"1 - Setting aside additional land acquisition, phasing complexity, the likely difficulty in obtaining planning approval and the overall financial non-viability, the report does not demonstrate in the first instance that a larger capacity stadium can be built on the site."
The plans, which are only briefly summarised in the write-up, are a scale representation drawn over full site plans. Therefore, they literally do demonstrate what is physically possible on this site given the conservative land-take proposed. The scheme illustrated in the write-up is just one of several linked possibilities to redevelop the site. The phasing complexity of which is nothing extraordinary for any of these related options, as is the proposed land acquisition which for one of the options mentioned in the write-up is non-existent.
"2 - The holistic redevelopment proposal impacts heavily on the surrounding residential area. The oversailing of site boundaries on Goodison Road and Bullens Road, and loss of amenity and adverse effect on daylight and sunlight to adjoining residential properties are raised as potential problems (which they are), but not addressed as part of the solution, whilst the loss of the junior school on Bullens Road is simply ignored altogether."
The School infringement is shown and is minimal. Certainly not to the extent of requiring its ?loss.? I believe there has been some speculation regarding the school's future, and there is also the potential to incorporate some elements of a new school building within a redeveloped Bullens Road side if the school is not to be relocated. This will further connect the club to the local community. The light infringement is also mentioned and resultant shading calculated. This results in the property acquisition mentioned. Following a planning consultation, a further amendment to the proposed new Gwladys street was required for full compliance at this end. This was mentioned in the write-up; although the drawings were not shown as there was insufficient time to complete these. Of course this could be offset by increased build elsewhere or indeed by the acquisition of these properties also. However, this is all outlined in the report, and again has little effect on the final capacity.
"3 - The principles behind the provision of safe access and egress for the increased number of spectators in and around the stadium are not understood or addressed. The proposal continues to rely on the existing surrounding road infrastructure to accommodate the additional match day capacity without demonstrating the additional space necessary to do so safely. Access to seating areas oversailing the site boundaries is not addressed."
This is the same infrastructure that has served not only one but 2 major football clubs for over a century The same infrastructure that is soon to be enhanced to accommodate a potential 75,000 seater stadium in the Park only a few hundred metres away. The same infrastructure that enjoys something like a 10:1 public transport advantage over Kirkby, as well as the obvious benefits of being more central with far better access/dispersal to and from ALL directions as opposed to just ONE direction if situated at the periphery of the main catchment in Kirkby. The circulatory routes are shown to be increased on all sides except the Goodison Road side (Where there are other possible solutions). The Bullens Road circulation can take place on 2 levels for its entire length, and is substantially widened for most of its length at ground level, the width of Gwladys street is doubled, and the Park end is wide open. The only area oversailing a boundary is at the straightened end of the Top Balcony. This is illustrated, however, it is also stated that this aspect of the plan is not obligatory for the new configuration to work. However, there are several precedents for oversailing existing roads in any case.
"4 - The proposal concentrates on providing as much seating as possible, but ignores the detailed requirements of current safety design legislation, which will have a major impact on overall capacity. Seating and gangway provisions to upper tiers do not comply with acceptable standards, and huge cantilevered upper tiers will either require intermediate support columns which in turn blight sightlines, or alternatively massive balancing structures to the rear. Access and seating provision for disabled spectators is ignored completely."
