Say what you like about Bradley but I thought his reply to that reptile Kilfoyle was spot on.

By highlighting that Kilfoyle was advocating the removal of a historic institution from his own constituency, he has hopefully signed the fats one's political obituary and I would urge every blue to go out and vote against Kilfoyle at the next election.

On a much sadder note, Bradley's belief that Kilfoyle has only turned Judas now because he knows the scheme won't be called in has the ring of truth and I fear the announcement must be imminent. We will be truly entering uncharted waters if the scheme goes ahead and I hope that, in years to come, Kenwright will be able to live with what he has done.

Does anybody else suspect that Kilfoyle?s letter was only made public because the EGM announcement was expected?

It’s not all over till the fat lady sings.

The EGM and tightening of credit may well force a slow down in the charge to Kirkby.

I certainly hope so.

The sooner we get Kenwright out the better.

As regards Bradley this at least restores some credibility to the man in terms of his feelings for EFC and the move.

In terms of Kilfoyle he is another dangerous 2 faced man who needs to go.

I thought Bradley was utterly utterly hopeless. His rebuttal to the accusation that LCC hadn?t come up with anything for Everton in 10 years, was to list 5 or 6 sites, all of which could be ours, if only we can find the "new investment". That?s the whole point, dickhead, we haven?t got a pot to piss in, which is why Kirkby is a one-off opportunity. As Liverpool?s stadium is costing up to £400m, I?d be interested to know where he thinks we find this money. The guy is useless, and I?m just relieved his attempt to call this in looks doomed to failure

Sorry, Mr Molloy, yours is a ridiculous post. We could hardly expect the Council to find the money as well as the plot. It?s hardly their fault ?we haven?t got a pot to piss in? is it?

We’re going to Kirkby, its NOT getting called in, Cllr Bradley clearly knows something as does Mr. Kilfoyle. Bradley says to Kilfoyle: "I can only glean from your sudden supportive statement, that the Secretary of State, Hazel Blears, is about to announce that the scheme won’t be called in and you are showing political support for such an ill informed crass decision" and he ends with this - "and looks to score cheap political points to deflect the enormity of his decision in supporting his Governments political precedence on Everton FC’s removal from the city".

Kevin
"Why should anybody find sites for EFC? It is up to then to look for them."

That?s why we look like going to Kirkby cos they couldnt get off their arses to look into it. It took Tesco Terry to say "hey I?ve found a site for me and you could build a stadium there too. It will be cheap and nasty but hey I?ll get the largest Tesco store in the country out of it and you boys can just sit back and do nothing."

Bradley and Kilfoyle are doing what politicians do when the chips are down.
Both are scrambling to save as much face as possible.
It's called "damage control".

So much much doom and gloom. Maybe Bradley got it wrong (it does happen) and Killjoy is worried that Blears might be about to call it in, or is wavering, and is trying to tip the balance in his favour.

I don't care what other people think, I can't wait 'til we?re in Kirkby. GP is (be honest) an absolute disjointed mess and Peter Kilfoyle was spot on with the points he made as well. I?ll be flying over from the US 2-3 times a season to see my blues (I was a sth back in the 70s/80s) and to see my family ? all of which support the move.

I don’t think any of these are decent alternatives:

1. Redevelopment of Goodison Park
2. Tunnel Trumpet
3. Long Lane Industrial Est
4. Edge Lane
5. Joint Stadium

Forget all you have heard and read about DK, i can honestly tell you now, hand on heart, it's good news coming for the No voters early this week ? possibly Monday morning.

The rest of this comment has been deleted for being abusive

Bobby Wolly

I am an ardent opponent of DK but the noises coming out of Goodision, Kilfoyle and Bradley convince me that you are wrong. Name your source!!

Dan says:

"don?t think any of these are decent alternatives:

1. Redevelopment of Goodison Park
2. Tunnel Trumpet
3. Long Lane Industrial Est
4. Edge Lane
5. Joint Stadium "

Care to elaborate? Since for me:

1. Redevelopment is still the most commonly chosen route taken by clubs for good reason. It is achieved in affordable phases instead of all at once. It allows for continuity in terms of transport and heritage/identity, and for the club to measure it actual levels of demand before spending on capacity that isn’t required and therefore does not pay for itself.

