Cruise Wars court threat

Cruise ships in Liverpool

Joe Anderson

First published in News

LIVERPOOL has threatened to take the Government to court after accusing it of going back on a deal to let it use taxpayer cash to grab a slice of Southampton’s cruise trade.

The city has accused ministers of demanding more than the £5m it says it agreed to pay back to lift a ban on hosting the start and end of cruises.

Council leader Joe Anderson said the Government was “playing games” after agreeing a settlement and was now “demanding more money” be repaid after lobbying from Southampton and Newcastle.

Ports bosses, politicians and cruise-related businesses have been campaigning for a level playing field and are demanding Liverpool pays back all the £21m of taxpayers’ money it has received to build its City Cruise Terminal.

Around 12,000 people signed a petition backing the calls.

The grants were made on the strict condition the Pier Head terminal would be used to host day visits, not to start and finish cruises.

A ten-week Department for Transport consultation over the Cruise Wars closed on September 15.

Cllr Anderson said: “We reached what I believe to be an honourable settlement of the grants they allocated to us some years ago. We worked out a settlement and now it looks like the Government are reneging on that.

Related links

“They agreed the principle that we can have the cruise liner terminal operated, and as far as I’m concerned I’m going to try to make sure they do that.

“Even if it means that we have to look at seriously taking the Government to court, because I believe it’s a restraint of trade, especially if we’ve agreed paying them what they agreed to be a fair price back for the money that they gave us.”

Cllr Anderson said he had written to shipping minister Mike Penning to set out his concerns.

He said he had already “lined up”, in discussions with at least three cruise companies, 16 ships to use the terminal for turnaround cruises.

Southampton has spent millions of private sector cash strengthening the city’s position as the cruise capital of northern Europe, with about 360 cruise ships expected to visit the city this year, worth more than £400m to the local economy.

Liverpool City Council insists its terminal would not be a threat to Southampton and would take a small share of a growing market.

A DfT spokesman said the department was considering the consultation responses.

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:37pm Wed 2 Nov 11

ural_our_souls says...

calm down calm down
calm down calm down ural_our_souls
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Wed 2 Nov 11

allsaintsnocurves says...

I believe it’s a restraint of trade he says...err no it's not. No one is saying you can't go and do it...they are just saying you can't use money that isn't yours for a purpose it wasn't meant for!

I wonder if Sainsbury's could use taxpayers money to help take some market share off of Tescos.
I believe it’s a restraint of trade he says...err no it's not. No one is saying you can't go and do it...they are just saying you can't use money that isn't yours for a purpose it wasn't meant for! I wonder if Sainsbury's could use taxpayers money to help take some market share off of Tescos. allsaintsnocurves
  • Score: 0

6:18pm Wed 2 Nov 11

arizonan says...

If the DfT is still considering the consultation responses, where did this story come from?
And if 16 cruises are in negotiation, this proves that Liverpool would have little or no effect on other ports business.
If Liverpool does not get turnaround status, this will backfire in a big way with this present Government, both Conservative and LibDems.
It will prove Cameron to be a Liar when he spouts that the UK is unbalanced and that the country is too London/Southerncentr
ic.
If the DfT is still considering the consultation responses, where did this story come from? And if 16 cruises are in negotiation, this proves that Liverpool would have little or no effect on other ports business. If Liverpool does not get turnaround status, this will backfire in a big way with this present Government, both Conservative and LibDems. It will prove Cameron to be a Liar when he spouts that the UK is unbalanced and that the country is too London/Southerncentr ic. arizonan
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Wed 2 Nov 11

gort says...

Will you find a Conservative mp in liverpool ? They may have hopes for one in southampton
Will you find a Conservative mp in liverpool ? They may have hopes for one in southampton gort
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Wed 2 Nov 11

gort says...

Will you find a Conservative mp in liverpool ? They may have hopes for one in southampton
Will you find a Conservative mp in liverpool ? They may have hopes for one in southampton gort
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Wed 2 Nov 11

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
If the DfT is still considering the consultation responses, where did this story come from?
And if 16 cruises are in negotiation, this proves that Liverpool would have little or no effect on other ports business.
If Liverpool does not get turnaround status, this will backfire in a big way with this present Government, both Conservative and LibDems.
It will prove Cameron to be a Liar when he spouts that the UK is unbalanced and that the country is too London/Southerncentr

ic.
What the story about Mr Anderson threatening to take the Govt to Court (presumably with some sort of Legal Aid!!!!)?
Check out an interview he recently gave to a local Liverpool radio station.
Presume as a local resident you only listen to Radio Solent!!!
It beggars belief that Mr Anderson can accuse the Govt of duplicity when he and his mates did exactly the same thing by applying for a massive grant to build a terminal for calling cruises only knowing that an application to change the terms would be submitted once the money had been spent.
As for the last remark how can anyone from Merseyside complain about being hard done by when over £1 BILLION worth of aid has been allocated to the region in the past 20 years.
Just out of interest how long have you lived down here now?
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: If the DfT is still considering the consultation responses, where did this story come from? And if 16 cruises are in negotiation, this proves that Liverpool would have little or no effect on other ports business. If Liverpool does not get turnaround status, this will backfire in a big way with this present Government, both Conservative and LibDems. It will prove Cameron to be a Liar when he spouts that the UK is unbalanced and that the country is too London/Southerncentr ic.[/p][/quote]What the story about Mr Anderson threatening to take the Govt to Court (presumably with some sort of Legal Aid!!!!)? Check out an interview he recently gave to a local Liverpool radio station. Presume as a local resident you only listen to Radio Solent!!! It beggars belief that Mr Anderson can accuse the Govt of duplicity when he and his mates did exactly the same thing by applying for a massive grant to build a terminal for calling cruises only knowing that an application to change the terms would be submitted once the money had been spent. As for the last remark how can anyone from Merseyside complain about being hard done by when over £1 BILLION worth of aid has been allocated to the region in the past 20 years. Just out of interest how long have you lived down here now? phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Wed 2 Nov 11

My View From Here says...

What do you call a Scouser in a suit?

The Accused

Liverpool council have obviously never heard of State Aid, you cannot use State money to fund private business's, its so simple even a dosy scouser should know that.
What do you call a Scouser in a suit? The Accused Liverpool council have obviously never heard of State Aid, you cannot use State money to fund private business's, its so simple even a dosy scouser should know that. My View From Here
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Wed 2 Nov 11

gillyman says...

why are the ministers asking only £5 milllion of taxpayer money back and why not the whole £21 million of taxpayers money then they are on a level playing field with other ports or is the taxpayer money subsidising undercutting other city port charges
why are the ministers asking only £5 milllion of taxpayer money back and why not the whole £21 million of taxpayers money then they are on a level playing field with other ports or is the taxpayer money subsidising undercutting other city port charges gillyman
  • Score: 0

9:45pm Wed 2 Nov 11

Pete Beard says...

My View From Here wrote:
What do you call a Scouser in a suit?