Having spoken to the person responsible for the report?..There are some minor issues regarding the number of gangways in the corner sections as depicted in the drawings shown. In some places the limit of 14 seats per end of row has been exceeded. Some vomitories/gangways also require widening. These issues were already known about and were actually stated by me in our conversation. Other than that, overall the concept?s seating plan complies sufficiently for a preliminary outline. Conversely, there are some areas shown where there is an excess provision of gangways which has not been mentioned or allowed for in his ?analysis?, therefore any perceived seating loss in the affected corners, which is negligible in any case, can be made up there. Regardless, the capacity of each section is calculated using a spread sheet incorporating the general formulas for 14 seats per one ended row, and 28 per 2 ended row. These are therefore not affected by the depiction in the drawings. Therefore the actual calculated capacity will not be affected by these minor amendments. As regards cantilevered upper tiers: Having spoken to the architect, he tells me he is not a structural engineer and that NO structural analysis of this configuration has been carried out. He insists that his judgement was only in terms of a general rule of thumb that is normally applied. When I asked what that ?rule of thumb? was he was unable/unprepared to disclose. When asked what dimensions were used or what structural section sizes he applied those rules to, he was unable to answer other than to say he estimated the depth of the cantilever. When I offered to supply examples of similarly cantilevered structures he did not comment. Furthermore, the insistence on the necessity of counterbalancing structures is at best misleading. They are not always required as he has stipulated (although I included a massive one at the Parkend which appears to have been ignored), otherwise new stands such as this could not exist:
Or any number of similar structures around the world. There is no static or dynamic loading study, no natural frequency calcs to support this assertion. There is no consideration or appreciation of additional rigidity/support supplied by the horse-shoe configuration which is an intrinsic quality of this structural format.
"5 - Goodison Park is already one of the tightest larger stadia in the UK with poor seating and back of house standards for general spectators and a relatively low hospitality capacity. Even accepting that the moving of the pitch to the south will generate space for a larger (but not necessarily larger capacity) Gwladys Street stand, and the release of car park area will allow a larger Park End stand, the higher space standards required for modern stadia mean it must be questionable whether it is feasible to build a modern stadium of the same current capacity of just over 40,000, let alone one at least 25% larger."
I believe this is covered in point 1. A significant stand footprint increase has been achieved by the pitch movement, and bridging Bullens Road. More than 100% increase at the Parkend alone, more than 30% on both Bullens Road and Gwladys Street, with increased and more efficient utilisation of ALL corner sections (3 of which are currently redundant areas). The drawings are to scale, and capacity calcs taken from number of rows and their lengths measured from these drawings. At this preliminary stage there was no requirement for a complete people movement analysis. As an individual with limited time and resources this was not practicable with the imminent vote. However, for this I used my own empirical ?rule of thumb? based on the fact that the site has accommodated a stadium for over a century, a stadium that at one point in its history held double its current capacity, a stadium for which I have over 35 years experience of attending. The result is an increase of internal and external circulation and concourse areas in much greater proportion to that of the proposed capacity increase.
In Summary, instead of requesting to see the full and amended plans, the club have decided to attempt to rubbish a scheme that is based around physical dimensions and facts, which was put together by an individual (although I have received professional guidance from very experienced sources) in a very limited time. The Architect has been employed by the club directly to paint the worst possible picture of a CONCEPT DESIGN that is by definition not a final plan but a flexible solution (one of several) that can be manipulated and shown to comply with all relevant standards. There is no direct referral to any dimensions or suitability of structural elements, but the application of ?rules of thumb? via various assumptions and without key criteria. Most issues are totally unsubstantiated and unfounded. The criticisms are without referral to any actual drawings since they have not been requested. Despite this there are NO ?show-stopping? points within the list, which in any case would be irrelevant at this preliminary stage. The list consists of mainly throw away statements and jargon passed off as ?analysis.? I asked the Architect to supply substantiating evidence, this he said required permission from the club, as they are his employer on this project. He has since been unattainable.
Suffice to say, it would be interesting to see a similar ?analysis? of the proposed stadium in Kirkby.
However, I would like to state that as an Evertonian more than any technical issue; I have to question the club?s motives in even undertaking these actions (although it is consistent with the hard-sell tactics applied throughout). Likewise the similar treatment of the Bestway proposals?? this has been at the very least unprofessional. In terms of a fair voting process it has been misleading, manipulative and in my personal opinion abhorrent! NIL SATIS NISI OPTIMUM indeed!
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 23/08/2007 at 16:57:00
2 Posted 23/08/2007 at 16:58:03
You are obviously far more knowledgable on this stuff than me and I commend your dedication and insight.
The only problem I have is that you are another ’expert’ pulling apart an analysis from another so called ’expert’.
Where do us laymen turn? At every turn we are greated by a so called unrefutable set of facts that are then instantly refuted by another ’expert’!!!
However, I always have time for those fans who go to these lengths to inform, and thank you for your efforts as it was an interesting read.
3 Posted 23/08/2007 at 17:13:11
Nil satis nisi optimum...in a perfect world!
RE: David Moyes comment ’ boring ’, grow up Idiot!!
4 Posted 23/08/2007 at 17:13:35
5 Posted 23/08/2007 at 17:17:50
whether you think the board is great or shite is by-the-by, the job of the board is to make decisions and run with them. If they had to stop and analyse every proposal by every person on every decision no matter how far fetched (I admit, this proposal is not far fetched and seems very well thought out but the line has to be drawn) nothing would get done and no progress what ever should be made.
The board are consulting the fans on this issue, and they have answered a lot of queries, but just because we want them to, or just because this is a football club, are not reasons for them to address every question put their way. Even on this emotive issue.
I’m sure if they did, those that think the board are shite would find another stick to beat them with - after all the boards of other clubs are capable of decision makeing and leadership, why cant Everton’s be?
6 Posted 23/08/2007 at 17:37:48
You have added a great deal to what has been a vitally important debate.
7 Posted 23/08/2007 at 17:40:48
PS Dirty Harry, you bore me too, " oh we will tarnish our history and heritage..." blah blah blah our history wont change you fool, niether will our heritage. We are progressing, move with the times and stop living in the past, i bet you still want old money and dont trust microwave ovens.
8 Posted 23/08/2007 at 17:45:36
I would rather we stayed at Goodison and tried to rebuild.If that would prove to be too costly and unrealistic then I am ready to move.However I am not totally convinced that the club has really looked at ALL the possibilities. I think they have gone for a "quick fix" solution.
9 Posted 23/08/2007 at 17:41:24
10 Posted 23/08/2007 at 17:55:04
Tom Hughes had made an big effort, just thought the boring comment was uncalled for.
11 Posted 23/08/2007 at 18:00:59
Thanks for the response. Sorry for lumping you in with the ’experts’, I was trying to be complimentary of your knowledge of the subject and yes, the "analysis" may have only been a vote winner. However, as I said, I am a layman, and if your article is in simple terms then I’d hate to see the ’expert’ version.
"I’ve never said I am an expert" you said, then "I am however a fully qualified engineer" (closer to an expert than me then)
12 Posted 23/08/2007 at 18:07:35
13 Posted 23/08/2007 at 18:04:15
maybe you should change your name to
14 Posted 23/08/2007 at 18:20:02
15 Posted 23/08/2007 at 18:14:08
16 Posted 23/08/2007 at 18:13:53
17 Posted 23/08/2007 at 18:41:11
Anyway it’s too late. Let’s accept our fate.
18 Posted 23/08/2007 at 18:48:20
19 Posted 23/08/2007 at 18:57:55
20 Posted 23/08/2007 at 19:04:15
21 Posted 23/08/2007 at 19:20:59
Tom set out on a quest to show Goodison can be re-developed, in sections, with a will when it was categorically said it can’t be done. Even that professor fella said the other night our gates would go down to 24,000 if we decided to rebuild Goodison. What a two faced man he is. EGM anyone?
A hell of a lot of clubs have done the same re-builds but not us - we neglected our stadium for years. No investment put in you see just sell sell sell and raise the debt without anything tangible for shown it. I ask anyone pouring scorn on this how much detail have we seen of the photoshopped picture on the retail park in Kirkby and how long did they have to get in right?
Was it over 18 months?
Who are KSS? Would they have a vested interest to pour cold water on Tom’s plans, played the damming game for Everton. Oh and by the way architects I have spoken too said what KSS did was deplorable and unethical in the industry.
The Tunnel site, same tactics by a transport official egged on by Everton no doubt to rubbish another option at its embryonic stage. HOK, you know that world renowned stadium designer, blew that myth of it can’t be done /it?s too small out of the water in a 18 page document.
Where is our 18 page document on Kirkby after how long again? Where?s our business plan after 18 months? When will many of our fans wake up and smell the coffee?
What our club did during the voting period was an insult to many peoples intelligence and employed bully boy tactics driving statement after statement down bewildered fans throats in the street who are left with the Echo and Posts literature on the subject. It was move or we die. I really do despair at times with some of our fans. The vote was a sham no other voting procedure would be allowed on such an important issue. The ballot papers came with ONE side of the story so how do you decide which is best long term? You look in the local papers and what did you find? Stories like the above. We will get what the fans vote for but it was always stacked against a fair vote based on literature shown.
Can anyone really argue on this? Remember not many of our fans are internet wise to see the other side of the coin .We were battling big business with vested interest all round. I do respect other fans opinions but on the internet many fans push it too far with acid remarks after someone has put effort in to show another opinion in detail. Tom has the right to reply to the sham written regarding his informed piece. He has family and friends who read the Echo and saw what was written. It?s easy to pour scorn on other peoples efforts with a simple message on a message board or in a local paper. Think about what the People’s Club did to this fan, they never asked him in to discuss his plans just set him up to be put in the stocks and laughed at by the ill informed or simple minded.
Tom you did a sterling job lad, proud of your works and sacrifices whilst the employed at the club sat throwing darts at you. For shame on them and their ilk. It was not the Everton way I was led to believe.
I?ll be in a ditch fighting for Everton with you Tom, anytime lad. Chin up. Divide and conquer, should be the club’s motto now. They will reap what they sow. Short term gain long term pain. We will not grow in Kirkby!
Ian Mac just another ordinary fan
22 Posted 23/08/2007 at 19:33:21
23 Posted 23/08/2007 at 19:38:35
24 Posted 23/08/2007 at 20:09:46
25 Posted 23/08/2007 at 20:09:37
Ian McDonald great post too. We hve give it all we have got, and if we (the No camp) fail in the majority vote it wont be for the lack of trying. But to anybody who thinks this debate is over when the result is announced tommorrw-dont hold your breath...its only just getting started.
26 Posted 23/08/2007 at 20:13:58
What a pity however that many of the people who supported your stance followed a much more loutish and abusive path.
Perhaps if they had acted in a more dignified manor the result would have been different.
27 Posted 23/08/2007 at 20:14:56
I’ll be right there in the trenched with you.
All Bullshit Billy has done is sell the family silver because he hasnt got the time nor money to invest in our once proud club.
I hope all the yes sheep live long enough to see what they have done to our club.
28 Posted 23/08/2007 at 20:13:25
You were given a vote..obviously .in your opinion.anybody who voted yes..was misled, ill informed , one of a flock of headless sheep..
So...if the majority have voted "YES".. that would..in your opinion ..make them misled, ill informed , one of a flock of headless sheep..
I once went to a sportsmans dinner in South road Waterloo..opposite the Alex.. a mate of mine was the comedian...and for our side we had Brian Labone and Gordon West..a very enjoyable day..then we had questions from the floor..and up jumps " Ian McDonald..Everton independant Supporters Club"..thats how you actually introduced yourself..This was meant to be entertaining, but you tried to turn it into a one man political rally..and it became blatently clear to me why your "club" is independant.
Its one view ..your view..you cant see further than the end of your nose , you really cant.
Esperanso’s..is that the place?
29 Posted 23/08/2007 at 20:38:12
Just in case you cant remember..The "majority" booed you and asked you to shut up...or does that happen a lot?
30 Posted 23/08/2007 at 20:39:59
Thanks for the memory of Labby and Westy together .Yes it was a great night .I asked the question about their stamp collecting together and Westy replied now players collect houses .
By the way Matty who runs the place introduced me as Ian Mac Indy Blues I did not jump up like a jack in the box as conjured up by your goodself.
I drink Stella aswell but my memory still holds talking to decent people.
How did you get that username?
31 Posted 23/08/2007 at 20:46:44
It was given to me by a friend in the entertainment industry..(I used to sing)..you may know him "Davey Law"..
Anyhow..we play a lot of golf and I rought chocolate for the lads about 12 years ago and it all melted in my golf bag and covered my tee,s..Golf balls..spare gloves the lot..
Now I used to go by the stage name Terry Madison..and the next time we done a charity gig together..Dave introduced me as Terry The Marsbar Madison..and it stuck..The lads even bought me a shirt with marsbar on it..
More clues..Im from Seaforth..but now live in Toxteth..and I went to school down the road from you..when it was still manor high.
Are you bored yet?
32 Posted 23/08/2007 at 20:55:11
I was the booked entertainment for the christmas party at Zilli’s that Walter Smith cancelled..
i called the club and Graeme Sharp sent me 4 tickets for the Man utd game to cover my fee..
33 Posted 23/08/2007 at 20:45:38
34 Posted 23/08/2007 at 20:47:18
35 Posted 23/08/2007 at 20:57:50
36 Posted 23/08/2007 at 21:03:44
Those penthouses on the dock have obstructed views mate..somebodies went and built a stadium and a hotel
37 Posted 23/08/2007 at 21:05:56
Ever thought of starting a BK and KW fanclub? I am sure you would do a better job than Ian mac with his fanclub!!
38 Posted 23/08/2007 at 20:57:49
I don’t know anything about the Walter Smith gig or Sharpies tickets.What could I say to friends (explayers)that would get me booed?
Gordon and Brian made me laugh so much like Hinge and Bracket.
Did you know Terry ,Labby died on Gordon’s birthday?
39 Posted 23/08/2007 at 21:09:54
40 Posted 23/08/2007 at 21:14:37
41 Posted 23/08/2007 at 21:14:48
42 Posted 23/08/2007 at 22:39:22
43 Posted 23/08/2007 at 23:05:28
I don’t want to go to Kirby, and neither does BK, but the fact is, we may have to. The loop, interesting, but not financially viable. I’m 100% convinced that there’s going to be someone at Everton who makes a sneaky and very tidy profit if we do go to Kirby with Tesco.... But it really DOES seem the only option.
I liked what Kenwright said on his interview, "I DON’T OWN THE CLUB, THE FANS DO". Spot on, He’s a shareholder, if we were owned by some Yankeedoodle dandy or Soviet Vlad, we’d have no say.
I just hope BK is still our chairman tomorrow evening.
44 Posted 23/08/2007 at 23:20:43
45 Posted 23/08/2007 at 23:18:09
despite my firm belief that a ’No’ vote is the way forward - I think Bill would love the Loop, and his ’I’m not an architect’ remark was interesting - gave me a straw to cling to.
Whatever happens he should remain as the chairman; not too sure about Wyyes tho’.
The one insane thing - through all of this is the squad is looking pretty good (assuming the signings arrive). Normally we’d all by dancing round in joy at this news. Bill has done good backing DM and in a normal year we’d be very pleased with him.
As an aside.
I keep banging on about this, but we don’t know if the Loop is viable because no-one has release costings for it.
46 Posted 23/08/2007 at 23:20:42
47 Posted 23/08/2007 at 23:25:38
48 Posted 23/08/2007 at 23:25:01
Tom spent a lot of time trying to come up with a plan to keep us in Liverpool. If we had the cash then the build may have even been viable. But we don’t.
Your comment defines belief. Christ, give us a break! We’ve fought for something we really believed in and lost.
49 Posted 23/08/2007 at 23:25:17
That said, the plan lacks one tiny piece of detail - the funding!!!
We could "build it and they will come" meaning that we could get an outline planning permission, then invetors will somehow rush in to develop the idea.
I really don’t think that is realistic.
The only other answer is likely to mean that we invest in New Goodison to the detriment of squad development.
The loop is rumoured to offer us that, but its only an rumour - and I suspect that those glamouring fo the loop because "its in the city" may find a nasty financial surprise waiting for them.
Last point, whatever their political colour, never, ever trust a politician.
50 Posted 23/08/2007 at 23:33:41
51 Posted 23/08/2007 at 23:45:30
However, it’s a great tradgedy that the Everton chairman Bill Kenwright is who he is; A publicist, a stage manager, a (bad) actor, but most of all a man without vision.