2. Tunnel Trumpet is probably in many ways a better location than even the Kings Dock. It is close enough to town to allow for full utilisation of mass public transport infrastructure that can cope with well over 100,000 per hr (as opposed to just 5,000/hr max at Kirkby). With direct services to every district in Merseyside and National trains and coaches a walk away. The site also sits in between the city centre and all its developments and Project jenifer, and could act as a bridging development with these and others planned for Vauxhall too as as occured in several US cities. The scope for enablers is far broader nearer the city centre than at an out of town retail park which is one dimensional and has only been lucrative enough to yield sufficient funds to pay for one stand so far.

3.Agreed, Long Lane may be almost as problematic as Kirkby logistically.

4. Edge Lane is certainly more central and with the major infrastructure changes taking place may be a good location. There is certainly sizeable sites there, with far greater access than Kirkby for the vast majority of Liverpool/Wirral districts.

5. I have reservations about this too but sharing prevents duplication and can potentially release major funding sources with bodies such as the NWDA who are very keen to see this happen and that would not be available otherwise. Enabling possibilities are also endless. You can also say for certain, it would not be a mid-level quality stadium, and would not be placed out in the sticks!!

Bring on the move; if it's a gamble, it's time we took a chance and made a positive move.... speculate to accumulate.

All the luddites can go and set up AFC Evertonia or whatever you want, you can play your home games on Goodison Road and go drinking in all your favourite pubs.

The rest of us will enjoy modern facilities, top class entertainment and the realisation that the bar has been raised for Everton ? no longer constrained by a shithole of a ground in the cold shadow of LFC.

For me, Everton has never been about representing "Liverpool". Everton are Everton.

Bradley is an arse, all these can be developed with new investment!! Ha ha, ha! We have no money to do it ? that is why we are going to Kirkby, I can?t wait to see the new ground and move on! Back to the pool and continue with my holiday!! COYB

If it goes ahead then the "clincher" for the club, the gloss or the icing of the cake will be the inevitable signing of a new long term contract by the Moyesiah ? complete with "we must move" quotes including positive mentioning of the K word ? that and the inevitable burst of new signings that the club needs will end any dissent except from a few KEIOC fanatics. Cynical? Me? Nah!

Alan Willo, if EFC move to Kirkby, I will be thinking of you and the other 10,000 Tescoites watching your team playing a vital Championship match against Grimsby Town, while I?ll be sitting in the ale house watching Man Utd playing QPR in a live Premier League match on Sky.

Bradley?s a joke, always has been... "I?ve looked for alternatives" ? bollocks!!! Anyone can point out a bit of land then say "right then find the money and you can build there".
LCC don?t give a rat's ass about Everton, yet drop trousers for the RS at any opportunity - why should we do what suits them??
Their petty blocking of the Bellefield development in some misguided attempt to stop the money going towards the new stadium just sums him up as yet another petty politician.

What the hell has it got to do with Bradley & LCC what happens in Kirkby? It's a seperate borough. Are they saying that their flagship Liverpool One is not good enough to take competition from Tesco?

I would much prefer to redevelop Goodison but only on a larger footprint which would include better access & car parking but apparently LCC do not like that. Then there is the petty block placed on the re-developement at Bellefield... WHY?? They have NO history of even trying to help Everton and this should rebound on LCC ? just like Bradley suggests Kilfoyle's comments should... Kettle black & all that???

I just hope that Moyes siging a new contract doesn?t depend on Kirkby going ahead!!!

James as much as I dislike politicians and the LCC, they did help us with the Kings Dock fiasco, it was just that Bill couldn?t stump up the £30m for his part. That was the start of the downfall of the relationship with us and the LCC...

Tom
It is vitally important that Premier League clubs create or attract investment in order to tread water, never mind compete with the so called ?big four?.

The following is cut and paste from an Echo piece last year, ?Everton and Liverpool will be heartened by findings that a move to a new stadium increases a club?s turnover by 66% on average in the first season ? even before TV revenues?. It then goes on to say, ?New figures from the Sports Business Group at business adviser Deloitte show that revenue increases were mainly driven by a 51% increase in average attendances in the first season after a move?.

Again the report goes on to say ?the new stadium effect? can drive attendances by 51% at first, unless the momentum is maintained by the club?s on-the-pitch performance these gains can quickly disappear, particularly among recent ?converts? to following the team live. This is of course a worry but we have to believe or hope our on pitch performance levels are maintained or improved. I think this information alone from a reliable source (Deloitte) gives a bit of credence to a new stadium.