The Accused

Liverpool council have obviously never heard of State Aid, you cannot use State money to fund private business's, its so simple even a dosy scouser should know that.
Sad comment. Cityism in action.
[quote][p][bold]My View From Here[/bold] wrote: What do you call a Scouser in a suit? The Accused Liverpool council have obviously never heard of State Aid, you cannot use State money to fund private business's, its so simple even a dosy scouser should know that.[/p][/quote]Sad comment. Cityism in action. Pete Beard
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Wed 2 Nov 11

loosehead says...

So is the Government saying no to Liverpool?
No they're not but after a ten week review they're asking for a bigger percentage of the grant to be paid back so what's Liverpools gripe?
They get what they lied to achieve & every one else is happy because they're paying back a large chunk of the grant.
Now they have to convince Europe not to recall the grant from them & then open free competition can begin or is that not what Liverpool wanted?
Did they want the rest of the country & europe to pay for them to go into competition with other ports making it an uneven playing field?
not all the opponents of Liverpool will be happy until all the monies are paid back but this would have appeased many but to state the government had gone back on a deal & threaten to take them to court is a bit rich from a council who only gat grants for turnaround facility Knowing that was not what they wanted the money for so going back on the deals they made with the Labour Government & europe POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK comes to mind
So is the Government saying no to Liverpool? No they're not but after a ten week review they're asking for a bigger percentage of the grant to be paid back so what's Liverpools gripe? They get what they lied to achieve & every one else is happy because they're paying back a large chunk of the grant. Now they have to convince Europe not to recall the grant from them & then open free competition can begin or is that not what Liverpool wanted? Did they want the rest of the country & europe to pay for them to go into competition with other ports making it an uneven playing field? not all the opponents of Liverpool will be happy until all the monies are paid back but this would have appeased many but to state the government had gone back on a deal & threaten to take them to court is a bit rich from a council who only gat grants for turnaround facility Knowing that was not what they wanted the money for so going back on the deals they made with the Labour Government & europe POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK comes to mind loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:17pm Wed 2 Nov 11

arizonan says...

What do you call a rail link and a new road link just announced. Is that not taxpayers money favouring a private business?
And even more unbelievable, that company does not pay UK taxes!So there is no way any taxpayers money will be returned via tax on company profits.
In stark contrast, turnaround cruises from Liverpool would produce income for the exchequer from an English registered company.
What is the Government doing aiding an offshore company?.
Mr.Anderson had nothing to do with the initial application.
The UK grant was 9m and that is all this consultation is considering, on the finance side.
The 16 cruises lined up would be a small increase on the Fred Olsen operation that ceased.
So Southampton is worried about a port operation with say 8 more cruises per year, than they used to operate?
I challenge any of you to tell us all, Why are you so scared of Liverpool?
I will be amazed if I get an honest response.
What do you call a rail link and a new road link just announced. Is that not taxpayers money favouring a private business? And even more unbelievable, that company does not pay UK taxes!So there is no way any taxpayers money will be returned via tax on company profits. In stark contrast, turnaround cruises from Liverpool would produce income for the exchequer from an English registered company. What is the Government doing aiding an offshore company?. Mr.Anderson had nothing to do with the initial application. The UK grant was 9m and that is all this consultation is considering, on the finance side. The 16 cruises lined up would be a small increase on the Fred Olsen operation that ceased. So Southampton is worried about a port operation with say 8 more cruises per year, than they used to operate? I challenge any of you to tell us all, Why are you so scared of Liverpool? I will be amazed if I get an honest response. arizonan
  • Score: 0

11:52pm Wed 2 Nov 11

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
What do you call a rail link and a new road link just announced. Is that not taxpayers money favouring a private business?
And even more unbelievable, that company does not pay UK taxes!So there is no way any taxpayers money will be returned via tax on company profits.
In stark contrast, turnaround cruises from Liverpool would produce income for the exchequer from an English registered company.
What is the Government doing aiding an offshore company?.
Mr.Anderson had nothing to do with the initial application.
The UK grant was 9m and that is all this consultation is considering, on the finance side.
The 16 cruises lined up would be a small increase on the Fred Olsen operation that ceased.
So Southampton is worried about a port operation with say 8 more cruises per year, than they used to operate?
I challenge any of you to tell us all, Why are you so scared of Liverpool?
I will be amazed if I get an honest response.
What do I call the rail and road links..chicken feed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liverpool got substantial grant aid for the Goree road improvement in front of the 3 Graces which also enhances the new cruise terminal, plus further grant aid to open up the Olive Mount rail link into the container port.
More recently between £500-£600m has been allocated to Merseyside for a new bridge over the Mersey.
Re the tax situation referred to. Can't condone this but the owner of Peel Ports, which owns Liverpool port, resides on the Isle of Man ...For tax reasons'..(and is, of course good mates with George Osborne who's constituency is right next door to the the City and Port of Liverpool)
btw if these '16 cruises' are indeed 'lined up' how will these pay for the £23m worth of upgrade Mr Anderson and co have set aside to fund the necessary terminal upgrade to accommodate turnrounds?
No doubt the money will come out of the Liverpool Council budget which is cutting essential services but is still ringfencing the cruise terminal upgrade millions.
Think of the uproar down here if Soton Council adopted such a line
Also you say that the Uk grant is the only issue here.
What if the UK Cruise Alliance take a leaf out of Joe's book and challenged the EC grant allocation?
That would be interesting.
Finally it is not a case of being 'scared' of Liverpool. No one can complain if Liverpool provides its own turnround terminal on the same basis as every other port in the country ie on a proper commercial footing. Not subsidised by a duplicitous grant application which asked for £17m of public grant aid for a specific purpose, using a subsequently proven failed business plan and then immediately sought to change the rules.
Fortunately there are more sensible people actually living in Liverpool who are rather ashamed at the way LCC and others have dealt with this fiasco as it only goes to underline certain prejudices against the city ie Liverpool has to rely on handouts to progress, when this is not the true situation.
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: What do you call a rail link and a new road link just announced. Is that not taxpayers money favouring a private business? And even more unbelievable, that company does not pay UK taxes!So there is no way any taxpayers money will be returned via tax on company profits. In stark contrast, turnaround cruises from Liverpool would produce income for the exchequer from an English registered company. What is the Government doing aiding an offshore company?. Mr.Anderson had nothing to do with the initial application. The UK grant was 9m and that is all this consultation is considering, on the finance side. The 16 cruises lined up would be a small increase on the Fred Olsen operation that ceased. So Southampton is worried about a port operation with say 8 more cruises per year, than they used to operate? I challenge any of you to tell us all, Why are you so scared of Liverpool? I will be amazed if I get an honest response.[/p][/quote]What do I call the rail and road links..chicken feed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Liverpool got substantial grant aid for the Goree road improvement in front of the 3 Graces which also enhances the new cruise terminal, plus further grant aid to open up the Olive Mount rail link into the container port. More recently between £500-£600m has been allocated to Merseyside for a new bridge over the Mersey. Re the tax situation referred to. Can't condone this but the owner of Peel Ports, which owns Liverpool port, resides on the Isle of Man ...For tax reasons'..(and is, of course good mates with George Osborne who's constituency is right next door to the the City and Port of Liverpool) btw if these '16 cruises' are indeed 'lined up' how will these pay for the £23m worth of upgrade Mr Anderson and co have set aside to fund the necessary terminal upgrade to accommodate turnrounds? No doubt the money will come out of the Liverpool Council budget which is cutting essential services but is still ringfencing the cruise terminal upgrade millions. Think of the uproar down here if Soton Council adopted such a line Also you say that the Uk grant is the only issue here. What if the UK Cruise Alliance take a leaf out of Joe's book and challenged the EC grant allocation? That would be interesting. Finally it is not a case of being 'scared' of Liverpool. No one can complain if Liverpool provides its own turnround terminal on the same basis as every other port in the country ie on a proper commercial footing. Not subsidised by a duplicitous grant application which asked for £17m of public grant aid for a specific purpose, using a subsequently proven failed business plan and then immediately sought to change the rules. Fortunately there are more sensible people actually living in Liverpool who are rather ashamed at the way LCC and others have dealt with this fiasco as it only goes to underline certain prejudices against the city ie Liverpool has to rely on handouts to progress, when this is not the true situation. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

