Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In Sign Up
Text:  A  A  A

Fortune Favours the Brave

By Colin Fitz :  13/08/2007 :  Comments (115) :

Introduction by Michael Kenrick

Colin Fitz has put together an incredibly detailed financial analysis that blows a biog hole in the mysterious financing of the Kirkby Project.

Have you been wondering why what we have heard from Wyness sounds like doublespeak? Sir Terry made the same numbers underpinning the "Deal of the Century" sound more plausible in his very well-written Open Letter to Evertonians... but Colin goes a long way further than either of these principal actors in the move.

This is not a brief analysis, so set aside some time to follow through as Colin develops his theme, and ultimately presents the numbers that underline that question some of us have all been wondering about: Is the Kirkby Project simply too good to be true.

Read Colin's analysis, Fortune Favours the Brave.

Then please come back here if you have any comments to make.


Reader 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

1   Posted 13/08/2007 at 08:33:23

Report abuse

It’s scary Colin but a lot of the ’yes’ men will read your excellently researched and constructed article thinking "yeh yeh". Hopefully you’ll have made some of them think hard about this decision. Thank you for that Colin.
2   Posted 13/08/2007 at 08:28:12

Report abuse

I was less than shocked to learn that there is no such thing as free money and that revenue streams from a new development at Kirkby will be hard to establish and attract, relatively, paltry amounts.

What LCC and Bestway - or any other possible partner - have to do is come up with reasonable funding proposals. And while I’m not holding my breath for that to happen quickly, I’ll be voting no because the obvious pertains: don’t take dramatic steps in any area of life, or more importantly football, till all the alternatives have been thoroughly explored. And here is the problem: how to persuade Wyness to do that because very shortly he’ll come in with a vote which I’m pretty confident will give him a very comfortable majority.

Colin’s article is a lucid, informative piece which deserves the most serious consideration. Sadly, it won’t get it and its true value will be as the historical document which showed why the club ended up as a minor force in the Championship or lower. It’s been said often enough that each man kills the thing he loves. A pity then that Mr. Kenwright hasn’t heard it often enough.
3   Posted 13/08/2007 at 08:50:16

Report abuse

Great read mate. Made my No vote make sense.
mark obrien
4   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:19:23

Report abuse

Compounding reading, has opened my eyes to the wages to turnover issue, you just assume as we have constantly reduced our squad size and been notoriously shrewd when it comes to salary negotiations that we would have been in a far healthier position than we are.
It also speaks volumes that you point out that Kenwright is one of the few (if any) chairmen who dont even take a salary from the club. Does he deserve all the flak he gets? Perhaps but what a thankless task !!
Dave Scott
5   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:23:25

Report abuse

Excellent analysis and a real eye opener to the finances.

I recommend all voters to read this article if you haven’t already voted.
Steve Peach
6   Posted 13/08/2007 at 08:48:00

Report abuse

A fantastic article. I’m one of that rare breed of Blues from Surrey/Sussex (all my mates are reds) so I don’t have or deserve a vote, but on the strenghth of one intelligent, well though out, and brilliantly illustrated argument I would vote no. I urge you to do the same. Have you ever thought of sitting on the board, Colin?
Andrew Bulmer
7   Posted 13/08/2007 at 08:51:39

Report abuse

Thank you Colin superb stuff the vast majority of this article confirms my belief that the Kirby deal though not perfect, I want to watch efc champions of england at new goodison in liverpool, is essential. I fear you let your heart overpower your head at the crucial moment in your thinking. How else could you explain the bizarre and simplistic (given what you have written before it)"Mr Wyness has said that the asset value will be £150M; therefore if the land is £50M the stadium is valued at £100M." And then use the £100m as the root of your calculation for the debt. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COST TO BUILD AND FINAL VALUE.

If I had I vote having read these numbers in the absence of practical alternatives I’d be voting yes to Kirkby.

James Smith
8   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:22:19

Report abuse

What a completely ridiculous article. Although the figures on current income and projected income for the coming season are interesting, the bit on Kirkby is a complete red herring.

Wyness has said, SAID, that Barr are giving a 33% discount on the stadium build - £50 million instead of £75 million. If we assume a build cost of roughly £100 million as stated, this leavevs Everton with a shortfall of £50 million to make up with regard to the outfitting of the stadium - achieved via the naming rights, sale of Goodison and additional debt.

Those figures are clear as day to me - they’ve barely fluctuated at all in the various statements given by Wyness to the media. Unfortunately, those who are either easily confused or have an agenda to twist his words and infer duplicity will bang on about Wyness not being able to do maths and "lying" all the time.
9   Posted 13/08/2007 at 08:41:42

Report abuse

Re ’the Kings Dock, Fortune Favours the Brave, 60 million securitization would have meant we could have had the Kings Dock stadium’: What evidence do you have that 60 million was available to us? Also, it could be relevant to note the ownership issues and revenue sharing concerns of the KD stadium vs the Kirkby Project. Very interesting analysis though. Nice one blue(and a big "hats off" for all that research and time spent.) Onward Evertonians!
Anthony Newell
10   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:21:33

Report abuse

Utterly compelling reading Colin. You should have had this ready by way of hard copies for the home game against Wigan. I personally would have stood on Goodison Road and helped to hand them out for you
Alan Humphreys
11   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:00:52

Report abuse

Not being a financial expert or in fact anything close to it, (the Wife runs our house)I have to say that I found the article to be well set out and a very interesting read.

The holes in the ’Vote yes to Kirby’ and all the double talk by Wyness have been well and truly exposed by (what would seem to be) a very well researched piece.

Could it be that Mr Kenwright has a calculator that works fine and that is why he has remained silent....
12   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:12:57

Report abuse

I still haven’t voted and remain in two minds. This is a very comprehensive piece but I still am not sure. Despite the thorough fiscal review you state ’My argument against Kirby is a geographical one’. So, about how much more income would an Everton stadium in Liverpool (with added hotel etc) generate compared to the Kirby project? Would this be a highly significant difference or will the key success driver from a revenue perspective be a successful football team and a stadium that allows Everton to maximise match-day receipts. You could also argue the Kirby stadium would have advantages over other arena in its ability to attract non-football events by the very fact that it is not in the city centre - the last time I went to see U2 at Twickenham the biggest problem was travelling the last 2 miles to and from the stadium - and as you say there are already numerous inner city arenas to choose from. Finally, wherever Everton locate - how likely will they find another partner who will invest the equivalent of £50 million into the project?
Brian Finnigan
13   Posted 13/08/2007 at 08:55:02

Report abuse

The whole Everton community should have been allowed/encouraged to read this piece before voting. Congratulations to Colin Fitz for his analysis and thanks to Toffeeweb for presenting it us. A great pity that this document was not posted out with the ballot papers. As it is, I suspect that some of the yes-vote who have been guilty of their version of premature ejaculation might feel a little uncomfortable after they read this article.
14   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:02:01

Report abuse

WOW...that has to be the most comprehensive and reasoned arguement from the "NO" camp Ive yet seen( in fact the only one).

And it has certainly opened my eyes to a few things..I have to say I am now in the "Undecided camp"
Steve W
15   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:34:50

Report abuse

I have read your article, and whilst i agree with a lot of what has been said i will still be voting yes. El Tel from Tesco publicly stated that "unless the club is offered a concrete proposal to own a £150 million stadium for around £35 million investment by Everton, and delivered by 2010 / 11 then I?m afraid it is not a realistic option" Now my key point here is the £35 Million quoted figure. I trust one of the biggest and brightest UK business brains and a true blue, who is closer than any of us, to all the sets of numbers involved in this project to know what he is talking about. How long is it going to take another deal like this to surface again. I for one, do not want to sit in my seat for the next 10 years while the sun is blocked out from the shadow sprung accross the park from the new Disneyland stadium. Some will also have to wake up and smell the roses and realise that if you were a commercial investor in Liverpool who would you wish to be associated with Us or them, Breaking away from the city boundries may help break this monopoly.
I do not hold with the argument that the new stadium would not be able to attract other revenues, i remember seeing Michael jackson at Aintree, James Blunt at some statley home in Leeds and the British Grand priz in that middle of nowhere place Silverstone, my point being that if the money is right for the artist’s the venue a suitable one then people will travel anywhere.
Everton is in our hearts our history is unrivaled it’s our future that needs to be secured, and for that we need to compete, commercially, on the pitch and with a new stadium. The move is some four miles away not to the end of the earth.
Fred Best
16   Posted 13/08/2007 at 10:05:22

Report abuse

Excellent article, mate! I’ll certainly vote no now
17   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:37:32

Report abuse

After reading this article it’s scared the life out of me ... firstly because although I have alredy voted no , being a pessimist I can see it being a very close run thing and secondly , even though logically LCC should be doing everything to help our club , my confidence in them is zilch , I mean look at the matthew street fiasco , ... hold on tight - were going on a very bumpy ride
18   Posted 13/08/2007 at 10:06:41

Report abuse

Would like to add this moment in time we still have no "viable" alternative to Kirkby...