Where do you draw your statistics from?

Your reply that, ?Redevelopment is still the most commonly chosen route taken by clubs for good reason?, just doesn?t add up. Out of the 20 Premier League clubs for this season, 8 of them (Arsenal, Bolton, Hull City, Man City, Middlesbrough, Stoke City, Sunderland, Wigan) have new stadia, Liverpool have started building their new stadium and we will soon find out if we are to go ahead with DK. Add to this, Tottenham who are contemplating a brand new build ground, albeit on the existing site, and Portsmouth who are also considering a new ground. You could also throw in Derby County, relegated last year, as a one-time major club who have a new stadium.

Clubs with less money may choose to redevelop, however to exist in the Premier League our club have decided that a new ground is best.

You also state ?Tunnel Trumpet is probably in many ways a better location than even the Kings Dock. It is close enough to town to allow for full utilisation of mass public transport infrastructure that can cope with well over 100,000 per hr (as opposed to just 5,000/hr max at Kirkby)?.

Please could you tell me how you got to these figures, I?m not disputing them by any means but maybe reading them from a source that is not so opposed to the Kirkby move may sway me. Also the figure for Kirkby, is this as it is now or as it would stand should DK go ahead?

Your answer to point number 4 ?There is certainly sizeable sites there, with far greater access than Kirkby for the vast majority of Liverpool/Wirral districts?. How?s that? Edge Lane is one road leading to the M62 & Queens Drive or the City centre, pretty much the same as Switch Island and the East Lancs which already accommodates much of the football traffic. Also, is Edge Lane not already a large retail area? Pretty much what everyone doesn?t like about DK!!

In reply to point No 5, do you really think that a ground share would come off and in a 50% equal divide? As it stands LFC are forking out to the tune of £400m, where do we come up with the other £100m plus to become equal partners? Or do you suggest we become tenants to Liverpool FC?

Finally, please lose the mindset that Kirkby is out in the sticks, it?s not in Liverpool fully, agreed, but it?s far from being out in the sticks!!

If Desperation Kirkby goes ahead, all No voters who are season ticket holders should ask for their season ticket money back as show of not backing the scheme. You can still pay on the day... we just have to do something, guys ? it's all fulite otherwise.

Tom, I should have elaborated really - I just haven?t been convinced by anyone on this site or anywhere else that these are decent alternatives. I?m still gutted about the Kings Dock cock-up and just want us to get into a new stadium now and be done it.

It?s more about me not trusting local councils to be honest. They say one thing and do another. I suspect Liverpool council just want Kirkby to fail so it brings Everton back to the table. Once that happens, it really wouldn?t suprise me if nothing happened for another 2 years after that whilst all our competitors strive ahead with local council support.

That?s my personal opinion, I?m entitled to it - those for and against Kirkby are entitled to theirs also.

Dave,

"It is vitally important that Premier League clubs create or attract investment in order to tread water, never mind compete with the so called ?big four?."

Practically ALL other clubs have attracted investment. Even Portsmouth with a tiny ramshackle stadium, next to no history and a fanbase just a fraction of ours managed to secure investment prior to moving anywhere. Tesco’s own report tells us why EFC haven’t done the same, the current custodians have no desire to dilute their ownership. This by definition is not conducive to attracting investment, in fact it pretty much kills it before the first hurdle.

"The following is cut and paste from an Echo piece last year, ?Everton and Liverpool will be heartened by findings that a move to a new stadium increases a club?s turnover by 66% on average in the first season ? even before TV revenues?. It then goes on to say, ?New figures from the Sports Business Group at business adviser Deloitte show that revenue increases were mainly driven by a 51% increase in average attendances in the first season after a move?."

New stadium effect is well documented, as is its lack of longevity if all things remain equal and progress isn’t maintained. Also, the comparisons need to be measured with an eye on other factors. For instance Sunderland’s new stadium replaced Roker who’s capacity had been restricted dramatically to just 23k by the 90’s. Sunderland had averaged more than double this in their hay-day, so was it any wonder their gates increased so dramatically especially as Reidy was also improving them on the pitch? At the same time they moved closer to their city centre with all its superior transport links. Likewise, Man City were even selling-out Maine Rd in the 3rd tier of English football. It’s capacity too had shrunk to just 33,000, much lower than their potential following, again they moved on top of town, and the fans have responded. Boro played in an absolute shack of a ground, and their move also corresponded to ambitious owners giving them higher quality players than they probably had ever had. The Dell was never a big stadium, but had shrunk in capacity to just 15k, they moved doubling their capacity and yet now they are nowhere to be seen. Ironically all now often play to many empty seats too. Conversely, other clubs who have simply redeveloped in situ have dramatically bolstered attendances too...... Man U now average over 75k, Newcastle over 50k, Chelsea over 40k, Spurs at capacity with 20k on a waiting list, Villa registered their highest average in decades etc. Even we currently get bigger averages than in the mid 80’s for instance...... meaning not all is as straight forward as "new stadium effect rules OK!" Similar increases can be achieved in situ, and without the Southampton type gambles that can accompany relocation!!


