaney should have done so.

Raising a false rumour like this is unacceptable as a Councillor.

I'd question her position on this and would like an answer.

Great article Stephanie you are the only decent reporter at the globe

Councillor realley seemed to not have briefed herself on any facts

Councillor whittingham (sic) deserves credit for pushing this through from the legacy for future generations angle

I also take it now that councillor realley who declared drinking at the Tranmere trough won't do so again

As for dean being lead campaigner no lead self publicist

Great news!

So is being top of the league ailing hey dean

Sound a bit childish but it's your musicAl career that's freebasing on the road to nowhere

Woodyres2.

I can confirm 100% that there is no mortgage on the field. I have looked at the official copy entries at the land registry.

Facts really do make rumours look dull and boring don't they

remember the past preserve the future wrote:
Facts really do make rumours look dull and boring don't they

I agree - if the facts prove to be correct.

Woodyres, Club's Accounts are downloadable online. Public knowledge.

Councillors should check out their rumours before making assertions.

Making unfounded statements is Dean Johnson's role, but we expect more from Councillors.

Couldn't agree more,there was a certain councillor that had to much to
say I read her lips many times during the course of the meeting she was dismissive of what Mr Rushton was trying to explain and carried on calling him a liar.Not the correct way to behave when all the public were on there best behaviour except the mad man from Wales who ripped up a document to throw it on the floor,who was the well fed chap who took the councillor in questions side

Champagne socialist s

wirral1981 wrote:
Woodyres, Club's Accounts are downloadable online. Public knowledge. Councillors should check out their rumours before making assertions. Making unfounded statements is Dean Johnson's role, but we expect more from Councillors.

Indeed we do expect more from Councillors, and that is why Councillor Whittingham now needs to ensure that the renovations at Woodchurch go ahead, and that the community is consulted as the plans have changed greatly from the original proposal.

As Upton/Woodchurch Councillor he must make sure this happens, but having said that he did promise residents a 2nd consultation, and that didn't happen. So I won't be holding my breath !!

wirral1981 wrote:
Woodyres, Club's Accounts are downloadable online. Public knowledge. Councillors should check out their rumours before making assertions. Making unfounded statements is Dean Johnson's role, but we expect more from Councillors.

wirral1981 - I wonder if you could use your obvious excellent detective skills to find out about another rumour I have heard regarding the ownership of the Cheshire Lines building which costs Wirral Council a fortune to rent, and cost a fortune to refurbish.

Rumour has it there is a TRFC link there ..... many thanks ....

remember the past preserve the future wrote:
Champagne socialist s

rtpptf,

Your quite right champagne socialists,deny the the disabled but sit at the banquet table of a football club,in an earlier post there is mention of £1.3 million being paid to TRFC in sponsorship money over the last decade whilst we had the threat of libraries being closed and budgets being cut back, its an outrageous misuse of the community charge,loans ,sponsorship deals,cheap land deals TRFC is indeed the love child of WBC.

yoda1234 wrote:
Woodyres2.

I can confirm 100% that there is no mortgage on the field. I have looked at the official copy entries at the land registry.

I have an official copy of the register of title MS372915 at Ingleborough Road, and on the last page there is 3 registered charges (mortgages) from 2007. Have these been paid off since I got my copy?

Tranmere been around a wee bit longer than WBC

Serena welcome back yes love they're 5 years out of date

woodyres2 wrote:

wirral1981 wrote:
Woodyres, Club's Accounts are downloadable online. Public knowledge. Councillors should check out their rumours before making assertions. Making unfounded statements is Dean Johnson's role, but we expect more from Councillors.

wirral1981 - I wonder if you could use your obvious excellent detective skills to find out about another rumour I have heard regarding the ownership of the Cheshire Lines building which costs Wirral Council a fortune to rent, and cost a fortune to refurbish.

Rumour has it there is a TRFC link there ..... many thanks ....

Why don't you find out for yourself, there are certain public departments where members of the public can find out this information.

But i can confirm that this rumour has no substance and is yet again a mischievous rumour put out there by certain people with a hidden agenda.

woodyres2 wrote:

wirral1981 wrote:
Woodyres, Club's Accounts are downloadable online. Public knowledge. Councillors should check out their rumours before making assertions. Making unfounded statements is Dean Johnson's role, but we expect more from Councillors.

wirral1981 - I wonder if you could use your obvious excellent detective skills to find out about another rumour I have heard regarding the ownership of the Cheshire Lines building which costs Wirral Council a fortune to rent, and cost a fortune to refurbish.

Rumour has it there is a TRFC link there ..... many thanks ....

Woodyres2... You are making the mistake of combining Tranmere Rovers with Peter Johnson. Peter Johnson does indeed own the Cheshire Lines Building. It is not a Rumour it is common Knowledge. Infact ask any of the Wirral Council worker who work there and they will tell you he is a pain in the arse. He rents out the buiding but only a small part of the car park meaning many of the employees find it hard to park. So can you now explain other than to meet your own agenda why you would say this is a TRFC link? Do Tranmere ever see any of that money??? no indeed not because look at any of Tranmere's Accounts for the last decade or ask any fan and they will explain to you that Mr Johnson has not put in penny into tranmere in a decade. Tranmere run by its own means. The decision to let Ingleborough be developed is not a win for Tranmere in terms of money. Its a win for Tranmere because freeing up that money means the long term debt of which tranmere owe mr Johnson can be paid and Mr Johnson can then leave Tranmere for the fans to run in terms of the Tranmere Trust. What Mr Johnson does with his millions and it is millions by the way. Selling Park group. selling shares last week worth 31 million renting numerous properties around Wirral unfortunatly is up to him. Tranmere never see a penny of it. Tranmere is now just another asset of his he will unload very soon. So Woodyres2 its not a rumour of a tranmere link its a fact of a Mr Johnson Link please please please understand the difference then maybe some of the people who are being aggressive towards our club will lay off a bit

uncatom wrote:

remember the past preserve the future wrote:
Champagne socialist s

rtpptf,

Your quite right champagne socialists,deny the the disabled but sit at the banquet table of a football club,in an earlier post there is mention of £1.3 million being paid to TRFC in sponsorship money over the last decade whilst we had the threat of libraries being closed and budgets being cut back, its an outrageous misuse of the community charge,loans ,sponsorship deals,cheap land deals TRFC is indeed the love child of WBC.

Shock horror, Wirral's own football club sponsored by their own council, ask yourself Uncatom how much publicity and money have TRFC brought to the borough through the council link.? The name of Wirral worldwide on Sky TV, as mentioned earlier TRFC do more than most in the local community.
I am proud of the unique link, which incidentally TRFC could gain more from sponsorship from a corporate body.