Or to simplify..The "loop" is currently a large roundabout near the city centre that may/or may not be available @ ????£££££???

In the year ????

With finance and investment provided by..???????????

A point Colin makes in his that above all we cant stay at Goodison, and while we sit on our hands the world moves on..

Great piece though..
Ciaran Duff
19   Posted 13/08/2007 at 10:12:33

Report abuse

While I am very impressed with the financial analysis and data presented, I don’t find anything earth shattering here. Correct me if I’m wrong but what Colin is saying is
a) We need to move from GP or we will slowly bleed to death. I hope everyone understands this already?
b) The move to Kirkby would generate a reasonable profit, if you go with the club’s estimates (maybe a big if for some people)
c) We would do better than Kirkby financially if we stayed in the city area.
Ok, its point C that I have some problem understanding! Unlike Options a & b, there are no figures for option c. Would you care to flesh out that option a bit more? How much would we have to borrow to build this new stadium, infrastructure? Would anyone lend us this money? How much interest would we end up paying etc
20   Posted 13/08/2007 at 10:01:02

Report abuse

Great article - why can’t the Echo, Metro or other interested media take this and show to the mass supporters whilst we still have time to make Wyness listen!
Dan Mckie
21   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:42:29

Report abuse

Interesting read Colin,well done! One question I have to ask though is that you mention that we took out the £30 mil loan but that if we made it £60 mil we would have had the £30 mil that would have secured Kings Dock,but surely that wouldnt be it? Nobody mentions what the Kings Dock would cost Everton AFTER the initial £30 mil and if we knew that then maybe certain fans blood wouldnt boil everytime somebody puts up "we only needed £30 mil!!"
Joe Prince
22   Posted 13/08/2007 at 10:09:53

Report abuse

Very good analysis, but very flawed re Kirkby Project numbers and lack of financial argument in favour of any City based ’viable’ project. Whilst I respect what you’ve done, as CEO of a FTSE 100 company with the requirements for acuracy that that brings, surely Sir Terry Leahy is right...The Kirkby Stadium us the BEST VIABLE OPTION for EVERTON at a cost of just 35 million! Colin Fitz’s keen analysis seem like a right ’Fitz up!’ I’m afraid based on emotion re goegraphical boundaries! Kirkby is only 10 minutes from Goodison FFS! Surely it is clearly right to Vote Yes and allow Everton to compete at the TOP again.
Alan Rodgers
23   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:39:52

Report abuse

Riveting stuff. It proves Kirkby is the wrong place in so many ways.I’m hoping for a clear NO from the ballot and for BK to keep his word.
John Gorman
24   Posted 13/08/2007 at 08:42:13

Report abuse

Excellent article......
I’m astounded with the level of detail.
The article has swayed my vote.
Well done Colin
Steve W
25   Posted 13/08/2007 at 10:26:04

Report abuse

The only thing this proves Alan is that people follow like sheep.Make your own mind up based on your own judgement and feelings not somebody elses.
Barry Kingham
26   Posted 13/08/2007 at 10:24:18

Report abuse

Congratulations on this article, a well constructed and intelligent piece. You’ve caught my main reason for voting no - we have got to move in the right direction and Kirkby is just not good enough for a club of our stature. We have got to be in the heart of this city - this world famous city, with vibrant people and looking towards a great future. Lets not divorce ourselves from this unique place... please.
Colin Tunstall
27   Posted 13/08/2007 at 10:27:28

Report abuse

A good read but nothing more.How Fitz can assume that there is a better deal round the corner is beyond me.All figures are open to interpretation and are spun to achieve the aim of the company.I believe his conclusion-Vote No-is totally illogical as he highlights the need to move.My company has had very favourable dealings with Sir Terry Leahey on property issues and I am happy that the club is ’in bed’with him.Vote Yes on this evidence!
nick blue
28   Posted 13/08/2007 at 10:22:53

Report abuse

I got bored reading this article. You either believe the club or you don’t.

Quite frankly I haven’t seen anything that comes close to even equalling what we are being offered at Kirkby. Do people honestly think that staying at Goodison and waiting for a knight in shining armour to come and rescue us is the best option? If you do then you are wasting your time. It won’t happen because nobody in their right mind would invest in the club in its current state.

Incidentally, is anyone bothered what is happening on the field these days...?
29   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:44:02

Report abuse

Brilliant article Colin,surely the yes voters must see now,that if we have to move its got to be to stay in Liverpool.
One thing he was wrong about,Tesco’s not cheaper than Asda.
Bootle Blue
30   Posted 13/08/2007 at 10:38:28

Report abuse

I asked by cousin, who’s a financer in the city and a qualified accountant to boot, to have a quick look at this.
He came back after an hour, and his conclusions are:
1. Relying on the Stadium alone to generate revenue would be suicidal.
2. The financial analysis adds up.
3. Kirby would make Everton LESS of investment opportunity. Why I asked, because, he said, the city of Liverpool is in itself worthy of investment. An investor would think twice about investing in a club in Kirby which has minimal opportunities for divesification.
4. Future investors would be reluctant to, in effect, be left with a ’white elephant’ stadium.
5. Like house buying, investment in a club is as much about ’location, location, location’ as anything else.

ho hum...
North Sea Blue
31   Posted 13/08/2007 at 10:10:03

Report abuse

Superb article Colin. Congratulations for putting this together and enlightening some of the Yes voters out there. I have, on this site tried to get the point across about future debt and how it is serviced without much success. You have done that superbly and we should all be grateful. lets face it, the Kirkby project just isn’t good enough for Everton. All my family have voted NO for the reason you put forward here, not because of some artificial boundary but because it doesn,t stack up.
Neil Pearse
32   Posted 13/08/2007 at 11:01:51

Report abuse

First of all - Colin thanks for the superb analysis, it is truly enlightening.

But let us be clear about what it shows about the Kirkby option - that it MAY not be as good as other (currently unknown) options in the City of Liverpool. That’s all.

But as with all NO sympathisers, there is still no idea where these options are, how they are going to be funded etc. etc.. So these options are at least as likely to be financially WORSE than Kirkby - especially since Tesco, Barr, Knowsley are providing support in Kirkby, and no-one has yet come forward to offer similar support in Liverpool.

In business, it is no news that all options have risks, uncertainties and downsides. The question is: which is the best option, overall, amongst all known or plausible alternatives?

It’s still Kirkby.
vin bleu
33   Posted 13/08/2007 at 11:01:13

Report abuse

This article takes a long time to tell us what we all know. EFC’s finances are in a perilous position.
Agreed. It also demonstrates that our future (no matter where we end up) is far from secure. So the question is "where do we go from here". Either we get a free £150 million stadium now or we hope someone will come along and offer something better. Colin seems to think someone will. I and many others don’t. So all that effort putting all those figures together comes down to should we go with a deliverable, concrete proposal now or hope that someone, sometime in the future comes up with more money to build a stadium somewhere that has yet to be identified as feasible. Crickey. I’ll take the first option please. Anyday.
North Sea Blue
34   Posted 13/08/2007 at 11:44:07

Report abuse

the point is that we are not being offered an alternative - remember KW has stated there is no plan B..!!The main reason being the exclusivety agreement EFC had with KBC & Tesco.

Vin, did you read the article..? Free stadium worth £150m.! This implies no contribution from EFC and no debt - wrong on both counts.
John Charles
35   Posted 13/08/2007 at 11:43:53

Report abuse

Stadium Cost
EFC Contribution Goodison Sale:
Naming Rights Deal :20,000,000


No because Barr construction are constructing without a normal builders profit margin. Tesco use one builder exclusively for all there construction work, therefore Barr will do the work which other bullders would charge 75m-100m for for 50m. = 50m saving = 15m net deficit as Wyness has stated.
Neil Pearse
36   Posted 13/08/2007 at 11:55:59

Report abuse

North Sea Blue - The point is that no other viable alternative has shown up, in all the years we have been looking. And it still hasn’t.

The reason is not the exclusivity agreement, which (correct me others) I do not believe was as long as 18 months. We have been looking FOR YEARS. And anyone could have publicly come to Everton if they had a good deal. And some of us think that Terry Leahy did a pretty good job in his letter of demolishing the known alternatives.