11:52pm Wed 2 Nov 11

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
What do you call a rail link and a new road link just announced. Is that not taxpayers money favouring a private business?
And even more unbelievable, that company does not pay UK taxes!So there is no way any taxpayers money will be returned via tax on company profits.
In stark contrast, turnaround cruises from Liverpool would produce income for the exchequer from an English registered company.
What is the Government doing aiding an offshore company?.
Mr.Anderson had nothing to do with the initial application.
The UK grant was 9m and that is all this consultation is considering, on the finance side.
The 16 cruises lined up would be a small increase on the Fred Olsen operation that ceased.
So Southampton is worried about a port operation with say 8 more cruises per year, than they used to operate?
I challenge any of you to tell us all, Why are you so scared of Liverpool?
I will be amazed if I get an honest response.
What do I call the rail and road links..chicken feed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liverpool got substantial grant aid for the Goree road improvement in front of the 3 Graces which also enhances the new cruise terminal, plus further grant aid to open up the Olive Mount rail link into the container port.
More recently between £500-£600m has been allocated to Merseyside for a new bridge over the Mersey.
Re the tax situation referred to. Can't condone this but the owner of Peel Ports, which owns Liverpool port, resides on the Isle of Man ...For tax reasons'..(and is, of course good mates with George Osborne who's constituency is right next door to the the City and Port of Liverpool)
btw if these '16 cruises' are indeed 'lined up' how will these pay for the £23m worth of upgrade Mr Anderson and co have set aside to fund the necessary terminal upgrade to accommodate turnrounds?
No doubt the money will come out of the Liverpool Council budget which is cutting essential services but is still ringfencing the cruise terminal upgrade millions.
Think of the uproar down here if Soton Council adopted such a line
Also you say that the Uk grant is the only issue here.
What if the UK Cruise Alliance take a leaf out of Joe's book and challenged the EC grant allocation?
That would be interesting.
Finally it is not a case of being 'scared' of Liverpool. No one can complain if Liverpool provides its own turnround terminal on the same basis as every other port in the country ie on a proper commercial footing. Not subsidised by a duplicitous grant application which asked for £17m of public grant aid for a specific purpose, using a subsequently proven failed business plan and then immediately sought to change the rules.
Fortunately there are more sensible people actually living in Liverpool who are rather ashamed at the way LCC and others have dealt with this fiasco as it only goes to underline certain prejudices against the city ie Liverpool has to rely on handouts to progress, when this is not the true situation.
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: What do you call a rail link and a new road link just announced. Is that not taxpayers money favouring a private business? And even more unbelievable, that company does not pay UK taxes!So there is no way any taxpayers money will be returned via tax on company profits. In stark contrast, turnaround cruises from Liverpool would produce income for the exchequer from an English registered company. What is the Government doing aiding an offshore company?. Mr.Anderson had nothing to do with the initial application. The UK grant was 9m and that is all this consultation is considering, on the finance side. The 16 cruises lined up would be a small increase on the Fred Olsen operation that ceased. So Southampton is worried about a port operation with say 8 more cruises per year, than they used to operate? I challenge any of you to tell us all, Why are you so scared of Liverpool? I will be amazed if I get an honest response.[/p][/quote]What do I call the rail and road links..chicken feed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Liverpool got substantial grant aid for the Goree road improvement in front of the 3 Graces which also enhances the new cruise terminal, plus further grant aid to open up the Olive Mount rail link into the container port. More recently between £500-£600m has been allocated to Merseyside for a new bridge over the Mersey. Re the tax situation referred to. Can't condone this but the owner of Peel Ports, which owns Liverpool port, resides on the Isle of Man ...For tax reasons'..(and is, of course good mates with George Osborne who's constituency is right next door to the the City and Port of Liverpool) btw if these '16 cruises' are indeed 'lined up' how will these pay for the £23m worth of upgrade Mr Anderson and co have set aside to fund the necessary terminal upgrade to accommodate turnrounds? No doubt the money will come out of the Liverpool Council budget which is cutting essential services but is still ringfencing the cruise terminal upgrade millions. Think of the uproar down here if Soton Council adopted such a line Also you say that the Uk grant is the only issue here. What if the UK Cruise Alliance take a leaf out of Joe's book and challenged the EC grant allocation? That would be interesting. Finally it is not a case of being 'scared' of Liverpool. No one can complain if Liverpool provides its own turnround terminal on the same basis as every other port in the country ie on a proper commercial footing. Not subsidised by a duplicitous grant application which asked for £17m of public grant aid for a specific purpose, using a subsequently proven failed business plan and then immediately sought to change the rules. Fortunately there are more sensible people actually living in Liverpool who are rather ashamed at the way LCC and others have dealt with this fiasco as it only goes to underline certain prejudices against the city ie Liverpool has to rely on handouts to progress, when this is not the true situation. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

6:04am Thu 3 Nov 11

arizonan says...

Peel holdings is registered in England and pays tax on its profits in England, fact.
Where its Chairman lives and pays tax is not relevant, fact.
The point you gloss over is that the UK taxpayer is reimbursed for the grant allocated to the LCT through taxation.
The grants given to Southampton will never be repaid as the owners are registered in Jersey.
Fascinated to find out that the Chairman of Peel Holdings is a friend of George Osborne, but you failed to tell us all the point of such a riveting nugget of gossip.
Given the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester, I don't think you will find many of his constituents agreeing with your geographical description that Knutsford,' is right next door to the City and Port of Liverpool.'
The UK grant is the only issue here as the UK Government has said so in the consultation paper.
I did read that the local lady MEP is making waves in Europe, but her political colours may prove something of a handicap.
Your final comment does make me laugh, as you fail to mention a certain city not a million miles from Southampton that over the years, and especially for 2012, has had enormous subsidies from the taxpayer, that has advanced its prosperity no end!.
Peel holdings is registered in England and pays tax on its profits in England, fact. Where its Chairman lives and pays tax is not relevant, fact. The point you gloss over is that the UK taxpayer is reimbursed for the grant allocated to the LCT through taxation. The grants given to Southampton will never be repaid as the owners are registered in Jersey. Fascinated to find out that the Chairman of Peel Holdings is a friend of George Osborne, but you failed to tell us all the point of such a riveting nugget of gossip. Given the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester, I don't think you will find many of his constituents agreeing with your geographical description that Knutsford,' is right next door to the City and Port of Liverpool.' The UK grant is the only issue here as the UK Government has said so in the consultation paper. I did read that the local lady MEP is making waves in Europe, but her political colours may prove something of a handicap. Your final comment does make me laugh, as you fail to mention a certain city not a million miles from Southampton that over the years, and especially for 2012, has had enormous subsidies from the taxpayer, that has advanced its prosperity no end!. arizonan
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Thu 3 Nov 11

soton-mike80 says...