You mention cheap land deals, I assume you mean the council gaining the land at Bidston Moss cheaply from Mr Johnson's Park Group, as that land is/was worth far more than Ingleborough, just ask Tesco's.

I suggest you stop watching X-Files.

How much better it would be if WBC and Tranmere Football Cllub had kept their distance. I don't see why planning permission should be bought, as seems to be the case here.

There's people on this blog who need
to Get over it

who are these self elected tranmere rovers/johnstons lackeys trust? they should concentrate on finding the money that they told the loyal fans of trfc they would have by october 2011. this ben harrison has had plenty of newspaper space telling the world and his wife what is good for the woodchurch estate! does he live there? i doubt it. why dont they concentrate on finding the money and stop living in cloud cuckoo land.

Who cares we're Ben lives that's all smoke and mirrors my friend

Btw thats not smoke from anybody's freebase pipe I'm talking about

My school,my playing field,my family history sold for a bag of magic beans.My Father,God rest his soul,always said Rovers would let me down,over 40 years of watching them.Lilttle did I know it would be on more than one field.No more.

Should be a great match tomorrow gort and squaddies in for a fiver too marvellous

I don't think I have ever read a more obnoxious set of triumphalist comments in my entire life!!!

Some posters on this blog need to do some REAL soul searching in my opinion.

To vehemently criticize a local newspaper, and it's Editor for bringing a REAL public interest story to the General Public, and the many posters who expressed then and still do now, their opposition to the selling of Ingleborough Road MEMORIAL Fields in such a way is deplorable.

To those TRIUMPHALISTS I say this:

If you are happy that a dedicated War Memorial is to be sold and destroyed so that a football team can pay off it's debts, and a council can shirk it's responsibilities to provide modern sporting facilities to the Council Tax paying public of the Borough, THEN SHAME ON YOU ALL.

And

If you believe for one minute that the development of the Woodchurch facilities will benefit anyone other than TRFC, then you are naive in the extreme.

And

If you think for one minute that the Hamper Packing Spiv is going to let some silly little "Supporters Trust" EVER gain control of Tranmere Rovers,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,Then it is THEM that should stop watching the x-Files.


How and When, did the Council remove the covenants on the land. And who was Chair of THAT meeting and who else was party to the decision?

I am saddened that the Council passed this application. Not because TRFC can pay off it's "supposed" debt to Peter Johnson, (I beleive the HPS has well had his money back, not only from TRFC but also the links with Wirral Borough Council that his ownership of TRFC has given him)

I'm not saddedned that Woodchurch "might" get some nice sporting facilities.

I'm saddened because the Margaret Thatcher mantra of "Me, Me Me and Money, Money Money" is still alive and well in this country.

What happened to "Remembrance" or "Dignity" or, most importantly, "Morals"?

So we should not remember the past then ? lets bury this site of the 88 souls who thought they might live, and their families who hoped for their return.

We are marching towards another war again, because we never learn..

I wasn't intending to post after the decision, having been a vocal correspondent over many months during the campaign, but some of the comments by jimrob and others above have sufficiently provoked me, so hear goes:

This whole planning application has never been black and white, with one righteous position and one morally indefensible position, entirely mutually exclusive of each other, despite some people wishing to paint it that way.

For my part, from the outset, I have readily acknowledged that those genuinely opposed to the developments have a valid and entirely reasonable argument with much merit, but I have also attempted to point out that equally, there are standpoints in favour of the planning applications which are also legitimate and entirely reasonably to hold. In essence, the decision was always going to be difficult, and stood to be made on the basis of whether the positive benefits of development, at both sites, on balance, outweighed the detriment in doing so, and whether it was considered that the memory of the Fallen could be maintained whilst proceeding with a scheme that provides a lasting legacy for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations.

Now that the initial decision has been made by the council planning committee, I must confess I don't specifically know where this goes from here - is there likely to be an appeal, and if so, what are the chances of that succeeding?

There's certainly no triumphalism from me anyway, as I recognize that although this is a major hurdle successfully negotiated, there are potentially further obstacles to be overcome, and although in my view the outcome is the correct one, I continue to respect the genuine and heartfelt views of the opponents of the scheme.

However, all that said, I strongly object to the tactic of some of the anti's during this debate, in so much that they have at no time been prepared to recognize that despite their own views, that there is validity on both sides of the argument, and that opposing standpoints are worthy of respect, even if they personally don't agree with them. Proponents of the development have been the target of much emotive vitriol, being labelled at various times shameful, disgraceful, immoral etc. Now, whilst that is water off a ducks back for me, and I remain comfortable on balance with the ethics of the position I have taken in this debate, I do find the conduct of some of the opponents both arrogant and unacceptable, and cannot understand how they can live in such a certain world, where only their views are valid, righteous and worthy of respect. I do believe that the majority of supporters of the development have been courteous enough to acknowledge that the anti's have an argument which should be heard and is reasonable, and that, for me, is the difference. Yes, of course there have been excesses on both sides, including by me if I am honest, and that is to be expected in a passionate and at times heated argument, but beyond that, I am referring to the incessant outright condemnation in some quarters as the unacceptable face of this debate.

Moving on to Dean Johnson himself, I consider that his conduct during this issue has been poor. Of course the man is as entitled to his view as anybody else, and although his motives are open to speculation in terms of the benefits he may personally seek to accrue by generating publicity for his own business interests, I can admire his tenacity and passion for "his" cause. However, the tactics he has employed read like a catalogue of increasing desperation and self-interest. What have we had so far?
Trees (not poplars), Vikings, Asda (although the company clearly stated it was misrepresented), photo-shopped war graves, offensive poetry, weird Shakespeare recitals outside Ingleborough, poems claiming to be the voices of dead people, and perhaps unsurprisingly, supporting his standpoint, and so the list goes on .......

Ask yourself this, do you think that at any time, apart from perhaps during his meeting with the TRFC supporters Trust back in February, he has acknowledged or presented both sides of the arguments at any point, or alternatively, do you suppose it more likely that in his or his followers' prolific letter writing to Prince Andrew, David Cameron, Asda, and numerous others, he has presented a wholly one-sided version of events, in the hope that the recipients may be naive enough to provide a knee-jerk response without properly investigating all sides of the argument. Fair play I guess, it kind of worked briefly with Asda, to the extent that this paper was happy to run the story, but was then unwilling to correct it once Asda clarified their position.