The point is, as vin bleu said (don’t you guys have names?), that we are in a perilous financial position, and ’hoping that something better might turn up’ (although it hasn’t yet, and we don’t know where it would be or how it would be funded) is not a very responsible position at this point in time.

Actually what Colin shows above all else is: we HAVE to move! Given that rebuilding Goodison is not viable, you can hardly blame BK and KW for supporting the only viable option that has so far appeared, or seems likely to appear. Especially when that option will be delivered by Terry Leahy and one of the UK’s premier companies.
Karl Parsons
37   Posted 13/08/2007 at 11:33:24

Report abuse

I voted YES last week ? from a purely business standpoint.

Having read this article (superb in its construction as it is) my mind has still not changed.

Colin openly admits we need to move - but where his point tangents are towards his ’Vote No’ bias. Had he offered the preverbal Plan-B (in easy to digest figures) this would have added immense weight to his argument. But we still have yet to see anything other than Kirkby Plan-A that makes any sense to me.

YES, I go alone with much of what Colin says about how Kirkby is not as rosy as painted by KW but let’s face it even he suggests the Club will profit from the move, almost immediately!


Commendations Colin; but futile without the balance of Plan-B figures!
Gary Carter
38   Posted 13/08/2007 at 11:51:23

Report abuse

Just another article from somone that doesnt wnat to move, provides lots of factual figures then at the end plucks a figure out of thin air totally contrary to the rest of the piece to put across "proof" that we shouldnt move based on absolute guesswork.

Also the piece states we cant stay at Goodison either yet desnt provide any solid alternative other than a seemingly "theres a knight in shining armour just round the corner" theory ! Its like the oyes out brigade that can never come up with an alternative to replace him !!

Well done for all the work you have put in though, it must have taken some time and shows how blues feel on this very divisive issue
Paul Johnson
39   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:30:30

Report abuse

Apart from the turnover figure for 2003-04 being out by £40m in the first table, this is an excellent article. Perhaps the best we’ll see on the subject.

The reason many of us voted ’no’ to the move to Tesco Town is precisely because this level of detail has been missing from all of KW’s outpourings.

We had our suspicions as to why it was missing, now we know. The numbers just don’t add up. An extra ’up to £10m’ per year for players simply isn’t good enough to justify moving from GP. Especially not to Tesco Town.

The city of Liverpool has been in decline for many, many decades. It’s finally turning the corner, which we all celebrate, and our board want us to move the other way i.e. further out of town.

We deserve better, so does Everton Football Club.

P.S. Asda is cheaper than Tesco. Fact!
Barry Bragg
40   Posted 13/08/2007 at 11:24:19

Report abuse

Your piece raises some valid points (most of which would apply to any new stadium anywhere)although I think you have delibrately misinterpreted some of the Kirkby financial deatils to suit your personal preferences. I think your estimation of £65m deficit is totally wrong as you have not allowed for the £50m payment tesco are making for the land.

Tesco are paying £50m for All of the site and yes EFC are only getting a percentage of the land but Knowsley council are contributing ALL of the money to the stadium construction costs. If Wyness has fudged the figures at all it is by overstating the value of the finished asset as he has included the value of the total land plot there but EFC’s contributions are what he says they will be £35m - £50m

As for the benefits of a city centre site - we are all aware of them and given the choicce that is what e would be getting. Sadly the choice is not available to us but Kirkby is and as you have stated soelquently in your piece it is imperative that we get a new stadium in order to survive.
tony ainscough
41   Posted 13/08/2007 at 12:13:20

Report abuse

A hypothetical question to all the no voters,
if the same deal in kirkby was up for grabs on walton hall park would you still vote no after reading colin fitz article
Rodger Armstrong
42   Posted 13/08/2007 at 12:26:16

Report abuse

A brilliant and fascinating piece which, in my view, shows why many of us find it so hard to trust the present Board.
Compulsory reading whether you have a vote or not. What a shame that the Club could not produce something of equal quality but rather relies on players and Terry Leahy to make their case for them.
Bootle Blue
43   Posted 13/08/2007 at 12:30:48

Report abuse

the location is part of the issue. Liverpool is starting to go through serious regeneration. If we’re out of Liverpool we will miss out on some of the benefits.
The Kirby deal is good, but removes us from one of the unique selling points of the club - Liverpool.
We will NOT be attractive to investors and we will NOT be in a position to generate extra revenue in Kirby.
For Kirby to work, we have to fill a 50,000 stadium. If we don’t, we’re f&&&&d as Kirby has few opportunities to provide alternative revenue streams.
Location, location, location.
Jason Hagarthy
44   Posted 13/08/2007 at 12:33:04

Report abuse

CAPITALS TO SPELL OUT WHAT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS: FITZ’S INITIAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION IN LEAD UP TO THE KIRKBY ANALYSIS IS VERY GOOD, CHAMPIONS LEAGUE QUALITY, BUT THE KIRKBY ANALYSIS IS WORSE THAN NON-LEAGUE! SIR TERRY LEAHY’S ARTICLE AND NUMBERS ADD UP...FITZ’S DON’T AS PER JOHN CHARLES ABOVE. This seems a cynical attempt to gain credibilty in the first parts of the article to then dupe people into believing the erroneous conclusions made re the Kirkby Project. For all their faults and mistakes of the past, BK, KL and TL have got this right. I find it suprising so many sceptics can’t see the truth. Read this and then read Sir Terry’s Open Letter!
45   Posted 13/08/2007 at 12:49:10

Report abuse

What I would like to see is the club respond to this document. To me it appears at quick glance to be severely flawed.
Either Mr. Fitz or Mr Wyness/MrLeahy cant’t do their maths.
Having had a quick look it appears to be Mr Fitz mainly becaused he has failed to read and grasp what we have been told previously about constructon costs and donations by Knowsley.
It appears to me that if you write a long enough document you can argue your case better as nobody has time to read it and the No campaign will just agree with it.
Perhaps an abbreviated summary of his report and a response by everton will allow us to see if Mr. Fitz has any case at all for his claims
Steve Hopkins
46   Posted 13/08/2007 at 09:12:44

Report abuse

A fascinating read (no pun intended).

The last couple of paragraphs detailing the match day experience were so poignant and really painted a scene.

?Come to the Merseyside derby, we?re right next to Tesco so you can do your shopping, it?s cheaper than Asda.? I have had the pleasure (if thats the word) of staying in Westhoughton just down the road from the Reebok and it’s Asda, the place is in the middle of nowhere and has absolutely no atmosphere and unless you’ve got a car no way of getting there.

I’m not eligible to vote but if I was that article would have reaffirmed my belief that its a no-brainer. Vote NO.
47   Posted 13/08/2007 at 12:58:25

Report abuse

Interesting article - good contribution mate. Starts off very objectively, putting the case for moving in good context. Ruins his conclusions by becoming very subjective. I can’t see a viable alternative, and whilst we wait for feasibility study after feasibility study, we fall even further behind. Ultimately, your argument doesn’t stack up.
Gavin Ramejkis
48   Posted 13/08/2007 at 12:35:05

Report abuse

Colin a great article, took me some time to digest but appreciate the time and energy you put into it. Tony Ainscough, isn’t location one of the major problems with the move for a lot of no voters? Your question of Walton Hall Park still valid now?
49   Posted 13/08/2007 at 13:09:29

Report abuse

Very well written piece but one that loses credibility in two main areas. Firstly, if you are going to question the club - or accuse them of being less than honest - then you really need to address your accustions to Wyness et al and give them right to reply - otherwise you just come across as having an agenda. Secondly, I think all Evertonians would like us to move closer to the city centre - but 1. The Grosvenor group would oppose it, 2. We have not been offered a piece of land that meets the sufficient criteria. 3. Even IF (massive if) we had been offered suitable land nearer the city centre that remained unopposed and met the criteria in terms of infrastructure and transport - we wouldn’t be able to afford it. So that leaves us with Kirkby - and a s you say yourself, doing nothing is not an option and neither is redeveloping Goodison. As a side note. Liverpool Council have taken Everton for granted - they have known for ten years we have been seeking a move away from Goodison but done nothing to accomodate us, presumably assuming that Everton would be unable to attract a first class financial partner, a helpful Merseyside borough council and one who could find a plot of land that ticks all the boxes for Everton to pursue a move. Strange, that since Everton have gone out and done all of this, Liverpool Council are now panicking big time and finding plots of land here, there and everywhere. Why couldn’t they have done this at any point in the last ten years - before exclusivity agreements were drawn up?
Brian Waring
50   Posted 13/08/2007 at 12:49:24

Report abuse

The yes vote have been screaming for weeks,for someone to come up with a good enough arguement for us not to go to Kirkby.Well lads here it is.Colin,excellent piece of work mate.My heart-felt thanks for showing me,that my no vote was the right decision.
David Shaw
51   Posted 13/08/2007 at 13:18:13

Report abuse

Interesting article, good background information to our financial shackles.