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
I believe it’s a restraint of trade he says...err no it's not. No one is saying you can't go and do it...they are just saying you can't use money that isn't yours for a purpose it wasn't meant for! I wonder if Sainsbury's could use taxpayers money to help take some market share off of Tescos.
I like this analogy - it really does illustrate clearly the problem.

I may as well throw in my opinion: I used to live in Liverpool. The city was a state but through hard work they are rebuilding their reputation as a modern and vibrant city.

However - they are the first to cry foul if another city does something they don't like (check out the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester). They are experts at feeling indignant and hard-done-by when they really should just admit they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

I'm not buying it Liverpool - just hand the cash back and stop acting like a spoiled child!
[quote][p][bold]allsaintsnocurves[/bold] wrote: I believe it’s a restraint of trade he says...err no it's not. No one is saying you can't go and do it...they are just saying you can't use money that isn't yours for a purpose it wasn't meant for! I wonder if Sainsbury's could use taxpayers money to help take some market share off of Tescos.[/p][/quote]I like this analogy - it really does illustrate clearly the problem. I may as well throw in my opinion: I used to live in Liverpool. The city was a state but through hard work they are rebuilding their reputation as a modern and vibrant city. However - they are the first to cry foul if another city does something they don't like (check out the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester). They are experts at feeling indignant and hard-done-by when they really should just admit they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I'm not buying it Liverpool - just hand the cash back and stop acting like a spoiled child! soton-mike80
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Thu 3 Nov 11

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
Peel holdings is registered in England and pays tax on its profits in England, fact.
Where its Chairman lives and pays tax is not relevant, fact.
The point you gloss over is that the UK taxpayer is reimbursed for the grant allocated to the LCT through taxation.
The grants given to Southampton will never be repaid as the owners are registered in Jersey.
Fascinated to find out that the Chairman of Peel Holdings is a friend of George Osborne, but you failed to tell us all the point of such a riveting nugget of gossip.
Given the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester, I don't think you will find many of his constituents agreeing with your geographical description that Knutsford,' is right next door to the City and Port of Liverpool.'
The UK grant is the only issue here as the UK Government has said so in the consultation paper.
I did read that the local lady MEP is making waves in Europe, but her political colours may prove something of a handicap.
Your final comment does make me laugh, as you fail to mention a certain city not a million miles from Southampton that over the years, and especially for 2012, has had enormous subsidies from the taxpayer, that has advanced its prosperity no end!.
Where the Chairman lives is indeed an issue
Peel ports will pay Corporation tax etc on profits net of the salary and (extensive) dividends paid to the owner/Chief Exec who lives in the tax free zone of the Isle of Man.
btw George Osbornes Tatton constituency includes Runcorn 'right next door to Liverpool' and where £600m of UK Govt money is being invested in a fourth Mersey crossing to benefit Liverpool.
This 'grant' will never be repaid directly nor is there any obligation to do so as is the situation with the very minor £5m grant to improve a minor stretch of road in Southampton
Your last comment presumably applies to London.
We all know that London is looked upon as a 'special case' by the Govt arguably to the detriment of the remaining parts of the UK but quite what this matter has to do with the Liverpool Cruise Terminal argument is beyond me
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: Peel holdings is registered in England and pays tax on its profits in England, fact. Where its Chairman lives and pays tax is not relevant, fact. The point you gloss over is that the UK taxpayer is reimbursed for the grant allocated to the LCT through taxation. The grants given to Southampton will never be repaid as the owners are registered in Jersey. Fascinated to find out that the Chairman of Peel Holdings is a friend of George Osborne, but you failed to tell us all the point of such a riveting nugget of gossip. Given the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester, I don't think you will find many of his constituents agreeing with your geographical description that Knutsford,' is right next door to the City and Port of Liverpool.' The UK grant is the only issue here as the UK Government has said so in the consultation paper. I did read that the local lady MEP is making waves in Europe, but her political colours may prove something of a handicap. Your final comment does make me laugh, as you fail to mention a certain city not a million miles from Southampton that over the years, and especially for 2012, has had enormous subsidies from the taxpayer, that has advanced its prosperity no end!.[/p][/quote]Where the Chairman lives is indeed an issue Peel ports will pay Corporation tax etc on profits net of the salary and (extensive) dividends paid to the owner/Chief Exec who lives in the tax free zone of the Isle of Man. btw George Osbornes Tatton constituency includes Runcorn 'right next door to Liverpool' and where £600m of UK Govt money is being invested in a fourth Mersey crossing to benefit Liverpool. This 'grant' will never be repaid directly nor is there any obligation to do so as is the situation with the very minor £5m grant to improve a minor stretch of road in Southampton Your last comment presumably applies to London. We all know that London is looked upon as a 'special case' by the Govt arguably to the detriment of the remaining parts of the UK but quite what this matter has to do with the Liverpool Cruise Terminal argument is beyond me phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Thu 3 Nov 11

Pete Beard says...