On a slightly superficial note, and I am not particularly proud of myself for this, but I am currently enjoying a slight sense of schadenfreude at Dean Johnson's tantrums subsequent to the planning position, as the toys are now very much being thrown out of the pram. In all honesty, I don't believe the man's conduct, previously or at present, reflects well upon him, and essentially reveals him for what he is.

Finally, as regards the Globe itself, my view, for what it's worth, is that for whatever reason, there has been demonstrable subjectivity in its reporting of the Ingleborough / Woodchurch planning applications, and that disappoints me greatly, as I genuinely would have expected better of them. However, to be fair, over recent weeks, as the planning decision has approached, I have witnessed a marked improvement in balance, so whilst there remains a feeling of injustice at previous conduct, fair play to Mr Marles and his team for addressing their partisan stance and returning to more balance journalism.

Well said lurkinhead....the voice of reason ??

Jim Rob, words fail me after reading your rant...and you are of course entitled to your opinion...all opinions are valid if based on fact....so you need to rethink your 'facts'.

For a start the Wirral Globe were not slated for covering this story, they were criticised for lack of balance...their early coverage just seemed to be publishing DJ's misinformed rants !!
That was not good journalism.

But as has been pointed out, they have greatly improved their coverage now so thanks to the Editor for that.

I suggest you look at the benefits to come for the Wirral, it's people and also the memorial for the war dead as this development will finally do justice to their memory and allow the general public to actually access the memorial whenever they want for the first time.

This is not shameful, it's not trampling on their graves...it's progress allied with respect for the dead.

what he said........ above.

jimrob did your mum never teach you sticks and stones may break my bones.

suggest its you who has things he needs to get over.

Jimrob p.s did you bunk off english lessons when you went to BI.

what is with the over use of capitalisation.

oh i get it your trying to emphasise how NASTY us WRETCHED football fans are for supporting our AILING club.

THINK THIS WILL COME BACK TO HAUNT ME.

finally talking about triumphilist.

i can imagine the scenario if it had been rejected.

there would have been a special edition of the globe published. with a picture of dean on the town hall steps crying and reciting poetry giving out flyers for his next musical / book launch.

You forgot to say Jimrob would of
been on the steps with Big Dean

To all who have an opinion on this get yourselves to Ingleborough tomorrow morning to see how many kids are playing organised football on those fields.

Organised by trfc

Gingerthinker wrote:
Well said lurkinhead....the voice of reason ??

Jim Rob, words fail me after reading your rant...and you are of course entitled to your opinion...all opinions are valid if based on fact....so you need to rethink your 'facts'.

For a start the Wirral Globe were not slated for covering this story, they were criticised for lack of balance...their early coverage just seemed to be publishing DJ's misinformed rants !!
That was not good journalism.

But as has been pointed out, they have greatly improved their coverage now so thanks to the Editor for that.

I suggest you look at the benefits to come for the Wirral, it's people and also the memorial for the war dead as this development will finally do justice to their memory and allow the general public to actually access the memorial whenever they want for the first time.

This is not shameful, it's not trampling on their graves...it's progress allied with respect for the dead.

Well we have paid approx £1.3 million in sponsorship over the past decade( thank you Paddy)and we are still awaiting the benefits to flood the streets of Wirral,the only benefits up to now have gone to line the pockets of rovers and the tax exile and of course lets not forget some of our bloated councillors who benefit from rovers "hospitality" and last but not least the property developers .
I paid a visit to the WBC site to checklist some of our esteemed councillors and low and behold in the bottom right hand corner is the TRFC logo, just wondering why this should appear on a local gov website? and to respond to MTMs post,why should the community charge be used to support what is in fact a business enterprise? and wow aren't we the boys a fiver entrance fee for service personnel. it should be gratis.
I feel ashamed as a resident of Wirral that a memorial to those that made the ultimate sacrifice is being sold and the tainted money used to pay off a bad debt, no morals no honour........Lest we forget.

So it is my turn to be criticized and vilified eh? Oh well' never mind. I have broad shoulders and can well take a bit of criticism

Lurkinhead. A good reasonable argument you make, and interesting reading it made too. One of the few Pro-posts I have read on this or any other thread that I have enjoyed reading. It lacked one thing though. Respect for the dead.

As for RTTPTH and Positive Thinker?

Well, what can I say?

I have absolutely NO interest in Dean Johnson or his work, I do though however respect the fact that he put his head above the parapet to bring to our attention the morally reprehensible actions of both Peter Johnson and Wirral Borough Council.

I have no axe to grind with TRFC either. Indeed, I have spent many a happy afternoon/evening watching them with my children.

No. My main concern in this whole sorry saga is that a piece of land, that was originally bought and paid for by family members of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our Country, (NOT a 3rd rate football team) and the general public, to be a PERMANENT monument to the memory of those brave souls, is to be sold for mere profit.

Those that have critisized me have failed totally to agree that the refurbishment of the Woodchurch Leisure Centre is the SOLE responsibility of the Authority who owns it, and to whom WE ALL pay Council Tax to to do so.

They have also FAILED to agree that the land at Ingleborough Road had covenants attached to it that specifically forbade the selling of the land for ANY kind of development other than sporting use.

Strange that don't you think?

Yes. I did attend B. I. and do you know what?

I'm so glad I did. If nothing else, it taught me somethings that are so sadly missing from some posters on this blog........

Respect for the fallen. Remembrance and also, as far as this blog is concerned, that some people know the price of everything, but the value of absolutely nothing.

Uncatom, you are desperately clinging to this idea that in the grand scheme of things £1.3 million is a lot of money. While I agree that in a lump sum it is a lot, over the space of a decade, not that much compared to other avenues that the council spend money on. Also, if you believe that Tranmere bring no benefits, may I point to the fact that there is the regeneration of Woodchurch Sports centre to come, as well as the employment schemes, after schools clubs and educational schemes that Tranmere run to help those in the community. Also, the clubs work with the armed services, trying to raise money for their charities. You are not blind Uncatom, you just choose not to see what goes against your crusade, open your eyes and realise the club is not evil.

As to the club having their logo on the Councils website why shouldn't they? Clearly the Council is proud of the club and what they do for the profile of the area and in community in general so why shouldn't they showcase the club? I'm not suggesting that they're supporters, but a successful football club (we are successful by the way, not 'ailing' as some would have you believe) is something to be proud of.