Although the forecasting element is somewhat vague, the end became fairly subjective and it almost suggests that the true decision that should have been reached when we first won City of Culture 2008 status...

A world class stadium shared by potentially the only 2 clubs in England that could even consider it. Funded in the main by LCC, situated in and even called "Stanley Park"? Who know’s we could have even been playing it in this summer?

Would that have been more contentious that Kirkby?
52   Posted 13/08/2007 at 13:13:50

Report abuse

Excellent and well thought out article indeed Mr Fitz. If i had any doubts about casting my NO vote then this has firmly put that to bed. After asking a few people on Sat about their vote it seems about 60-70% are in favour of the NO vote. It will be intresting what the final outcome will be...
tommy gibbons
53   Posted 13/08/2007 at 13:12:17

Report abuse

Yet another hare brained scare story run by the heart not the head. There ain’t anything wrong with having a heart but everyone must surely see that it is the head that moves you on! People say there will be no investment in Kirkby??? I’m sorry, did I miss something? the biggest single investment in a regeneration area by a private company(Tesco) to which we’ve been asked to be a part of? with the total co-operation of the local council(Knowsley CC) and a long standing area institution (Everton FC).. It goes without saying we’d all like to stay at GP, but it doesn’t go without saying that it has to be in the arbitrary council area of Liverpool..Have people forgotten the opposition to the Kings Dock, the opposition to a move to Speke!!

I chatted with a number of no voters on Saturday but not one of them came up with an alternative, and some even said they voted no even though they knew we couldn’t stay at GP... The worst thing about this saga was that we have been given a vote... but now we have, vote Yes for the best interests of the club..not for yourself..
Gavin Davies
54   Posted 13/08/2007 at 13:59:48

Report abuse

Great article well presented. However, I’m still going to vote yes.Colin, please come up with the same article applied to both our present site and the loop at Scotty Road. Kirkby will still be the better option.Vote yes.
Graeme Morrison
55   Posted 13/08/2007 at 12:17:12

Report abuse

Firstly may I congratulate Colin on his article, his opening gambit was to be completely clear about his passion for Everton F.C., yet he resolutely remained objective. There will always be ?spin? in both sides of an argument and I think that Keith Wyness and Bill Kenwright should be given and take the opportunity to argue the points made, hopefully with firm analysis and support.

What is true, Everton F.C. need to understand what needs to be done to realise a competitive business model that will take share of the ?football? market, with a sustainable plan and viable break-even target. A major caveat being business growth in the long run, I?m not sure this is compatible to a move to Kirby.

The other thing that stands out from all the comments in support, or not, of Colin?s article is the lack of time! My concern is that Everton will potentially conclude on an option that in the long run is a dead end as far as real business growth is concerned. It?s all sounding a bit desperate at the moment.

There are business strategies that can be adopted where apparent minor players in a market can come through to completely dominate, though this always takes time! However, I would still argue that the decision should be postponed while other alternatives are considered. I can see the logic in the long term view of Everton F.C. being at the heart of the city; it just makes sense from a marketing point of view.

I have always found difficulty with Keith Wyness? assertion that there is no alternative plan B; this is crass coming from a business executive, any professional would have a mitigation strategy in place, it smacks of ?having ones eggs all in one basket?!
John Charles
56   Posted 13/08/2007 at 14:32:23

Report abuse

Bootle Blue :"We will NOT be attractive to investors"

Wrong. Very very wrong. Investors want ROI. New Stadium with increased turnover potential with low debt = ROI potential for investor. The club becomes about 10 times more attractive to an Investor in Kirkby.

But this ’investor’ stuff needs to be carefully talked about. If we eneded up with a Joorbachian or Glazer in charge you’d be begging for Kenwright no mater what.

As someone on WSAG seems to put it

"Love Everton, hate football"

I just think you guys hate the modern game and its meaning. I do too, but what we going to do? Slip behind further our basis of principal? We need to be progressive and create new history I think.
Sandy Brown
57   Posted 13/08/2007 at 14:49:19

Report abuse

John Charles

We’ll be creating "new history" alright if we move to Kirkby. The end of a two-club City, the marginalisation of one of the nation’s greatest clubs to an out-of-town shopping development, and the official repositioning of Everton to join the likes of Bolton and Middlesbrough.

We didn’t go to Kings Dock and yet, here we are, qualified for Europe twice in three years. And last season we gave the RS a footballing lesson at The Old Lady. Most clubs would kill for our problems.

We’ve got at least five more years to sort out a solution that will last the next 100 years. We go to Kirkby, and we’ll know our place for the next century - out of town, out of contention.
58   Posted 13/08/2007 at 15:10:33

Report abuse

Well that?s certainly provoked a response; thank you all for taking the time to read what I know is a long article. The more astute of you have indeed noticed that the later part of the Kirkby analysis does indeed appear rushed and somewhat subjective and I do indeed apologise. By way of explanation this file should have been sent last week before the first home game, unfortunately it became corrupted and was hastily reconstructed so I apologise to everyone for the typos and errors. The second reason behind this subjectivity is that it?s based on the information that I?ve been presented with by Mr.Wyness et al. Presumably this is the basis of the variance in some of the replies concerning Barr, for instance, 33% discount, 50% discount, people aren?t really sure, mine was based on the net profit margins presented in a legal report on the stadia construction industry as I felt that the ?Tesco cashing in their clubcard points? explanation seems, in my opinion, to be an immensely vague explanation for such an important subject. Obviously I could spend hours answering your many questions but the way I look at it is the vast majority have already decided and no end of postings will change their minds, clearly it?s going to be a lot closer than the Kings Dock vote, there?s no right or wrong answer, all I?m trying to say is that I think Everton can do better, that may be a better site or that may be a better presentation on how a move to Kirkby will allow Everton to compete off the field when you look at what Arsenal, Manchester Utd, Liverpool and Newcastle Utd have done or are planning to do. One final point I may have given the impression that I?m having a go specifically at Mr Wyness, I?m not, he?s a top notch CEO who?s been given a truly awful job to do, Everton, Tesco and Knowsley have had nine months exclusivity to prepare their handling of this and call me old fashioned but I just expect better. Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons the guy who said that this was just another article from someone who doesn?t want to move is wrong, I clearly state that Goodison can?t deliver what the club needs financially, all I said was my vote is no, I haven?t said I?ve voted yet!!!
John Charles
59   Posted 13/08/2007 at 15:10:40

Report abuse

Thats a matter of opinion, of course most of it is, but the financial stuff is more objective and based on fact rather than the ’loss of roots’ stuff which -maybe come true - but is pure speculation and no one will really know until after it happend.

The financial arguement being put forward in this arguement is inherently flawed by failure to take into account the tesco contribution / Bar construction issue.

The short fall would not even be close to 65m.
60   Posted 13/08/2007 at 15:08:23

Report abuse

Sandy Brown

You say we have ’at least five years’ to sort out a solution.

And in those five years our present ground becomes even more outdated, we fall even further behind financially due to our poor revenue streams in our current ground and, and this is the clincher, there is no guarantee that LCC will have found us a plot of land that ticks the boxes that Kirkby does (they haven’t been exactly forthcoming in the ten years sirs since Kings Dock - up until the last 12 months) and there is no guarantee we will have sufficient funds to pursue a ground move at any point during those five years.

I have up until recently been undecided on the ground move issue but, IMO there really isn’t an alternative - unless you count holding out for Bill Gates to take us over that is.
61   Posted 13/08/2007 at 15:17:17

Report abuse

Hi John,
apologies but I’m just about to leave but here’s my answer, Mr Wyness, since I wrote this, has said that the difference is £50m< this will be reduced by 15M from the sale of Goodison, an assumed 20M for naming rights and the difference will be made up by taking on further long term debt, I’m saying 15M sounds a bit of a stretch and if we get a naming rights deal who in their right mind would pay everything up front?
Andy Steen
62   Posted 13/08/2007 at 15:39:34

Report abuse

Dear All

I have been reading toffeeweb for the past few months and have been amazed at the quality of articles available on the site.

I am unsure over my vote, it would be so easy to say yes given the poor state of GP.

