The Mail Bag
Project Jennifer
Comments (42)
After reading Everton and Tesco blaming everyone but themselves, does anyone know how Project Jennifer, in Great Homer Street just by the tunnel trumpet, is progressing?
Is it true Tesco were involved? The whole area is in need of redevelopment, the nearest superstore is Costco, then Asda in Walton. It ticks all the right boxes for the fans and Tesco.
Colin Malone, Posted 08/08/2008 at 23:13:08
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
David Barks, the problem was with the crap transport links and lies, bullshit and fudging about the actual cost! Oh and then there was the No other option and lies about Failing Safety Certificates. And then there was the lie about Stanley Park and the all round general propaganda about assesments on other sites! The stadium was not the one that was trumpeted by the club when the vote was given!
No Michael you are wrong the problem was with a minority of myopic luddites who couldn’t see further than the end of County Rd. If you are so worried about the cost Michael you will be happy to know that a stadium in Liverpool of similar quality to Kirkby will cost almost 3 times as much with a smaller retail development and no free land plus 2/3 years inflationary costs added on. Lets see which of the anti Kirkby brigade manage to come up with a viable alternative to Kirkby that doesn’t include rotting where we are. Or as I suspect will they all just dissappear into the ether now that they have there opportunity.
So there will be inflationary costs Barry..? Lets get this straight then, we are in the grip of a massive recession yet you predict prices will go up in the next few years.! My money is on costs tumbling as compertition for work increases and borrowing gets tougher. The calling in of this ridiculuos scheme is the best news we have had in years. Mark my word, in years to come we will look back on this as the great escape.
Oh Dear, Billy ... KEIOC have no intention of ?disappearing into the ether? nor will they be sniping from the sidelines at the myopic pro-Kirkby voters. Now that the exclusivity agreement is no longer valid, they will be supporting any viable plan within the city that is put forward by the board and LCC. These alternatives can now be fully assessed as they?re not restricted by Tesco?s hold on them. The plans put forward by Bestway were dismissed out of hand as was the Sainsbury?s WHP offer. Did anybody at Everton even look at Tom Hughes?s work? There are many alternatives, some not even considered yet, they can all be looked at now.
Dave Barks... im a yes voter but come on, given the choice, you’d much prefer scottie road than kirkby wouldnt you?
oh how i wish that we had the money for such a move.
(problem one - no free land in liverpool, council will make us and dveloper pay for it... note the kopites lease stanley park for bull shit minimal sum but we do not get any close offer)
oh how i wish that we had the money for such a move.
(problem one - no free land in liverpool, council will make us and dveloper pay for it... note the kopites lease stanley park for bull shit minimal sum but we do not get any close offer)
How are the club to blame, they haven?t stalled the project. The government have stalled the project, why? Because the anti Kirkby brigade and jealous neighbouring councils have objected.
The so called problems with transport was pure speculation dreamed up by self professed experts who posted on certain sites by quoting figures pulled out of thin air. The project hadn?t got to the stage where all the transport options, or lack of them, were known to the public, only suggestions of what may or may not be possible were mentioned by those involved in the project.
This is the second location (Great Homer St) I have seen suggested in the City which includes a retail area, the other being Edge Lane. I bet there will be a few more bandied about pretty soon, but hey, so long as it?s in the city and costs us 10 times the price that will be OK.
Do people honestly think that we will be treated better than LFC by LCC? In otherwords will LCC give us everything that DK would give us at the same cost, whilst at the same time we manage to bring in the funds to improve on the stadium that we would have at Kirkby, regardless of whether people liked the design or not?
In my opinion if BK does meet with WB next week he should kick him in the bollocks and shove his season ticket up his arse then tell him to go watch the RS in future!!
Lets be realistic, to have something better in Liverpool than what was on offer at Kirkby will mean LCC treating us more favourably than LFC, anyone who believes that will happen don?t bother to reply as I?d only believe you were either very silly, very insane or very Warren Bradley.
The so called problems with transport was pure speculation dreamed up by self professed experts who posted on certain sites by quoting figures pulled out of thin air. The project hadn?t got to the stage where all the transport options, or lack of them, were known to the public, only suggestions of what may or may not be possible were mentioned by those involved in the project.
This is the second location (Great Homer St) I have seen suggested in the City which includes a retail area, the other being Edge Lane. I bet there will be a few more bandied about pretty soon, but hey, so long as it?s in the city and costs us 10 times the price that will be OK.