Bit of shameless promotional work here, but if you happen to tune in to ITV on Sunday at lunchtime you will indeed see Tranmere live on TV, doing their bit of raising the profile of Wirral (not getting paid for that, just proud of the club)

Notest to editor can this thread now be closed I really don't want another bout of the pox

What a puerile post

remember the past preserve the future wrote:
Serena welcome back yes love they're 5 years out of date

If you are talking to me, you are mixing me up with someone else. I have a legal background and a degree in land law.
My official copy of the register that I updated tonight for £3 from www.landregistry.gov
.uk. still shows 3 registered charges, securing money owed to AIB, HSBC and Peter Johnson. Fact not rumour, now please apologise to councillor Denise Realley.
If the club is in debt it is now going to have to find money for Woodchurch before they can sell Ingleborough.
I would like to see a compromise, keep the pavilion as a WW1 museum and behind have a tree lined boulevard separating two areas of housing.

sujo wrote:

remember the past preserve the future wrote:
Serena welcome back yes love they're 5 years out of date

If you are talking to me, you are mixing me up with someone else. I have a legal background and a degree in land law.
My official copy of the register that I updated tonight for £3 from www.landregistry.gov

.uk. still shows 3 registered charges, securing money owed to AIB, HSBC and Peter Johnson. Fact not rumour, now please apologise to councillor Denise Realley.
If the club is in debt it is now going to have to find money for Woodchurch before they can sell Ingleborough.
I would like to see a compromise, keep the pavilion as a WW1 museum and behind have a tree lined boulevard separating two areas of housing.

Most of the country are in debt as most own their homes with a mortgage, how do you define debt though as the land TRFC, own (Ingleborough and Prenton Park) is worth more than the mortgages of course, the mortgages may have been for millions, do you know. ? But maybe most of the debt has already been paid and the debt is now small.
Most of the teams in the Premier League are in massive amounts of debt, in comparison TRFC are on a sound financial footing due to prudent financial management and cuts.

Certain people seem obsessed with this £1.3 million sponsorship deal over 10 years of course, I too think it is outrageous that the council get so much publicity on the cheap, I suggest that if Rovers can get promoted to The Championship they should re-negotiate and get a better deal.

Nice to see Rovers pull a further point clear at the top of the league yesterday, not bad for a 'third rate club', who incidentally are one of the cheapest clubs to watch in the football league.

Paddy Owen wrote:
Uncatom, you are desperately clinging to this idea that in the grand scheme of things £1.3 million is a lot of money. While I agree that in a lump sum it is a lot, over the space of a decade, not that much compared to other avenues that the council spend money on. Also, if you believe that Tranmere bring no benefits, may I point to the fact that there is the regeneration of Woodchurch Sports centre to come, as well as the employment schemes, after schools clubs and educational schemes that Tranmere run to help those in the community. Also, the clubs work with the armed services, trying to raise money for their charities. You are not blind Uncatom, you just choose not to see what goes against your crusade, open your eyes and realise the club is not evil.

As to the club having their logo on the Councils website why shouldn't they? Clearly the Council is proud of the club and what they do for the profile of the area and in community in general so why shouldn't they showcase the club? I'm not suggesting that they're supporters, but a successful football club (we are successful by the way, not 'ailing' as some would have you believe) is something to be proud of.

Bit of shameless promotional work here, but if you happen to tune in to ITV on Sunday at lunchtime you will indeed see Tranmere live on TV, doing their bit of raising the profile of Wirral (not getting paid for that, just proud of the club)

Paddy so are you saying that £1.3 million is not a lot of money? sounds like easy come easy go, as to all these grand benevolent schemes that rovers allegedly run I believe that they are not actually free and have to be paid for by those involved even sinking to the depths of charging kids for their club,a very lucrative sideline, lets not forget we are talking about a business here.As to the logo is that not a shameless use of a local government site being used to promote a business no doubt for free again, come on Paddy even you must admit that TRFC seem rather priviliged in the grand scheme of things, as to Sunday lunchtime yes you are getting paid by sponsorship.

Muir the Merrier,
Be careful what you wish for,could be the TRFC gravy train is going to hit the buffers soon,it appears that you are somewhat digruntled with the meagre handouts from WBC, so all the tub thumping about TRFC do this and that for Wirral and the community means nothing to you its all, about money and the club, thank you for clarifying that,it gives some justification to what I've been saying, the truth often outs and from a dedicated TRFC supporter to.

Can I just ask something?

What relevance does it have that TRFC are third rate, or ailing?

They're our local club, that we're both proud of and care for. Should it not be applauded that the people of this region support their local club, not follow the drivel that is the greed league.

Jimrob I'm personally quite offended by your attitude and lurkinhead summed it up brilliantly.

Like lurkinhead, I too questioned the scheme, thinking it wasn't black and white, but that on balance the benefits and enhanced memorial outweighed the negatives.

""We are not talking about potential cuts to what the Secretary of State would describe as ' fripperies' but rather the essential services some of the most vulnerable children and adults rely upon"" Council leader Phil Davies. Tell you what, discuss the sponsorship deal in relation to the real world, not the imaginary version presented by the 'fans' of TRFC. Anyone would think that if it wasn't for £125,000 bung to the club, the fabric of Wirral society would fall apart. It wouldn't. Hundreds of people in Wirral devote their time to the community above and beyond that of any input from Tranmere Rovers. Not only do they 'sponsor' themselves, but they don't go around blowing their own trumpets, or expect others to blow it for them. I, personally, don't worship at the Temple of Football, if I wanted to contribute to people kicking a ball about I'll pay at the turnstiles, if not, then leave me out and spend my Council Tax on more important things.

wirral1981 wrote:
Can I just ask something?

What relevance does it have that TRFC are third rate, or ailing?

They're our local club, that we're both proud of and care for. Should it not be applauded that the people of this region support their local club, not follow the drivel that is the greed league.

Jimrob I'm personally quite offended by your attitude and lurkinhead summed it up brilliantly.

Like lurkinhead, I too questioned the scheme, thinking it wasn't black and white, but that on balance the benefits and enhanced memorial outweighed the negatives.

wirral 1981,
I applaud your loyalty to "your"local club and of course all the other loyal TRFC fans, however it must be said that the vast majority of people on Wirral neither support nor care what TRFC do or dont do, that is their choice so why do you think that monies they pay by way of the community charge should go toward promoting your football club? its a simple question do you think its fair? do you also think its fair that a Memorial field paid for in part from donations from the relatives and general public out of respect for the fallen should be sold off to pay off a debt incurred by your club to a businessman whom has already done very well out of the people of Wirral,please search your mind and see how it appears to those of us that see it as morally wrong and disrespectful to consider such a thing.