The problem i have is simple

The offer doesnt excite me!

I want a new stadium to have me drooling, i want to get excited over the plans!

I hate second best and this is what is one offer!

Why have we let our great club end up in this state!

DM is working miracles!!

Lets stay at GP - we will have a foreign investor within 3 years for definate!!
I announce this simply because we may be the only PL football club without one!! Even QPR are getting in on the action!!

I say Stay!
Sandy Brown
63   Posted 13/08/2007 at 15:57:43

Report abuse


Fall further behind in what way? We’ve just had an incredibly successful season, and we’ve got a good strong squad, superb manager, and a full-house or near full-house at every home game!

Most clubs would love to fall behind the way we have!

If you want to see a club fall behind, wait til we move to a windswept, out of town, 80 acre Tesco development, leaving the City of Liverpool to the RS. Talk about taking us out on a limb - we’ll wither away in a generation.

We won’t be the first scouse family to be packed off to Kirkby on a promise of better times, dumped, and forgotten about, will we!
Shaun Brennan
64   Posted 13/08/2007 at 16:04:31

Report abuse

Excellent read made. Well written too. Your a credit as a Evertonian.

I’ll be Voting NO too. When my ballot form finally arrives.
65   Posted 13/08/2007 at 16:12:44

Report abuse


Fall further behind the top four - unless of course your target is forever fifth or six.

And that is of course not taking into account that Goodison will not be able to produce adequate additional revenue streams to help pay the inflated transfer fees and better wages to attract better players and keep the likes of Vaughan, Anichebe, Baines, Lescott and Howard satisfied.
Steve B
66   Posted 13/08/2007 at 16:00:26

Report abuse

Colin good effort and you made clear that redevelopment of Goodison is financially unsound, as is doing nothing. Unfortunately, your analysis of the Kirby deal doesn’t add up as others have pointed out. More fundamentally, you state that Everton can do better but as with all this debate cannot identify who our alternative commercial partners would be. That is because no such alternative partner exists, or has existed, so the Tesco deal is the only one on the table. Everyone would love a big stadium in the city boundary but it ain’t going to happen, which leaves us stuck at Goodison going down the pan - as your analysis proves.
Art Greeth
67   Posted 13/08/2007 at 16:37:16

Report abuse

First of all, may I applaud Colin for the obvious effort and care he has put into his research. It never ceases to amaze me the talents and eloquence Evertonians display in their love and passion for the club.

Fascinatingly, I believe his analysis lends support to both sides of the debate and as such merits careful consideration by all. Taking Colin?s figures and comments at face value, he considers that:

? Since both DM and KW came on board, our attendances have increased and income streams have improved.
? Such improvement still has us trailing in the wake of many other PL clubs.
? The match day facilities and experience at GP are impoverished in contrast to other clubs.
? KW is employing prudent business practices given the club?s circumstances.
? The club arranged very good rates for its securitization loan in comparison to other clubs.
? From Colin?s three examples ? Leeds, Newcastle and Everton ? Newcastle?s securitization has possibly been the most effective, Leeds? disastrous and Everton?s maintaining a status quo.
? To remain at GP ?as is? would be the death of the club.
? To remain at GP whilst it is being developed could seriously jeopardize the club?s outstanding loan repayments should EFC have to fund the redevelopment in the absence of any investor, thus once again threatening the club?s long term future.
? Moving to a new stadium IS the ?only truly realistic choice if Everton wish to maintain their standing as a force in English football?.
? Colin himself doubts the sense and value of giving club supporters a vote on such a crucial issue.
? By putting the Kirkby deal together BK and KW HAVE delivered a worthy investor in Tesco.
? KW has made many ?faux pas? in the debate.
? The alleged costs to EFC offered by KW don?t add up and that the club is taking on huge debt in an unfavourable location.
? At the 11th hour LCC is trying to offer city-based sites as alternatives to Kirkby.

Now I wonder, given Colin?s evaluation, whether he had the benefit of looking over Terry Leahy?s comments before going to press? The key points IMO the Tesco CEO offers are these:

? EFC benefits from a £400 million redevelopment of Kirkby.
? EFC will be an integral part of an 80 acre site (compared to GP?s 7 acres) with a rich variety of leisure and shopping options.
? The costs to EFC to build a new stadium alone would be huge. The construction of the stadium itself would be around £110 million.
? Barr Construction has an integrated design, steel manufacture and construction operation which makes huge savings on that figure.
? Tesco as the developer is forgoing the normal development profit on the construction of around £15 million, in addition to the direct contribution it is making.
? The stadium meets the highest standards in the Premier League (and UEFA).
? The stadium will offer IMMEDIATE benefits from day one of completion.
? It will be owned by Everton at a fraction of the cost of a stand alone scheme.
? The club could not presently raise the money to go it alone or redevelop GP to a similar standard.
? The £100 million which would otherwise be used in construction by EFC can now ? if raised ? be used to develop the playing squad.
? Tesco has looked at over 30 possible locations in and around Liverpool.
? The problem within the ?loop? site (10 acres) and GP (7 acres) is that both could (just) accommodate a new ground, but there would be no adjoining land for commercial development to pay for it. The entire cost of the development would fall on the club, a burden they could not bear.
? Tesco owns and considered a neighbouring site to the Loop that they thought could be the location for the club, but it could not be made to work.
? He states the club IS getting a £150 million stadium for its £35 million investment, delivered by 2010-11.
? Kirkby is closer to GP than many of the locations suggested within the City boundaries.
? The £3 billion of investment going into the Kings Dock, the Grosvenor scheme and the office district is an investment for the WHOLE REGION, NOT just Liverpool city.
? The prospect of outside investment in the club is massively increased by the Kirkby proposal. Without it, any prospective investor knows that the first £150 million of investment would have to go into a stadium, with nothing to show on the pitch. With Kirkby, new investment could go straight into the team, with the prospect of a return by way of better results.

Taken together, one could conclude that:

? For all the complaints, EFC is currently being well managed both on and off the pitch.
? For all the recent growth (in attendance and turnover) we are still way behind other clubs.
? We HAVE to leave GP if we seriously wish to compete with the current top clubs.
? BK and KW have delivered a serious investor and stadium solution in Tesco.
? The 11th hour LCC solutions are not truly viable, or will encounter serious planning problems which potentially leaves the club in limbo for unforeseen years.
? Terry Leahy answers many of Colin?s challenges about costs and debts to EFC.

Both sides of the debate have asked for greater detail of the opposing side?s proposal. Between them, KEIOC, LCC and Bestway have offered The Loop or a re-developed GP. What they have presented are very broad brush strokes, but no fine detail. On the other side EFC, until Terry Leahy?s letter, could be accused of the same.

Together with analysis such as offered here by Colin, there is now some excellent data for people to digest. Unfortunately, people on both sides have taken up intransigent positions. They insist on more information, they get it, but they are still unwilling to change their original opinion. That is erroneous, IMO. You cannot continue to argue or defend a position if all pertinent evidence undermines your original premise.

?Fortune favours the brave? is the title to Colin?s piece ? a sentiment I can relate to. And until very recently, it epitomised Everton Football Club ? a forward-looking innovator that dared to be different ? the first to try something different. Let?s be that club again? let?s be bold? let?s revitalise this club? and let us seize the opportunity that Kirkby offers. Now.
robert carney
68   Posted 13/08/2007 at 16:04:10

Report abuse

A huge thank you goes out to Colin for this analysis.

It follows what many people have said albeit in one article.

Lets look at some of the reply’s

Colin has an agenda, so has Bill, Bully and Leahy remember.

No fan on saturday has an alternative, bloody right they don,t, and if they had the cash and land they would be ridiculed by the Everton / Tesco consortium.

Conclusion is subjective, what on earth is Wyness’s conclusion if not subjective.

DGF, Wyness,Leahy and Bill all read this site. Let them respond. We look forward to it.

Regarding Barr’s not collecting their usual profit.
I have NEVER seen a puclic commitment from the company stating this!

Let me go totally with my heart on this one,I watched the Boro game on tv. The place was empty.Many many people have come to the conlcusion our fan base is at threat long term. Is this what Evertonians are prepared to gamble with? Not me, VOTE NO.
Trevor S
69   Posted 13/08/2007 at 16:29:01

Report abuse

An excellent analysis which complements the one by Joe last week.

The key issue on moving ground in today’s corporate world is PURELY about whether it will provide the facility and resources to enable teh club to compete at the highest level again?

The fact that Colin is estimating the club’s contribution underlines the smoke and mirrors presentation of teh club on these fundamental its key customers!