phil maccavity wrote:
arizonan wrote:
Peel holdings is registered in England and pays tax on its profits in England, fact.
Where its Chairman lives and pays tax is not relevant, fact.
The point you gloss over is that the UK taxpayer is reimbursed for the grant allocated to the LCT through taxation.
The grants given to Southampton will never be repaid as the owners are registered in Jersey.
Fascinated to find out that the Chairman of Peel Holdings is a friend of George Osborne, but you failed to tell us all the point of such a riveting nugget of gossip.
Given the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester, I don't think you will find many of his constituents agreeing with your geographical description that Knutsford,' is right next door to the City and Port of Liverpool.'
The UK grant is the only issue here as the UK Government has said so in the consultation paper.
I did read that the local lady MEP is making waves in Europe, but her political colours may prove something of a handicap.
Your final comment does make me laugh, as you fail to mention a certain city not a million miles from Southampton that over the years, and especially for 2012, has had enormous subsidies from the taxpayer, that has advanced its prosperity no end!.
Where the Chairman lives is indeed an issue
Peel ports will pay Corporation tax etc on profits net of the salary and (extensive) dividends paid to the owner/Chief Exec who lives in the tax free zone of the Isle of Man.
btw George Osbornes Tatton constituency includes Runcorn 'right next door to Liverpool' and where £600m of UK Govt money is being invested in a fourth Mersey crossing to benefit Liverpool.
This 'grant' will never be repaid directly nor is there any obligation to do so as is the situation with the very minor £5m grant to improve a minor stretch of road in Southampton
Your last comment presumably applies to London.
We all know that London is looked upon as a 'special case' by the Govt arguably to the detriment of the remaining parts of the UK but quite what this matter has to do with the Liverpool Cruise Terminal argument is beyond me
Fourth Mersey crossing, what is that about. Acute paranoia and totally wrong. Please get your facts right, idea behind new Mersey Gateway. If it evers happens (and it is a big if) is that it will be a toll. Please stop making rash statements that are untrue.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: Peel holdings is registered in England and pays tax on its profits in England, fact. Where its Chairman lives and pays tax is not relevant, fact. The point you gloss over is that the UK taxpayer is reimbursed for the grant allocated to the LCT through taxation. The grants given to Southampton will never be repaid as the owners are registered in Jersey. Fascinated to find out that the Chairman of Peel Holdings is a friend of George Osborne, but you failed to tell us all the point of such a riveting nugget of gossip. Given the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester, I don't think you will find many of his constituents agreeing with your geographical description that Knutsford,' is right next door to the City and Port of Liverpool.' The UK grant is the only issue here as the UK Government has said so in the consultation paper. I did read that the local lady MEP is making waves in Europe, but her political colours may prove something of a handicap. Your final comment does make me laugh, as you fail to mention a certain city not a million miles from Southampton that over the years, and especially for 2012, has had enormous subsidies from the taxpayer, that has advanced its prosperity no end!.[/p][/quote]Where the Chairman lives is indeed an issue Peel ports will pay Corporation tax etc on profits net of the salary and (extensive) dividends paid to the owner/Chief Exec who lives in the tax free zone of the Isle of Man. btw George Osbornes Tatton constituency includes Runcorn 'right next door to Liverpool' and where £600m of UK Govt money is being invested in a fourth Mersey crossing to benefit Liverpool. This 'grant' will never be repaid directly nor is there any obligation to do so as is the situation with the very minor £5m grant to improve a minor stretch of road in Southampton Your last comment presumably applies to London. We all know that London is looked upon as a 'special case' by the Govt arguably to the detriment of the remaining parts of the UK but quite what this matter has to do with the Liverpool Cruise Terminal argument is beyond me[/p][/quote]Fourth Mersey crossing, what is that about. Acute paranoia and totally wrong. Please get your facts right, idea behind new Mersey Gateway. If it evers happens (and it is a big if) is that it will be a toll. Please stop making rash statements that are untrue. Pete Beard
  • Score: 0

9:10pm Thu 3 Nov 11

arizonan says...

Btw, have you heard that the Runcorn constituency does not exist anymore.
Seems it was abolished in 1983, so was probably off P.Mc's radar screen.
Was replaced by two constituencies, Halton and Warrington South.
So the constituents of Tatton can rest easy knowing that they are not,'right next door to Liverpool.'
Companies that pay tax in the UK repay for any infrastructure improvements that benefits their bottom line through tax on their profits.
Peel Holdings do, ABP don't, fact.
You talk about the very minor 5m, for the road improvement in Southampton.
So please tell me what is the amount left when you subtract what Liverpool has offered to re-pay,5m, and the amount of the UK grant to Liverpool, for the Landing Stage?
The answer is 4m,'A very minor grant,' to improve the employment prospects in Liverpool.
Billions on London, stopping turnaround cruises in Liverpool arguing over 4m? Is that beyond you?
Btw, have you heard that the Runcorn constituency does not exist anymore. Seems it was abolished in 1983, so was probably off P.Mc's radar screen. Was replaced by two constituencies, Halton and Warrington South. So the constituents of Tatton can rest easy knowing that they are not,'right next door to Liverpool.' Companies that pay tax in the UK repay for any infrastructure improvements that benefits their bottom line through tax on their profits. Peel Holdings do, ABP don't, fact. You talk about the very minor 5m, for the road improvement in Southampton. So please tell me what is the amount left when you subtract what Liverpool has offered to re-pay,5m, and the amount of the UK grant to Liverpool, for the Landing Stage? The answer is 4m,'A very minor grant,' to improve the employment prospects in Liverpool. Billions on London, stopping turnaround cruises in Liverpool arguing over 4m? Is that beyond you? arizonan
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Thu 3 Nov 11

loosehead says...

arizonan wrote:
Btw, have you heard that the Runcorn constituency does not exist anymore.
Seems it was abolished in 1983, so was probably off P.Mc's radar screen.
Was replaced by two constituencies, Halton and Warrington South.
So the constituents of Tatton can rest easy knowing that they are not,'right next door to Liverpool.'
Companies that pay tax in the UK repay for any infrastructure improvements that benefits their bottom line through tax on their profits.
Peel Holdings do, ABP don't, fact.
You talk about the very minor 5m, for the road improvement in Southampton.
So please tell me what is the amount left when you subtract what Liverpool has offered to re-pay,5m, and the amount of the UK grant to Liverpool, for the Landing Stage?
The answer is 4m,'A very minor grant,' to improve the employment prospects in Liverpool.
Billions on London, stopping turnaround cruises in Liverpool arguing over 4m? Is that beyond you?
Why do people up North think that every one who's classified as a Southerner must come from London?
Did Labour give a t+ss when they promoted & gave with open arms permission for a brand new port/container port at Shellhaven with many ports making that new port in excess of what was needed?
Gordan Brown's Government turned down Southamptons bid to build a new container port on land they owned but to get votes in marginal London seats they went on a huge PR job & ports like Felixstowe & southampton could lose all their container traffic.
You have new cruise Terminals planned at Avonmouth which would not onlt threaten Southampton but would scupper Liverpools bid to regain past glory.
As to improve employment in Liverpool do you think were all in employment here? 18,000 went for a few postal jobs. nearly a thousand applied for 16 bin mens jobs. we could do with a few million to help us to put other city's unemployment up to lower ours. Can't you see how that makes Liverpool look like in the eyes of Sotonians?
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: Btw, have you heard that the Runcorn constituency does not exist anymore. Seems it was abolished in 1983, so was probably off P.Mc's radar screen. Was replaced by two constituencies, Halton and Warrington South. So the constituents of Tatton can rest easy knowing that they are not,'right next door to Liverpool.' Companies that pay tax in the UK repay for any infrastructure improvements that benefits their bottom line through tax on their profits. Peel Holdings do, ABP don't, fact. You talk about the very minor 5m, for the road improvement in Southampton. So please tell me what is the amount left when you subtract what Liverpool has offered to re-pay,5m, and the amount of the UK grant to Liverpool, for the Landing Stage? The answer is 4m,'A very minor grant,' to improve the employment prospects in Liverpool. Billions on London, stopping turnaround cruises in Liverpool arguing over 4m? Is that beyond you?[/p][/quote]Why do people up North think that every one who's classified as a Southerner must come from London? Did Labour give a t+ss when they promoted & gave with open arms permission for a brand new port/container port at Shellhaven with many ports making that new port in excess of what was needed? Gordan Brown's Government turned down Southamptons bid to build a new container port on land they owned but to get votes in marginal London seats they went on a huge PR job & ports like Felixstowe & southampton could lose all their container traffic. You have new cruise Terminals planned at Avonmouth which would not onlt threaten Southampton but would scupper Liverpools bid to regain past glory. As to improve employment in Liverpool do you think were all in employment here? 18,000 went for a few postal jobs. nearly a thousand applied for 16 bin mens jobs. we could do with a few million to help us to put other city's unemployment up to lower ours. Can't you see how that makes Liverpool look like in the eyes of Sotonians? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:54pm Thu 3 Nov 11

arizonan says...