Well if you have a degree in land law you are not very informed and maybe lying

Office copies of register entries cost 4 pounds

Keep trying with your smoke and mirrors attempt


Incidentally I do hope if any of the ok boys are looking to remortgage they don't come to you for legal advice

Thanks Serena

I give up. Not worth trying to have a reasoned debate with some people, as you clearly see one side of the argument and don't consider others opinion.

You don't support tranmere, so it shouldn't be supported by our local council????

What absolute rubbish.

Everyone should support TRFC because they are our local football club no matter what division they are in! You shouldn't even bother supporting Lfc or Efc as they have nothing to do with you. TRFC is right in with the community and wouldn't need to sell the Field if the whole 300,000 population of the Wirral supported them!

And people from the Wirral who support Liverpool and Everton are annoyed with us selling the Field!

And no one can say about the sponsorship because £3.1Million divide by 300,000 population gives you £103 every ten years divide by 10 = £10.30 a year! So that's £10.30 a year per person is not much seams that a 5 years old pays more that you on a Season Ticket!

So don't go saying oh we shouldn't sponsor TRFC cause this money is a dip in the ocean compared to the amount of Debt TRFC are in because people do not Support Tranmere!

wirral1981 wrote:
I give up. Not worth trying to have a reasoned debate with some people, as you clearly see one side of the argument and don't consider others opinion.

You don't support tranmere, so it shouldn't be supported by our local council????

What absolute rubbish.

Not quite right,

I wrote the majority of people on Wirral dont support rovers like it or not, I was asking you to view it from our side of the debate as a request,however it appear's from your earlier posting you believe that all the people of this region support TRFC which is clearly not true, you still have not anwered the points I put forward that is it right that the majority must pay toward something they have no interest in or wish to support?perhaps our councillors could publish some figures that show the amazing benefits we have had for our sponsorship of TRFC, I put it to you that my post has highlighted the selfishness of the rovers supporters, its ours we can do what we like with it,you should support us because you live on Wirral, now that sounds more like absolute rubbish.Perhaps we should now consider sponsoring New Brighton which now draws ever increasing crowds since the revamp, but that would'nt be right would it? because not everbody would agree, and quite rightly so.

uncatom wrote:
Muir the Merrier,
Be careful what you wish for,could be the TRFC gravy train is going to hit the buffers soon,it appears that you are somewhat digruntled with the meagre handouts from WBC, so all the tub thumping about TRFC do this and that for Wirral and the community means nothing to you its all, about money and the club, thank you for clarifying that,it gives some justification to what I've been saying, the truth often outs and from a dedicated TRFC supporter to.

Oh dear Uncatom, you have become that serious about the whole situation that you didn't realise my post was 'tongue in cheek'.

WBC do indeed get a good deal for the money, but TRFC fans don't mind this as the link is unique in football and is one of the longest standing sponsorship deals in world football.

You will find that the vast majority of TRFC fans are proud Wirralians who want the best for the Wirral not just their football club.

Seriously, if it was all about money to any of us we wouldn't be supporting Rovers would we.

I suggest you find out what TRFC do for the Wirral community, your ill-informed comments about our football club don't do you any favours.

TRFC4LIFE wrote:
Everyone should support TRFC because they are our local football club no matter what division they are in! You shouldn't even bother supporting Lfc or Efc as they have nothing to do with you. TRFC is right in with the community and wouldn't need to sell the Field if the whole 300,000 population of the Wirral supported them!

And people from the Wirral who support Liverpool and Everton are annoyed with us selling the Field!

And no one can say about the sponsorship because £3.1Million divide by 300,000 population gives you £103 every ten years divide by 10 = £10.30 a year! So that's £10.30 a year per person is not much seams that a 5 years old pays more that you on a Season Ticket!

So don't go saying oh we shouldn't sponsor TRFC cause this money is a dip in the ocean compared to the amount of Debt TRFC are in because people do not Support Tranmere!

Oh dear,

Just have a read of the above,need I say any more?

uncatom wrote:

TRFC4LIFE wrote:
Everyone should support TRFC because they are our local football club no matter what division they are in! You shouldn't even bother supporting Lfc or Efc as they have nothing to do with you. TRFC is right in with the community and wouldn't need to sell the Field if the whole 300,000 population of the Wirral supported them!

And people from the Wirral who support Liverpool and Everton are annoyed with us selling the Field!

And no one can say about the sponsorship because £3.1Million divide by 300,000 population gives you £103 every ten years divide by 10 = £10.30 a year! So that's £10.30 a year per person is not much seams that a 5 years old pays more that you on a Season Ticket!

So don't go saying oh we shouldn't sponsor TRFC cause this money is a dip in the ocean compared to the amount of Debt TRFC are in because people do not Support Tranmere!

Oh dear,

Just have a read of the above,need I say any more?

Who do you support? Be truthful!

Muir the Merrier,

There are are lots of charitable groups on Wirral that give of their time and support for free yet receive nothing in support from WBC and as was mentioned earlier dont blow their own trumpets, just to clarify because I already know the answer, do TRFC make a charge to the recipients of their alleged benevolence? a simple yes or no will suffice.

I see that in 6 other areas of the UK poppies are being planted in Remembrance Fields as a sign of respect, thanks and remembrance of the sacrifices made by men and women in the armed forces. On the Wirral a morally bankrupt council gives planning permission for houses to be built on a war memorial so that a business can make money. I don’t care whether the business is a football club, a hamper company, a supermarket or anything else – the principle is the same and I am ashamed to live in an area where business and money is given priority over respect.

Personally, I would have thought that Tranmere Rovers would not have wanted to be associated with a council that - cheats the vulnerable, bullies and lies about whistleblowers, gives senior officers a nice fat pay off to leave, has senior officers who take gifts and don’t declare them etc etc.

It is no wonder society has the problems it does when money is given priority over everything else.

There was a big four foot poppy at the match yesterday as well as a big guard of honour from her majestys armed forces


Yes even us wretched football fans on Wirral pay respects

ordinary personn wrote:
I see that in 6 other areas of the UK poppies are being planted in Remembrance Fields as a sign of respect, thanks and remembrance of the sacrifices made by men and women in the armed forces. On the Wirral a morally bankrupt council gives planning permission for houses to be built on a war memorial so that a business can make money. I don’t care whether the business is a football club, a hamper company, a supermarket or anything else – the principle is the same and I am ashamed to live in an area where business and money is given priority over respect.

Personally, I would have thought that Tranmere Rovers would not have wanted to be associated with a council that - cheats the vulnerable, bullies and lies about whistleblowers, gives senior officers a nice fat pay off to leave, has senior officers who take gifts and don’t declare them etc etc.

It is no wonder society has the problems it does when money is given priority over everything else.