He who has allowed the club to be pushed into this corner (sic) by people who see his weakness as a source of money, and by the people he employed to make the club money. The (only) solution they have come up with is the wrong one. Long-term pain - probably, Short-term gain - maybe?
Your GP solution is the right one for so many reasons but Bill is being bullyed into the corner and just like his mate Sly Stallone, he is not actually Rocky just a weak old actor more interested in his appearance than standing up for the things what his character (Blue Bill) is meant to represent.
Enjoy the encore.
52 Posted 24/08/2007 at 02:18:49
If the vote is Yes I don’t reckon Kenwright will be Chairman much longer than getting the planning permission for the stadium then he’ll be laughing all the way to the bank with the proceeds from selling his shares, to Robert Earl is my bet.
53 Posted 24/08/2007 at 07:42:36
54 Posted 24/08/2007 at 09:20:56
Good work yet again. even if the vote comes back as a yes. This doesn’t mean Kirkby is a done deal. It just means we contiune the negotiations. Lets not give up. Keep producing these alternative plans/ideas/arguments and they will have to take note.
55 Posted 24/08/2007 at 09:40:43
Im not one to bad mouth people but some of the comments on here about Toms work are small minded and disgraceful to say the least. If you cannot even appreciate the work Tom has done and why he has done it then you deserve your small tin pot stadium in Kirkby.
56 Posted 24/08/2007 at 09:19:58
Terrymarsbar, you are quite the most ungracious Evertonian I have ever come across.
I dont know Ian Mac very well but I do know he does a hell of a lot for his fellow supporters and for this club as a whole. Whats with the personal attack Terry ? I hope you and your bretheren will be happy at Kirkby Town FC, you should have plenty of room for your comedy act there.Sadly cant help thinking that the crowd will mirror Boros average gate going forward.
57 Posted 24/08/2007 at 10:18:39
Frankly you have not addressed the most important thing here Tom:
58 Posted 24/08/2007 at 11:16:57
We’re all going to Kirkby,
La la la la, eh! La la la la eh!
Excellent news. Absolutely excellent.
59 Posted 24/08/2007 at 11:13:27
To all those who helped put forward the No case - thank you for your considerable time and effort - I hope the fight to show that we can stay at Goodison will continue. 60 percent of 25,000 is hardly an endorsement to move, especially based on flawed and biased information.
To those slagging off fellow blues who cared enough to propose a plan B - cross the Park. Your smugness and gobshitery has a natural home at Liverpool FC.
60 Posted 24/08/2007 at 11:20:35
Number eligible to vote: 36,662
Number of votes received 25,698
Yes votes 15,230 (59.27%)
Can I just point out to the club that 59.27% of 36,662
is not a majority. It is merely 41.5%. Therefore a minority of those eligible to vote have endorsed this move. Simple maths guys.
And these people are to be in charge of a budget of anything from £75 million to £400 million (depending on which way the wind is blowing) for this new ground.
I’ll say it again. Oh dear.
61 Posted 24/08/2007 at 11:20:05
Personally, i think it’s a great step forward for the club.
At the same time, i would not like to see any triumphalist posts on here regarding that fact.
Can we all now get on with the important business of supporting the team..the club.. and unite together on the journey ahead.
62 Posted 24/08/2007 at 11:58:28
"I dont care and Im related to an ex-player and know what goes on."
63 Posted 24/08/2007 at 11:52:43
64 Posted 24/08/2007 at 12:05:56
Therefore its 59.27% of THOSE WHO VOTED, which is correct.
All you have pointed out (as in any election), is the proportion who decided to exercise that vote and vote yes.
Actually 70% of the electorate exercised their right to vote, and on this occassion 59% of those voting voted for Kirkby.
Moral: Never use statistics in an argument, it’ll mess you up.
65 Posted 24/08/2007 at 12:59:32
66 Posted 24/08/2007 at 13:01:10
you are absolutely correct.
I do believe Ayres was pointing to the innaccuracy in the wording, which I’m sure was accidental.
Interested to know where all this leaves those who have clearly put a lot of time and effort into proving that there are options. Do you intend to continue?
