I had a look round inside Goodison last summer (if you time it right they’ll let you in on a quiet day) and there was loads of work being done then, I asked the guy what it was and he said there were loads of new health and safety regulations so the ground was being made to comply with them. That was July 2007. Does anyone know if there’s yet another fresh batch or was this an old story spun to make people vote ’Yes’.

There was an interested article in the Sunday People this week:

Tesco rise is shelved
EXCLUSIVE
By Nigel Nelson
New powers to stop the supermarket giants building "Tesco towns" are being introduced.

Small shops will be favoured over large stores such as Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons when local authorities consider planning applications.

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears believes the supermarkets are killing off family-owned high street stores with their out-of-town complexes.

Community Ms Blears said: "Popping down to the local grocer’s or baker’s is more than just shopping.

"It is where people meet and identify with their community. That’s why I am strengthening planning rules to better protect them."

In future, councils will have more power to block supermarket developments that threaten local traders.The move comes as small shopkeepers are at even great risk of going bust because of the credit crunch. Supermarket king Tesco takes a pound in every eight spent by UK consumers.

Blears is making all the right noises so far...

That must be the first time there's ever been an interesting article in The People, and one of the first times anyones got further than looking at the pictures! ;)

That People article isn't really relevent in our case Barry, our club and Tesco?s development is an enhancement of a town centre not an ?out of town? development that will bring harm to a town centre, plus they are only proposals for extra powers for local authorities. I?m not sure KMBC would have changed their minds if those powers where in place right now - regeneration is their number one priority and DK covers that base pretty well.

Now that all the evidence that the board provided before the vote has been found to be less than candid, in all conscience, the board should reconvene and hold a second ballot. It seems that there were a lot of voters who probably feel they have been misled? Whether this was intentional or not (perhaps the board was not even fully aware of the full facts and the financial implications) it seems that a ballot has taken place without all the facts being laid on the table!

Shaun, the vote was for whether or not you would be in favour of relocating to Kirkby, yes or no? Nothing about the stadium or anything like that, purely location! So the vote technically misled nobody.

Personally I doubt the club cares what we the fans think; its gone way beyond that now Shaun.

It has little to do with us now, its a business desicion and what we thinks counts for nothing - we’ll always have an interest but at the end of the day we’re only a small part of the modern game where money is King (even if we do think we pay for it all....which we dont!)

And what Dan said. :)

Dan: the vote was about whether to move to Kirkby based on the information that the board released. If it had been a vote merely on the location alone, then it would have been rejected.

I have twice written to the Club with this question and have never received a reply. My own view is that as long as proper maintenance is carried to the LA?s satisfaction out we could stay for the duration!!

Dan
when is a vote not a vote.

When you’re told told its the only vote you can take and it is the "Deal of the century" and will be "Virtually Free" and to top all that "It will be a world class stadium" and "Will be the most accessible" in the UK.

That’s when a vote is not a vote.

The information that the board released was that they are planning to build a stadium in Kirkby, which they are! The rest of the leaflet just went on about how they believe it will benefit Everton! It offered no concrete facts or hard evidence about anything other than where it will be! All I'm saying is legally, they did not lie on the leaflet so the vote itself could not be contested as misleading.

Terry
GP has always passed H&S inspections/legislation with flying colours.

Various "Expert" posters have come on here and said that we have no worries whatsoever on that score partly because GP ,despite scaremongering to the contrary, is in pretty good shape and partly because it is not a "new" stadium where the regulations are a little stricter.

To put it into context look at the likes of Tranmere and Luton whose respective grounds couldnt hold a candle to GP and they obviously pass H&S regs.

As far as I understand it anyway if there are any breaches the club would be given time to correct them.

So as I have said many times:

GP IS NOT ABOUT TO FALL DOWN OR BE CLOSED DOWN.

Thank god for that, i was worried about getting to my seat for the next game before it started to crumble!!

The sooner Aug 16 comes round the better ? I'm sick an tired of the random posts on the ground move, shite transfer stories and the doom and gloom from everyone.

I just want to get back to footy.

I asked the H&S Executive to respond to my query regarding Goodison Park and that verbatim response was posted on this website - Goodison Park does not fail any H&S regulations as there are none specific to football stadia and none are likely to be introduced. Any regulations that may apply are building regulations that ALL building have to comply with - older buildings such as Goodison Park have more leeway hence the fact that not one National Trust property or older pieces of architecture are threatened with closure in this country and all buildings be they brand new or older have to be maintained or they will fall into disrepair. If you don’t believe then email the H&S Executive yourselves they answer very quickly.