Well said, OP.
The legacy of the past no longer has any meaning for some people when measured against a big wad of cash. History and the admirable ethic of ultimate self sacrifice can go and get stuffed if it stands in the way of what in this day and age is laughably called "progress."

Don't worry Dean. Who's assed if they're replacing the unviewable, neglected, vandalised memorial with a new, clean, accessible and well maintained one? We just won't mention that.

I'll be round later with your favourite smell and we'll hit the town.

What's respectful about building over a war memorial?

uncatom wrote:
Muir the Merrier,

There are are lots of charitable groups on Wirral that give of their time and support for free yet receive nothing in support from WBC and as was mentioned earlier dont blow their own trumpets, just to clarify because I already know the answer, do TRFC make a charge to the recipients of their alleged benevolence? a simple yes or no will suffice.

Do the other charitable groups on the Wirral gain worldwide publicity for the Wirral through TV coverage. ? Who are these other charitable organisations you speak of anyway Uncatom. ?

TRFC make weekly visits to local schools amongst other things, free of charge of course, but as you already had the answer you knew that anyway.

I'll refer to the first post I ever made on this subject then am calling it a day

Those that gave their lives did so , so that future generations could enjoy freedoms

All this sanctimony makes me cringe

Remember the past by preserving the future

remember the past preserve the future wrote:
I'll refer to the first post I ever made on this subject then am calling it a day

Those that gave their lives did so , so that future generations could enjoy freedoms

All this sanctimony makes me cringe

Remember the past by preserving the future

I agree, certain people feel they have a divine right to represent our fallen, they don't.

They were young lads from the Wirral, full of life when they went to fight for us, with possibly some TRFC fans amongst them.

They fought for our futures, and I would of thought that they would be glad that their sacrifice would benefit so many of the youth of today by the development of Woodchurch, and the success of their local club.

It is quite fitting that a memorial 'open to all' will be part of the developments, it's a shame that some people can't appreciate this.

I too am bored of wasting time going round in circles, trying to answer people who aren't willing to listen to reasoned debate, and who are constantly trying to find a new angle of attack against our proud football club.

"I am ashamed to live in an area where business and money is given priority over respect."...so says an Ordinary Person

Plenty of respect has been shown.

The dead will not be forgotten.

Hopefully when the newly refurbished memorial stone is in it's new accessible position, we can stop using their memory as a stick to beat each other with and pay our respects properly.

I hope that day is near.

wirral1981 wrote:
Can I just ask something?

What relevance does it have that TRFC are third rate, or ailing?

They're our local club, that we're both proud of and care for. Should it not be applauded that the people of this region support their local club, not follow the drivel that is the greed league.

Jimrob I'm personally quite offended by your attitude and lurkinhead summed it up brilliantly.

Like lurkinhead, I too questioned the scheme, thinking it wasn't black and white, but that on balance the benefits and enhanced memorial outweighed the negatives.

First, let me set the record straight. My use of the term "third rate" was not meant as an insult. It was meant to reflect the fact that TRFC play in the third division of the football league in England.

Secondly. I'm sorry that you feel "personally quite offended by my attitude" I do not know you nor am I aware if we have ever met, so to take any of my comments "personally" seems a little odd. (unless, you are personally involved in some way with the sell off of Ingleborough Road)

Thirdly, I make NO apology for any of my comments, either to their accuracy or moral standpoint.

I personally have been a loyal supporter of TRFC for most of my life, and no, I do not support either LFC or EFC. I am though, totally sickened by the selling of a war memorial for mere profit.

The point has been made often in this and other threads that the memorial plaque will become accessible to the public at last if the new development goes ahead.

I would ask who's fault it is that the Memorial Plaque is today, and has been for many years inaccessible?

I would also like to point out that the "Plaque" is NOT the memorial, the field, pavilion and trees are the memorial. The Plaque was merely placed on the pavilion wall to ensure that the reason for the memorials existence would NEVER be forgotten.

It's just a shame that the Local Authority and a Hamper Selling Spiv have chosen to ignore this indisputable FACT. And, changed the law, by removing the covenants in order to facilitate the selling of something that was of such moral value, that it was priceless.

And for what?

So 22 men could kick a bag of wind around a football pitch for a couple more years.

And, so that 5,000 (on a good day) football fans can cheer on a "Hero" that can kick a ball straight.

No my friends. My Hero's died on a foreign field, many many years before most of us were even a twinkle in our Father's eye's.

I truly feel sorry for all those posters who have chosen to applaud the sale of the Ingleborough Road Memorial Playing Fields, for I feel you have all been duped by misinformation and outright lies into believing that the cause you have fought so hard for, was a just one, when all along the people who really "fought" a just fight, paid the ultimate sacrifice, that you have all chosen to ignore.

Muir the Merrier wrote:

remember the past preserve the future wrote:
I'll refer to the first post I ever made on this subject then am calling it a day

Those that gave their lives did so , so that future generations could enjoy freedoms

All this sanctimony makes me cringe

Remember the past by preserving the future

I agree, certain people feel they have a divine right to represent our fallen, they don't.

They were young lads from the Wirral, full of life when they went to fight for us, with possibly some TRFC fans amongst them.

They fought for our futures, and I would of thought that they would be glad that their sacrifice would benefit so many of the youth of today by the development of Woodchurch, and the success of their local club.

It is quite fitting that a memorial 'open to all' will be part of the developments, it's a shame that some people can't appreciate this.

I too am bored of wasting time going round in circles, trying to answer people who aren't willing to listen to reasoned debate, and who are constantly trying to find a new angle of attack against our proud football club.

Well said.

Muir the Merrier- (1) "Do other charitable groups on Wirral gain worldwide publicity for Wirral through TV coverage? (2) "Who are these other charitable organisation? -- Answer(1) TRFC are not a charity, they are a football team. Charities exist to raise money for deserving causes, not to advertise Wirral. Charities depend on people giving their time for nothing. That was the point being made, was that too hard for you to understand? Answer(2) Claire House, Cancer Research, Oxfam, Help the Aged etc. Heard of any of them? "TRFC make weekly visits to schools...... free of charge of course" Is this after a hard half day doing physical jerks and kicking a ball around? Wow! Tote that barge, lift that bale. Life certainly can be tough at the training ground. I know arthritic old ladies who make daily visits to schools to help children with their reading, free of charge of course. So no big deal there then. But it ain't always free, is it? Under the banner of Tranmere Rovers in the Community, don't you just love that, if you want a few days in a Soccer School for little Billy, its £45 a pop, be quick though, first 60 only, Mini Striker no probs, 30 notes. So if you've paid your Council Tax and so contributed to the £125.000 dropsy and you want the tiny apple of your eye to partake in TRFC's little earner, you can chip in a bit more. With regards the World Wide publicity, don't make me laugh. If you imagine for one minute that the thronging masses in near and far off lands give a toss about a logo on a football shirt, then you must be living on another planet.