Surely the CEO would have such hugely important numbers at his fingertips?...or are we looking at a quick fix again - let’s move to Kirkby and that sorts that problem out....for now.

The Naming Rights money would have to be discounted as it would be paid annually over 10 or 20 years which would dramatically increase the club’s requirement to take out more debt

Does the club genuinely have the international corporate clientele base to warrant the increased revenues predicted by the CEO?

In short will moving to a poor man’s JJB in Kirkby really generate an additional annual transfer speending power? Colin’s numbers indicate not

You only move house once as a football club every 100 years, so it must be done for the right reasons.

Barry Lightfoot
70   Posted 13/08/2007 at 16:51:18

Report abuse

When this club is fucked in 10 years time because because people believed in some half baked figures I do hope you’ll all be really pleased with yourselves.

How come when Terry Tesco puts it in writing it’s all spin and lies but when someone writes an article who has no real connection with Everton and is just getting a few figures off the internet it’s practically biblical in its profound deepness.

What a bunch of buffoons, here it is again. We’ve got no money, we’ve got no investor, Goodison is a dump, we are losing money. We cannot afford to build anywhere else this is the only offer, that’s why there is no plan B. If we don’t take this now it will be years before we may get a chance again though it probably is Kirkby or bust.
71   Posted 13/08/2007 at 16:49:29

Report abuse

Colin - flawed in several key places although by throwing loads of numbers in you seem to have gone down quite well with the no vote - think Mr Leahy’s open letter covers a lot of the no voters’ financial issues and i’m amazed the tesco gaffer has taken time to try and win over the everton fans so hats off to him (think Bully could take a lesson off him in PR!!!). More importantly wasnt Arteta awesome???
Brian Waring
72   Posted 13/08/2007 at 17:15:29

Report abuse

Barry,Colin has a big connection with Everton,he is a die hard blue.For me that’s a big enough connection.Also,you will probalby find a lot more work has gone into this piece,than just a few figures of the internet.A typical response from a certain majority of pro-Kirkby fans,who won’t listen to anything said against the Kirkby move, because they have made their minds up.I heard the best the other day.If Everton don’t move to Kirkby,within 5yrs,we will be achampionship club.Fucking ridiclious.
Art Greeth
73   Posted 13/08/2007 at 17:44:31

Report abuse

Brian: "I heard the best the other day.If Everton don?t move to Kirkby,within 5yrs,we will be a championship club.Fucking ridiclious".

And I’ve heard EXACTLY the same comment inverted as a reason NOT to go to Kirkby: "If Everton moves to Kirkby, within 5yrs, we will be a championship club"

I think we can agree on this one... BOTH statements are "Fucking ridiculous".

Great piece by Colin wasn’t it? Interestingly, it provides ammunition for both sides of the debate IMO...
74   Posted 13/08/2007 at 17:37:19

Report abuse

This artical says in a far better way what i have been saying and thinking throughout the last month of debate.Moving to kirkby is no more suitable for Everton than moving the Empire theatre or the Mathew Street festival there.The Kirkby move is the economic geography of the early 90’s.Please give us time to think again by voting no Graham (The Paddock )
Gary Clarke
75   Posted 13/08/2007 at 17:41:24

Report abuse

move or stay everton will go on, as long as we carry on supporting
and im not about to stop wether we go to kirkby or not. Are you?
Paul G
76   Posted 13/08/2007 at 17:39:33

Report abuse

We are going round in circles. Forget all this crap. Do you want to move or not. Don’t be influenced by anybody. Use your vote as you see fit. No matter where we go Everton will be supported by us and anyone who says they wont support the club in Kirkby is a bullshitter. Goodison or Kirkby - i’ll go wherever, One thing is for sure, Goodison wont last forever.
ryan crest
77   Posted 13/08/2007 at 18:07:08

Report abuse

I voted yes (and so did my wife, she’s a Lithuanian who’s never been to a game but half of my shares are in her name - she’s a toffee at heart though).

This article only confirms that Kirkby is the correct choice for Everton. If we can’t afford a stadium when we are given £50M towards construction, free land and free infrastructure then we certainly can’t afford to pay for one ourselves within the city of Liverpool.

There really is no plan B.
Sandy Brown
78   Posted 13/08/2007 at 18:32:23

Report abuse

Perhaps when numbers are being flung around, some of you should take the time to google Barr. For example, they’ve just been bought out for £26m. For example, their profits over the past few years have been as low as £450,000, and no more than just over £2m. What makes anyone think the new owners are going to give us a penny of their tiny profits? We’ll pay full market value for this stadium for sure.

And when Barr build it for us, try Googling a few of the recent problems they’ve had. A big chunk just blew of the roof of one of their recent projects in Scotland and the local council are threatening to sue them

They just built a load of schools for another council in Scotland and they came in MONTHS overdue - incurring daily fines for Barr.

One more thing, Leahy is promising jobs for Kirkby - here’s a quote for you: "However, Barr will not open any offices in England. Rush said its 1000-strong staff didn’t mind working on projects across the UK."

So, a stadium built entirely by their Scottish workforce - AND they have someone called Rush working for them!

We’re doomed I tell you!
Steve Stott
79   Posted 13/08/2007 at 18:33:31

Report abuse

Those of you who are thinking of voting no (or in fact have already done so) I hope you’ll be pleased if the vote is no as you will have sealed the death of Everton. Read Terry Leahy’s letter - the man is one of the Top Executives not only in UK but in the World & had a true blue as well. 150 million pound investment what more do we want. Vote no & what have we got - a decaying ground on its last legs no investment no other options (don’t insult my intelligence by saying ’The Loop’ is a viable option). Wake up & smell the fresh air or stay in your locked padded cell & rot.
Sandy Brown
80   Posted 13/08/2007 at 18:52:46

Report abuse

Perhaps those who are throwing figures around should take the time to run Barr through their Google.

Barr was very recently taken over for just £26m, and their profits in recent years have been as low as £450,000 and never more than a couple of million. They’ve made no comment so far on the Kirkby project, have they? What makes anyone think the new owners are going to spend their tiny profits on a big discount for us?

Meanwhile, they are being threatened with legal action by one Scottish council after a huge chunk of roof blew off a brand new stadium constructed by Barr. Another council has just taken delivery of its schools, built by Barr, months after the specified completion date, leading to big daily fines for Barr.

And, despite Leahy promising us "thousands" of jobs in Kirkby - here’s a quote for you: "However, Barr will not open any offices in England. Rush said its 1000-strong staff didn’t mind working on projects across the UK."

So, no jobs for the locals, and to cap it all they have someone called Rush working for them!

We’re doomed I tell you!
Blue In Bolton
81   Posted 13/08/2007 at 18:51:00

Report abuse

Colin, thank you for going into everything in such detail.
It has made a refreshing change from the twaddle oft repeated by some of the No Voters posting on here.
Having said that, it still does not convince me that Kirby is a bad deal.. though it does convince me that we do need to leave Goodison Park a,s,a,p.
as there seems to be no other viable option to Kirby at present within the city Boundarys, its a case of- do we go to Kirby and have a fighting chance,,or stay and,as somebody else has already put it here..slowly bleed to death.

John Charles
82   Posted 13/08/2007 at 19:48:11

Report abuse


yeah for sure the naming rights wouldn’t be paid upfront, but neither would the debt we took up. It would be a servicable payment secured against the ground - maybe even secured against the sponsorship contract . Am I wrong? Its guareneteed income to make a regular payment?

If we would have gotton it upfront the stadium debt of say 20m over 2 years at 8% thats what 1.6m interest per year??

So, include the stadium naming rights off say 2m per year in with taking on that ontop of the shortfall , so say we take on a 40m debt to make it happen, but have a 2m per year naming contract back, the payment is 3.2m and we get 2m naming rights, thats only 1.2m per year for a new stadium, as opposed to building ourself which would be what? 20m downpayment and 9m per year?

and thats a big thing for any investor, they increased revenue potential and it’s only 1.2m per year to service? thats why we become a very attractive bussines over night isnt it?