Have to say if it were down to us fans to make "business decisions" involving EFC we?d "do a Leeds" in no time!!! Speculate to accumulate we?d say.

Whilst I?m still not entirely in favour of a move to Kirkby I appreciate something really needs to be done. Love it or loathe it, we?re highly unlikely to be offered any affordable solution to move elsewhere within city boundaries into a world class venue. It?s just not going to happen.

Also, I simply refute the fact that investors aren?t interested in EFC due to being close to LFC. There are MANY examples of clubs in close proximity to other large clubs being bought by foreign investors. While I?m not sure of the exact reasons (and I?m sure if Kenwright could sell to someone who had the necessary finances and best interests of the club at heart he would), I am sure that the club is making fairly sustainable progress in the meantime.

Bringing in Steve Round must surely be a clear sign that Moyes's new contract is a formality. You can?t tell me Round would have signed had Moyes told him that he may not be here more than a couple of months and that he neither had a clue who to bring in nor the finances to bring in any players who would continue taking the club forward.

Brian Doyle - That People article isn’t really relevent in our case Barry, our club and Tesco?s development is an enhancement of a town centre not an ?out of town? development that will bring harm to a town centre.

Here is the view of the Knowsley planners and Knowsley’s own retail consultans, Roger Tym and Partners;

"The land south of Cherryfield Drive is in part an ?edge of centre? location and [b]the remainder (that part extending beyond 300m from the boundary of the town centre shopping area ? approximately the southern third of the land south of Cherryfield Drive) represents an ?out of centre? location.[/b]

[b]To conclude, your officers generally concur with RTP?s findings. That is, the
proposal conflicts with the sequential policy test. In particular, there is physical
scope to accommodate more of the scheme within the existing town centre, with the remainder of the retail development in a more compact form that could be accommodated on land considered to be ?edge of centre?, rather than ?out of centre?.[/b]"

And this in todays Evening Standard;


[b]Blears: I’ll change rules on planning to protect town centres[/b]

Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor
07.07.08

[b]Sweeping curbs on out-of-town supermarkets are to be introduced in a bid to protect smaller shops, Communities Secretary Hazel Blears announced today.[/b]


After months of consultation, Ms Blears has decided that planning guidance should be changed to allow councils to preserve their town centres and fight the spread of "clone town Britain".

She said the Evening Standard’s Save Our Small Shops campaign had "struck a chord" across the capital, as well as the country, and that it was time to take action.

Under the changes, the current simplistic planning test - which only judges whether there is capacity for an out-of-town supermarket - will be replaced with a more rounded "impact test" which assesses the risks and benefits of new businesses on existing small shops and the town centre.

Special planning guidance, known as "Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres", will be amended to ensure that new out-of-town developments do not choke existing small businesses or draw valuable trade away from the town.

The change will see the scrapping of the "needs test" which has seen some proposed town-centre shops turned down because of the presence of out-of-town developments. Councils will now have to take a deeper look at how new businesses affect the health of town centres.

Ms Blears, who will outline the protections later this week, said: "London has many independent small shops at the heart of the local community which are part of its unique history. That’s why I putting my support behind the Evening Standard campaign and taking action this week to strengthening the planning rules so they better protect our small shops during the credit crunch and keep them thriving along London’s high streets."

"Independent butchers, bakers and booksellers are icons of local pride, giving high streets a style all of their own and testifying to London’s unique history. Our priority is to ensure we do not see more stretches of the nation’s high streets turned into bland "every towns".

"We need more individuality, more small scale independent shops, and a new spirit of independent enterprise on our high streets."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23511306-details/Blears%3A+I%27ll+change+rules+on+planning+to+protect+town+centres/article.do

Blears is making the right noises, now it’s over to the GONW.

Funny how time can be found to sort out Round and get him on board while Bill AND Dave have plenty of chats every day but no signature on his contract as there is not enough time. Something is not right.

Dan, how deluded can you be? The board presented the arguments already conveyed, such as ’world class stadium’, etc. and that has all since changed unrecognisably. Therefore, they blatantly misrepresented the ballot. The question was not simply ’Are you in favour of relocation?’ without being annexed to suitable propaganda. That would be absurd as it is impossible to answer without the necessary information such as the benefits of relocation.