I've been going to Tranmere games for many years now, and have always laughed when the opposing fans have sung 'get a job' or 'dirty robbing scousers' or something similar at us. However, if they started to sing something like 'where's your war memorial' to the tune of the Last Post, I would hang my head with shame.

Muir the Merrier wrote:

remember the past preserve the future wrote:
I'll refer to the first post I ever made on this subject then am calling it a day

Those that gave their lives did so , so that future generations could enjoy freedoms

All this sanctimony makes me cringe

Remember the past by preserving the future

I agree, certain people feel they have a divine right to represent our fallen, they don't.

They were young lads from the Wirral, full of life when they went to fight for us, with possibly some TRFC fans amongst them.

They fought for our futures, and I would of thought that they would be glad that their sacrifice would benefit so many of the youth of today by the development of Woodchurch, and the success of their local club.

It is quite fitting that a memorial 'open to all' will be part of the developments, it's a shame that some people can't appreciate this.

I too am bored of wasting time going round in circles, trying to answer people who aren't willing to listen to reasoned debate, and who are constantly trying to find a new angle of attack against our proud football club.

Does your "reasoned debate"include speaking on behalf of the fallen and what you believe they would wish for, or that all of Wirral should support TRFC, or in fact that sponsorship money is a drop in the ocean, in fact your reasoned debate actually sounds very presumptious and overbearing, you speak of freedoms would that include the freedom not to attend a football club or to support, same with sponsorship money or to voice concern over what you believe to be right and proper or in some cases improper.

uncatom wrote:

Muir the Merrier wrote:

remember the past preserve the future wrote:
I'll refer to the first post I ever made on this subject then am calling it a day

Those that gave their lives did so , so that future generations could enjoy freedoms

All this sanctimony makes me cringe

Remember the past by preserving the future

I agree, certain people feel they have a divine right to represent our fallen, they don't.

They were young lads from the Wirral, full of life when they went to fight for us, with possibly some TRFC fans amongst them.

They fought for our futures, and I would of thought that they would be glad that their sacrifice would benefit so many of the youth of today by the development of Woodchurch, and the success of their local club.

It is quite fitting that a memorial 'open to all' will be part of the developments, it's a shame that some people can't appreciate this.

I too am bored of wasting time going round in circles, trying to answer people who aren't willing to listen to reasoned debate, and who are constantly trying to find a new angle of attack against our proud football club.

Does your "reasoned debate"include speaking on behalf of the fallen and what you believe they would wish for, or that all of Wirral should support TRFC, or in fact that sponsorship money is a drop in the ocean, in fact your reasoned debate actually sounds very presumptious and overbearing, you speak of freedoms would that include the freedom not to attend a football club or to support, same with sponsorship money or to voice concern over what you believe to be right and proper or in some cases improper.

Unfortunately Uncatom it seems to be the TRFC fans who are the only ones capable of debate, reasoned or otherwise over Ingleborough, I accept the fact that this is an emotive issue but feel that the proposals can benefit all parties.

The majority of the anti's refuse to accept that there is any other valid viewpoint than their own.

I haven't spoken on behalf of the fallen nor would wish too, but yes I was being presumptious, (but I wouldn't say overbearing) as I presumed that men of their age would of been proud of a development that would benefit so many whilst providing a new 'accessible' memorial.

Yes people are free to support whomever they wish and yes you have the right to voice your concerns, I have never said otherwise so please don't be misleading.

TRFC fans are just get fed up with the lengths some (not all) of the anti's are going to to try and show TRFC in a bad light.

Dantealighieri wrote:
Muir the Merrier- (1) "Do other charitable groups on Wirral gain worldwide publicity for Wirral through TV coverage? (2) "Who are these other charitable organisation? -- Answer(1) TRFC are not a charity, they are a football team. Charities exist to raise money for deserving causes, not to advertise Wirral. Charities depend on people giving their time for nothing. That was the point being made, was that too hard for you to understand? Answer(2) Claire House, Cancer Research, Oxfam, Help the Aged etc. Heard of any of them? "TRFC make weekly visits to schools...... free of charge of course" Is this after a hard half day doing physical jerks and kicking a ball around? Wow! Tote that barge, lift that bale. Life certainly can be tough at the training ground. I know arthritic old ladies who make daily visits to schools to help children with their reading, free of charge of course. So no big deal there then. But it ain't always free, is it? Under the banner of Tranmere Rovers in the Community, don't you just love that, if you want a few days in a Soccer School for little Billy, its £45 a pop, be quick though, first 60 only, Mini Striker no probs, 30 notes. So if you've paid your Council Tax and so contributed to the £125.000 dropsy and you want the tiny apple of your eye to partake in TRFC's little earner, you can chip in a bit more. With regards the World Wide publicity, don't make me laugh. If you imagine for one minute that the thronging masses in near and far off lands give a toss about a logo on a football shirt, then you must be living on another planet.

I never suggested TRFC are a charity, but I suppose I am not that bright being a fick football fan, grunt, grunt.

The charities which you list are not all locally based charities though are they, my point was the sponsorship money that people keep harping on about is a drop in the ocean as like it or not TRFC do gain publicity for the area, more than ever at the moment of course. Why else do all football clubs at all levels of football have shirt sponsorship, obviously you don't live on 'planet football' .

Of course TRFC charge for some things they are a 'business' but one that does far more than most football clubs do for their community.

Tune in to ITV this Sunday 12.30 pm, your local football team is playing in that far off land called Essex.

Jack Boot wrote:
I've been going to Tranmere games for many years now, and have always laughed when the opposing fans have sung 'get a job' or 'dirty robbing scousers' or something similar at us. However, if they started to sing something like 'where's your war memorial' to the tune of the Last Post, I would hang my head with shame.

If they do Jack if and when the development happens we will be able to direct them to the new one which they will be able to visit, maybe we could have a map on the back of the match tickets.

Jack Boot wrote:
I've been going to Tranmere games for many years now, and have always laughed when the opposing fans have sung 'get a job' or 'dirty robbing scousers' or something similar at us. However, if they started to sing something like 'where's your war memorial' to the tune of the Last Post, I would hang my head with shame.