I don't think I mentioned Southampton when I made my comments re. London and the money that is poured into their development.
I suggest that everyone in Southampton should complain about the taxpayers money granted to London, before having a go at Liverpool.
I did not know about Avonmouth, but we do not try and stifle competition so bring them and Hull on, Liverpool does not mind.
I don't think I mentioned Southampton when I made my comments re. London and the money that is poured into their development. I suggest that everyone in Southampton should complain about the taxpayers money granted to London, before having a go at Liverpool. I did not know about Avonmouth, but we do not try and stifle competition so bring them and Hull on, Liverpool does not mind. arizonan
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Fri 4 Nov 11

IanRRR says...

Oh dear, we seem to have wandered off the path, and it has become an "us and them" battle.

The simple fact is that Liverpool have used money, which was not theirs, to fund a project for which they had no permission. Once it is paid back in full, they are free to mount whatever challenge they like to Southamptons cruise business. Until then, they cannot, and no amount of political posturing will make it right.
Oh dear, we seem to have wandered off the path, and it has become an "us and them" battle. The simple fact is that Liverpool have used money, which was not theirs, to fund a project for which they had no permission. Once it is paid back in full, they are free to mount whatever challenge they like to Southamptons cruise business. Until then, they cannot, and no amount of political posturing will make it right. IanRRR
  • Score: 0

5:39pm Fri 4 Nov 11

IanRRR says...

Oh, and I note that the article says that they have lined up 16 ships.... That could be considerably more than 16 cruises!!
Oh, and I note that the article says that they have lined up 16 ships.... That could be considerably more than 16 cruises!! IanRRR
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Fri 4 Nov 11

arizonan says...

In reply to IanRRR, Which project would that be? Liverpool CC has been operating a day call only cruise facility since 2007 in accordance with Government regulations.
Liverpool CC in discussion with this Government agreed to repay 5.15m.
The minister concerned stated,'That the aim is to get ships back to the Mersey, where they belong.'
Now, if these reports are true, the Government is reneging on the agreement they had with Liverpool CC, and their stated aim to bring ships back to the Mersey, where they belong.
Southampton are terrified of the competition that would emanate from Liverpool.
They know that they cannot compete with a City that has recently been voted, 'Best UK City for nightlife,' by TripAdvisor and voted,'The UK's friendliest City,' by Conde Nest Traveller.
And Group Travel magazine named LIverpool,'Best UK City in 2011.'
In reply to IanRRR, Which project would that be? Liverpool CC has been operating a day call only cruise facility since 2007 in accordance with Government regulations. Liverpool CC in discussion with this Government agreed to repay 5.15m. The minister concerned stated,'That the aim is to get ships back to the Mersey, where they belong.' Now, if these reports are true, the Government is reneging on the agreement they had with Liverpool CC, and their stated aim to bring ships back to the Mersey, where they belong. Southampton are terrified of the competition that would emanate from Liverpool. They know that they cannot compete with a City that has recently been voted, 'Best UK City for nightlife,' by TripAdvisor and voted,'The UK's friendliest City,' by Conde Nest Traveller. And Group Travel magazine named LIverpool,'Best UK City in 2011.' arizonan
  • Score: 0

7:28pm Fri 4 Nov 11

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
Btw, have you heard that the Runcorn constituency does not exist anymore.
Seems it was abolished in 1983, so was probably off P.Mc's radar screen.
Was replaced by two constituencies, Halton and Warrington South.
So the constituents of Tatton can rest easy knowing that they are not,'right next door to Liverpool.'
Companies that pay tax in the UK repay for any infrastructure improvements that benefits their bottom line through tax on their profits.
Peel Holdings do, ABP don't, fact.
You talk about the very minor 5m, for the road improvement in Southampton.
So please tell me what is the amount left when you subtract what Liverpool has offered to re-pay,5m, and the amount of the UK grant to Liverpool, for the Landing Stage?
The answer is 4m,'A very minor grant,' to improve the employment prospects in Liverpool.
Billions on London, stopping turnaround cruises in Liverpool arguing over 4m? Is that beyond you?
Pointof detail, the town of Runcorn is now included within the Tatton constituency.
Runcorn is on the fringe of the southern suburbs of Liverpool ergo part of George Obornes constituency is right next door to Liverpool
Four Mersey crossings ie the Runcorn-Widnes bridges, two tunnels between Liverpool & Birkenhead and the proposed 2nd bridge which will be tolled but the Govt recently agreed to fund the £150m shortfall
Perhaps you should spend less time on here and research what is going on in the area where, presumably, you used to live
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: Btw, have you heard that the Runcorn constituency does not exist anymore. Seems it was abolished in 1983, so was probably off P.Mc's radar screen. Was replaced by two constituencies, Halton and Warrington South. So the constituents of Tatton can rest easy knowing that they are not,'right next door to Liverpool.' Companies that pay tax in the UK repay for any infrastructure improvements that benefits their bottom line through tax on their profits. Peel Holdings do, ABP don't, fact. You talk about the very minor 5m, for the road improvement in Southampton. So please tell me what is the amount left when you subtract what Liverpool has offered to re-pay,5m, and the amount of the UK grant to Liverpool, for the Landing Stage? The answer is 4m,'A very minor grant,' to improve the employment prospects in Liverpool. Billions on London, stopping turnaround cruises in Liverpool arguing over 4m? Is that beyond you?[/p][/quote]Pointof detail, the town of Runcorn is now included within the Tatton constituency. Runcorn is on the fringe of the southern suburbs of Liverpool ergo part of George Obornes constituency is right next door to Liverpool Four Mersey crossings ie the Runcorn-Widnes bridges, two tunnels between Liverpool & Birkenhead and the proposed 2nd bridge which will be tolled but the Govt recently agreed to fund the £150m shortfall Perhaps you should spend less time on here and research what is going on in the area where, presumably, you used to live phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Fri 4 Nov 11