"Where do you draw your statistics from? Your reply that, ?Redevelopment is still the most commonly chosen route taken by clubs for good reason?, just doesn?t add up."

Out of 92 league clubs there are less than a couple of dozen new stadia (ie built since 1980’s). Given that a good proportion of these were probably total write-offs, lost causes with no redeemable features, unexpandable capacity nor of any historic quality, which would have also influenced decisions to relocate... this points even further to the overwhelming number who have redeveloped rather than relocate where that has been possible. To add to this on an international level: 10 out of the 12 stadia used in the world cup Germany 06, were redeveloped stadia, with only 2 new builds amongst them.

"Add to this, Tottenham who are contemplating a brand new build ground, albeit on the existing site,"

In otherwords a redevelopment, and not relocation. I have also read that this may even only entail one or possibly 2 new stands, depending on various factors, with the decision due soon. Spurs have generated imagery to show how the East stand can be completely rebuilt in 3 tiers, with I believe an expansion of the west stand opposite to reach 50+k.

"You also state ?Tunnel Trumpet is probably in many ways a better location than even the Kings Dock. It is close enough to town to allow for full utilisation of mass public transport infrastructure that can cope with well over 100,000 per hr (as opposed to just 5,000/hr max at Kirkby)?. Please could you tell me how you got to these figures, I?m not disputing them by any means but maybe reading them from a source that is not so opposed to the Kirkby move may sway me. Also the figure for Kirkby, is this as it is now or as it would stand should DK go ahead?"

The Kirkby figures are the inflated figures used by Tesco’s own transport consultants which were disputed by several at their consultation. The 5k figure includes the prospect of crush-loading the limited number of trains at the Kirkby terminus and is their forecast. The city centre figures relate to numbers of commuters who manage to get in/out of the city centre every rush hr. The capacity is approx double that.

"Your answer to point number 4 ?There is certainly sizeable sites there, with far greater access than Kirkby for the vast majority of Liverpool/Wirral districts?. How?s that? Edge Lane is one road leading to the M62 & Queens Drive or the City centre, pretty much the same as Switch Island and the East Lancs which already accommodates much of the football traffic. Also, is Edge Lane not already a large retail area?"

Edge lane is central, and therefore logistically can be accessed/exited from/in several directions. I’m not saying it is perfect, but there are major improvements taking place there at present that can only combine well with its centrality. At the periphery in Kirkby the vast majority will be going the same way on a very limited number of roads with the east lancs already regularly at or near saturation. Again, the clubs own consultants admit the limitations with this resulting in excessive post match delays.


I don’t suggest anything regarding sharing, it’s not really my thing. However, I do recognise that some influential people like NWDA champion it, and that they talk of major investment and funding that might greet it.

"Finally, please lose the mindset that Kirkby is out in the sticks, it?s not in Liverpool fully, agreed, but it?s far from being out in the sticks!!"

I worked in Kirkby for several years, and was even on the design team for Merseytram and line 1 into Kirkby and know it very well. I also know as well as you that there is nothing beyond Kirkby but countryside and Rugby wilderness and lancashire towns with teams of their own. Kirkby itself is not a massive city on the edge of Liverpool but an overspill housing estate of just 42,000. It currently supplies only a few hundred season ticket holders, compared to say approx 8,000+ (1/3rd of EFC’s sth) on the Wirral (pop.300k), which we are moving further away from whilst forcing many of them to use cars on the same limited roads since there will be greatly reduced trains available for them in comparison to those serving Kirkdale and Sandhills.

Dan,

"They say one thing and do another."

I can only refer you to the promises made in the ballot, and what the reality now is!! Check out the call for the EGM and reasoning behind it, and see if this doesn’t more accurately align with your statement than anything from the council.