ToffeeWeb - Season 2008-09

The Mail Bag

What's the Alternative?

Last week I supported Wyness and the work he did to stabalise our club from a business point of view... and of course got slated for it. Sometimes I wondered if his being portly made him an easy target for ridicule, which is sad really. However I would still ask the question, if he was around during the 'kings Dock' days where would we be playing our football now? Continuity brings success, as we know and I believe he did the best he could. The same goes for BK. I would rather us be in his hands knowing that he has the best interests of the club at heart. I was for the move to Kirby... I didnt like it deep down (moving from Goodison), but I knew it was the only way. The money and time spent on the project over the last couple of years has now been wasted. Hopefully DM is waiting to sign Moutinho before commiting to other purchases so he can gel the right mix of personalities together (fingers crossed).

So to the point of my posting and another subject bound to split opinion. We all know that we applied for permission to build on Stanley Park years ago... and got knocked back. Yes we should stay in our spiritual home if at all possible. I am talking now of course about the possibility of a ground share. If it means that we can stay where we should be by rights ,and its the only way, is it so implausible??

So there is my question. If it is the only way, who would support a ground share... and who would rather us be playing in the lower leagues??
Ped Pearl, Canada Posted 07/08/2008 at 05:20:53

back Return to the Mail Bag

Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer

Norman Merrill
1 Posted 07/08/2008 at 09:10:30

Report abuse

If the Kirkby issue is in doubt, why don't we start pushing for a move to Walton Hall Park, if our City Council really want us to stay, then even though they are riddled with the red side of the city, we should make that our aim. I am sure there will be objections, but its a far bigger park than Stanley Park.

Lee Smith
2 Posted 07/08/2008 at 14:29:45

Report abuse

Ped

1) You?re right in saying that a lot of money has been wasted on this Kirkby idea. But it is the boards fault for arrogantly assuming that with Tesco on side that they could bulldoze through all sorts of planning legislation and opposition

2) Kirkby wasn?t the ?only way?. It was the only option that the board put any proper effort into looking into though. Now we have a chance for other options to be explored

3) Everton have NEVER applied for permission to build a stadium on Stanley Park. EVER. Get in touch with the relevant offices and request to see the applications if you disagree.

Danny Broderick
3 Posted 07/08/2008 at 16:04:00

Report abuse

Ground share is now the only solution - for both clubs. The idiots need their heads knocking together to see the sense in such a move - neither club can afford to do it on their own.1

Eric Myles
4 Posted 07/08/2008 at 16:15:06

Report abuse

’The same goes for BK. I would rather us be in his hands knowing that he has the best interests of the club at heart’

Haven’t you learnt ANYTHING from the BK inspired fiascos like King’s Dock, Fortress Fund and Desperation Kirkby?

Joeynkoo Ludden
5 Posted 07/08/2008 at 21:13:53

Report abuse

Groundshare is the most sensible option. BUT - this would not be a groundshare now. This would be us renting their spare room. The unwanted guest in their home. Unfortunately, the best economical decision is no longer feasible. Groundshare is no longer on the table. Thanks to LCC.