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
In reply to IanRRR, Which project would that be? Liverpool CC has been operating a day call only cruise facility since 2007 in accordance with Government regulations.
Liverpool CC in discussion with this Government agreed to repay 5.15m.
The minister concerned stated,'That the aim is to get ships back to the Mersey, where they belong.'
Now, if these reports are true, the Government is reneging on the agreement they had with Liverpool CC, and their stated aim to bring ships back to the Mersey, where they belong.
Southampton are terrified of the competition that would emanate from Liverpool.
They know that they cannot compete with a City that has recently been voted, 'Best UK City for nightlife,' by TripAdvisor and voted,'The UK's friendliest City,' by Conde Nest Traveller.
And Group Travel magazine named LIverpool,'Best UK City in 2011.'
Big congrats to Liverpool for these accolades.
It is amazing what £1Billion worth of Free Money ie Grant aid can do to a City centre.
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: In reply to IanRRR, Which project would that be? Liverpool CC has been operating a day call only cruise facility since 2007 in accordance with Government regulations. Liverpool CC in discussion with this Government agreed to repay 5.15m. The minister concerned stated,'That the aim is to get ships back to the Mersey, where they belong.' Now, if these reports are true, the Government is reneging on the agreement they had with Liverpool CC, and their stated aim to bring ships back to the Mersey, where they belong. Southampton are terrified of the competition that would emanate from Liverpool. They know that they cannot compete with a City that has recently been voted, 'Best UK City for nightlife,' by TripAdvisor and voted,'The UK's friendliest City,' by Conde Nest Traveller. And Group Travel magazine named LIverpool,'Best UK City in 2011.'[/p][/quote]Big congrats to Liverpool for these accolades. It is amazing what £1Billion worth of Free Money ie Grant aid can do to a City centre. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Fri 4 Nov 11

phil maccavity says...

arizonan wrote:
In reply to IanRRR, Which project would that be? Liverpool CC has been operating a day call only cruise facility since 2007 in accordance with Government regulations.
Liverpool CC in discussion with this Government agreed to repay 5.15m.
The minister concerned stated,'That the aim is to get ships back to the Mersey, where they belong.'
Now, if these reports are true, the Government is reneging on the agreement they had with Liverpool CC, and their stated aim to bring ships back to the Mersey, where they belong.
Southampton are terrified of the competition that would emanate from Liverpool.
They know that they cannot compete with a City that has recently been voted, 'Best UK City for nightlife,' by TripAdvisor and voted,'The UK's friendliest City,' by Conde Nest Traveller.
And Group Travel magazine named LIverpool,'Best UK City in 2011.'
Big congrats to Liverpool for these accolades.
It is amazing what £1Billion worth of Free Money ie Grant aid can do to a City centre.
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: In reply to IanRRR, Which project would that be? Liverpool CC has been operating a day call only cruise facility since 2007 in accordance with Government regulations. Liverpool CC in discussion with this Government agreed to repay 5.15m. The minister concerned stated,'That the aim is to get ships back to the Mersey, where they belong.' Now, if these reports are true, the Government is reneging on the agreement they had with Liverpool CC, and their stated aim to bring ships back to the Mersey, where they belong. Southampton are terrified of the competition that would emanate from Liverpool. They know that they cannot compete with a City that has recently been voted, 'Best UK City for nightlife,' by TripAdvisor and voted,'The UK's friendliest City,' by Conde Nest Traveller. And Group Travel magazine named LIverpool,'Best UK City in 2011.'[/p][/quote]Big congrats to Liverpool for these accolades. It is amazing what £1Billion worth of Free Money ie Grant aid can do to a City centre. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

11:49pm Fri 4 Nov 11

arizonan says...

P.Mc Are you 100%, bet your life SURE that Runcorn resides within the Tatton constituency?
I suggest you go away and check YOUR facts and come back and tell us all, the constituency that contains Runcorn.
YOU need to spend MORE time researching an area you obviously do not know anything about.
I will give you a clue, two words, the initials are, W.V.
P.Mc Are you 100%, bet your life SURE that Runcorn resides within the Tatton constituency? I suggest you go away and check YOUR facts and come back and tell us all, the constituency that contains Runcorn. YOU need to spend MORE time researching an area you obviously do not know anything about. I will give you a clue, two words, the initials are, W.V. arizonan
  • Score: 0

11:55pm Fri 4 Nov 11

arizonan says...

You must be correct P.Mc., look what the BILLIONS of taxpayer money has done for London.
You must be correct P.Mc., look what the BILLIONS of taxpayer money has done for London. arizonan
  • Score: 0

9:59am Sat 5 Nov 11

loosehead says...

arizonan wrote:
You must be correct P.Mc., look what the BILLIONS of taxpayer money has done for London.
But surely they needed that money to ensure the tourist trade which is far greater than Liverpool & brings in a hell of a lot more money into the country than Liverpool.
I wonder if the Beatles had been from any other city if any one would want to visit Liverpool your city owes them a lot.
As their memory fades in the next generation you'll see a big drop in tourism where as London won't is that why your council lied to get the grants to steal cruise ships from other ports?
[quote][p][bold]arizonan[/bold] wrote: You must be correct P.Mc., look what the BILLIONS of taxpayer money has done for London.[/p][/quote]But surely they needed that money to ensure the tourist trade which is far greater than Liverpool & brings in a hell of a lot more money into the country than Liverpool. I wonder if the Beatles had been from any other city if any one would want to visit Liverpool your city owes them a lot. As their memory fades in the next generation you'll see a big drop in tourism where as London won't is that why your council lied to get the grants to steal cruise ships from other ports? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Sat 5 Nov 11

arizonan says...

The Beatles from any other city?
No, that could not be, only Liverpool could have produced the Beatles.
The Beatles will not,' fade in the next generation.'
New media and the quality of their music will keep them alive forever, they are Worldwide icons.
Are people still visiting Salzburg?.
The cruise passengers visiting Liverpool make very little mention of the Beatles. They are a given.
They are impressed by all the other things to see and do in Liverpool, reading their comments in the press.
Interesting that you do not protest at money going to London and complain that Southampton does not get any.
Given Southampton's proximity to London,perhaps it is sucking up all the money and investment in your neck of the woods, leaving a big vacuum in Southampton. Ever thought of that?
The Beatles from any other city? No, that could not be, only Liverpool could have produced the Beatles. The Beatles will not,' fade in the next generation.' New media and the quality of their music will keep them alive forever, they are Worldwide icons. Are people still visiting Salzburg?. The cruise passengers visiting Liverpool make very little mention of the Beatles. They are a given. They are impressed by all the other things to see and do in Liverpool, reading their comments in the press. Interesting that you do not protest at money going to London and complain that Southampton does not get any. Given Southampton's proximity to London,perhaps it is sucking up all the money and investment in your neck of the woods, leaving a big vacuum in Southampton. Ever thought of that? arizonan
  • Score: 0

7:40pm Thu 17 Nov 11

ronn12 says...