Tell me if I am wrong like..
Steve B
83   Posted 13/08/2007 at 19:50:14

Report abuse

Sandy, try putting Tesco through Google and see what comes up..but then we know don’t we? Top FTSE retailer, year on year growth in profitability but obviously they have built that profitability by setting up joint ventures with unreliable construction companies, heh? Let’s also try to google the other commercial partners offering Everton an aboutTom, Dick and Harry plc.
Guy McEvoy
84   Posted 13/08/2007 at 19:58:09

Report abuse

Fantastic analysis. Well done and thank you. I had already decided but this just reaffirmed my decision to cast both(!) my votes as ’No’.
tony ainscough
85   Posted 13/08/2007 at 19:46:05

Report abuse

Gavin that is the point i am trying to make if you are voting no just because you dont want to move to kirkby then thats fine just say so, but all this slagging off Kenwright,Wyness and now Sir Terry Leahy while applauding anyone who comes up with any half baked article against the move is just nonsense
Sandy Brown
86   Posted 13/08/2007 at 20:09:48

Report abuse

Stevie B

There are opinions and there are facts. I’m just giving you some facts about Barr. If you think they’re a top firm. That’s up to you. You might want to have a word with Steve Archibald first though:
Andy N
87   Posted 13/08/2007 at 20:19:09

Report abuse

Colin - Great article, thanks for taking the time to put some real facts behind the proposal and finally give us Blues some proper evidence on which to base our vote. The finances are frightening, which indicates why Keith Wyness refuses to share them with us!
robert carney
88   Posted 13/08/2007 at 20:18:43

Report abuse

re.Stan Howard;

Thanks Stan, I get the feeling of blue tendacies below the shit exterior.
89   Posted 13/08/2007 at 20:28:07

Report abuse

Sandy I have read with interest your comments. I suggest everyone reading this has a look at Barrs web page and make their own mind up.
However Sandy I challenge you personally to name one construction company you feel is better equipped than Barr for delivering this project.
I bet whatever company you could come up with I will get similar results on Google compared to Barr.
sandy Brown
90   Posted 13/08/2007 at 20:39:59

Report abuse


That’s easy. There is no building firm in the world who could deliver this project, on time, competently and safely, and make it worth double the construction costs, while taking no profit from it...
karl masters
91   Posted 13/08/2007 at 20:17:21

Report abuse

Have just read this - I am abroad at the moment - but I must congratulate you Colin. At last some analysis that the Club did not want to provide. It just goes to show that Wyness has been talking doublespeak over the last few weeks... Why? Draw your own conclusions, but one thing is clear... Kirkby may be the only option at the moment, but it aint good enough! TRY AGAIN BILL & KEITH!! I will be voting NO.

Mark Osbourne
92   Posted 13/08/2007 at 20:42:34

Report abuse

Colin, your maths were right 'til you got to the end (made me wonder why you were saying No). Sir Terry of Tesco said in his Open Letter that the stadium construction cost is £110M. £75M worth of that comes from Tesco. (Tesco are paying Barr construction only £50M but can get a good deal, a discount for the amount of work they throw their way, a loss leader for Barr to keep a major customer sweet especially when you consider how big the kirby regeneration is (£400M) and all the other investments Tesco make around the world its worth it for Barr.)

You may be right in the sale of Goodison and naming rights but I don?t think the club would be so short as you say. The club may borrow as they said to cover the rest, eg, if a company is contracted to pay £20M for naming rights over 10 years, the club has evidence to a bank to borrow what it needs, like when I showed the bank my job offer letter with my salary so they will lend me money for a mortgage.

You?ve answered one of my questions concering the move. All I need to know is how the surrounding area will look like (eg. a souless retail park like the Reebok or part of a proper town centre) and I?ll be voting yes.

93   Posted 13/08/2007 at 20:43:55

Report abuse

As well written (& intended) as the article is, it follows that well trodden logic most familiarly employed by communists & anti-moderniisation theorists in stripey tank tops - i.e ’undermine what the evil capitalists are forcefeeding the blind (ignorant, uneducated, weak, stupid, etc) majority without offering a sophisticated, highly-detailed workable alternative.

Given that - and the number of people who have lost their lives in the name of such flawed discourse & unfairly raised hopes - I shall vote a big YES.
94   Posted 13/08/2007 at 22:04:21

Report abuse

An interesting article. However, before criticising other people’s maths you need to double check your own. In your first revenue table you have quoted a huge £84.8mln for 2003/04 but in the second this has fallen to £44.2mln.
95   Posted 13/08/2007 at 22:28:34

Report abuse

Sandy can I suggest you read once again Sir Terry’s letter and the various interviews with Wyness and get your facts straight regarding Barr.
Then answer my question
96   Posted 13/08/2007 at 22:31:04

Report abuse

From Web Page:

Barr Construction

Retail & Commercial
The Company has a long standing expertise in the delivery of new-build retail projects, having completed schemes throughout the UK. Barr has provided new retail space for a number of high street retailers including DIY chains B&Q and Homebase, and general retailers such as Argos and Woolworths.

Barr Construction’s Retail & Commercial Unit is responsible for the delivery of all retail developments. The Unit includes a core of managers with extensive experience in both general retail works and numerous Tesco store projects.

Barr has an ongoing partnering agreement with Tesco for new stores and extensions throughout the UK. The Company has completed in excess of 60 projects for the retailer, ranging from renovations to new-build superstores. The Unit has a dedicated Tesco Framework Team, however best bractice in supply chain management, value engineering and partnering has been applied across all our Construction Units.

In addition to the Unit’s retail portfolio, they have undertaken a range of commercial projects including new office facilities and hotels.
97   Posted 13/08/2007 at 22:38:36

Report abuse

Barr Construction
Barr is the leading provider of sports stadia facilities in the United Kingdom.

The experience gained from the completion of more than 50 schemes in the sector provides our clients with confidence and comfort in our ability.

This expertise, gained through working with a wide variety of sports and leisure clients, has allowed us to develop other schemes with these clients.

Projects completed include sports centres, leisure and spa facilities, hospitality suites and bespoke training academies - indeed many of these additional facilities are created along side new stadium development as a provider of additional revenue.

Barr can also assist in developing other avenues of income generation including land release and re-development.

j jones
98   Posted 13/08/2007 at 22:49:37

Report abuse

Sorry - but what a load of rubbish.
Believe me ? I have read the complete article and I guarantee you that it is flawed beyond belief. Please do not be fooled by these people who live in a dream world.
99   Posted 13/08/2007 at 22:22:05

Report abuse

I’m an Investment Banker with Barclays Capital in London and this make a lot of sense - I would like to see K Wyness respond directly to each of the points raised and see if he can provide figures that stack up.
roy coyne
100   Posted 13/08/2007 at 23:12:08

Report abuse

Great article I just wish that the echo was not so biased and printed it and get Bully to reply everyone should read this before they vote
Les Smith
101   Posted 14/08/2007 at 00:09:02

Report abuse

A great article Colin Fitz clear, unambiguous and based on facts and reasonable assumptions through-out something EFC have never provided.

The undecided should give great consideration to this and the many other articles written by ?no voters? and in some cases the ?undecided?. I have yet to find very much submitted on this site from a ?yes? voter that was anything other than an attempt at a ?putdown? to no voters, often attached to a percular pseudonym that might even be hiding the identity of a Liverpool supporter that would be delighted to get us out of the city altogether.

I don?t know where those criticizing the latter part of your article dealing with the move to the new stadium are coming from. Especially in view of the fact that you ended up with a figure of £10,661,150 very close to the £10M Keith Wyness quotes as gross profit.

By the way the ?this or nothing brigade? should take another look at the voting paper ? it doesn?t state or imply that it is Kirkby or nothing as the following extract taken from the document shows

If the answer is ?No?, then no further negotiations on the current proposed scheme will take place. If the answeris ?Yes?, we will continue negotiations with our two project partners.

This means that in the event of a ?no? vote there will be no further negotiations involving Kirkby - not that there will be no futher negotiations involving any other location! (Maybe this is Bill?s get out clause)

Far from taking the fans? views into consideration by providing a vote EFC have done the opposite by loading the choices available, then slagging off the opposition to influence a ?yes? vote through Keith Wyness and Terry Leahy and introducing comments by the playing staff.

As a matter of interest doesn?t Terry Leahy have a conflict of interest here? Should he be making any contribution to the public debate other than to provide facts upon which we, the eligible supporters, can deliberate before making a decision?

Typically EFC have managed to be involved in a cocked-up consultation procedure in that:

1. Some people have received more that one voting paper because they apparently have their name recorded in the system in two different forms ? in full or with initials. In consequence they are considered to be two different people and so received two or more voting forms.

2. Some supporters have not received voting papers though eligible to vote. According to Keith Wyness on 6 August 2007, when he answered question the put by ?How do you reach that 40,000 figure?? he said.

?What we have done is taken season ticket holders who have bought a season ticket over the last three years, we have taken adult Evertonia members and we have also taken shareholders who are not season ticket holders and that combined is up to around 40,000 people which is a very sizeable chunk of Evertonians.?

Tonight 13.08.07, on Radio Merseyside, a supporter rang in to say that he had been informed by the club that though he was eligible to vote, his children ranging in age from 11 to 22, were not eligible to because the five season tickets he had purchased had been paid for on the same credit card and family were entitled to one vote only. i.e. one vote per credit card. I should point out that I purchased season tickets for my self and my grandson aged 17 and Evertonia membership for another grandson aged 23, he is currently in the forces based in Cyprus and manages to see about three games a season, all on the same credit card. We have all received voting papers..

3. There is nothing in the Consultation process to prevent Liverpool Supporters who hold adult Evertonia Membership from voting. I believe red supporters become members in order to qualify for Derby games.

In view of the above not withstanding the involvement of the Electoral Reform Services is the Consultation process valid and therefore reliable?

If you haven?t voted yet vote NO for a holding position pending futher developments. This will give the time for due the consideration denied by EFC before they arranged a consultation of the fans.

Vote NO to Kirkby and no to the gradual demise of our football club.

Vote YES and view the future

Middlesborough FC

Name of new ground: The Riverside

Capacity of the Riverside Ground: 42,000

Attendance on the first day of the 2007-08 season: 25,058

Rated 20th out of 20 in Observer Premier League Special ? Away Fan?s Guide, Sunday 12 August 2007

Away fan?s comment ? The Riverside? ?So bland it hurts? Like paying to spend time in B&Q

lee rogers
102   Posted 14/08/2007 at 00:15:19

Report abuse

very, very good piece colin but i still believe kirby is the best option wheres all the figures for the loop and whos going to pay for it.why can’t we hassle lcc and demand a stadium on stanley park aswell the darkside did with a victorian covenant
John Taylor
103   Posted 14/08/2007 at 02:53:04

Report abuse

Thankx Colin for a well thought out and insightful article. You’ve done yourself and us blues proud. I just wish I’d read it weeks ago>>> I’m sorry to say as a resident of Kirkby with a vote in the ballot, when i recieved my paper I instantly ticked yes. Since then I have spent everyday regretting my decision as I believe I made it from a selfish point of view just hoping for investment in a part of knowsley consistently neglected by the borough council. I have to live with my rash action just hoping that my vote is not enough to sway the 51% that gives the green light. Your article has confirmed my belief and I sincerely hope it falls through enabling the club to see what LCC and Bestway can bring to the table
Bruce Wayne
104   Posted 14/08/2007 at 10:13:42

Report abuse

An interesting read that does research thoroughly a number of the financial aspects of the move.

Unfortunately the piece contains just as many guesses and estimates as those he critisizes from the Kirkby bid.

For instance on the turnover/wages issue you make the assumption that the ratio will stay the same, and regard that as a bad thing, without mentioning that as turnover has risen so to has the spending on wages, which presumably would secure a higher quality squad.

Equally you have made a number of assumptions regarding the profitability of ancillary facilities on any stadium site. I strongly suspect that the high earners in football make very little from hotels and other leisure facilities on site so this really is a red herring when compared with the potential offered by increasing trade overseas (for instance). Much comparison was made with Liverpool in the report and Anfield is equally bereft of such facilities and yet they more than double our commercial income. Go figure huh?

Finally, and this is the big drawback to the article for me, you offer nothing in the way of alternative to Kirkby. Ok, so you believe that we can do better for ourselves. So what? How long have we been talking about a new stadium? Where exactly are all these golden sites? I appreciate that it is not really your station but you decline to offer any alternatives and also decline to mention the risk involved in staying at Goodison for another indeterminate period whilst we search for alternatives. You critisize Wyness (rightly so) for having no plan B but you don’t really seem to have one either.

Anyway, that’s my two penneth worth. I commend you on the effort you’ve put into your critique of the move but you seem to have not taken as much time on analysing the second half of the article as you did the first, which was based far more on facts than the conjecture based second half.
Sandy Brown
105   Posted 14/08/2007 at 13:06:01

Report abuse


Quoting Barr’s own website hardly counts as objective research mate, does it?

They have their own Scottish based workforce, so no local jobs for Kirkby.

A large chunk has just blown off the roof of one of their latest projects.

The delays on their recent school-building scheme were so bad that they were discussed in the Scottish Parliament.

None of that is on their web-site is it?

If you want to know the reality behind a business, don’t read the company’s own website, do your own research.

106   Posted 14/08/2007 at 10:50:00

Report abuse

Les Smith

What a load of propaganda you are spouting! If you have voted No then just leave it be. You claim that nobody has written a yes article that does anything but put down the No arguments. You are probably right, and would also be right if you said the same about articles by people leaning towards No.

Every article is biased, and this one despite its carefull research, jumps to as many conclusions as the rest.
Billy Brad
107   Posted 14/08/2007 at 13:12:39

Report abuse

Great peice Colin,just wish you could have posted earlier in the debate of moving out of the city. Everton can do better, unfortunately people are gullable and wyness spin and propergander has sucked a few people in. What a disgrace having to force the manager and players into asking the fans to move out,always remember cahill and arteta wont be here to see this stadium if and when it arrives, so stay out of the argument and do your talking on the pitch.
108   Posted 14/08/2007 at 14:32:17

Report abuse

Sandy appears that they are recruiting to me. Also I suspect they will recruit mant temp contractors for a project such as Kirkby. However due to employment laws etc I suspect they would not want them to be full time employees tue to redunancy requirement etc. However what do I know?

Careers & Opportunities
Barr Limited is a major UK contracting organisation. Our continuing development strategy means that we have an ongoing need for highly skilled and enthusiastic staff, particularly in the fields of civil engineering, construction management, architecture and quantity surveying.

As a leading player in construction and allied activites, Barr consistently sharpens and re-shapes its services to capitalise on an ever-changing market within the United Kingdom.

If you are interested in a position with Barr, whether a permanent post or a summer/sandwich placement, please contact us.

Contacting us
ronan mcg
109   Posted 14/08/2007 at 15:25:57

Report abuse

It is interesting to see that all of the "no" voters have assumed everything in this article is factually correct, as it suits their cause to do so. If Colin was pro-Kirkby but based his argument on the exact same figures I wonder would the "no" voters would be praising him so much.
It is a very interesting article but it is flawed.
110   Posted 14/08/2007 at 16:24:17

Report abuse

Good point Ronan!

It seems to me that there are too many people reading these articles looking to justify a decision that they have already reached, rather than to inform them so as to make an educated decision.

Jim McIntyre
111   Posted 14/08/2007 at 19:10:05

Report abuse

A well laid out analysis of the club position. I was going to say that there are statistics, damn statistics and lies but I decided not to as anyone with a mind could sit down and produce a similar article with the opposite end conclusion.

What the article shows is that the move to Kirkby IS the only option. I had originally decided to vote no but after reading the many great articles on this site and Sir Terry Leahy’s open letter, I have definitely changed my mind.

My thoughts on the Kirkby Project are now along these lines - LCC don’t want us, won’t help us, no real backer or investors have come forward and there probably won’t be any in the forseeable near future. Kirkby is so near to Goodison I can’t see what all the fuss is about!

Let’s be positive and take this great opportunity to move forward as one undivided club and show the rest of the Premiership, and LCC, what we’re about!

Martin Jones
112   Posted 14/08/2007 at 22:12:28

Report abuse

Are you reading Keith.

Excellent report
113   Posted 14/08/2007 at 23:34:18

Report abuse

i’m seriously torn by both definitive sides of this arguement,from a traditional,progressive and predominantly emotional perspective. And as u may gather i’m quite drunk!!
I’m by no means a cynic but has anybody been on tesco’s website an seen the size of the catchment area they’re missin out on? the nearest store is miles away! apologies for drunkenness-but we did just win at spurs! thanks
Rick Tarleton
114   Posted 15/08/2007 at 10:13:57

Report abuse

A superb article which clearly elucidates the problems Everton face with moving to Kirkby, the "economy with the truth" of Kenwright and Wyness , the reasons why Everton are so much in debt and our prospects for the future.
Howard M
115   Posted 18/08/2007 at 13:29:07

Report abuse

I wish I had read this article before I voted Yes to Kirkby. My reason for voting yes was that I did not want to wait another 10 years for a move while we see teams like Portsmouth sitting pretty in their new Dockland home, laughing at a half filled Goodison Park due to not meeting the safety requirements. If we do not have the backing of the board for the move to the tunnel, how long will this drag on for? I hope LCC get their arse into gear quickly with a firm alternative.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to Column articles, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.

© ToffeeWeb

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.