If they do Jack if and when the development happens we will be able to direct them to the new one which they will be able to visit, maybe we could have a map on the back of the match tickets.

It's not the end of the world,just think
of all those families who will get so much pleasure from a nice new home

Muir, just because you say someting twice doesn't make it right, it reminds me of the slogan ' if you dont know what you're talking about... shout' your shallowness is puddle like.
Hey my beloved SWA... just to twist the bayonet into the BI 88 a little further, start concreting over the war memorial on 11 November, start time 11am.

Still don't get it, do you. It doesn't matter if the charities are local based or nation wide, it's the people of Wirral giving their time for free, that is the point. I'm very sorry if I thought you said TRFC were a charity. I suppose I was thrown, when you were extolling the wonderful work TRFC do in Wirral, by the 'Do OTHER charities blah, blah blah'. Yes other teams receive sponsorship, supplied by commercial companies in the hope of selling their brand of whatever. They can make a judgement on whether the outlay is worth it by goods sold. You cannot measure the worth of Wirral's £125,000 sponsorship of TRFC in the same way. You were asked a direct question "Do TRFC make a charge to the recipients of their alleged benevolence?" You chose to duck the question, and said, implying No "TRFC make weekly visits to local schools, free of charge of course". It's a bit rich coughing to it now, but I think you knew then what the answer was anyway. How do you know Tranmere do far more than most football clubs do for their local community? Another bit of wishful thinking like the rest of the rubbish put forward to try and justify the £125.000. Thanks for the invite on Sunday. 12.30. Can't make it. I've got to watch some paint dry from about 12 until about 3, then I'm off to the White Lion for a pint or two.

when i remember the fallen in wars, i don't differentiate by what school they went to.

careful yogz as you dont agree you will get a court martial charge for disresepct.

So Serena has a degree in land law? Fascinating. Which country did you get that in love; certainly not the UK because no such degree exists. And you would have thought with such an impressive qualification you would know how much Office Copies cost. If the antis have such a good case, why do they keep pedalling lies?

Sooooo permission granted - I heard some snippets of the debate and I still can't get over the gaul of some of our councilors to stand up and lie i.e. "public playing space" thankfully this was corrected with "locked private land" which rings a bit closer to the truth.

Anyway for me and yes yes I can say it I am biased the right decision has been made but as a proud brit O and decent human being I will be doing everything I can to ensure that the memorial erected on any new development is fitting.

Sadly this debate has been hijacked and slanderous comments (from the outset) chucked left right and center by one splinter cell who sees it as a direct way to promote his own business. I would encourage all people of rational logic to sit around a table and come to agreements on how to progress rather than comparing tranmere ( a Wirral institute who does amazing work locally and globally for the local area) to a rouge sierra leone mining company who makes its profits on the back of child labor.

Just back atfer being out of circulation for a few weeks, and have spent the last twenty minutes reading all these postings.

I choose the wording of my comment carefully, as it is tinged both wioth emotion and with the standards by which my parents and my schoolteachers (including Birkenhead Institute) instilled in me.

So what have we got? A Labour council (or, as Kinnock repeated "a LABOUR council") coming to the rescue of a local millionaire by bailing him out of what he originally saw as a good bet - Tranmere getting into the First Division / Premiership - but which eventually turned sour on him.

And to do so, that Labour council has trampled over a War Memorial with hobnailed boots.

Two interesting things leap out of the page, though. Johnson does indeed own Cheshire Lines Building (now leased to the council). Some has said this was easy to establish, but I - and others - came up against a brick wall in the form of a Liverpool property holding company when seeking the truth. Given everything that has happened over the past few years, surely the relationship between Johnson and Wirral Council needs further and deep investigation. Where are the Paul Foots when you need them (I know he's dead, by the way, before anybody springs into action to show how clever they are).

Secondly, it seems that as I was born and live in Birkenhead I MUST support Tranmere Rovers, not the team I actually follow, which is Anfield-based. Well, last I knew, I still lived in a democracy, not in some People's Soviet Republic, where I had to do as I was told rather than what I chose to do.

I have followed local government in this borough for over forty years. I have never, ever, ever been more ashamed to say that Wirral Borough council represents me, my family and my friends as I do now.

fair posting Ben.

Ben Beaconsfield wrote:
Just back atfer being out of circulation for a few weeks, and have spent the last twenty minutes reading all these postings.

I choose the wording of my comment carefully, as it is tinged both wioth emotion and with the standards by which my parents and my schoolteachers (including Birkenhead Institute) instilled in me.

So what have we got? A Labour council (or, as Kinnock repeated "a LABOUR council") coming to the rescue of a local millionaire by bailing him out of what he originally saw as a good bet - Tranmere getting into the First Division / Premiership - but which eventually turned sour on him.

And to do so, that Labour council has trampled over a War Memorial with hobnailed boots.

Two interesting things leap out of the page, though. Johnson does indeed own Cheshire Lines Building (now leased to the council). Some has said this was easy to establish, but I - and others - came up against a brick wall in the form of a Liverpool property holding company when seeking the truth. Given everything that has happened over the past few years, surely the relationship between Johnson and Wirral Council needs further and deep investigation. Where are the Paul Foots when you need them (I know he's dead, by the way, before anybody springs into action to show how clever they are).

Secondly, it seems that as I was born and live in Birkenhead I MUST support Tranmere Rovers, not the team I actually follow, which is Anfield-based. Well, last I knew, I still lived in a democracy, not in some People's Soviet Republic, where I had to do as I was told rather than what I chose to do.

I have followed local government in this borough for over forty years. I have never, ever, ever been more ashamed to say that Wirral Borough council represents me, my family and my friends as I do now.

Ben interesting omission to you being an LFC fan - each to their own in my eyes but raises the question what were your views when LFC were given permission to use a large part of Stanley park???

Which is without a doubt a public green space.

What's the Stanley Park argument go to do with this?
Its is without doubt NOT a war memorial

Jack Boot wrote:
What's the Stanley Park argument go to do with this? Its is without doubt NOT a war memorial

It was a valid question I feel, i'm sure BB can answer it for himself Mr Boot.

Jack Boot wrote:
What's the Stanley Park argument go to do with this?
Its is without doubt NOT a war memorial

Sorry guys but the birkenhead insitute is not a recognized war memorial by all authorities......and probably part of the reason why the their isn't 88 trees there anymore.............
....Anyway was asking a valid question and was out of curiosity more than anything - granted maybe not valid now LFC are planning on not using the site anymore but still no harm in asking.

Someone on this blog is letting there
imagination run wild,Peter Johnson has nothing to do with the ownership of the Cheshire lines building