It has been accurately pointed out on this thread that the board may themselves have been misled regarding the calibre of the new stadium, costings, etc. However, they irrefutably and deliberately misrepresented the case for relocation when stating that GP had already undergone a feasibility study that discounted the possibility of staying put. This was later exposed as a lie as they were forced to concede no such study had taken place.

Subsequently, it has been undertaken and the findings were that the works were of comparable cost to the PRESENT COST of relocation. Whether you believe in staying or going (I, personally, am not in support of the redevelopment as I think times have moved on and do not want to be in a big red shadow in our own city but I do want to stay within Liverpool) there is no questioning the deceit. As such, the ballot was hugely misrepresented and should be null and void.

Every voter has their right to choose as they believe is best for our club. Be under no illusion that, although we may hugely disagree with others’ choices, our interests and intentions for Everton Football Club are identical. We all want what we believe will help us grow. As Terry, the original poster, has stated he voted ’yes’ but has changed his mind. Some ’no’ voters may well have done the same.

Before someone posts the usual (and, perhaps understandable reaction to this of "We can’t have votes add infinitum") this is an exceptional circumstance. There is no rational argument to state that the vote of then can be compared with the information of now, whether you have altered your decision or not. For that reason alone, the vote we are all forced to accept is a sham.

Dan, The voters were thoroughly misled without a doubt. What the voters were promised and what they are actually going to get are not the same.
The bumph said that it would be a "World class stadium" pretty piccies with the floodlights on etc. Also the best transport links anywhere. And as a bonus it was the "Deal of the century !" Cost no more than £10m originally.
How can you possibly imagine that what we were offered bears any resemblance to what we are going to get is astonishing !
And if my second paragraph is not concrete promises then I don’t know what constitutes a concrete promise.

Dan Mckie, The whole vote was and still is a sham. We were promised the world and given a bit of as Tesco car park. Bill and his mate Bully should be marched right out of the door, never to return.

I am sick of this BK and KW knocking and the running down of our new stadium even before the damn thing has been built!!
Q. Will the new stadium be an improvement on GP, in terms of facilities, fan comfort, obstructed views, capacity??

Q. Can the stadium be funded??



Q. Do a large proportion of our match going fanbase still intend to go to matches even after a move to Kirkby?

Q. Will most Everton fans continue to support Everton even after our move from the city centre ??

If can answer ’Yes’ to all of these questions, then whats the problem??

Brian,
What about:

Q. What can the same outlay achieve at GP? Has the club commisioned any independent studies for us to compare?

Q.Would Kirkby ever be able to combine classic stadium architecture with contemporary structures to create a unique stadium on the site of the world’s first purpose built football stadium?

Q. Can Kirkby’s public transport provision, or general traffic capacity ever match the more central GP where people can approach/disperse from/in all directions etc? Is this logistically possible for any peripheral housing estate in a single focal point city?

Q. Seeing as we will be paying for in essence 3 of the 4 stands at Kirkby is it really the deal of the century?

Q. Given all the above and the hardsell that accompanied it...... is it worth leaving behind all our history and heritage, jeopardising our valued city-based identity, alienating such a large proportion of the fanbase and gambling on a poor quality stadium with totally unproven transport infrastructure that has so far seen 3 transport strategies crash and burn?

Where are the real benefits? Why can’t you find a single kopite who’s against us going to Kirkby? Does Kirkby tick any of the boxes apart from Tesco’s?

Q: Is the move being proposed, one that will be run and ’organized’ by people who have proved BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that they cannot be trusted to tell us the truth?

Q: Is the move one that is being organized by people who have proved so incompetent, that they can’t even sort out flogging a few replica shirts without fucking up?

Q: Is Terry Leahy ONLY answerable to Tesco shareholders?

Q: Will the new ground, instead of being a (promised!) ’state-of-the-art’, stadium, be a pre-fab, mid-range cack-hole like the Reebok?

Q: Will the ground, INSTEAD OF BEING FREE, cost Everton FC at AT LEAST £78 million?

Q: Are Everton FC, to all intents and purposes, skint having sold of all their assets?

If the answer to even ONE of these questions is ’yes’, THAT ’Brian Baker’ is the problem.

I voted yes to the biggest mistake ever who cares if the ground is small.Its the players that matter