Do people honestly think that we will be treated better than LFC by LCC? In otherwords will LCC give us everything that DK would give us at the same cost, whilst at the same time we manage to bring in the funds to improve on the stadium that we would have at Kirkby, regardless of whether people liked the design or not?
In my opinion if BK does meet with WB next week he should kick him in the bollocks and shove his season ticket up his arse then tell him to go watch the RS in future!!
Lets be realistic, to have something better in Liverpool than what was on offer at Kirkby will mean LCC treating us more favourably than LFC, anyone who believes that will happen don?t bother to reply as I?d only believe you were either very silly, very insane or very Warren Bradley.
Barry
You’ve got that arse about face mate
Its the club who are morally bound to find a better alternative, if they had investigated all possibilities instead of entering that damned exclusivity agreement then maybe, just maybe, they may have mustered more support
The 15,000 - never the majority of match going Evertonians - who put their trust in the board and voted for DK have had to endure endless claims from the anti-Kirkby blues that they are easily fooled, gullible
I no longer have any axe to grind with the blues who voted yes, I’ll never agree with them, but I’ve grown to respect their determination to do what they see as the right thing.
They have been very badly let down by leaders who insisted on placing all off their eggs into a basket that was always likely to fall apart
There are only loosers here
Time to forget the past and regroup
You’ve got that arse about face mate
Its the club who are morally bound to find a better alternative, if they had investigated all possibilities instead of entering that damned exclusivity agreement then maybe, just maybe, they may have mustered more support
The 15,000 - never the majority of match going Evertonians - who put their trust in the board and voted for DK have had to endure endless claims from the anti-Kirkby blues that they are easily fooled, gullible
I no longer have any axe to grind with the blues who voted yes, I’ll never agree with them, but I’ve grown to respect their determination to do what they see as the right thing.
They have been very badly let down by leaders who insisted on placing all off their eggs into a basket that was always likely to fall apart
There are only loosers here
Time to forget the past and regroup
Arthur you sound just like Councillor Bradley. Full of hyperbole and hot air. Of course you will support any viable option providing it suits your own personal agenda. Any credence your posting had diisappeared when you mentioned WHP or the Loop ....for christs sake .......WAKE UP!!!!
Dave you are right sorry. It is a little early and inhibitions are down. I very rarely get into these discussions as they do tend to degenerate quite quickly. David Barks original point that the Kirkby stadium built in Liverpool would probably have been acceptable to most Blues regardless of cost and quality is nonetheless valid. I personally do not think that we as a club could now afford even that and I am worried about the future.
Before the slanging match goes off on a tangent again ladies and gents - Project Jennifer IS NOT A RETAIL PARK. It is an urban regeneration project to revitalise existing businesses and not crush them provide new health care facilities, and amenities for the local residents, several documents were released some time ago and indeed the links shown on these pages in the mailbag. Tesco at that time intimated that they would be building a store as part of the project which included many thing and not just an out of town retail park. Try this one for size - http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-34473.pdf. The regenerated area continues right down to the loop site, if you have ever been to the area there are significant derelict and open spaces there.
I don?t think i?m the one that needs to wake up, Barry, I?ve just read an article in this morning?s Post stating Everton and LCC can only hold informal talks due to the dreaded exclusivity agreement, and you yourself have just dismissed the Bestway project out of hand without knowing all the facts behind it. Its location, for starters, is a far more credible place for a stadium to generate corporate income; it's within walking distance of the newly regenerated town centre, with all its hotels clubs and pubs, and barely 15 minutes walk from Lime St Station, even less from Moorfields. I obviously can?t say if this site could ultimately prove suitable but it deserves a full investigation, not just tossed away to one side. As I?ve said, there could be many possibilities, and putting all your eggs into one basket is plain stupid, as DK has just proved.
Not perhaps the right thread to ask this but timing significant. The Olympic games opening showed the amazing Bird’s Nest Stadium which at 91,500 seats is truly iconic and cost £250m to build, if only we had that building at that cost with enabling partners.
Still the war rages.But did I not read somewher this week that our club is strapped for cash?So the costs of ANY stadium ANYWHERE are likely to be as difficult to come by as they were for the real ’deal of the century’-King’s Dock!
Everton will have to stick with Tesco to the bitter end as they are the only people likely to cover the club’s contribution -in the short term at least.
Has nobody noticed we’re having to sell players to sign the likes of Alan Smith so City Centre stadiums are merely a pipedream.Get fucking real.willyas!