Just come bk from Liverpool, Wow now thats what i call a city,Liverpool looks like a confident city i can understand why Southampton is worried, it looks amazing and can see why it's been voted the best city in UK for tourism and nightlife, the choice of things to do is endless , top hotels, resturants ,museums ,amazing shops ,etc, the list is endless and it is easy to see why the cruise ships are going back ,and the people are really friendly to.
The waterfront is breathtaking mix of modern and new biulding that bring the city into the 21st century, unlike Southampton which again is just a terminal not a tourist destination.
If they want a cruise terminal let them have it ,they truly deserve it and there is enough business for all.
Just come bk from Liverpool, Wow now thats what i call a city,Liverpool looks like a confident city i can understand why Southampton is worried, it looks amazing and can see why it's been voted the best city in UK for tourism and nightlife, the choice of things to do is endless , top hotels, resturants ,museums ,amazing shops ,etc, the list is endless and it is easy to see why the cruise ships are going back ,and the people are really friendly to. The waterfront is breathtaking mix of modern and new biulding that bring the city into the 21st century, unlike Southampton which again is just a terminal not a tourist destination. If they want a cruise terminal let them have it ,they truly deserve it and there is enough business for all. ronn12
  • Score: 0

9:35pm Thu 17 Nov 11

loosehead says...

ronn12 wrote:
Just come bk from Liverpool, Wow now thats what i call a city,Liverpool looks like a confident city i can understand why Southampton is worried, it looks amazing and can see why it's been voted the best city in UK for tourism and nightlife, the choice of things to do is endless , top hotels, resturants ,museums ,amazing shops ,etc, the list is endless and it is easy to see why the cruise ships are going back ,and the people are really friendly to.
The waterfront is breathtaking mix of modern and new biulding that bring the city into the 21st century, unlike Southampton which again is just a terminal not a tourist destination.
If they want a cruise terminal let them have it ,they truly deserve it and there is enough business for all.
If it's so good & house prices are cheaper & the cost of livings lower why don't you move up there ? once our docks stand idle they're be no work here so of you go to the city hand outs built.
My father would be ashamed of the city of his birth & please explain to me why when they talk the same people from Wallasey & Birkenhead find it so offensive being called a scouse & say they're from the Wirral not Liverpool?
[quote][p][bold]ronn12[/bold] wrote: Just come bk from Liverpool, Wow now thats what i call a city,Liverpool looks like a confident city i can understand why Southampton is worried, it looks amazing and can see why it's been voted the best city in UK for tourism and nightlife, the choice of things to do is endless , top hotels, resturants ,museums ,amazing shops ,etc, the list is endless and it is easy to see why the cruise ships are going back ,and the people are really friendly to. The waterfront is breathtaking mix of modern and new biulding that bring the city into the 21st century, unlike Southampton which again is just a terminal not a tourist destination. If they want a cruise terminal let them have it ,they truly deserve it and there is enough business for all.[/p][/quote]If it's so good & house prices are cheaper & the cost of livings lower why don't you move up there ? once our docks stand idle they're be no work here so of you go to the city hand outs built. My father would be ashamed of the city of his birth & please explain to me why when they talk the same people from Wallasey & Birkenhead find it so offensive being called a scouse & say they're from the Wirral not Liverpool? loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:34pm Thu 17 Nov 11

ronn12 says...

Liverpool people are very nice from what what i seen, funny outgoing and very friendly ,and the city of Liverpool itself is not what people from here are say it is like-i feel ashamed to say i am from southampton it make's our city/town look shabby and outdated.
maybe i will leave this hole and move to Liverpool as thier is alot more going on and better job opportunities.from someone who has been!!!!
oh and by the way if they don't get turnaround i will eat my hat
Liverpool people are very nice from what what i seen, funny outgoing and very friendly ,and the city of Liverpool itself is not what people from here are say it is like-i feel ashamed to say i am from southampton it make's our city/town look shabby and outdated. maybe i will leave this hole and move to Liverpool as thier is alot more going on and better job opportunities.from someone who has been!!!! oh and by the way if they don't get turnaround i will eat my hat ronn12
  • Score: 0

10:35pm Thu 17 Nov 11

ronn12 says...

Liverpool people are very nice from what what i seen, funny outgoing and very friendly,hard working ,and the city of Liverpool itself is not what people from here are say it is like-i feel ashamed to say i am from southampton it make's our city/town look shabby and outdated.
maybe i will leave this hole and move to Liverpool as thier is alot more going on and better job opportunities.from someone who has been!!!!
oh and by the way if they don't get turnaround i will eat my hat.....
Liverpool people are very nice from what what i seen, funny outgoing and very friendly,hard working ,and the city of Liverpool itself is not what people from here are say it is like-i feel ashamed to say i am from southampton it make's our city/town look shabby and outdated. maybe i will leave this hole and move to Liverpool as thier is alot more going on and better job opportunities.from someone who has been!!!! oh and by the way if they don't get turnaround i will eat my hat..... ronn12
  • Score: 0

8:05am Fri 18 Nov 11

loosehead says...

ronn12 wrote:
Liverpool people are very nice from what what i seen, funny outgoing and very friendly,hard working ,and the city of Liverpool itself is not what people from here are say it is like-i feel ashamed to say i am from southampton it make's our city/town look shabby and outdated.
maybe i will leave this hole and move to Liverpool as thier is alot more going on and better job opportunities.from someone who has been!!!!
oh and by the way if they don't get turnaround i will eat my hat.....
The way you write your post reminds me of another who says how great Liverpool is. You wouldn't be Southy under another name would you?
[quote][p][bold]ronn12[/bold] wrote: Liverpool people are very nice from what what i seen, funny outgoing and very friendly,hard working ,and the city of Liverpool itself is not what people from here are say it is like-i feel ashamed to say i am from southampton it make's our city/town look shabby and outdated. maybe i will leave this hole and move to Liverpool as thier is alot more going on and better job opportunities.from someone who has been!!!! oh and by the way if they don't get turnaround i will eat my hat.....[/p][/quote]The way you write your post reminds me of another who says how great Liverpool is. You wouldn't be Southy under another name would you? loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:05am Fri 18 Nov 11

loosehead says...

The way you write your post reminds me of another who says how great Liverpool is. You wouldn't be Southy under another name would you?
The way you write your post reminds me of another who says how great Liverpool is. You wouldn't be Southy under another name would you? loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:48pm Sat 19 Nov 11

ronn12 says...

Not at all ?
Like i said, i have seen Liverpool, it's not what people down here say it's like it may have it's bad parts but all cities do , including Southampton.
But from would i seen it is worth a visit and i will be going back, hopefully on a cruise ship )
Not at all ? Like i said, i have seen Liverpool, it's not what people down here say it's like it may have it's bad parts but all cities do , including Southampton. But from would i seen it is worth a visit and i will be going back, hopefully on a cruise ship ) ronn12
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Sat 19 Nov 11

loosehead says...

ronn12 wrote:
Not at all ?
Like i said, i have seen Liverpool, it's not what people down here say it's like it may have it's bad parts but all cities do , including Southampton.
But from would i seen it is worth a visit and i will be going back, hopefully on a cruise ship )
Hope your rich enough to by a cruise Line then
[quote][p][bold]ronn12[/bold] wrote: Not at all ? Like i said, i have seen Liverpool, it's not what people down here say it's like it may have it's bad parts but all cities do , including Southampton. But from would i seen it is worth a visit and i will be going back, hopefully on a cruise ship )[/p][/quote]Hope your rich enough to by a cruise Line then loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Wed 23 Nov 11

ronn12 says...

No am not , but the ships are back on the mersey (home) and am spoiled for choice!!!
No am not , but the ships are back on the mersey (home) and am spoiled for choice!!! ronn12
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree