Planning Statement (Document 4):
6.7 The cost of the proposed new stadium is in the region of £130M at September 2007 prices, including basic facilities, required to achieve appropriate operating licences.
6.8 The only likely source of funding the Club would be able to generate in the short term would be a combination of naming rights and sponsorship deals relating to elements of the fit out along with debt. Early discussions that the club has had with some interested parties suggest that naming rights and sponsorship could potentially raise a significant contribution towards the costs of the new stadium. This would leave a shortfall of approximately £55M.
Proposed Stadium for Everton Football Club (Document 13)
8.9 Basic fit out would cost anywhere between £5 and £15M. A more extensive fit out would costs considerable more, anywhere between £16M and £40M.
Planning Statement (Document 4)
6.9 Up to £50M - £55M of the shortfall is met from the proposed developments south of Cherryfield Drive through the increase in the value of the land that would occur once planning permission has been granted for the enabling developments (Tesco is buying the land at current use value).
6.10 This funding package guarantees that a combination of naming rights and sponsorship deals plus a small increase in debt along with enabling development would enable the mid-level stadium to be delivered.
This breaks down like this:
- Total cost of stadium £130M
- Naming and shirts £75M (Figure for the build last quoted by KW)
- Land £55M (Land partially swapped with KMBC and leased back to EFC)
The £55M shortfall might be said to be fictional as it is merely what the land will be worth. They call it enabling development. It makes it look like Tesco are giving us this money when they are not, they appear to be giving it?s value to KMBC.
Compare the figure for the naming rights and sponsorship deal. It is almost identical to Arsenal?s deal which breaks down like this; Arsenal are scheduled to receive:
- £72M (average £9M per year) 2004-2012
- £18M (average £2.25M per year) 2012-2020.
- From 2006-2014 this includes £5M per year (£40M) for Arsenal?s shirt sponsorship.
- That?s £50M for the naming and £40M for the sponsorship.
The biggest such deal in UK history and one of the biggest in the world.
If I?ve read all of this correctly this means we will be getting a mid-level stadium for £75M which we will need to take a loan secured against the joint sponsorship deal. Or more likely a mortgage paid using the annual sponsor money, bearing in mind that on top of the £130M (£75M) there will be £5M to £40M for the fit out. That means a mortgage for between £80M and £115M.
?And now from Kirkby the quiz of the week?... ? Deal of the Century ???
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 09/01/2008 at 07:09:21
Am I the only one who thinks that the extra £1M to £35M are a small investment if that gives us a ’better’ stadium where we could be more proud of? This could be our home for years to come...
2 Posted 09/01/2008 at 07:59:01
I am still waiting for the usual Bestway, Cllr Bradlley statement of "Bestways offer the best possibility for Everton" which normally comes out within a day of Kirkby related statements from Everton.
I wonder why I am still waiting?
3 Posted 09/01/2008 at 09:40:56
4 Posted 09/01/2008 at 10:29:05
a ?basic?, ?mid-level? stadium for £150m to £200m.
5 Posted 09/01/2008 at 10:32:58
6 Posted 09/01/2008 at 10:31:56
I have to agree with Erik. If we have to move to Kirkby lets have at least have a class stadium. If the loop is too small and LCC cant offer us any alternatives. Then ok Kirkby is the way forward.
However I catergorically refuse to see EFC move from a true football arena (as dilapadated as Goodison is) to a Tesco Value stadium.
I’m not being funny or stubborn. But a cheap build furnished with cheap materials does not equal NIL SATIS NISI OPTIMUM....as a wise man once put it - you cant polish a turd.
7 Posted 09/01/2008 at 10:51:07
As was COMS which Man City acknowledged they should have done better - poor atmosphere and only part full DESPITE success on the park
These are KSS 2 flagship projects
8 Posted 09/01/2008 at 11:32:59
You can call me stupid, even silly but I liked the Chelsea ground. It was the first time I had visited Chelsea’s ground, and apart from the well crap so called jumbo tron (more like a little TV in the corner) I liked it.
The shops around it reminded me a bit like Watford - though Watford ground is where I’d ideally like to see Everton, a definite separation between town centre and football club, so apart from that this is what I would expect.
Goodison is past being a world class stadia and if the finances could be found (North West Development Agency anyone?) I’d love it to be rebuilt to a world class stadium. In the real world, I suspect that this won’t happen, thus the rationale to move
In relation to Kirkby, For me, transport is the key, and if they can’t solve that issue that would put me firmly in the "no" camp, as proved last night where a reasonably efficient transport public system got people away from the stadia without having to wait around for hours.
Getting to and from the stadia is part of the whole football experience.
9 Posted 09/01/2008 at 12:50:33
10 Posted 09/01/2008 at 13:36:28
11 Posted 09/01/2008 at 12:58:33
you miss the point. I dont care about leather seats or gold plated handles on the toilet doors. When people say a class stadium they mean. Not an out of the box, bog standard design. The Kirkby plans have not an ounce of creativity or character about them. Symmetrical stands that could be anyone’s stadium if it weren’t for EVERTON embalzened on the stadium images. Just imagine when we seel those naming rights and EVERTON is removed in place of WALKERS or TESCO
It is just sterile.
I think you must realise that many more people would be happier to move to Kirkby if the stadium captured the imagine of the supporters.
We all know we havent got a big budget and cant build a San Siro but there must be a happy medium in between that and the Reebok Stadium-esque drivel currently being touted.
12 Posted 09/01/2008 at 15:15:31
13 Posted 09/01/2008 at 16:11:43
As for removing the Everton name, don’t be so ridiculous. Of course it might say ’Chang Stadium’ or whatever, but are you seriously telling me it won’t have our crest and name on it and ’home of the blues’ all that, etc.? Typical comments, stirring up bull on toffeeweb. IIf you offered some of the people in falling down terraced house around Goodison a new modern house, do you think they’d say ’oh the new, more spacious, cleaner, more comfortable, easier access to, etc. house won’t do for me, as it has less character? I’m sure with time, they get used to it and love it and don’t miss all the constant repairs, etc. Yes, we might lose a bit of character, but it’ll have our crest, name, phrases ’people’s club,’ colour and fans in it and with time it will feel like home. Let’s make it ours!!
As so many have said, we’re going, that’s the design, get used to it and make the most of it. Anyone who doesn’t like it, don’t go and please stop MOANING about it!!! At least we won’t have obstructed views, which we have approx. 10 000 of at GP. I feel sorry for people who have to pay nearly £30 to have a post in their way, ridiculous. I for one look forward to seeing it and I’m sure it’ll be grand.
14 Posted 09/01/2008 at 18:08:33
Shirt sponsorship is already part of the turnover, and so cannot be considered as part of the new stadium revenue.
Secondly, Damien, do you live in cloud cuckoo land?
You like the pictures of the stadium in the brochure they sent you, particularly at night? What was it? The batman search lights?
You do know that the stadium design submitted with the planning application is different from those ’artists impressions’ and that the original ’modelled on Koln’ stadium idea has long since been abandoned, except maybe for the fact that there are four sides.
You probably think there will be car parking for all the fans, too eh?
Goodison isn’t falling down, so your analagy of someone in a house around Goodison being offered a nice new house doesn’t stack up. If they were being offered a house for free, you might think beggars can’t be chosers, but ask them to pay for it, and see where it goes. They would either decide they could afford it, and move, regardless of whether it was quite what they wanted, where they wanted and as good as they wanted, or they could decide that can’t afford it, and stay where they are, doing their house up bit by bit as they go along.
But then again, you probably think Kirkby is a debt-free, deal of the century.
15 Posted 09/01/2008 at 18:18:22
Okay, so it looks like we are going to get a ’mid range’ stadium outside the city centre which does not have the same level of fit out and amenities as the Emirates. Here’s two hypotheses for you to consider as to why this is so.
(A) Kenwright and Wyness prefer to have a less than top range stadium outside the city centre because they think this is the best thing for Everton and anyway just like it better that way.
(B) We can’t afford to build the Emirates in the centre of town.
16 Posted 09/01/2008 at 18:40:16
Why do we have to chose between those options. The vote was taken for a ’world-class’ stadium - did you ever see ’mid-range’ or ’basic’ mentioned on the voting document. No, because it would have been laughed out of town.
If we can’t have what was offered, let’s drop out and stay at Goodison. It’s not falling down, and another option will come along.
17 Posted 09/01/2008 at 18:51:58
Personally, I am not at all surprised by anything about the ’mid range’ nature of the Kirkby stadium, and I still voted Yes. In fact I am pleased that at last they have come out and said what was blindingly obvious. Of course the Everton management put the best face on it, but Yes voters I know were not naive enough to think that we were going to get a top end facility. Or that we were moving to Kirkby even though we could have afforded to build on Stanley Park.
It is also worth noting that the RS Chief Executive and extremely wealthy owners are currently having a crisis meeting in New York to discuss how they are going to scale back their stadium plans so that they can afford them. I doubt now they will be build anything as good as the Emirates either.
Of course we should continually press to have the best possible stadium that we can afford. But I think that most of the criticisms of Kirkby amount to a desperate cry of frustration and disappointment that we cannot afford better. Me too, but that doesn’t change what we can afford.
18 Posted 09/01/2008 at 22:08:11
According to the planning application, the cost has already risen by £30M from the figures quoted 5 months ago.
For that money, we could be re-developing Goodison.
We didn’t get the Kings Dock, but something else came along. Why wouldn’t it come again?
19 Posted 09/01/2008 at 22:16:15
Didn’t you realise that a majority no vote would have made Kenwright think about something better.
20 Posted 10/01/2008 at 01:31:51
However, when I made my vote I also took into account the reality of what, not being a very rich club, we can actually afford. Kenwright can "think of something better" all he likes; the problem is that he and we can’t pay for it.
Since you obviously did a lot of thinking before making your No vote, I would love to hear from you how we can afford the more expensive options than Kirkby that both of us (and no doubt Bill as well) would prefer.
21 Posted 10/01/2008 at 08:59:23
Document 4 of the planning application states "The only likely source of funding the Club would be able to generate in the short term would be a combination of naming rights and sponsorship deals relating to elements of the fit out along with debt. " after stating that the the total cost would be starting at £130m leaving £55m shortfall. The £75m is what the club believe would be funded by naming, sponsorship and an increase in debt.
Of course we won?t get £75m! Our profile is not as valuable to an investor as Arsenal?s. Emirates wanted to be "the Coca Cola of Airlines" (their words) so they paid a premium for that deal. Arsenal are not getting that money up front, but it does help to pay their mortgage.
The interesting wording here is that the stadium is being funded by an increase in debt. We will not get money up front for sponsorship or naming and tesco are not giving us £55m for a stadium. We are funding our own stadium by taking on more debt.
We could do that anywhere. It?s just a matter of how much mortgage we want to take on.
22 Posted 10/01/2008 at 11:10:49
23 Posted 10/01/2008 at 12:57:11
Mid range is basically the cheapest of the cheap. ERC cant say bargain basement level but that is what we are going to get for "free". Surely we can redo the parkend at twice the size with a load of exec boxes. Not a long term proposal but it would be completed in a year or two (max) and would boost the coffers in the short term considerably. While we look at a more long term solution. Kirkby falls short on so many levels but we seem to be taking the bait from KW and BK that this is last chance saloon.
There is always other options and maybe we shouldnt be rushing to build a cheap lego stadium out of town -under the pretence that if we dont, EFC will turn into a NForest or Sheff Wed.
We arent in that situation and redevelopment of the Parkend allowing us to generate a short term cash boost would allow us to make a decision that isnt being rushed through.