Everton will have to stick with Tesco to the bitter end as they are the only people likely to cover the club’s contribution -in the short term at least.
Has nobody noticed we’re having to sell players to sign the likes of Alan Smith so City Centre stadiums are merely a pipedream.Get fucking real.willyas!
Tesco have pulled out of Project Jennifer, maybe as a result of the objection to DK by LCC. Who knows, but they aso own most of the land around the area which is putting a block apparently on starting the project.
So much for Tesco being sugardaddies.
So much for Tesco being sugardaddies.
To the can’t-see-the-bleeding-obvious ’BRIGAAAAAAADE’.
BK donqted 220 grand to Labour. Sir Tez was knighted by Labour; Kilfoyle, a Labour MP spent weeks writing letters and lobbying.
And it was STILL called in.
Now ask yourself the following question.
Was this because I was against the move and said so on sites like this, or because the plan was ’flawed’ beyond belief.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d LOVE to claim the credit, but that I’m afraid must go to a staggeringly badly thought out ’plan’, being put in front of a person (or persons) who obviously thought "I can’t agree to THIS, it’s all over the fucking place....LOOK ATHE TRANSPORT...1000 BIKES? FFS!!"
Etc
By the way, as someone not usually invited to join clubs and/or associations, I must say I’m REALLY enjoying being part of a ’brigade’.
BK donqted 220 grand to Labour. Sir Tez was knighted by Labour; Kilfoyle, a Labour MP spent weeks writing letters and lobbying.
And it was STILL called in.
Now ask yourself the following question.
Was this because I was against the move and said so on sites like this, or because the plan was ’flawed’ beyond belief.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d LOVE to claim the credit, but that I’m afraid must go to a staggeringly badly thought out ’plan’, being put in front of a person (or persons) who obviously thought "I can’t agree to THIS, it’s all over the fucking place....LOOK ATHE TRANSPORT...1000 BIKES? FFS!!"
Etc
By the way, as someone not usually invited to join clubs and/or associations, I must say I’m REALLY enjoying being part of a ’brigade’.
EJ, superb post mate! My thoughts exactly!
You see EJ
thats why your not invited to join these clubs, you cant behave yourself
Laughed out loud at your last comment
thats why your not invited to join these clubs, you cant behave yourself
Laughed out loud at your last comment
KEIOC and their cronies just don’t live in the real world (and by the way who the f**k gave you lot the right to speak on behalf of Evertonians) While we all wait for that gobshite Bradley to come up with this super duper, cheap easily developed, world class stadium plan - yeah right - then never mind "the big four" - the likes of Spurs, Villa, Man Shitty and the bar codes can outspend us five to one. Wot the KEIOC whingers have done have ensured we are now neither in Walton nor Kirkby but up sh*t creek without a paddle.
For so long we have been hammered by the Yes voters with the words we are an insignificant minority and that money talks and Kirkby is the best deal etc etc etc..
Suddenly the project gets called in and lo and behold its because the luddites have thrown a spanner in the works.
Well let me disappoint you guys, has anyone actually read WHY the project was called in?
It has NOTHING to do with Everton FC. In terms of the overall project, if you read the reasons its because of the overall size of the retail footprint, its effect on the town itself and on adjacent local authorities and their retail businesses and the fact it contravines local govenrment guidelines for planning permission.
So, truth is, although I have said it before it was called in, the impact of the No voters was critical in exposing how badly the club is run but the final decision was never in our hands, It was politics, economics that called it in despite the antics of Peter Kilfoyle etc .
Its encouraging to see that discussions are to take place on options in the next week with the LCC (BTW is the RS leasing Stanely Park from the council? if so could that be a similar option for a deal to be struck on land in the city?
Suddenly the project gets called in and lo and behold its because the luddites have thrown a spanner in the works.
Well let me disappoint you guys, has anyone actually read WHY the project was called in?
It has NOTHING to do with Everton FC. In terms of the overall project, if you read the reasons its because of the overall size of the retail footprint, its effect on the town itself and on adjacent local authorities and their retail businesses and the fact it contravines local govenrment guidelines for planning permission.
So, truth is, although I have said it before it was called in, the impact of the No voters was critical in exposing how badly the club is run but the final decision was never in our hands, It was politics, economics that called it in despite the antics of Peter Kilfoyle etc .
Its encouraging to see that discussions are to take place on options in the next week with the LCC (BTW is the RS leasing Stanely Park from the council? if so could that be a similar option for a deal to be struck on land in the city?
In case any of you hadn’t seen the report in the Echo regarding the stated reasons for the call in I have copied the article below which draws from the letter the secretary of State sent to KBC.
The issue fundementally arises from the fact that the overall retail project is too big for Kirkby adn will impact unfairly on the residents and the bordering councils.
"The letter states that ?in general . . . this step [is only taken] if planning issues of more than local importance are involved.
?Having regard to this policy, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the application is one that she ought to decide herself because she considers that the proposals may conflict with national policies on important matters, could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality, and give rise to substantial regional controversy.?
The public inquiry will cover the following matters:
Whether the proposed development accords with the development plan for the area;
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies in Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres, particularly with regard to:
Whether there is a qualitative and quantitative need for a retail development;
If the scale of the proposed development has been demonstrated as appropriate;
Whether there are any more central sites capable of accommodating the proposed development;
The impact of the proposed development on the vitality and viability of nearby centres;
Whether the application is in accordance with the retail hierarchy of the sub-region;
Whether the development should be promoted through the development plan process, rather than through a planning application;
The accessibility of the site by all means of transport and the promotion of linked shopping trips between the development to the south of Cherryfield Drive and the existing town centre;
Whether the application would deliver a sustainable form of development;
Whether the application promotes sustainable transport choices and reduces the need to travel by private transport as identified;
Whether it has fully considered the requirements of PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, with particular regard to the loss of open space and playing fields.
davidbartlett
As much as I am sure many would like to take the credit the truth is its all about the money
The issue fundementally arises from the fact that the overall retail project is too big for Kirkby adn will impact unfairly on the residents and the bordering councils.
"The letter states that ?in general . . . this step [is only taken] if planning issues of more than local importance are involved.
?Having regard to this policy, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the application is one that she ought to decide herself because she considers that the proposals may conflict with national policies on important matters, could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality, and give rise to substantial regional controversy.?
The public inquiry will cover the following matters:
Whether the proposed development accords with the development plan for the area;
The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies in Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres, particularly with regard to:
Whether there is a qualitative and quantitative need for a retail development;
If the scale of the proposed development has been demonstrated as appropriate;
Whether there are any more central sites capable of accommodating the proposed development;
The impact of the proposed development on the vitality and viability of nearby centres;
Whether the application is in accordance with the retail hierarchy of the sub-region;
Whether the development should be promoted through the development plan process, rather than through a planning application;
The accessibility of the site by all means of transport and the promotion of linked shopping trips between the development to the south of Cherryfield Drive and the existing town centre;
Whether the application would deliver a sustainable form of development;
Whether the application promotes sustainable transport choices and reduces the need to travel by private transport as identified;
Whether it has fully considered the requirements of PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, with particular regard to the loss of open space and playing fields.
davidbartlett
As much as I am sure many would like to take the credit the truth is its all about the money
C’mon now DK people, I know it’s a pipedream but just imagine....
stood in Smiths in Lime Street in 2013 and an away fan asks the way to the Linda McCartney Stadium
You say ’Oh, New Goodison.. just go down these steps, turn right and it’s straight ahead of you, you can see the floodlights as you walk down Lime Street’
Wouldn’t that be great..if only
stood in Smiths in Lime Street in 2013 and an away fan asks the way to the Linda McCartney Stadium
You say ’Oh, New Goodison.. just go down these steps, turn right and it’s straight ahead of you, you can see the floodlights as you walk down Lime Street’
Wouldn’t that be great..if only
I despair of people like you, Steve. What does it take for people like you to wake up to the fact that DK was so totally flawed from the outset to be deliverable. More eloquent people than you and I have put the case aganst DK and the people that matter ie.the GONW after intense deliberation covering every angle decided that there will be a public inquiry. I don't think anybody at KEIOC would have any influence to anybody at GONW.
So, instead of blaming dedicated Everton fans for the collapse of DK, I suggest you blame Barrymore's mate BK. Regarding your other point about Spurs, Villa, City, and Newcastle outspending us, I couldn?t agree more. But at every one of these clubs the previous owners realised they couldn?t take them any further, and sold out to people with more clout. I suggest Luvvie Bill does the same.
Christine, as a prominent Yes voter on here, let me just say that I fully agree with you that the call in at DK had little if anything to do with KEIOC - never mind with posters on Toffeeweb! This was about local councils not wanting local competition for their retailers.
Given that of course, I have to wonder about all those No voters on Toffeeweb arguing that Kirkby was a disconnected small town a long way away from Liverpool - did they ’lie’ about that one perhaps? Seems like LCC and the Government don’t agree with you there anyway.
Of course any new site in Liverpool is going to cost far more than Kirkby and - unless a sugar daddy shows up - will be completely unaffordable by the club. So dream on you Loopites!
And Gavin, you must have been taking lessons from George Orwell. Project Jennifer is an "urban regeneration project" (good good good) and DK was a "retail park" (bad bad bad). Perhaps you can tell us in advance what Walton Hall Park would be with Sainsbury, so we will know whether it is on the side of good or evil?
Given that of course, I have to wonder about all those No voters on Toffeeweb arguing that Kirkby was a disconnected small town a long way away from Liverpool - did they ’lie’ about that one perhaps? Seems like LCC and the Government don’t agree with you there anyway.
Of course any new site in Liverpool is going to cost far more than Kirkby and - unless a sugar daddy shows up - will be completely unaffordable by the club. So dream on you Loopites!
And Gavin, you must have been taking lessons from George Orwell. Project Jennifer is an "urban regeneration project" (good good good) and DK was a "retail park" (bad bad bad). Perhaps you can tell us in advance what Walton Hall Park would be with Sainsbury, so we will know whether it is on the side of good or evil?
Neil,
Bottom line is..... even a great stadium would fail in Kirkby....... as it would in Speke, Halewood, Huyton, crosby...... etc. Because we can’t all get there easily enough, and that in our increasingly convenience-led society is an essential factor. If we can’t get there people wont fill it in the numbers required to make a profit, and we’re back to square one but without the historical foundations and heritage out of sight, out of mind and out of the city. This isn’t even a great inspiring stadium despite super wealthy Tesco’s involvement. This is bargain basement, and literally could not be any cheaper in design for the capacity. Kirkby is like throwing the baby out with the bath water...... all for the benefit of the cost of ONE new stand in a less accessible site than our current one! Luddites are those that oppose technological progress, there is no progress at Kirkby, just 1960’s stadium planning long since discredited and reversed elsewhere!
Bottom line is..... even a great stadium would fail in Kirkby....... as it would in Speke, Halewood, Huyton, crosby...... etc. Because we can’t all get there easily enough, and that in our increasingly convenience-led society is an essential factor. If we can’t get there people wont fill it in the numbers required to make a profit, and we’re back to square one but without the historical foundations and heritage out of sight, out of mind and out of the city. This isn’t even a great inspiring stadium despite super wealthy Tesco’s involvement. This is bargain basement, and literally could not be any cheaper in design for the capacity. Kirkby is like throwing the baby out with the bath water...... all for the benefit of the cost of ONE new stand in a less accessible site than our current one! Luddites are those that oppose technological progress, there is no progress at Kirkby, just 1960’s stadium planning long since discredited and reversed elsewhere!
Have any of you "pro Kirkby" supporters looked at the other side of the coin.
There is such a thing as cost/benefit ratio and instead of moaning about the costs look at the returns.
There arent many who could argue that income in a prominent site in Liverpool is going to be significantly more than Kirkby.
For a start there’s up to 10000 "No" voters who wouldnt go to Kirkby (exaggerated to make a point before you all start).
There is by nature much more available commercial development support(contrary to popular belief other companies than Tesco do exist).
My main objection to Kirkby was that I could not see any additional income over and above the interest bill and that is with anticipated extra gate revenue therefore a high risk venture.
Our biggest problem is income and therefore we should look at sites that maximise income opportunities rather than those that are CHEAP.
There is such a thing as cost/benefit ratio and instead of moaning about the costs look at the returns.
There arent many who could argue that income in a prominent site in Liverpool is going to be significantly more than Kirkby.
For a start there’s up to 10000 "No" voters who wouldnt go to Kirkby (exaggerated to make a point before you all start).
There is by nature much more available commercial development support(contrary to popular belief other companies than Tesco do exist).
My main objection to Kirkby was that I could not see any additional income over and above the interest bill and that is with anticipated extra gate revenue therefore a high risk venture.
Our biggest problem is income and therefore we should look at sites that maximise income opportunities rather than those that are CHEAP.
Does anybody know if we could relocate our ground to this site?
EJ
My reference to the anti Kirkby brigade is generalizing the groups that do have an opposed impact on the scheme, such as Kirkby 1st and KRAG.
Whilst I have a lot of admiration for KEIOC & some of the No voters on here, who do make a lot of valid points, I have never believed that they would make a significant impact on the outcome of DK.
A few points I would like to make which I believe are facts and as you will tell some are just copied and pasted from various reports.
1) It was the government which decided to ?call in? the scheme, the very same Labour government of which you say BK ?donated 220 grand? to.
2) According to that same government ?less than 0.01% of all planning cases are called in?. Are we really that unlucky??
3) That same government state ?A case is considered to have more than local significance if it triggers one or more of the call-in criteria such as conflict with national policy, or if it causes national or regional controversy.?
As DK was supposed to have passed planning with a 20 ? 1 majority one would assume that the project itself was deemed sound by those authorities. Therefore one can only assume that the latter of those criteria is one of the reasons for the ?call in?.
4) Another quote from a government official ?the scheme could have ?significant effects? beyond its immediate locality and give rise to substantial regional controversy?. I read this as neighbouring councils objecting and those councils have openly admitted to their objections.
Whilst it may be unfair to lay blame on any ?brigade? or organization I think it quite reasonable to assess from all this that the scheme has been called in due to those ?official? objections and not because the scheme ?was flawed beyond belief?.
One thing to consider is that although the scheme is in danger of collapse due to the call in, it may still be better financialy waiting on the enquiry results and make any changes recommended by the enquiry, than to have to pay for land and building costs on anything offered by LCC.
My reference to the anti Kirkby brigade is generalizing the groups that do have an opposed impact on the scheme, such as Kirkby 1st and KRAG.
Whilst I have a lot of admiration for KEIOC & some of the No voters on here, who do make a lot of valid points, I have never believed that they would make a significant impact on the outcome of DK.
A few points I would like to make which I believe are facts and as you will tell some are just copied and pasted from various reports.
1) It was the government which decided to ?call in? the scheme, the very same Labour government of which you say BK ?donated 220 grand? to.
2) According to that same government ?less than 0.01% of all planning cases are called in?. Are we really that unlucky??
3) That same government state ?A case is considered to have more than local significance if it triggers one or more of the call-in criteria such as conflict with national policy, or if it causes national or regional controversy.?
As DK was supposed to have passed planning with a 20 ? 1 majority one would assume that the project itself was deemed sound by those authorities. Therefore one can only assume that the latter of those criteria is one of the reasons for the ?call in?.
4) Another quote from a government official ?the scheme could have ?significant effects? beyond its immediate locality and give rise to substantial regional controversy?. I read this as neighbouring councils objecting and those councils have openly admitted to their objections.
Whilst it may be unfair to lay blame on any ?brigade? or organization I think it quite reasonable to assess from all this that the scheme has been called in due to those ?official? objections and not because the scheme ?was flawed beyond belief?.
One thing to consider is that although the scheme is in danger of collapse due to the call in, it may still be better financialy waiting on the enquiry results and make any changes recommended by the enquiry, than to have to pay for land and building costs on anything offered by LCC.
Neil,
You seem to believe Tesco are the only company that would be in the slightest bit interested, why would you just assume that?
For all we know there could be a very long queue of companies wanting an opportunity to be involved in a city center based stadium, you guys, however have voted to prohibit them from throwing their hats into the ring.
BK- with your backing - has thrown a party, but he didnt send any invites out, he?s turned out the lights, drawn the curtains and bolted the doors,
Now your all complaining no ones showed up!!!
I now truely believe there can be no unity amongst Evertonians until this laughable exclusivity deal is shredded.
You seem to believe Tesco are the only company that would be in the slightest bit interested, why would you just assume that?
For all we know there could be a very long queue of companies wanting an opportunity to be involved in a city center based stadium, you guys, however have voted to prohibit them from throwing their hats into the ring.
BK- with your backing - has thrown a party, but he didnt send any invites out, he?s turned out the lights, drawn the curtains and bolted the doors,
Now your all complaining no ones showed up!!!
I now truely believe there can be no unity amongst Evertonians until this laughable exclusivity deal is shredded.
Steve, nearly right, Jennifer is in enormous trouble but it?s not due to threats to LCC, try St Modwen?s. You?d expect an interested observer to take advantage of this debacle, offering a land swap deal in that area maybe?
Efc never ever listened to the problems that KEIOC and others raised. And i blame the Liverpool echo, radio city/ merseyside for not giving a fair transparent debate for and against, from day one. All we got was pro Wyness/ Kenwright on the front pages, yet anti DK may have got a paragraph on page 14 of the echo. I take my 14 year old daughter to the match by train because i know its safe. That would not be the case if DK went through, two sets of supporters using the same train line, recipe for murder. But did Wyness give this a thought? did he shite.
Jay Harris, just to say that I think your post here is exactly the right challenge that should be made to Kirkby - that it cannot generate sufficient revenue compared to a city centre site.
Arguing that DK is not indeed (close to the ’deal of the century’ on the cost side is hopeless, because so obviously wrong. So now we can have a sensible debate.
On the revenue side I would believe that you are almost certainly correct. For example, if we built a 50,000 stadium with corporate facilities on, let’s say, Stanley Park, of course it would generate greater revenue than Kirkby.
So now unfortunately we arrive at the real issue. What can we afford? If any city centre site requires us to borrow more than £100M then almost certainly, in our present financial situation, we cannot afford to do so (no one will lend us the money). Kirkby was (perhaps uniquely) what we can afford, what would generate additional revenue, and what would attract new investment.
We wait to see whether any other option can pull all this off. I of course doubt that any other such options which meet all these criteria exist. I hope I am wrong. We will now see.
Arguing that DK is not indeed (close to the ’deal of the century’ on the cost side is hopeless, because so obviously wrong. So now we can have a sensible debate.
On the revenue side I would believe that you are almost certainly correct. For example, if we built a 50,000 stadium with corporate facilities on, let’s say, Stanley Park, of course it would generate greater revenue than Kirkby.
So now unfortunately we arrive at the real issue. What can we afford? If any city centre site requires us to borrow more than £100M then almost certainly, in our present financial situation, we cannot afford to do so (no one will lend us the money). Kirkby was (perhaps uniquely) what we can afford, what would generate additional revenue, and what would attract new investment.
We wait to see whether any other option can pull all this off. I of course doubt that any other such options which meet all these criteria exist. I hope I am wrong. We will now see.
By the way, just to finally nail a particular falsehood on this site about DK being called in because it was "flawed beyond belief". Exactly the opposite it is true. It represented a real danger to the retailers of surrounding boroughs because it was likely to be very successful. That is why neighbouring boroughs objected so strongly to it and forced the call in.
Neil,
That?s why we have planning rules, so any opportunist can?t come along and jeopardise all that is already in place or planned. The fact that EVERY surrounding authority objected says that this scheme is fundamentally flawed. What next .....Walmart to develop Huyton into something the size of the Trafford centre, and Sainsbury?s the same for Halewood/Netherley simply because they can?
That?s why we have planning rules, so any opportunist can?t come along and jeopardise all that is already in place or planned. The fact that EVERY surrounding authority objected says that this scheme is fundamentally flawed. What next .....Walmart to develop Huyton into something the size of the Trafford centre, and Sainsbury?s the same for Halewood/Netherley simply because they can?
Out of town retail has a lot to answer for, hence the whole U-turn in recent years. Liverpool has over 100,000 jobs concentrated around the city centre. The mix of commercial/cultural/retail/residential is a fine balance and mutually supportive. £Billions are being spent to boost the real engine room of our city-region?s economy. Why would anyone want to threaten it by removing half of its northern catchment? Each of the surrounding authorities have their own fully compliant developments to protect. They played by the rules, so should that misnomer Knowsley!!
Nonsense Tom! Kirkby was just going to be a highly competitive development to other businesses in the same locality (Kirkby = same locality as Liverpool). How on earth does that make it "fundamentally flawed"?
By your logic, if Everton refused to play Man Utd because they were too good for us, that would make Man U "fundamentally flawed". You have got it completely upside down this time Tom.
Of course it might or not be good economic or social policy for the area of greater Liverpool (which obviously we can now all agree includes Kirkby) to have a major new retail development in Kirkby. But that does not IN ANY WAY support your insinuation that there is something wrong with Kirkby as a good site for Tesco or a good site for Everton FC. Indeed, since LCC is so worried about it, the argument rather obviously goes the other way.
By your logic, if Everton refused to play Man Utd because they were too good for us, that would make Man U "fundamentally flawed". You have got it completely upside down this time Tom.
Of course it might or not be good economic or social policy for the area of greater Liverpool (which obviously we can now all agree includes Kirkby) to have a major new retail development in Kirkby. But that does not IN ANY WAY support your insinuation that there is something wrong with Kirkby as a good site for Tesco or a good site for Everton FC. Indeed, since LCC is so worried about it, the argument rather obviously goes the other way.
Thats alright then..... just keep building shops!
Well, Tom, if we are going to get social and political about this rather than just think about Everton - I’d be pretty pissed off I was living in Kirkby and just probably lost the chance of major urban regeneration for my very poor community. Especially so that Liverpool city centre shopkeepers could continue to rake in the profits.
I hope Asda take on Project Jennifer then, WALMART piss all over Tesco, biggest of them all by a long long shot. Neil the regeneration of Kirkby could and indeed should still occur should Tesco actually not pretend to be the great benefactors they have sold themselves to KMBC and residents as by merely scaling down the plans. The fact they now own great swathes of the town including chunks sold to them by KMBC for buttons should allow them to continue just on a scale befitting the location which would only need a smaller leisure element such as a bowling alley or Sports Centre or multiplex cinema. Kirkby residents should be asking how it’s taken the council forty years to get significant investment there.
Neil, I’ve not claimed to be a fan of WHP as my posting didn’t even mention it, last I heard from someone who actually works for Sainsburys is that boat sailed a long long time ago. Throwing arguments in for arguments sake is petty Neil especially when I was responding to a question on Project Jennifer and interpreted as "Orwellian" to give a description of what Project Jennifer is all about. If you can explain to us all for interest what the difference between DK which is a retail park and Jennifer which includes residential accommodation and health facilities and actual communal grounds and landscaping make that Orwellian we’d all love to know.
Gavin, I just thought that your description of Jennifer versus Kirkby was a bit of a cheap shot. My reply no doubt was too. Apologies for that.
To be honest, my major interest in writing on here is what is best for Everton. I don’t care whether we get a new stadium amd a better future on a retail park, as part of an urban regeneration scheme, or as part of a plan to send astronauts to Mars. I just want us to have a better future with more money to buy better players.
To be honest, my major interest in writing on here is what is best for Everton. I don’t care whether we get a new stadium amd a better future on a retail park, as part of an urban regeneration scheme, or as part of a plan to send astronauts to Mars. I just want us to have a better future with more money to buy better players.
As usual, this thread has totally gone off-topic. The question was what’s happenning to Project Jennifer?
a) It appears Tesco and St Modwen?s have fallen out.
b) The project should have commenced in 2005.
c) The project site abutts the Loop site.
d) 12 months ago Bestway stated that for a contribution of approximately £60 million EFC could build a 50,000 seater stadium on the Loop site.
Who knows what’s happening to Project Jennifer?
a) It appears Tesco and St Modwen?s have fallen out.
b) The project should have commenced in 2005.
c) The project site abutts the Loop site.
d) 12 months ago Bestway stated that for a contribution of approximately £60 million EFC could build a 50,000 seater stadium on the Loop site.
Who knows what’s happening to Project Jennifer?
Neil,
I can assure you I have sufficient civic pride to want what is best for the city of Liverpool and its citizens, including the thousands of Knowsley residents who work in Liverpool city-centre (and these will greatly outnumber anything projected for DK). That cannot equate to unbalancing the whole city’s retail capacity by building something that is more than 5 times the size (the previous scheme more than 8 times) recommended by all regional and local planning guidelines for Kirkby, which does not even register on the local retail heirachy for obvious reasons. Just as you cannot just drop a football stadium anywhere and think it will work, you cannot build shops anywhere and open a box of new customers to shop there. This would be like the city-region shooting itself in the foot, at a time when the city-centre is building to compete as a shopping destination with other cities such as Manchester and Chester...... not with itself!!
I can assure you I have sufficient civic pride to want what is best for the city of Liverpool and its citizens, including the thousands of Knowsley residents who work in Liverpool city-centre (and these will greatly outnumber anything projected for DK). That cannot equate to unbalancing the whole city’s retail capacity by building something that is more than 5 times the size (the previous scheme more than 8 times) recommended by all regional and local planning guidelines for Kirkby, which does not even register on the local retail heirachy for obvious reasons. Just as you cannot just drop a football stadium anywhere and think it will work, you cannot build shops anywhere and open a box of new customers to shop there. This would be like the city-region shooting itself in the foot, at a time when the city-centre is building to compete as a shopping destination with other cities such as Manchester and Chester...... not with itself!!
© ToffeeWeb
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
1 Posted 09/08/2008 at 02:57:51
Report abuse