We are going to be paying a hell of a lot for this option, we just don’t know how much.
I personally believe the club would have got a more commanding mandate if there had been greater transparency, and less doublespeak.
Those who didn’t vote. was it "can’t be bothered either way" or "can’t decide" most undecideds have expressed the desire to know more first.
Finally, I don’t know who started shouting, but stop it now! it all looks very angry.
67 Posted 24/08/2007 at 13:07:16
68 Posted 24/08/2007 at 16:27:26
69 Posted 24/08/2007 at 16:46:25
70 Posted 24/08/2007 at 18:38:04
I really wish that the club conducted itself better with regards the Bestway proposals.
I would have talked to them in private and not have a public slanging match.
That said, I know nothing about the company, and its real proposals, and that’s my problem.
Tesco’s are said to have a devious motive while Bestway are the best thing since sliced bread - unbelievable.
Yes the loop is in the city centre, yes its in Liverpool.
What we don’t know is
1. How much the scheme will cost (we have an idea about this in Kirkby)
2. How much Everton will contribute (we have an ideal, though its conflictual and contentious)
3. Where is the money coming from, and our contribution affect squad development?
If we had full information on both proposals, and that was the basis of the vote, the Loop would win by a landslide.
If I was in charge of Everton I would want to open discussions on both fronts and see which was the best deal for the club.
I am not against the Loop, but I don’t want to dismiss Kirkby. With good negotiations, one of those cold really be the "deal of the century".
Finally, I wouldn’t trust a politician with a used toilet brush, even if they are Everton supporters. I am amazed that so many of us are so desperate that they are prepared to do just that.
71 Posted 24/08/2007 at 18:39:06
72 Posted 24/08/2007 at 19:17:54
73 Posted 24/08/2007 at 21:30:37
74 Posted 24/08/2007 at 22:26:20
Who’ll sell me their season ticket on the cheap?
I’ve heard it so many times over the years,
"I’ll give my season ticket away if we sign a coloured player", yes, I remember them days, same lads bowing down to Amo during the Newcastle and Spurs matches.
"I’ll give my season ticket away if Kenwright gets in". Same lads still going.
And so it has happened again...
So come on, I don’t see any on ebay yet.
75 Posted 25/08/2007 at 06:24:49
The club have said how much, just nobody from the KEIOC side of town believes the figures.
That’s their prerogative, however I believe it was a major reason people ended up voting yes (no figures at all from the KEIOC alternatives; at least some figures from the club).
And please don’t let us get into the whole ’what figures have the club come up with’ or ’but the figures are wrong’, it’s purely academic now, the fact remains KEIOC had at no point had the faintest idea what the costs of a redeveloped GP would cost the club and the loop was even more obscure.
The club believe kirkby is affordable and ’deliverable’, and so did the majority of voting fans.
As an aside, I do appreciate that you have worked very hard on your designs, but you had little or no backup from other experts who may have helped in certain areas to point you in the right direction over costs, new safety legislation etc. But you do have talent, of that I have no doubt.
76 Posted 25/08/2007 at 09:32:31
I agree, however 2 different construction companies have seen my plans and costed them roughly. I used to work for one of the biggest construction companies in the world and have lots of contacts who have helped. The plans have also been looked at by a famous stadium constructor..... who has also costed them roughly. There was also speculation regarding an investor for the land behind the park end. The figures weren’t released because the scheme shown was in the process of being amended and these would have changed, and there wasn’t time to factor in the additional investment that was available. I was also wary of people making a direct comparison with the floating figures KW was stating (lets face it they went from a stadium for nothing to god knows what in days). Idealy I wanted to show 3 different ways to redevelop the stadium, but I run out of time. On the otherhand the club have had massive resources, and time and the media on their side. They know precisely what their costs will be, but have not released the figures, why? KW has pushed this through when there is no immediate urgency...... the reason being that if the GP ideas or Bestways proposals were allowed to be fully developed the Kirkby proposal would not live with practically any other option.... hence a 59:41 vote against a campaign run by a few individuals who had no backing and only a few weeks to put it all together, not bad for a one horse race?!.
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.
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.