24 Posted 10/01/2008 at 14:13:49
I don’t really know about building or redeveloping stadiums, so I’m happy to leave it to Everton. Why would they do something which isn’t right? Why would they stitch up a club that they own and love? They’re trying their best, some people are just so NEGATIVE. I suspect I’ll be seeing some of you in my out-patient clinic at some point. At least BK is a Blue, so he has the club at heart and has on board all the nescessary Professionals, who actually know the ins and outs of finance, construction, etc. What will be will be.
PS Dave Thompson - get a grip will ya lad.
25 Posted 10/01/2008 at 15:01:07
The trouble is, in the real world away from your NHS-funded waiting room, there’s this thing called the Money Trail. That might, just might, affect some of the "good of the club" thinking and planning that is ging on right now.
Just a thought... FWIW!
26 Posted 10/01/2008 at 15:48:40
KW is however another proposition. His bonus are based on money the club generates. So far he’s asset stripped the club and he is the driving force behind the Kirkby move. All i say is be careful that these people in power do not always no best and not always have the same motives for moving as the average fan.
Why cant we improve the Parkend cheaply to increase the capacity to 45,000 with lots of new exec boxes? As i mentioned before this isnt a long term solution but surely it would take the pressure of finding a new home immeadiately. The whole line of ’we must move now or we are finished’ is BS. Yes we need to move but surely if we can increase capacity a little sooner (than building a brand new stadium) and increase our turnover in the short term. Its just extra breathing space while we wait for the right opportunity to move. Kirkby fails to his the mark on so many requirments. I just dont understand the mentality that we have to move NOW or we are doomed.
27 Posted 10/01/2008 at 15:52:57
28 Posted 10/01/2008 at 19:36:59
Was it at this point a cheif exeutive left without explanation ?And then was replaced by Wyness.
He may stick to his words with Leahy (very loyal to him), fuck the rest of us.
We are only paying customers. The man is so economical with the facts he is becoming to look like the alleged liar many on this site think he is.
Is the true reason why no-one else has come in.
29 Posted 10/01/2008 at 19:24:38
Bottom line for me Niel is that Kirkby dosn’t tick any boxes at all. Location, stadium, transport.. Why would we want to destroy 130 years of history, most of it good for something that simply is not good enough and never will be.
30 Posted 10/01/2008 at 20:43:26
31 Posted 10/01/2008 at 22:25:15
More like Never Never Land.
Trust the board? They know best?
Oh! Ok then....
32 Posted 10/01/2008 at 22:15:10
33 Posted 10/01/2008 at 23:48:19
Damian, I’ve read your posts and, with the gratest of respect, do you really know what you are are talking about?
We seem to have the decision taken away from us now, but miracles can happen, and the debate is beginning to take the shape of what kind of stadium are we going to have in Kirkby.
Well, I can’t help but think that if we leave liverpool, it won’t really matter what kind of stadium we have. We will have made the biggest mistake in our history. Sounds really dramatic doesn’t it. That’s because it is dramatic.
I’ve followed the Blues since I was a kid, and that is many years ago now. I was privileged to watch some great football in the sixties, with players like, Young, Vernon, Coolins, Ring, Parker, Kay, Scott. My god, it was poetry in motion. I’ve also seen some absolute dross over the years. All in all though, I aways felt that it was my team; and my team were the true guardians of great football in this city.
I’ve seen the other lot slowly overtake us, so in the past thirty years or so, we have almost disappeared, except for two or three great years in the eighties.
Now, we are creeping out of this city which I am proud of; and we are leaving it to another team. For God’s sake don’t tell me we are almost in Liverpool, or that it doesnt’t matter anyway. The way I see it, we will have left this city to the reds and it breaks my bloody heart.
We might end up with a reasonable stadium but my guess is that it will be "functional" at best.
I’d rather play in Stanley Park with the goals made up of coats down, than leave Liverpool.
Still, what do I count, or the 10000 who voted No.
Mr Kenwright, in my humble opinion, will never give give up the chairmanship of Everton, and if you ever get down to the Echo arena and see what could have been, then ask yourself why Gregg left!
34 Posted 11/01/2008 at 11:38:32
35 Posted 16/01/2008 at 22:45:41
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.